What's new

Jomon and Yayoi origin of Japanese royal families

Color red

先輩
21 Oct 2006
224
5
28
I would like to ask your opinion on the pictures I got from my friends in japan.
Japanese has two major ethnicities, yayoi (korea-related) and jomon/ainu. How you think japanese princes look like back in these old days of 19th century? Ainu, Yayoi, or mixed? Please let me know you opinions.

If you don't know how jomon looks, here is the example pic of jomon people:

Mutu Munemitsu (Foreign Minister) and his wife, Ryouko
mutu-1.jpg

mutuwife-1.jpg

ryouko-1.jpg


Akiyama Saneyuki (Vice Admiral)
Akiyama_Saneyuki-1.jpg


Akiyama Yoshifuru (General)
akiyamak-1.jpg


Togo Heihachiro (Admiral)
ADMIRALTOGO-1.jpg


The images below are japanese royal family member in 19th century.

Prince Fushimi and his wife
p8-1.jpg


Prince Takehito
Prince_takehito_in_england-1.jpg

Prince_takehito_as_admiral-1.jpg


Meiji Emperor
p4-1.jpg

meiji2-1.jpg


From my view, I am confident that these people are not chinese related, as I am asian myself, and knows all kinds of looks in north east, and south east asia.

For reference, please also see the link below:


Just my two cents, these princes seem to have different mothers, so even they may be related, there are always new DNA added by maternal lineages.
 
Last edited:
Misunderstanding?

We are not talking here about black and white rabbits, but about the royal family.
Unless it is not absolutely clear which gene in the human genome is responsible for certain feature in the appearance, you cannot use the appearance to prove someone's genetical roots, especially if we are talking about more than 80 generations back.
 
We are not talking here about black and white rabbits, but about the royal family.
Unless it is not absolutely clear which gene in the human genome is responsible for certain feature in the appearance, you cannot use the appearance to prove someone's genetical roots, especially if we are talking about more than 80 generations back.

Well, perhaps i didn't make this clear enough. I was hoping to see "your" subjective opinions as to how the 19th royal family looks ainu or yayoi, or mixed. I do not necessarily go into the genetic details of these people, as we will be never allowed to sample their genomes. Also, jomon and yayoi is so visibly different that we may be able to see certain trends in each person. Just tell your opinions, please.
 
Since the last of the Jomon people were assimilated at least 2000 years ago, I am at a loss as to how you can claim that these are pictures of Jomon people. But that aside, there is a theory that Emperor Ojin (the first historical emperor after the mythological ones) was very likely Korean. There are still Ainu in northern Japan, but south of Hokkaido over the past 2000 years they were either driven out, killed, or assimilated, so it is very unlikely that these people are Ainu. No doubt a lot of people are decended from Ainu, but after 2000 years of interbreeding, that doesn't mean much today.

Unless it is not absolutely clear which gene in the human genome is responsible for certain feature in the appearance, you cannot use the appearance to prove someone's genetical roots, especially if we are talking about more than 80 generations back.

I've read studies that it only takes 4-5 generations for all visible "signs" of one race to dissapear into the race of all of the rest of the ancestors. For example, if you had one great-great-grandfather who was Japanese, and everyone else was white, the odds are that you would look completely caucasion. 80 generations would be a joke.
 
Last edited:
Jomon Yayoi Origin

Since the last of the Jomon people were assimilated at least 2000 years ago, I am at a loss as to how you can claim that these are pictures of Jomon people.

Wide availability of jomon skulls is one thing. The jomon skulls have a high correspondence with ainu's. By analysing the faces of people, we can find an approximate phenotype (appearance) of the ethnicities of people.

But that aside, there is a theory that Emperor Ojin (the first historical emperor after the mythological ones) was very likely Korean. There are still Ainu in northern Japan, but south of Hokkaido over the past 2000 years they were either driven out, killed, or assimilated, so it is very unlikely that these people are Ainu. No doubt a lot of people are decended from Ainu, but after 2000 years of interbreeding, that doesn't mean much today.

Any sources on emperor ojin? Jomon is very likely a precursor of ainu, and the latest genetic studies show that half of japanese is descended from jomon origin.

I've read studies that it only takes 4-5 generations for all visible "signs" of one race to dissapear into the race of all of the rest of the ancestors. For example, if you had one great-great-grandfather who was Japanese, and everyone else was white, the odds are that you would look completely caucasion. 80 generations would be a joke.

You first mentioned the theory about emperor ojin, and then later asserted that the theory of 80 generations back is joke. Your logic is rather weak, if you support the korean origin of the first emperor. Perhaps, you can explain your points more clearly.

