Talk:Jōmon period

@Fraenir: can you explain your edits and ? I do not see any improvement between this and this revision.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski:. 1.You need to check the information and the source. That information is misleading and wrong in several areas - I simply reverted to the versions that excluded the edits made by the anonymous insertions, likely made by banned sockpuppet User:Kumasojin 熊襲/X Aterui X/FreeTaiwan, of bad information. Let's start with the part that I'm most familiar with. This is my version, with can be found directly in the original source. Hideaki is the primary source for aDNA information on this, and the actually numbers (if you read the paper/articles) is actually a lot less than 20%; yet, that poster insists on 13-40% estimate, which is completely inappropriate and misleading, as that comes from generalized mtDNA population percentage analysis against modern populations. This move is repeated by Kumasojin 熊襲 and his sockpuppets several times, in this article and elsewhere. If you read up on that aDNA information, the ancient Jomon aDNA clusters all by themselves and is essentially an isolate, although when compared against modern humans, they do have the closest affinity for East Asians in general, with slightly higher affinities for the Ainu and Ryukyuan populations; however, this paper also makes it clear that modern Japanese (including Ainu and Ryukyuan) cluster much more closely with each other, and other East Asians than the ancient Jomon. With the appearance of ancient Jomon aDNA samples, mtDNA studies are generally superseded - a lot of that information becomes outdated, especially if you're trying to use it to estimate population closeness to modern humans (which that poster adds a lot of, but is generally bad practice as it's not a reliable way to do it).

A 2016 study on ancient Jomon aDNA from Sanganji shell mound estimates that the modern Japanese population inherited less than 20% of their DNA from the ancient Jomon populations. ^[1]

A 2017 study on ancient Jomon aDNA from Sanganji shell mound estimates that, although still debatable depending on specific analysis and study with the result ranging between 13-40%, the modern mainland Japanese population probably inherited less than 20% of Jomon peoples' genomes.^[2]

