Talk:History of Japan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

History vs. Pre-history etc

Hi, as it stands, the first paragraph begins with

 "The history of Japan probably started around 100,000 BCE"

I'd like to point out that perhaps it's not useful or accurate to start a history article with a date 100000 BCE like this... The reason why, in general, is that the study of history is typically restricted to the era of 'written records', as the Wikipedia article on "History" will even state. There can be probably some fudging, because written records can date slightly earlier events or have relation to slightly earlier events. In short, history and pre-history will be divided by written records.

Please take a look at the wikipedia article on History of England, in that, the upper-right table indicates prehistory is before 43 BC, and history in the years after. This date of 43 BC is generally due to Roman era records. And again, (somewhere geographicaly closer to Japan) in the article History of China, the article begins by saying that "The history of China is detailed by historical records dating back to 1500 BC".

I think it's a bit problematic and misleading to state that history began 100,000 years ago, because if by history you mean purely archaeological evidence, then why stop there? History will blend right into pre-history, and then into archaeology, without any meaningful demarcation.

There is the more casual usage of the word 'history', of course. That is, history is just the sequence of all events from beginning to end. In which case, the history of Japan goes back to the Big Bang and all time afterward. But as an informative and scholarly Wikipedia entry, I think this article should be amended with something more accurate, more specific, referring to what is canonically defined as "history".

I propose something like

"The earliest records of Japan date back to 600 B.C.E., according to the Chinese source commonly known as the Gishiwajinden, or the Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms. In the text, the country of Yamataikoku is mentioned, which was said to be ruled by the Queen Himiko."

I think this adds to the quality of the article in its specificity, and in exposing the reader to the Himiko story. Even here, there is lots of controversy as to whether Yamataikoku even existed because of lack of archaeological evidence. The idea that we have any idea of the specific events of 100,000 BCE, as the word 'history' demands, is somewhat unreasonable. Any comments? Wilgamesh 03:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. That opening has been bugging me for some time as well. Although I don't think your suggested opening is correct. The earliest mention of the kingdom of Wa is in the Later Han Chronicles, which were compiled in the fifth century AD and cover the early first to early third centuries AD. The specific mention of Japan and the famous "golden seal" dates to 57 AD.-Jefu 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes.. I just realized I wrote 600 BCE, which is ridiculous. Sorry about that. And furthermore, I think you're right, there are written records of Japan pre-dating Himiko. I'll have to read some more to be able to write something meaningful.. someone else mod it in meantime? Wilgamesh 19:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone should mention and then link to the Wiki page Japanese Paleolithic Hoax --Malangthon 08:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added the link to Also see. LDHan 12:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm suprised there appears to be no mention of the Nanking/Nanjing incident in the section on WWII. Would anyone more knowledgeable than myself care to add some information on this subject? [28/06/05]

---

Can we get a better section on the history of the Japanese Empire? Its such an important an interesting part of Japanese history. Also something on the influence of Marxism in Japan. I'll be happy to do some content if somebody would like to get it started. 11:39 Shanghai Time 17 Dec 2004

---

man! all i want to know is when did the education become in place!

---

I think it would be a better idea to have the last two eras be Showa and Heisei. Unfortunately, Showa only redirects to Hirohito and the his page already has a navigation bar for the Emperors. Anyone have any ideas? Emperorbma

Fixed (a long time a go now)...

---

Enjoy the Japanese history table... Emperorbma 06:58 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I believe Yayoi period needs to be dated back 500 years earlier or at least allow the change I made to timeline stand. These are announcements made by the reasearch team headed by Imamura.

http://bric.postech.ac.kr/science/97now/03_5now/030530b.html

http://www.asahi.com/english/arts/TKY200309300215.html

http://www.rekihaku.ac.jp/kenkyuu/news/ (The complete report but in Japanese)

Revth 05:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

the table

I don't mean to be rude, but that table needs to go. It ruins the layout of the page, it renders incorrectly in smaller resolutions. Whoever put it there needs to change it so it works.

World War I to End of World War II

The Japanese sought awful destruction. They raped, pillaged, and killed.

I slashed out these two lines. I can only read this as "Japanese people" wanted to destroy and this is a serious bleach of NPOV policies of Wikipedia, a completely baseless accusation. Revth 02:48, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ummm... I'm not going to change it myself, but the chart at the bottom isn't very accurate: the "Meiji Era" was not the "period" after the "Edo Period"; rather it was a continuation of a system that is rarely used nowadays to denote any time before that, and we are not currently in a "period" that could be equated with the "Edo Period".

dates?

Maybe add the years after the headings (like XXX period (xxxx-xxxx)) ? would make looking up parts easier (clem 17:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)).

cleaned up

For some reason a large section of the article was duplicated after the "external links" section; I removed the duplicate text.

