Acta Anthropologica Sinica ›› 2026, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (05): 896-911.doi: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2025.0054
• Research Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles
HOU Kan1,2(
), LI Shuyun3, XU Nan4, LI Jun1
Received:2024-11-26
Revised:2025-02-27
Online:2026-10-15
Published:2026-10-16
CLC Number:
HOU Kan, LI Shuyun, XU Nan, LI Jun. Morphology variability of human crania from the Hengyuan Road Cemetery, Datong of Shanxi[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2026, 45(05): 896-911.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.anthropol.ac.cn/EN/10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2025.0054
| 对比组Sample | 姜家梁Jiangjialiang | 磨沟Mogou | 后套木嘎Houtaomuga | 殷墟中小墓Yinxu | 榆次聂店Yuci Niedian | 榆次明清Yuci Mingqing | 大同恒源路Datong | 组内dm /Intragroup dm |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 姜家梁Jiangjialiang | 0 | 3.9293 | 5.187 | 4.0993 | 5.7018 | 4.6301 | 3.8717 | 4.0983 |
| 磨沟Mogou | 3.9293 | 0 | 4.517 | 3.5566 | 5.2921 | 4.2027 | 3.3502 | 3.4387 |
| 后套木嘎Houtaomuga | 5.187 | 4.517 | 0 | 4.2661 | 6.6111 | 5.998 | 4.052 | 3.586 |
| 殷墟中小墓Yinxu | 4.0993 | 3.5566 | 4.2661 | 0 | 4.9255 | 4.8751 | 3.0456 | 3.3029 |
| 榆次聂店Yuci Niedian | 5.7018 | 5.2921 | 6.6111 | 4.9255 | 0 | 5.8655 | 4.7042 | 4.047 |
| 榆次明清Yuci Mingqing | 4.6301 | 4.2027 | 5.998 | 4.8751 | 5.8655 | 0 | 4.6563 | 3.6979 |
| 大同恒源路Datong | 3.8717 | 3.3502 | 4.052 | 3.0456 | 4.7042 | 4.6563 | 0 | 2.8717 |
Tab.1 Intergroup dm and intragroup dm of male samples
| 对比组Sample | 姜家梁Jiangjialiang | 磨沟Mogou | 后套木嘎Houtaomuga | 殷墟中小墓Yinxu | 榆次聂店Yuci Niedian | 榆次明清Yuci Mingqing | 大同恒源路Datong | 组内dm /Intragroup dm |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 姜家梁Jiangjialiang | 0 | 3.9293 | 5.187 | 4.0993 | 5.7018 | 4.6301 | 3.8717 | 4.0983 |
| 磨沟Mogou | 3.9293 | 0 | 4.517 | 3.5566 | 5.2921 | 4.2027 | 3.3502 | 3.4387 |
| 后套木嘎Houtaomuga | 5.187 | 4.517 | 0 | 4.2661 | 6.6111 | 5.998 | 4.052 | 3.586 |
| 殷墟中小墓Yinxu | 4.0993 | 3.5566 | 4.2661 | 0 | 4.9255 | 4.8751 | 3.0456 | 3.3029 |
| 榆次聂店Yuci Niedian | 5.7018 | 5.2921 | 6.6111 | 4.9255 | 0 | 5.8655 | 4.7042 | 4.047 |
| 榆次明清Yuci Mingqing | 4.6301 | 4.2027 | 5.998 | 4.8751 | 5.8655 | 0 | 4.6563 | 3.6979 |
| 大同恒源路Datong | 3.8717 | 3.3502 | 4.052 | 3.0456 | 4.7042 | 4.6563 | 0 | 2.8717 |
| 对比组Sample | 姜家梁Jiangjialiang | 磨沟Mogou | 后套木嘎Houtaomuga | 殷墟中小墓Yinxu | 榆次聂店Yuci Niedian | 榆次明清Yuci Mingqing | 大同恒源路Datong | 组内dm /Intragroup dm |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 姜家梁Jiangjialiang | 0 | 4.1843 | 4.5346 | 3.7969 | 3.3798 | 3.9455 | 4.1772 | 3.6456 |
| 磨沟Mogou | 4.1843 | 0 | 4.5784 | 4.0442 | 3.9395 | 4.594 | 4.1104 | 4.0042 |
| 后套木嘎Houtaomuga | 4.5346 | 4.5784 | 0 | 3.7967 | 4.3645 | 5.6951 | 4.7537 | 2.8526 |
| 殷墟中小墓Yinxu | 3.7969 | 4.0442 | 3.7967 | 0 | 3.3118 | 4.6224 | 3.9454 | 3.3956 |
| 榆次聂店Yuci Niedian | 3.3798 | 3.9395 | 4.3645 | 3.3118 | 0 | 3.8852 | 3.7216 | 2.9324 |
| 榆次明清Yuci Mingqing | 3.9455 | 4.594 | 5.6951 | 4.6224 | 3.8852 | 0 | 4.7277 | 3.7197 |
| 大同恒源路Datong | 4.1772 | 4.1104 | 4.7537 | 3.9454 | 3.7216 | 4.7277 | 0 | 3.8949 |
