Talk:Jōmon period/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early to Final Jomon

The last paragraph here talks about Shinto mythology, which is great, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Perhaps this should be deleted, or at least moved somewhere else? --- Eiríkr Útlendi 03:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. And the next section "Foundation myths" is not directly related to Jomon period, since it's barely possible to prove the origine of Japanese myths dates back to Jomon era (it could be OK if it's mentioned with regard to late Yayoi or Kofun period at most). -222.4.16.15 10:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm commenting out the "Foundation myths" section as it seems to be completely irrelevant to this Jomon period article. I'll leave the content on the page, only commented out, so it can be moved somewhere later if someone so desires. -- Eiríkr Útlendi 20:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

IP user 63.18.66.112 uncommented the section, stating just in their edit summary revert back Foundation Myths section, as the information is contained in the Library of Congress website of early Japanese history, so it is relevant. I fail to see the logic of this argument; the article here in Wikipedia is about the Jōmon period as known through the archaeological record, whereas the bulk of the Foundation Myths section talks about Japanese mythology. I'm commenting the section out again. User 63.18.66.112, can you make a stronger case for the relevancy of this section? Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 17:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I put in a small item derived from the above, about Jomon politics according to the contemporary Chinese sources, which seems directly relevant. Richard Keatinge 10:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sophisticated rice paddy circa 1500BC in Japan? I've never heard of this kind of stories anywhere else. Somebody please explain this.

Right. "End of the Jomon period" would clarify the misunderstanding... PHG 4 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)

Macrons/No Macrons

OED and Merriam-Webster write "jomon" without a macron, indicating that it is an English word of Japanese origin. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#English words with Japanese origin, it should be written without the macron in the English Wikipedia. I left the macrons in the Japanese pronunciation and the caption of the kanji illustration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fg2 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC).

My university history class uses the spelling "Jōmon". I do not speak Japanese, but our professor has also warned us not to misspell it as *Jomon. Our textbooks (such as Japan: From Prehistory to Modern Times by John Whitney Hall) also spells it as Jōmon as well. I think this article should be reconsidered. I am new at editing, but what is the proceedure? TwilightEclipse 02:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a formal procedure for suggesting page moves (i.e. renames) at WP:AfD (Articles for Deletion). Alternatively, you could just suggest it here, as you have, and begin a discussion which will hopefully end in consensus.

As for the question of "Jomon" vs "Jōmon", this represents a significant spelling/pronunication difference in the original Japanese. OED and Merriam-Webster are English dictionaries, and cannot be trusted; by contrast, works like "Japan Encyclopedia" which bear respect for the original language from which these terms are romanised (not translated, Anglicised, but simply re-written the same word in a different alphabet), will show that Jōmon needs to bear a long vowel. Otherwise, it becomes a different word. (classic example: ningyo = mermaid, ningyō = doll. different words.) Thanks Eclipse! LordAmeth 09:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The above writer is entirely correct about vowels in the Japanese language, but incorrect about linguistic conventions in the English language. Once a word becomes incorporated into English, macrons are no longer used. This is particularly true for proper names, such as places, people, and historical periods. For example, though "Tokyo" or "Kenzaburo Oe" or "Showa Emperor" would require macrons to be accurate romanizations, the correct linguistic convention is to omit them (and the OED and M-W can indeed be trusted, by definition). To use a macron in a Japanese history class may be didactically useful, but to use it anywhere else is likely to be as mistaken and pretentious as using "Milano" instead of "Milan" in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.246.131.251 (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The current style of romanization spells it "joumon". The macron is rarely seen anymore. Kortoso (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Current style" in terms of what, exactly? Spelling Japanese long O as OU is also known as wāpuro-shiki, i.e. "word-processor style", thanks to the various input-method editors available for typing Japanese using an alphabetical keyboard. This style of romanized spelling might be common in online discussions where users typing on US keyboards can't be bothered with diacritics. However, that should have zero bearing on the spelling used in this article. Or r u saying we shd use txtspk 2? Kthxbye. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Dating of Jomon