"The earliest -- in the world" in the picture captions

Is this verified? Seems like a pretty bold claim. Maybe they are the oldest ones that we have found, but claiming that you know that something is the "oldest in the world" esp. in a period well before recorded history(especially recorded history in Japan) is a pretty bold claim, and I can't see any corraborating sources that show beyond a doubt that the items in question are among the "oldest"

For Jomon pottery, please see that article, and also the Talk Page on Tokyo National Museum article, where various additional references are given. Datation is by radio-carbon. For the polished blades, the reference is Imamura ("Japanese Archeology"). Regards PHG 03:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You didn't really answer the question, is it provably the oldest pottery in the world? Not really, it's the oldest DISCOVERED pottery in the world. Probably is the oldest pottery, but that really isn't completely provable(and probably never will be). The captions seem to assert that the are unequivocably the oldest and that is debatable.

Sure. How about, for example, "the oldest known pottery in the world"? PHG 05:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

That sounds good

Early 20th century history, Wars with China and Japan

"The war with China made Japan the world's first non-Western modern imperial power, and the war with Russia proved that a Western power could be defeated by a non-Western State, thus questioning the idea of European superiority prevailing in most countries dominated by Western powers. All sorts of political movements in different territories around the world that were opposing European occupation or intervention, started to use Japanese victory in their propaganda and speaches. The global struggle against colonialism and imperialism benefited from Japan's experience."

I'm editing this. From what I've read (and what I will cite) Japan's early conquests were rarely a source of inspiration, and stuff like this was more used as propaganda for the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. I'd love to debate this though. Woogums 10:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It was true that Japan's power and influence was at its height during that time period, and their ability to take on the U.S. was pretty impressive (not being bias, I'm admitting Japan'ss strength at the time). So I wouldn't condiser that propaganda, but an exaggeration of Japan's power. Oyo321 02:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

see also list

I removed the following links from the see also list. All of them have some connection to Japanese history, but they all belong to one of the sub-articles, not here. Mkill 14:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Japanese literature
• Japanese nationalism
• List of samurai
• O-yatoi gaikokujin
• Japanology
• Luis Frois
• Engelbert Kaempfer
• Philipp Franz von Siebold
• Edward S. Morse
• Hugh Borton
• Edwin O. Reischauer
• John W. Dower
• Hata Ikuhiko
• Ienaga Saburo

Categories make long See also lists unnecessary. There's no reason to put every ideology, historian, and historical person in the See also list. Fg2 00:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

POV, First World War to End of World War II, and World War II

The First World War to End of World War II and World War II sections are POV, and needs serious editing and rewriting. It emphasises certain selected facts to portray Japanese militarism in a more favourable light, whilst leaving out disagreeable facts. It presents events in a way which says that Japanese aggression is justified. LDHan 21:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Korean influences

It is true that Japanese historians have tried to downgrade Korea's role in development of Japan by promoting China as its source of culture and support.

This is not true. Korea introduced its own modified form of Chinese culture to Japan.

Here are the evidences for what I fixed on this article.

Evidences on Japanese origin

1. http://www.ab.cyberhome.ne.jp/~asanoxn/info/history.htm

An abbreviated chronological table of Kyoto history

Year Historical Events

5th C.- 6th C. AD Powerful clans like Hatas and Kamos settled future site of Kyoto. :::Especially, the Hata clan, a large family of Korean descent, had advanced skills and knowledge of agriculture, silkworm raising, weaving and flood controlling, and enjoyed great prosperity.

2. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fl20030706a1.htm

Inquiring for the origin of the name of "Uzumasa"and searching for the root of Hata Clan, I met far western culture than the one of Korea or China from which most of foriegn culture is believed to have been transmitted to Japan in those days.

The argument that Hata Clan is Chinese immigrant and came to Japan via Paekche in Korea had been generally supported until some decades ago.

Actually,the fact that Hata Clan migrated from Paekche is recorded in the Nihonshoki,an ancient chronicles written in the 8th century, and Hata Clan themselves declared that they were descendants of the first Emperor of Qin dynasty.

However, judging from the political situations in those days, declaring themselves Chinese immigrant might enhance their status,and it might be rather benefecial to introduce themselves by saying that they came from Paekche to Japan,because Japanese court had a good relationship with Paeckche.

Recently, the excavation in the Uruchin county in Korea that used to belong to Sila shed the light on the place to be thought a fortress of Hata Clan.

As a result of the reseach, Hata Clan came not from Paeckche,different from what had been believed generally.

Buddhism sculptures in the Kouryuji temple founded by Hata Clan are not originated in Paekche but in Sila.

They had been called "Hatan" Clan in the Korean language.

By the way,Hatan Clan was "Sinkanjin" in Japanese. Shin of "Shinkanjin" dose not mean Qin dynasty of China but means "People out of fence".

They were the people who had been forced to be engaged in the construction of the Great Walls or Great Canals in China.

However,Hata Clan is never rooted in the Korean peninsula. The detailed observation of the things that Hata Clan had brought to Japan clarifies that it is true they came via Korean peninsula but their origin deeply conneceted with far western cultures.

3. http://www.oidemase.or.jp/english/history/main.html

Yamaguchi Prefecture was once connected by land with Korean peninsula. Even after the Korean channel was formed and Japan became an island, the continental culture spread to various places in Japan via Yamaguchi. As Yamaguchi prefecture has been a key route for transportation since ancient times,Yamaguchi prefecture has appeared on the historical stage many times.