*Be advised that people I quoted are noble people whose lineages are known at least back to 20 generations, and some up to 50 generations. *
 
You first mentioned the theory about emperor ojin, and then later asserted that the theory of 80 generations back is joke. Your logic is rather weak, if you support the korean origin of the first emperor. Perhaps, you can explain your points more clearly.
I never said anyone looked at the modern emperor's bone structure and said "Ojin must have been Korean!" This has nothing to do with genetics or phenotype - where did you even think that connection up? The theory about Ojin most likely comes from a combination of archaeological work and ancient chinese/paekche/Japanese records. The theory was mentioned in a lecture I attended last week by Gina Barnes (.dur.ac.uk/eastasian.studies/staff/barnescv/) (you'll need to put in the www), a highly respected archaeologist currently at Durham U. She's writing a book about Ojin, should be out in about a year or two - when it does you can read it and fight it out with her. Chill out :)
 
The theory about Ojin most likely comes from a combination of archaeological work and ancient :eek:

where is a such document ?
 
Welcome to the forum Kuuzo!🙂
Almost all younger academic world in Japan thinks that yes, the royal family's origin is in Korea.I've met ,however, some quite shauvinistic scholars too , who would say that 2 is 3 , and the people would accept thier opinion due to the respect towards the elderly in Japan😊
Just I was wondering about the part of Fujiwara clan in all this .They married their daugters /sons/ other relatives to members of the royal family.
I wonder if Fujiwara can be classified as Jomon or Yayoi people.
 
The theory about Ojin most likely comes from a combination of archaeological work and ancient :eek:
where is a such document ?
Don't look at me, email her, her email address should be on her CV. I'm just making the assumption that they didn't look at the current emperor's head and say "You look like Ojin must have been from Korea!" ☝
 
Welcome to the forum Kuuzo!🙂
Almost all younger academic world in Japan thinks that yes, the royal family's origin is in Korea.

Any sources? What is "all younger academic world in japan"?

kuuzo told that we cannot dispute the origin as a sure science, and the reference he cited is not a proper reference in any academic sense, since it's unpublished. If you are going to tell us your idea, please avoid using explicit statement which makes us resorting to low level discussions, as I can observe now.

Big picture you are probably missing is that yayoi and korean population are rooted in south east asia, since the vast majority of korean came from china, and ancestor of han chinese came from southern route of migrations. 😊

To be honest with you, if you don't understand what you are talking, you just need to stick to your ignorance, and be humble.

Don't look at me, email her, her email address should be on her CV. I'm just making the assumption that they didn't look at the current emperor's head and say "You look like Ojin must have been from Korea!" ☝

Cite the "published" article, and then we can discuss, okay? And please respect the decorum and rational attitudes in our discussions. If you have no points to add to our arguments with supported materials, and no attitude to discuss with some level of maturity, you are wasting time here, because none of us really cares about what you'd say, not because your idea is utter non-sense, but because of your presentation and reading comprehension skills.
 
Last edited:
Any sources? What is "all younger academic world in japan"?
kuuzo told that we cannot dispute the origin as a sure science, and the reference he cited is not a proper reference in any academic sense, since it's unpublished. If you are going to tell us your idea, please avoid using explicit statement which makes us resorting to low-level discussions, as I can observe now.
The reason these articles hasn't been published I gave above.
And I have heard this stuff from these same scholars on conferences and symposium I have attended.
Big picture you are probably missing is that yayoi and Korean population are rooted in south-east Asia, since the vast majority of Korean came from china, and ancestor of han Chinese came from southern route of migrations.
Why do you change the topic? We were not talking about the origin of the Koreans, right? Or was it just to show that China is on the bottom of everything.Some pansinaism, maybe?
To be honest with you, if you don't understand what you are talking, you just need to stick to your ignorance, and be humble.
Fine with me, discussions with chauvinists are tiresome.

Cite the "published" article, and then we can discuss, okay? And please respect the decorum and rational attitudes in our discussions. If you have no points to add to our arguments with supporting materials, and no attitude to discussing with some level of maturity, you are wasting time here, because none of us really cares about what you'd say, not because your idea is utter nonsense, but because of your presentation and reading comprehension skills.[/QUOTE]
 
The reason these articles hasn't been published I gave above.
And I have heard this stuff from these same schollars on conferences and symposium I have attended.
Well, I thought you are not kuuzo. If you didn't make a typo, that means you are the same person as kuuzo, since I know that kuuzo mentioned that "these articles" (in kuuzo's words, "lecture") were only verbally told, whereas you did not give a word on it.
 
