Finnish scientist? What Finnish scientist? And how do you know that there isn't any truth to what this so called Finnish scientist said?Originally Posted by tokapi
Finnish scientist? What Finnish scientist? And how do you know that there isn't any truth to what this so called Finnish scientist said?
How about Koreans re-examine own idiocy of extremism & fanaticism
Hyung Il Pai, Constructing "Korean" Origins.A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State Formation Theories. Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard East Asian Monographs, 2000. 543 pages. ISBN: 0-674-00244-X.
Source: http://koreaweb.ws/ks/ksr/ksr01-10.htm
Nationalism has been a major force in the creation of the Korean state in the 20th Century. It was fueled during the colonial period when it underpinned the struggle for independence. Korean intellectuals promoted patriotism, and with it a sense of nationhood, yet the question of identity suddenly became an important issue when Japanese archaeologists began digging into Korea's past. Their activities and those of anthropologists, paid for largely by the Japanese government, focused on the history and culture of Korean civilization. The Japanese military government planned to assimilate the Korean people and the outcome of the studies, so it hoped, would serve to facilitate the assimilation process. It also made efforts to prevent expressions of a distinct Korean identity. For that purpose it imposed strong censorship and ruled that, among other things, the Korean Confucian institution was to be broken down, Korean history books rewritten, and Japanese taught as the primary language at schools.
After the liberation, the ensuing strong anti-Japanese sentiments helped the state to further boost nationalism, this time in order to increase competitiveness and productivity, improve national unity, and preempt criticism of the government. The success of South Korean president Park Chung Hee's policy of cultural indoctrination, in particular, was such that today most South Koreans share the same ideas about their unique cultural heritage and 5,000-year history. Park's nationalism focused on the threat from foreign powers and the uniqueness of Korea's national identity. It involved advocating old Confucian values that underscored the responsibility shared by all strata of society in achieving the state's economic and political objectives. Perhaps under the influence thereof, many Koreans, both scholars and laymen, began dealing with their colonial past their own way. They did so either by blaming the Japanese for stripping the country of its cultural treasures and economic resources, and leaving the country in ruins, or by rewriting the history of Korea, which they considered to have been greatly contrived by the Japanese during the colonial period. The starting point was to "prove" the historical truth of the myth of Tan'gun, who allegedly founded the first Korean state as early as 2333 B.C. Popular support for adopting the Tan'gun theory was significant, and was further gained under Park's rule. Due to this widespread support, and the fact that many of these historians gained prestigious positions in the academic world, the misconceptions stand largely uncorrected and continue to thwart objective Korean historiography.
In Constructing Korean Origins, Hyung Il Pai tackles most of the post-colonial historiographical constructions. With great dexterity she examines how and whether Korean historians have used the available data in formulating their many preconceived theories on the existence of Tan'gun's very early and purely Korean civilization, which, so they argue, was one of formidable cultural development and influence. Based on her findings, she shows that, instead, the first Korean state was not an isolated culture and cannot have been formed until much later.
In terms of the number of pages, the book is divided in two sections. The first part is made up of seven chapters, and the second of a relatively long section (127 pp.) of appendices, followed by the notes, bibliography, glossary and index. In the introduction, "The Formation of Korean Identity" (pp. 1-22), Pai summarizes the factors that led to the current trends in historiography. She outlines the nationalist cultural policy of South Korea's post-war governments and the nationalist activities of scholars, and explains how they have managed to shape the Korean identity. Urged on by the fast industrialization and urbanization, the government has become the arbiter in terms of which archaeological sites are salvaged from destruction by building projects. According to Pai, it is now "the supreme authority over the 'authentic domain of identity'" (p. 13).
* Author ( ethnic Korean ) Hyung Il Pai was born and raised in Seoul, South Korea
http://www.eastasian.ucsb.edu/content/people_pai.html
1) J. Edward Kidder, Jr. (who released a 400+ page book on the history, archaeology, and mythology surrounding Himiko and the location of Yamatai this Spring) covers the history of horses in Japan in his article "The Archaeology of the Early Horse-Riders in Japan". You can read it in "The Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan". He also provided some great evidence that discredits a few pillars of Egami's horseriders theory.Of course,every theory has aspects that reflect cultural/social/historical currents.
I recommend you guys checking out his article. I'll only lay out a few points he made in this post.
-The Kiso horse is indigenous to Japan, yet it's presently endangered. The horse that spread throughout the archipelago was imported from Korea.
-Horses began to be ridden widely in the 5th century.
-It was expected that aristocrats know how to ride horses.
-The native horses were from the Late Jomon period (1000 B.C.-300 B.C.)
