Genetic and anthropometric studies on Japanese people

Japanese archipelago connected to the Korean peninsula by a land bridge (3.5–2 Ma) allowing early human migration.

In population genetics, extensive research has been done on the genetic origins of modern Japanese people.

Historically, Japanese people received genetic contributions from peoples related to the Jōmon period, ^[1] Yayoi period, ^{[2] [3]} and arguably, the Kofun period (Toraijin). ^{[4] [5]}

Genetically, they are categorized into three separate, but related groups: Ainu, Ryukyuan and Mainland (Yamato). According to modern genetic analyses, they primarily have Northeast Asian, East Asian, and to a lesser extent, heterogeneous Jōmon ancestries. ^{[6] [7]}

Anthropologically, they are classified under the "Northeast Asian" cluster and show strong resemblance with Koreans ^{[8] [9]} and to an extent, southern East Asian groups. ^{[10] [11]}

Origins

Main articles: Jōmon people, Yayoi people, and Genetic history of East Asians § Japanese people

Dual ancestry theory

Glacier cover in Japan at the height of the last glaciation about 20,000 years ago with the land bridge now gone.

A common origin of Japanese has been proposed by a number of scholars since Arai Hakuseki first brought up the theory and Fujii Sadamoto (藤井 貞幹), also known as Teikan Tou  ^{[ ja ]} (藤 貞幹), a pioneer of modern archaeology in Japan, also treated the issue in 1781. ^[12] But after the end of World War II, Kotondo Hasebe  ^{[ ja ]} (長谷部 言人) and Hisashi Suzuki ^{[ ja]} (鈴木 尚) claimed that the origin of Japanese people was not the newcomers in the Yayoi period (300 BCE – 300 CE) but the people in the Jōmon period. ^[6] However, Kazuro Hanihara  ^{[ ja ]} (埴原 和郎) announced a new racial admixture theory in 1984. ^[6] Hanihara also announced the theory "dual structure model" in English in 1991. ^[13] According to Hanihara, modern Japanese lineages began with Jōmon people, who moved into the Japanese archipelago during the Paleolithic. Hanihara believed that there was a second wave of immigrants, from Northeast Asia to Japan from the Yayoi period. Following a population expansion in Neolithic times, these newcomers then found their way to the Japanese archipelago sometime during the Yayoi period. As a result, miscegenation was common in the island regions of Kyūshū, Shikoku, and Honshū, but did not prevail in the outlying islands of Okinawa and Hokkaidō, and the Ryukyuan and Ainu people continued to dominate there. Mark J. Hudson claimed that the main ethnic image of Japanese people was biologically and linguistically formed from 400 BCE to 1,200 CE. ^[6] Currently, the most well-regarded theory is that present-day Japanese are descendants of both the indigenous Jōmon people and the immigrant Yayoi people.

Main migration routes into Japan during the Jōmon and Yayoi period.

On the other hand, a study published in October 2009 by the National Museum of Nature and Science et al. concluded that the Minatogawa Man, who was found in Okinawa and was regarded as evidence that the Jōmon people were not a homogenous group and that these southern Jōmon came to Japan via a southern route and had a slender and more neo-Mongoloid face unlike the Northern Jōmon. ^[14] Hiroto Takamiya of Sapporo University suggested that the people of Kyushu immigrated to Okinawa between the 10th and 12th centuries CE. ^{[15] [16]} Regardless, both Northern and Southern Jōmon were craniofacially different from modern Mainland Japanese and had European-like features ^[17] and a 'well-defined and less flat upper face' respectively. ^[18] But they still had hair and teeth morphology that was characteristic of East Asian peoples, especially Northern Jōmon. ^[17]

• A 2011 study by Sean Lee and Toshikazu Hasegawa ^[19] reported that a common origin of Japonic languages had originated around 2,182 years before present. ^[20]

• A 2015 study revealed that modern Japanese possess 2.2% West Eurasian ancestry, which likely originated from interactions with Silk Road traders around 1700 years ago. ^[21]

Phylogenetic tree of Ainu, Ryukyuan, Mainland Japanese, and other Asian ethnic groups. The Ainu and the Ryukyuan were clustered with 100% bootstrap probability, followed by the Mainland Japanese. The three populations in the Japanese archipelago clustered with the Korean with 100% bootstrap probability.

The modern Japanese cluster is said to be the most similar with the Korean one; in a haplotype-based study, the Japanese cluster was found to share 87–94% of its genetic components with the Korean cluster, compared with a Han Chinese result of only 0–8%, a distinct contrast. Moreover, the genetic affinity to the Korean cluster was particularly strong among a cluster hailing from Shimane specifically and Honshu more broadly, but relatively less pronounced, albeit still overwhelming, in the Kyushu clusters. In any case, however, the study clarifies that "the estimate of ancestry profile cannot provide the definitive history of original migration, unless it will be further verified against historical evidence." ^[8] Some studies suggest a genetic connection between Koreans and Southeast Asian populations. A 2017 study by Ulsan University analyzed a 7,700-year-old skull in Korea, finding evidence of genetic links to ancient populations, including those from Southeast Asia, such as Vietnamese people. This research highlights the complex migration patterns in East Asia’s prehistory. ^[24] Similarly, Japanese research conducted in 1999 proposed that the Yayoi people, an ancient population contributing to modern Japanese ancestry, may have migrated from the Yangtze River basin in southern China. This was supported by DNA analyses showing similarities between Yayoi remains in southwestern Japan and early Han Dynasty remains from China’s Jiangsu Province. ^[25] However, other studies suggest that modern Koreans share closer genetic ties with Central Asian and Northern East Asian populations. A mitochondrial DNA analysis revealed a genetic affinity between Koreans and Mongolians, indicating a shared Central Asian ancestry. Additionally, genetic research suggests that while Koreans share some common ancestry with other East Asian populations, their genetic ties with the Chinese are relatively more distant. ^[26] Genome-wide studies further demonstrate that Koreans are genetically closest to Yamato Japanese and Manchu populations, reflecting shared ancestry and historical interactions, while genetic connections between Koreans and Southeast Asians are more limited. ^{[27] [28]}

• 

  A population genomic PCA graph, showing the substructure of Eastern Asian populations, including analyzed Japanese Jōmon samples. Japanese people's cluster (squares) is almost indistinguishable to the Korean people's cluster (circles), while the Jōmon samples are shifted towards the Siberian cluster in a more distinct position. (2020)

