AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 82245-317 (1990)

Major Features of Sundadonty and Sinodonty, Including Suggestions About East Asian Microevolution, Population History, and Late Pleistocene Relationships With Australian Aboriginals
CHRISTY G. TURNER I1 Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
85287-2402

KEY WORDS Dental morphology, Dental anthropology, Australasian prehistory, Race ABSTRACT The eight diagnostic morphological traits of the Sundadont and Sinodont divisions of the Mongoloid dental complex are identified. Intraand intergroup variation for these crown and root features is plotted. The univariate frequency distributions provide useful evidence for several suggestions about East Asian prehistory, dental microevolution, and intergroup relationships. The case for local evolution of Sundadonty is strengthened by finding Australian teeth to be very similar to this pattern. Australian Aboriginal teeth are also generally like those of Jomonese and some Ainus, suggesting that members of the late Pleistocene Sundaland population could have initially colonized Sahulland as well as the continental shelf of East Asia northward to Hokkaido.
Research on the late Pleistocene and Holocene human population history of East Asia and the western Pacific region has grown by leaps and bounds during the past 20 years. The importance of eastern Asia for human evolution is immediately apparent when one realizes that five of the nine geographic races defined by Garn (1969) originated or still live there, although the recise homeland of the classicMongoloids as yet to be fully documented (Kammin a and Wright, 1988). Geneticists, archeo ogists, linguists, skeletal and dental anthro ologists, and related earth scientists gave greatly advanced understanding of the possible origins, microevolution, relationships, biocultural adaptations, and dispersal of human populations in this geographically diverse area. Some of the most important papers occur in volumes edited by Kirk and Thorne (19761, Allen, Golson, and Jones (19771, Laughlin and Harper (1979), Smith and Spencer (19841, Kirk and Szathmary (1985),and Akazawa and Aikens (1986),and xeroxed proceedings of the 1989 CircumPacific Prehistory Conference held August 1-6, 1989, in Seattle (D. Croes, conference coordinator). Brace and associates (see especially 19891, and Pietrusewsky (1988 contains major dendrograms) are among the most prolific workers attem ting to understand opulation relations ips based on skeleta and dental variation throughout East Asia and the western Pacific region. In 1979, I presented at the symposium on Late Pleistocene and Holocene Relationships Between Asia and America, held jointly at the meetings of the Society of Americanists, Vancouver, and Pacific Science Congress, Khabarovsk, a microevolutionary inter retation of Mon oloid population history ased on work t i a t identified Sinodont and Sundadont divisions for K. Haniharas (1969)Mongoloid dental complex (Turner, 1976, 1979, 1983a). This presentation was followed by five years of intensive data gathering on additional East Asian, Siberian, American, and comparative dentitions and more intra- and interregional multivariant and clustering statistical analyses. These analyses, based on very lar e numbers of teeth and many local skeleta populations, some well-provenienced, others not, indicated the fundamental soundness of the dual population history reconstruction for eastern Asia (Turner, 1987). Briefly, in Southeast Asia, there are, and have been for

Received September 29,1988 accepted August 21, 1989

@ 1990 WILEY-LISS, INC.

296

C.G. TURNER I1

several thousand years, Mongoloid peoples whose teeth are relatively simple and possess characteristics thought to be retained from late Pleistocene populations. I named these Southeast Asians Sundadonts in recognition of the fact that both island and mainland peoples have a similar pattern of dental trait frequencies, and the central geographic feature of the area is the now-submerged Sunda Shelf. In late Pleistocene times, the Sunda Shelf would have been above water, connecting much of island and mainland Southeast Asia as well as the continental shelf of East Asia as far north as Hokkaido and Sakhalin islands. The Sinodonts were so named because this relatively more com licated dental pattern was first recognize in a large skeletal series originating from the Shang Dynasty site of An-yang in northern China excavated by the late Li Chi (Yang, 1970).Subsequent data collection showed all Northeast Asians (excluding recent Russians) and all Native Americans to possess the Sinodont pattern, with the exception of some Ainu and all Jomonese of Japan (Turner, 1985). The Ainu and Jomonese possess the Sundadont pattern. Some culture history and economic implications of the strong Southeast AsianJomonese odontological relationships are discussed elsewhere (Turner, 1979,1987). In developing the large database for the Sinodont and Sundadont concept and its bearing on East Asian, American, and Oceanic population history and microevolution, I have tried to assemble comparative nonAsian materials when time, resources, and energy permitted. Especially important to the validity of the concept is identifying if there is a close relationship between Australian Aboriginal dentitions and those of the Sundadonts, especially recent PO ulations that have been proposed as hybri s on the basis of archeological reconstructions of Southeast Asian prehistory. If modern Southeast Asians, who most workers agree are members of the Mongoloid geographic race (so-called southern Mongoloids; Brues, 1977),have teeth like those ofAustralians, then Sundadont has to be a local evolutionary product. T e conventional view of Southeast Asian prehistory holds that it was a region occupied by Australmelanesians before the southern expansion of Neolithic Mongoloids (reviewed in Turner, 1987; see also Von Koenigswald, 1952; Howells, 1973; Bellwood, 1985, 1987). In this view, Southeast Asians received both cultural and

genetic contributions from the north. The Australmelanesians were either driven out or mixed with the incoming Mongoloids, producing a hybrid population, i.e., southern Mongoloids. This line of reasoning would suggest that the Sundadont dental pattern arose as the result of admixture between Mongoloids and Australmelanesians. Alternative1 , I have proposed that Sundadonty evolve in Southeast Asia from earlier late Pleistocene eoples and out of it evolved the more speciaEzed Sinodont pattern of northeastern Asia. Up to now the keystone to my hypothesis has been the dental characteristics of the Jomon population that lived in Japan with considerable isolation from the Asian mainland for 12,000 years according to archeological, linguistic, and other biological evidence (Chard, 1974; Bowles, 1977; Hanihara, 1985). As there are marked biological differences between the Jomonese and all late Pleistocene and Holocene humans from China and Siberia, the Jomonese with their Sundadont dental pattern could only have originated in Southeast Asia. Hanihara (1977) has shown that the Ainu and Jomonese are very similar, and neither are like Europeans. He found Ainu to be more like Australian Abori nals than like Pima Indians, Eskimos, or aucasians. The Sundadont pattern had to have existed at least 12,000 years ago, long before the socalled southern migration of Mongoloids into Southeast Asia. Therefore, Sundadonty could not have evolved from the mixing of Mongoloids and Australmelanesians, at least not in Neolithic times, as the conventional view maintains (Von Koenigswald, 1952; Bellwood, 1985). Two other lines of evidence favor the local evolution model for Sundadonty. 1)There is not much dental change between early and contemporar groups in Southeast Asia, for example, ear y (Neolithic and metal age) and modern Thailanders. 2) The 17,000-year-old Minatogawa skeletal series from Okinawa (Suzuki and Hanihara, 1982; Turner, 198313) is morphometrically more similar to Jomon crania than to mainland Asian crania, including the Chou-kou-tien (Zhoukoudian) Upper Cave skulls. I found the Minatogawa teeth to be very similar to those of Jomonese, and, in other clustering analyses, the Jomonese teeth are far more similar to those of Southeast Asians than Northeast Asians (Turner, 1987). For the present, then, there is more direct biological evidence favoring a local evolution hypothesis for the origin of

SUNDADONTY AND SINODONTY

297

the Sundadont dental pattern than there is belli trait, M2 hypocone, M3 parastyle, M1 evidence for its having formed as the result enamel extension, P1,2 odontome (with of gene flow or migration from the north, i.e., lower P1,2 odontome), P1 root number, M2 the classic bioarcheological scenario. A root number, and M3 reduction ( eg, restrong similarity between the dentitions of duced, and congenitally absent). In t e lower Southeast Asians and Australians would jaw the traits are P2 lingual cusp number, stren hen even more the local evolutionary M1 cusp number, M1 deflecting wrinkle, M1 hypot esis for Sundadonty. Given this back- cusp 7, M1 protostylid, M1 distal trigonid ground, it is the purpose of this aper to crest, M2 groove pattern, C root number, identify the key traits in the Sin0 ont and P1 Tome's root expression, M1 root number, Sundadont patterns, to present a finer- and M2 root number. Frequencies of these grained comparison of East Asian dental 28 traits for most of the samples have variation, and to include a small composite been reported reviously, where observation series of Australians to see how Aboriginal and statistica methods are also outlined (Turner, 1987). The present paper breaks teeth compare using the key traits. down some of the series aggregated in the MATERIALS AND METHODS 1987 work (done so for mean measure of Morphological observations were made on divergence and clustering analysis), where more than 100 crown and root variables in 42 sample size considerations permit, and adds local or a gregated dental series, involving a few additional skeletal series. Tables 1-8 several t ousand individuals, using the present the trait frequencies and sample standardized Arizona State University sizes used in the present paper. The objective dental anthropology system (Turner, n.d.). of deag egation is to help gain a sense of These variables include multitooth expres- regiona variation, to see how particular resion of a single variable, such as lingual gional subsets behave relative to East Asia surface ridgmg (shoveling) that may occur as a whole, and to see if clines can be inforon all eight upper and lower incisors as well mally identified. As clustering analysis has already been as the upper canines. In this example, there are ten variables but only one morphogenetic performed on these materials, revealing trait. Other variables may occur only on a with much clarity the Sinodont and Sundasingle pair of antimeres, such as winging of dont divisions and members in East Asia, a the maxillar central incisors. All of this simple univariate approach is used here to information as been collected in order to plot the areal frequency distributions of the identify the most variable tooth or site for key traits. The frequencies for one-rooted trait expression. To date, 28 traits and their upper first premolars, three-rooted lower key tooth sites have been identified for the first molar, four-cusped lower second molar, of population characterization. and pe -reduced-congenital absence of the %!oe"t"raits were chosen for global surveys upper t ird molar were obtained by dividing because they survive relatively well in the the number of individuals with the condition archeological context, because they are eas- b the sample total. For shovelin ily and reliably observed, and because they s oveling, enamel extension, and eflecting are numerous, permitting olythetic classifi- wrinkle, the variation was dichotomized at a cations. Most important y, each of these standard break oint accordin to the ASU traits has been evaluated by x2 and Spear- scoring system Rurner, n.d.). 0,for shovelman's ranked correlation coefficient for inde- ing the most expressive grades, 3-6, were pendence, and most are independent or only divided by the total number of individuals, weakly correlated. This battery of 28 crown that is, grades 0-6. The breakpoint for douand root traits has proved very powerful for ble-shoveling is ade 2; for enamel extendistinguishing between local populations as sion, grade 1; an deflecting wrinkle, grade well as larger regional series (Turner, 1985; 1. Pooling those samples identified by clusfor crown traits alone, see Scott and Dahl- ter analysis as belon 'ng to the Sundadont or berg, 1981)and now constitutes my standard Sinodont branches o East Asian dental variarray for global population characterization. ation based on all 28 traits, I looked for the For the upper jaw, the traits are I1 winging, traits that showed the greatest difference I1 shoveling, I1 double-shoveling, I2 tuber- between the two divisions. As expected, culum dentale complex, C mesial ridge given that most of these teeth are East Asian (Bushman canine), C distal accessory ridge, in origin, the number and amount of differP1 Uto-Aztec variant, M1 cusp 5, M1 Cara- ence is not great. Yet, eight traits were iden-

F.

f?