This table of exhibits makes it clear that the Tokyo National Museum considers the dates of Jomon pottery to be (the far more plausible) 3000 - 400 BC. Septentrionalis 19:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

??? It is common knowledge that Jomon starts around 10.000 BCE (radiocarboned dates), with the first known pottery in the world. Please consult any archeology book. Your link refers to a particular type of "flaming" Jomon pottery, around 3000 BCE. PHG

It appears to be all the Jomon pottery in possession of the TNM; I generated the page by searching on Jomon. A similar citation with a greater date will be suffient to convince me. Septentrionalis 03:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Fine. I took the photograph myself in the Tokyo National Museum (1st floor Heiseikan), and the legend attached to the artifact is indeed 10.000-8.000 BCE Initial Jomon. The few items shown on the webpage represent a minuscule portion of their actual collection. You can find a description of a similar item at [1] in [2]. For a general description of Jomon and its periods, please see [3]. For quotes, "The earliest pottery, the linear applique type, was dated by radiocarbon methods taken on samples of carbonized material at 12500 +- 350 bp" (Prehistoric Japan, Keiji Imamura). "The earliest known pottery comes from Japan, and is dated to about 10,500 BC. China and Indo-China follow shortly afterwards" ("Past Worlds" The Times Atlas of Archeology. p. 100) PHG 12:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Broken Links

There are alot of broken internal links in the main article. They should be fixed(or at leased removed). --BorisFromStockdale 20:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Went through and fixed any outstanding ones. Akitora (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement of Metropolitan Museum of Art

The page of the Met Museum mentions that "the Jomon is among the earliest pottery cultures of the world" and also agrees its period began 10,000 B.C. The only reservation is for the production date of the shards, 10,500 B.C. Anyway, let's leave the expression as is in the original page. The readers may think what they like about it. --Corruptresearcher 10:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Jared Diamond makes a strong case for the 12.7 TYA dating (see [4]). I think the Met's argument is weak. They're saying that it's controversial since it's older than Mesopotamian pottery? --Brunnock 21:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph is added by another editor [5] so I do not know the paragraph is needed or not. Actually, I cannot understand the meaning of the Met comment "because this date falls outside the known chronology of pottery development elsewhere in the world". I do not care if someone wants to delete this paragraph, but there are some editors who stick on it [6]. --Corruptresearcher 13:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The date links e.g. 14,000 BC links to the 14th century BC page, surely this should be a link to the 140th century BC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickharker (talk • contribs) 11:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed but there are too many redundant date links. Doug Weller (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement of Metropolitan Museum of Art

"Carbon-14 testing of the earliest known shards has yielded a production date of about 10,500 B.C., but because this date falls outside the known chronology of pottery development elsewhere in the world, such an early date is not generally accepted."

Jomom pottery can still be one of the "earliest pottery cultures of the world" without it being a 10,000 B.C. date. Since, Jomon pottery is such an outlier date it should be noted as controversial.

Also I fixed the poor grammar of the reversion and incorporated the contemperaneous cultures section towards the beginning, like it is in the link corruptresearcher gave.

I agree the comment by the museum because actually it is difficult to decide the date only by the Carbon-14 testing. So I also agree your second sentence above. However, this is already mentioned by the museum comment and I do not understand necessity of the additional sentence: "This shows there is significant controversy with the theory that the Jomon culture consisted of sedentary or semi-sedentary farmers who made pottery circa 10,000 B.C." This additional comment describes about not only pottery but also feature of the Jomon culture, sedentary or not, which the museum does not mention. I think this additional sentence should be deleted or, at least, modified. This time I just comment out it so please modify expression if someone restores it. --Corruptresearcher 10:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

