Talk:Jomon period

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Jomon period as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.
Jomon period is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Japan To-do:
plan of the stonehenge site This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Early to Final Jomon

The last paragraph here talks about Shinto mythology, which is great, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Perhaps this should be deleted, or at least moved somewhere else? --- Eiríkr Útlendi 03:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. And the next section "Foundation myths" is not directly related to Jomon period, since it's barely possible to prove the origine of Japanese myths dates back to Jomon era (it could be OK if it's mentioned with regard to late Yayoi or Kofun period at most). -222.4.16.15 10:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm commenting out the "Foundation myths" section as it seems to be completely irrelevant to this Jomon period article. I'll leave the content on the page, only commented out, so it can be moved somewhere later if someone so desires. -- Eiríkr Útlendi 20:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

IP user 63.18.66.112 uncommented the section, stating just in their edit summary revert back Foundation Myths section, as the information is contained in the Library of Congress website of early Japanese history, so it is relevant. I fail to see the logic of this argument; the article here in Wikipedia is about the Jōmon period as known through the archaeological record, whereas the bulk of the Foundation Myths section talks about Japanese mythology. I'm commenting the section out again. User 63.18.66.112, can you make a stronger case for the relevancy of this section? Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 17:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


Sophisticated rice paddy circa 1500BC in Japan? I've never heard of this kind of stories anywhere else. Somebody please explain this.

Right. "End of the Jomon period" would clarify the misunderstanding... PHG 4 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)

[edit] Macrons/No Macrons

OED and Merriam-Webster write "jomon" without a macron, indicating that it is an English word of Japanese origin. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#English words with Japanese origin, it should be written without the macron in the English Wikipedia. I left the macrons in the Japanese pronunciation and the caption of the kanji illustration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fg2 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Dating of Jomon

This table of exhibits makes it clear that the Tokyo National Museum considers the dates of Jomon pottery to be (the far more plausible) 3000 - 400 BC. Septentrionalis 19:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

??? It is common knowledge that Jomon starts around 10.000 BCE (radiocarboned dates), with the first known pottery in the world. Please consult any archeology book. Your link refers to a particular type of "flaming" Jomon pottery, around 3000 BCE. PHG
It appears to be all the Jomon pottery in possession of the TNM; I generated the page by searching on Jomon. A similar citation with a greater date will be suffient to convince me. Septentrionalis 03:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Fine. I took the photograph myself in the Tokyo National Museum (1st floor Heiseikan), and the legend attached to the artifact is indeed 10.000-8.000 BCE Initial Jomon. The few items shown on the webpage represent a minuscule portion of their actual collection. You can find a description of a similar item at [1] in [2]. For a general description of Jomon and its periods, please see [3]. For quotes, "The earliest pottery, the linear applique type, was dated by radiocarbon methods taken on samples of carbonized material at 12500 +- 350 bp" (Prehistoric Japan, Keiji Imamura). "The earliest known pottery comes from Japan, and is dated to about 10,500 BC. China and Indo-China follow shortly afterwards" ("Past Worlds" The Times Atlas of Archeology. p. 100) PHG 12:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Broken Links

There are alot of broken internal links in the main article. They should be fixed(or at leased removed). --BorisFromStockdale 20:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement of Metropolitan Museum of Art

The page of the Met Museum mentions that "the Jomon is among the earliest pottery cultures of the world" and also agrees its period began 10,000 B.C. The only reservation is for the production date of the shards, 10,500 B.C. Anyway, let's leave the expression as is in the original page. The readers may think what they like about it. --Corruptresearcher 10:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Jared Diamond makes a strong case for the 12.7 TYA dating (see [4]). I think the Met's argument is weak. They're saying that it's controversial since it's older than Mesopotamian pottery? --Brunnock 21:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This paragraph is added by another editor [5] so I do not know the paragraph is needed or not. Actually, I cannot understand the meaning of the Met comment "because this date falls outside the known chronology of pottery development elsewhere in the world". I do not care if someone wants to delete this paragraph, but there are some editors who stick on it [6]. --Corruptresearcher 13:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement of Metropolitan Museum of Art

"Carbon-14 testing of the earliest known shards has yielded a production date of about 10,500 B.C., but because this date falls outside the known chronology of pottery development elsewhere in the world, such an early date is not generally accepted."