Rinsho, Korean crown prince and the ancestor of the Ouchi family, came to Yamaguchi prefecture.

4. http://www.hollym.com/onkorea/KorImpact.html

Using tools such as archeology, stylistic analysis, Japan's sacred scriptures themselves, its imperial line is here traced back to Korean origins, its legitimacy established by an iron sword from Paekche kept inaccessible at Iso-no-Kami) with a gold inscription, which dates Japan's founding ruler from 369 A.D., rather than orthodoxy's 660 B.C.

"Japanese culture," up to the eighth century, derived primarily from Korea--whether it was music, landscape gardening, textiles, ceramics, or major masterpieces of architecture, sculpture, and painting. Top "National Treasures" of Japan either came from Korea or were sponsored by Korean-descended aristocrats, such as the famed Shotoku Taishi, who imported artists and Buddhist priests to the islands.

5. http://www.kanzaki.com/jinfo/jart-fine.html

The Yayoi period (c. 300 B.C.-c. A.D. 300) yielded earthenware pottery displaying a more restrained and sophisticated aesthetic characterized by refined shapes and light, geometric decoration. Also dating from this period are bell-shaped bronzes known as dotaku, which were probably derived from Korean musical instruments and are thought to have functioned as symbols of authority.

The Kofun, or Tumulus, period (c. A.D. 300-c. A.D. 500) is named for the mound-covered tombs of clan chieftains built during these centuries, which saw the gradual consolidation of central authority. Artifacts from these tombs, including armor and a variety of ornamental objects, reflect close contact with the Korean Peninsula during the period. The tombs were bordered by clay cylinders called haniwa, which were often mounted by simple but expressive clay sculptures, most notably human and animal forms.

Asuka and Hakuho periods (552-710)

The introduction of Buddhism into Japan in 538 also brought many architects from the Korean Peninsula with new techniques reflecting the Chinese (Northern Wei) style of Buddhist architecture. :::Horyuji, a temple in Nara whose main hall and pagoda date back to the Asuka period, was built in this style. Sculpture in the Northern Wei style also flourished, as Buddhist images were in great demand for worship. The 17th meeting of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization's World Heritage Committee, held in December 1993,placed the Buddhist architecture of the Horyuji area on the World Heritage List.

Momoyama period (1573-1603)

Meanwhile, merchants who amassed wealth through overseas trade increased their social influence and began to contribute greatly to the development and spread of culture. A good example is the popularization of the tea ceremony, which led to the development of sukiya-zukuri, an architectural style exclusively for tea ceremony purposes. This style is still used in architecture today. Ceramic objects used in the tea ceremony also flourished with the introduction of new techniques from the Korean Peninsula. The castle at Himeji, which was constructed in this period, was also placed on the World Heritage List in December 1993.

6. http://www.kyukeiren.or.jp/english/newsletter/no21/special/

The Origins and Development of Porcelain 　

It is said that Kyushu pottery has its origins during the invasion of the Korean Peninsula by :::Hideyasu Toyotomi (1592-98), which resulted in technology being brought to Japan by Korean potters. :::In particular, Arita, located in Saga Prefecture in the northern part of Kyushu, is where porcelain production began in Japan. Porcelain is hard and white, and has a unique luster. It is said that in 1616, a Korean potter by the name of Ri Sampei came to Arita, and discovered kaolin (the white stone needed to make porcelain). The noborigama, or climbing kiln built on the slope of a hill, was the catalyst for producing high quality pottery on the Asian continent. A climbing kiln was constructed, and within 20 - 30 years Arita had grown to become a major producer of porcelain. :::Ri Sanpei is known as touso, or the founder of porcelain, for his legacy of porcelain manufacturing technology and the Touzan Shrine which honors Sanpei has a monument erected in his memory.

7. http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news146.htm

Japanese roots surprisingly shallow

Migrants from mainland planted new culture around 400 B.C.

The invaders came from across the sea.

With their advanced technology and overwhelming numbers, they quickly seized a foothold in the new world. The original inhabitants — tribes of hunter-gatherers, were driven back or perished.

The story may sound familiar, but this is not the European conquest of the Americas. It is what archaeological research suggests may have happened in prehistoric Japan.

It is a controversial view of Japan's past that should raise eyebrows in a country of history buffs. But it doesn't. Most Japanese have never even heard of it.

That's because while Japanese archaeologists have come to accept the view that their ancestors migrated from the Asian mainland, most popular discussion still adheres to the pre-World War II ideology that the Japanese are racially distinct from other Asians.

"There has been a gap in thinking," said Hisao Baba, curator of anthropology at the National Science Museum in Tokyo. "Archaeology has made a lot of progress, but politics has made it difficult for the general public to take a critical look at their own past."

Of course, Japan isn't alone in mixing history with politics. British archaeologists argue over the extent of Celtic vs. Anglo-Saxon heritage, and Americans have only recently begun to view their past from the perspective of American Indians.

But in few countries are the issues as charged as here.