C.G. TURNER I1

TABLE 1. Regional variation in UI1 shoveling

Population Australia/Torres Sundadonts Early Thailand Bangkok Thai recent Early Laos and Vietnam Cambodia and Laos Annam and Tonkin Burma Andaman Early Malay Arch. Malay/Java Lcang Tjadang Borneo Philippines Taiwan prehistoric Jomon SW Jomon Jomon Tsukumo Jomon Yoshiko Jomon Hokkaido Ainu 1 and 2 Ainu Sakhalin Ainu Hokkaido 1 Ainu Hokkaido 2 Sinodonts South China 1 and 2 Hong Kong recent An-yang China China Chinese (Thai) Lake Baikal Buriat 1 and 2 Urga and Mongol 2 Mongol 3 Japan J a p a n Hiogo J a p a n Kamakura J a p a n recent J a p a n Kanto Amur NE Siberia Eskimo and Greenland Aleut
No.

0 2.1 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 1.9 0.0 0.0 2.3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 46.8 22.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 28.6 30.0 10.0 27.3 0.0 9.1 22.2 30.8 40.0 14.3 33.3 28.3 4.3 57.1 29.5 7.7 7.6 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 3.4 3.8 0.0 2.3 3.8 2.5

Grade' 3
12.8 28.4 33.3 18.9 25.0 25.0 44.4 13.3 0.0 19.0 20.0 14.0 18.2 33.3 40.9 27.8 7.7 10.0 10.7 26.7 17.0 39.1 0.0 27.3 46.2 34.8 33.9 55.6 62.5 46.2 46.2 51.8 42.9 45.0 44.4 41.2 42.7 38.5 52.9 52.3 52.3 60.0

4 0.0 2.8 16.7 8.1 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 20.0 4.8 0.0 14.0 4.5 11.1 18.2 8.3 7.7 10.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 21.7 0.0 4.5 30.8 15.2 19.5 0.0 0.0 38.5 23.1 19.6 14.3 20.0 16.7 10.3 20.2 23.1 5.9 6.8 9.1 12.5

47 109 6 74 4 4 9 15 5 21 40 50 22 27 22 36 13 10 28 30 53 23 7 44 26 92 118 9 8 13 13 56 7 20 18 97 89 52 17 44 132

An 1v

38.3
44.0 50.0 54.1 75.0 75.0 44.4 66.7 40.0 47.6 40.0 58.0 36.4 51.9 31.8 41.7 46.2 40.0 75.0 33.3 41.5 30.4 42.9 34.1 15.4 39.1 10.2 33.3 25.0 7.7 15.4 17.9 42.9 20.0 27.8 40.2 22.5 26.9 35.3 36.4 28.0 25.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.5 3.7 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 3.3 5.7 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.2 28.0 11.1 0.0 7.7 15.4 8.9 0.0 15.0 11.1 3.1 7.9 3.8 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.9 5.9 2.3 4.5 0.0

12.8 31.2 50.0 31.1 25.0 25.0 55.5 13.3 20.0 23.8 20.0 32.0 27.2 48.1 59.1 36.1 23.1 20.0 10.7 30.0 28.4 65.1 0.0 34.1 77.0 53.3 89.9 66.7 62.5 92.4 84.7 82.1 57.1 80.0 72.2 55.6 71.9 67.3 64.7 61.4 68.2 72.5

'Grades fulliiw the ASU dental anthropology system ('l'urner, n d )

tified by Student's t test for significant mean differences in Sinodont and Sundadont trait frequencies. Although other statistical tests mi ht give slightly different results, these eig t traits may even seem excessive to those readers unfamiliar with East Asian morphogenetic variation. Obviously, the geographic distribution of all 28 traits could be reviewed (the data on them are available in Turner, 1987), but these eight traits are enough to document the major points of this pa er. Figures 1-8 plot the univariate relationsl?ips between samples and key trait frequencies.

The various samples used here are curated in a large number of institutions, with many curators and collectors involved during the last 100 years. Because of space limitations, the following provenience information simply summarizes the sources and principal responsible individuals. Full provenience information, including relevant bibliography, can be obtained from the author. Within each of the 42 groups the number after the series (file) designation is the total number of individuals and the letters refer to the institutions and principal workers: Canada:

SUNDADONTY AND SINODONTY

TABLE 2. Regional uariation in UIl double-shoueling
Grade Population Australia/Torres Sundadonts Early Thailand Bangkok Thai recent Early Laos and Vietnam Cambodia and Laos Annam and Tonkin Burma Andaman Early Malay Arch Malay/Java Leang Tjadang Borneo Philippines Taiwan prehistoric Jomon SW Jomon Jomon Tsukumo Jomon Yoshiko Jomon Hokkaido Ainu 1 and 2 Ainu Sakhalin Ainu Hokkaido 1 Ainu Hokkaido 2 Sinodonts South China 1 and 2 Hong Kong recent An-yang China China Chinese (Thai) Lake Baikal Buriat 1 and 2 Urga and Mongol 2 Mongol 3 Japan J a p a n Hiogo J a p a n Kamakura J a p a n recent J a p a n Kanto Amur NE Siberia Eskimo and Greenland Aleut
(Grades follow ASIJ system

299

T A B L E 3. Regional uariation i n UP1 root numher

Population Australia/Torres Sundadon ts Early Thailand Bangkok Thai recent Early Laos and Vietnam Cambodia and Laos Annam and Tonkin Burma Andaman Early Malay Arch Malay/Java Leang Tjadang Borneo Philippines Taiwan prehistoric Jomon SW Jomon Jomon Tsukumo Jomon Yoshiko Jomon Hokkaido Ainu 1 and 2 Ainu Sakhalin Ainu Hokkaido 1 Ainu Hokkaido 2 Sinodonts South China 1 and 2 Hong Kong recent An-yang China China Chinese (Thai) Lake Baikal Buriat 1 and 2 Urga and Mongol 2 Mongol 3 Japan J a p a n Hiogo J a p a n Kamakura J a p a n recent J a p a n Kanto Amur NE Siberia Eskimo and Greenland Aleut
(Grades follow ASU system.

No.
47 112 6 59 3 5 9 13 5 17 22 50 18 16 21 59 12 10 25 32 51 20 5 43 24 89 142 9 8 10 7 53 5 23 13 96 83 52 19 24 117 38

+
4.3

No.

1 62.3 51.6 63.9 67.3 75.0 64.9 67.7 65.9 61.0 50.0 55.1 84.4 53.2 67.7 81.8 68.5 80.0 66.7 85.1 75.4 90.2 79.1 85.7 82.6 66.7 61.3 69.9 68 1 61.7 80.0 84.8 78.9 87.9 72.5 71.9 76.7 75.3 84.8 97.3 91.3 9.57 . . -. 93.3

Grade 2
36.8 47.2 34.4 31.8 12.5 33.3 27.4 34.1 36.6 50.0 43.9 15.6 45.4 29.7 18.2 30.1 20.0 33.3 14.9 24.6 8.2 20.9 14.3 16.3 31.8 36.9 28.0 298 36.2 200 15.2 21.1 9.1 26.8 28.1 22.6 24.7 15.2 2.7 8.3
41 1 ..

3 0.9 1.3 1.6 0.9 12.5 1.8 4.8 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.0 0.0
1.4

95.7 80.4 66.7 74.6 66.7 40.0 44.4 76.9 99.9 94.1 86.4 42.0 88.9 81.3 61.9 78.0 91.7 80.0 96.0 96.9 94.1 60.0 99.9 76.7 20.8 57.3 67.6 44.4 75.0 30.0 0.0 66.0 0.0 47.8 53.8 52.1 59.0 63.5 21.1 41.7 45.3 50.0

212 159 61 107 8 57 62 138 41 30 205 32 141 155 22 73 40 12 47 69 61 43 21 86 66 111 143 47 47

30

19.6 33.3 25.4 33.3 60.0 55.6 23.1 0.0 5.9 13.6 58.0 11.1 18.8 38.1 22.2 8.3 20.0 4.0 3.1 5.9 40.0 0.0 23.3 79.2 42.7 32.4 55.6 25.0 70.0 99.9 34.0 99.9 52.2 46.2 47.9 41.0 36.5 78.9 58.3 54.7 50.0

2.6 0.0
1.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3

92 114 33 138 96 133 93 46 111 264 767 .. . 255

6.7

nn

Archaeological Survey of Canada (ASC),J.S. see de 1Homme(MH),Y. Azoulay, J. RobertCybulski; Museum of Anthropology, Univer- Lamblin, R. Gessain. Hon Kon : Prince Jablonsity of British Columbia (MAUB),M. Irvine. Philip Dental Hospital (PPDfI),N.6. Denmark: Laboratory of Anthropology, Pa- ski, R.W. Fernhead, R. Green, P. Yen, J . J.B. Jor ensen, P.O. Ling. Japan: University of Tokyo (UT), K. num Institute (LAPI), exandersen Hanihara, T. Akazawa, A. Uchida; Kyoto Pedersen, P. Bennike; V. Clinic (VAC),V. Alexandersen; Forhistorisk University (KU), J. Ikeda, K. Katayama, T. Museum of Moesgard (FMM), J. Trier. En- Kuroda, K. Yasui, S. Miyoshi; Sapporo Medgland: British Museum (Natural Histor ) ical College (SMC), T. Suzuki, K. Mitsuhashi, N. Oshima. The Netherlands: Insti(BMNH), R.G. Harvey, P.S. Macadam, Kruszinski, C. Stringer, T. Molleson; Duck- tute of Human Biology, Utrecht (IHB), J . worth Laboratory, Cambridge University Huizinga, T.S. Constandse-Westermann, (DL), J.P. Garlick, B. Denston. France: Mu- W.R.K. Perizonius. Taiwan: Academia Sin-

&.