Why do you change the topic? We were not talking about the origin of the Koreans, right?Or was it just to show that China is on the bottom of everything.Some pansinaism, maybe?

In fact, the question on the origin of korean is related to Yayoi. Since the modern korean is presumably made up of different people than ancient times, we must trace back to the sources of korean lineages at some time point, and state the proximal groups.

If you haven't see the chart below, I will post for your reference.

Genetic makeup of East Asians grouped by lineage specific DNA sequences

PNAS | August 28, 2001 | vol. 98 | no. 18 | 10244-10249
The Eurasian Heartland: A continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity
R. Spencer Wellsa,b, Nadira Yuldashevaa,c, Ruslan Ruzibakievc, Peter A. Underhilld, Irina Evseevae, Jason Blue-Smithd, Li Jinf, Bing Suf, Ramasamy Pitchappang, Sadagopal Shanmugalakshmig, Karuppiah Balakrishnang, Mark Readh, Nathaniel M. Pearsoni, Tatiana Zerjalj, Matthew T. Websterk, Irakli Zholoshvilil, Elena Jamarjashvilil, Spartak Gambarovm, Behrouz Nikbinn, Ashur Dostievo, Ogonazar Aknazarovp, Pierre Zallouaq, Igor Tsoyr, Mikhail Kitaevs, Mirsaid Mirrakhimovs, Ashir Charievt, and Walter F. Bodmera,u

ABSTRACT
The nonrecombining portion of the human Y chromosome has proven to be a valuable tool for the study of population history. The maintenance of extended haplotypes characteristic of particular geographic regions, despite extensive admixture, allows complex demographic events to be deconstructed. In this study we report the frequencies of 23 Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphism haplotypes in 1,935 men from 49 Eurasian populations, with a particular focus on Central Asia. These haplotypes reveal traces of historical migrations, and provide an insight into the earliest patterns of settlement of anatomically modern humans on the Eurasian continent. Central Asia is revealed to be an important reservoir of genetic diversity, and the source of at least three major waves of migration leading into Europe, the Americas, and India. The genetic results are interpreted in the context of Eurasian linguistic patterns.

pq1713050001-1.jpg


Fig. 1. Geographic distribution of Y-chromosome haplotypes in selected Eurasian populations. Evolutionarily related haplotypes were combined to clarify their display. Colors are those shown in Table 1.
 
Any sources? What is "all younger academic world in japan"?
kuuzo told that we cannot dispute the origin as a sure science, and the reference he cited is not a proper reference in any academic sense, since it's unpublished. If you are going to tell us your idea, please avoid using explicit statement which makes us resorting to low level discussions, as I can observe now.
The reason these articles hasn't been published I gave above.
And I have heard this stuff from these same schollars on conferences and symposium I have attended.
Why do you change the topic? We were not talking about the origin of the Koreans, right?Or was it just to show that China is on the bottom of everything.Some pansinaism, maybe?
Fine with me, discussions with shauvinists are tiresome.
Cite the "published" article, and then we can discuss, okay? And please respect the decorum and rational attitudes in our discussions. If you have no points to add to our arguments with supported materials, and no attitude to discuss with some level of maturity, you are wasting time here, because none of us really cares about what you'd say, not because your idea is utter non-sense, but because of your presentation and reading comprehension skills.
Well, I don't know what you mean by "tiresome"?
 
For everyone: Below I give books published in Japanese about the origin of Japanese and Koreans. Color Red aked for them


韓半島からきた倭国 : 古代加耶族が建てた九州王朝 / 李鍾恒著 ; 兼川晋訳
帰化人 : 古代国家の成立をめぐって / 上田正昭著
好太王碑の謎 : 日本古代史を書きかえる
伽耶国と倭地 : 韓半島南部の古代国家と倭地進出 / 尹錫暁著 ; 兼川晋訳
日本製鉄史論集 / たたら研究会編

Taehyun is Taehyun
 
For everyone: Below I give books published in Japanese about the origin of Japanese and Koreans. Color Red aked for them


韓半島からきた倭国 : 古代加耶族が建てた九州王朝 / 李鍾恒著 ; 兼川晋訳
帰化人 : 古代国家の成立をめぐって / 上田正昭著
好太王碑の謎 : 日本古代史を書きかえる
伽耶国と倭地 : 韓半島南部の古代国家と倭地進出 / 尹錫暁著 ; 兼川晋訳
日本製鉄史論集 / たたら研究会編

Taehyun is Taehyun
Care to write reference in alphabets? Most of us, non-japanese, and non-zainichi-korean, doesn't read Japanese.
 