  The origins of the Jōmon and Yayoi people have often been a subject of dispute, and a recent Japanese publisher ^[30] has divided the potential routes of the people living on the Japanese archipelago as follows:
  • Aboriginals that have been living in Japan for more than 10,000 years. (Without geographic distinction, which means, the group of people living in islands from Hokkaido to Okinawa may all be considered to be Aboriginals in this case.)
  • Immigrants from the northern route (北方ルート in Japanese) including the people from the Korean peninsula, mainland China and Sakhalin Island.
  • Immigrants from the southern route (南方ルート in Japanese) including the people from the Pacific Islands, Southeast Asia, and in some context, India. However, a clear consensus has not been reached. ^{[31] [32] [33] [34] [35]}

• A study in 2017 estimates the Jōmon ancestry in people from Tokyo at approximately 12%. ^[36]

• In 2018, an independent research conducted by director Kenichi Shinoda ^{[ ja]} (篠田 謙一) and his team at National Museum of Nature and Science was broadcast on NHK Science ZERO and it was discovered that the modern day Japanese are genetically extremely close to the modern day Koreans. ^[37] A genome study (Takahashi et al. 2019) shows that modern Japanese (Yamato) do not have much Jōmon ancestry at all. Nuclear genome analysis of Jōmon samples and modern Japanese samples show strong differences. ^[38] Various studies estimate the proportion of Jōmon ancestry in Japanese people at around 9-13%, with the remainder derived from later migrations from Asia including the Yayoi people. ^{[36] [39] [40]}

Ancestry profile of Japanese genetic clusters illustrating their genetic similarities to five mainland Asian populations.

• Gyaneshwer Chaubey and George van Driem (2020) suggest that the Jōmon people were rather heterogeneous, and that there was also a pre-Yayoi migration during the Jōmon period, which may be linked to the arrival of the Japonic languages, meaning that Japonic is one of the Jōmon languages. This migration is suggested to have happened before 6000BC, thus before the actual Yayoi migration. ^[42]

Some theories propose that the Yayoi people introduced wet rice cultivation to Japan from the Korean peninsula and Jiangnan near the Yangtze River Delta in ancient China. ^{[43] [ page needed ]} Additionally, some scholars suggest that the Yayoi and their ancestors, the Wajin, may have originated from areas like Yunnan province in southern China. ^[44] Suwa Haruo ^[45] argued that Wa-zoku (Wajin) might have been related to the Baiyue (百越). ^[46]

• According to Alexander Vovin, the Yayoi were present in the central and southern parts of Korea before they were displaced and assimilated by arriving proto-Koreans. ^{[47] [48]} A similar view was raised by Whitman (2012), further noting that the Yayoi are not closely related to the proto-Koreanic speakers and that Koreanic arrived later from Manchuria to Korea at around 300 BC and coexisted with the Japonic speakers. Both had influence on each other and a later founder effect diminished the internal variety of both language families. ^[49]

• Jared Diamond, the author of Guns, Germs, and Steel , suggested that the Yayoi period in Japan was initiated by immigrants from the Korean peninsula. Citing research findings, he stated that Yayoi Japan likely received millions of immigrants from Korea. These immigrants, during the Yayoi transition, are believed to have overwhelmed the genetic contribution of the Jōmon people, whose population was estimated to be around 75,000 at that time. ^[50]

• Recent full genome analyses by Boer et al. 2020 stated that the Jōmon did not show high affinities with Basal Asians like Hoabinhians or Tianyuan Man but are also diverged from mainland East Asians since the Paleolithic. They also have high affinities with coastal East Asians, including Austronesians and Siberians, suggesting admixture. ^{[12] [51]} According to Gakuhari et al. (2020), these coastal East Asian affinities can be explained by shared ancestry rather than actual admixture. ^[52]

• According to a March 2021 study on genetic distance measurements from a large scale genetic study titled 'Genomic insights into the formation of human populations in East Asia', the modern "Japanese populations can be modelled as deriving from Korean (91%) and Jōmon (9%)." ^[9]
• A 2025 study by Kim et al. states that the Yayoi population, represented by the Doigahama Yayoi individual, was closely related to the Korean_Ando population. The Doigahama Yayoi individual can be modeled as having 7% Jomon-related, 67% East Asian-related, and 26% Northeastern Siberian-related ancestries, with East Asian-related ancestry being represented by present Koreans rather than Han Chinese. No other modern population is as closely related to this individual as modern Japanese and Koreans. ^[53]

Tripartite ancestry theory

A September 2021 study published in the journal Science Advances proposed that the people of Japan bore genetic signatures from three ancient populations rather than just two as previously thought. ^[54]

• 

  Proposed tripartite styled genomic transitions in parallel with cultural transitions in pre- and protohistoric Japan. (2021)

  The study states that in addition to the previously discovered Jōmon and Yayoi strands, a new strand was hypothesized to have been introduced, most likely from the southern Korean peninsula, during the Yayoi-Kofun transition period, where there was strong cultural and political affinity with Korea and China. ^[54] According to the study, the genetic profile of the Japanese population was established in the Kofun period. It is said that the Kofun strand in modern-day Japanese was concentrated in specific regions such as Kinki, Hokuriku and Shikoku. ^[55] Over 70% of their genetic makeup can be attributed to the Kofun component, with 15-20% being attributed to Yayoi and the rest to the Jōmon component. ^[54]
  • However, the same paper later reiterated that the Yayoi show excess affinities to populations with no cultural relations to rice farming such as those from the West Liao River basin in Northeast China, Baikal, and Northeast Siberia. No significant affinities to Yellow River populations were likewise found. The research also found that rice farming was introduced to Japan from the Shandong peninsula to the Liaodong Peninsula and finally to the Korean peninsula, where it was directly spread to Japan. ^[54]

• Rui Wang (王瑞) and Chun-Chao Wang (汪群超) (2022) reiterated that Yayoi immigrants did not demographically replace the Jōmon. Instead, they co-existed and intermarried with indigenous Jōmon, which led the Yayoi to have 60% Jōmon ancestry. The rest was Northeast Asian. Jōmon admixture was decreased when ancestries related to the Northern Han Chinese (Yellow River ancestry) were introduced in the Kofun period. ^[56]
  • They later clarified in another paper (2023) that overall, modern Japanese cluster with the "Korean_Antu" population, covering Koreans from Antu County, who share more genetic drift with Koreans, Han Chinese, Hmong-Mien and Tai-Kadai. ^[57]