Jomom pottery can still be one of the "earliest pottery cultures of the world" without it being a 10,000 B.C. date. Since, Jomon pottery is such an outlier date it should be noted as controversial.

Also I fixed the poor grammar of the reversion and incorporated the contemperaneous cultures section towards the beginning, like it is in the link corruptresearcher gave.

I agree the comment by the museum because actually it is difficult to decide the date only by the Carbon-14 testing. So I also agree your second sentence above. However, this is already mentioned by the museum comment and I do not understand necessity of the additional sentence: "This shows there is significant controversy with the theory that the Jomon culture consisted of sedentary or semi-sedentary farmers who made pottery circa 10,000 B.C." This additional comment describes about not only pottery but also feature of the Jomon culture, sedentary or not, which the museum does not mention. I think this additional sentence should be deleted or, at least, modified. This time I just comment out it so please modify expression if someone restores it. --Corruptresearcher 10:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
See this source. for which I thank PHG. It denies the conclusion that Incipient Jomon was an agricultural society. Septentrionalis 01:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, now the source is shown. Can someone modify the text? --Corruptresearcher 03:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The comment by the Met is not only about the difficulty to obtain the veracity of the Carbon-14 dating but that since the Jomon pottery is such an outlier date that it is generally not accepted to be that old. There is a distinguishment between your interpretation of the quote and what the quote actually says. Moreover, the additional line is necessary because Jomon pottery is the exclusive piece of evidence used to "prove" or at least support the theory that Jomon sedentary life and farming started before any other culture in the world in the next paragraph. Therefore, since the 10,000 B.C. version of the date of the pottery is used to bolster the argument that farming was started by the Jomon "2000 years before their widespread appearance in the Middle East", the comment you want to delete, "this shows there is significant controversy with the theory that the Jomon culture consisted of sedentary or semi-sedentary farmers who made pottery circa 10,000 B.C." is necessary because some users are very willing to write that there is a theory where Jomon were the first farmers using pottery evidence but will not want to show that there is significant controversy with that claim and so the claim itself is controversial. Or otherwise, it would not make sense to include other inferences about the Jomon made simply from the pottery dates too. I'm going to revert and change it to make it clearer but I think you need a better argument than what you made above.
If you want to say more than the Met comment, you need another source for it. If you just want to say the same thing as the Met comment, just leave as it is. That's all. --Corruptresearcher 12:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If the only proof of the statement the Jomon started farming "2000 years before their widespread appearance in the Middle East" is based on the age of contested carbon14 dating. Than it is incumbent upon you to find a source for it. However, if you are content to allow that paragraph on farming, than the Met statement should stand. Otherewise there is a big inconsistency. Please make a good faith effort to respond to my comments
Now I understand what you want to say. I think it should be placed just after the "2000 years before" theory is mentioned. "Which opinion is mainstream and other is not" seems not neutral so I weakened the expression. If someone can add the source for discussion, it will describe by itself which is "mainstream". --Corruptresearcher 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The carbon-14 testing of early Jomon pottery in itself is generally not contested: there are many instances of it, carbon-testing is quite reliable, and they all point to these early dates. The Met rather refers to the interpretation of these data, as their go against the traditional pattern Middle East>Rest of the World. Actually, the Met's statement that "because this date falls outside the known chronology of pottery development elsewhere in the world, such an early date is not generally accepted." is quite old-fashioned (="your dates do not match my theory"), and actually in itself not mainstream: the majority of scholars, books, Internet sites do recognize the early date for Jomon pottery. Some very early pottery in China around 9,000 BCE have also been found now, pointing to an early Asian development of the technology. More material would be needed to reference this careless Met statement. PHG 21:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not challenge your opinion but please tell me some for my understanding. You mentioned "carbon-testing is quite reliable" but in the article Pottery, it is said "uncalibrated". How do you think about it? --Corruptresearcher 09:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. "Uncalibrated" in Radiocarbon dating is the raw measure of C14 decay, which assumes that C14 concentration in the atmosphere has been constant through time. However in reality atmospheric C14 is not exactly constant and some adjustments have to be made to have an absolute calendar date. 12500 BP +/- 500 years uncalibrated corresponds to 15129 BP ± 1021 years calibrated (see [7] for calculation). Actually the mention of the word "uncalibrated" in these articles seems either a misunderstanding or disingenious vandalism, even looking at the reference. As far as I know the 10500 BCE dates for the earliest pottery are calibrated ones. Qualifying the 10.500 BCE date as "uncalibrated" actually makes Jomon pottery 2,000 older still (to... 13.000 BCE!!) when calibrating.PHG 12:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Majority