Last edited:

韓半島からきた倭国 : 古代加耶族が建てた九州王朝 / 李鍾恒著 ; 兼川晋訳

帰化人 : 古代国家の成立をめぐって / 上田正昭著
😊 as slaves
好太王碑の謎 : 日本古代史を書きかえる
😊
百済と新羅は倭国の属国??
 
The theory about Ojin most likely comes from a combination of archaeological work and ancient chinese/paekche/Japanese records.


What archaelogical findings,what Chinese records :?


There was NO authentic Chinese history texts ever mentioned the origin of earliest native people of Japan islands or Jomon and Yamato.Chinese Book of Wei was the first recorded of a Queen reigned those islands with hundred loosely clans or tribal nations.
 
What archaelogical findings,what Chinese records :?
Since you obviously missed it, I will assist you again:
Don't look at me, email (Gina Barnes), her email address should be on her CV. I'm just making the assumption that they didn't look at the current emperor's head and say "You look like Ojin must have been from Korea!" ☝
I have no idea where she got it, but I'm sure she'd be glad to share.
Cite the "published" article, and then we can discuss, okay? And please respect the decorum and rational attitudes in our discussions. If you have no points to add to our arguments with supported materials, and no attitude to discuss with some level of maturity, you are wasting time here, because none of us really cares about what you'd say, not because your idea is utter non-sense, but because of your presentation and reading comprehension skills.
Thank you for the measured, mature, and respectful response. Unfortunately your "reading comprehension skills" need some work. 1. It isn't my idea, it is Gina Barnes, an archaeologist. 2. It was at a lecture, so if you need sources, ask her, like I said. 3. When someone says "There is a theory", it means simply that - "someone" has a theory. I never claimed it was my theory - and I even told you who's theory it was. A more discerning reader would have picked that up. Don't bother responding until you work on that reading comprehension, OK?
🙂
I'm glad this forum is so pleasant, and discussion is so civil! Some forums I've been to, well, let's just say this is a nice change!
:)
 
Last edited:
The theory was mentioned in a lecture I attended last week by Gina Barnes (.dur.ac.uk/eastasian.studies/staff/barnescv/) (you'll need to put in the www), a highly respected archaeologist currently at Durham U. She's writing a book about Ojin, should be out in about a year or two - when it does you can read it and fight it out with her.


I have this Chinese language book set of 5 volumns on Japan History written by a highly respected Taiwan author.First chapter,he wrote Japan's legendary founder Tenno ( Emperor ) Jimmu was ancient Chinaman Xu-Fu and cited one Chinese archaeologist's name for this source.


He's a total buffoon and a disgrace to history academia circle with his baseless outrageous claim.:(
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the measured, mature, and respectful response. Unfortunately your "reading comprehension skills" need some work. 1. It isn't my idea, it is Gina Barnes, an archaeologist. 2. It was at a lecture, so if you need sources, ask her, like I said. 3. When someone says "There is a theory", it means simply that - "someone" has a theory. I never claimed it was my theory - and I even told you who's theory it was. A more discerning reader would have picked that up.
Of course, I know that you attended a lecture, and any discerning reader will see that we are both talking about lecture. However, Taehyun missed that point, and I had to point that out several times.
kuuzo said:
The theory about Ojin most likely comes from a combination of archaeological work and ancient chinese/paekche/Japanese records. The theory was mentioned in a lecture I attended last week by Gina Barnes (.dur.ac.uk/eastasian.studies/staff/barnescv/) (you'll need to put in the www), a highly respected archaeologist currently at Durham U. She's writing a book about Ojin, should be out in about a year or two - when it does you can read it and fight it out with her. Chill out

There are two points I have had for you.

(1) Where is a "a combination of archaeological work and ancient c
Chinese/paekche/Japanese records.
"? Are there any documented works in korean, chinese, japanese 2000 years ago?

(2) Your link does not show any relevant sources except her CV. Anyone trained thinker would think that the way you made argument is weak and rather embarassingly subjective and arrogant. You practically took advantage of Dr. Barnes credits as scholors, and failed to show her a respect by citing her own works that actually state the theory you mentioned. You should have either waited or give us at least some evidences of Dr. Barnes comments through peer review, or with illustration of points you had come across in the lecture.

kuuzo said:
Don't look at me, email her, her email address should be on her CV.

Shame. I don't even know what to comment.

