著者

亀井 節夫 池田 次郎 石田 志朗 茂原 信生 樽野 博幸 徳岡 隆夫 横山 卓雄

出版者

一般社団法人 日本地質学会

雑誌

日本地質学会学術大会講演要旨 (ISSN:13483935)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1973, 1973

著者

池田 次郎

出版者

The Anthropological Society of Nippon

雑誌

人類學雜誌 (ISSN:00035505)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.87, no.3, pp.297-302, 1979

著者

今村 豊 池田 次郎

出版者

日本文化人類学会

雑誌

民族學研究 (ISSN:24240508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.14, no.4, pp.311-318, 1950 (Released:2018-03-27)

---

According to Dr. Kiyono, the modern Japanese are the result of physical change, having developed out of a prehistortc type, through a protohistoric intermediate type, with some Korean admixture. The Ainu, being different from the peoples either of prehistoric or protohistoric periods, had nothing to do with the formation of the modern Japanese. These conclusions are said to be derived, with statistical procedures, from a survey of skeletons of all those periods. Thus, if there were defects in his chronology of skeletons and his anthropometrical methods, his conclusions would be questionable. In the first place, because of insufficient description of the excavations and the relation to other relics excavated, the chronology of skeletons is ambiguous. Furthermore, several errors can be pointed out. In the second place, there are defects in his anthropometric methods. When measurements are compared, the characteristics compared are not always of the same kind, and therefore the basis of comparison fluctuates. The "mittlere Typendifferenz" is calculated only between the most convenient materials, and general conclusions are drawn in spite of the fact that the interrelations between all materials have not been exhaustively worked out. On the basis of Dr. Kiyono's own anthropometrical data, the reviewers have calculated the "Typendiffirenz" between all materials exhaustively, and reached the following results : 1) Though Dr. Kiyono concludes that the difference between the modern Japanese and their adjacent peoples is greater than that between local types of the modern Japanese, his evidence, especially with reference to the relation of the modern Japanese to the Koreans and Northern Chinese, cannot be validated. 2) On the basis of Dr. Kiyono's anthropometrical data, the Ainu, rather than the protohistoric Japanese, would more probably be regarded as the intermediate type between the modern Japanese and the prehistoric people. 3) Statistical evidence as to the mixture with the Koreans is lacking. In short, even provided that the chronology of materials were exact, it would be impossible to draw Dr. Kiyono's own conclusions from his own statistics.

著者

多賀谷 昭 池田 次郎

出版者

The Anthropological Society of Nippon

雑誌

人類學雜誌 (ISSN:00035505)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.84, no.3, pp.204-220, 1976

被引用文献数

9

---

現代琉球人男性頭骨の17計測値について,沖縄地方と奄美地方を比較した結果,両地方間に明瞭な差がみられ,本州,九州の6地方型とこの両地方の分析では,琉球人が日本人の地方型の一つであることが明らかとなった。次いで琉球,西日本,東日本を朝鮮,中国,台湾,インドネシアの諸種族および八雲アイヌと比較した結果,南方のいくつかの種族が本州,九州に次いで琉球に近いこと,比較集団中,アイヌにもっとも近いのが琉球であることが示された。最後に,縄文,弥生,古墳人骨との比較では,琉球はこれらおよび現代日本人,アイヌに同程度に近く,朝鮮人とは比較的遠いという結果がえられた。

著者

池田 次郎 多賀 谷昭

出版者

The Anthropological Society of Nippon

雑誌

人類學雜誌 (ISSN:00035505)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.88, no.4, pp.397-410, 1980 (Released:2008-02-26)

参考文献数

16

被引用文献数

4 5

---

全国の地方集団,男性706,女性609を用い,6項目の生体計測値からみた日本列島の地域性を多重判別分析法を用いて検討し,次の結果をえた。i)最も明瞭な地域差は,北海道,本州•四国•九州を含む本土,および南西諸島の間に存在する。ii)本土集団のなかでは,南九州がやや特異な地域である。iii)東中国,近畿,東海,南関東の集団と,奥羽,北陸の集団との差は,比較的顕著である。iv)北海道,南西諸島間の差は大きく,本土集団のうち両集団に近いのは,前者には奥羽,次いで北陸,信越であり,後者には北陸,信越,次いで南九州である。v)地域性は,女性より男性でより明瞭であるが,その傾向は完全に一致する。