Talk:Jōmon period

Dates

The dating in this is confusing and inconsistent. The periods listed in the lede do not match the dates given in the summary of periods which do not match the dates given in the headers for the periods.

Lede:

        traditionally dated between c. 14,000–300 BCE, recently refined to about 1000 BCE

Summary:

        The very long, approximately 14,000 years, Jōmon period is conventionally divided into a number of phases: Incipient (16,500-10,000 years ago), Initial (10,000–7,000), Early (7,000–5,450), Middle (5,450–4,420), Late (4,420–3,220) and Final (3,220–2,350), with the phases getting progressively shorter.

Headers:

        Incipient and Initial Jōmon (14,000–4000 BCE)
        Early Jōmon (4000–2500 BCE)
        Middle Jōmon (2500–1500 BCE)
        Late and Final Jōmon (1500–900/300 BCE)

I can see some of the dates are in BCE and some are in "years ago" which explains some of the inconsistency (eg 1500 BCE vs 4420 years ago) but even then there is a lot of inconsistency (14000 BCE vs 16500 years ago vs 1000 BCE in the lede, or 7000 years ago vs 4000 BCE). I know there has been some serious contention here from the talk, but can someone who knows something about the topic at least make the dates consistent (also using a consistent format, either BCE or "years ago" to reduce confusion)? For someone seeking information without a foundation in the topic, the confusion of dates and date formats makes this article somewhat useless. 2601:140:C000:A593:2022:1D38:B1F1:C0B3 (talk) (June 2019)

Plans in the works for updating all dates as well as adding more info Miketsushimi (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think it is usual to have "years ago" for older dates, and BC/BCE for more recent ones, so I'm not sure combining eg "16,500-10,000 years ago" with "1,000 and 800 BCE" is actually wrong, or that much more confusing. It might be better, if both styles are to be kept, to agree a common switch-over point for the article - say 10,000 years ago = 8,000 BCE. Obviously 16,000 years ago = 14,000 BCE; but the "Final" dates are well adrift. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• This is English - can we use "13,750–5,000", not "13 750–5 000", per WP:MOS. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Genetic make-up

@Fraenir: can you explain your edits [1] and [2]? 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.

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. 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)

References

Explanation of changes made

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)

Dispute template

@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)

Unreliably sourced information

The questionable sentence: "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. " There are multiple problems with this statement.

• The dates given for incipient Jomon (8–5 YBP) contradicts sourced information stated here on Wikipedia Jōmon_period#Chronology, which gives a date of "Incipient (16,500-10,000 years ago)".
• "D4b2b1 and M7a1a latest, expanded before 7000 YBP unequivocally" also contradicts information stated DIRECTLY in the source! The source says that "showed that except for JPT-specific clusters (D4b2b1 and M7a1a) expanding ∼6 kya". How does that equate to "unequivocally expanded before 7000 BP"?

The statement made above, and currently re-inserted multiple times into the article by Miki Filigranski, is full of contradictions and inaccuracies.

• The 2011 source cites different reliable sources (Hammer 2006; Crawford 2008). This is a separate issue because it indicates there exist a disagreement among scholars consideration on both period and within-period dates.