• Xiaoxi Liu (刘小晰) et. al (2024) stated that Jōmon admixture in contemporary Japanese people varies depending on region, with admixture being the highest in southern Japan, especially Okinawa (28.5%), followed by northeastern Japan (19%) and western Japan (12%). They also noted that the East Asian strand (labelled "Kofun") was dominant in western Japan while the Northeast Asian strand was dominant in northeastern Japan. ^[58] Interestingly, Liu's research indicates a diminished number for the Kofun strand which was originally thought to have been over 70% in the previous papers (2021-2022), down to at most 35%. The rest consists of the aforementioned Jōmon strand and the northeastern strand labelled as "Three Kingdoms Korea" in the study, depending on the region. ^[58]

However recently, the tripartite ancestry theory is being met with criticism since its introduction in 2021. In essence, Japanese researchers claim that a tripartite theory is redundant as the genealogical difference between Yayoi and Kofun groups is not significant enough and that the temporal discrepancy of the periods is minuscule. Japanese linguists also state that the languages spoken during the periods are generally related to each another and that the speakers were most likely related.

• According to Pere Gelabert in a 2022 paper, ancient Koreans of the Three Kingdoms period of Korea coded "Korea TK", bore close genetic similarity with Kofun period Japanese people. In particular, "Korea-TK_2" is closely related to "present-day Japanese, the ancient Kofun, and other ancient Japanese populations with Jomon ancestry" due to their higher Jōmon-like ancestry. "Korea-TK_2" can be modeled as having 66% ± 7% Bronze Age West Liao River-related ancestry and 34% ± 7% Jōmon-related ancestry. Or 32% Northeast Asian, 43% Han, and 25% Japan Jōmon. In terms of the Japanese Kofun population, they could be modeled as having 71% ± 10% "Korea-TK_2"-related ancestry and 29% ± 10% Late Bronze Age to Iron Age Yellow River-related ancestry. ^[59]

• A study published in April 2024 by Hisashi Nakao (中尾 央), claims that the Kofun strand had much overlap with the previous Yayoi strand and that the two strands were genealogically closer than that of the Jōmon group. ^[60] Nakao stated that "[the results] suggest that the Jōmon people were rather different from the Yayoi and Kofun people in the facial height and the anterior–posterior length [...] indicating that temporal differences are not significant among the Yayoi and Kofun periods. [...] the large overlap in morphological variation between the Yayoi and Kofun people could be an important step in further research." ^[60] The research also boasts of using the largest Kofun samples to date. ^[60]

• A recent study published by the University of Tokyo in October 2024 also refuted the tripartite origin theory, ^[61] claiming that the Kofun strand was not a single strand that was introduced separately into Japan, but a strand that was part of an already existing group within the Korean peninsula. ^[62] According to the study, late-Yayoi period individuals carried both Yayoi and Kofun DNA, supporting Nakao's theory of lack of temporal differences between the two periods. The lead researcher and professor at the University of Tokyo's Department of Biological Sciences, Jun Ohashi (大橋 順) spoke with Science Daily, ^[4] further explaining the new findings and criticizing the previous assumption. "Our results suggest that between the Yayoi and Kofun periods, the majority of immigrants to the Japanese archipelago originated primarily from the Korean peninsula," says Ohashi. "The results also mean the three-way admixture model, which posits that a Northeast Asian group migrated to the Japanese archipelago during the Yayoi period and an East Asian group during the Kofun period, is incorrect." ^[4]
• A recent interview with the director of the National Museum of Nature and Science, Kenichi Shinoda ^{[ ja]} (篠田 謙一) in December 2024 summarized the current consensus in regards to the genomic makeup of the modern Japanese. Shinoda stated that over 90% of the modern Japanese DNA derives from an ancient strand that originated at an area near the Liao River around 50,000 years ago, where it was then introduced to the Korean peninsula (which in turn mixed with the Southern Jōmon-like inhabitants) and 10,000 years later was introduced into the Japanese archipelago. ^[5] Shinoda also remarked that these migrations happened throughout the later Yayoi period and that the Japanese genes remained homogenous since then, stating that "the genetic makeup of the ancient Yayoi people and us (Yamato people) are almost identical". ^[5] The director did not mention "Kofun", but insisted on calling the later settlers as "Toraijin (Immigrants)" or more specifically "late-Yayoi period settlers", despite taking part in previous studies surrounding the strand and mentioning it at the time of its proposal. ^[63]
• Jonghyun Kim et al. (2025) states that the Kofun population shares the same Koreanic origins as the Yayoi population and has similar ancestral proportions to those found in the Doigahama Yayoi, who represents the Yayoi population. East Asian ancestry, represented by present Koreans, was also predominantly found in both populations. ^[53]
• Linguist, author, and lecturer Makoto Mogi  ^{[ ja ]} (茂木 誠) (2025) insisted that the immigrants with the "East Asian ancestry" were ethnically different from the Han Chinese having come from the north and being linguistically different. ^[64] According to Mogi, East Asian ancestry immigrants such as Empress Jingū's ancestor, Amenohiboko and other famous Kofun period immigrants, were most likely proto-Koreanic speakers due to the similarities in grammar with modern Korean, ^{[65] [64]} an argument made similar by fellow linguist Alexander Vovin. ^[66] Mogi posited that these proto-Koreanic speakers entered the peninsula by replacing or absorbing the pre-existing Peninsular Japonic speaking natives (Southern Jōmon-like inhabitants) before entering Japan, ^[64] an argument that aligns closely with the anthropological argument made by aforementioned Kenichi Shinoda (2024). ^[5]

• 

  The migration routes of proto-Japonic and proto-Koreanic speakers. (2022)

  A similar observation was made previously by Kazuo Miyamoto  ^{[ ja ]} (宮本 一夫), a renowned linguist and emeritus professor at Kyushu University in 2022. Miyamoto noted that "Central Japanese was heavily influenced by Old Korean (possibly through Baekje) during the Kofun and Asuka periods, from the 4th to 7th centuries AD" ^[68] which supports Mogi and Vovin's assumptions. He linked the Yayoi period with the Mumun period of Korea and stated that the proto-Japonic language was spread during this time. ^{[69] [68]} He also remarked that the proto-Japonic of the Yayoi/Mumun period and proto-Koreanic that was introduced during Kofun/Asuka period stemmed from the same ancestral language, stating that "the homeland of both languages is the same based on archeological evidence, and they are kindred language families" ^[68] and that "Proto-Japonic and Proto-Koreanic split off from the Transeurasian languages in southern Manchuria " ^[68] positing that the Yayoi (proto-Japonic) and Kofun (proto-Koreanic) migrations were heavily related, a conclusion made similar to Hisashi Nakao (2024).

