Anthropol. Sci. 101(4), 389-404, 1993

Cranial Morphological Contrasts between Negritos,

Australians, and Neighboring Populations

TSUNEHIKO HANIHARA

Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine, Sapporo Medical College,

South 1, West 17, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, 060, Japan

Received November 9, 1992

•ôGH•ô Abstract•ôGS•ô This study examined metric cranial variation in samples of Australian

Aborigines, Southeast Asian Negritos, and neighboring populations. The differ

encebetween Australians and Negritos is particularly marked in neurocranial

dimensions and the magnitude of prognathism. The cranial features of the three

Negrito tribes of Luzon Island, the Malay Peninsula, and the Andaman Islands

suggest the biological distinctiveness of the so-called Negritos, a term rather

loosely applied to many genetic isolates of Southeast Asia. Diachronic comparison

shows that the modification of the cranial shape is of a highly limited degree in

Australians compared with that in Southeast Asians. In Southeast Asia, selective

forces may have worked in a different fashion from those in Australia. The case

for local evolution of Southeast Asian physical features is strengthened by the

present synchronic and diachronic comparisons including Mesolithic and subse

quentSoutheast Asian samples.

•ôGH•ô Key Words•ôGS•ô: cranial shape, Southeast Asia, evolution.

INTRODUCTION

Attempts to understand the origin of Southeast Asians have been based on the

examination of living populations and studies of skeletal collections. The rather

wide morphological and genetic variations observed have produced a variety of

hypotheses about the physical composition of the early occupants of Southeast Asia

(Coon, 1962; Howells, 1973, 1989; Bowles, 1977; Brues, 1977; Glinka, 1981;

Turner, 1987, 1990; Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1988; Pietrusewsky, 1988, 1990, 1992;

Ballinger et al., 1992). It has been believed that the early inhabitants of Southeast

Asia were aborigines of different stock from today's Southeast Asians, or the

"Austraload" population, and that they were annihilated by the forebears of the

present inhabitants, the so-called "Mongoloid" population (Von Koenigswald, 1952;

Brues, 1977; Howells, 1976; Bellwood, 1978, 1985; Glinka, 1981). Of the various

typological classifications, however, it would be difficult to select any one as being

more accurate or scientific than another. Some investigators have advocated use of

the concept of localized or "geographical races" (earn, 1965; Bowles, 1977; Li et

al., 1991). The geographical race has the advantage of removing the preconception

390 T. HANIHARA

initially impressed on somatological traits, but it fails to take into consideration the

cultural distinctions and the difference of magnitude of admixture by which

localized ethnic groups can be distinguished within a given area (Bowies, 1977)."Negritos" is a term applied rather loosely to all short

, dark-skinned, frizzly- haired genetic isolates of Southeast Asia, inhabiting the mountainous regions of

central Malaya, and the coastal and inland localities of the larger islands of the

Philippines and the Andaman Islands. They have been attributed to the "Austraload"

population, mainly on the basis of their phenotypic resemblance to AustralianAborigines (Bowler, 1976; Howells, 1976; Thorne, 1976; Birdsell, 1977; Brues,1977; Bellwood, 1978, 1985; Glinka, 1981). However, in the geographical sense,

they actually belong to the Southeast Asians.

Omoto (1984, 1986, 1987, 1992) first pointed out that the Negritos may have

evolved in the late Pleistocene times, probably between 20,000 to 30,000 years ago,

in the tropical rain-forest of Sundaland and developed phenotypic peculiarities

through genetic adaptation. The dental and craniofacial features of Negritos also

show sings of adaptation suited to the conditions of their tropical rain-forest

environment; seldom are there found features of admixure with the East Asianinvaders (Hanihara, T., 1989, 1990a, b, 1991, 1992a, b, c, d). These lines of evidence

suggest that the Negritos may be a generalized Asian population and, therefore,

indicate the propriety of the local evolution model for the physical features of

present Southeast Asians.The two interpretations of the positioning of Negritos indicate that the synchronic

comparison of Negritos and Australian Aborigines can be considered as a means

to test the two hypotheses-traditional replacement hypothesis vs. hypothesis of

local evolution-for the population history of Southeast Asians. Using another

means to test the two hypotheses, diachronic comparison, Cheboksarov (1966),Bulbeck (1982), Turner (1987, 1990), Pietrusewsky (1988), and T. Hanihara (1992a,

b, 1993a, b) have formed a basis to support the local evolution hypothesis.