2. This lead ("The relationship of Jōmon people to the modern Japanese (Yamato people), Ryukyuans and Ainu is diverse. According to recent studies the contemporary Japanese people descended from a mixture of the ancient hunter-gatherer Jōmon and the Yayoi rice agriculturalists.[37][38][39][40][41][42]") is inappropriate: due to Hideaki, we now have a pretty clear picture of that relationship - the Jomon cluster to themselves, show affinity to East Asians, and slightly more to Ainu, then Ryukyuans. This poster then also slid that Hideaki source inappropriately into this location to support the Jomon/Yayoi statement. There's not enough data yet to fully model with confidence the Jomon/Yayoi dichotomy as stated in this version (as of right now, we only have 1 full Jomon aDNA sample on record); a much weaker phrasing is more appropriate. 3. That poster consistently inserts phrasing to insert a much stronger relationship than implied. His version "Recent Y chromosome haplotype testing has led to the generally accepted hypothesis that male haplogroup D1b, which has been found in different percentages of samples of modern Japanese (32%), Ryukyuan (55%), and Ainu (87%), may reflect patrilineal descent from members of a Jōmon period culture of the Japanese Archipelago.[38][39]" vs the original "Recent Y-DNA haplotype testing has led to the popularly accepted (though untested) hypothesis that haplogroup D-M55 Y-DNA, which has been found in some percentages of samples of modern Japanese, Ryukyuan, and Ainu males, may reflect patrilineal descent from members of a Jōmon period culture of the Japanese Archipelago.[39]" He adds numbers, then inserts his misleading phrasing to imply that this hypothesis is now a "generally accepted hypothesis". That's ridiculous. This is a common problem with these edits - the editor adds numbers and then slides misleading or inappropriate assertions along with these numbers. The main problem with the current setup is that the bulk of the genetics section is reliant on mtDNA data, which is inferring too far from limited information - the problem with the version dependent on this one poster's take on mtDNA studies is that it makes too many assumptions based on data that should not be used that way. The aDNA information is much more reliable and should be the focus of a solid genetics section. Fraenir (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I admit that I am not well informed about the topic. I checked the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kumasojin 熊襲/Archive, and there you stated, quote, the ip sock evidence is much weaker, while administrators did not comment or support the IP connection nor blocked it, hence your assumption and revert lacks evidence and confirmation. I tried to read and check the sources, and I do not understand your reasoning - it is well sourced, and it is within the scope of the section. I could check the numbers in the source, and the phrase "generally accepted hypothesis" probably needs better wording, but mostly what you said is your personal opinion which is not based on sources or editing policy. Actually, the previous revision still concluded that "the modern mainland Japanese population probably inherited less than 20% of Jomon peoples' genomes"...? I am sorry, but I will have to revert to previous revision because current is not an improvement, while the explanation was not enough to remove the previous, or simply it did not have anything to grasp upon. The section should be edited according to NPOV/UNDUE.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're not well-informed, why are you so insistent that your version is correct? This is a section on Jomon genetics. There is only 1 nuclear DNA study on archaic Jomon DNA (Hideaki) - this study is seminal, being the 1st study to provide extended nuclear DNA data available on ancient Jomon DNA. If you read the paper, the data actually shows that the likely percentage of Jomon DNA in Modern Japanese people is actually much lower than 20%, which itself then is a very generous number. The rest of the studies are older and all based on mtDNA studies, which only tell you what the mtDNA haglogroup is. If that section only mentions the various types of mtDNA haglogroups that have been found in ancient Jomon DNA samples, then I will have no problem with it. Most of the erroneous reasoning based on ancient mtDNA (as exists in your preferred version) uses this logic: ancient Jomon mtDNA has types A, B, and C. 40% of Modern Japanese people have types A, B, and C, therefore, Modern Japanese people derive 40% of their DNA from ancient Jomon.Fraenir (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand your reasoning - I do not insist nor it is "my" version, yet once again note that what you say is your personal opinion which is not substantiated on sources or editing policy. What you say about Hideaki and less than 20% is already mentioned in the previous revision, hence your intention and revert is contradicting. If there is some other research, please edit it, but do not revert a revision nor remove reliably cited information in such a way because it is WP:DISRUPTIVE.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The current format that you've reverted to is misleading, since it overinflates the importance of mtDNA data in relation to Modern Japanese populations. If you understand genetic studies, the nuclear DNA study (Hideaki) is the most reliable, and it clearly shows that archaic Jomon is essentially a genetic isolate that, if forced to be compared against modern populations, clusters closest to modern East Asians (with slightly closer affinity for Ainu and Ryukyuans). Also, Modern Japanese people cluster closest to other East Asians. None of this is controversial. That's pretty much all you can infer about the relationship between modern Japanese and ancient Jomon people. Everything else is pretty much overstating the case. If you don't understand this, you haven't performed basic research or don't have a basic understanding of genetics.Fraenir (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you already stated that. You can edit "your" or that consideration (i.e. cite a reliable source) so the section can be improved, but you clearly and intentionally fail to substantiate the removal/reversion. You fail UNDUE because you emphasize 1 RS. If you do not understand this, you do not understand basic editing policy.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There are good sources and bad sources. There are also misleading uses of source. A source attached to a statement does not make that source reliable (nor does it necessarily make that statement reliably sourced). Fraenir (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Once again your reasoning and opinion is not based on any coherent and objective criteria and policy. These sources are reliable. Your opinion is obviously subjective for some unknown reason, and your personal subjectivity is hard to follow by other editors. Please be constructive and propose content change for these "misleading" uses of sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I've demonstrated several times how that anonymous IP added several misleading sources; yet, you still insist that those additions were based on reliable sources. I'll re-summarize one of these examples again below - he adds one source, adds numbers, and then misleading alters the content; how can that change be considered reliable and trustworthy? Fraenir (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC):

The original version ""Recent Y-DNA haplotype testing has led to the popularly accepted (though untested) hypothesis that haplogroup D-M55 Y-DNA, which has been found in some percentages of samples of modern Japanese, Ryukyuan, and Ainu males, may reflect patrilineal descent from members of a Jōmon period culture of the Japanese Archipelago.[39]"

The version that you accept as being a reliable source, added misleadingly by the anonymous IP edit "Recent Y chromosome haplotype testing has led to the generally accepted hypothesis that male haplogroup D1b, which has been found in different percentages of samples of modern Japanese (32%), Ryukyuan (55%), and Ainu (87%), may reflect patrilineal descent from members of a Jōmon period culture of the Japanese Archipelago.[38][39]"