The question of origin cuts to the core of Japan's identity. Japanese have long celebrated themselves as ethnically unique, partly to offset the humiliation of having to borrow from the modern West.

A sense of difference also made it easier to justify the military occupation of neighbors like Korea and China earlier in the century.

Archaeology in Japan long followed that line.

For much of this century, Japanese archaeologists said Japan's gene pool had remained isolated since the end of the last ice age, more than 20,000 years ago.

Confronted with evidence that a sudden change had swept Japan in about 400 B.C. — replacing a millennia-old hunter-gatherer culture with a society that could grow rice and forge iron weapons and tools — archaeologists attributed it to nothing more than technological borrowing from the mainland.

But more recent analysis of skull shapes has shown the rice farmers who appeared 2,400 years ago were racially quite different from the hunters whom they replaced.

In the l980s new research on DNA taken from burial remains revealed even more startling results: :::The islands' first inhabitants had little in common with most modern Japanese — but were almost identical to the Ainu, a tiny indigenous group now found on Hokkaido.

The same analysis also showed modern Japanese are close genetic kin to Koreans and Chinese.

A younger generation of Japanese archaeologists now accepts that some sort of migration took place and that ethnic minorities like the Ainu are much more closely related to Japan's original inhabitants.

Debate among researchers focuses on just how many migrants came and whether they violently displaced the natives — or peacefully intermarried with them.

"It's only since the 1970s that we started to see this period in history more dispassionately," said Yoshinori Yasuda, a professor of archaeology at the International Research Center for Japanese Studies in Kyoto.

The public remains largely ignorant of these developments, despite the enormous popular interest in Japan's past.

Newspapers, which devote a remarkable amount of print to archaeological finds, proclaim any site, no matter how old, as left by "our ancestors."

School textbooks still give the last ice age as the date of the most recent migration to Japan from mainland Asia — if they mention outside influence at all.

Even the museums curated by archaeologists themselves often display diagrams showing how ancient hunters evolved into the present-day Japanese "salaryman."

So widely accepted are such views that when NHK aired a documentary two months ago describing some of the recent DNA findings, it was immediately deluged by more than 200 calls.

"Most of the viewers expressed shock or surprise," said NHK spokeswoman Akiko Toda. "A few refused to believe it."

Archaeologists have a hard time explaining the gap in thinking.

One reason, they say, is it takes time for academic theories to gain public acceptance. Then there is the caution shown by textbook compilers against adding ideas that are still in dispute.

But at root, they say, may be a deep-seated reluctance among Japanese to accept that they share the same genes with their Korean and Chinese neighbors.

The attitude is left over from the start of this century, when Japan was building a colonial empire and justified its domination in terms of cultural and racial superiority.

Until 1945, schoolchildren were taught that the emperor was of divine descent and the Japanese had lived on their islands since the creation of the world.

While such attitudes may finally be changing, saying that the Japanese share recent roots with other Asians remains a social taboo that some researchers even today say they hesitate to break.

"I was afraid when I first published my work. I didn't know what sort of reaction I'd get," said Satoshi Horai, a professor at the Graduate University for Advanced Studies near Tokyo, who conducted the DNA research linking Japanese with Koreans and Chinese.

"Nothing has happened yet," he said, "but that might just mean the public hasn't read my book."

Source: Satoshi Horai, "DNA Jinrui Shinkaron," AP

BOYS LOOK AT A SKULL from the Yayoi Period (300 B.C. to A.D. 300) at the National Science Museum in Tokyo on Aug. 10. Recent evidence indicates that Yayoi people crossed from the mainland and were distinct from their Ainu-like predecessors in the Jomon Period — a finding that contradicts the common idea that Japanese have an unbroken lineage stretching back to the ice age.

8. http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2348.html

The Japanese Roots (Part I)

Jared Diamond

10/27/2004

Just who are the Japanese? Where did they come from and when? The answer are difficult to come by, though not impossible--the real problem is that the Japanese themselves may not want to know.

UNEARTHING THE ORIGINS OF THE JAPANESE IS A MUCH HARDER TASK THAN YOU MIGHT GUESS. AMONG WORLD POWERS TODAY, THE JAPANESE ARE THE MOST DISTINCTIVE IN THEIR CULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT. THE ORIGINS OF THEIR LANGUAGE ARE one of the most disputed questions of linguistics. These questions are central to the self-image of the Japanese and to how they are viewed by other peoples. Japan's rising dominance and touchy relations with its neighbors make it more important than ever to strip away myths and find answers.

The search for answers is difficult because the evidence is so conflicting. On the one hand, the Japanese people are biologically undistinctive, being very similar in appearance and genes to other East Asians, especially to Koreans. As the Japanese like to stress, they are culturally and biologically rather homogeneous, with the exception of a distinctive people called the Ainu on Japan's northernmost island of Hokkaido. Taken together, these facts seem to suggest that the Japanese reached Japan only recently from the Asian mainland, too recently to have evolved differences from their mainland cousins, and displaced the Ainu, who represent the original inhabitants. But if that were true, you might expect the Japanese language to show close affinities to some mainland language, just as English is obviously closely related to other Germanic languages (because Anglo-Saxons from the continent conquered England as recently as the sixth century A.D.). :::How can we resolve this contradiction between Japan's presumably ancient language and the evidence for recent origins?