300

C.G. TURNER I1

TABLE 4 . Regional variation in UMI enamel extension

Grade' Population AustraliaITorres Sundadonts Early Thailand Bangkok Thai recent Early Laos and Vietnam Cambodia and Laos Annam and Tonkin Burma Andaman Early Malay Arch Malay/Java Leang Tjadang Borneo Philippines Taiwan prehistoric Jomon SW Jomon Jomon Tsukumo Jomon Yoshiko Jomon Hokkaido Ainu 1 and 2 Ainu Sakhalin Ainu Hokkaido 1 Ainu Hokkaido 2 Sinodonts South China 1 and 2 Hong Kong recent An-yang China China Chinese (Thai) 1,ake Baikal Buriat 1 and 2 Urga and Mongol 2 Mongol 3 Japan J a p a n Hiogo J a p a n Kamakura Japan recent J a p a n Kanto Amur N E Siberia Eskimo and Greenland Aleut
'Grades follow ASlJ system

No.
~

0 53.6 52.9 33.3 46.8 54.2 29.6 33.9 31.7 65.9 67.6 36.9 36.0 37.2 35.8 35.7 72.4 80.4 99.9 83.1 72.0 19.4 54.5 76.5 43.2 24.2 26.6 19.6 22.0 39.4 40.6 27.4 34.7 24.3 23.1 29.0 29.2 28.7 31.9 14.6 20.9 22.0 31.3

1 38.2 21.1 22.8 17.4 37.5 33.3 22.6 31.7 34.1 27.0 26.3 36.0 28.7 21.1 14.3 14.5 15.2 0.0 8.5 14.7 36.1 13.6 5.9 11.4 13.6 16.0 22.8 22.0 15.2 40.6 26.0 22.4 24.3 20.8 21.5 16.0 14.8 12.8 32.6 30.5 31.6 24.0

2 1.4 4.4 1.8 4.6 4.2 1.9 1.6 3.2 0.0 0.0 4.5 8.0 1.1 8.1 7.1 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.7 2.7 2.8 2.3 5.9 2.3 3.0 4.3 15.6 7.3 3.0 3.1 6.8 10.2 5.4 6.2 4.3 7.6 7.4 6.4 3.4 4.6 4.1 9.4

3
6.8 21.6 42.1 31.2 4.2 35.2 41.9 33.3 0.0 5.4 32.3 20.0 33.0 35.0 42.9 10.5 4.3 0.0 6.8 10.7 41.7 29.5 11.8 43.2 59.1 53.2 42.0 48.8 42.4 15.6 39.7 32.7 45.9 50.0 45.2 47.2 49.1 48.9 49.4 43.9 42.2 35.2 8.2 26.0 43.9 35.8 8.4 37.1 43.5 36.5 0.0 5.4 36.8 28.0 34.1 43.1 50.0 13.1 4.3 0.0 8.5 13.4 44.5 31.8 17.7 45.5 62.1 57.5 57.6 56.1 45.4 18.7 46.5 42.9 51.3 56.2 49.5 54.8 56.5 55.3 52.8 48.5 46.3 44.6

220 204 57 109 24 54 62 126 41 37 198 50 94 123 28 76 46 22 59 75 36 44 17 88 66 94 224 41 33 32 73 147 37 130 93 144 108 47 89 239 703 233

ica (AS), H.M. Yang, Li Chi, W.L. Ch'u, T. Jiang, K.S.K. Ho; National Taiwan University (NTU), W.-H. Sung, C.-M. Lien, C. Wang, K.C. Li. Thailand: Siriraj Hospital, Department of Anatomy and Museum of Prehistory (SHDA), S. Sangvichien, V. Subhavan, S. Pramankij. United States: University of Arkansas (UARK), A.P. McCartney, M. Hoffman, P. Hoffman, J. Rose; University of California, Berkeley, Lowie Museum (UCB), F. Norick, L. Dawson; San Diego Museum of Man (SDMM), R. Tyson; Univer-

sity of Hawaii (UH), M. Pietrusewsky; Field Museum of Natural History (FM), G. Cole; Peabody Museum of Harvard University (PM), W.W. Howells, E. Trinkaus; University of Nevada at Las Vegas (UNLV), S. Brooks; American Museum of Natural History (AM), H. Shapiro, I. Tattersall, D.H. Thomas, J . Bird, P. Ward, B. Conklin; University of Oregon (UO), D. Dumond, D.L. Cole; University of Pennsylvania (UP), F.E. Johnston, C. Gorman, D. Kramer, D. Wong; University of Washington Burke Museum

SUNDADONTY AND SINODONTY

TABLE 5. Regional variation i n UM3 peg;rrduced/con.Ken.ital absence
Gradel Population Australia/Torres Sundadonts Early Thailand Bangkok Thai recent Early I.aos a n d Vietnam Cambodia and 1,aos Annam a n d Tonkin Burma Andaman Early Malay Arch MalayiJava h a n g Tjadang Borneo Philippines Taiwan prehistoric Jomon SW Jomon Jomon Tsukumo Jomnn Yoshiko Jomon Hokkaido Ainu 1 and 2 Ainu Sakhalin Ainu Hokkaido 1 Ainu Hokkaido 2 Sinodonts South China 1 and 2 Hong Kong recent An-yang China China Chinese (Thai) Lake Raikal Buriat I and 2 Urga and Mongol 2 Mongol 3 Japan J a p a n Hiogo J a p a n Kamakura J a p a n recent J a p a n Kanto Amur NE Siberia Eskimo a n d Greenland Aleut
'Grades follow ASU system

301

TABLE 6. Regional uariation i n L M f deflecting wrinkle

Grade'

No.
230 148 54 I28 21 59 66 142 45 38 186 0 114 126 28 135 43 19 53 88 53 35 18 86 78 96 215 46 43 32 93 138 42 126 94 I24 110 50 103 256 786 214

+
6.5
16.2 16.7 18.8 4.8 8.5 16.7 17.6 8.9 0.0 22.0 27.2 19.8 14.3 14.1 11.6 10.5 13.2 12.5 50.9 17.1 11.1 26.7 24.4 31.3 32.6 26.1 18.6 15.6 40.9 45.7 33.3 43.7 46.8 37.1 45.5 34.0 41.7 21.9 17.9 25.7
~~

Population Australia/Torres Sundadonts Early Thailand Bangkok Thai recent Early Laos and Vietnam Cambodia and Laos Annam and Tonkin Burma Andaman Early Malay Arch Malay/Java Leang Tjadang Borneo Philippines Taiwan prehistoric Jomon S W Jomon Jomon Tsukumo <JomonYoshiko Jomon Hokkaido Ainu 1 a n d 2 Ainu Sakhalin Ainu Hokkaido 1 Ainu Hokkaido 2 Sinodonts South C h i n a 1 and 2 Hong Kong recent An-yang China China Chinese (Thai) Lake Baikal Buriat I and 2 Urga a n d Mongol 2 Mongol 3 Japan J a p a n Hiogo J a p a n Kamakura J a p a n recent J a p a n Kanto Amur NE Siberia Eskimo and Greenland Aleut
'Grades follow ASU system

No.

93.5 83.8 83.3 81.3 95.2 91.5 83.3 82.4 91.1 99.9 78.0 72.8 80.2 85.7 85.9 88.4 89.5 86.8 87.5 49.1 82.9 88.9 73.3 75.6 68.8 67.4 73.9 81.4 84.4 59.1 54.3 66.7 56.3 53.2 629 54.5 66.0 58.3 78 1 82.i 74.3

37 59.5 82 21 47 2 17 19
14

8.1 16.2 16.2

6
13

58 53 36 58 9 72 12 8 22 48 56 17 10 53 21 47 8 12 15 2 32 25 12 64 44 54 68 32 38 43 176 54

51.2 3.7 13.4 31.7 47.6 0.0 19.0 33.3 74.5 2.1 6.4 17.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 82.4 5.9 0.0 11.8 31.6 10.5 31.6 26.3 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 0.0 16.7 16.7 69.2 0.0 23.1 7.7 62.1 1.7 27.6 8.6 52.8 0.0 35.8 11.3 72.2 2.8 13.9 11.1 65.5 3.4 17.2 13.8 44.4 11.1 0.0 44.4 87.5 1.4 4.2 6.9 91.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 87.5 0.0 12.5 0.0 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.6 2.1 2.1 6.3 48.2 8.9 30.4 12.5 64.7 5.9 17.6 11.8 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.0 0.0 13.2 5.7 66.7 74.5 12.5 58.3 66.7 99.9 43.8 64.0 75.0 46.9 56.8 72.2 69.1 59.4 21.1 20.9 43.2 29.6 3.7 2.1 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 8.3 4.7 6.8 1.9 4.4 3.1 7.9 4.7 5.1 9.3 18.5 8.5 25.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 21.9 4.0 16.7 21.9 20.5 13.0 22.1 21.9 31.6 34.9 24.4 22.2 11.1 14.9 62.5 33.3 20.0 0.0 25.0 32.0 0.0 26.6 15.9 13.0 4.4 15.6 39.5 39.5 27.3 38.9