Nope. This is clearly a mistake. We both have the Hammer article - it never mentions dates for incipient Jomon. Crawford doesn't either. This is clearly a mistake by the author, and indicative that the statement made by the author is UNRELIABLE. Do you really believe that an incipient Jomon date of 8-5,000 kya is accurate? That's so wrong that it's unsupportable, and that's part of why it makes the entire statement unreliable.Fraenir (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hammer 2006 does not mention the date, however, the author(s) had own reason to cite that source. It is just your personal opinion to "clearly be a mistake" - find a scientific review in which these statements are criticized. On other hand, Crawford 2008 on pg. 446 estimates incipient Jomon 14,000-8,000 BC, hence (including Pearson 2006) if checked Perri 2016 (which states "The Jomon culture of Japan (c. 12 500–2350 BP; Table 1)" and then list Jomon phases from "Incipient c. 16 140–10 000 BP", missing 4 000 years or not providing any previous source as reference for these numbers) proves there is some disagreement between scholars about Jomon phase dating and as such it is a separate issue.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Incipient Jomon refers to the earliest/oldest phase of the Jomon Period. There is not a single reliable source out there that comes close to using 8–5 YBP. This dating for Incipient Jomon is clearly a mistake. It's unbelievable that anyone would defend this as a serious date for Incipient Jomon - this "reliable source" that Miki Filigranski is depending on is the only place in the world that uses such an absurd date for Incipient Jomon, the earliest phase of the Jomon Period. Fraenir (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not defend that date, yet again you did not cite a scientific review in which the date is criticized/corrected.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I already listed the source cited at the beginning of the lead in this article. This is ridiculous. It's clearly wrong and not defensible. Fraenir (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• According to the whole statement, the "unequivocally expanded before 7000 BP" is related to "all major mtDNA lineages" and migration to Japan, and it seems there is no contradiction because neverhtless the "The time estimated by all three different methods (two ρ statistic-based methods and one Bayesian analysis, see Table 2) showed that except for JPT-specific clusters (D4b2b1 and M7a1a) expanding ∼6 kya, all other star-like clusters (D4, D4b2b, D4a, D4j, D5a2a, A, N9a, F1a1'4, F2, B4, B4a, G2a1, M7b1'2'4) coalesced before 10 kya, which predated the Neolithic time", in continuation is mentioned that "Given the knowledge of the time of lineage expansions as shown above, we further explored the population expansions of East Asians using Bayesian skyline plot (BSP) for each of the four populations individually (Figure 2). Again, three Chinese populations showed a pre-Neolithic expansion before ∼10 kya, but JPT expanded later at ∼7kya, unequivocally during the Jōmon Period (14–2.3 kya), specifically, in the incipient Jōmon Period (8–5 kya)". --Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The author contradicts himself in his own paper! He states that: JPT-specific clusters (D4b2b1 and M7a1a) expanding ∼6 kya and then he states that JPT expanded later at ∼7kya!!! So which date is accurate? This is completely unreliable, not to mention the fact that he makes a clear mistake on incipient Jomon dates, a date which is not supported by Hammer 2005 or Crawford 2008. There's 2 major errors/contradictions in the sentence that you're using as the source - it's clearly unreliable.Fraenir (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Once again, it is your personal opinion to be a contradiction: First is their estimate of the "Age estimations" from "Table 2" about haplogroups clusters; Second is their estimate of the "size trend of (Japanese) populations" from "Figure 2". Two separate things. I will re-word the paragraph on the reasoning of possible public misunderstanding.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Removing the erroneous, plagiarized bit about Incipient Jomon does not change the fact that the statement used by Miki Filigranski here with the D4b2b1 and M7a1a latest, expanded before 7000 YBP unequivocally, is still based directly on a sourced statement containing at least 2 errors and contradictions. The source itself stated separately elsewhere that JPT-specific clusters (D4b2b1 and M7a1a) expanding ∼6 kya. There is nothing unequivocal about "expanded before 7000 YBP", even in the authors' own paper. There is no way to defend the use of this error-filled statement as a source - it's an unreliable source, especially the entire sentence from which the originally inserted text by Miki Filigranski was plagiarized/directly sourced from. Fraenir (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You're falsely accusing fellow editor for plagiarization. Your opinion about the source being unreliable is still invalid.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope - if you look at the original sentence as copied from the source, it's clearly plagiarized, right down to the Incipient Jomon nonsense. It's still an unreliable source, and you haven't provided a single reasonable justification to explain the two massive errors and contradictions that the sourced sentence contains. Fraenir (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to add.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Original research

The questionable sentence: "Recent Y chromosome haplotype testing has led to the hypothesis that male haplogroup D1b, which has been found in different percentages of samples of modern Japanese, Ryukyuan, and Ainu population, may reflect patrilineal descent from members of a Jōmon period culture of the Japanese Archipelago."