See this source. for which I thank PHG. It denies the conclusion that Incipient Jomon was an agricultural society. Septentrionalis 01:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now the source is shown. Can someone modify the text? --Corruptresearcher 03:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The comment by the Met is not only about the difficulty to obtain the veracity of the Carbon-14 dating but that since the Jomon pottery is such an outlier date that it is generally not accepted to be that old. There is a distinguishment between your interpretation of the quote and what the quote actually says. Moreover, the additional line is necessary because Jomon pottery is the exclusive piece of evidence used to "prove" or at least support the theory that Jomon sedentary life and farming started before any other culture in the world in the next paragraph. Therefore, since the 10,000 B.C. version of the date of the pottery is used to bolster the argument that farming was started by the Jomon "2000 years before their widespread appearance in the Middle East", the comment you want to delete, "this shows there is significant controversy with the theory that the Jomon culture consisted of sedentary or semi-sedentary farmers who made pottery circa 10,000 B.C." is necessary because some users are very willing to write that there is a theory where Jomon were the first farmers using pottery evidence but will not want to show that there is significant controversy with that claim and so the claim itself is controversial. Or otherwise, it would not make sense to include other inferences about the Jomon made simply from the pottery dates too. I'm going to revert and change it to make it clearer but I think you need a better argument than what you made above.

If you want to say more than the Met comment, you need another source for it. If you just want to say the same thing as the Met comment, just leave as it is. That's all. --Corruptresearcher 12:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If the only proof of the statement the Jomon started farming "2000 years before their widespread appearance in the Middle East" is based on the age of contested carbon14 dating. Than it is incumbent upon you to find a source for it. However, if you are content to allow that paragraph on farming, than the Met statement should stand. Otherewise there is a big inconsistency. Please make a good faith effort to respond to my comments

Now I understand what you want to say. I think it should be placed just after the "2000 years before" theory is mentioned. "Which opinion is mainstream and other is not" seems not neutral so I weakened the expression. If someone can add the source for discussion, it will describe by itself which is "mainstream". --Corruptresearcher 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The carbon-14 testing of early Jomon pottery in itself is generally not contested: there are many instances of it, carbon-testing is quite reliable, and they all point to these early dates. The Met rather refers to the interpretation of these data, as their go against the traditional pattern Middle East>Rest of the World. Actually, the Met's statement that "because this date falls outside the known chronology of pottery development elsewhere in the world, such an early date is not generally accepted." is quite old-fashioned (="your dates do not match my theory"), and actually in itself not mainstream: the majority of scholars, books, Internet sites do recognize the early date for Jomon pottery. Some very early pottery in China around 9,000 BCE have also been found now, pointing to an early Asian development of the technology. More material would be needed to reference this careless Met statement. PHG 21:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not challenge your opinion but please tell me some for my understanding. You mentioned "carbon-testing is quite reliable" but in the article Pottery, it is said "uncalibrated". How do you think about it? --Corruptresearcher 09:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. "Uncalibrated" in Radiocarbon dating is the raw measure of C14 decay, which assumes that C14 concentration in the atmosphere has been constant through time. However in reality atmospheric C14 is not exactly constant and some adjustments have to be made to have an absolute calendar date. 12500 BP +/- 500 years uncalibrated corresponds to 15129 BP ± 1021 years calibrated (see [7] for calculation). Actually the mention of the word "uncalibrated" in these articles seems either a misunderstanding or disingenious vandalism, even looking at the reference. As far as I know the 10500 BCE dates for the earliest pottery are calibrated ones. Qualifying the 10.500 BCE date as "uncalibrated" actually makes Jomon pottery 2,000 older still (to... 13.000 BCE!!) when calibrating.PHG 12:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Majority