These sources are not misleading, I do not understand your ignorance. The numbers and content can be checked and confirmed in the source. As mentioned before, the "the generally accepted hypothesis" perhaps needs better wording and as such edit it, however the source clearly relates the Y-DNA haplogroup D with Jomon population. However, literally, from your example above I do not understand what specific content change you propose. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the new source (http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n6/full/jhg200939a.html) added by the anonymous IP for that statement above. The source never even mentions D-M55 or D1b. This is exactly what I mean by adding misleading "sources". The source had nothing to do with that statement, yet it somehow allowed the anonymous IP to support his changes.Fraenir (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The source (39) is dubious indeed, but I think to understand: the paragraph and wording "generally accepted hypothesis" is probably based on "widely accepted that the modern Japanese are the result of an admixture between the two populations that produced both the Jomon and Yayoi cultures. This was suggested by Hanihara7 and Matsumura8 on the basis of dental and cranial characteristics, and more recently by a number of authors who used genetic data,13–17 including ancient DNA.18,19 ... The analyses presented in this study were based on published non-recombining Y-chromosome data of Japanese and other Asian populations ... All the Japanese data were published by Hammer et al.,15 except the Ainu data that were pooled with data from Tajima et al.24" - as source Hammer et al. is the source (38). You propose removal of this reference and rewording of the statement?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That's why I went back and reverted most of the changes in the genetics section added by that anonymous IP. How can you trust an editor who introduces misleading edits like that into Wikipedia? If you go back and check carefully, most of the changes introduced by that anonymous IP are likely to be highly problematic. Yet, you stated that you read and checked the sources, and claimed they were all reliable. Clearly not true. I support a removal of the changes introduced by those anonymous edits, and an re-introduction of content only if it has been carefully checked before re-introduction.Fraenir (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I just checked Hammer. It never mentions D-M55 or D1b. It also never mentions those percentages that the anonymous IP added with his changes. That statement is completely unsupported by Hammer 2005 as well. So how is that statement supported by reliable sources again?Fraenir (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I read and checked just what you have mentioned, and until now you were barely right. Saying "likely" for the most of the changes without any other example is deceptive. What are other "misleading" examples? Something is "problematic" or it is not "problematic", there's no middle. What you stated until now only needs a minor edit. I think the removal of the reference and re-wording of the sentence would be a good start. Current revision can be equally easily check, rather than removal/reversion and re-introduction, which I do not support. In your revision the D-M55 had a red link, and as seen from current revision, currently it has a different name (D1b). In table on pg. 50 it list that D-P37.1 i.e. D-M55 is sub-clade (term from pg. 51) of D-M174. As I previously stated and checked, the numbers are mentioned; on pg. 51 the Japanese 32% would be Shizuoka 32.8%, Ryukyuan 55% would be Okinawa 55.6%, while Ainu 87% would be Ainu (Tajima et al.) 87.5%. The 32% is probably too local and the median value of AOM, SHI, TOK, KYU is circa 29.6%, thus another minor edit. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The way that the data is currently presented here violates Wikipedia:No original research. Neither D1b or D-M55 are the exact same thing as D-P37.1. The table gives two different values for Ainu, and using Shizuoka to represent represent all of Japan is misleading when other regions are also mentioned in the chart. Lastly, the fundamental basis is not sound - they find the modern distribution of Y-DNA in modern Japanese, then use these percentages to guess that a Haplogroup that occurs more frequently in certain regions of modern Japan is equivalent to a Haplogroup that represents ancient Jomon Y-DNA. There's no ancient Jomon Y-DNA evidence that backs up these claims.Fraenir (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