Tab.2 Intergroup dm and intragroup dm of female samples
| 对比组Sample | 姜家梁Jiangjialiang | 磨沟Mogou | 后套木嘎Houtaomuga | 殷墟中小墓Yinxu | 榆次聂店Yuci Niedian | 榆次明清Yuci Mingqing | 大同恒源路Datong | 组内dm /Intragroup dm |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 姜家梁Jiangjialiang | 0 | 4.1843 | 4.5346 | 3.7969 | 3.3798 | 3.9455 | 4.1772 | 3.6456 |
| 磨沟Mogou | 4.1843 | 0 | 4.5784 | 4.0442 | 3.9395 | 4.594 | 4.1104 | 4.0042 |
| 后套木嘎Houtaomuga | 4.5346 | 4.5784 | 0 | 3.7967 | 4.3645 | 5.6951 | 4.7537 | 2.8526 |
| 殷墟中小墓Yinxu | 3.7969 | 4.0442 | 3.7967 | 0 | 3.3118 | 4.6224 | 3.9454 | 3.3956 |
| 榆次聂店Yuci Niedian | 3.3798 | 3.9395 | 4.3645 | 3.3118 | 0 | 3.8852 | 3.7216 | 2.9324 |
| 榆次明清Yuci Mingqing | 3.9455 | 4.594 | 5.6951 | 4.6224 | 3.8852 | 0 | 4.7277 | 3.7197 |
| 大同恒源路Datong | 4.1772 | 4.1104 | 4.7537 | 3.9454 | 3.7216 | 4.7277 | 0 | 3.8949 |
| 标本specimen | Ancestrees-AnF | Ancestrees-ToF | Fordisc-FDB | Fordisc-Howells | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 判断结果 | 概率 | n | 鉴定结果 | 概率 | n | 判断结果 | 概率 | n | 全部对比组 all groups | 欧亚对比组European and Asian groups | n | |||||||
| 判断结果 | 概率 | 判断结果 | 概率 | |||||||||||||||
| M10-2 | Northern Asia & Arctic | 36.04% | 5 | Polynesia | 53.91% | 5 | B* | 52.3% | 4 | ESK* | 35.8% | NOR* | 46.9% | 5 | ||||
| North America | 12.40% | Southwestern Europe | 46.09% | W* | 16.9% | EAS* | 23.0% | ZAL* | 13.0% | |||||||||
| Northern & Central Europe | 11.82% | A* | 11.8% | NOR* | 9.5% | SJA* | 10.2% | |||||||||||
| M35 | Northern Asia & Arctic | 30.57% | 21 | Polynesia | 64.45% | 21 | H* | 36.9% | 21 | EGY* | 34.9% | ZAL* | 31.2% | 26 | ||||
| North America | 24.71% | East Asia | 35.55% | J* | 25.1% | MOR* | 29.5% | SJA* | 26.7% | |||||||||
| Polynesia | 14.16% | CH* | 20.4% | SJA* | 8.6% | NOR* | 16.2% | |||||||||||
| M39 | Northern Asia & Arctic | 23.83% | 5 | Northern & Central Europe | 54.69% | 5 | GT* | 41.5% | 5 | ATA* | 16.3% | ATA* | 35.6% | 5 | ||||
| South America | 21.48% | South America | 45.31% | H* | 22.9% | ANY* | 14.3% | ANY* | 30.1% | |||||||||
| North America | 19.34% | J* | 12.9% | ESK* | 14.0% | HAI* | 18.3% | |||||||||||
| M45 | Northeast Africa | 19.34% | 5 | East Asia | 72.27% | 5 | B* | 45.0% | 5 | EAS* | 31.4% | ANY* | 32.3% | 5 | ||||
| Polynesia | 12.30% | Sub-Saharan Africa | 27.73% | W* | 20.6% | ESK* | 14.3% | SJA* | 23.2% | |||||||||
| Southwestern Europe | 11.91% | CH* | 15.7% | ZUL* | 10.5% | AIN* | 16.8% | |||||||||||
| M13-2 | Northern & Central Europe | 22.85% | 20 | Northern & Central Europe | 77.73% | 20 | J** | 56.7% | 20 | EGY** | 62.6% | ZAL** | 41.6% | 25 | ||||
| Northeast Africa | 20.51% | Sub-Saharan Africa | 22.27% | W** | 25.1% | NJA** | 7.9% | NJA** | 26.5% | |||||||||
| Sub-Saharan Africa | 16.60% | H** | 15.2% | ATA** | 7.6% | ATA** | 15.4% | |||||||||||
| M11-1 | Polynesia | 21.29% | 20 | East Asia | 92.19% | 20 | H** | 68.2% | 20 | GUA** | 72.0% | HAI** | 48.0% | 25 | ||||
| North America | 19.63% | North America | 7.81% | J** | 17.0% | HAI** | 11.9% | NJA** | 31.4% | |||||||||
| Southeast Asia | 18.75% | A** | 14.7% | NJA** | 5.5% | SJA** | 12.9% | |||||||||||