• I cannot find a single mention of haplogroup D1b in the source. This is clearly an example of Original Research/Synthesis. Fraenir (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Clearly not OR/SYNTHESIS as haplogroup D1b is/was also known as M55, M57, M64.1/Page44.1, M179/Page31, M359.1/P41.1, P37.1, P190, 12f2.2, and in the 2006 source on pg. 50 are listed P37.1, P41.1, M55, M57, M64.1, 12f2.2 for one subclade of (D-)M174. Per ISOGG Y-DNA Haplogroup D and its Subclades - 2017 along D1b are also listed P37.1 and M55, hence you're wrong.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

1.The text of the article does not even support your claims for P37.1. This is the closest information in the text to what that sentence claims, and it does not support your claim. The 1st section mentions Haplogroup D and C-M8. The only lineage that is consistently mentioned in both sections is C-M8. Why is C-M8 omitted? Why use Db1 when the text refers to D and P37.1 separately? Both decisions (the omission of C-M8 and use of P37.1) are arbitrary and indicative of synthesis/original research. P37.1 is only mentioned once, in the 2nd section below. The 1st only refers to D in general.

2. Both sections refer more broadly to the Paleolithic. The section even mentions that the markers could represent "pre-Jomon" lineages. If the author describes these speculations as pre-Jomon, as the source states, than it's certainly original research/synthesis to misrepresent then as fully Jomon lineages. The only term that the author is willing to use for both sections is Paleolithic, which, as the author alludes to in the 2nd section, could be pre-Jomon instead. Fraenir (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Under this model, the D lineage has a coalescence time of $19,400 years, with an expansion that started $12,600 years ago (Table 2). The coalescent time of haplogroup C-M8 is estimated to be $14,500 years ago, with evidence for population expansion starting $10,820 years ago. We assume that both systems are detecting the same expansion process given the large confidence intervals on our estimates. Therefore, it is quite possible that these two lineages represent a major and a minor component in a single polymorphic Paleolithic founding population."
• "Given that we have identified putative Y chromosome markers of Jomon (or pre-Jomon) and Yayoi migrations, can we trace the origins of these lineages before they entered Japan? We infer that the Japanese have at least two lineages (D-P37.1 and C-M8) that descend from Paleolithic founders."

No worth commenting and counterarguments because these are twisted facts and considerations. Will add C-M8.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ironically, your last editing changes suggest otherwise. You've also added the nonsensical bit about major and minor component, but what actually does that mean? You've clearly just lifted more material from the text without understanding what it means or the context behind the information. It's also original research/synthesis to use this to support D1b; the statement was made about Haplogroup D in general and Haplogroup C-M8. You've taken the statement out of context and misapplied it elsewhere, another example of original research/synthesis Fraenir (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The bit "major and minor component" are mentioned in the source, it's not nonsensical, there is clearly no original research/synthesis. Tags are not supported by valid substantiation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It's original research since it was only used to refer to Haplogroup D, as I explained above. You're just making a bunch of ridiculous arguments here that make no sense. Fraenir (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

False.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Another example of improper source tagging and false claims

So, I noticed Miki Filigranski sneaked in another reference tag here [3], so I decided to check the factual accuracy of this statement. Sure enough, the originally cited source, Hideaki 2013, directed contradicted the claim that Miki Filigranski was pushing, and actually states that "In the modern Japanese, mtDNA haplogroups N9b and M7a2 ... are uncommon." and "In modern populations, haplogroup N9b is present in the Japanese archipelago at low frequencies (<10%), but at a high frequency (30.4%) in the Udegey from southern Siberia." In contrast, Miki Filigranki had repeatedly re-inserted the false claim, using the same source, that haplogroups N9b (most frequent in Ainu). Again, adding a bunch of tags to erroneous information does not validate false or misleading claims. The newly added 'source' also does not support this claim. Fraenir (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Beware about the statements and tone you make, it's clearly not in good faith. You edited information and source about Udege people in an article about Japanese archipelago populations, the source does not have a single word about Jomon, it is clearly out of scope. Do not cherry pick, the part about N9b haplogroup and Ainu was not primary cited by Hideaki2013. Will remove part "most frequent in X" due to possible issue.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It's in reference to N9b, which is commonly found in Jomon samples, so it's very valid to add that. You just don't like that information since it doesn't support the weird POV that you're trying to push. Besides, the comments I added above are directly from Hideaki 2013. You're now just being completely dishonest as well. Fraenir (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not valid by any criteria. It has nothing to do with my personal linking or push. Stop to personally attack others.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

Austronesian?

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.

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)

On the genetics paragraph, add the Denisovan data

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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)

Typo?

'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)

peaches

"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)

Ceramics and hunter-gatherers

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)

Where are the tools?

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)