Archeologists have proposed four conflicting theories. Most popular in Japan is the view that the Japanese gradually evolved from ancient Ice Age people who occupied Japan long before 20,000 B.c. :::Also widespread in Japan is a theory that the Japanese descended from horse-riding Asian nomads who passed through Korea to conquer Japan in the fourth century, but who were themselves--emphatically--not Koreans. A theory favored by many Western archeologists and Koreans, and unpopular in some circles in Japan, is that the Japanese are descendants of immigrants from Korea who arrived with rice-paddy agriculture around 400 B.C. Finally, the fourth theory holds that the peoples named in the other three theories could have mixed to form the modern Japanese.

When similar questions of origins arise about other peoples, they can be discussed dispassionately. :::That is not so for the Japanese. Until 1946, Japanese schools taught a myth of history based on the earliest recorded Japanese chronicles, which were written in the eighth century. They describe how the sun goddess Amaterasu, born from the left eye of the creator god Izanagi, sent her grandson Ninigi to Earth on the Japanese island of Kyushu to wed an earthly deity. Ninigi's great-grandson Jimmu, aided by a dazzling sacred bird that rendered his enemies helpless, became the first emperor of Japan in 660 B.c. To fill the gap between 660 B.c. and the earliest historically documented Japanese monarchs, the chronicles invented 13 other equally fictitious emperors. Before the end of World War II, when Emperor Hirohito finally announced that he was not of divine descent, Japanese archeologists and historians had to make their interpretations conform to this chronicle account. :::Unlike American archeologists, who acknowledge that ancient sites in the United States were left by peoples (Native Americans) unrelated to most modern Americans, Japanese archeologists believe all archeological deposits in Japan, no matter how old, were left by ancestors of the modern Japanese. Hence archeology in Japan is supported by astronomical budgets, employs up to 50,000 field-workers each year, and draws public attention to a degree inconceivable anywhere else in the world.

Why do they care so much? Unlike most other non-European countries, Japan preserved its independence and culture while emerging from isolation to create an industrialized society in the late nineteenth century. It was a remarkable achievement. Now the Japanese people are understandably concerned about maintaining their traditions in the face of massive Western cultural influences. They want to believe that their distinctive language and culture required uniquely complex developmental processes. To acknowledge a relationship of the Japanese language to any other language seems to constitute a surrender of cultural identity.

What makes it especially difficult to discuss Japanese archeology dispassionately is that Japanese interpretations of the past affect present behavior. Who among East Asian peoples brought culture to whom? Who has historical claims to whose land? These are not just academic questions. For instance, there is much archeological evidence that people and material objects passed between Japan and Korea in the period A.D. 300 to 700. Japanese interpret this to mean that Japan conquered Korea and brought Korean slaves and artisans to Japan; Koreans believe instead that Korea conquered Japan and that the founders of the Japanese imperial family were Korean.

Thus, when Japan sent troops to Korea and annexed it in 1910, Japanese military leaders celebrated the annexation as "the restoration of the legitimate arrangement of antiquity." For the next 35 years, Japanese occupation forces tried to eradicate Korean culture and to replace the Korean language with Japanese in schools. The effort was a consequence of a centuries-old attitude of disdain. "Nose tombs" in Japan still contain 20,000 noses severed from Koreans and brought home as trophies of a sixteenth-century Japanese invasion. Not surprisingly, many Koreans loathe the Japanese, and their loathing is returned with contempt.

What really was "the legitimate arrangement of antiquity"? Today, Japan and Korea are both economic powerhouses, facing each other across the Korea Strait and viewing each other through colored lenses of false myths and past atrocities. It bodes ill for the future of East Asia if these two great peoples cannot find common ground. To do so, they will need a correct understanding of who the Japanese people really are.

Source: Discover, June 1998 Vol. 19

This article was featured on Korea WebWeekly.

9. 400BC, Koreans migrated to Japan.

Ancient history:

Millet Plant

Peoples speaking languages that were ancestors of modern Korea came from North Asia in prehistoric times. Originally they made their living by hunting and collecting wild animals and plants. Many already lived in small villages and made pottery. About 5500 years ago, groups of the food collecting people began to cultivate millet, then various kinds of beans including soy. As early as 2700 b.c., rice began to appear in the southern parts of Korea. It was the first of many things borrowed from the developing civilization of neighboring China. By 1500 bronze making techniques were imported from China followed by iron about 1000 years later. Developed agriculture and good metal tools produced more food and farmer populations grew steadily. By about 400 b.c. Korean farmers migrated across the Sea of Japan (called the Eastern Sea by Koreans) to southern Japan. This was the beginning of farming villages in Japan and much of the modern Japanese population is descended from these immigrants. The Japanese and Korean people are really close cousins.

