According to genetic results, apporx. 50% or more Japanese are of continental origin (korean/chinese). However, there are significant jomon/ainu bloods in them.
I think on average, japanese appearances are nowhere in east asian.
My guess is due to the the distorsion introduced by jomon/ainu bloods, and their unique facial structures. I guess, there must be some japanese who could be almost deemed as chinese or korean, but there are japanese who is completely outside the chinese/korean facial features.
---------------
http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/brown99.pdf
The first modern East Asians ?:
another look at Upper Cave
101, Liujiang and Minatogawa 1
Peter Brown
Department of Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology
University of New England
Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
MINATOGAWA 1
The Minatogawa 1 male skeleton was found in 1970 at the
Minatogawa limestone quarry on Okinawa (Suzuki and Hanihara 1982).
111
The first modern East Asians?: another look at Upper Cave 101, Liujiang and Minatogawa 1
Three female skeletons, in varying states of preservation, and assorted
other fragments were also recovered. The Minatogawa skeletons have
been described in detail in Suzuki and Hanihara (1982), with Suzuki
(1982) describing the crania. Additional comparative information can
be found in Baba and Nerasaki (1991). The Minatogawa 1 cranium is
not as complete as Liujiang and Upper Cave 101, particularly in the
basi-cranium, facial skeleton and temporal regions. Several of the
dimensions used in the analysis to follow had to be estimated.
Unlike Liujiang and Upper Cave there does not appear to have
been any concern over the reliability of the dating of Minatogawa.
Radiocarbon dates of 18,250 ±650 to 16,600 ±300 years BP were obtained
from charcoal inside the fissure (Kobayashi et al. 1974). Fluorine content
of human and non-human bones within the site suggested that they
were contemporaneous (Matsu'ura 1982). Assuming that the site was
well stratified, that the carbon dates do bracket the skeletons and that
the skeletons were not intrusive, then Minatogawa remains do have a
strong claim to being the earliest modern human skeletons in East Asia.
Overall, the scatter plot of Functions 1 and 2 indicate the relative morphological
similarity of the modern and Neolithic Chinese groups, while the
modern Japanese are closer to a wider range of East Asian and Native
American populations. Plots of the total group dispersions associated
with Figure 3 revealed the large degree of overlap between the Neolithic
and modern Chinese and between the modern Japanese, Anyang,
Hainan and Native American groups. The Eskimo and Ainu were more
distinct, as were both of the Australian Aboriginal groups.
Please note that northern and southern japanese are in the middle point between N/S chinese and ainu/jomon/minatogawa. This represents the japanese population
divided into the two completely diverged skull/facial structures.
I think on average, japanese appearances are nowhere in east asian.
My guess is due to the the distorsion introduced by jomon/ainu bloods, and their unique facial structures. I guess, there must be some japanese who could be almost deemed as chinese or korean, but there are japanese who is completely outside the chinese/korean facial features.
---------------
http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/brown99.pdf
The first modern East Asians ?:
another look at Upper Cave
101, Liujiang and Minatogawa 1
Peter Brown
Department of Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology
University of New England
Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
MINATOGAWA 1
The Minatogawa 1 male skeleton was found in 1970 at the
Minatogawa limestone quarry on Okinawa (Suzuki and Hanihara 1982).
111
The first modern East Asians?: another look at Upper Cave 101, Liujiang and Minatogawa 1
Three female skeletons, in varying states of preservation, and assorted
other fragments were also recovered. The Minatogawa skeletons have
been described in detail in Suzuki and Hanihara (1982), with Suzuki
(1982) describing the crania. Additional comparative information can
be found in Baba and Nerasaki (1991). The Minatogawa 1 cranium is
not as complete as Liujiang and Upper Cave 101, particularly in the
basi-cranium, facial skeleton and temporal regions. Several of the
dimensions used in the analysis to follow had to be estimated.
Unlike Liujiang and Upper Cave there does not appear to have
been any concern over the reliability of the dating of Minatogawa.
Radiocarbon dates of 18,250 ±650 to 16,600 ±300 years BP were obtained
from charcoal inside the fissure (Kobayashi et al. 1974). Fluorine content
of human and non-human bones within the site suggested that they
were contemporaneous (Matsu'ura 1982). Assuming that the site was
well stratified, that the carbon dates do bracket the skeletons and that
the skeletons were not intrusive, then Minatogawa remains do have a
strong claim to being the earliest modern human skeletons in East Asia.
Overall, the scatter plot of Functions 1 and 2 indicate the relative morphological
similarity of the modern and Neolithic Chinese groups, while the
modern Japanese are closer to a wider range of East Asian and Native
American populations. Plots of the total group dispersions associated
with Figure 3 revealed the large degree of overlap between the Neolithic
and modern Chinese and between the modern Japanese, Anyang,
Hainan and Native American groups. The Eskimo and Ainu were more
distinct, as were both of the Australian Aboriginal groups.
Please note that northern and southern japanese are in the middle point between N/S chinese and ainu/jomon/minatogawa. This represents the japanese population
divided into the two completely diverged skull/facial structures.
Last edited:
Ryukyuan/Ainu/Jomon)