Given this background, the purpose of this paper is to assess the morphological

contrast between Negritos and Australian Aborigines and to include a small series

of Mesolithic and the subsequent Southeast Asians to show the results of synchronicand diachronic comparisons simultaneously.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the late 19th century and the early 20th century, a good number of anthropolo

gistsdescribed Negrito skulls and gave measurements (e.g., Owen, 1861, 1863;Busk, 1866; Flower, 1880, 1885, 1907; Quatrefages and Hamy, 1882; Turner, 1901;

Koeze, 1901-1904; Schlaginhaufen, 1907; Gupte, 1909). Their methods for meas

uringskulls were not standardized, however, and few data are presently usable for

Negritos, Australians, and Neighbors 391

comparison. Sullivan (1921) compiled the available craniofacial data of Andamanese,which are sometimes called Andaman Negritos. He added in his paper thecorresponding measurements for the series of the Philippine Negritos published butnot averaged by G.A. Koeze in 1901-1904 and a small series of the SemangNegrito skulls compiled by O. Schlaginhaufen. In 1931, Bonin (1931) investigatedthe population affinities of East and Southeast Asians including the Andamaneseand the Philippine Negritos. Judging from his paper, some of the skulls ofAndamanese and the Philippine Negritos measured are the same as those reportedby Sullivan (1921).

Brown (1989) investigated the cranial variation of 13 Australian Aboriginalsamples in detail, providing the mean values of 49 craniofacial measurements. Inthe present study, four samples of relatively large size representing specimens fromthe late Pleistocene to recent times were used. It is well known that Australian fossilsare presently divided into two groups, the "robust" type and the "gracile" type, afterThorne's classification of the relevant crania (Thorne, 1977; Habgood, 1986;Brown, 1989).

Table 1 summarizes the relevant information from the samples compared in thisstudy. As regards the samples from the Hoabinhian cultural age (Mesolithic) ofSoutheast Asia, mean values for each item were calculated from the four individualdata reported by Trevor and Brothwell (1962) (three individuals from Gua Cha site,Kelantan, Malaysia) and Cuong (1986) (one individual from Vietnam). All of thedata used are taken from male specimens.

In the present study, only 7 cranial measurements are used, as these are commonlyavailable: maximum cranial length (M1) (M: Martin's abbreviation, Martin andSaller, 1957); maximum cranial breadth (M8); basion-bregma height (M17);bizygomatic breadth (M45); upper facial height (M48); nasal breadth (M54); andnasal height (M55). These seven measurements are deemed reliable and sufficientfor comparison for the two following reasons. First, they have been widely adoptedby many anthropologists, and were shown to have a measurement error variance,intra- plus inter-observer, of less than 5% of the total variance by Sakura andMizoguchi (1983) and Mizoguchi (1988). Briefly, Sakura and Mizoguchi (1983)analyzed the intra- and inter-observer measurement errors by applying the analysisof variance for balanced hierarchal classification and two multivariate analyses,

principal component analysis and cluster analysis, based on the cranial data providedby six observers measuring the same five skulls independently twice. Second, withthe consent of W.W. Howells, K. Hanihara (1979, 1985a, b) applied cluster analysisto a correlation matrix between every pair of Howells' 57 linear measurements basedon 832 individuals in a world-wide sample (Howells, 1973, 1989), and found 12major clusters. He further applied principal component analysis to the samecorrelation matrix for extracting the factors which are orthogonal and account for

392 T. HANIHARA

Table 1. Materials used (number of male individuals in parentheses)

Negritos, Australians, and Neighbors 3.93

a large portion of the variation of the original data. He finally concluded that the

seven measurement items used in this study account for a large proportion of the

dispersion engendered by the large battery of measurements and represent geo

graphicalvariation most clearly. A more detailed presentation of the limitations ofthe data was described by the present author (Hanihara, T., 1993b).

In the comparison of Negritos and Australians, two additional measurement

items, cranial base length (M5) and facial length (M40) were added; from these,

the gnathic index can be calculated.