(UW),D.R. Swinder, B. Nasen, R. Free; National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution (SI),T.D. Stewart, J.L. Angel, D.H. Ubelaker, D. Schmidt, B. Meggers, C. Evans, S. Damadio, E. Garner, R. Stuckenrath, B. Stuckenrath. U.S.S.R.: Institute of Ethnography, Leningrad (IE), 1.1. Gokhman, A. Kozintsev, Y. Chistov, V. Kchartanovich; Laboratory of Plastic Reconstruction, Moscow (LPR), A.A. Zubov, A. Pestriakov, A. Arutiunov, V. Alexeev; Museum

of Anthropology, Moscow (MA), V.P. Chtetzov, A.A. Zubov, T. Alexeeva, M. Archangelskaya, S. Ephimova, G. Kurbatova; Institute of History, Philology and Philosophy, Novosibirsk (IHPP), A.P. Derevyanko, R.S. Vasilievsky, O.V. Pavlova, A.K. Konopatski, T. Chickasheva, V.I. Molodin. AustraliaA'orres. Pan-Australian, late prehistoric to recent, possible minor Malaysian mixture in far north. Four series: Torres Strait, 36, DL, MH; N Australia, 57, SI, AM,

302

C.G. TURNER I1
- .. TABLE

8. Regional variation in LM2 cusp number

- Cusps' .~

Population Sundadonts Early Thailand Bangkok Thai recent Early Laos and Vietnam Cambodia and Laos Annam and Tonkin Burma Andaman Early Malay Arch Malay/Java Leang Tjadang Borneo Philippines Taiwan prehistoric Jomon S W Jomon Jomon Tsukumo Jomon Yoshiko Jomon Hokkaido Ainu 1 and 2 Ainu Sakhalin Ainu Hokkaido 1 Ainu Hokkaido 2 Sinodonts South China 1 and 2 Hong Kong recent An-yang China China Chinese (Thai) I.ske Raikal Buriat 1 and 2 Urga and Mongol 2 Mongol 3 Japan J a p a n Hiogo .Japan Kamakura J a p a n recent J a p a n Kanto Amur NE Siberia Eskimo and Greenland Aleut

No.
155 237 53 133 21 42 52 37 22 50 130 92 94 121 25 100 67 26 81 103 47 42 20 96 70 95 172 30 47

Roots' __ 2 3 __ __
94.8 90.7 90.6: 88.7 90.5 81.0 84.6 86.5 81.8 94.0 86.9 93.5 86.2 82.6 96.0 95.0 99.9 99.9 97.5 94.2 93.6 95.2 99.9 88.5 85.7 81.1 61.6 83.3 85.1 76.7 75.6 61.1 76.9 73.1 76.5 78.8 75.8 75.6 79 7 76.8 73.1 5.2 9.3 9.4 11.3 9.5

Population Sundadonts Early Thailand Bangkok Thai recent Early Laos and Vietnam Cambodia and Laos Annam and Tonkin Burma Andaman Early Malay Arch Malay/Java h a n g Tjadang Borneo Philippines Taiwan prehistoric Jomon S W Jornon .Jomon Tsukumo ,Jomon Yoshiko Jomon Hokkaido Ainu 1 and 2 Ainu Sakhalin Ainu Hokkaido 1 Ainu Hokkaido 2 Sinodonts South China 1 and 2 Hong Kong recent An-yang China China Chinese (Thai) Lake Raikal Buriat 1 and 2 LJrga and Mongol 2 Mongol 3 Japan J a p a n Hiogo J a p a n Kamakura J a p a n recent J a p a n Kanto Amur NE Siberia Eskimo and Greenland Aleut

No.

4
~~

>4 ~-

19.0
15.4 13.5 18.2 6.0 13.1 6.5 l<X8 17.4 4.0 5.0 0.0

0.0
2.5 5.8 6.4 4.8 0.0 11.5 14.3 18.9 38.4 16.7 14.9 23.3 24.4 38.9 23.1 26.9 23.5 21.2 24.2 24.4 20.3 23.2 26.9 40.7 -

175 34 100 9 34 45 28 16 30 117 100 58 92 21 66 37 18 50 73 78 25 11 81

37.7 29.4 19.0 33.3 29.4 33.3 21.4 56.3 50.0 36.8 17.0 25.9 28.3 19.9 31.8 13.5 5.6 34.0 35.6 52.6 8.0 63.6 24.7 16.7 27.4 12.6 26.1 20.8 22.2 14.6 14.3 25.0 10.9 15.2 10.3 16.7 17.0 11.5 3.5 3.5 i..n 7 .

62.3 70.6 81.0 66.7 70.6 66.7 78.6 43.8 50.0 63.2 83.0 74.1 71.7 81.0 68.2 86.5 94.4 66.0 64.4 47.4 92.0 36.4 76.3 83.3 72.6 87.4 73.9 79.2 77.8 85.4 85.7 75.0 89.1 84.8 89.7 83.3 83.0 88.5 96.5 96.5 89.3

:w

86 90 26 119 85 85 95 45 74 164 598

54 84 103 23 24 18 48 63 20 92 66 68 72 47 52 86 372 . 112

PM, MAUB, ASC, BMNH, DL; S Australia, 142, SI, AM, PM, UCB, UARK, BMNH, DL; Australia, 70, BMNH, DL. Leang Tjadang. One Toalan Mesolithic (4000 BP) series from Sulawesi (south Celebes) cave near Tjita, with 135 possible individuals (loose teeth), IHB. Borneo. Pan-Borneoan, 3000 BC (Great Cave of Niah) to historic. Four series: Borneo, 39, BMNH; Niah Cave, 65, UNLV, BMNH, DL; Sarawak, 70, BMNH, DL; Celebes, Sulawesi, 12, BMNH.

Andaman Islands. Probably historic, Ja-ra Wa tribe, Andamans, 51, UW, DL, MH. Burma. Moulmein district of SE Burma, historic. One series, Burma, 149, BMHN, DL. Early Mzlay Archipelago. Malay Peninsula to Flores, generally Mesolithic dating (Hoabinhian and similar materials). Four series, Gua Cha (Kelantan, Malaysia), 18, DL; Gua Ke ah (Mesolithic Malay Peninsula), 40, IH& Flores (Mesolithic), 15, IHB; Sampang (Java), 1,IHB.

SUNDADONTY AND SINODONTY

303

Malay/Java. Mainly historic. Nine series, Sumatra, 19, BMNH, DL; Malaya Singaore, 69, AM; Malaya Composite, 58, AM, SI, PM, FM, BMNH, DL, MH; Singapore, 2, BMNH; Java, 41, BMNH; Timor, 12, BMNH; Nicobar Is., 26, DL; Moluccas, 9, BMNH; Lesser Sunda Is., 6, BMNH. Early Thailand. Archeological sites ranging in carbon 14 age from 4000 BC to AD 200. Six series, Don Klang/Ban Tong, 15,UP; Ban Kao, 37, SHDA; Non Nok Tha, 44, UNLV; Ban Na Di, 42, SHDA, Central Thailand, 158, SHDA; Ban Chiang Early, Late, 3, 79, UH, SHDA. Thai Recent. Includes hill tribes (Mrabri, Yao, Meo) and the mixed population of Bangkok. One composite series, 189, FMM, VAC, SHDA. Bangkok, Thailand. Historic and recent. One composite series, 75, AM, PM, BMNH, MH. Early Laos and Vietnam. One or more of the crania in this archeological series may be 10,000 years old. Two series: NeolithicMesolithic Tonkin, 13, MH; Neolithic-Mesolithic Tam Han (Laos), 16, MH. Annam and onkin Recent. Historic and recent. Two series, Annam, 50, MH; Recent Tonkin, 26, MH. Cambodia and Laos. Mainly historic. Two series, Cambodia, 17, MH; Laos, 55, MH. Philippines. Maximum antiquity could be 5,000 years, but most crania likely are late prehistoric and recent. Fives series, Banton, 62. NMP: Calataean. 61. NMP: Penablanca. 31; NMP; -Phili&ines 1, 89, SI, AM, FM; NMP; Philip ines 2,25, BMNH, DL. rehistoric. Seven Dan-TaiTaiwan wanian archeological sites, 2000 BC tb 500 AD. One composite series, 66, NTU. Jomon. Central Japan, 2500 BC to 300 BC. One composite series, 363, UT. Jomon Tsukumo. Honshu, late or latest Jomon. One series, 32, KU. Jomon, Hokkaido. Various sites on Hokkaido, earliest Jomon to epi-Jomon. One composite series, 136, SMC. Southwest Jomon. Southern Honshu and Kyushu, late and latest Jomon. Three series, Yosekura Jomon, 32, UT; Ota Jomon, 47, KU; Southern Honshu-Kyushu, 12, KU. Jomon, Yoshiko. Site between Kyoto and Tokyo, late or latest Jomon. One series, 101, Ku. Ainu 1 and 2. Hokkaido and Sakhalin, historic and livin . Two composite series: ; Ainu i,88, UT, B ~ N HAinu 2,45, MH.

ARK,

AM.

Ainu, Hokkaido 1. Oboro and Abashizi shellmounds. One series from two sites, 26, KU. Ainu, Hokkaido 2. Numerous sites re resented, AD 1750 to AD 1900 (middle and ate Edo period). One series, 116, SMC. Ainu, Sakhalin. Susuya and Rorei sites, shellmound and recent. One series, 55 KU. South China 1 and 2. Two series, South China 1 (Chinese cemetery in Alaska, with workers urobablv from Canton). 63. SI: South China 2 (<resumably Canton chiefly represented in this mixed series), 31, BMNH, DL, MH. Hong Kong Recent. Recent cemeteries. One series, 131, PPDH. Hiogo, Japan. Near Kobe, probably historic to recent. One series, 113, MH. Kamakura, Japan. Kamakura City, Honshu, AD 1200 to AD 1300. One series, 191, UT. Japan. Pan-Japan, historic to recent. One composite series, 180, BMNH, DL, MH, SI,

tf

Japan Recent. Honshu, Edo period and recent. One composite series, 131, KU, SMC. Kanto, Japan. Honshu, AD 1910 to AD 1920. One series, 63, SMC. An-yang, China. Northern Honan royal tombs, Shang Dynasty, 1100 BC. One series, 277, AS. China. Pan-China, historic. One composite series, 55, BMNH, DL, MH. Chinese, Thailand. Chinese living in Thailand, recent. One series, 71, SHDA. Urga and Mongol 2. Ur a (Ulan Bator, Mongolia), and an-Mongoyia, recent. Two series, 190, SI, S MM; Mongol 2,30, IE. Mongol 3. Near Ulan Bator, recent. One series, 52, MH. Buriat 1and 2. Southern Siberia, Kiachta, Troiskosarsk, and Lake Baikal districts, historic to recent. Two composite series, Buriat 1,28, SI; Buriat 2,85, SI, IE, BMNH, MH. Lake Baikal. Two series, Lake Baikal Neolithic, 17, MA; West Lake Baikal, 28, IHPP. Amur. Mainly middle to lower Amur River basin, historic to recent. Six composite series, Ulchi, 40, MA, IE; Goldi, 21, IE; Orochi, 17,MA; Negedal, 27, IE; Tungus, 19, IE, MH; Gilyak, 5 , BMNH, MH. Northeast Siberia. Siberian Eskimo (Ekven and Uelen) and other Paleo-Asiatics, 200 BC to recent. Four series, Ekven, 98, LPR; Uelen, 81, LPR; Chuckchi, 126, AM, MA, MH; Koryak, 31, AM. Aleut. Pan-Aleutian, 1000 BC to recent, mainly the latter. Seven series, E Aleut 1