| M18 | Polynesia | 22.07% | 6 | East Asia | 64.45% | 6 | W** | 39.9% | 6 | ESK** | 33.0% | AIN** | 70.9% | 8 | ||||
| Southeast Asia | 14.65% | Northeast Africa | 35.55% | B** | 37.1% | EAS** | 21.6% | SJA** | 16.8% | |||||||||
| Northern Asia & Arctic | 14.26% | J** | 10.1% | AIN** | 19.2% | NJA** | 7.9% | |||||||||||
| M2 | Northern & Central Europe | 17.38% | 8 | Northern Asia & Arctic | 72.66% | 8 | H** | 40.8% | 8 | GUA** | 19.8% | HAI** | 21.0% | 12 | ||||
| North America | 16.31% | Polynesia | 27.34% | J** | 37.5% | ARI** | 11.8% | SJA** | 19.7% | |||||||||
| South America | 11.23% | A** | 17.1% | ESK** | 8.7% | NJA** | 18.8% | |||||||||||
| M42 | East Asia | 16.02% | 6 | Northern & Central Europe | 60.16% | 6 | A** | 46.5% | 7 | ESK** | 26.1% | AIN** | 38.5% | 7 | ||||
| Southwestern Europe | 15.23% | Polynesia | 39.84% | W** | 17.4% | MOR** | 17.0% | NOR** | 19.1% | |||||||||
| Polynesia | 13.96% | H** | 13.3% | AIN** | 12.8% | ZAL** | 17.9% | |||||||||||
Tab.3 The partial results of ancestry estimation by two methods
| 标本specimen | Ancestrees-AnF | Ancestrees-ToF | Fordisc-FDB | Fordisc-Howells | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 判断结果 | 概率 | n | 鉴定结果 | 概率 | n | 判断结果 | 概率 | n | 全部对比组 all groups | 欧亚对比组European and Asian groups | n | |||||||
| 判断结果 | 概率 | 判断结果 | 概率 | |||||||||||||||
| M10-2 | Northern Asia & Arctic | 36.04% | 5 | Polynesia | 53.91% | 5 | B* | 52.3% | 4 | ESK* | 35.8% | NOR* | 46.9% | 5 | ||||
| North America | 12.40% | Southwestern Europe | 46.09% | W* | 16.9% | EAS* | 23.0% | ZAL* | 13.0% | |||||||||
| Northern & Central Europe | 11.82% | A* | 11.8% | NOR* | 9.5% | SJA* | 10.2% | |||||||||||
| M35 | Northern Asia & Arctic | 30.57% | 21 | Polynesia | 64.45% | 21 | H* | 36.9% | 21 | EGY* | 34.9% | ZAL* | 31.2% | 26 | ||||
| North America | 24.71% | East Asia | 35.55% | J* | 25.1% | MOR* | 29.5% | SJA* | 26.7% | |||||||||
| Polynesia | 14.16% | CH* | 20.4% | SJA* | 8.6% | NOR* | 16.2% | |||||||||||
| M39 | Northern Asia & Arctic | 23.83% | 5 | Northern & Central Europe | 54.69% | 5 | GT* | 41.5% | 5 | ATA* | 16.3% | ATA* | 35.6% | 5 | ||||
| South America | 21.48% | South America | 45.31% | H* | 22.9% | ANY* | 14.3% | ANY* | 30.1% | |||||||||
| North America | 19.34% | J* | 12.9% | ESK* | 14.0% | HAI* | 18.3% | |||||||||||
| M45 | Northeast Africa | 19.34% | 5 | East Asia | 72.27% | 5 | B* | 45.0% | 5 | EAS* | 31.4% | ANY* | 32.3% | 5 | ||||
| Polynesia | 12.30% | Sub-Saharan Africa | 27.73% | W* | 20.6% | ESK* | 14.3% | SJA* | 23.2% | |||||||||
| Southwestern Europe | 11.91% | CH* | 15.7% | ZUL* | 10.5% | AIN* | 16.8% | |||||||||||
| M13-2 | Northern & Central Europe | 22.85% | 20 | Northern & Central Europe | 77.73% | 20 | J** | 56.7% | 20 | EGY** | 62.6% | ZAL** | 41.6% | 25 | ||||
| Northeast Africa | 20.51% | Sub-Saharan Africa | 22.27% | W** | 25.1% | NJA** | 7.9% | NJA** | 26.5% | |||||||||
| Sub-Saharan Africa | 16.60% | H** | 15.2% | ATA** | 7.6% | ATA** | 15.4% | |||||||||||
| M11-1 | Polynesia | 21.29% | 20 | East Asia | 92.19% | 20 | H** | 68.2% | 20 | GUA** | 72.0% | HAI** | 48.0% | 25 | ||||