-He gives 114.5 cm as an average height for the indigenous horses (measured up to the "withers")
-Yayoi horses are, on average, 132 cm (again, "withers")
-Jomon and Yayoi (300 B.C.-250 A.D.) sites don't imply the eating or sacrifice of horses. I believe Farris mentioned they were beasts of burden, however they apparently weren't ridden, yet.
-After the Yayoi period, horses began to be used in religious rituals. They were sacrificed. The Taika Reforms of the 7th century prohibited the sacrificing of horses (among other mourning practices after one's lord/leader had died).
-Horse sacrifice is actually a bit debated, as Kidder wonders why the Japanese would sacrifice the few horses that lived on the islands during the first years of the Kofun period.
-The use of horse haniwa around kofun seems to imply that the Japanese believed that horses were mediums or intouch with the spiritual world. 8th century rituals involving horse figures attest to this.
There's a lot more information in the short article. If you can get your hands on it, it'd go nicely with Walter Edwards rebuttal of Egami's theory. Both are from an archaeological standpoint.
A reputable Japanese archaeologist 樋口隆康 noted 2 Chinese migration routes
* China's lower Yangtze River ( today China's coastal provinces of Jiangsu & Zhejiang ) > northern Kyūshū 九州 of Japan
* southern China via Taiwan and Ryukyus ( Okinawa ) > southern Kyūshū 九州 of Japan
日本考古学研究家 " 樋口隆康 "
http://www.google.com/search?q=%E6%A...3&start=0&sa=N
『日本人はどこから来たか』(樋口隆康著、講談社現代新書)は、考古学者の日本人起源論である。樋口は日本 人を「日本列島に住み、同じ体質を持ち、日本的な文化を持つ一群の人類群」と定義した上で、「日本人の起源 とは日本文化の起源である」という立場から、起源を、日本文化の形成過程に求めている。他分野の知見も参考 にし、石器や土器、稲作の伝来や農具など発掘から得たデータをもとに考察する樋口は、文化は樺太、朝鮮半島、(中国)東シナ海、台湾・南西諸島、小笠原諸島の5ルートから日本に移入されていて、その合成により日本文化は形成されたが、中でも中国江南地域から東シナ海を通って伝えられた文化が最も重要な役割を果たしており、形成時期は弥生時代であ る、という仮説をたてる。
Source: http://shinshomap.info/theme/roots_of_japanese_g.html
Japanese-English translation website: http://www.excite.co.jp/world/english/
I found the word in "Suiheisya sengen(1922)," which was the declaration that they demanded the degnity of human beings.
They called themselves so with pain and pride.
Hello,
Linguistically I read that Japanese is primarily Altaic, but with a significant Austronesian substructure. Perhaps this supports the theory that there were different factors-One from Southeast Asia, and another from Northeast Asia, and the Ainu.
I have also read a theory that the Altaic component of Japanese may be related to the language spoken in Archaic Koguryo, a kingdom located in Korea and Manchuria attested in 30 BCE.
you turn them upside down, it says on their feet : "MADE IN JAPAN".
Frank
TAKE WHAT I SAY WITH A GRAIN OF SUGAR !!
I USED TO BE FUNNY, BUT MY WIFE HAD ME NEUTERED!
Japanese has in deed some caracteristics that make it close to the Altaic languages (Turkic, Mongolian, Manchu-Tungusic, Korean), but the Altaic languages don't constitue a genetic language family, as Indo-European for example. Their similarities come from cohabitation and borrowing. It is thus not surprising that Japanese would share some of those similarities if it comes from NE Asia.
The evidence for a link with Austronesian is rather thin.
About Koguryo, the places name of this kingdom look similar to Japanese, but we don't know if it reflects the language of Koguryo neither what this language really was.
Sorry to say that, but for me it is far away from enough to see a link with those 2 languages. You cannot establish a relationship with typological similarities (pronunciation, word order, grammatical constructions, etc) or with one or two words that look like (anata for "you" is quite recent in Japanese, and kimi means "lord" at first). The methodology of historical linguistics is far more exigeant.
Those words are identical because they are borrowings of the same word in Chinese (not hakkiri)Japanese and Korean grammar are very similar. My Koreans acquaintances in Japan told me that some words were also almost identical, such as kazoku, sentaku or hakkiri.
No the Aynu are definitely Asians, and more precisely mongoloids (not mongolians!). It is clear from biologic studies.
Sorry, but this is entirely wrong. People from Okinawa and other Ryukyu islands are closer to Jomon people and to Aynu than Mainland Japanese. And they speak what we call "Ryukyuan", a sister language of Japanese, not related to the languages of Taiwan.
You can't make conclusions from such basic observations. You have to look at the squeletons, blood, DNA, etc.