PHG: I don't think the quote is necessarily not a neutral point of view. It seems to me more of an empirical fact, not an opinion makes it a point of view. Espcially coupled with the Metropolitan Museum of Art quote. If you could provide a citation, perhaps I could understand your point of view better. However, for right now, the citation is accurate and for you to water down the language without any other source is not in line with Wikipedia policy. Thanks for your input. Tortfeasor 15:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that the majority of Japanese scholars also believe that pottery production technology was first invented on the mainland? It's not clear from your citation. Do you have an actual quote? --Sean Brunnock 15:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The quote, verbatim, is: "However, the majority of Japanese scholars believed, and still believe, that pottery production was first invented in mainland Asia and subsequently introduced into the Japanese archipelago." (And so on.) I'm not sure how you are interpreting the quote. If you prefer the direct quote to what I wrote, let me know. Thanks. Tortfeasor 18:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe I read somewhere that when Jomon pottery was first carbon-dated, Japanese archaeologists were so taken aback by the early dates, that they were certain that even older pottery would be found on the mainland. At the top of Talk:Pottery, I have compiled a list of citations which state that Jomon pottery is the oldest. I didn't come across any claims that older pottery was found on mainland Asia. --Sean Brunnock 18:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sean: I think the quote is saying that despite the fact that Jomon pottery is among the oldest in the world that has been discovered so far, the majority of Japanese scholars still believe that pottery making techniques were imported from China or Russia based on archaeological evidence and radiocarbon dating. Also, maybe it is significant that the source cited is current, from 2004. I would like to clarify something too: I'm not contesting that Jomon pottery is among the oldest. I am suggesting that despite the fact that it is amont the oldest discovered, even scholars in Japan don't believe that pottery making was invented in Japan, just that it has been the oldest discovered so far. This is important because I think that the article seems to imply that since the Fukui shards are the "oldest" that the Jomon people independently invented pottery making. Here's a link discussing Khummi cite pottery. [www.radiocarbon.org/Subscribers/Fulltext/v40n1-2_Kuzmin_675.html]. Also, this book, written in 2005, states that "Jomon pottery is among the world's excavated pottery" which suggests that older notions are being replaced by new evidence. [8]. Hope that clarifies what I wrote. Thanks for your input. Tortfeasor 21:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. Somebody else cited a Russian paper which discussed pottery dated prior to Jomon (I believe the author is Irina Zhushchikhovskaya). But, I'd feel more comfortable if there were more references. --Sean Brunnock 21:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. Making a first-degree claim in an encyclopedia that "the majority thinks so and so" is quite a statement, which would have to be supported by multiple sources. However, it is perfectly OK to quote Habu's statement as a secondary source, rather than make it a statement by Wikipedia: for example "Archeaologist Junko Habu claims that "the majority ...." etc etc...", or "A number of Japanese archaeologists consider that pottery actually originated on the continent" with reference to the Habu quote. Right or wrong, Habu has a record of minimizing the antiquity and originality of Japan's Jomon period, and I do have doubts about her "majority" claim (although it was true at one point, when the Carbon dates were published and were met with disbelief by traditional archaelogists, as pointed out by Brunnock: previously the starting point for Jomon used to be set around 3000 BCE!). I also agree it is worth mentioning recent Siberian finds as an alternative to the primacy of Jomon pottery, if indeed true. Regards PHG 03:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy Woes

Although the Jomon Period articles, and most of the prehistoric era sections, are quite extensive they also include factual errors. How is the best way to deal with this, since some of the things clearly haven't been verified? Flag them for future verification, or simply edit the entry (as I did for the Jomon Period summary?)

Also, the section with the heading "Neolithic..." contains a passage about pottery indicating a sedentary life, since ceramic breaks easily... For a direct opposite of this, see this quote, from page 923 of William Hurley's Prehistoric Japanese Arts: Jomon Pottery. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 73, No. 4. (Aug., 1971), pp. 922-925).

"The earliest Jomon pottery appears to be associated with hunting and gathering peoples and the ceramics are suggested as antedating specimens on the continent by several millennia as the Fukui Cave examples are dated at 10,750 ± 500 B.C."

