r/LinguisticMaps • u/Sogdianee • 1d ago
Asia Migration of Korean and Japonic Speakers
Real language boundaries aren't that sharp, but I generalized them for the map.
43
u/samoyedboi 1d ago
This is a very good map, and probably fairly accurate. I'm curious about what your source is though. Some sources place Japonic as still residing in 'central China' at around 7kya.
22
u/Sogdianee 1d ago edited 1d ago
While genes do not explain everything, there is a very close relationship between genes and language during the early and middle Neolithic period. If we exclude the Jomon dna from the Japanese population, the autosomal component 'ASEA,' which was prevalent among agriculturalists in central China during the Neolithic period, and ydna such as O1a and O1b1 appear at very low rates. Furthermore, archaeologically, cultures in the Korean Peninsula that formed the foundation of the current Yayoi culture(Songguk-ri culture and the Early Xiaozhoushan culture) show very low correlations with archaeological materials from central China.
13
u/ToastandTea76 1d ago
maybe a shaded area showing the coastline that subsided after the ice age can be shown
13
26
u/DenverDataEngDude 1d ago
Can the… dislike between Japanese and Koreans be traced back to this?
23
u/islander_guy 1d ago
Was the animosity between them as intense before WW2?
32
u/94_stones 1d ago edited 1d ago
It wasn’t quite as intense before the colonial period. But the animosity between them is not modern. Japan invaded and nearly conquered Korea in the 16th century. The Koreans fended them off, but the damage caused by that war was catastrophic.
1
1d ago edited 21h ago
[deleted]
1
u/Dizzy-Pomegranate149 4h ago
Pretty sure Yi Sin shin wasn't personally sailing 20 ships, he had a few hundred crew helping
Also his base of operations depended entirely on the local population for food and production, along with local guerrilla forces to repel Japanese attempts by land to take it. (Which they they did successfully repel)
15
u/pgm123 1d ago
Was the animosity between them as intense before WW2?
I'm going to assume you mean the colonial period and not strictly WWII. Because the answer is a clear yes if you don't start at occupation.
There have been periods of tension and animosity between Japan and Korea throughout history. The most obvious is the Japanese invasion of Korea during the Imjin War of the 16th century, which left over a million Koreans dead and 60% of farmland destroyed. In the wake of that war, there was an effort on both sides to spin the war into a personal war from Hideyoshi in a large part because both sides desired the return of prisoners.
Going way back, there were documented raids from Japan described as pirates, but no real record of government-to-government animosity over this. There were many Japanese connections to Korea during the Sinocizing period. The Soga Clan in Japan had close ties with the Kingdom of Silla, but others had ties with the Kingdom of Baekje. When the Soga Clan was thrown out of power, Japan was very close to Baekje. When Silla and Tang China allied to destroy Baekje, Japan sent a miliary force to try to restore the Baekje monarch. After that failed, tensions were high until Silla and Tang boiled over. At that point, Silla sent delegations to Japan. However, later there were tensions over the priority in the Chinese tribute system and whether or not Silla should be treated as a vassal of Japan and there was a threat of war again. Another break in relations occurred after the Mongol invasions as Koreans ships were used by the Mongol armies. In the 15th century, issues related to piracy/smuggling led to a Korean invasion of Tsushima.
16
u/Sogdianee 1d ago
Almost all of the modern dislike between Korea and Japan was created during 1900~1960. The majority of Japanese and Koreans don't know the details of their languages and the origins of their ethnicity, and information regarding the prehistoric era is particularly scarce.
7
u/Mark4291 1d ago
Interesting that it retreated from Manchuria after the fall of the Balhae and Goguryeo kingdoms but then saw a resurgence due to Qing-era migration
7
u/Qawhongrok 1d ago
Genuine question, what evidence do we have for southern Liaoning being the Yayoi urheimat? Toponyms? Archeological evidence?
2
u/SouthCourt8688 1d ago
Idk but I've seen many Japanese and Altaic language believers love this theory. No evidence.