304

C.G. TURNER I1

(Port Moller to Amaknak), 36, SI, AM, MH; E Aleut 2 (Kashega to Ship Rock),82, SI, AM; E Aleut 3 (Umnak to Amukta Pass), 150, SI, PM, UO; E Aleut 4 (eastern islands), 7, PM; WAleut 1(Near Is.), 36, SI; W Aleut 2 (Amlia to Kiska), 51, SI; X Aleut 1 (Aleutians), 63,
Eskimo and Greenland. Pan-Eskimoan (Yupik and Inupik), mainly historic and recent. Fifteen series, St. Lawrence, 244, SI; Pt. Hope, 120, SI; Pt. Barrow 1, 80, AM; Pt. Barrow 2, 41, SI; Mackenzie, 71, ASC; Southampton, 70, ASC; Smith Sound, 19, AM; NW Greenland, 135, LAPI; NNW Greenland, 15, LAPI; SW Greenland, 41, LAPI; W Greenland, 17, LAPI, DL; NE Greenland, 52, LAF'I; SE Greenland, 96, LAPI; E Greenland, 4,DL; Greenland, 6 , DL.
RESULTS

MA.

Of the 28 major traits tested, eight had significant mean differences between Sinodonts and Sundadonts (Table 9). Since a significant difference can be expected to occur 5% of the time on the basis of chance alone, the 28% (8/28) significant differences indicates that factors other than chance are responsible for the differences. These factors are, of course, those biologically meanin ul events, processes, and conditions, inclu ing all isolating mechanisms, that caused the Sinodont and Sundadont population systems to emerge and be maintained. With a smaller number of traits, eight instead of 28, it is more economically feasible to examine each individually for the stated purposes. Baseline Sundadonts (minimal possible northern admixture) will be represented by the Andaman, Early Thailand, Early Laos and Vietnam, and Early Malay Archipelago series.

Maxillary central incisor shoveling Examination of Figure 1 reveals seven principle features of shoveling variation in the 42 population samples. 1) Shoveling is less frequent in Sundadonts than in Sinodonts. The strong degrees of shoveling that occur in Sinodonts are unknown in fossil hominids and nonhuman primates, suggesting that the Sinodont condition is s ecialized and derived from the more genera ized Sundadont state. Cromagnon incisors that I have examined possess even less shoveling than do Sundadonts (Turner 1985:67).2) All Jomon samples have frequencies of incisor shoveling more like those of Southeast than like Northeast Asian groups. Derivation of the Jomonese from ancient Southeast Asians is indicated. 3) There is little evidence of temporal changes between earl and modern Malay, Celebes (Leang Tja ang), Laos, and Thailand samples. Although the Bangkok and Annam-Tonkin samples sug est some temporal change, shoveling cou d be observed in only six and nine individuals, respectively, so their upward shift could be due to sampling error. 4) Three of the Ainu samples are much like the Jomonese, as they should be since the Ainu are unquestionably descended from the Jomonese (Hanihara, 1985). However, the Ainu series from Sakhalin has a more northern-like shoveling frequency, suggesting admixture when numerous A n u fled to that island in this century and lived among the native Sinodonts. 5) Hong Kong and Taiwan shoveling occurrence is intermediate between the extreme lows and highs of Southeast and Northeast Asians, but South China is not. Geographically this would be expected if shoveling had an East Asian clinal distribution. Although the Taiwan sample pre-

TABLE 9. Significant t
Trait

tpst scores between

Sinodont and Sundadont groups

t
9.08 5.29 2.25 5.41 4.97 3.04 7.55 4.05
P

Sundadont Mean S.D. 30.8 22.7 70.6 26.4 16.3 25.5 8.8 30.7 15.8 18.2 11.8 16.5 10.0 18.3 5.8 14.1

Sinodont Mean S.D. 71.1 55.8 78.8 50.1 32.4 44.1 24.7 15.5 11.5 21.9 11.4 9.5 10.3 19.7 7.7 6.9

d.f. 39 39 39 39 38 37 39 39

UI1 shovel UI1 double-shovel UP1 one root IJMI enamel extension IJM3 - ~. .~~ P/R/CA ~. LM1 deflect wrinkle LMl three roots LM:! four cusps

<10(-6) 4.905093-06 0.0299 3.255488E-06 1,4483933-05 4.3164243-03 <lo(-6) 2.3379233-04

SUNDADONTY AND SINODONTY

305

Percent

1oc

--Lake
90-

Baikal China

--An-yang

--Buriat 1+2 --Urga+Mongol

80-

--Japan
--South
C h i n a 1+2

70-

--Japan --Japan

Hiogo, A l e u t recent

60-

--Eski.mo+Greenland --China, Japan K a n t o --AINU S A K H A L I N , Amur --Chinese (Thailand) --NE S i b e r i a --TAIWAN P R E H I S T O R I C

50-

--Mongol 3 --ANNAM & TONKIN, J a p a n K a m a k u r a - - H o n g K o n g recent --BANGKOK --PHILIPPINES

40-

30-

20-

--JOMON --AINU HOKKAIDO 2 --LEANG TJADANG --EARLY THAILAND, T H A I RECENT, JOMON HOKKAIDO --AINU 1 + 2 BORNEO --EARLY LAOS+VIETNAM, CAMBODIA+LAOS --EARLY MALAY ARCHIPELAGO, S W JOMON --ANDAMAN, MALAY/JAVA, JOMON TSUKUMO

--

--Australia/Torres, 10- --JOMON YOSHIKO

BURMA

0-

--AINU

HOKKAIDO 1

Fig. 1. Percent shovel-shaped upper first incisors (grades 3-6) (Sundadonts shown in capital letters).

dates the great mainland Chinese starvation migrations of more recent times, there is nevertheless good archeological evidence for migration from the mainland over the past several thousand years (Turner and Lien,

1984). It is impressive that the recent Thai shovelingfre uency is much less than that of prehistoric aiwan, where migration occurred, suggesting that the Thai shoveling frequency is not entirely an introduced con-

+!

306

C.G. TURNER I1

dition. The Hong Kong shoveling frequency is probabl representative of that area s population ($urner, 1984, 1986). However, knowledge about the prehistory of the Hong Kong region is in its infancy, and little is known about local Mesolithic-Neolithic culture and opulation history (Meacham, 1978). 6) f h e Australian shovelin frequency falls within the range of Sunda onty, at the low end of the scale. Deriving Australians and Jomonese from Sundadonts could easily be accomodated by their similar frequencies of incisor shoveling. It is interesting that the frequency of Australian shoveling is so low relative to that of Sinodonts. It has been suggested by various workers that shoveling was selected for in the harsh nearArctic environment of late Pleistocene China, Mon olia, and southeastern Siberia, but heavy c ewing forces and severe tooth wear also occurred in Aboriginals, so why was pronounced shoveling not also selected for in Australian Aboriginals? Finally, 7) it is evident from the shovelin frequencies of Japanese, Jomonese, and hinese samples that the former are much more likely derived from the Chinese or other mainland Asians than from the aboriginal Jomonese of Japan. Some admixture likely occurred between the mainland migrants (Yayoi-Japanese) and the aboriginal Jomonese. Mmillary central incisor double-shoueling Dahlberg (1951) referred to the marginal ridging on the incisor labial surface as double-shoveling. Figure 2 shows that doubleshoveling frequency variation is similar to that of shoveling in the 41 population samples. Southeast Asians have generally low frequencies of double-shoveling, whereas higher frequencies occur in Northeast Asians. The Jomon samples are more like those of Southeast Asians than like those of the northern Sinodonts. Sakhalin Ainu are more northern-like than are the other Ainu series. Recent and early Thai and Malay series show little temporal differences, but Laos, Leang Tjadang, and Annam-Tonkin more. Australia has a low of double-shoveling, matching closely t at of Jomonese and the baseline Sundadonts. Hong Kong and Taiwan retain their intermediate position on the overall scale of variation, but South China shifts northward. The Japanese are more like Chinese and Mongols than like Jomonese. Although shoveling and double-shoveling

have a moderate correlation (double-shoveling rarely occurs in the absence of shoveling, but the latter often occurs in the absence of the former), the northward shift for Leang Tjadan double-shovelingsuggests some degree o epigenetic independence between these two traits. So do the southward shifts of the Chinese series from Thailand as well as the Philippine series. C. Nichol is currently assessing the genetic basis and independence of these and several other crown traits.