Middle Jomon

Via Holocene climatic optimum, I discover that Middle Jomon exists, but appears to be pointless. I'll leave someone here to put it up for AFD if considered appropriate William M. Connolley 19:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yayoi

Should a section be added at the end describing at least briefly the shift from Jomon to Yayoi? It just seems odd to me that the word "Yayoi" appears nowhere in the article at all, and only in links on the side "History of Japan" bar, and on the very bottom where it is easily missed and nearly lost. Admittedly, the Yayoi article has a fairly lengthy discussion of the controversy over the shift (who were the Yayoi people, were they different people from the Jomon people, etc.), and you don't want to overlap too much with another article's subject; but I still think that there needs to be something mentioned about Yayoi in this article. ("How, when, why did X end?" is a crucial question for any history of X period.)LordAmeth 12:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Jomon period → Jōmon period — As per WP:MOS-JA, macrons should be used in romanization and not dropped. "Jōmon" being a Japanese word which neither originates from English nor refers to anything outside of a specifically Japanese context, it is not an "English word of Japanese origin," regardless of its inclusion in Webster's or OED. Unlike tycoon, typhoon, sumo, or sushi, Jōmon is highly unlikely to come up in regular everyday English-language discussion. A specialized and technical word, it rarely appears outside of professional academic contexts, and is rarely used by those unaware of the inappropriateness of Anglicized misspellings of romanized Japanese. LordAmeth 18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC) LordAmeth 18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since this is not a vote, please explain the reasons for your recommendation.

• Support - Jōmon is more accurate. Just because many other recent texts limit themselves to the basic ASCII character set does not mean that we should follow their bad example at Wikipedia. Neier 22:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG Support - as per Neier. Let's have accuracy and authenticity at Wikipedia. Mumun 無文 01:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support — The spelling Jōmon matches several university history books (such as Japan: From Prehistory to Modern Times by John Whitney Hall), as well as the department policy of not dropping macrons (inappropriate at the university or professional level). TwilightEclipse 02:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NC, "names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized ... for a general audience over specialists". Britannica Encyclopedia, World Encyclopedia and the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition uses Jomon (Encarta uses Jōmon though); and with Google Book Search and Google Scholar, search for "Jomon Japan" outnumbers "Jōmon Japan". In addition, as there's no article other than this which start with Jomon or Jōmon, I think it meets "with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" as well. --Kusunose 05:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Although I vociferously opposed macrons in article titles, I lost that argument, and I support consistency. I agree with LordAmeth that the word has not become fully English so we should style it as we style other non-English Japanese words. In this case, it means with a macron. Fg2 11:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support - There's too much inconsistency in Japan articles as is, and "Jomon" does not follow Japan-related article naming conventions (which are clearly more specific here versus WP:NC); regardless of where you've seen "Jomon" or "Jōmon," there is no clearly established romanization and it should be macronned. The exceptions--tycoon, Tokyo, sushi, and so forth--have achieved much greater inclusion in English. Moreover, we already have the Nanboku-chō, Taishō and Shōwa articles all with macrons.
  "Taishō period" and "Shōwa period," by the way, also have less hits on Google Scholar with macrons, but they are by no means standard in English. The same is even true for words where the macron reduces ambiguity, like "yūutsu." Speaking from personal experience, Japanese academia just prefers not to use macrons because they don't display uniformly on all computers and some common fonts like Garamond don't even have macrons. The research community also doesn't like "ou" or "uu" because they look gaudy. That is clearly specialist-oriented, because words like "koko" and "kōkō" are written "koko." For those reasons, I don't think we should use Google Scholar as justification for macron usage. Gavotte Grim 19:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

As I specified above, the OED and Webster's are not to be trusted, I feel, as determinants of what is and is not an "English word of Japanese origin". Professional academic works on the subject are the ones to be trusted, as they are written by people deeply aware of the meanings, significance, and origins of the terms. The word is correctly spelled (with macron) in Louis Frederic's "Japan Encyclopedia" and in Robert Treat Paine & Alexander Soper's "The Art and Architecture of Japan." If anyone would like, I would be happy to provide a number of other academic works which use the correct spelling in their titles or text. LordAmeth 18:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Kusunose's "general audience" vs "specialists" remark, my opinion of that section of WP:NC is that it should not be used to address spelling, but, which words which are used in the title. That's why we aren't considering "cord-marked era". Neier 06:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think, though, that this debate shouldn't become a comparison of different academic texts, because you can still find plenty that use kunrei-shiki, no macrons at all, phonologically correct spellings like "Tōkyō" or "Kyōto," etc. That method would be extremely ineffective for, say, China-related articles. There is a more basic framework in WP:MOS-JA, which states simply that we should always use Hepburn romanization, complete with macrons, unless a particular word is "used frequently in English," which "Jomon" is not. Open and shut, I think. Gavotte Grim 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I think two days too brief for page move discussion so here's my reply to closed discussion.

