Japan's Yayoi Period in 3 Minutes
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 жов 2024
- Breaking down the main points of Japan's second historical era: the Yayoi Period! (~1000 BCE - ~250 CE)
This "In X Minutes" series is intended to be a companion to my "The Textbook" series, whose videos have been getting longer and more detailed as time has gone on. You can check out that series here: • Japanese History: The ...
My hope is that this series can be a quick way for people to review the information presented in the longer videos, or just a more accessible intro to Japanese history. I will also be creating Japanese companion videos for each of these, both for friends in Japan who would prefer Japanese-language media and for learners of the Japanese language who would like to see how to talk about history in Japanese! Check that playlist out here: • Japanese History in Ja...
Main video music: H/MIX GALLERY (www.hmix.net/)
Intro and outro beats by me, with some samples used.
Images:
Photo AC (www.photo-ac.com/)
Wikimedia Commons (Users Gisling, Artanisen, Pekachu, Cleveland Museum of Art)
Waseda University (www.wul.waseda...)
The cover of issue 39 of the periodical book Shūkan Asahi Hyakka
The Yoshinogari Site (www.yoshinogar...)
Exhibits from the Aichi Asahi Iseki Museum (aichi-asahi.jp/)
Colbase: (colbase.nich.g...)
Google Maps User Matthew Wee’s photo of an exhibit from the Osaka Museum of Yayoi Culture
Your content is extremely educational and you do an amazing job at explaining things. You are extremely underrated and deserve more subscribers.
I think I’ll look at this comment whenever I need motivation. Thank you!
Much agreed!!
To be frank, I find Japan pre-feudal/samurai period more interesting. Gives you a sense of the formative period of Japan from it's start as a confederation of rice growing chiefdoms and kingdoms, it's slow but eventual centralization into a single government influenced by China, then to the slow decline of centralize power and the rise of the samurai.
For me it’s a bit like choosing a favorite child, but I definitely empathize with that sentiment. The fact that the pre-medieval eras don’t get as much media love also makes them more intriguing because they feel a little more like unexplored territory.
i like seeing yayoi,muromach,these 2 are my favorites seeing the cultural diference to modern japan
Much love brutha you’re content is always a joy to watch
Thanks man. The video we discussed is in the works!
Very good Videos sir, keep it up !
Thank you sir!
Yes one point of view is this theroy but me and arimasa kubo i studied his work. Claims that the yayoi people and the people of the Yamato is one of the same tribe but two different dynasty. One was the izanagi dynasty and the other is the Jimmu tenno dyansty. Izanagi dynasty from 725 bce-660bce
And the jimmu tenno dyansty still continue until today. Also izanagi i believe had a brother name king hoshi his other name was known as hoshea son of elah very few scholar talk about it. King hoshi reign from 731 bce-725 bce while izanagi 3 years from his early reign frim 725-722 bce before going east. Toward going to Japan.
Also pottery from king ahab palace look similar to yayoi pottery.
Great video!
Thank you!
Since someone mentioned the Yamaguchi 1999 study in the comment section, I'll talk about it here to debunk some misleading claims made by that person. I don't want to reply to that person directly since he won't listen to what I'm saying at all. I've had the opportunity to read through that study a couple of years ago on a Chinese website (back when the idea of copyright infringement was almost nonexistent in China). The study was done by the Japanese anthropologist Satoshi Yamaguchi in association with some Chinese colleagues.
First of all, more than 2 decades have passed since its publication and our knowledge about human migration has changed drastically, and the result from that study is rather obsolete and is no longer relevant from a modern POV.
Secondly, unlike what that person has claimed, the 1999 study by Yamaguchi et al. was purely an anthropological study and had nothing to do with DNA, since DNA testing was still in its infancy at that time. And with anthropological studies the margin of error is rather great; they aren't as precise as DNA testing that's why they got replaced by DNA when the later became matured.
Thirdly, even looking from the angle of anthropological studies, the result from the 1999 study was very inconclusive. They examined 36 Han era skeletons from Jiangsu, and out of those 36 skeletons, only 3 showed some physical similarities to Yayoi specimens, whereas the rest 33 (the overwhelming majority) were different from Yayoi. With such low similarities I don't think any conclusion could be drawn. It's likely that the 3 were outsiders or migrants from another region further north whereas the 33 were locals.
So in brief I think the 1999 study was more politically oriented (at that time Japan and China's relation was quite good) rather than a serious and objective academic study.
And last but not least, even if we were to consider that there're some similarities between Yayoi and ancient Jiangsu people, I don't think we can extrapolate this to the entirety of the Yangtse region, let alone South China and SE Asia. Some people seem to have difficulties conceptualizing the length of the Yangtse and the size of China. The Yangtse has a length of roughly 6300 km from its origin to the place where it enters the East China Sea, and is the world's 3rd longest river (after Nile and Amazon). Hence just because certain ancient Jiangsu individuals close to the estuary of Yangtse showed some similarities to Yayoi doesn't mean people inhabiting the upper and middle reaches of the Yangtse ought to be similar to Yayoi. IMO Jiangsu as well as Shanghai and Zhejiang should be considered as East China rather than South China, and they're quite some distance away from the quintessential areas of South China (Guangdong, Guangxi, and Yunnan). The distance from the Yangtse Delta in East China to those three quintessential South China regions is around 1500 to 2000 km. To put into perspective this is around the same distance from the snowy Tohoku region of Japan to the southernmost islands in the Okinawan island chain. Hence with such great distances and a drastic variation in climate, you cannot assume that the ancient people of South China were the same as the ones in Jiangsu; in fact recent researches have indicated that the indigenous people of South China were closer to the Hoabinhian, Jarawa, Jehai, Aeta, Batak, and Maniq peoples of SE Asia rather than to ancient Sinitic and Japonic peoples. Not to mention that Jiangsu is largely located to the north of the Yangtse Delta, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone categorizes parts or even the entirety of Jiangsu as belonging to North China, since after all the plains of Jiangsu are an extension of the North China plains.