Single-rooted maxillary first premolars Figure 3 shows that the frequency variation of one-rooted maxillary first premolars behaves differently from that of incisor shoveling and double-shoveling because the frequency range is about half that of incisor traits, from 50% to 100%instead of from 0 to near 100%.The more limited range (no sample has less than 50% one-rooted upper first premolars) may represent a fundamental morphogenetic property, possibly a species characteristic for the developmental threshold, although root variation is poorly represented in the modern and fossil hominid odontological literature. Some Sundadont samples are well into the Sinodont range, and vice versa. There may be less genetic regulation of upper first premolar root number compared with the two incisor features, or root number is less polygenic and there-

frequenci

on root number, so little is known about the genetics of root variation. This is doubly unfortunate for diachronic evolutionary research since roots and their sockets are among the longest lasting or best preserved of all adult dental elements. Sinodonts generally have more one-rooted up er first premolars than do Sundadonts an the Australians. Temporal changes are seemingly evident for the Malays, Thai, Leang Tjadang, and Ainu but not for Laos. The Jonion range (20%)is about the same as for the incisor traits. Because of genetic isolation, the Jomon intragroup frequency spread can be used to suggest the range that might be expected to occur in other groups where admixture is suspected. If so, then the a parent temporal shifts of the Malays, TKai, and Ainu may not reflect change due to admixture. Jomon and Japan are fairly sim-

SUNDADONTY AND SINODONTY

307

Pel ent 1oc --Buriat 1+2, Mongol 3

90-

80-

--South China 1+2, Amur

70-

--Lake Baikal

60- --CAMBODIA+LAOS

--LEANG TJADANG, NE Siberia --ANNAM --Japan - -A1eut

&

TONKIN, China, Eskimo+Greenland

50-

--Japan Hiogo, Japan Kamakura

40-

--Hong Kong recent --AINU SAKHALIN, Japan recent --TAIWAN PREHISTORIC --Japan Kanto --Urga+Mongol 2 --BANGKOK, EARLY LAOS+VIETNAM, An-yang China

30-

20-

--THAI RECENT, BURMA, Chinese (Thailand) --JOMON, AINU HOKKAIDO 2 --JOMON TSUKUMO --EARLY THAILAND, PHILIPPINES --MALAY/JAVA

10- --BORNEO

--SW JOMON --Australia/Torres, EARLY MALAY ARCHIPELAGO, JOMON YOSHIKO, AINU 1+2 --JOMON HOKKAIDO --ANDAMAN, AINU HOKKAIDO 1

0-

Fig. 2. Percent double-shovelingon upper first incisors (grades 2-6) (Sundadonts shown in capital letters).

ilar for this trait. Hong Kong and China have more recent samples. The northward shift of intermediate frequencies. the Jomon frequencies might indicate some The temporally earlier samples of South- sort of environmental influence. A singleeast Asians generally have fewer single- rooted tooth is not one where the roots have rooted upper first premolars than do the fused; rather, it is a failure of the multiroot

308
Per ?nt
100

C.G. TURNER I1

--Amur
95-

--Eskimo+Greenland --Aleut

90-

--NE Siberia --AINU 1+2 --Mongol 3

85-

--JOMON YOSHIKO, AINU HOKKAIDO 1 --LEANG TJADANG, Buriat l + 2 , Japan Kanto

--AINU HOKKAIDO 2 --TAIWAN PREHISTORIC 80- --SW JOMON, Lake Baikal --AINU SAKHALIN --Urga+Mongol 2
75-

--Japan Kamakura --EARLY LAOS+VIETNAM, JOMON HOKKAIDO, Japan recent --Japan --Japan Hiogo

70-

--An-yang China --JOMON, China --THAI RECENT, A " A M & TONKIN, PHILIPPINES --JOMON TSUKUMO, South China 1 + 2 6 5 - --BURMA --CAMBODIA+LAOS
--BANGKOK

--Australia/Torres --ANDAMAN, Hong Kong recent, Chinese (Thailand)

60-

55-

--MALAY/JAVA --BORNEO

50-

--EARLY THAILAND --EARLY MALAY ARCHIPELAGO

Fig. 3. Percent one-rooted upper first premolars (Sundadonts shown in capital letters).

potential to be achieved. Although this might be the effect of some sort of "blocking" gene like albinism or nonsecretor, it could also be an internal environmental effect, perhaps related to bone density arising from

the greater de endence of the northern peoples on animay fats for energy compared to the southern folk, who had greater access to carbohydrates, or perhaps related to bone differences in sunlight-related developmen-

SUNDADONTY AND SINODONIY

309

tal phenomena such as osteoporosis, vitamin D production, and so forth. However, as we shall see, the northern peoples have higher frequencies of supernumerary-rooted lower first molars than do the southern peoples. For this reason, I believe that the premolar root polymorphism variation is due lar ely to intergroup genetic differences rather t an mainly environmental factors. Obviously, this suspicion could be evaluated with prehistoric American Indian teeth originating from populations with differing economic systems. Maxillary first molar enamel extensions Figure 4 shows the distribution of this tiny (usually less than 4 mm long, 1 mm wide, and 0.5 mm thick) feature on the buccal root surface. As with the previously discussed traits, enamel extensions are less frequent in Sundadonts and Australians than in Sinodonts. Temporal shifts in Malays, Thai, Laos, and Ainus are again evident, especially in the Malays. The Jomon spread (12%)is less than that of the early-late Mala (32%), which suggests the latter could be al K mixed, but the early-late Thai spread (8%) does not suggest this. Taiwan is almost certainly evidencing Sinodont influence. The Japanese are Sinodontic for enamel extension, whereas the Jomonese are aligned with baseline Sundadonts. South China and Hong Kong are not intermediate, being instead very northern-like. Enamel extension has no strong correlation with other dental traits except root bifurcation. Bifurcated premolar and molar roots, both maxillary and mandibular, more often have enamel extensions than do unbifurcated roots. However, the maxillary first molar is almost always three-rooted, so using the enamel extension of this tooth eliminates the correlation and leaves us with a valuable example of interregional variation without any identifiable adaptive value. Enamel extension is the paramount example in the dentition for hypothesizing founders effect-genetic drift and population structure being the underlying causes for interregional dental variation and possible clines.

vation error here when third molars fail to erupt. However, the outline of the crown of unerupted maxillary third molars frequently can be seen just under the alveolar bone, so the error is probably insignificant. Noneruption may in fact be another aspect of reduction. Maxillary third molar pegheducedcongenital absence is correlated with peg-shaped maxillary lateral incisors, congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors, mandibular central incisors, maxillary and mandibular second premolars, mandibular third molars, and sometimes general low morpholo cal crown to ography. All of these teet are congenita ly absent less freuently than are the u per third molars. ghird molar absence can e assessed only in adult crania. As can be seen in Figure 5 , third molar reduction and absence are much less common in Sundadonts and Australians than in Sinodonts. This is a good example of Sundadonts retaining an earlier condition. It is also a good example of a nonadaptive shift for the northern Sinodonts, if third molar occurrence is viewed as adaptive by adding tooth mass and functional longevity. Note, however, that the actual Arctic peoples of recent times (Northeast Siberia, Eskimo, Aleuts) have relatively low frequencies of molar reduction and absence compared with other Sinodonts. Temporal shifts are evident for the Malays and Ainu but not for the Thai or Laos samples. Japanese are more like the Chinese and Mongols, and very unlike the Jomonese. South China and Hong Kong are fairly intermediate, suggesting some south to north clinality for third molar reduction and absence.

Peglreducedlcongenital absence of maxillary third molars This trait is the continuum of crown and root reduction that is usually treated as separate categories of morphogenetic expression. There is a potential source of obser-

Mandibular first molar deflecting wrinkle Unlike the enamel extension preserved throughout the life of a molar crown, the deflecting wrinkle on the molar occlusal surface begins to wear away within a few years of eru tion, and is completely lost in most indivi uals of these series by age 15-18 years. The trait is most accurately studied in unerupted molars, and in individuals less than 12 years old, both conditions common in these series. As can be seen in Figure 6 there is a broad overall range of frequency variation for the deflectin wrinkle, almost 90%. On the average, Sun adonts and Australians have lower frequencies of deflecting wrinkle than do Sinodonts. The very high deflecting wrinkle

310
Percent
70-

C.G. TURNER I1

--South China 1+2

60-

--Hong Kong recent, An-yang China, China, Japan, Japan recent --Japan Kamakura, Japan Kanto --Amur 5 0 - --TAIWAN PREHISTORIC, Mongol 3 --Japan Hiogo, NE Siberia --Buriat 1+2, Eskimo+Greenland --AINU 1+2, AINU HOKKAIDO 2, Chinese (Thailand), Aleut --BANGKOK, ANNAM & TONKIN, PHILIPPINES, Urga+Mongol 2
40-

--CAMBODIA+LAOS, BURMA, MALAY/JAVA --THAI RECENT, BORNEO

30-

--AINU SAKHALIN --LEANG TJADANG --EARLY THAILAND

20-

--Lake Baikal --AINU HOKKAZDO 1 --JOMON, JOMON HOKKAIDO 10--Australia/Torres, EARLY LAOS+VIETNAM, JOMON YOSHIKO --EARLY MALAY ARCHIPELAGO, SW JOMON
0- --ANDAMAN, JOMON TSUKUMO

Fig. 4. Percent enamel extension of upper first molars (grades 2-3) (Sundadonts shown in capital letters).

frequency for the all adult An-yang Chinese series should not be taken seriously; only eight individuals were usable for this trait. However, the Northeast Siberia and Amur samples are fairly large, 43 and 38 individuals, respectively, so they should reliably document the frequent occurrence of deflecting wrinkle in the north. Jomonese have very low frequencies, linking them to Sundadonts. Japanese have considerably higher frequencies of deflecting wrinkle than do the Jomon samples, again, evidence pointing to a disru ted population history for the Japanese is ands. Very little temporal shift is indicated for the Malay and Ainu, and none for the Thai and Laos groups. Hong K0n.g and South China have relatively low frequencies of deflecting wrinkle, actually

lower than Australians, so no cline is apparent for the deflecting wrinkle in East Asia. Three-rooted mandibular first moEars The overall range of frequency variation for three-rooted lower first molars is relatively low, 40%(Fig. 7). In spite of this, there is a decisive division between Sundadonts and Sinodonts, the latter having higher frequencies of the trait than the former. Jomonese have very low frequencies of three-rooted lower first molars, whereas Japanese have much higher values. Once again, population discontinuity is indicated. Not much tem oral shift occurs for the Malay, Leang Tja ang, Ainu, and Laos samples and almost none for the Thai. Hong Kong and South China are intermediate, favoring

SUNDADONTY AND SINODONTY

311

Per ent 5 0 - --AINU 1+2

45-

--Japan Hiogo --Urga+Mongol --Japan

2,

Japan recent

40-

--Amur --Buriat 1+2 --Japan Kamakura

35-

--Japan Kanto --Mongol 3 --An-yang Chinese --Hong Kong recent

30-

--BORNEO --AINU HOKKAIDO 2, China 2 5 - --Aleut --South China 1+2 --MALAY/JAVA --NE Siberia
20-