WP:NC is a "policy" that governs every naming convention guidelines. I think it should be used to address spelling as well as which words to use in the title. As to Jomon not "used frequently in English", as I have already stated, Jomon appears in three encyclopedias and search for "Jomon Japan" with Google Book Search and Google Scholar outnumbers "Jōmon Japan" (by the way, when you search "Jomon Japan" with Google Books, it suggests "Search library catalogs for: Jomon Japan" while "Jōmon Japan" does not.)

Here are results of Google Books Search and Google Scholar search:

• Google Books
  • Jōmon Japan - 47
  • Jomon Japan - 479
• Google Scholar
  • Jōmon Japan 48
  • Jomon Japan 1620

Macronless form is overwhelmingly common than macroned form. --Kusunose 14:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would make it "Joumon".Kortoso (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

In the survey section I justified why I think we shouldn't defer to academic citation formats. What's more the point, though, is that if you think WP:MOS-JA is inconsistent with WP:NC, you should be addressing the WP:MOS-JA framework, not individual articles that are brought into harmony with it. "Jomon" is not a common word in English when compared to words like sumo, sushi, or Tokyo and from the standpoint of internal consistency it's not even more common in Wikipedia than "Jōmon" (see [9] versus [10]). Gavotte Grim 18:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposing the WP:MOS-JA framework. It says, for article titles, they should use macrons as specified for body text except in cases where the macronless spelling is in common usage in English-speaking countries (emphasis mine). I'm objecting the view that "Jomon" is not in common usage. As to internal consistency, that comparison is flawed because after the move, LordAmeth made many spelling corrections and I fixed many double redirects. If you had checked them before the move, I believe "Jomon" was more common than "Jōmon". --Kusunose 00:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Calibrated radiocarbon dates

I was looking at the dates for Incipient and Initial Jōmon and was surprised to still see the 10,000 BC date for the beginning of the Initial phase, and even more so that the footnotes fail to refer to the new calibrated dates available (as mentioned in Habu, "Ancient Jōmon of Japan", 2004, for example). It may be a good idea to add a few lines about the difficulties of dating periods during the Jomon due to several factors (the reliance on the pottery typology the lack of radiocarbon dates, in particular the lack of calibrated radiocarbon dates), or at least to make clear in the article's body that the dates indicated are uncalibrated and therefore subject to change and add calibrated dates when available.

Moreover, regarding note 3, I doubt the 12,500 bp date Imamura gave for the pottery of Fukui cave was calibrated. For the same material, Habu mentions a calibrated radiocarbon date of 15,850-14,250 bp (12,500 bp being the uncalibrated date). Aria28 11:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I heartily agree. Start with th note you mentioned? Mumun 無文 11:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The note has been updated. I'll update the Incipient/Initial Jōmon section to include calibrated dates after I have completed some research on the subject....unless someone else does before me Aria28 11:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge subarticles

There are, at present, separate subarticles on Early Jōmon, Middle Jōmon, Late Jōmon, and Final Jōmon. These are small stubs, containing a short paragraph or two each. IMO, it is pointless to keep these articles separate. The main article is hardly big enough to warrant splitting them off, and it is annoying to have to open these separate snippets individually. AFAIU, the traditional approach at Wikipedia is to wait until the subsection grows too big for the mother article before splitting off--it is counterproductive to fracture an article into short stubs for no good reason.