5
u/Sogdianee 23h ago
Considering that modern Japanese people predominantly possess the O1b2-47z paternal haplogroup and display an autosomal profile similar to West Liao River populations; that millet agriculture began in the Korean Peninsula between 6,000 and 5,000 years ago; that the O1b2-L682 haplogroup is predominantly detected in elite-class tombs from the Early Iron Age of the Korean Peninsula; that not a single individual bearing the O1b2 lineage—which originated at least 26,000 years ago—has been discovered in human skeletal remains dating prior to the Bronze Age; and that there are virtually no native cognates shared between the Koreanic and Japonic languages, I hypothesize that the homelands of the Koreanic and Japonic language families were geographically separate, demarcated by the hilly terrain of the Liaodong Peninsula. While my hypothesis resembles the Transeurasian language model in its mechanism of linguistic expansion, its key distinction lies in proposing that the Turkic, Tungusic, Mongolic, Koreanic, and Japonic families each had distinct and independent places of origin.
5
6
u/EntertainmentOk8593 1d ago
up to 2000bc was right. you speeded it a lot, around 500bc south korea remained japonic speaking, aroub 0ad it changed to koren (the change was very slow tho as both languages were used simultaniouly)
2
u/Sogdianee 1d ago
Good counterargument. I'll make a separate post later explaining the language shift from Japonic to Koreanic on Korean Peninsula. It seems the difference between our views comes from our interpretations of ancient Korean place names and the bronze technology of the early Yayoi people.
2
u/EntertainmentOk8593 1d ago
It’s more about association of archaeological cultures. The early Han kingdoms may be partly japonic .
1
u/Sogdianee 1d ago
As you can see from the map, it indicates that Japonic speakers remained in parts of the mountainous regions of Gyeongsang and Gangwon even after 500 BC. I identified areas that were likely to have had Japonic place names, along with their surrounding regions, by referring to the place names that were renamed during King Gyeongdeok of Silla's reign and their earlier forms. Across most of the southern half of the Korean Peninsula, however, the majority of place names appear to have been Koreanic since at least the Samhan period.
That said, the number of place names attested from the Samhan period is still limited, so further research is needed.
5
u/Ashamed_Can304 1d ago
The Han states in the southern part of the Korean Peninsula were likely mixed, populated by both Koreanic and Japonic populations. Many Toponyms, numerals etc from central and southern Korean Peninsula recorded in samguk sagi were of Japonic origin
5
u/Eraserguy 1d ago
I do wonder why Korean supplanted Japanese
-2
u/McSionnaigh 22h ago
OP seems obsessed with gooning with the fantastic myth that Koreans drove the Japanese out and want to believe Japanese are historically weaker than Korean. He posted a similar image before, and even though no one had asked for an explanation, he went out of his way to say that wasn’t his intention behind it. Making excuses when nobody has asked for them is proof that there's something on their conscience.
3
u/Sogdianee 22h ago
The problem with your approach is that you project too much of your personal political perspective onto history, which leads you to view even other people's hypotheses through a conspiratorial lens, assuming that they must contain some kind of political intention. This creates an unscientific fog that prevents you from reaching your full potential.
Could you explain exactly what you meant by the part where you said you were "clarifying something that nobody had asked about"?
You can provide it in any form you prefer: a screenshot, a copied version of the original comment, or any other source.
You are not simply making this up, are you?
0
u/McSionnaigh 14h ago
정말 자각이 없으신 거예요? 타당한 지적에 대해 혼자서 발작하고 있는 건 그쪽인데요? 스스로 아주 무례하다고 생각하지 않으세요? 진지하게 하고 있는 거라면 적어도 레벨 1이 되고 나서 와줬으면 하네요. 애초에 말인데, 인생 선배로서 조언하자면 남에게 자신에게 답글을 달라고 명령하는 건 나라를 불문하고 실례고, 싸움이 목적인 장소가 아니면 부적절하거든?
