(1) The Japanese archipelago today is one of old, entrenced cultures, political unity & relative ethnic uniformity. Yet the Yamato - the proper name of those often called simply the "Japanese ppl" - are not the only, nor the first on the islands
(2) Crucial to understanding any further discussion of Japan's past is the fact that the Yamato, much like the Celts and Teutons of the British isles, arrived in Japan as migrants & invaders - roughly at the same time the first Celts crossed into Britain, in fact.
(3) To begin our exploration of Japan's creation, we have to go back - far, far back, to the cold and desolate world of the Pleistocene, perhaps 40,000 years ago, when the Japanese archipelago was still connected to the mainland, and the first humans reached the area.
(4) Even while land still bridged the archipelago to the mainland, the Japanese region was an isolated place. The genetic split between the first Japanese and the mainland predates that between the East Asians and the folk who first crossed into the Americas.
(5) The word means Jōmon means "cord-marked", and was in fact first coined by American orientalist Edward S. Morse, before being adapted into Japanese. The word refers to their particular style of pottery, the practice of which began in the isles as early as 15kya.
(6) Of the culture of the ancient Jōmon, little can be said with certainty. Quite probably shamanistic, a characteristic of their culture was the production of "dogū"-figurines, typically animalic or, if humanoid, Venus-like.
They lived in pit-houses and limited, tribal units.
(7) With 40ky of history, the Jōmon would certainly have been not 1 but many cultures & languages. Nor were they utterly insulated, despite their isolation. In their ancestry are traces from maritime East-Asia, including, fascinatingly, Austronesian-related peoples.
(8) The end of the Jōmon period, and, ultimately, their culture and people began not in Japan, but in neighboring Korea. There, 1500 BC saw the dawning of the Mumun period, and with it, the advent of complex agriculture and social hierarchy.
(9) A megalithic culture, the Mumun produced large dolmens like those in Neolithic Europe. They were also the first to import tools and weapons of bronze, though it was not produced locally until 8th century BC. Though not predominating, rice-farming first reached Korea here.
(10) Crucially, the late Mumun period also sees the first appearance of Mumun-like settlements in Japan, on the southerly island of Kyushu. Here, for the first time, is evidence of substantial movement of foreigners into Japan, and with them, settled life and agriculture.
(11) Though linguistic evidence is necessarily scarce here, everything points towards at least the southern parts of the Korean peninsula being the Urheimat of the Japonic languages. Like the insular Celtic languages, Proto-Japonic as we know it likely split post-migration.
(12) The reasons for this migration of early agriculturalist Japonic-speakers across the sea and into Japan are likely diverse and multifaceted, but a very likely factor was the ongoing invasion of Korea by the iron-wielding Kanjin, eventual ancestors of today's Koreans.
(13) This transition is confused by the separate periodisations used by Korean & Japanese, but in Japan, this appearance of identifiably Mumun practices circa 300 BC marks the beginning of the Yayoi period, and with it, the end of the Japanese Paleolithic and the Jōmon period.
(14) I do not have time here to discuss the ultimate ending of the Jōmon people, of their development into the Emishi-tribes and, through admixture with Siberians, the Ainu, nor of the long wars between the Emishi and the rising Yamato empire. This, in the end, was but a prelude.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The way a lot of archaeologists will talk about the Indo-European invasions becomes fairly funny if the same rhetoric is applied to situations like the Reconquista:
"In the end, it is impossible to say how exactly the process of Hispanicization proceeded; it was a slow, gradual movement of people south into Iberia over many centuries, with much evidence of cultural mingling and intermarriage. In light of this, traditional notions of a violent conquest have been increasingly replaced by a model of prolonged migrations, as Christian culture diffused down from the north."
Even to this day, and despite the droves of recent evidence, a very profound squeamishness still surrounds this topic for many academics.
I am tempted to coin Rapp's Rule of Cultural Turnovers: "If, in a clear historical chronology, one culture is directly succeeded by another, unrelated culture, a primary instrument of this change was in all cases violence."
I've long found the distinction between the Anglosphere "Santa's elves" and the Scandinavian nisse/tomte traditions quite interesting. They fill roughly the same role in modern Yuletide lore, as the quintessential Christmas critters and associates of St. Nick.
Their origins, though, are wildly different. The American Christmas elves derive from mid-19th-century children's literature, and tend towards the very twee and saccharine: they're often associated with the colour green, and portrayed as childlike.
The nisser/tomtar, by contrast, are creatures of authentic Nordic folklore, but ones not originally associated with Christmas in any particular way. There were house nisser, barn nisser, church nisser, nisser of the hills. They are essentially mischievous, dwarf-like land spirits
It is a rather disturbing aspect of human nature that, by all accounts of historical and anthropological inquiry, practically the only thing separating those cultures which have, in history, committed great atrocities from those that have not is capacity.
Those who think otherwise generally suffer simply from limited reading:
It is not a virtue (though it may be the truth) to preach meekness from beneath the boot. Virtue is to possess the capacity for cruelty, and yet to reject it. Citing a culture's inability to dominate as evidence of some pacifistic magnanimity is simply unsound.
Folk horror is a very interesting genre to me, one I have quite an affection for (if that's the right word), but most of the discussion and analysis you will find surrounding it is rather frustrating - the genre is much more than simply "aren't rural folks & traditions scary?"
There is a level at which much folk horror does seemingly reduce to "naive urbanite goes into the countryside, bad things happen" - horror essentially deriving from a semi-exoticising, semi-othering view of rural life. Midsommar is largely this, and I dislike it rather strongly.
Yet this does not seem to me to be the crux of the genre's appeal.
What folk horror touches upon, more than anything, is a sense of the atavistic, of deep continuity and the fear (and perhaps suppressed desire) that the past might not yet be altogether past, but retain a power.
Woolly mammoths may have been alive in Europe at the same time as the Trojan War.
Yes, I mean that seriously. Also yes, the word "may" is doing a lot of work in that sentence, and I will elaborate.
It is at this point a fairly well-known fact that a small population of woolly mammoths survived on Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean until only around 1600 BC, a thousand years after the building of the Pyramid of Giza.
What is still less known is the story on the mainland.
Over the last few years, environmental genomics surveys have increasingly been employed as new tool to investigate the ecosystems of the past, scanning not for the bones of past animals, but for signatures of their DNA. What has been revealed is remarkable.
An extremely fascinating bit of obscure history is that of the Kongsi republics in Western Borneo - Chinese 'company-states' predicated on gold and tin mining that existed on the island between the 1700s-1800s
The term 'kongsi' (公司) is not a Mandarin Chinese word, but instead from Hokkien, a Chinese language spoken primarily in southeastern Fujian, while the related form 'Kung-sze' exists in Hakka, another regional Sinitic language spoken in the south.
This etymology is significant because it belies the origin of the Southeast Asian kongsis. Both the Hakka and Hokkien peoples originated from the north of China, arriving in a south already populated by other Chinese groups. Pushed to the margins, they formed a mercantile culture