"However, according to 2011 study all major mtDNA lineages, with the D4b2b1 and M7a1a latest, expanded before 7000 YBP unequivocally during the Jōmon Period (14–2.3 kya), specifically, in the incipient Jōmon Period (8–5 YBP) i.e. thousands of years before intensive agriculture and that the growth of population and depletion of food resources was the reason for population expansion and not agriculture.[48]" - Here's another problematic statement that's in the realm of original research. The paper never mentions Jomon at all. It never states that D4b2b1 or M7a1a are Jomon haplogroups, nor does it mention the incipient Jomon Period. Why was this inserted into a section on Jomon genetics, when the study is based on the DNA analysis of modern Japanese people, a study that never even mentions the word Jomon?Fraenir (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You guys need to understand some things first. The genetic study clearly says the Jomon and their relationships with modern population is not well clarified. Jomons themselves were diverse; from Hokkaido to mainland Japan and the Jomon were genetically and cranial-facially diverse themselves and same would be true for the Okinawa Jomon especially by the time of 12th century. So we don't even know if the Jomons from Okinawa or the Jomon mainland Japan resembled Ainu or the Emishi ( who were a Ainuid race type but also a Kofun racial type, the Kofun type is something that's halfway between modern Japanese and Ainu. So god knows if the 20% Jomon admixture in Japanese was pure or from hybrids Jomon. The problem with this Jomon admixture is that it's related East Asian. You can't separate them like East Asian and Caucasian. The Jomon admixture that Japanese acquired may even resemble more closer to East Asian than with Ainu. The vast majority of modern Ainu don't look anything like the Ainu pictures in the early 1900's. Is hard to believe Ainu are even 20% Jomon with the way they look today.

"Regional differences in craniofacial diversity and the population history of Jomon Japan "

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19115359

• genetic differences between Jomons http://www.saitou-naruya-laboratory.org/assets/files/Kanzawa_AS13.pdf It says " Tohoku Jomon was genetically closer to the Hokkaido Jomon and Udegey people, than to the Kanto Jomon or mainland modern Japanese."

• Abstract The genetic origins of the Jomon people and their relationships with modern populations have not been clarified. (edit by User:DragoniteLeopard)

I agree with most of what you wrote. I agree that the relationship with modern populations is not well-clarified, especially when based on mtDNA studies or studies based on modern Japanese populations. Those have, for the most part, been the only studies done on Jomon genetics. There is one exception: the new paper on ancient Jomon nuclear DNA by Hideaki in 2016, available here (http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/jhg2016110a.html). This is a seminal paper on ancient Jomon DNA that, for the 1st time, successfully extracted long stretches of nuclear DNA from an ancient Jomon sample. Your 2nd study is a precursor study to Hideaki 2016, by the same author. As you alluded to, the amount of Jomon DNA is probably a lot lower than 20% - I only used that since it was the upper theoretical bound chosen by the author - if you check out the study itself, the actual percentages are a lot lower, as you've correctly guessed. Please check out the change that I reverted back to - I tried to reduce the crazy percentages and over-stating of the clarity of the relationship between ancient Jomon DNA and modern Japanese people. User:Miki Filigranski is the one who's supporting these unsound numbers based on misleading interpretation of DNA studies, original research and synthesis. I noticed that you added a section noting the uncertainty of the relationship; IMO, that should be moved to the beginning of the genetics section to serve as a qualifier and warning for readers of the genetics section.Fraenir (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fraenir: you made many edits ignorning my remarks above, instead to reword and fix with minor edits, once again you went to remove sourced information without my consent. You find a minor error and overweight its importance as an excuse for the removal of the whole paragraph or source. Please do not do that, and stop to lie; in the source 48 is mentioned Jomon period.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not belong to you. It does not require your personal consent to make changes, especially when you're the one who's actually being disruptive and not addressing any of the issues I brought up on OR, SYN and the incorrect and misleading use of sources. Having a long list of attached "sources" isn't enough in and of itself to guarantee that the content is actually valid.Fraenir (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I started BRD and along the way you are playing with me, due to lack of my understanding of the topic, with minor errors or simply lying that some terms (like numbers or Jomon) were not mentioned in the reliable sources, and yet when I go to check - they are, even partially! Why are you intentionally fooling with me? Why are ignoring my remark that these minor errors can be easly fixed with minor edits like rewording, yet you continously push for the removal/reversion? The WP:OWN policy imply also to you, do you understand?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You need to calm down and stop making unfound accusations. If the information is misleading sourced, based on OR and SYN, then it's valid to remove the questionable material in question. If the material is unsound, minor fixing will not resolve the problem. You haven't addressed any of the concerns on OR/SYN/improper sourcing, you're just making unfound accusations against me. In addition, there is also no explanation for the removal of DragoniteLeopard's sourced edits that refute your claims. You refuse to accept information that doesn't agree with your POV, a POV that isn't based on solid facts and understanding of genetic research. Fraenir (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