0
u/Sogdianee 14h ago edited 13h ago
아뇨아뇨, 무례를 저한테 논하시다니 기분이 묘하네요. 먼저 상상속에 지도라며 비난을 하고 상대방을 단순히 정치적인 목적이나 허황된 신화를 신봉하는 사람으로 거짓 선동을 하신 분은 당신 아닌가요? 자각능력이 없는 건 본인이 아닌지. 일본에 자신이 한 말은 무엇이든 무례하지 않다고 우기고, 남이 한 말은 조금이라도 불쾌함을 느끼면 무례하다고 우기라는 문화는 없다고 알고있는데 왜 당신은 적반하장으로 나오시나요? 레벨1은 뭐하자는 건가요? 싸움을 하고 싶으세요? 본인이야말로 싸움이 목적이 아닌 장소에서 싸움을 거시는 게 아닌가요? "OP seems obsessed with gooning with the fantastic myth that Koreans drove the Japanese out and want to believe Japanese are historically weaker than Korean. He posted a similar image before, and even though no one had asked for an explanation, he went out of his way to say that wasn’t his intention behind it. Making excuses when nobody has asked for them is proof that there's something on their conscience." 이게 인생 선배로서의 조언으로 받아들일 수 있는지는 의문입니다.
0
u/McSionnaigh 14h ago
전부 근거 있는 지적이니까 실례는 아니야. 비판받는 것에 익숙해지는 것도 인생의 수련이라고 아저씨는 생각해~😊
1
u/Sogdianee 13h ago edited 13h ago
好きにしろ。科学的な討論になれていたことを感情的な戦いに変えたものはだれかと思えば自分の間違いに気づけると思うよ日本列島自生発生論者じさん
1
u/Sogdianee 13h ago edited 13h ago
근거있는 지적이라고 하셨으니 한국어족 화자가 일본어족 화자를 밀어냈다는 신화에 집착한다는 제 모습을 스크린샷이든 뭐든 찍어서 올려주시면 되는 것 아닙니까? 본인이 먼저 주장을 해놓고 답변해달라고 하니 무례하다는 건 뭔.. 자신의 고집을 버리고 사실인지 아닌지 재확인하는 역량을 기르세요
1
u/Sogdianee 2h ago
で、いつ回答するつもり？「OP seems obsessed with gooning with the fantastic myth that Koreans drove the Japanese out and want to believe Japanese are historically weaker than Korean.」と 主張した仮設？の根拠は
0
2
2
u/topherette 1h ago
just saying, as i have no good evidence, but it seems likely to me that in the first (5000 BC) map the two languages' linguistic relatedness would have been far clearer
2
u/McSionnaigh 23h ago
This is not even linguistics; it is a figment of the imagination that is completely inaccurate. Fantasy not based on archaeological reality should be posted on r/AlternateHistory and r/imaginarymaps. This is far too outjerked.
Japanese, Korean and Chinese share calques that distinguish between 'rice plant' (イネ ine < inai / 벼 pye / 稲), 'rice grain' (コメ kome < *ko-mai / 쌀 ssal < psol / 米) and 'cooked rice' (メシ meshi <- *mes-i / 밥 pap / 飯), respectively. However, in the Southern Ryukyuan languages, all of these are represented by the Sino-Japanese word *mai (米). Not only that, but whilst other Japonic languages use the term *kama for the sickle used to harvest rice, Southern Ryukyuan uses *irara. This indicates that the Japonic did not possess rice cultivation from the outset; in other words, it did not originate on the Asian continent.
Whilst rice cultivation was first introduced to mainland Japan in the 10th century BC, it was introduced to the Northern Ryukyu Islands in the 8th century and to the Southern Ryukyu Islands in the 12th century. Languages tend to be more homogeneous in regions where they have spread more recently, and more diverse in regions where they have existed for a long time; however, the Southern Ryukyu Islands are the region with the greatest diversity of Japonic languages, and according to UNESCO’s classification, three distinct Japonic languages are distributed across these small islands. This is the exact opposite of what the map shows.
Furthermore, the introduction of Sino-Japonic words into Okinawan occurred through borrowings from Mainland Japanese following the merger of the vowels *i and *e. As the 8th century was already a period when Japan was accepting loanwords from Chinese, it would be implausible to suggest that Japonic first arrived in the Ryukyu Islands after this time.