They can, we can suppose that the Ameridians separated form the group very early (thus their great differences) and migraed, while the other stayed and evolved into what would become Chinese, Japanese and other NE Asian peopleJapanese can't be from the same Northern Mongoloid group as Ameridians because Ameridians went to America about 10.000 years ago
No, Western dialects are not closer to Korean.I guess some of Western Japan's dialect must be even closer to Korean. Unfortunately, I don't know anyobody who speaks Western Japanese dialects (such as Northern Kyushuu) and Korean. Any Japano-Korean linguists here ?
Sorry to tell you that this is a lie. Now, if you have any concrete evidence, I would be glad to see it
Not quite so, I think. At least according to this
study:
"In the principal components analysis 3 Japanese populations (Ryukyuans, Hondo Japanese, and Ainu) formed a cluster and showed the highest affinity to 2 Korean populations. In the phylogenetic tree Ryukyuans and Ainu were neighbors, but the genetic distance between them was larger than the distances between Ryukyuans and Hondo Japanese and between Ryukyuans and Korean populations."
japan ppl originated frm korea...www.uglychinese.org has the info
Excuse Me, Maciamo
I like you are right when you sadi that the Ainu gene/bloodlines would have come from Lake Bakal in Siberia. But What led to the migration as you said was the ice age and land bridges. It was the case also for the Native American Indian Tribes, with their migration, they did it to follow their food supplies, afterwards the bridges were deestroyed by the glacial recession. It could have been the cases with the Ainu, they must have followed their food animals down the continent to the Isalnds of present day Japan (Nihon). As for the darker gene coloration, it could have been a migratory wave as noted in earlier postings, or it could have been a physical adaption to life on an Island. The Native Americans have beeen gene-mapped to their origins for common ancestory, and European and American scientists and genetists have found that most current Asian peoples and Native American Indian tribes share the same ancestoral beginings. But as for the ear wax idea, it is a physicla change to suit the enviroment of the persons surroundings.
“To every man there comes a time in his lifetime that special moment when he is figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered the chance to do a very special thing unique to him and fitted to his talent; what a tragedy if that moment finds him unprepared or unqualified for the work which would be his finest hour.”
Sir Winston Churchill
ToMach, are you familiar with the horse-rider theory about the origins of Japanese? (That the ancestors of the Yayoi were horse-riders from Siberia that passed through Korea and conquered the Jomon natives.)
What I meant is that all Japanese and Aynu are a mixture of Jomon and Yayoi, and the Jomon element is the strongest in Aynu first, Ryukyuans second, and Mainland Japanese last. So, while they remain close to the Mainland Japanese, Ryukyuan people have also a quite strong affinity with Aynu
I think you make a mistake here : the Horserider theory, first proposed by Egami and modified by Ledyard, is about the invasion from the continent through Korea of a horse-riding tribe who conquered Japan and founded the Yamato state around 4th century AD. Thus they conquered not the Jomon but the Yayoi people, and are not the ancestors of modern Japanese.
But this theory has few supporters nowadays, as it has been heavily criticized from an archeological point of view.
Konnichiwa ToMach-san,
I see that you are deeply interested in the genetic/linguistical background of modern japanese people. I have also heard of the horserifer theory, and have drawn similar conclusions as to your findings. I have also noticed the skin pigmentation differences in the SE Vs NE Asian peoples. It could be as you mentioned about the Riders conquering the Yaori, but I have heard of Early Russian/Scandinavian migrations to the Siberian plains and the Eastern Asian areas via inland Rivers and sea voyages crossing the southern tip of Africa, and of certain Arabic passages through the Caucuss Mountains. It could have been as I mentioned earlier about Siberian connection. THe Siberia theory as I have heard it called seems to me the most logicla, Because One could ride the Danube down to the Russian border, then travel to the Volga, then travel across land to the Amur river in northern Mongolia/Southern Russia. Then from there it would have been a matter of time before people would have sailed for the Japanese island of Hokkaido or even the others.
But this is just theories that I heard or read, in my world studies I especially have concentrated on the Asian histories, especially dealing with the pre Euorpean contaact and the silk road era in China. Europeans owe the Asian and Middle Eastern scientists for there discoveries. Granted that Europe would have discovered them latter on there own. But it could have taken decades longer then it took there Asian counterparts. Yes the Greeks and the Romans did give us the road, arch, geometry, government, and other things but they didnt create the first ironclad warships, or discover fireworks, or coal, or paper money. For all this I am gratefull.
I don't think that skin color is a reliable evidence, but yes there is a clive between NE Asia mongoloids and SE Asia ones.
But we find no archeological or biological trace of a European migration to Eastern Asia nor Japan in prehistoric times.It could be as you mentioned about the Riders conquering the Yaori, but I have heard of Early Russian/Scandinavian migrations to the Siberian plains and the Eastern Asian areas via inland Rivers and sea voyages crossing the southern tip of Africa, and of certain Arabic passages through the Caucuss Mountains. It could have been as I mentioned earlier about Siberian connection.THe Siberia theory as I have heard it called seems to me the most logicla, Because One could ride the Danube down to the Russian border, then travel to the Volga, then travel across land to the Amur river in northern Mongolia/Southern Russia. Then from there it would have been a matter of time before people would have sailed for the Japanese island of Hokkaido or even the others.