--PHILIPPINES --THAI RECENT, Chinese (Thailand) --BURMA, AINU SAKHALIN, Eskimo+Greenland --EARLY THAILAND, BANGKOK, A"AM & TONKIN 1 5 - --Lake Baikal --TAIWAN PREHISTORIC, JOMON --JOMON YOSHIKO --JOMON HOKKAIDO --SW JOMON, AINU HOKKAIDO 1 10- --JOMON TSUKUMO --CAMBODIA+LAOS, ANDAMAN --Australia/Torres
5-

--EARLY LAOS+VIETNAM

0-

--EARLY MALAY ARCHIPELAGO

Fig. 5. Percent pegheducedicongenitallyabsent upper third molars (Sundadonts shown in capital letters). Leang Tjadang has no data.

clinality. The low Taiwan frequency shows no sign of the expected admixture effect suggested by archeological resources and other dental traits. The very large samples for the Aleut (273 individuals), An-yang China

(172), and Urga-Mongol 2 (90) series safely demonstrate the frequent occurrence that can evolve for the three-rooted lower first molar polymorphism. I have seen no reference to anyone finding

312
Per ent
90-

C.G. TURNER I1

--An-yang China
80-

--NE Siberia
70-

--Amur

60- --Aleut

--ANNAM
50-

&

TONKIN

--BANGKOK --EARLY LAOS+VIETNAM, Eskimo+Greenland --Japan --LEANG TJADANG, Buriat 1+2 --EARLY THAILAND, TAIWAN PREHISTORIC --AINU 1+2 , Chinese (Thailand) --MALAY/JAVA, Urga+Mongol 2, Japan Hiogo, Japan Kanto --Australia/Torres, ANDAMAN, China

40-

30- --EARLY MALAY ARCHIPELAGO, PHILIPPINES

--AINU SAKHALIN, South China 1+2 --Japan Kamakura, Japan recent --BORNEO --THAI RECENT, Hong Kong recent
20-

--AINU HOKKAIDO 2 --Mongol 3 --JOMON TSUKUMO

10- --CAMBODIA+LAOS, JOMON

--JOMON HOKKAIDO

0- --BURMA, SW JOMON, JOMON YOSHIKO, AINU HOKKAIDO 1

Fig. 6. Percent lower first molars with deflecting wrinkles (grades 2-3) (Sundadonts shown in capital letters). Early Laos and Vietnam and Lake Baikal excluded due to small sample size.

three-rooted lower first molars in nonhuman primates, although primatologists have not given as much attention to root variation as they have to that of crowns. Similarly, I have not found it mentioned in any literature on australopithecines, Homo erectus, Neandertals, or other fossil humans. For the moment, it appears that three-rooted lower first molars are uniquely characteristic of anatomi-

cally modern humans. Direct evidence indicates the supernumerary root was present in late Pleistocene people of South America (Turner and Bird, 1981) and Nubia (Turner and Markowitz, in press). The present data provide a means of estimating when the mutation occurred for potentializing this trait. The generally accepted colonization date for Australia is about 30,000-40,000

SUNDADONTY AND SINODON'IY

313

40-

Per ent - -A1eut --An-yang China, Urga+Mongol 2

35-

3 0-

--Japan, Eskimo+Greenland
25-

--Buriat 1+2, Japan recent, Japan Kanto --Lake Baikal, Mongol 3, Japan Hiogo, NE Siberia --Japan Kamakura
20- --Amur

--CAMBODIA+LAOS --ANDAMAN, Hong Kong recent --PHILIPPINES --China 15- --ANNAM & TONKIN --South China 1+2, Chinese (Thailand) --BURMA, MALAY/JAVA, BORNEO --THAI RECENT, AINU HOKKAIDO 2
10-

--EARLY THAILAND, BANGKOK, EARLY LAOS+VIETNAM --EARLY MALAY ARCHIPELAGO, LEANG TJADANG, AINU 1+2 --Australia/Torres, JOMON, JOMON HOKKAIDO --TAIWAN PREHISTORIC, AINU SAKHALIN --JOMON YOSHIKO
0-

5-

--SW JOMON, JOMON TSUKUMO, AINU HOKKAIDO 1

Fig. 7. Percent three-rooted lower first molars (Sundadonts shown in capital letters).

years ago, perhaps 50,000 (Jones, 1973; Thorne, 1980). Australians possess threerooted lower first molars, although in low frequency. The ancestors of the Aboriginals had to have had at least their proximate origin in Southeast Asia, where three-rooted lower first molars occur at about the same frequency as in Australia. These facts suggest that the supernumerary third root mutation is at least 30,000 years old. If the gene(s) for the supernumerary root is that old, and the frequency has not climbed much more than 10%in early Southeast Asia, then the much greater occurrence in Northeast

Asians suggests a very late and very strong selection pressure or founder's effect. My explanatory preference is founder's effect, or some sort of indirect selection. Hylander (1977) included the high frequency of threerooted lower first molars in Eskimos as evidence for Eskimo cranial shape being due to bite force selection. Four-cusped mandibular second molars This condition occurs when there is a complete absence of the hypoconulid (cusp 5 ) . As with the deflecting wrinkle, considerable care must be taken when making observa-

314

C.G. TURNER I1

tions so as not to miss the very faint cusp 5 expression that can occur, and which can rapidly wear away. Figure 8 shows that four-cusped lower second molars have a enerally hi her frequency in Sundadont t an in Sin0 ont peoples, although the frequency range is very large in the former. This is the only key trait where the Australians break away from Southeast Asia and ali closer to Sinodonts, suggesting possible se ection for second molar tooth mass. Most fossil hominids have the second molar hypoconulid, so its low frequency among Sundadonts is viewed as contributing to the pattern's simplification relative to Sinodonty. Temporal shifts are indicated for Malay, Thai, and Sakhalin Ainu but not Laos. Hong Kong and South China are intermediate, favoring some cli-

nality. The Japanese continue to be quite unlike the Jomonese and very similar to mainland Northeast Asians.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

From the previous review of frequency variation of eight diagnostic crown and root traits in 41 series of Sinodonts and Sundadonts, plus a composite series of Australian Aboriginals, eight conclusionscan be offered. 1) East Asia has, and has had for at least 12,000years, two related but dentally distinguishable major human population systems. This is not a new suggestion. On the basis of other biological traits, Cheboksarov (1966) pro osed a similar idea. Sundadonts occupie all of Sundaland, including island and mainland Southeast Asia, the continental shelf of East Asia, extending as far north as

Per ent
70-

--AINU HOKKAIDO 1
60-

--ANDAMAN
50-

--AINU 1+2 --EARLY M A L A Y ARCHIPELAGO

40-

--EARLY THAILAND, MALAY/JAVA --JOMON YOSHIKO, JOMON HOKKAIDO --EARLY LAOS+VIETNAM, A"AM & TONXIN 3 0JOMON --BANGKOK, CAMBODIA+LAOS, PHILIPPINES --Hong Kong recent, China --BORNEO, AINU HOKKAIDO 2, Mongol 3 --Lake Baikal 2 0 - --BURMA, Chinese (Thailand) --THAI RECENT, TAIWAN PREHISTORIC --LEANG TJADANG, South China 1+2, Japan recent, Japan Kanto --Buriat 1+2, Urga+Mongol 2, Japan Hiogo --Australia/Torres, SW JOMON, An-yang China 10- --Japan, Japan Kamakura, Amur, Aleut --AINU SAKHALIN

--

--JOMON TSUKUMO --NE Siberia. Eskimo+Greenland

0-

Fig. 8. Percent four-cuspedlower second molars (Sundadonts shown in capital letters).

SUNDADONTY AND SINODONTY

315

todays Hokkaido Island. A dry-land Sunda Shelf is now so well accepted that Shutler and Braches (1987) in their review of the aleoanthropology of Pleistocene island goutheast Asia see it as the route to Java from the Asian mainland for all migrating land mammals (p. 186). Sinodonts are hypothesized to have evolved out of the Sundadont condition, develo ing a relatively more specialized and comp ex dental pattern, in northern China, Mongolia, and southeastern Siberia, possibly by selection, but, in my view, more by random changes from population size, network, isolation, and edge factors. 2) The Jomonese and Southeast Asian peoples have sufficient dental similarities to conclude that the former are derived from late Pleistocene Southeast Asian Sundadont stock. The Minatogawa skeletons from Okinawa provide direct evidence for this hypothesis because of their late Pleistocene age (17,000years), their craniometric and dental similarities to Jomonese, and their latitudinally intermediate and offshore geographic location. 3) Temporal changes in trait freuencies between early and later Malays, hais, and Laotians are, taken together, insubstantial and irregular. However, most of the temporal fre uency shifts that do occur are directional, t at is, towards Sinodonty. Some external gene flow and continuing local microevolution towards Sinodonty are both reasonable possibilities. The early Celebes series from Leang Tjadang must be mixed (genetically, stratigraphically, or both), because it has too many characteristics of Sinodonty to judge otherwise, especially in light of the rather large sample size. A local dental evolution hypothesis was proposed earlier by Hooijer (19501, who argued that larger-toothed prehistoric remains could be ancestral to smaller-toothed Malaysians by in situ dental reduction, just as was the case with Quaternary vertebrates. Von Koenigswald (1952) disagreed with Hooijer, preferring instead the migration model, in which the first Indonesians arrived in Southeast Asia during the late Neolithic (4,000 BP), when the quadrangular axe appeared, re lacing the macrodont Australmelanesoi s, who were pushed eastward out of Malaya, Sumatra, and Java. Bulbecks (1981) examinations of various Southeast Asian skeletal remains lead him to favor the local evolution model. Sangvichian (1983) reached the same conclusion with his study of prehistoric and recent crania from Thailand. 4)On the whole, the Ainu samples are