Anthropometry

Stephen Pheasant who taught anatomy, biomechanics and ergonomics at the Royal Free Hospital and the University College, London, said that Far Eastern people have proportionately shorter lower limbs than European and black African people. Pheasant said that the proportionately short lower limbs of Far Eastern people is a difference that is most characterized in Japanese people, less characterized in Korean and Chinese people, and least characterized in Vietnamese and Thai people. ^{[70] [71]}

• Rajvir Yadav et al. (2000) stated the sitting height to stature ratios of different populations: South Indian (0.4922), female Indian (0.4974), Eastern Indian (0.4991), Southeastern African (0.5096), Central Indian (0.5173), US (0.5202), Western Indian (0.5243), German (0.5266) and Japanese (0.5452). ^[72]

• Hirofumi Matsumura et al. (2001) and Hideo Matsumoto et al. (2009) said that the Japanese and Vietnamese people are regarded to be a mix of Northeast Asians and Southeast Asians. However, the amount of Northern genetics is higher in Japanese people compared to Vietnamese, who are closer to other Southeast Asians (Thai or Bamar people). ^{[73] [74]}

• Neville Moray (2005) said that, for Korean and Japanese pilots, sitting height is more than 54% of their stature, with about 46% of their stature from leg length. Moray said that, for Americans and most Europeans, sitting height is about 52% of their stature, with about 48% of their stature from leg length. Moray indicated that modifications in basic cockpit geometry are required to accommodate Japanese and Vietnamese pilots. Moray said that the Japanese have longer torsos and a higher shoulder point than the Vietnamese, but the Japanese have about similar arm lengths to the Vietnamese, so the control stick would have to be moved 8 cm closer to the pilot for the Japanese and 7 cm closer to the pilot for the Vietnamese. Moray said that, due to having shorter legs than Americans, rudder pedals must be moved closer to the pilot by 10 cm for the Japanese and 12 cm for the Vietnamese. ^[75]

Craniometry

According to Pietrusewsky, the group most similar to the Japanese cranial bones were the Koreans. Meanwhile, Chinese, Mongolians and Southeast Asians were distinguished from the Japanese. (2010)

• Anthropologist Ashley Montagu (1989) said that the "Mongoloid skull generally, whether Chinese or Japanese, has been rather more neotenized than the Caucasoid or European [...]". ^[77]

• Ann Kumar (1998) said that Michael Pietrusewsky (1992) said that, in a craniometric study, the cranial bones of Southeast Asians (Borneo, Vietnam, Sulu, Java, and Sulawesi etc.) are closer to Japanese, in that order, than Mongolian and Chinese populations are close to Japanese. In the craniometric study, Michael Pietrusewsky said that, even though Japanese people cluster with Mongolians, Chinese and Southeast Asians in the larger Asian cluster, the cranial bones of Japanese people are more closely aligned with several Mainland and Island Southeast Asian samples than with Mongolians and Chinese. However, Pietrusewsky also said, more research is needed on the similarity of the cranial bones between Japanese and Southeast Asians. ^{[78] [79]}

• In a 1994 craniometric study, Pietrusewsky found that the Japanese series, which was a series that spanned from the Yayoi period to modern times, formed a single branch with Korea. Later, Pietrusewsky (1999) found, however, significant differences between the Korean and Yayoi people in the East Asian cluster, indicating that the connection that Japanese have with Korea would not have derived from Yayoi people. ^[10]
• However, in a follow-up study, Pietrusewsky (2010) corrected that East Asians and Southeast Asians were markedly separated from each other. He found that Koreans had the most similar cranial bones to ancient and modern Japanese including the Yayoi people and Jōmon people. Japanese cranial series also resembled those of Atayal, which was similarly observed for Koreans, Hainanese and Taiwanese. ^[11] He stated that a common origin of Northeast Asians could be traced and that they began entering the Japanese archipelago at the beginning of the Yayoi period. ^[11]

• Park Dae-kyoon et al. (2001) said that distance analysis based on thirty-nine non-metric cranial traits showed that Koreans are closer craniometrically to Kazakhs and Mongols than to the populations in China and Japan. ^[80]
• Enfield (2011) sees phenotypic similarities between present Japanese populations and Dong Son populations from northern Vietnam and Neolithic populations from southern China. Based on dental analyses, they were Australo-Melanesians who heavily mixed with migrants related to ancient Chinese populations, affecting them genetically and phenotypically. ^[81]
• Dudzik (2015) states that southern Japanese are morphologically the most similar to Jōmon and Ainu groups, as well as Yayoi groups. Conversely, northern Japanese are significantly more influenced by northeast Asian groups due to external migration from the north since the fifth century or earlier. This also affected subpopulations like Ainu, suggesting that 'parental population traits' were better preserved in the southernmost parts of the Japanese archipelago. ^[82]
• According to Watanabe et. al (2021), contemporary Kinki populations phenotypically differ the most from Jōmon people, especially Hokkaido Ainu. Other Japanese subpopulations were more intermediate although morphological similarities exist between Hokkaido Ainu and contemporary Tohoku populations. ^[83]

• Torimitsu et. al (2024) states that there is quantifiable dimorphism in the cranium of Japanese people, similar to Thais, Indonesians, Filipinos and Malays. ^[84] Japanese skulls also share some similarities with Hispanics and Filipinos, ^[85] implied by the frequency of Hispanic skulls from southwestern United States being misclassified as Asian, particularly Japanese and Filipino. ^{[85] [84]} However, Japanese craniums can be distinguished from Filipino craniums, with the former having higher upper facial height and shorter inferior malar lengths on average. ^[86] Nasal height and breadth were also greater and smaller than those found in Filipino craniums respectively although Thai craniums exhibited greater nasal height and breadth than those found in Japanese craniums. ^[84] Japanese craniums also greatly differ from populations like 'typical' Western Australians, with the latter having longer and taller skulls and narrower frontal bones. On average, they also have greater maximum cranial length and basion-nasion length and lower mastoid height. ^[87]