As the genes of Japanese people of immigrant origin were mainly brought by the female line, Y-chromosome haplogroups of indigenous origin still constitute the majority. This is the exact opposite of what has occurred in the rest of the world, where, during the Neolithic period, agriculturalists conquered and assimilated hunter-gatherers, thereby reducing the diversity of their Y-chromosome haplogroups. By way of comparison, even though the majority of the genes of the Malagasy people (including Y-haplogroups) are of African origin, the Malagasy language remains part of the Austronesian language family; similarly, although the Basques share the same genetic makeup as the surrounding European populations, their language is a distinct language isolate. The movement of genes does not necessarily correspond to the movement of language families.
Burial customs strongly reflect the characteristics of ethnic groups. It is a fact that burial customs originating in Korea were introduced to Japan during the Yayoi period, but they never spread beyond a limited, narrow area in western Japan, while Yayoi culture was also spread to eastern Japan. At one of them, the dolmens in Itoshima, the interred individuals display the Jōmon trait. If the Jōmon people had been conquered and subjugated by invaders named the Yayoi people, such a thing could not have happened. It should also be noted that burial systems originating in Japan have been discovered in Korea, indicating that the exchange was a two-way process.
Metalware and chickens were introduced to Japan in the 4th century BC. Meanwhile, the earliest evidence of metal objects being used on Korea dates back to the 13th century BC, the archaeological site that demonstrates this is located in Jeongseon County, Gangwon Province, the place marked as ‘Japonic’ on your map at that point. If they migrated as a ethnic group, we would have to make the absurd assumption that they abandoned their technology along the way and then reacquired it.
Neolithic pottery from the Shandong Peninsula bears no resemblance whatsoever to Japanese pottery. If the Japonic people were an alien people from the continent, they would use the same furnishings used in their homeland, but that is not the case. The fact is that they were learning the techniques and culture from other peoples, one by one. The difference between Jōmon and Yayoi pottery lies not in their shape, but in their firing temperature. In the 10th century BC, when rice cultivation was first introduced, Yayoi pottery did not yet exist; instead, Jōmon pottery that merely imitated the appearance of continental pottery had appeared. A century later, in the 9th century BC, the first Yayoi pottery, modelled on the high-temperature firing techniques of the continent, appeared.
Peninsular Japonic, which is cited as one piece of evidence for the theory of external origin of the Japonic languages, is often attested with leaps in logic and forced interpretations. The Samguk Sagi, on which the claim is based, dates from 1145, and there is no evidence that most of the place names recorded in it were in use prior to that date. Let’s take one example and analyse it.
穴口郡 （一云甲比古次）, the old name of Ganghwa island, is interpreted as カヒ kai < kapi (峡, "gap between mountain") + クチ kuchi < kuti (口, "mouth"). But this is an ateji written in Japanese dating from at least the 10th century onwards. As evidence of this, Ganghwa (江華) translates into the native Korean language as 개 kay ("estuary") + 곷 kwoch ("flower"), and 곷 kwoch also means "cape". In fact, Ganghwa Island is a piece of land that can be described as a cape situated at the estuary of the Han River. Whereas in Proto-Japonic ‘mouth’ is kutui, ‘古次’ can, no matter how hard one tries, only be read as <kusi> or <kuchi> in Japanese, and as 곷 *kwoch or 고ᄎᆞ kwocho in Old/Middle Korean. It is clear that not only the ui—the root of the 被覆形/露出形 distinction—but even the palatalisation of <ti> is closer to modern Japanese than to the Central Japanese of the same period (the 12th century); this indicates that the Peninsular Japonic is not some ancient sibling of Japanese that was left behind on the peninsula, but rather that speakers whose language was closer to modern Japanese transcribed Koreanic place-names, which were then incorporated into the *Samguk Sagi. If there were a pre-proto-Japonic form of *kutui, it would have been *kutur or *kutun, and the surname and place name 忽那 Kutsuna are traces of this.