So there you go, someone clearly doesn't know what he's talking about and I hope people won't be misled by his absurd comments.
ua-cam.com/video/r0gARv69h1U/v-deo.html
It's just simple explanation. You go to a island filled with people with no agricultural knowledge and you bring metal swords, armor, horses. You would either be considered a God or a monster. They chose to believe the Koreans are gods who have crossed the sea to bring them knowledge.
Well-said. God or monster the Yayoi came from the Korean peninsula and parts of Manchuria (West Liao River), and this has been proven by the latest genetic and archaeological studies. I'm not sure why there're some stubborn people who refuse to believe this and still think that the Yayoi came from South China or SE Asia, despite a complete lack of genetic and archaeological evidence.
Yayoi = Korean Migrants from Gaya and Baekjae
"Yayoi linked to Yangtze area" - Satoshi Yamaguchi, 1999:
DNA tests reveal similarities to early wet-rice farmers
Some of the first wet-rice farmers in Japan might have migrated from the lower basin of China's Yangtze River more than 2,000 years ago, Japanese and Chinese researchers said Thursday.
This was suggested by DNA tests conducted by the researchers that showed genetic similarities between human remains from the Yayoi Period found in southwestern Japan and the early Han Dynasty found in China's central Jiangsu Province, Satoshi Yamaguchi told reporters.
People who introduced irrigation techniques to the Japanese archipelago in the Yayoi Period (250 B.C.-300) were believed to have come to Japan either from the Korean Peninsula across the Tsushima Strait, or from northern China across the Yellow Sea.
The latest findings, however, bolster another theory suggesting the origin of the Yayoi people was an area south of the Yangtze, which is believed to be the birthplace of irrigated rice cultivation.
Yamaguchi, a researcher at Japan's National Science Museum, said the researchers compared Yayoi remains found in Yamaguchi and Fukuoka prefectures with those from early Han (202 B.C.-8) in Jiangsu in a three-year project begun in 1996.
The researchers found many similarities between the skulls and limbs of Yayoi people and the Jiangsu remains.
Two Jiangsu skulls showed spots where the front teeth had been pulled, a practice common in Japan in the Yayoi and preceding Jomon Period.
But the most persuasive findings resulted from tests revealing that genetic samples from Jiangsu skeletons also matched part of the DNA base arrangements of samples from the Yayoi remains, the scientists said.
100% no genetic links to back that theory up, Yayoi people were ancient Koreans and the dna and genetic markers are all there in modern Japanese to support it
Yaoi period of Japan, hehe
jomon and yayoi ( japanese ) are descended from russian far east
Jomon were mix of ancient eastern siberian and ancient austronesian from south eastern china and indochinna.
Yayoi were mongoloid people from mainland china and korean peninsula.
@@Lonestar10443 Please go check the latest genetic paper regarding the origins of Japanese "Ancient genomics reveals tripartite origins of Japanese populations" by Cooke et al. 2021. In the paper it clearly says that modern Japanese are primarily made up of three lineages Jomon, Yayoi, and Kofun, with the Jomon being a highly divergent East Eurasian lineage not closely related to any continental East Asian group no matter north or south, the Yayoi being mixed descendants of the Jomon and a continental Northeast Asian source from the Amur region, and the Kofun being Jomon + Yayoi + additional genetic input from the Yellow River region. None of these three lineages trace back to South China or SE Asia.
The 2021 Tripartite paper is deeply flawed in its methodology. It only analyzed 3 kofun skeletons and extrapolated the results to an entire population.
1. Y-DNA: If the majority of Kofun came from yellow river as the paper argues, then why don't we see >50% O3 M-122 in japanes today? O3 is the signature yellow river haplogroup, and it only ranges between 5-10% in modern japanes. So yellow river could not be the bulk gene flow, even if minor.
2. Autosomal DNA: Modern Japanes cluster much closer with Korean populations than yellow river populations today, by FST values. If mass migration from the yellow river occurred then we would see japanes clustering much closer to han chinese, even closer than to korean. But thats not true.
Conclusion: The old dual origin theory of Yayoi + Jomon = Japanes is still more rigorous and far stronger than the methodologically questionable 2021 tripartite paper.
Autosomal DNA is stronger than haplogroups alone. Based on aDNA, modern Japanes cluster nowhere near modern Siberian populations by genetic distance FST. (>0.1) They are well within the East Asian cluster, being closest to Koreans and Han Chinese.
@@AntiManlet-pp2fk LOL are you a professional geneticist? If you aren't then who are you to diss that paper which was written by a collaboration of international geneticists including many Japanese ones? Really if you're so dissatisfied with that paper then why don't you write your own?