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 AboriginalsCHRISTY G. TURNER I1 Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona85287-2402

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

P

R

s

R

E

B

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

B

B

K

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

d

6

9

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-

K

F

B

P

a

F.

K

a

H

%

P

8

Y

f?

C.G. TURNER I1

TABLE 1. Regional variation in UI1 shovelingPopulation 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 AleutNo.

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 2.30.0 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

2

Grade' 312.8 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

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 132An 1v

38.344.0 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.

a

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 SINODONTYTABLE 2. Regional uariation in UIl double-shouelingGrade 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 numherPopulation 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 236.8 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 8.341 1 ..

3 0.9 1.3 1.6 0.9 12.5 1.8 4.8 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.0 0.01.4

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 4730

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 0.01.4

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-

A

&.

300

C.G. TURNER I1

TABLE 4 . Regional variation in UMI enamel extensionGrade' 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

36.8 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 SINODONTYTABLE 5. Regional variation i n UM3 peg;rrduced/con.Ken.ital absenceGradel 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 wrinkleGrade'

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

~

+6.516.2 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 4 ~-

19.015.4 13.5 18.2 6.0 13.1 6.5 l