How can something be "unfound accusations" when are based on your own words and considerations? Once again, it has nothing to do with my POV, yet everything with reliable sources and editing policy, which instead, as I propose, to fix the minor concerns with minor edits, you propose a totally opposite and unreasonable approach which is not an improvement for the article. Since the section was reworded (as proven by revision history), we can continue the check. However, please stop to make false statements according to which the checker needs checking.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

1. Removed the two sections below that are misleadingly sourced, as per the discussion above. Both are studies done on modern Japanese populations, and more relevant in the genetics section of Japanese people than the genetics section of Jomon. They also contain a mix of original research and synthesis. The 2nd sentence contains a source that never even mentions Jomon.Fraenir (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

According to this theory these two major ancestral groups came to Japan over different routes at different times. Recent Y chromosome haplotype testing has led to the generally accepted hypothesis that male haplogroup D1b, which has been found in different percentages of samples of modern Japanese (32%), Ryukyuan (55%), and Ainu (87%), may reflect patrilineal descent from members of a Jōmon period culture of the Japanese Archipelago.

However, according to 2011 study all major mtDNA lineages, with the D4b2b1 and M7a1a latest, expanded before 7000 YBP unequivocally during the Jōmon Period (14–2.3 kya), specifically, in the incipient Jōmon Period (8–5 YBP) i.e. thousands of years before intensive agriculture and that the growth of population and depletion of food resources was the reason for population expansion and not agriculture.

2. Removed the misleadingly added 13-40% percentages that were based on mtDNA distribution studies of modern Japanese populations. This does not belong in a sentence about Jomon nuclear DNA. The statement itself that I'm restoring "A 2016 study on ancient Jomon aDNA from Sanganji shell mound estimates that the modern Japanese population inherited less than 20% of their DNA from the ancient Jomon populations." is accurate and strong enough to stand on its own. Since the actual numbers for that one nuclear DNA sample show numbers that are much lower than 20%, it's fair to make that statement, as did Hideaki in his paper.Fraenir (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

3. Restored language that reflects, more accurately, the current state of studies on the connections between ancient Jomon populations and modern Japanese populations. As per DragoniteLeopard, "the Jomon and their relationships with modern population is not well clarified."Fraenir (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fraenir: with adding of a template, according to point 6. of WP:WTRMT, support the placement of the tag.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

If the issue is still unresolved, as is the case here, then please refrain from removing the accuracy dispute template. Adding additional inline templates do not invalidate the overall dispute template.Fraenir (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jōmon period. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017164014/http://www.beret.co.jp/column/2011/10/1600.html to http://www.beret.co.jp/column/2011/10/1600.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070727112153/http://www.jomon.or.jp/e3.html to http://www.jomon.or.jp/e3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a link at the bottom to Austronesian peoples, but there's nothing in this article that mentions Austronesian or Austro- anything. Are the Jomon any kind of Austronesian people? I haven't heard any genetic evidence about that. On the other hand, there is evidence suggesting the Jomon came from the northern Asian mainland.^[1]

Why not remove that link?

Kortoso (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There is now clear and convincing evidence that at least some Jōmon folk were Australnesian. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Historical expanse of Ainu.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

'A common culture, known as "broadleafed every green forest culture", ranged from southwestern Japan through southern China towards Northeast India and southern Tibet,' -- should that be "broadleafed evergreen forest"? 104.153.40.58 (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