See also

• History of Japan
  • Jōmon people
  • Yayoi people
  • Toraijin
  • Nissen dōsoron
• Japanese people
  • Ainu people
  • Ryukyuan people
  • Yamato people
• Demographics of Japan
  • Genetic studies on Japanese Americans
  • Genetic history of East Asians#Japanese people

References

1. "'Jomon woman' helps solve Japan's genetic mystery". NHK World. Retrieved 20 November 2020.
2. Boer, Elisabeth de; Yang, Melinda A.; Kawagoe, Aileen; Barnes, Gina L. (2020). "Japan considered from the hypothesis of farmer/language spread". Evolutionary Human Sciences. 2 e13. doi:10.1017/ehs.2020.7. ISSN   2513-843X. PMC   10427481 . PMID   37588377. S2CID   218926428. The term Yayoi has four uses, which can create much confusion. First, it is the designation of the period beginning with the introduction of rice agriculture around 1000 BC until the advent of the Mounded Tomb Culture in the third century AD. Yayoi is a period designation exclusive to Japan; it includes both farmers and hunter–gatherers and entails the agricultural transition in a time-transgressive and regionally disparate process. Second, 'Yayoi people' may refer to anyone living in the Japanese Islands in the Yayoi period, or third, Yayoi may refer specifically to admixed people (Mumun + Jōmon in varying in proportions and across great distances). Fourth, Yayoi may indicate acculturation: the adoption of (rice) agriculture (and other continental material culture) by Jōmon-lineage people in the Yayoi period. All of these conflicting aspects of Yayoi must be kept in mind and clearly defined in any discussion.
3. 水野, 文月 (15 October 2024). "弥生時代人の古代ゲノム解析から渡来人のルーツを探る". 東京大学 大学院理学系研究科・理学部 (in Japanese).
4. "Who Are the Japanese? New DNA Evidence Emerges From 2000-Year-Old Genome". SciTechDaily. 14 October 2024.
5. プレジデント 公式チャンネル (25 December 2024). 【9割は「外来種」日本人のDNA】縄文人と弥生人は違う種だった？/人類は1万年前よりバカになっている？/沖縄3割･アイヌ7割「日本人の二重構造モデル」/国立科学博物館館長･分子人類学者篠田謙一氏に聞く – via YouTube.
6. Nanta, Arnaud (2008). "Physical Anthropology and the Reconstruction of Japanese Identity in Postcolonial Japan". Social Science Japan Journal . 11 (1): 29–47. doi:10.1093/ssjj/jyn019.
7. Minahan, James B. (2014). Ethnic Groups of North, East, and Central Asia: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 231–233. ISBN   978-1-61069-018-8.
8. Takeuchi F, Katsuya T, Kimura R, Nabika T, Isomura M, Ohkubo T, Tabara Y, Yamamoto K, Yokota M, Liu X, Saw WY, Mamatyusupu D, Yang W, Xu S, Teo YY, Kato N (2017). "The fine-scale genetic structure and evolution of the Japanese population". PLOS ONE. 12 (11): e0185487. Bibcode:2017PLoSO..1285487T. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185487 . PMC   5665431 . PMID   29091727.
9. Wang, Chuan-Chao (2021). "Genomic insights into the formation of human populations in East Asia". Nature. 591 (7850): 413–419. Bibcode:2021Natur.591..413W. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03336-2. PMC   7993749 . PMID   33618348.
10. Kumar, Ann. (2009). Globalizing the Prehistory of Japan: Language, Genes and Civilisation. London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Page 79 & 88. Retrieved 23 January 2018, from link.
11. Pietrusewsky, Michael (January 2010). "A multivariate analysis of measurements recorded in early and more modern crania from East Asia and Southeast Asia" . Quaternary International. 211 (1–2): 42–54. Bibcode:2010QuInt.211...42P. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2008.12.011. ISSN   1040-6182.
12. Miller, Roy A. The Japanese Language. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle. 1967, pp. 61-62
13. Hanihara, K (1991). "Dual structure model for the population history of the Japanese". Japan Review. 2: 1–33.
14. Watanabe, Nobuyuki (1 October 2009). 旧石器時代の「港川１号」、顔ほっそり 縄文人と差. The Asahi Shimbun (in Japanese). Archived from the original on 29 June 2011. Retrieved 9 March 2011.
15. Nakamura, Shunsuke (16 April 2010). 沖縄人のルーツを探る. The Asahi Shimbun (in Japanese). p. 2. Archived from the original on 29 June 2011. Retrieved 9 March 2011.
16. Hideaki Kanzawa-Kiriyama, Kirill Kryukov, Timothy A Jinam, Kazuyoshi Hosomichi, Aiko Saso: . In: . Band 62, Nr. 2, 1. September 2016
17. Jinam, Timothy A.; Kanzawa-Kiriyama, Hideaki; Inoue, Ituro; et al. (2015). "Unique characteristics of the Ainu population in Northern Japan". Journal of Human Genetics. 60 (10): 565–571. doi:10.1038/jhg.2015.79. PMID   26178428 – via Nature.
18. Miyazato, Eri; Yamaguchi, Kyoko; Fukase, Hitoshi; et al. (2014). "Comparative analysis of facial morphology between Okinawa Islanders and mainland Japanese using three-dimensional images". American Journal of Human Biology. 26 (4): 538–548. doi:10.1002/ajhb.22560. PMID   24838439 – via Wiley Online Library.
19. "メンバー". 13 May 2011. Archived from the original on 13 May 2011. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
20. Lee, Sean; Hasegawa, Toshikazu (2011). "Bayesian phylogenetic analysis supports an agricultural origin of Japonic languages". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 278 (1725): 3662–3669. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.0518. PMC   3203502 . PMID   21543358.