PHG: I don't think the quote is necessarily not a neutral point of view. It seems to me more of an empirical fact, not an opinion makes it a point of view. Espcially coupled with the Metropolitan Museum of Art quote. If you could provide a citation, perhaps I could understand your point of view better. However, for right now, the citation is accurate and for you to water down the language without any other source is not in line with Wikipedia policy. Thanks for your input. Tortfeasor 15:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that the majority of Japanese scholars also believe that pottery production technology was first invented on the mainland? It's not clear from your citation. Do you have an actual quote? --Sean Brunnock 15:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. The quote, verbatim, is: "However, the majority of Japanese scholars believed, and still believe, that pottery production was first invented in mainland Asia and subsequently introduced into the Japanese archipelago." (And so on.) I'm not sure how you are interpreting the quote. If you prefer the direct quote to what I wrote, let me know. Thanks. Tortfeasor 18:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe I read somewhere that when Jomon pottery was first carbon-dated, Japanese archaeologists were so taken aback by the early dates, that they were certain that even older pottery would be found on the mainland. At the top of Talk:Pottery, I have compiled a list of citations which state that Jomon pottery is the oldest. I didn't come across any claims that older pottery was found on mainland Asia. --Sean Brunnock 18:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Sean: I think the quote is saying that despite the fact that Jomon pottery is among the oldest in the world that has been discovered so far, the majority of Japanese scholars still believe that pottery making techniques were imported from China or Russia based on archaeological evidence and radiocarbon dating. Also, maybe it is significant that the source cited is current, from 2004. I would like to clarify something too: I'm not contesting that Jomon pottery is among the oldest. I am suggesting that despite the fact that it is amont the oldest discovered, even scholars in Japan don't believe that pottery making was invented in Japan, just that it has been the oldest discovered so far. This is important because I think that the article seems to imply that since the Fukui shards are the "oldest" that the Jomon people independently invented pottery making. Here's a link discussing Khummi cite pottery. [www.radiocarbon.org/Subscribers/Fulltext/v40n1-2_Kuzmin_675.html]. Also, this book, written in 2005, states that "Jomon pottery is among the world's excavated pottery" which suggests that older notions are being replaced by new evidence. [8]. Hope that clarifies what I wrote. Thanks for your input. Tortfeasor 21:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. Somebody else cited a Russian paper which discussed pottery dated prior to Jomon (I believe the author is Irina Zhushchikhovskaya). But, I'd feel more comfortable if there were more references. --Sean Brunnock 21:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. Making a first-degree claim in an encyclopedia that "the majority thinks so and so" is quite a statement, which would have to be supported by multiple sources. However, it is perfectly OK to quote Habu's statement as a secondary source, rather than make it a statement by Wikipedia: for example "Archeaologist Junko Habu claims that "the majority ...." etc etc...", or "A number of Japanese archaeologists consider that pottery actually originated on the continent" with reference to the Habu quote. Right or wrong, Habu has a record of minimizing the antiquity and originality of Japan's Jomon period, and I do have doubts about her "majority" claim (although it was true at one point, when the Carbon dates were published and were met with disbelief by traditional archaelogists, as pointed out by Brunnock: previously the starting point for Jomon used to be set around 3000 BCE!). I also agree it is worth mentioning recent Siberian finds as an alternative to the primacy of Jomon pottery, if indeed true. Regards PHG 03:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy Woes

Although the Jomon Period articles, and most of the prehistoric era sections, are quite extensive they also include factual errors. How is the best way to deal with this, since some of the things clearly haven't been verified? Flag them for future verification, or simply edit the entry (as I did for the Jomon Period summary?)

Also, the section with the heading "Neolithic..." contains a passage about pottery indicating a sedentary life, since ceramic breaks easily... For a direct opposite of this, see this quote, from page 923 of William Hurley's Prehistoric Japanese Arts: Jomon Pottery. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 73, No. 4. (Aug., 1971), pp. 922-925).

"The earliest Jomon pottery appears to be associated with hunting and gathering peoples and the ceramics are suggested as antedating specimens on the continent by several millennia as the Fukui Cave examples are dated at 10,750 ± 500 B.C."

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/m/Talk%7EJomon_period_ccf3.html"