Several rich Korean kingdoms grew up in the first two millennia a.d. Shilla (668-935) occupied what is now South Korea. Its kings established Buddhism as the official state religion, but Confucian scholars and ideas also entered Korea. Near the southeastern city of Kyongju stand huge artificial mounds. They are the burial places for the members of the Shilla royal dynasty and they are loaded with gold and gems, especially jade.

http://www.pbs.org/hiddenkorea/history.htm

(Wikimachine 02:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC))

The problem is, some Japanese users fail to admit that. Good friend100 04:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Big space gap in Japanese Pre-History section.

There's a big blank on my screen before the Japanese Pre-History section. Anyone good at formatting who could help fix this? Thanks.--Sir Edgar 08:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I adjusted the positioning of the pics inside the Pre-history section, but my browser didn't show a big gap before the section. What browser, version, and operating system are you on? JHunterJ 12:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up early history

I am trying to rewrite several parts of early History of Japan of this article. The article looked very much like something written for people already knowing about the History of Japan... Before I erase, remove or rewrite things, a few points/requests for opinions :

- the paragraph about the Seven-branch sword... hum... It illustrates the fact that Japan had ties with the Korean kingdoms, OK, but I sincerely doubt it should be here (at this level of detail) -> move to Kofun period, but leave here the importance of China/Kingdoms of Korea here.

-the ending of Asuka period paragraph is kind of strange, why talk about shoguns/retired seniors, etc., here

-Heian period needs a rewrite

-Azuchi-Momoyama : two lines for Nobunaga / Toyotomi is too little. Those 2 personnalities define the period. I am fine for leaving some extended reference about the 7 year war, although a detailed version such as the one we have now should go to the Azuchi article, not here.

- The sengoku period link should move up

- The paragraph about Francis Xavier in the contacts with the West section is not at the right place. As a whole, I think the contents of this section should be splitted to each relevant section. We jump from the warring states to Christianity, then Ieyasu and Tokugawa shogunate, and back to Azuchi Momoyama / Hideyoshi. Hard to follow if you are not already familiar with the subject. Waiting for comments before a first attempt of rewrite. Tensaibuta 14:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I clearly don't understand what you mean. Seven-branch sword should be moved to Kofun period or are you moving on to the subject of Kofun period?

If I mix several things myself it is not a surprise things become hard to understand, sry about that... I was thinking of moving the part about the sword to the Yamato/Kofun period Tensaibuta 23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Seven-branch sword fits in this article & this amount of detail is ok. It's just a crucial evidence to Korea's role in development of Japanese culture -which Japanese historians attempted to downplay by emphasizing China as the key role model in its development. (Wikimachine 15:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

That is precisely why I asked, to see what people thought. I still do not think the part fits here. Read the article... suddenly comes a sentence about the sword, as if it was the most important thing from Asian mainland to Japan at the time... I hope you would agree it is not the case. And let us be clear on that : I do not intend to downplay the importance of exchanges with the Korean kingdoms.

• This is what we have now :

Interactions with the China of the Tang Dynasty and the Three Kingdoms of Korea increased dramatically. These events revolutionized Japanese culture and marked the beginning of a long period of Chinese cultural influence passed on by the Chinese and Koreans. Among the three kingdoms in Korea, Baekje had the closest relationship with Japan. One of the Baekje kings sent ambassadors to give the Seven-Branched Sword (Japanese: 七支刀 shichishitō), a golden sword with seven blades extending from the main branch, to a Japanese ruler.

• This is what I would suggest :

Important exchanges with the Sui and Tang Dynasties in China, and moreover with the three kingdoms of Korea (amongst which Baekje was arguably the most important) influenced deeply the Japanese society.

I still maintain that the story about the sword is not what you would expect from an introductory article about the History of Japan. There are *so many* things that were brought from Korea (or China via Korea) at that time, no need to list them all here...

Tensaibuta 23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's kind of abrupt & makes Seven branched sword as the most important topic or whatnot. So, you are going to move it to the Kofun, etc. period section? Right? I'm fine with that as long as it doesn't go away. I put it there b/c I thought it was a nice example of the cultural exchange. (Wikimachine 00:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

I have no intention of deleting it, simply put it in another article (maybe with a reference here however), you can edit my input afterwards anyway. Thanks for your understanding Tensaibuta 00:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents. I'm not sure what sources Wikimachine has been exposed to, but virtually any book here in Japan about the yayoi-kofun period is rife with references not only to cultural influence from the Korean peninsula, but large migrations of Korean people to the Japanese islands as well, which is what brought the culture in the first place.

The sword is important as an archaelogical artifact and it is most famous for its inscription. I don't think this particular article would be missing much if the reference were removed.-Jefu 00:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I worked a bit to clarify the beginning of the article. I am however afraid a few things were thrown away in the meantime, here is the logic behind it :

- Contacts with the west, keeping a separate section led to episodes spanning on several periods, and it was hard to follow, unless you know who Ieyasu is before reading the Edo period. I tried to keep as much as possible and put them back in the appropriate periods. I am afraid the Adams episode was cut (I could not think of a way of putting it back simply in the Edo section without making it look like a simple anecdote... I just gave up out of laziness, sry). OK to put it back, but in the Edo period if necessary, not Muromachi.