Table 2 gives the mean values of each measurement item for the populations

treated herein.

RESULTS

Figure 1 shows three neurocranial indices. For all the Negrito samples, the cranial

indices, length-breadth, length-height, and breadth-height, fall within the range

of brachycrany, hypsicrany, and metriocrany, respectively, with the exception of thelength-breadth index of the Semang Negrito sample (mesocrany). The Australian

Aboriginal samples have lower values for the length-breadth and length-height

indices, or in other words, are dolichocranic and ortho- to chamaecranic. As regards

the breadth-height index, on the other hand, the Australian samples have higher

value, being acrocranic.

In three values of the indices of facial parts, the gnathic index shows clear

separation between the Negrito samples and the Australian ones (Fig. 2). Except

for the Swanport sample, the Australian group is almost exclusively prognathic.

There is no clear separation between the Negrito and Australian samples in terns

of Kallmann's upper facial index and nasal index.

In the next step, group average cluster analysis was applied to Q-mode correlation

coefficients between every pair of samples (Fig. 3). As indicated in the previous

univariate analysis, the difference of craniofacial features between the Australian

and the Negrito groups is evident.

In the last analysis, multidimensional scaling was applied to the distance matrixtransformed from Q-mode correlation coefficients (Table 3) based on cranial

measurements recorded in 21 prehistoric and near-recent East and Southeast Asians

and Australians. The first two dimensions account for 88.4% of the total variance

(Fig. 4). The five Negrito samples fall within a relatively tight cluster adjacent toa constellation containing recent Island Southeast Asian groups, Jomonese, and one

Neolithic mainland Southeast Asian Ban Kao group. The Australian samples

represent a distinct group. The two Mesolithic samples from the Flores Islands and

the recent Vedda sample are plotted near the Australian cluster. The Hoabinhian

(Mesolithic) sample and the Bronze-Iron Ban Chiang sample from mainland

394 T. HANIHARA

Southeast Asia occupy an intermediate position between the Australian and Negrito

clusters, although widely spaced at the second axis. With the exception of the

affinities of the Chinese sample, these findings are in agreement with those obtained

in the previous studies based on the large battery of measurement items (Hanihara,

T., 1992d, 1993a). Although the Chinese sample occupies a peripheral branch in

this representation, it shows some affinities to two Mesolithic samples from Flores

Table 2. Mean values of the samples (males)

* Sebesta and Lebzelter (1928)

** Pietrusewsky (1981)

Negritos, Australians, and Neighbors 395

Fig. 1. Three neurocranial indices.

Fig. 2. Three facial indices.

396 T. HANIHARA

and the Bronze-Iron Ban Chiang sample from Thailand (Table 3). One of the reasons

for this discrepancy may be the lack of data on orbital measurements, on the breadth

of the neurocranial part, on facial flatness, or other pertinent characters which often

serve to distinguish East Asian cranial shape including Chinese (Hanihara, T.,

1992a, c, d, 1993a; Ishida, 1992). This requires further detailed analyses by large

battery of measurements. The position of the Jomonese sample also supports the

previous suggestion that the prehistoric Southeast Asians with lesser admixture withEast Asian invaders from the north were the most likely source for prehistoric

Jomonese (Mizoguchi, 1986; Hanihara, T., 1991, 1992a, b, c, d, 1993a, b).

DISCUSSION

In a previous study, I have argued that local selection in Southeast Asia is

responsible for the formation of the physical features of today's Southeast Asians.

This hypothesis is based on the following facts and interpretations: 1) The Negritoshave a somatological resemblance to the present Australian Aborigines, but have

the Southeast Asian sundadont dental pattern, whereas Australian dental features are

characterized by those representing a microevolutionary step prior to the emergence

Fig. 3. Cluster analysis applied to Q-mode correlation coefficients between 4 Australian and 5 Negrito

samples.

Negritos, Australians, and Neighbors 397

398 T. HANIHARA

of the sundadont pattern, or proto-sundadonty; and 2) Diachronic comparison

between Australians and Southeast Asians suggests that the Neolithic and the

subsequent Southeast Asians without intensive admixture with East Asians can be

regarded as members having recent Southeast Asian cranial features (Hanihara, T.,

1992a, b, c, d, 1993a, b).