"More recent evidence indicates that domestication occurred as early as 6000 BC in Zhejiang Province of China. " as stated in the peach article. No confusvation anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.71.61.6 (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I corrected it. What the source and Wikipedia page on Peaches both says (using the same source we use here) is that the domestication of peaches started in China around 6,000 BCE while the oldest “modern peaches” were found in Japan (4,750 BCE) for reasons still unknown. Dream-Learn-Live (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The text states, "The manufacture of pottery typically implies some form of sedentary life because pottery is heavy, bulky, and fragile and thus generally unusable for hunter-gatherers." This assertion is based on the assumption that hunter-gatherers are always nomadic and that ceramics are connected with agriculture, which is considered sedentary. In fact, however, the earliest pottery in many regions (e.g., Siberia, Alaska, eastern Fennoscandia) appears specifically in a hunter-gatherer context and the pots themselves can be quite large. Also, few hunter-gatherers are continuously on the move. Most historical hunter-gatherers have practiced some form of transhumance, spending long periods of time in seasonal camps connected with some important resource, while a few groups such as the North Alaskan coastal Inuit and the Northwest Coast tribes lived in permanent villages near a rich resource (whales and salmon, in these cases) that provided year-round sustenance in the form of stores collected during part of the year. The statement also ignores the fact that even nomadic hunter-gatherers can have "appliances", i.e., heavy or bulky implements that are not carried around but are stashed at some suitable location for use when the group camps there to utilize a local resource. Such "appliances" may include grinding stones, fishing weirs, hunting blinds and storage pits, but also pots used, e.g., for rendering seal fat. Neither archaeology nor ethnography substantiates the assertion that ancient hunter-gatherers could not have used pottery. Death Bredon (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I am interested in what you are saying. Can you substantiate it with a few sources? Dream-Learn-Live (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I looked around and there indeed doesn’t seem to have a strong link between pottery and sedentism as multiple hunter-gatherer cultures developped pottery before agriculture. Although I will acknowledge that some cultures invented pottery as agriculture started. I found traces of Hunter-gatherers in Africa, Eurasia, and America who invented pottery. Here are my sources:

- Eurasia

Gibbs, Kevin, and Jordan Peter. (2013-03-01). “Bridging the Boreal Forest: Siberian Archaeology and the Emergence of Pottery among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of Northern Eurasia”. Interdisciplinary Journal of Siberian Studies. Vol. 12: Issue 1.

Gibbs K. Pottery Invention and Innovation in East Asia and the Near East. Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 2015;25(1):339-351. doi:10.1017/S0959774314001139

Dolbunova, E., Lucquin, A., McLaughlin, T.R. et al.The transmission of pottery technology among prehistoric European hunter-gatherers. Nat Hum Behav 7, 171–183 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01491-8

A. Lucquin, H.K. Robson, Y. Eley, S. Shoda, D. Veltcheva, K. Gibbs, C.P. Heron, S. Isaksson, Y. Nishida, Y. Taniguchi, S. Nakajima, K. Kobayashi, P. Jordan, S. Kaner, & O.E. Craig, The impact of environmental change on the use of early pottery by East Asian hunter-gatherers, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115 (31) 7931-7936, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1803782115 (2018).

Jordan, P., & Zvelebil, M. (Eds.). (2010). Ceramics Before Farming: The Dispersal of Pottery Among Prehistoric Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315432373

Africa

Fuller, D.Q., Champion, L. (2024). Post-harvest Intensification and ‘Pottery Pre-Neolithics’: Endocuisine Evolution in Asia and Africa from Hunter-Gatherers to Early Farmers. In: D’Ercole, G., Garcea, E.A.A., Varadzinová, L., Varadzin, L. (eds) Early Pottery Technologies among Foragers in Global Perspective. One World Archaeology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-71777-2_6

America

Loponte D, Ottalagano F, Pérez M, et al. Mortuary Pottery and Sacred Landscapes in Complex Hunter-gatherers in the Paraná Basin, South America. Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 2020;30(1):21-43. doi:10.1017/S0959774319000477

Taché K, Craig OE. Cooperative harvesting of aquatic resources and the beginning of pottery production in north-eastern North America. Antiquity. 2015;89(343):177-190. doi:10.15184/aqy.2014.36

Traces of pottery older than agriculture

"Chinese pottery may be earliest discovered."Archived 2012-10-06 at the Wayback MachineAssociated Press. 2009-06-01.