21. Qin, Pengfei; Zhou, Ying; Lou, Haiyi; Lu, Dongsheng; Yang, Xiong; Wang, Yuchen; Jin, Li; Chung, Yeun-Jun; Xu, Shuhua (2 April 2015). "Quantitating and Dating Recent Gene Flow between European and East Asian Populations". Scientific Reports. 5 (1): 9500. Bibcode:2015NatSR...5.9500Q. doi:10.1038/srep09500. ISSN   2045-2322. PMC   4382708 . PMID   25833680.
22. Jinam, Timothy; Nishida, Nao; Hirai, Momoki; Kawamura, Shoji; Oota, Hiroki; Umetsu, Kazuo; Kimura, Ryosuke; Ohashi, Jun; Tajima, Atsushi (December 2012). "The history of human populations in the Japanese Archipelago inferred from genome-wide SNP data with a special reference to the Ainu and the Ryukyuan populations". Journal of Human Genetics . 57 (12): 787–795. doi: 10.1038/jhg.2012.114 . PMID   23135232.
23. "記者会見「日本列島３人類集団の遺伝的近縁性」". 東京大学 (in Japanese). Retrieved 8 November 2021.
24. "Researchers discover Korean genetic roots in 7,700-year-old skull". Korea.net. Korean Culture and Information Service. Retrieved 18 March 2017.
25. "Yayoi linked to Yangtze area". Trussel.com. Retrieved 18 March 2017.
26. Kim, W., Saitou, N., & Jin, L. (1992). [Phylogenetic relationships of East Asian populations, inferred from restriction patterns of mitochondrial DNA](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1510113/). *Molecular Biology and Evolution, 9*(5), 547-553. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040753
27. Kim, Young Jin; Jin, Han Jun (2013). "Dissecting the genetic structure of Korean population using genome-wide SNP arrays". Genes Genom. 35 (3): 355–363. doi:10.1007/s13258-013-0082-8.
28. Wang, Chuan-Chao; Yeh, Hui-Yuan (2021). "Genomic insights into the formation of human populations in East Asia". Nature. 591 (7850): 413–419. Bibcode:2021Natur.591..413W. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03336-2. PMC   7993749 . PMID   33618348.
29. Huang, Xiufeng; Xia, Zi-Yang; Bin, Xiaoyun; He, Guanglin; Guo, Jianxin; Lin, Chaowen; Yin, Lianfei; Zhao, Jing; Ma, Zhuofei (8 November 2020), Genomic Insights into the Demographic History of Southern Chinese, doi:10.1101/2020.11.08.373225
30. from the book, 2009, Japanese published by Heidansha. "日本人". マイペディア. 平凡社. Original sentence:旧石器時代または縄文時代以来、現在の北海道から琉球諸島までの地域に住んだ集団を祖先に持つ。シベリア、樺太、朝鮮半島などを経由する北方ルート、南西諸島などを経由する南方ルートなど複数の渡来経路が考えられる
31. Tajima, Atsushi; Pan, I.-Hung; Fucharoen, Goonnapa; Fucharoen, Supan; Matsuo, Masafumi; Tokunaga, Katsushi; Juji, Takeo; Hayami, Masanori; Omoto, Keiichi; Horai, Satoshi (1 January 2002). "Three major lineages of Asian Y chromosomes: implications for the peopling of east and southeast Asia". Human Genetics. 110 (1): 80–88. doi:10.1007/s00439-001-0651-9. PMID   11810301. S2CID   30808716.
32. "Japanese Roots - news education science magazines technology science …". Discover.com. 16 March 2006. Archived from the original on 16 March 2006. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
33. Diamond, Jared (June 1998). "Japanese Roots". livjm.ac.uk. Archived from the original on 24 August 2005.
34. "Lost Tribes of Israel - Where are the Ten Lost Tribes? (3)". Pbs.org. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
35. Hammer, Michael F; Karafet, Tatiana M; Park, Hwayong; Omoto, Keiichi; Harihara, Shinji; Stoneking, Mark; Horai, Satoshi (2006). "Dual origins of the Japanese: common ground for hunter-gatherer and farmer Y chromosomes" (PDF). Journal of Human Genetics . 51 (1): 47–58. doi: 10.1007/s10038-005-0322-0 . PMID   16328082. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 June 2006. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
36. "「縄文人」は独自進化したアジアの特異集団だった！ : 深読み". 読売新聞オンライン (in Japanese). 15 December 2017. Retrieved 21 February 2019.
37. 弥生人ＤＮＡで迫る日本人の起源」 [The origin of Japanese people approaching with Yayoi DNA]. ja:サイエンスZERO (Television production) (in Japanese). NHK. 23 December 2018.
38. Nara, Takashi; Adachi, Noboru; Yoneda, Minoru; Hagihara, Yasuo; Saeki, Fumiko; Koibuchi, Ryoko; Takahashi, Ryohei (2019). "Mitochondrial DNA analysis of the human skeletons excavated from the Shomyoji shell midden site, Kanagawa, Japan". Anthropological Science. 127 (1): 65–72. doi: 10.1537/ase.190307 . ISSN   0918-7960.
39. "'Jomon woman' helps solve Japan's genetic mystery". NHK World. Retrieved 19 November 2020.
40. Late Jomon male and female genome sequences from the Funadomari site in Hokkaido, Japan - Hideaki Kanzawa-Kiriyama, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Nature and Science 2018/2019en
41. Takeuchi, Fumihiko; Katsuya, Tomohiro; Kimura, Ryosuke; Nabika, Toru; Isomura, Minoru; Ohkubo, Takayoshi; Tabara, Yasuharu; Yamamoto, Ken; Yokota, Mitsuhiro; Liu, Xuanyao; Saw, Woei-Yuh; Mamatyusupu, Dolikun; Yang, Wenjun; Xu, Shuhua; Japanese Genome Variation Consortium (2017). "The fine-scale genetic structure and evolution of the Japanese population". PLOS ONE. 12 (11): e0185487. Bibcode:2017PLoSO..1285487T. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185487 . ISSN   1932-6203. PMC   5665431 . PMID   29091727.
42. Chaubey, Gyaneshwer; Driem, George van (2020). "Munda languages are father tongues, but Japanese and Korean are not". Evolutionary Human Sciences. 2 e19. doi: 10.1017/ehs.2020.14 . ISSN   2513-843X. PMC   10427457 . PMID   37588351.