| North America | 19.63% | North America | 7.81% | J** | 17.0% | HAI** | 11.9% | NJA** | 31.4% | |||||||||
| Southeast Asia | 18.75% | A** | 14.7% | NJA** | 5.5% | SJA** | 12.9% | |||||||||||
| M18 | Polynesia | 22.07% | 6 | East Asia | 64.45% | 6 | W** | 39.9% | 6 | ESK** | 33.0% | AIN** | 70.9% | 8 | ||||
| Southeast Asia | 14.65% | Northeast Africa | 35.55% | B** | 37.1% | EAS** | 21.6% | SJA** | 16.8% | |||||||||
| Northern Asia & Arctic | 14.26% | J** | 10.1% | AIN** | 19.2% | NJA** | 7.9% | |||||||||||
| M2 | Northern & Central Europe | 17.38% | 8 | Northern Asia & Arctic | 72.66% | 8 | H** | 40.8% | 8 | GUA** | 19.8% | HAI** | 21.0% | 12 | ||||
| North America | 16.31% | Polynesia | 27.34% | J** | 37.5% | ARI** | 11.8% | SJA** | 19.7% | |||||||||
| South America | 11.23% | A** | 17.1% | ESK** | 8.7% | NJA** | 18.8% | |||||||||||
| M42 | East Asia | 16.02% | 6 | Northern & Central Europe | 60.16% | 6 | A** | 46.5% | 7 | ESK** | 26.1% | AIN** | 38.5% | 7 | ||||
| Southwestern Europe | 15.23% | Polynesia | 39.84% | W** | 17.4% | MOR** | 17.0% | NOR** | 19.1% | |||||||||
| Polynesia | 13.96% | H** | 13.3% | AIN** | 12.8% | ZAL** | 17.9% | |||||||||||
| [1] |
Devor EJ. Transmission of human craniofacial dimensions[J]. Journal of Craniofacial Genetics and Developmental Biology, 1987, 7(2): 95-106
pmid: 3624421 |
| [2] | Pearson K. Craniological notes: homogeneity and heterogeneity in collections of crania[J]. Biometrika, 1903, 2(3): 345-347 |
| [3] | Howells WW. Some uses of the standard deviation in anthropometry[J]. Human Biology, 1936, 8(4): 592-600 |
| [4] |
Hefner JT. Cranial nonmetric variation and estimating ancestry[J]. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2009, 54(5): 985-995
doi: 10.1111/jfo.2009.54.issue-5 URL |
| [5] |
Plemons AM, Hefner JT. Ancestry estimation using macromorphoscopic traits[J]. Academic Forensic Pathology, 2016, 6(3): 400-412
doi: 10.23907/2016.041 pmid: 31239915 |
| [6] | Hefner JT, Emanovsky PD, Byrd J, et al. The value of experience, education, and methods in ancestry prediction[A]. In: Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences[C]. Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2007: H64 |
| [7] |
Nakhaeizadeh S, Dror IE, Morgan RM. Cognitive bias in forensic anthropology: visual assessment of skeletal remains is susceptible to confirmation bias[J]. Science and Justice, 2014, 54(3): 208-214
doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2013.11.003 URL |
| [8] |
Dunn RR, Spiros MC, Kamnikar KR, et al. Ancestry estimation in forensic anthropology: A review[J]. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Forensic Science, 2020, 2(4): e1369
doi: 10.1002/wfs2.v2.4 URL |
| [9] |
Flouri DE, Alifragki A, Gómez García-Donas J, et al. Ancestry estimation: advances and limitations in forensic applications[J]. Research and Reports in Forensic Medical Science, 2022, 12: 13-24
doi: 10.2147/RRFMS.S272224 URL |
| [10] |
Cunha E, Ubelaker DH. Evaluation of ancestry from human skeletal remains: a concise review[J]. Forensic Sciences Research, 2020, 5(2): 89-97