'AMS 14C Age Of The Earliest Pottery From The Russian Far East; 1996–2002.' Derevianko A.P., Kuzmin Y.V., Burr G.S., Jull A.J.T., Kim J.C. Nuclear Instruments And Methods In Physics Research. B223–224 (2004) 735–39.

and of course, the Jōmon

Kainer, Simon (September 2003). "The Oldest Pottery in the World" (PDF). Current World Archaeology. Robert Selkirk. pp. 44–49. Archived from the original on 2006-04-23. Retrieved 2016-09-27.

Using all those sources as reasoning, I will delete the phrase mentioning a link between agriculture and pottery. Although I will not delete any mention of a link between pottery and sedentism as hunter-gatherers can be sedentary and my shallow research didn’t go that far. Dream-Learn-Live (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The article contains descriptions and photographs of (ritualistic rather than everyday) pottery, human figures and jewellery that emphasize the uniqueness of Jomon, but no information whatsoever on actual tools (stone or metal) or their methods of production, which would tie the Jomon periods in with developments on the mainland. It would appear that the article was written by an art historian rather than an archaeologist. Death Bredon (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

For anyone like you that in the future might be wondering about tools or specific aspects of the Jōmon culture or society, this page is about the “Jōmon Period” or in other words the historical period and chronology of the Jōmon people and the Japanese archipelago during this period. For a more in-depth overview of other aspects unrelated to chronology, see other wikipedia pages:

For Jōmon Pottery: Jōmon pottery and Dogū

For Jōmon genetics, origins, and culture: Jōmon people

For more in-depth genetics and origins: Genetic history of East Asians

For Jōmon Language (although more complex as multiple origins have been attested, but a good place to start): Proto-Japonic language and Ainu languages

For Jōmon beliefs and traditions: Ko-Shintō

There may be more wikipedia pages on other aspects of the Jōmon but those are the main ones I could find. Dream-Learn-Live (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It is perfectly clear from the text that it was a "Stone Age" culture with no metal, using stone tools. Apart from these and the pottery, and functional pottery is briefly covered, I dare say remains are scarce, but it's true we don't cover them. How much relationship, if any, there was with "the mainland" I don't know - I think the earlier land bridge had gone by this point. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I won’t subsentiate with extensive sources (although all the information I will give comes from the notes I took while visiting different museums with Jōmon exhibitions or Jōmon museums in Hokkaido and Tohoku, and a single well made book) because I’m tired and lazy, and because I think the subject should be contained in the Jōmon People page and not here but basically, the Jōmon used tools made of untouched stone, chipped stone, polished stone, wood and plants, and bones and antlers. The untouched stones were mainly hammerstones, stoneweight (for fishing nets), grinding stones and stone bases (to grind food such as nuts), scraping stones (to cut other stones by scraping in a line continuously, a process used for grounded stone tools), and whetstones (polishing stones to make ground stone tools). The chipped stone tools, most of them in shale or in obsidian but some in other stones such as agate, were axes, knives, end scrapers (one sided blades), spearheads, arrowheads, and stone drills (to pierce holes in stone for jewelry). Some stone tools had stems to attach to shaft (such as knives, spearheads, and arrowheads), were secured to the shaft with plant based rope and covered in asphalt as a finishing touch. Ground stone tools were mainly axes (most axes were actually ground stone axes but some chipped stone axes were found) but I couldn’t find any other tool made of ground stone in any exhibition but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Some of the stone used for this were serpentite and greenschist. Wooden and plant made tools were rope (made of plant fibers, used for anything from nets to pottery markings and attaching stones to shafts), wooden shafts (for spears, arrows, axes…), digging sticks, sewing needles, harpoons, fishing rods, and bows. Some wooden tools (mainly bows) were lacquered to make them prettier and more durable. Bone and antlers tools were from what I saw, rarer, and mostly only used for sewing needles, fishing hooks, and harpoon heads as tools, and were used more frequently as jewelry, clothing accessories, or ritual objects. I also confirmed the existence of chisels and carving tools, but with no visual nor great explanation, I can only guess that these were either untouched stones or ground stone tools.