The morphological difference between Australian Aborigines and Negritos is

predominant in the neurocranium and the magnitude of prognathism, and a clearseparation between the two groups is evident (Figs. 1, 2, and 3). Table 3 and Fig.

4 show what happens when the various samples of prehistoric and near-recent

Fig. 4. Two dimensional expression of multidimensional scaling applied to Q-mode correlation

coefficients between every pair of samples. The first and second axes account for 61.5% and

26.9% of the total variance, respectively, so that 88.4% of the total information which areincluded in the distance matrix of Table 3 is expressed.

Negritos, Australians, and Neighbors 399

Southeast Asians are compared with the Negrito and Australian samples. The

Australian and Negrito clusters retain their identities. As described previously, the

term "Negritos" has been rather loosely applied to all Southeast Asian isolated tribes

with short stature, dark skin, and frizzy hair (Coon, 1962; Bowles, 1977; Brues,

1977; Bellwood, 1978, 1985; Glinka, 1981; Omoto, 1984). The present findings

suggest that the cranial features of the so-called Negritos show relatively distinctive

characteristics among the Southeast Asian populations. Because the measurement

items are quite restricted and the Semang Negrito sample is small, however, this

interpretation should be viewed as preliminary. A large number of Southeast Asians

from the Neolithic and the subsequent periods including the prehistoric Jomonese

show close affinities to Negritos. At the same time, they are clearly distinguishable

from East Asian Chinese from the cranial morphological viewpoint. This sustains

the suggestion previously offered, mainly on the basis of dental morphology, thatan area extending from mainland Southeast Asia in the west through Borneo to the

larger islands of the Philippines was inhabited by people similar at least in physical

features (Hanihara, T., 1990a, b, 1991, 1992a, b, c, d).

The present study includes samples which are chronologically earlier than those

treated in the author's previous studies: the late Pleistocene Australians and island

as well as mainland Southeast Asians. The cranial features of the late Pleistocene

Mesolithic Southeast Asians have something in common with those of Australian

Aborigines and the Neolithic and more recent Southeast Asians. However, both

Table 3 and Fig. 4 emphasize the relative homogeneity of the late Pleistocene

Australian sample from Coobool Creek and the subsequent Cohuna, Swanport, and

Murray Valley samples. In other words, the late Pleistocene and early Holocene

Australian samples which are morphologically identified as robust type (Cohuna and

Coobool Creek) are more similar to the gracile late Holocene Australian samples

(Swanport and Murray Valley) than either is to the late Pleistocene mainland or theisland Southeast Asians. These lines of evidence support the biological distinctive

nessof Australian Aborigines, though implying the existence of ancient ancestral

ties of Australians with Southeast Asians probably 40,000-50,000 years B.P.

(Birdsell, 1977; Pietrusewsky, 1984, 1990, 1992). This may be a sign of divergencein cranial shape among the late Pleistocene and Holocene populations of the

different geographic areas, Australia and Southeast Asia, suggesting separate and

distinct processes of human evolution between the two regions.

What caused the differences? Differentiation as a response to climatic factors is

a familiar suggestion (Howells, 1966; Beals, 1972; Bowies, 1977; Guglielmino-

Matassi et al., 1979; Mizoguchi, 1984, 1992; Hanihara, K., 1985a, 1987, 1991;

Kouchi, 1986; Brace et al., 1989, 1990; Brace and Hunt, 1990). Omoto (1984)

regarded Negritos as specialized in having reduced size and increased gracilization

resulting from the environmental influence of the tropical rain-forest. According to

400 T. HANIHARA

Omoto (1984), the selective advantages of small body size in hot, wet climatic

conditions are clear: smaller caloric needs, more efficient body cooling, and the

relative ease of moving through dense vegetation.

These seem quite likely to have caused the adaptations in not only the cranial

form but indeed the total body build which distinguish many of the natives of

Southeast Asia from the original native populations of Australia. The present

findings suggest that the cranial features of Negritos are no exception.

It is a matter of added interest that the available samples representing the Veddasshow the closest affinities to Australian Aborigines in the recent samples (Table 3

and Fig. 4). The racial affinities of the Veddas are still to be established. According

to Coon (1962), only a few hundred unmixed Veddas are left in Ceylon. They werethe sole inhabitants of much of the forested interior of the northern half of the island.

Racially, they are primarily Australoid, but some of them are partly Caucasoid

(Duggins and Trotter, 1959; Coon, 1962; Garn, 1965; Pritchard, 1973; Bowles,1977; Brues, 1977). If the Australian Aborigines and the Veddas shared ancestral

ties with each other, as seems likely, then it is probable that selection pressure and

other factors would have worked in more similar fashions in Australia and Ceylon

than in Australia and Southeast Asia.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Professor K. Omoto and Professor B.

Endo of the Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Science, the University of

Tokyo; Professor T. Yohro of the Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine,

the University of Tokyo; Professor H. Ishida and Professor K. Katayama of theDepartment of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Kyoto University; and Professor M.

Pietrusewsky of the Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii-Manoa, fortheir kind permission to study the materials under their care.

I am deeply indebted to Professor Y. Dodo and Professor H. Ishida of the

Department of Anatomy, Sapporo Medical College, for their encouragement,

invaluable support, and critical advice.

This study was supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research Nos.

01740483, 02740412, 03740424, and 04212118, from the Japanese Ministry of

Education, Science, and Culture.

REFERENCES

Ballinger, S.W., Schurr, T.G., Torroni, A., Gan, Y.Y., Hodge, J.A., Hassan, K., Chen, K.H., andWallace, D.C. (1992) Southeast Asian mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals genetic continuity ofancient Mongoloid migrations. Genetics 130, 139-152.

Beals, K.L. (1972) Head form and climatic stress. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 37, 85-92.

Negritos, Australians, and Neighbors 401

Bellwood, P. (1978) Man's Conquest of the Pacific: The Prehistory of Southeast Asia and Oceania,Oxford Univ. Press, New York.

Bellwood, P. (1985) Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago, Academic Press, Sydney.Bellwood, P. (1987) The prehistory of island Southeast Asia: A multidisciplinary review of recent

research. J. World Prehist. 1, 171-224.Birdsell, J.B. (1977) The recalibration of a paradigm for the first peopling of greater Australia. In Sunda

and Sahul: Prehistoric Studies in Southeast Asia, Melanesia, and Australia (Allen, J., Golson, J.,and Jones, R., eds.), Academic Press, London, pp. 113-167.

Bonin, G. (1931) Betrag zur Kraniologie von Ost-Asian. Biometrika 23, 52-95.Bowler, J.M. (1976) Recent developments in reconstructing late Quaternary environments in Australia.

In The Origin of the Australians (Kirk, R.L., and Thorne, A.G., eds.), Australian Institute ofAboriginal Studies, Canberra, pp. 55-77.

Bowles, G.T. (1977) The People of Asia, Charles Scribner's and Sons, New York.Brace, L.C., Brace, M.L., Dodo, Y., Hunt, K.D., Leonard, W.R., Li, Y., Sangvichien, S., Xiang-Qing,

S., and Zhenbiao, Z. (1990) Micronesians, Asians, Thais, and relations: A craniofacial andodontometric perspective. Micronesica (Suppl.) 2, 323-348.

Brace, C.L., Brace, M.L., and Leonard, W.R. (1989) Reflections on the face of Japan: A multivariatecraniofacial and odontometric perspective. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 78, 93-113.

Brace, C.L., and Hunt, K.D. (1990) A nonracial craniofacial perspective on human variation:A(ustralia) to Z(uni). Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 82, 341-360.

Brown, P. (1989) Coobool Creek: A Morphological and Metrical Analysis of the Crania, Mandiblesand Dentitions of a Prehistoric Australian Human Population, The Australian National University,Canberra.

Brues, A.M. (1977) People and Race, The Macmillan Series in Physical Anthropology, MacmillanPublishing Co., New York.

Bulbeck, D. (1982) A re-evaluation of possible evolutionary processes in Southeast Asia since the latePleistocene. Bull. Indo-Pacific Prehist. Assoc. 3, 1-21.