43. Mitsuru Sakitani (2009). 『DNA・考古・言語の学際研究が示す新・日本列島史』[New History of the Japanese Islands Shown by Interdisciplinary Studies on DNA, Archeology, and Language] (in Japanese). Bensei Publishing. ISBN   9784585053941.
44. 鳥越憲三郎『原弥生人の渡来』(角川書店,1982)、『倭族から日本人へ』(弘文堂 ,1985)、『古代朝鮮と倭族』(中公新書,1992)、『倭族トラジャ』(若林弘子との共著、大修館書店,1995)、『弥生文化の源流考』(若林弘子との共著、大修館書店,1998)、『古代中国と倭族』(中公新書, 2000)、『中国正史倭人・倭国伝全釈』(中央公論新社, 2004)
45. "SUWA Haruo (諏訪春雄)" (in Japanese). 18 January 2018.
46. 諏訪春雄編『倭族と古代日本』(雄山閣出版、1993)また諏訪春雄通信100
47. Janhunen, Juha (2010). "Reconstructing the Language Map of Prehistorical Northeast Asia". Studia Orientalia (108): 281–304. there are strong indications that the neighbouring Baekje state (in the southwest) was predominantly Japonic-speaking until it was linguistically Koreanized.
48. Vovin, Alexander (2013). "From Koguryo to Tamna: Slowly riding to the South with speakers of Proto-Korean". Korean Linguistics. 15 (2): 222–240.
49. Whitman, John (1 December 2011). "Northeast Asian Linguistic Ecology and the Advent of Rice Agriculture in Korea and Japan". Rice. 4 (3): 149–58. Bibcode:2011Rice....4..149W. doi: 10.1007/s12284-011-9080-0 . ISSN   1939-8433.
50. Diamond, Jared (1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W. W. Norton & Company. Retrieved 13 December 2024.
51. Boer, Elisabeth de; Yang, Melinda A.; Kawagoe, Aileen; Barnes, Gina L. (2020). "Japan considered from the hypothesis of farmer/language spread". Evolutionary Human Sciences. 2 e13. doi: 10.1017/ehs.2020.7 . ISSN   2513-843X. PMC   10427481 . PMID   37588377.
52. Gakuhari, Takashi; Nakagome, Shigeki; Ramussen, Simon; et al. (2020). "Ancient Jomon genome sequence analysis sheds light on migration patterns of early East Asian populations". Communications Biology. 3 (437): 437. doi:10.1038/s42003-020-01162-2. PMC   7447786 . PMID   32843717.
53. Kim, Jonghyun; Mizuno, Fuzuki; Matsushita, Takayuki; et al. (2024). "Genetic analysis of a Yayoi individual from the Doigahama site provides insights into the origins of immigrants to the Japanese Archipelago". Journal of Human Genetics. 70 (1): 47–57. doi:10.1038/s10038-024-01295-w. PMC   11700843 . PMID   39402381.
54. Cooke NP, Mattiangeli V, Cassidy LM, Okazaki K, Stokes CA, Onbe S, et al. (September 2021). "Ancient genomics reveals tripartite origins of Japanese populations". Science Advances. 7 (38) eabh2419. Bibcode:2021SciA....7.2419C. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abh2419. PMC   8448447 . PMID   34533991.
55. Nikkei Science (23 June 2021). "渡来人、四国に多かった？ ゲノムが明かす日本人ルーツ" [Were there many migrants in Shikoku? Japanese roots revealed by genome analysis]. nikkei.com (in Japanese). Retrieved 1 May 2022.
56. Wang, Rui; Wang, Chuan-Chao (8 August 2022). "Human genetics: The dual origin of Three Kingdoms period Koreans". Current Biology . 32 (15): R844 –R847. Bibcode:2022CBio...32.R844W. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2022.06.044 . ISSN   0960-9822. PMID   35944486. S2CID   251410856.
57. Sun, Na; Tao, Le; Wang, Rui; Zhu, Kongyan; Hai, Xiangjun; Wang, Chuan-Chao (2023). "The genetic structure and admixture of Manchus and Koreans in northeast China". Annals of Human Biology. 50 (1): 161–171. doi: 10.1080/03014460.2023.2182912 . PMID   36809229.
58. Liu, Xiaoxi; Koyama, Satoshi; Tomizuka, Kohei; et al. (2024). "Decoding triancestral origins, archaic introgression, and natural selection in the Japanese population by whole-genome sequencing". Science Advances. 10 (16): eadi8419. Bibcode:2024SciA...10I8419L. doi:10.1126/sciadv.adi8419. PMC   11023554 . PMID   38630824.
59. Gelabert, Pere; Blazyte, Asta; Chang, Yongjoon; Fernandes, Daniel M.; Jeon, Sungwon; Hong, Jin Geun; Yoon, Jiyeon; Ko, Youngmin; Oberreiter, Victoria; Cheronet, Olivia; Özdoğan, Kadir T.; Sawyer, Susanna; Yang, Songhyok; Greytak, Ellen McRae; Choi, Hansol (8 August 2022). "Northeastern Asian and Jomon-related genetic structure in the Three Kingdoms period of Gimhae, Korea". Current Biology. 32 (15): 3232–3244.e6. Bibcode:2022CBio...32E3232G. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2022.06.004. ISSN   0960-9822. PMID   35732180.
60. Nakao, Hisashi; Kaneda, Akihiro; Tamura, Kohei; Noshita, Koji; Nakagawa, Tomomi (2 April 2024). "Macro-Scale Population Patterns in the Kofun Period of the Japanese Archipelago: Quantitative Analysis of a Larger Sample of Three-Dimensional Data from Ancient Human Crania". Humans. 4 (2): 131–147. doi: 10.3390/humans4020008 . ISSN   2673-9461.
61. "Majority of immigrants to the Japanese Archipelago came from the Korean Peninsula". University of Tokyo. 2024. Retrieved 13 December 2024.
62. Kim, J.; Mizuno, F.; Matsushita, T.; Matsushita, M.; Aoto, S.; Ishiya, K.; Kamio, M.; Naka, I.; Hayashi, M.; Kurosaki, K.; Ueda, S.; Ohashi, J. (2024). "The analysis of admixture modeling for Yayoi individuals". Journal of Human Genetics. 70 (1): 47–57. doi: 10.1038/s10038-024-01295-w . PMC   11700843 . PMID   39402381.
63. nishikawa (21 September 2021). "私の個人的な妄想をかき立てる日本人のゲノム史". AASJホームページ | NPO法人 オール・アバウト・サイエンス・ジャパンのホームページ (in Japanese).
64. もぎせかチャンネル (23 February 2025). 神功皇后の謎。王朝交代はあったか？／きーさんと語る日本古代史の謎07 – via YouTube.