Anyway, that’s what I saw in Japanese museums on the subject and read in a book. If you want to read more, and have a lot of time to translate a Japanese book (if you don’t speak japanese) this book was well worth the read on toolmaking, tool trade routes between Jōmon groups and regions, the industry of toolmaking in Jōmon japan, specific groups and villages specializations, and the organization of the usage of tools. The book is “Jōmon Archeology 6: Manufacturing, toolmaking techniques, and organization”, ISBN: 978-4886213990 Dream-Learn-Live (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - it would be nice if you could add along these lines at some point. Personally I'd say here, keeping all forms of artefact together, but the other article would be ok. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I was planning on helping build the Jōmon pages so I will put that somewhere but I was mostly planning on putting it in the Jomon People wiki article since this is where their culture including craftsmanship is put. I don’t mind putting in the chronology the appearance of tools or change in techniques as a chronological base but I think going into details about their uses, crafting, and social significance would go over the scope of this article. Dream-Learn-Live (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, but I find that odd. This article mostly covers artefacts today classified as "art", but the distinction between this and what you call "craftsmanship" is rather dubious at any period, and especially in prehistoric ones. Better to treat all artefacts they made together, I'd say. Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I will also put ceramics in the Jomon people page. My plan was for the most part:

Jomon period: chronology, living conditions in specific periods (warmth, cold, species extinction…), new arrivals on the archipelago, and shallow overview of evolution of cultural aspects (anything from tools to art or villages layouts). Basically, this page will be an overview of many aspects but the specifics will be elsewhere.

Jomon People: Pretty much anything in great details besides chronology and environmental changes (Jomon Period), Pottery (Jomon Pottery), and religion (Ko-shinto). Mostly their culture, tech, and social system. Anything that features in other articles will have less depth.

Jomon Pottery: Self-explanatory. Pottery almost exclusively or aspects which influenced pottery. Anything from styles to pottery chronology and evolution to differences between regions and importation of pottery from asia.

Ko-shinto: only their beliefs, rituals, and festivals will be in there or how other aspects played a role in it, but these indirect aspects will not be explored deeply.

I will not touch even remotely to the following: pre-jomon period (paleolithic, not as interesting for me and I’m trying to specialize in Jomon), post-jomon periods (what came after: Yayoi, Zoku-Jomon…), immigrants from elsewhere that came during the Jomon period, Jomon origins and genetics (bores me to death), finally I will not touch languages because I don’t particilarly enjoy studying this.

To cobclude, I will only use artifacts in this page as proof and supportive argument: I will contain the specifics to pages that have a stronger focus on those other aspects. For example, I will not detail the different technical ways to create a chipped stone tool but I probably will in the section. Dream-Learn-Live (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, this still sounds very wierd, but have away with it. I can't guarantee it will stay like that. You may have noticed that by far the most detailed sections in Jomon people cover genetics etc. This is what "Foo people" article normally concentrate on. But addition of material, wherever, is good. Btw, this page does not seem to link at all to Jomon people anywhere near the top, which is bad. You may find it relevant that this article gets about 20% more views than Jomon people. Johnbod (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Interesting on multiple accounts. First of, the 20%: where can I see that? I didn’t know we could see a page’s visit statistics. Second, linking the Jōmon people page near the top is a great idea. I will make quick changes for that. As for whether most of the information will be here or over to the Jōmon people, you’re making me hesitate, but I’m still in the research phase so I will have plenty of time to decide. Dream-Learn-Live (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The "View history" tab to the right along the top line of links at the top of the screen, followed by "pageviews", leads to a wealth of stats (going back to 2015). Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The mixture of past and present tense in this article is very confused/confusing. It sometimes changes mid-sentence. 86.14.43.73 (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The mixture of past and present tense in this article is very confused/confusing. It sometimes changes mid-sentence. 86.14.43.73 (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This source:

[39]“Early Jomon hamlet found”. The Japan Times. May 27, 1997.

is attributed to the Middle Jomon phase section even though it talks specifically about an Early Jomon hamlet. Also, it is attributed to the following passage: “This period saw a rise in complexity in the design of pit-houses, the most commonly used method of housing at the time“ even though the source talks of nothing of the sort. It only mentions the discovery of an Early Jomon village built over centuries that was bigger than the average. Nothing about pit-house construction or design is even alluded to. Which source does this information actually comes from? Dream-Learn-Live (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)