I posted this link on another thread. I think this is the best info on the origins of the Japanese online: http://gias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/publica.../paekch_e.html
So, what is your theory? Who do you believe the Yayoi were? Were they Tungusic peoples who entered the Japanese islands via Korea or another group that came from South East Asia/Polynesia? Personally, I believe that the Yayoi were a people who had two genetic roots: Tungusic and Mon-Khmer.
As I said on the other thread :
I read the book some time ago, but it has two major flaws :
1. It relies too heavily on the horserider theory, which is rejected by most of the archeologists
2. It has too much Korean nationalistic points of view on the ancient history of Korea and Japan.
I am not an anthropologist neither an archeologist, so I don't have my own theory, but the consensus is that Jomon people (not a single homogeneous people, possibly different austronesian and/or austroasiatic people) arrived very early from South East Asia. Then arrived the Yayoi Korean-like people from the North East (but we don't know their first homeland), and they mixed more or less with Jomon people. The isolated Ryukyuan people got less mixed than the mainland and remained closer to Jomon, and Aynu are descendants of one of the Jomon people who remained very little mixed. This is what is called the dual model of Japanese ethnogenesis, and is accepted by most of the scholars and scientists in and out Japan.So, what is your theory? Who do you believe the Yayoi were? Were they Tungusic peoples who entered the Japanese islands via Korea or another group that came from South East Asia/Polynesia? Personally, I believe that the Yayoi were a people who had two genetic roots: Tungusic and Mon-Khmer
For Mon-Khmer, what makes you believe that? By the way, at those time, I'm not sure we should speak of Mon-Khmer people, I prefer the broader term "austroasiatic".
I read somewhere that the modern Japanese has Mon genetic roots from South East Asia (possibly from the Vietnam-Cambodian region). National Geographic Japan once had an issue dealing with the Mon peoples in South East Asia and how similar many of them look to many modern Japanese.
I also think this is the most likely theory of the origins of the Japanese.
Now the question is where did the Yayoi come from? The following article was posted a while ago on this forum has found evidence that supports the theory that the origin of the Yayoi people was an area south of the Yangtze.
"People who introduced irrigation techniques to the Japanese archipelago in the Yayoi Period (250 B.C.-300) were believed to have come to Japan either from the Korean Peninsula across the Tsushima Strait, or from northern China across the Yellow Sea.
The latest findings, however, bolster another theory suggesting the origin of the Yayoi people was an area south of the Yangtze, which is believed to be the birthplace of irrigated rice cultivation.
Yamaguchi, a researcher at Japan's National Science Museum, said the researchers compared Yayoi remains found in Yamaguchi and Fukuoka prefectures with those from early Han (202 B.C.-8) in Jiangsu in a three-year project begun in 1996.
The researchers found many similarities between the skulls and limbs of Yayoi people and the Jiangsu remains.
Two Jiangsu skulls showed spots where the front teeth had been pulled, a practice common in Japan in the Yayoi and preceding Jomon Period.
But the most persuasive findings resulted from tests revealing that genetic samples from three of 36 Jiangsu skeletons also matched part of the DNA base arrangements of samples from the Yayoi remains, the scientists said."
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news111.htm
But the early migrations of the Scandinavians, That I spoke of, happened in the formation of the germanic tribes. Such as the Goths, Huns, and other such tribes. In one respect the skin color couldnt be used, as a link, due to varying exposures to sun.
A question Maciamo
When I was last year in Tokyo I saw many girls with boots (it was winter)
that were walking with difficulties....the same problem I have not seen in Korea..
is the seisan position that make some problems to jp women?
Malaysians
I lived in Malaysia. They are descendants of Polynesians.
Great subject. Here is an interesting link ...
http://www.dai3gen.net/epage0.htm
Seems there are many varying opinions on this subject, I would be curious to know what is actually taught in elementary schools regarding the origin of Japanese people... anyone know?
Similarity between the Japanese language and the Fu-jian (southern China) dialect indicates that:
Anthropologically speaking, the Japanese may have originated from the south of China and may have at a time been brought to what's called Japan today by sea winds.
In this sense the Sino-Japanese war is just something like the citystate wars within China.
Similarity between the Fu-jian (coastal south China) dialect and the Japanese language suggests that the Japanese people may have originated in China and then at one time carried to what's called Japan by sea winds.
In this sense the Sino-Japanese war is just like one of those citystate warfares within China.
Hmmm... interesting, isn't it?
What will be the next country that Chinese claim belongs to China in some way.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks