Skip to main content
Ref ID: 24696
Ref Type: Book Section
Authors: Pietrusewsky, Michael
Title: Taiwan aboriginals, Asians and Pacific Islanders: a multivariate investigation of skulls
Date: 1995
Source: Symposium Series of the Insitute of History and Philosophy
Place of Publication: Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China
Publisher: Academica Sinica
Abstract: MALES ONLY The Austronesian language family streches from Easter Island to Madagascar. (295) Compared to other Austronesian speakers, the aboriginal tribes of Taiwan are frequently characterized as the most differentiated linguistically, culturally and biologically (Chai 1967, 1984
Howells 1973b: 251, 1989:10). (296) The majority of Chinese living in Taiwan today can trace their ancestry to Fujian and Quangdong Provinces (Chai 1984:113). (496) the following variables using stepwise analysis are the strongest indicators: maximum cranial breadth, alveolar length, nasion-prosthion height, basion-nasion, and nasal height. (302) First Canonical variates are primarily the result of variation in biorbital breadth, alveolar length, nasion-prosthion height, nasal height, and naso-occipital length. This function can be defined as an upper facial breadth and facial height discriminator. (302-3) Earlier views that differences in size strongly influence inter-population distances at the regional level (Relethford 1984:193) and that differences in size can greatly outweigh differences in shape (Corruccini 193:743) are not supported by the results present in this study. A very similar conclusion was reached by Green (1990), who found that removing this size-based component has had little effect in interpreting craniometric variability in crania from Papua New Guinea. (309) The distinction between Atayal, Anyang and Chinese living on Hainan and Taiwan Islands (these latter trace their ancestry to Fujian and Quangdong Provinces on the adjacent Chinese mainland), and the samples from Manchuria, Japan, and Korea found in the present analysis, reinforces Bowle's north-south distinction, and to a lesser extent, Turner's recognition of two dental complexes, Sinodont and Sundadont (Turner 1985, 1987, 1990). Turner (1987) and Turner and Lien (1984) have investigated the dental variation in the Atayal series as well as a few prehistoric Taiwan skeletal series. Depending on which traits are used, Atayal invariably align with Sinodonts (modern Chinese and Japanese), results which these authors attribute to admixture with recent Chinese immigrants to Taiwan. (311) Links between the Atayal and Southeast Asia (e.g. Viet Nam) further foudn in the present analysis, strengthens this assertion and lends support to Howells opinion that Taiwan Aborginals quite possibly represent a biological diversity in human populations which existed in South China when Taiwan was colonized by food producing people (Howells 1983:304). (311) There is no evidence in the cranial data to connect Atayal directly with Polnesians or the Oceanic division of this language family. (312) PAGE 312-312 1) recognition of a basic division between Australo-Melanesain and Asiatic series. In the vernacular this may be categorized Australoid versus Mongoloid. 2) The basic split within the Mongoloid branch is between Southeast Asia (island and mainland) and more northernly Asiatic groups. 3) Taiwan Aboriginals (Atayal) go with Shang Dynasty Chinese (Anyang) and Tawain and Hainan Island Chinese and together, these set off from, and at times intermediate to, Southeast Asian and more nothernly Asiatic groups, Chinese, Japanese and Koreans. 4) Other more marginal Mongoloid groups include a separate and distinct Ainu-Jomon cluseter, an isolated Mongolian series and a Polynesian / Chamorro group. 5) There is little or no support for a Ainu-Jomon-Pacific groupsing in these analyses to suggest ancestry of Polynesians and prehistoric Japanese. 6) The Atayal crania are not related to Polynesian, Chamorro or any other Oceanic series included int he present analyses. 7) Relatively few measurements: palate (alveolar) length, facial and nasal heights, crnail vault length and height and interorbital distances, are primarily responsible for group separation in these analyses. 8) removal of the size-related component has little or no effect on the pattern or craniometric variation exhibited by the groups analyzed.
Date Created: 7/5/2001
Editors: Jen-Kuei Li, P.
Tsang, Cheng-hwa
Huang, Ying-kuei
Ho, Dan an
Tseng, Chiu yu
Page Start: 295
Page End: 351