Busk, G. (1866) Description of two Andamanese skulls. Trans. Ethnol. Soc. London, New Series 4,205.

Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Piazza, A., Menozzi, P., and Mountain, J. (1988) Reconstruction of humanevolution: Bringing together genetic archaeological and linguistic data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA85, 6002-6006.

Cheboksarov, N.N. (1966) The Ethnic Anthropology of Eastern Asia, Nauka, Moscow.Coon, C.S. (1962) The Origin of Races, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.Cuong, N.L. (1986) Two early Hoabinhian crania from Thanh Hoa Province, Vietnam. Z. Morph.

Anthrop. 77, 11-17.Duggins, O.H., and Trotter, M. (1959) Hair from a Kadar woman of India. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

17, 95-98.Flower, W.H. (1880) On the osteology and affinities of the natives of the Andaman Islands. J.

Anthropol. Inst. Great Britain and Ireland 9. (Cited from Sullivan, 1921)Flower, W.H. (1885) Additional observations on the osteology of the natives of the Andaman Isaland.

J. Anthropol. Inst. Great Britain and Ireland 14. (Cited from Sullivan, 1921)Flower, W.H. (1907) Catalogue of the Osteological Specimens Contained in the Museum of the Royal

Collage o f Surgeons of England, Part 1, Man, Museum of the Royal College, Oxford.Gabriel, K.R. (1971) The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component

analysis. Biometrika 58, 453-467.

402 T. HANIHARA

Garn, S.M. (1965) Human Races, Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Springfield/Illinois.

Glinka, J. (1981) Racial history of Indonesia. In Rassengeschichite der Menschheit (Schwidetzky, I.,ed.), R. Lodenbourg, Munchen/Wien, pp. 97-113.

Guglielmino-Matessi, C.R., Gluckman, P., and Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. (1979) Climate and evolution ofskull metrics in man. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 50, 549-564.

Gupte, B.A. (1909) Craniological Data from the Indian Museum of Calcutta, Ethnographic Surveyof India, India.

Habgood, P.J. (1986) The origin of the Australians: A multivariate approach. Arclreol. Oceania 21,130-137.

Hanihara, K. (1979) Selection of cranial measurement items by means of cluster analysis. Surikagaku

(Mathematical Science) 190, 9-14. (In Japanese)Hanihara, K. (1985a) Geographic variation of modern Japanese crania and its relationship to the origin

of Japanese. Homo 36, 1-10.Hanihara, K. (1985b) Origins and affinities of Japanese viewed from cranial measurements. In Out

of Asia: Peopling the Americas and the Pacific (Kirk, R.L., and Szathmary, E., eds.), Aust. Nat.Univ. Press, Canberra, pp. 105-112.

Hanihara, K. (1987) Estimation of the number of early migrants to Japan: A simulative study. J.Anthrop. Soc. Nippon 95, 391-403.

Hanihara, K. (1991) Dual structure model for the population history of Japanese. Japan Review 2,1-33.

Hanihara, T. (1989) Affinities of the Philippine Negritos as viewed from dental characters: A

preliminary report. J. Anthrop. Soc. Nippon 97, 327-339.Hanihara, T. (1990a) Affinities of the Philippine Negritos with modem Japanese and the Pacific

populations based on dental measurements: The basic populations in East Asia, I. J. Anthrop. Soc.Nippon 98, 13-27.

Hanihara, T. (1990b) Dental anthropological evidence of affinities among the Oceania and the Pan-Pacific populations: The basic populations in East Asia, II. J. Anthrop. Soc. Nippon 98, 233-246.

Hanihara, T. (1991) Population Prehistory of East Asia and the Pacific in the Late Pleistocene andHolocene: A Dental and Craniofacial Perspective, Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Tokyo.

Hanihara, T. (1992a) Dental and cranial evidence on affinities of the East Asian and Pacific

populations. In Japan in the World IV: Japanese as a Member of the Asian and Pacific Populations,International Research Symposium No. 4 (Hanihara, K., ed.), IRCJS Press, Kyoto, pp. 119-136.

Hanihara, T. (1992b) Dental and cranial affinities among the populations in East Asia and the Pacific:The basic populations in East Asia, IV. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 88, 163-182.