cp

very much like the prehistoric Jomonese, but one Ainu series, that from Sakhalin, evidences admixture with Sinodonts, which is consistent with the history of Ainu settlement on that island. 5) The series from Hong Kong, South China, and Taiwan more often than not exhibit intermediate frequencies for the eight key dental traits, ointing to some clinal variation in eastern sia. In the case of Taiwan this is due to archeologically verifiable mainland migrations to the lar e offshore island in prehistoric times, resu ting in admixture between southern Chinese and aboriginal (Indonesian) Taiwanese. I sense that in earlier times the South China and Hong Kong regional populations may have had a closer relationship with the more southern peoples than is evident now, but Mesolithic and Neolithic teeth are needed to assess such a possibility fully. 6) Most of the eight traits overwhelmingly su gest population discontinuity in Japan. T e Jomonese are not the main ancestors of the Japanese. Some Jomon admixture is evident. South China is suggested as one possible area from which the ancestors of modern Japanese could have ori nated. 7) Australian Abori inals and Sout east Asians have remarkab y similar frequencies for most of the ei ht traits. Nothing in the gene frequency in ormation for these areas suggests that the dental similarities are accidental (Roychoudhury and Nei, 1988). 8) Although a larger and better provenienced Australian dental sample is needed to verif the Australian-Sundadont relationship, ata in hand are useful for one more conclusion. The similarity between Australians and livin and prehistoric Sundadonts permits hypot esizing that Sundadonty is old and evolved locally in Southeast Asia. Considerations of regional variation, temporal differences, and external relationships rather strongly su gest that Sundadonty is not likely the ro uct of admixture between an early Sout east Asian Australmelanesian population and southward-migrating Mongoloids in Neolithic times. Stated another way, southern Mongoloids evolved in place, in Southeast Asia. If so, Sundadonts, as defined by the means and standard deviations for the eight identified traits, would have t o be considered as the late Pleistocene stock from whom evolved directly or indirectly many of the populations of eastern Asia, the Americas, and Oceania. Were the earliest Australians Sundadonts, or was their dental pattern different?

f:

fl

f B

dr

i8

316

C.G. TURNER I1

In sum, there are two competing views about the origin and variation of Southeast Asian populations. The older, orthodox view is based mainly on archeological interpretations, which suggested that Mongoloid invaders from the north mixed with aboriginal Australmelanesians in Southeast Asia, producing the Southern Mongoloid physical features. More recently, I roposed a local evolution model based on ental morphological variation. Diachronic comparisons of Southeast Asian dental samples, lus the similarity between Australian teet and those from early and later Southeast Asia, are more supportive of the local evolution hypothesis than the classic interpretation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was made ossible by grants and other forms of aid rom the National Science Foundation, National Geographic Society, U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, IREX (International Research and Exchanges Board), Arizona State University, and the Museum of Northern Arizona. Linda S. Watson assisted with data processin . Jacqueline and Korri Dee Turner assiste with part of the data collecting. Thanks are extended to the scores of individuals who helped and in whose institutions dental collections were made available for examination. Full acknowledgments will appear in the summary version of my Pacific Basin studies. This is contribution No. 31 to the Peopling of the Pacific Basin and Adjoining Areas series.

LITERATURE CITED Akazawa T, and Aikens CM (1986) (eds) Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers in Japan. New Research Methods. University of Tokyo Museum Bulletin No. 27. Allen J, Golson J, and Jones R (1977) (eds) Sunda and Sahul. Prehistoric Studies in Southeast Asia, Melanesia and Australia. New York: Academic Press. Bellwood P (1985) Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. Sydney: Academic Press. Bellwood P (1987) The prehistory of island Southeast Asia: A multidisciplinary review of recent research. J World Prehistory 1:171-224. Bowles GT (1977)The People of Asia. New York: Charles Scribners Sons. Brace CL, Li Y, Hunt KD, Zhang Z, and Brace ML (1989) A craniofacial comparison of Circum-Pacific peoples. Circum-Pacific Prehistory Conference Program and Abstracts, Seattle, Washington, August 1 4 , 1 9 8 9 . Brues AM (1977) People and Races. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. Bulbeck FD (1981) Continuities in Southeast Asian Evolution Since the Late Pleistocene. Some New Material Described and Some Old Questions Reviewed. MA thesis, Canberra, Australian National University.

Chard CS (1974)Northeast Asia in Prehistory. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Cheboksarov NN (1966) The Ethnic Anthropology of Eastern Asia. Moscow: Nauka. Dahlberg AA (1951) The dentition of the American Indian. In WS Laughlin (ed): Papers on the Physical AnthroDoloev of the American Indian. New York: Viking F;nd,pp. 138-176. Garn SM (1969) Human Races. 2nd ed. SDrinPfield. IL. Charles C. Thomas. Hanihara K (1969) Mongoloid dental complex in the permanent dentition. In: Proceedings VIIIth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Tokyo, 1968, pp. 298-300. Hanihara K (1977)Dentition ofthe Amu and the Australian Aborgines. In AA Dahlberg and TM Graber (eds): Orofacial Growth and Development. The Hague: Mouton Publishers, pp. 195-200. Hanihara K (1985)Origins and affinities of Japanese as viewed from cranial measurements. In R Iclrk and E Szathmary (eds): Out of Asia. Peopling the Americas and the Pacific. Canberra, Australia: J . Pacific History, pp. 105-112. Hooijer DA (1950) Fossil evidence of Austromelanesian migrations in Malaysia? Southwest. J . Anthropol. 6:416422. Howells W (1973) The Pacific Islanders. New York: Charles Scribners Sons. Hylander WL (1977) The adaptive significance of Eskimo craniofacial morphology. In AA Dahlberg and TM Graber (eds):Orofacial Growth and Development. The Hague: Mouton Publishers, pp. 129-169. Jones R (1973) Emerging picture of Pleistocene Australians. Nature 246:278-281. Kamminga J, and Wri ht RVS (1988)The Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian and t i e origns of the Mongoloids. J . Hum. Evol. I7:739-767. Kirk R, and Szathmary E (1985) (eds) Out of Asia. Peopling the Americas and the Pacific. Canberra, Australia: J. Pacific History. Kirk RL, and Thorne AG (eds) (1976) The Orign of the Australians. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Human Biology Series No. 6. New Jersey. Humanities Press Inc. Laughlin WS, and Harper AB (1979) (eds) The First Americans: Origins, Affinities, and Adaptations. New York: Gustav Fischer. Meacham W (1978) (ed) Sham Wan, Lamma Island. An Archaeological Site Study. Journal Monograph 111, Hong Kong Archaeological Society. Pietrusewsky M (1988) Multivariate comparisons of recently excavated Neolithic human crania from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Int. J. Anthropol. 3:267-283. Roychoudhury AK, and Nei M (1988) Human Polymorphic Genes. World Distribution. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sangvichian S (1983) Problems Concernin Thai Migrations. Bangkok: Prehistory Museum, Matidol University. Scott GR, and Dahlberg AA (1981) Microdifferentiation in tooth crown morphology among Indians of the American Southwest. In B Kurten (ed): Teeth: Form, Function, and Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 288-333. Shutler R J r , and Braches F (1987)The Palaeoanthropology of Pleistocene island Southeast Asia: A review. Proceedings of the Workshop on Economic Geology, Tectonics, Sedimentary Processes and Environment of
. I

SUNDADONTY AND SINODONTY the Quaternary in Southeast Asia. Dept. Geol., Chulalongkorn Univ. Bangkok, pp. 185-191. Smith FH, and Spencer F (1984) (eds) The Origins of Modern Humans. A World Survey of the Fossil Evidence. New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc. Suzuki H, and Hanihara K (eds) (1982) The Minatogawa Man. The Upper Pleistocene Man from the Island of Okinawa. Tokyo: University of Tokyo. Thorne AG (1980) The longest link in human evolution in Southeast Asia and the settlement of Australia. In JJ Fox (ed): Indonesia: The Making of a Culture. Canberra, Australia: Research School of Pacific Studies, pp. 3544. Turner CG I1 (1976)Dental evidence on the origins ofthe Ainu and Japanese. Science 193:911-913. Turner CG I1 (1979) Dental anthropological indications of agriculture among the Jomon people of central J a an X Peopling of the Pacific. Am. J. Phys. AnthroPOP 5i:6i9-636. Turner CG I1 (1983a) Sinodonty and Sundadonty: A dental anthropological view of Mongoloid microevolution, origin, and dispersal into the Pacific Basin, Siberia, and the Americas. In RS Vasilievsky (ed): Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Cultural Connections of Asian and America. USSR Academy of Sciences, Siberian Branch, Novosibirsk, pp. 72-76 (Russian). Turner CG I1 (198313) The origm of the Ainu. Book review: Minatogawa Man. The Upper Pleistocene Man from the Island of Okinawa (H Suzuki and K Hanihara, eds). Q. Rev. Archaeol. 4:ll-12. Turner CG I1 (1984) Notes on middle Neolithic and later

317

Hong Kong dentition. J. Hong Kong Archaeol. SOC. 10:8O-83. Turner CG I1 (1985)The dental search for Native American origins. In R Kirk and E Szathmary (eds):Out of Asia. Peopling the Americas and the Pacific. Canberra, Australia: J . Pacific History, pp. 31-78. Turner CG I1 (1986) Recent Hong Kong dentition: A probable southern affinity. J. Hong Kong Archaeol. SOC. 11:142-146. Turner CG I1 (1987) Late Pleistocene and Holocene population history of East Asia based on dental variation. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 73:305-321. Turner CG I1 h d . ) ASU dental anthropology system. Scoring procedures for key morphological traits of the permanent dentition. Turner CG 1 , and Bird J (1981) Dentition of Chilean 1 Paleo-Indians and peopling of the Americas. Science 212:1053-1055. Turner CG 11,and Lien CM (1984)Diachronic differences in Taiwan dental morphology. Bull. Indo-Pacific Prehistory Assoc. 5:74-82. Turner CG 11, and Markowitz MA (1990) Dental discontinuity between late Pleistocene and recent Nubians. I. Peopling of the Eurafrican-South Asian Triangle. Homo (in press). Von Koenigswald GHR (1952) Evidence of a prehistoric Austral-melanesoid population in Malaya and Indonesia. Southwest. J. Anthropol. 8:92-96. Yang H-M (1970) Recent studies of the An-yang skulls (19661969). Bull. Inst. History Philol. Acad. Sinica 42:231-266.