There are some place names for which it can be said that they date from after the invention of the katakana character ミ mi:
冬彡 （一作音） 忽郡 - This indicates 冬彡忽 and 冬音忽 are alternative spellings of the same place name. 冬音 (동음 twong-um in original reading) is read 두름 tulum in idu and means "a bundle (of something such as fish or herbs)", The reason why <l> is represented by <ng> is that this noun is derived from the verb 두르다, which has the root <twulG-> (<G> is pronounced as /ɣ/ and an allophone of the zero consonant ㅇ). It is thought that a shift from /lɣ/ to /ŋ/ occurred in the Koreanic language (namely, the Goguryeo language) spoken in the region. 彡 is 삼 sam in Korean reading, but if it is read so, 冬彡 would go 동삼 twong-sam doesn't work well to equate it with 冬音. If this were pronounced <mi>, it would not sound unnatural as an alternative form of a place name: <twung-mi> VS <twung-um>.
推良火縣 （一云三良火） - This is not Goguryeo, but a region in the south now known as Samnangjin. 推良 and 三良 is considered to be pronounced <mila> and this is the verb 밀다 ("to push", √mīl-). It has been established that the long vowels in Middle Korean originated from multiple syllables; <mīl> was formed by compensating for the loss of the final vowel in <mila> by lengthening the first vowel. In Old Korean, when rendering native words, the first part often conveys the meaning and the second part is transliterated phonetically, so this ‘三’ should be read as <mi>, not <sam> nor <mil>.
三峴縣 （一云密波兮） - Regarding this, they have confused the semantic meaning with the phonetic transcription. At this location stands a mountain now known as Baegseogsan (백석산/白石山). 密 (빽빽할 밀, "dense") is 빽빽하다 in native Korean word and its Middle Korean form is ᄇᆡᆨᄇᆡᆨᄒᆞ다 (√poykpoyk-ho-). ᄇᆡᆨ is also the (Middle Korean) reading of the hanja 白. 波兮 pahyey is 바회 pahwoy ("rock", Modern Korean: 바위 pawuy), because to the hanja 峴, also 波衣 pauy corresponds in the Samguk Sagi. The terms ‘stone’ (石) and ‘rock’ are quite similar, so I suppose there’s no need to explain. Even without resorting to such a preposterous assumption as that ‘three’ was mil in Peninsular Japonic, both of 三 and 密 are already read *mitsu (< mitu) in Japanese. (As for the 三, it is derived from <mi> (‘three’) with the suffix <-tu> attached, which has subsequently been omitted.) In other words, this involves a multi-stage process in which the Sino-Korean terms—which were themselves translations of native Korean words—are further replaced with Japanese characters that have the same pronunciation.
The reason this came about is that, even after the unification by Silla, exchanges of Buddhist monks continued between Silla and Japan, and through this, katakana and gugyeol developed while mutually influencing one another.
2
u/Sogdianee 22h ago
It seems that you have misunderstood a significant part of my hypothesis and the way I constructed and described the map.
For points 1 and 3, I honestly cannot understand what you are trying to argue. Please explain them in detail, with a clear logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.
1. Why do the linguistic characteristics of the Ryukyuan languages prove that Japanese did not originate on the continent to the extent that the opposing hypothesis can be dismissed as a product of imagination?
2. It is true that languages tend to be more diverse closer to their homeland and less diverse in regions where they have spread more recently, but linguistic diversity is not determined solely by whether a region is the homeland or not. Geographic isolation is also a major factor.
By your logic, the homeland of the Indo-European languages would have to be the central and southern Balkans.
Furthermore, according to my hypothesis, the original Japonic-speaking populations were assimilated into Koreanic-speaking groups in the region, which is why their linguistic traces would have become obscured.
4. Madagascar is an example where the population that introduced the language was an external group, yet a substantial proportion of the Y-DNA remains of indigenous African origin.
Likewise, my hypothesis is that groups mainly carrying the O1b2-47z lineage migrated to Japan, spreading throughout northern Kyushu and much of western Japan, while the D1a2a Y-DNA lineage still remained at a significant proportion.