doi: 10.1080/20961790.2019.1697060 pmid: 32939424 |
| [11] | Ousley SD. Forensic classification and biodistance in the 21st century: the rise of learning machines[A]. In: Pilloud MA, Hefner JT (Eds). Biological distance analysis: Forensic and bioarchaeological perspectives[M]. London: Elsevier Inc, 2016, 197-212 |
| [12] | 曹臣明. 平城附近鲜卑及北魏墓葬分布规律考[J]. 文物, 2016(5): 61-69 |
| [13] | 徐楠. 大同二中南校区墓地出土人骨研究[D]. 硕士学位论文, 太原: 山西大学, 2023 |
| [14] | 邵象清. 人体测量手册[M]. 上海: 上海辞书出版社, 1985, 34-44 |
| [15] | White TD, Folkens PA. The Human Bone Manual[M]. Burlington: Academic Press, 2005, 406-419 |
| [16] | Evteev AA, Staroverov NE, Potrakhov NN. Analytical techniques and software for the study of intragroup metric variation using principal component analysis[J]. Bulletins et mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 2021, 33(1): 87-97 |
| [17] |
Howells WW. Howells' craniometric data on the internet[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1996, 101(3): 441-442
pmid: 8922187 |
| [18] | Howells WW. Skull Shapes and the Map[M]. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 1989, 89-119 |
| [19] |
Navega D, Coelho C, Vicente R, et al. AncesTrees: ancestry estimation with randomized decision trees[J]. International journal of legal medicine, 2015, 129(5): 1145-1153
doi: 10.1007/s00414-014-1050-9 pmid: 25053239 |
| [20] | Ousley SD, Jantz RL. Fordisc 3 and statistical methods for estimating sex and ancestry[A]. In: Dirkmaat DC(Ed.). A companion to forensic anthropology[M]. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, 311-329 |
| [21] | Jantz RL, Ousley SD. Introduction to Fordisc 3 and human variation statistics[A]. In: Langley NR, Tersigni-Tarrant MT(Eds). Forensic Anthropology: A Comprehensive Introduction (2nd edition)[M]. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2017, 255-270 |
| [22] |
Darroch JN, Mosimann JE. Canonical and principal components of shape[J]. Biometrika, 1985, 72(2): 241-252
doi: 10.1093/biomet/72.2.241 URL |
| [23] |
Huson DH, Bryant D. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies[J]. Molecular biology and evolution, 2006, 23(2): 254-267
doi: 10.1093/molbev/msj030 pmid: 16221896 |
| [24] | Howells WW. Cranial Variation in Man[M]. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. 67. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 1973, 170-187 |
| [25] |
Pang J, Dong Y, Turner C, et al. Analysis of data consistency identifies measurement abnormality in Howells' craniometric test data set[J]. American Journal of Biological Anthropology, 2022, 179(4): 687-692
doi: 10.1002/ajpa.v179.4 URL |
| [26] | Howells WW. Skull Shapes and the Map[M]. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 1989, 45-70 |
| [27] |
Littlefield A, Lieberman L, Reynolds LT, et al. Redefining race: the potential demise of a concept in physical anthropology [and comments and reply][J]. Current Anthropology, 1982, 23(6): 641-655
doi: 10.1086/202915 URL |