I'll quote some of the comments your friend, Taehyun, wrote.
taehyun said:
Almost all younger academic world in Japan thinks that yes, the royal family's origin is in Korea.I've met ,however, some quite shauvinistic scholars too , who would say that 2 is 3 , and the people would accept thier opinion due to the respect towards the elderly in Japan
taehyun said:
The reason these articles hasn't been published I gave above.
And I have heard this stuff from these same schollars on conferences and symposium I have attended.
Now, to me, this is confusing, he sounds a lot like "kuuzo the greater" than "little taehyun".
*Are both of you from korea?*
Don't bother responding until you work on that reading comprehension, OK?
Actually, reading comprehension is/was your problem. Point is that your theory is not supported with materials accessible to any of us, and this is a major annoyance to other posters including me here. I would love to read some theoretical materials published in reputable journals, and doing so for you would automatically give you better credibility.
 
Last edited:
(2) Your link does not show any relevant sources except her CV. Anyone trained thinker would think that the way you made argument is weak and rather embarassingly subjective and arrogant. You practically took advantage of Dr. Barnes credits as scholors, and failed to show her a respect by citing her own works that actually state the theory you mentioned. You should have either waited or give us at least some evidences of Dr. Barnes comments through peer review, or with illustration of points you had come across in the lecture.
Actually, reading comprehension is/was your problem. Point is that your theory is not supported with materials accessible to any of us, and this is a major annoyance to other posters including me here. I would love to read some theoretical materials published in reputable journals, and doing so for you would automatically give you better credibility.
Little Red, didn't daddy tell you not to respond until you work on your reading comprehension? If you go back to the start you'll see that I have no stake whatsoever in what Ojin was, I just brought up a random theory I heard, within the context of a discussion (one which was unrelated to yours, in point of fact), and therefore have no need for credibility since I have no interest nor stake in the topic at hand. Not only do I not have a stake in it, I had and still have no interest in looking into it, and since it was both not my theory, and it was not necessary to say anything beyond "there is a theory", it was not important nor necessary for me to get you sources, which is why I gave you the tools to do so - again, my credibility as a passive listener at a lecture is meaningless. Contrary to what you beleive, I was not trying to make a point. Go back to the very begining and read again. You brought up some strange and random thing about how a random theory of Ojin being Korean was related to the inability to discern phenotype after 80 generations, and began to get defensive. That is where you started going wrong, and it just got worse from there. You took what I was saying as me putting forward my rock solid theory as an attempt to dispute what you had said, when all I was doing was literally saying "there is this theory that..." - and it had NOTHING to do with what you had said about phenotype. It was a completely unrelated statement which you assumed to be aimed at your phenotype thing (another reading comprehension issue for you to work on). So, take a deep breath, and go back to the start, and re-read the thread.
:)
 
taehyun;407123 said:
韓半島からきた倭国 : 古代加耶族が建てた九州王朝 / 李鍾恒著 ; 兼川晋訳

伽耶国と倭地 : 韓半島南部の古代国家と倭地進出 / 尹錫暁著 ; 兼川晋訳


These 2 Japanese-language history books specifically clarified and re-enforced Wa-jins' ( Japanese ) ancient Gaya Federation was Yamato domain in the Korea peninsula, no references to any kinship or clan connection to later established Silla and Baekje kingdoms.


Furthermore,Silla's Royal House of Pak Hyokkose's origin in China's Liaoning province when it was then the Old Chosun Kingdom and Baekje's Royal House of Puyo's origin in China's Jilin province.


For your information, Yayoi migrated from China's Yangtze River Delta.

 
Why are all of your threads so seemingly race-baiting?

I am not interested in race itself. But when talking about history, many propositions could be made up of manipulations. That's not the case with genetics up till now. Most mainstream papers published in the Journal of American genetics, Nature, Bioinformatics, and other reputable journals give higher requirement to get the studies published, and international corporations are almost requirement. (ie, Japanese working with Korean, American, german working with Estonian, Korean, American with Chinese, and so on). It's really good to know some genetic studies if you are not just satisfied with archaeology and linguistics. It's one of the things you might have a look and understand a little better, but certainly not the only option. You can choose to ignore or spend your time to understand the charts.

I feel pity for some Chinese and Korean. I do receive many offensive messages from both people, because they are taught to think in a certain way, to suit for their superiority complex against Japanese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, and other South East Asians. It is now widely known by most Asians, that these two nationalities are really worst when evaluating racism fueled by nationalism in Asia. My threads could not be pleasant to them, but it's free to attack my points if they have good points which they can cover with facts and scientific results.

twinklestar said:
For your information, Yayoi migrated from China's Yangtze River Delta.


Can you give the non-Wikipedia sources? I heard this statement many times, but so far I never had any feasible sources which I can have an access.

Here is a genetic map on china and japan. According to the map, it's certainly possible that Yayoi migrated through china, but it seems that they all came through south-east, which you missed pointing out.
 
Back
Top Bottom