65. [東アジア系先祖は] 漢民族とは明らかに違うと思います。中国南部にいたので全く違います。朝鮮語ていうか、韓国語とは文法がほぼ同じという状況であります。 [The East Asian ancestry immigrants] were clearly different from the Han Chinese. They're from the lower parts of China, so the two are completely different. The consensus is that the immigrants spoke a language with a grammar almost identical to the modern Korean language.

66. Vovin, Alexander (14 June 2012). Immigrants or Overlords? Korean Influences on Japan in the Archaic Period: a Linguistic Perspective. Institut für Kulturund Geitestesgeschichte Asiens. p. 29.
67. Miyamoto, Kazuo (6 January 2022). "The emergence of 'Transeurasian' language families in Northeast Asia as viewed from archaeological evidence". ResearchGate: 25.
68. Miyamoto, Kazuo (6 January 2022). "The emergence of 'Transeurasian' language families in Northeast Asia as viewed from archaeological evidence". ResearchGate: 25.

69. [...] the beginning of the Yayoi culture was heavily influenced by the Mumun culture of the southern Korean Peninsula, and some migrants from this region are thought to have moved into northern Kyushu. If Proto-Japonic spread to northern Kyushu from the southern Korean Peninsula at the beginning of the Yayoi culture with migrants, then we can assume that Proto-Japonic was spoken by the people of the Mumun culture. [...] Proto-Japonic languages are thought to have gradually replaced the local Jomon languages in these areas from the Late Yayoi to the beginning of the Kofun period, 2nd – 3rd centuries AD.

    — Kazuo Miyamoto, The emergence of ‘Transeurasian’ language families in Northeast Asia as viewed from archaeological evidence

70. Pheasant, Stephen. (2003).Bodyspace: Anthropometry, ergonomics and the design of work (2nd. ed.). Taylor & Francis. Page 159. Retrieved 14 March 2018, from Google Books.
71. Buckle, Peter (1996). "Obituary". Work & Stress. 10 (3): 282. doi: 10.1080/02678379608256807 .
72. Rajvir Yadav; et al. (2000). "An Anthropometry of Indian Agricultural Workers". Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America. 31 (3): 59.
73. Matsumura, Hirofumi; Cuong, Nguyen Lan; Thuy, Nguyen Kim; Anezaki, Tomoko (2001). "Dental Morphology of the Early Hoabinian, the Neolithic da but and the Metal Age Dong Son Civilized Peoples in Vietnam". Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie. 83 (1): 59–73. doi:10.1127/zma/83/2001/59. JSTOR   25757578. PMID   11372468.
74. Mastsumoto, Hideo (2009). "The origin of the Japanese race based on genetic markers of immunoglobulin G". Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B. 85 (2): 69–82. Bibcode:2009PJAB...85...69M. doi:10.2183/pjab.85.69. ISSN   0386-2208. PMC   3524296 . PMID   19212099.
75. Moray, Neville. (2005). Ergonomics: The history and scope of human factors. London and New York: Taylor & Francis. Pages 298 & 327. ISBN: 0-415-32258-8 Google Books link.
77. Montagu, Ashley. (1989). Growing Young (2nd. ed.). Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers, inc. ISBN   0-89789-167-8 Retrieved 13 March 2018, from Google Books.
78. Kumar, Ann. (1998). An Indonesian Component in the Yayoi?: the Evidence of Biological Anthropology. Anthropological Science 106(3). Page 268. Retrieved 22 February 2018, from link to the PDF document.
79. Pietrusewsky, Michael. (1992). Japan, Asia and the Pacific: A multivariate craniometric investigation. In book: Japanese as a member of the Asian and Pacific populations, Publisher: Kyoto: International Research Center for Japanese Studies. International Symposium No. 4., Page 47. Retrieved 22 February 2018, from link to the article.
80. Park, Dae Kyoon; Lee, U Young; Lee, Jun Hyun; Choi, Byoung Young; Koh, Ki Seok; Kim, Hee Jin; Park, Sun Joo; Han, Seung Ho (2001). "Non-metric Traits of Korean Skulls". Korean Journal of Physical Anthropology. 14 (2): 117. doi:10.11637/kjpa.2001.14.2.117 (inactive 1 July 2025).
81. Enfield, N.J. (2011). Dynamics of human diversity: the case of mainland Southeast Asia. Pacific Linguistics. pp. 226–227. ISBN   9780858836389.
82. Dudzik, Beatrix (2015). "Investigating Cranial Variation in Japanese Populations Using Geometric Morphometrics". University of Tennessee– via TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange.
83. Watanabe, Yusuke; Ohashi, Jun (2021). "Comprehensive analysis of Japanese archipelago population history by detecting ancestry-marker polymorphisms without using ancient DNA data". bioRxiv. doi:10.1101/2020.12.07.414037.
84. Torimitsu, Suguru; Nakazawa, Akari; Flavel, Ambika; et al. (2024). "Estimation of population affinity using cranial measurements acquired in multidetector computed tomography images of Japanese and Malay individuals". International Journal of Legal Medicine. 139 (2): 863–873. doi: 10.1007/s00414-024-03386-x . PMC   11850424 . PMID   39627577.
85. Yukyi, Nandar (2 August 2017). Craniometric Variation of Modern Asian and Hispanic Individuals Using Multivariate Analysis (Thesis).
86. Hayashi, Atsuko; Pietrusewsky, Michael (2023). "Discriminant function analysis of craniometric data for distinguishing Japanese and Filipino crania Discriminant function analysis of craniometric data for distinguishing Japanese and Filipino crania". Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 55 (5): 621–644. doi:10.1080/00450618.2022.2057589. hdl:10125/105029 – via ResearchGate.
87. Torimitsu, Suguru; Nakazawa, Akari; Flavel, Ambika; et al. (2024). "Estimation of ancestry from cranial measurements based on MDCT data acquired in a Japanese and Western Australian population". International Journal of Legal Medicine. 138 (3): 1193–1203. doi:10.1007/s00414-024-03159-6. PMC   11003893 . PMID   38252284.

External links

• RIKEN (1 October 2024). "Who Are the Japanese? New DNA Study Shocks Scientists". SciTechDaily. Retrieved 1 October 2024.