- Christianity was spread between Muromachi and Edo (Seclusion).

- I tried to clarify a bit the Yamato period (hope the Korean reference is OK now).

Some work still needed on Azuchi Momoyama though. Tensaibuta 15:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuation of early history clean-up

I spent some time trying to balance the article. I had no major problem with the factual accuracy of the article before, but as I said above, it was written for people with (at least) a basic knowledge of Japanese history. As far as I understand, this is supposed to be an introductory article... Anyway, I would be happy to discuss the result, and equally happy if someone took the time to correct the Frengrish. Tensaibuta 11:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

just copying a message i left at User talk:Jefu re "korea" v. "korean peninsula":

sorry, i didn't mean to be so rude, but it's just that this issue has been hashed out to death in various talk pages, mainly Talk:Japan and Talk:Yayoi period. there was a conspicuous campaign a while back to change reference to historic korea into "korean peninsula" or "asian mainland" while using "japan" for the same periods. this was done by several blatantly biased editors to subtly denigrate korean influence in japan, & this pov returns every so often. as has been repeatedly pointed out by various long-term editors interested in asian history, "korea", as with "japan," is commonly used in reputable publications & academic papers to refer to the civilization & geographic region, before the emergence of a unified centralized state. although it may be technically more accurate in some sense to use "korean peninsula," unbiased application of that principle would require changing mentions of "japan" and "china" in probably hundreds of popular and obscure articles, which is impractical & unnecessary. please review the arguments & citations at various talk pages. thanks. Appleby 14:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

as long as you find a way of inserting it in a reasonable way in this article, I am fine with it... Tensaibuta 15:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Late Tokugawa shogunate:Possible copyvio:Possible deletion

Late Tokugawa shogunate is currently being considered for deletion because of possible copyvio. Can anyone either revert this article to an earlier non-problematical version, or start a new good stub? If you do either of these, please leave a note in the article's Talk page. Thanks. -- 201.78.233.162 23:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Seven Year War to Imjin War

Just in case you didn't know yet, the Seven Year War article has been renamed Imjin War so I edited that little section in the article. Good friend100 04:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Filling in a serious gap in the article

Nothing here on the most significant development in Japanese history and archeology, the Fujimura Shinichi scandal.

Got to

• Yamada Sho (2002). Politics and Personality: Japan's Worst Archaeology Scandal. Vol. VI, No. 3 Harvard Asia Quarterly

and find an in-depth commentary on the extensive fraud that took place in archeology in Japan over a 20 year period. This was a major story in archeology about 5-6 years ago and hit many of the high profile professional journals. I was a little puzzled to see that it did not make this article. --Malangthon 08:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is another source for this topic and it covers much of the material that has been available since 1985.

• [1] --Malangthon 08:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mogolian influence on pottery in Japan or Korea?

See: [2] I have written the former version. The quote in the link I attached [3] says;

2) Yayoi culture (c. 250 B. C. - c. AD 250): A notable cultural advance over Jomon. Began in Kyushu (southernmost of four main islands) during Jomon period and spread eastward. Displaced Jomon until it reached northern Honshu (largest island). Some scholars suggest this culture was imported by Mongol invaders/immigrants, but theory is highly controversial.

I think the encarta was not careful enough to check the validity of their content regarding Yayoi culture. Mogolian people never resided in Korea significantly and made pottery as far as I know. So it cannot be a widely accepted theory, which in turn cannot be introduced in WP.

I could not find any other sources about Mogolian influence on pottery other than this dubious MSN encarta. Ginnre 15:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is cited material, though, and Encarta itself is not dubious. If there are conflicting sources, the article here should simply cite both of them, unless a later source addresses the dubiousness of the Encarta article. -- JHunterJ 12:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of Koreans are descendents of Manchuria. As for pottery, both Korea and Japan were heavily influenced by the Chinese art. I'm not sure about the history of pottery in Japan, but pottery has a long and unique history in Korea. Oyo321 03:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Korean role during Yayoi?

I remember being told by a friend that the Koreans were also exploring Japan, is this true? There might have been some type of role the Koreans played, along with the Chinese. The velociraptor 04:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea one way or the other on organized expeditions (or, for that matter, unorganized independent travelers) sent to the Japanese islands by Silla, Baekje or Goreyeo. But, remember, the going theory (at least as far as I've ever heard) is that the Japanese themselves (that is, the Yamato people who would invade and conquer the native Ezo/Ainu) were Korean. So, is this perhaps what you're referring to? LordAmeth 05:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What he told me is that when the Koreans encountered them, the Japanese were, I think, still either in their Jomon period or Yayoi period. The velociraptor 23:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's likely accurate; the "Japanese" people of the Jomon and Yayoi periods were natives to the islands. The Koreans who came over in the middle of the first century CE became the Yamato people, who became "the Japanese", conquering the natives and replacing them. It's all really a matter of semantics, I suppose. Who is to be called "the Japanese"? The native people of Japan, encountered by immigrants/explorers/whathaveyou from Korea? Or the Korean immigrants who replaced them, inventing the word Nippon and being the ancestors of the mainstream of today's Japanese ethnicity and culture? LordAmeth 04:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there ever was a Korean supported expedition to Japan. Shilla's royal bloodline retreated to Japan after the downfall of Shilla, and there they began the royalty line of Japan. Oyo321 12:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Name of Japan