Hanihara, T. (1992c) Negritos, Australian Aborigines, and the "proto-sundadont" dental pattern: Thebasic populations in East Asia, V. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 88, 183-196.

Hanihara, T. (1992d) Biological relationships among southeast Asians, Jomonese, and the Pacific

populations as viewed from dental characters: The basic populations in East Asia, X. J. Anthrop.Soc. Nippon 100, 53-67.

Hanihara T. (1993a) Craniofacial features of Southeast Asians and Jomonese: A reconsideration oftheir microevolution since the late Pleistocene. Anthropol. Sci. 101, 25-46.

Hanihara T. (1993b) Population prehistory of East Asia and the Pacific as viewed from craniofacialmorphology: The basic populations in East Asia, VII. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 91, 173-187.

Hill, W.C.O. (1941) The physical anthropology of the existing Veddas of Ceylon, Part 1. Ceylon J.Sci. (G) 3, 84-144.

Howells, W.W. (1966) Population distances: Biological, linguistic, geographical, and environmental.

Negritos, Australians, and Neighbors 403

Curr. Anthropol. 7, 531-540.Howells, W.W. (1973) Cranial Variation in Man: A Study by Multivariate Analysis of Patterns of

Difference among Recent Human Populations, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeologyand Ethnology Vol. 67, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge.

Howells, W.W. (1976) Physical variation and history in Melanesia and Australia. Am. J. Plays.Anthropol. 45, 641-650.

Howells, W.W. (1989) Skull Shapes and the Map: Craniometric Analyses in the Dispersion of ModernHomo, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 79, Harvard Univ.Press, Cambridge.

Ishida, H. (1992) Flatness of facial skeletons in Siberian and other circum-Pacific populations. Z.Morph. Anthrop. 79, 53-67.

Koeze, G.A. (1901-1904) Crania Ethnica Philippinica, Haarlem.Kouchi, M. (1986) Geographic variations in modern Japanese somatometric data: A secular change

hypothesis. University Museum, The University of Tokyo Bulletin 27, 93-106.Li, Y., Brace, C.L., Qiang, G., and Tracer, D.P. (1991) Dimensions of face in Asia in the perspective

of geography and prehistory. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 85, 269-279.Mizoguchi, Y. (1984) A statistical analysis of volumetric variation in the neurocranium. Bull. Natn.

Sci. Mus., Tokyo, Ser. D 10, 19-32.Mizoguchi, Y. (1986) Contributions of prehistoric Far East populations to the population of modern

Japan: A Q-mode path analysis based on cranial measurements. In Prehisoric Hunter-Gatherersin Japan (Akazawa, T., and Aikens, C.M., eds). Univ. of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, pp. 107-136.

Mizoguchi, Y. (1988) Affinities of the protohistoric Kofun people of Japan with pre- and proto-historicAsian populations. J. Anthrop. Soc. Nippon 96, 71-109.

Mizoguchi, Y. (1992) An interpretation of brachycephalization based on the analysis of correlationsbetween cranial and postcranial measurements. In Craniofacial Variation in Pacific Populations

(Brown, T., and Molnar, S., eds.), Gillingham Printers, Adelaide, pp. 1-19.Omoto, K. (1984) The Negritos: Genetic origins and microevolution. Acta Anthropogenetica 8,

137-147.Omoto, K. (1986) Racial formation in East Asia and the Pacific. In The Origin of Japanese (Hanihara,

K., ed.), Shogakukan, Tokyo, pp. 139-160. (In Japanese)Omoto, K. (1987) Discovery of Man: Molecular Anthropology, Yomiuri Kagaku Sensho 14, Tokyo.

(In Japanese)Omoto, K. (1992) Mongoloid populations in north and south: The origins and variation of Mongoloids.

Science J. Kagaku 62, 217-226. (In Japanese)Owen, R. (1861) On the psychical and physical characters of the mincopies. Brit. Assoc. Adv. Sci.

1861, 241. (Cited from Sullivan, 1921)Owen, R. (1863) On the Psychical and Physical characters of the mincopies. Trans. Ethnol. Soc.