I suggest that these stubs be merged into the mother article, and not be split again unless they grow big enough to justify it. I placed merge templates accordingly--please discuss. Freederick 01:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely and totally agree. There's no reason to keep the separate articles. They don't even contain any different information. BilabialBoxing 04:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

AGREE as per Freederick and BilabialBoxing. Also - article needs an writing overhaul because it is, as of October 20, 2007 not the kind of writing one would expect in an encyclopedia. I will do this slowly after we have consensus on the matter of merging subarticles. Grunty Thraveswain 13:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they should be merged together. There is not enough information on each page to warrant a seperation.JanderVK (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Major Rewrite

Unless someone else wants to do this, I'm going to have to do it. I just found Charles Keally's criticisms of the article. http://www.t-net.ne.jp/~keally/Reports/wikipedia.html I'll do the references now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Keally, what you say on your web site is quite true. In fact you left a few things out, such as the abuse we have to put up with from sectarians, cliquians, advertisers and just plain idiots. You can spend hours putting up with abuse because you said 2 and 2 are 4. But, overall, over the long period of time, these articles slowly come around. Some are quite good; in fact, many are quite good. It is a technique of successive modification. We are shaping the article, to use behavioralist terms. What I like about it is the instant access, the interconnectedness of information and the modifiability of it. These are powerful features for mass education. A specialist such as yourself with easy access to an adequate library and already knowing the topic well wouldn't need Wikipedia for information on Japan. But, my dear sir, what about all the rest of us? Wikipedia is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get. If you expect perfection from it of course you might just as well expect perfect people and you may expect all you like but you will never get it. Do not judge us too harshly. Thank you, sir, for your critiques and suggestions. If you have any more please make them. Things will not get better until we make them better but here it has to be done on the scale of 2.5 mil articles.Dave (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy disputed template added

I haven't done anything more yet so have added the accuracy disputed template. I'll start work this weekend I hope!--Doug Weller (talk) 19:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dating style

I noticed that someone had tried to swap the dating style from BC/AD to BCE/CE - but I don't see that they tried to get consensus for it on the talk page. So I am putting it back the way it was, especially as the history template now uses BC/AD. John Smith's (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sea Level?

In one paragraph it is stated that from 4000 BCE to 2000 BCE sea levels were 5 to 6 meters higher, with a cited source. In the very next paragraph, it states from 4000 BCE to 3000 BCE sea levels were 2 to 3 meters higher, with a different source. The section on 3000 BCE to 2000 BCE which follows says nothing on sea levels at all. I realize both measures have citations, but it still makes it sound confused to have two different estimates for sea levels for what amounts to the same period. If sea levels rose in the 3000 BCE to 2000 BCE era, it should probably be noted in the section relating to that period. If not, then we should pick one of the two measures and stick with it, rather than giving two different estimates for sea level. Or else give both and mention the conflict between sources. 128.164.107.177 (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Jomon culture wasn't really Japanese

Identical pottery and artifacts from Jomon culture can also be found from Korean peninsula, suggesting Jomon culture wasn't entirely just Japan. Jomon culture is known as Jeulmun culture in Korea. --Korsentry 06:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

What rot. Where did you get this ridiculous, nationalist notion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.5.229 (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Neolithic Government Control

The sentence "Under these influences, the incipient cultivation of the Jōmon evolved into sophisticated rice-paddy farming and government control." late in the article seems to finish oddly. I'm going to remove the "and government control" part. Replace it if there's a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Menswear (talk • contribs) 14:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

recent DNA Haplotype Studies

According to new DNA studies,Jomon people's characteristic is Haplotype D2 gene(DE-YAP),and modern Japanese has DE-YAP at a very high rate,too.

Ainu 88%

Mainland Japan 40-56%

Ryukyu-Okinawa 56%

On the other hand, all other Asian people(China,Korea,Mongolia and SE Asian etc.) hardly have DE-YAP.Schriften2000 (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Earthenware Jar.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Earthenware Jar.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)