Isn't "Japan" a word derived from "Nippon"? I'm not sure. Good friend100 01:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

For more information, have a look at Names of Japan. Fg2 05:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yamato period

Yamato period is not popular in Janan. because The division confuses the archaeological age division(kofun period) with the historical age division(asuka period).The division only causes confusion. if Japanese saw this page,Japanese may think "What an anachronism english wikipedia is" . I want to remove the period. Do someone argue this suggestion ?--Forestfarmer 18:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Do anyone not argue this request really ?--Forestfarmer 14:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would argue it, seeing as how the "Yamato period" is much more vivid for me in terms of political history than something like "kofun" - it defines the period in which the Yamato people settled in the Yamato plain and were called the Yamato state (or Wa) prior to the advent of "Japan". But, I did talk to you about this earlier, and it seems fairly good to me - it was sort of overlapping anyway. I dunno. If you say that it is no longer used in contemporary Japanese research, I believe you; and ultimately, that's what's important - whether or not the current academic community goes by these periods and terms. LordAmeth 16:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

there is few historical material in kofun period.Japanese think It is a big problem.therefore there is Yamato period in history of Japan causes the fall of reliance.if there is yamato period in history of japan,japanese think It is childish article that cannot distinguishes archaeology and history.if you think political history,Please make the item of Yamato clan, if you want to write things from a political history.but only the thing of the Asuka period can be told historically.because There is historical materical on only Asuka period.a kofun is everywhere seen from the southern Korean Peninsula to Kansai plain.That is, the Yamato clan in the kofun period is only the mightiest district in Japan.Ymato clan are emphasized as the Yamato period is only the vestiges of the time which did not understand the period well.It thought a long time ago that the centralized government was materialized during the kofun period.but It is the present established theory that the centralized government was not made during the kofun period.You mistake exactly, continuing using the Yamato period only causes confusion.--Forestfarmer 19:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because a section of the article has few historical material in it doesn't mean we have to delete it. And articles are not affected by what Japan thinks. This is an encyclopedia. Good friend100 19:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not said that I erase it since there are few historical materical.I write since The division confuses the archaeological age division with the historical age division.and I can not make out why you want to make this article childish.

"articles are not affected by what Japan thinks."

hum,Do you want to say that you have knowledge about Japanese history rather than the average Japanese,aren't you ? I am laughed at it.I put Japanese in another way as a Japanese history scholar. Are you satisfied with this?--Forestfarmer 21:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the article on the Yamato period is juste fine the way it is. Oyo321 22:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

what is the reason ? I wrote above the reason that Yamato period should be erased.--Forestfarmer 23:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not me whos being childish with immature remarks that you laugh at my comments and how I don't know a lot about Japanese history. Satisfied with what? Stop asking if I am satisfied because it doesn't make any sense.

I already said, just because the Yamato period "is not popular in Japan" doesn't mean it should be removed. Good friend100 22:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yamato polity

The current lead-in sentence on ancient Japan says that "Yamato polity was the main ruling power in Japan from the mid-3rd century until 710." I do apologize to cause trouble, but I have two problems with this statement, and I am hoping to get some help or support in figuring out the best way to change the phrasing. Firstly, "polity", I'm fairly certain, cannot be a ruling power. A person, a court, a state, or some other institution can be a power, but not an abstract concept in this way. I'd argue to change it to "The Yamato state was the main ruling power in Japan..." That would also solve my second dilemma, which is that "Yamato polity", i.e. the concepts surrounding the Emperor's power and right to rule, did not end in 710, and in fact continues today. LordAmeth 21:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I often look at the Yamato State.It is 大和政権 or 大和王権 in Japanese.It is not written as yamato court(大和朝廷),ex.ja:ヤマト王権.Therefore Japanese think Yamato polity(大和政権 or 大和王権) didn't concerned in the Emperor(Tenno 天皇).as a matter of fact,It is not known for details.but It is called beginning of the Emperor that the leading powerful clan of the Yamato state began to give his name in the Emperor(Tenno 天皇).I recommend the Yamato State, also in order to emphasize not related to the Emperor(Tenno 天皇).--Forestfarmer 08:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Untidy edit

This info was added by an anonymous IP at the very top of the article in a very untidy fashion, but it may have some merit, so I'm moving the content here:

"although the specific dating is disputed. The household items suggest trade routes existed with places as far away as Okinawa. Many believe and DNA analysis suggests that the Ainu, an indigenous people found mostly today on the northern island of Hokkaidō, but previously had lived on Honshū, and potentially other groups, as mentioned in the Kojiki, such as the tsuchi-gumo (English: dirt spiders), are descended from the Jomon and thus represent descendants of the first inhabitants of Japan. Also, entire wood dwellings (that normally would rot away) have been dug up in northern Japan that were preserved in ice, dated back to before 8000 BC (radio-carbon dating)."

Bobo12345 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)