London, New Series 2. (Cited from Sullivan, 1921)Pietrusewsky, M. (1981) Cranial variation in early Metal age Thailand and Southesast Asia studied

by multivariate precedures. Homo 32, 1-26.Pietrusewsky, M. (1984) Metric and non-metric cranial variation in Australian Aboriginal populations

compared with populations from the Pacific and Asia, Occasional Papers in Human Biology 3,Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Pietrusewsky, M. (1988) Multivariate comparisons of recently excavated Neolithic human crania fromthe Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Intnat. J. Anthropol. 3, 267-283.

Pietrusewsky, M. (1990) Craniofacial variation in Australasian and Pacific populations. Am. J. Phys.

404 T. HANIHARA

Anthropol. 82, 319-340.Pietrusewsky, M. (1992) Japan, Asia and the Pacific: A multivariate craniometric investigation. In

Japan in the World IV: Japanese as a Member of the Asian and Pacific Populations, InternationalResearch Symposium No. 4 (Hanihara, K., ed.), IRCJS Press, Kyoto, pp. 9-52.

Pritchard, E.E. (1973) Peoples of the Earth, No. 12, Europa Verlag Anstalt, London.

Quatrefages, A., and Hamy E.T. (1882) Crania Ethnica: Les Cranes des Races Humaines, Paris. (Citedfrom Sullivan, 1921)

Sakura, H., and Mizoguchi, Y. (1983) Measurement errors in craniometry. J. Anthrop. Soc. Nippon91, 69-78.

Sangvichien, S., Sirigaroon, P., and Jorgensen, J.B. (1969) Archaeological excavations in Thailand,Vol. 3, Ban-Kao, Kopenhagen.

Schlaginhaufen, O. (1907) Ein Beitrag zur Craniologie der Semang nebst Allgemeinen Beitragen zurCraniologie. Zoologischen und Anthropologisch-Ethnographischen Museums zu Dresden 11.

(Cited from Sullivan, 1921)Sebesta, P., and Lebzelter, V. (1928) Anthropological measurements in Semangs and Sakais in Malaya

(Malacca). Anthropologie 3/4, 183-251.Sullivan, L.R. (1921) A few Andamanese skulls with comparative notes on Negrito craniometry.

Anthropol. Pap. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 23, 177-201.Sussanne, C., Vercauteren, M., Krasnicanova, H., Jaeger, V., Hauspie, R., and Bruzek, J. (1988)

Evolution seculaire des dimensions cephaliques. Bull. et Mme. de la Soc. d'Anthropol. de Paris,t. 5 14, 151-162.

Tildesley, M.L. (1921) A first study of the Burmese skull. Biometrika 13, 176-260.Thorne, A.G. (1976) Morphological contrasts in Pleistocene Australians. In The Origin of the

Australians (Kink, R.L. and Thorne, A.G., eds.), Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies,Canberra, pp. 95-112.

Thorne, A.G. (1977) Separation or reconciliation? Biological clues to the development to Australiansociety. In Sunda and Sahul: Prehistoric Studies in Southeast Asia, Melanesia and Australia

(Allen, J., Golson, J., and Jones, R. eds.), Academic Press, London, pp. 187-204.Trevor, J.C., and Brothwell, D.R. (1962) The human remains of Mesolithic and Neolithic date from

Gua Cha, Kelantan. Federation Museums J. 7, 6-22.Turner, C.G., II (1987) Late Pleistocene and Holocene population history of East Asia based on dental

variation. Am J. Phys. Anthropol. 73, 305-321.Turner, C.G., II (1990) Major features of sundadonty and sindonty, including suggestions about East

Asian microevolution, population history and late Pleistocene relationships with AustralianAboriginals. Am J. Phys. Anthropol. 82, 295-317.

Turner, Sir W. (1901) Contributions to the craniology of the people of the empire of India, Part II.Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 11 (Part 1, No.6), 59-130.

Verhoeven, T.H. (1958) Pleistozane Funde in Flores. Anthropos 53, 264-265.Von Koenigswald, G.H.R. (1952) Evidence of a prehistoric Austral-melanesoid population in Malaya

and Indonesia. Southwest J. Anthropol. 8, 92-96.Weidenreich, F. (1941) The brain and its role in the phylogenetic transformation of the human skull.

Trans. Am. Phil. Soc., N.S. 31, 321-442.