| [28] | Armelagos G, Goodman AH. Race, racism, and anthropology[A]. In: Goodman AH, Leatherman TL(Eds). Building a New Biocultural Synthesis: Political-Economic Perspectives on Human Biology[M]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998, 359-378 |
| [29] |
Fuentes A, Ackermann RR, Athreya S, et al. AAPA statement on race and racism[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2019, 169(3): 400-402
doi: 10.1002/ajpa.23882 pmid: 31199004 |
| [30] |
Sauer NJ. Forensic anthropology and the concept of race: if races don't exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them?[J]. Social Science & Medicine, 1992, 34(2): 107-111
doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(92)90086-6 URL |
| [31] |
Ousley S, Jantz R, Freid D. Understanding race and human variation: why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying race[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2009, 139(1): 68-76
doi: 10.1002/ajpa.21006 pmid: 19226647 |
| [32] | Ousley S, Jantz RL, Hefner JT. From Blumenbach to Howells: the slow, painful emergence of theory through forensic race estimation[A]. In: Boyd CC, Boyd DC (Eds). Forensic Anthropology: Theoretical Framework and Scientific Basis[M]. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2018, 67-97 |
| [33] |
Bamshad M, Wooding S, Salisbury BA, et al. Deconstructing the relationship between genetics and race[J]. Nature reviews genetics, 2004, 5(8): 598-609
doi: 10.1038/nrg1401 pmid: 15266342 |
| [34] |
Ross AH, Williams SE. Ancestry studies in forensic anthropology: back on the frontier of racism[J]. Biology, 2021, 10(7): 602
doi: 10.3390/biology10070602 URL |
| [35] | 希安·琼斯. 族属的考古:构建古今的身份[M].译者:陈淳,沈辛成. 上海: 上海古籍出版社, 2017 |
| [36] | 梁云, 白劲松. 中国古代北方民族史·拓跋鲜卑卷[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2021, 22-33 |
| [37] | 韩康信. 塞、乌孙、匈奴和突厥之种族人类学特征[J]. 西域研究, 1992, 2: 3-23 |
| [38] | 朱泓. 人种学上的匈奴、鲜卑与契丹[J]. 北方文物, 1994(2): 7-13 |
| [39] | 杨军. 鲜卑人中白种人来源考[J]. 辽宁师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2007, 30(6): 108-111 |
| [40] | 陈琳国. 中古北方民族史探[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2010, 445-467 |
| [41] | 路遇, 滕泽之. 中国人口通史(上)[M]. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社, 2015, 240-255 |
| [42] | 李凭. 北魏平城时代(第四版)[M]. 上海: 上海古籍出版社, 2023, 8 |
| [43] | 葛剑雄. 中国移民史·第二卷·先秦至魏晋南北朝时期[M]. 上海: 复旦大学出版社, 2022, 478-518 |
| [44] | 马永. 北魏平城时期族际通婚研究[J]. 云冈研究, 2022(6): 75-80 |
| [45] | 张庆捷. 民族汇聚与文明互动——北朝社会的考古学观察[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2015, 349-368 |
| [46] | 王银田. 丝绸之路与北魏平城[J]. 暨南学报(哲学社会科学版), 2014, 36(1): 139-150 |
| [47] | 尚永琪. 北朝胡人与佛教的传播[J]. 吉林大学社会科学学报, 2006(2): 135-142 |
| [48] | 刘宁. 新疆地区古代居民的人种结构研究:以楼兰、乌孙、车师、回鹘为例[D].硕士学位论文, 长春: 吉林大学, 2010 |
| [49] | 韩康信. 中国境内考古发现的西方人种成分[A].见:韩康信.韩康信人类学文选韩康信人类学文选[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2017, 59-84 |
| [50] | 张银运, 吴秀杰, 刘武. 中国西北地区古代人群头骨的欧洲人种特征[J]. 人类学学报, 2013, 32(3): 274-279 |
| [1] | LIU Wu, WU Xiujie, Steve WANG. Some problems for the Late Pleistocene human cranium found in Liujiang of South China based on morphological analysis [J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2006, 25(03): 177-194. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||