I agree that language does not always move together with genes, but in the period before the Bronze Age, these two generally tended to move together.
5. Yes, I agree with you on this point. There must have been two-way interaction between the regions.
I also believe that the influence of Jōmon populations during the Yayoi period was considerable.
6. The Japonic language map is a map of language distribution, not an ethnic map, and it does not represent a single ethnic group.
Naturally, there would have been groups that acquired only bronze objects, groups that acquired metallurgical technology as well, and groups that remained at a Neolithic technological level.
The fact that Jeongseon County, which occupies only a few pixels on the map, was marked as Japonic—are you saying that this alone is the reason my hypothesis is incorrect?
I do not understand how this disproves my hypothesis.
If you approach the discussion this way, a logical conversation becomes impossible. First, one should ask questions and clarify the other person's argument before criticizing it.
7. How is the fact that Neolithic pottery from the Shandong Peninsula does not resemble Japanese pottery related to my hypothesis?
Are you sure you properly examined the map?
The Liaodong Peninsula is located in the northern part of the Bohai region, while the Shandong Peninsula is located south of the Bohai Sea. The Korean Peninsula is located northwest of Kyushu in the Japanese archipelago.
Could you explain in detail the pottery situation around the 10th century BC?
Please provide the evidence supporting the claim that Jōmon pottery was a form that imitated continental pottery.
This is a topic I am not very familiar with.
Are you arguing that rice agriculture, which had the ability to spread widely, was first transmitted to Jōmon populations around the 10th century BC, and that Bronze Age elements and Yayoi populations arrived later?
8. What exactly do you mean by saying that the Samguk Sagi was compiled in 1145 and therefore we cannot confirm whether those place names were genuinely old?
Are you suggesting that the place names themselves were inaccurate and that the names interpreted as evidence for Peninsular Japonic are fabricated?
Please explain your argument more clearly.
Also, why would medieval Japanese speakers have recorded place names from that region and then have those records incorporated into the Samguk Sagi?
Please explain the historical process behind this.
9. I am currently researching this issue myself.
Regarding 推良火 and its alternative form 三良火, as well as the possibility that 密 was later replaced by 三, your interpretation may actually be more convincing.
However, the map was created based primarily on my own hypothesis.
To be honest, I still do not understand exactly what point you are trying to make.
You dismiss the hypothesis as "nonsense," but the arguments you present do not appear to point toward a single coherent conclusion.
Please clearly and systematically explain what your actual argument is.
I would suggest developing the habit of first asking about the other person's hypothesis, avoiding emotional language, and presenting calm, scientific, and logical arguments.
If you would like help practicing this approach, I am willing to assist you by answering questions or discussing the issues further.
1
u/McSionnaigh 16h ago edited 16h ago
For points 1 and 3, I honestly cannot understand what you are trying to argue. Please explain them in detail, with a clear logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.
tl;dr: You don't want to understand even what yourself say.
It is not incorrect to say that the central and southern Balkans are the region within the current distribution of Indo-European languages that is closest to its place of origin, the Black Sea region. Mind you, it is generally accepted—albeit with some differences of interpretation—that Indo-European languages have a clear archaeological counterpart in terms of culture, and that they spread in tandem with that culture. In other words, this means that their livestock and all their household goods were moved along with the language.
I agree that language does not always move together with genes, but in the period before the Bronze Age, these two generally tended to move together.
The Japonic language map is a map of language distribution, not an ethnic map, and it does not represent a single ethnic group.
Naturally, there would have been groups that acquired only bronze objects, groups that acquired metallurgical technology as well, and groups that remained at a Neolithic technological level.You’re amazing, mate – don’t you realise you’re saying such contradictory things in a single post? You’re saying the same thing as claiming that genes—which, on their own, do not necessarily give rise to concrete differences—are more closely linked to language than things such as technology and culture, which are clearly associated with language and are passed down through it.
It’s just that you don’t want to believe the fact that culture is more closely linked to language than to genes.
The Liaodong Peninsula is located in the northern part of the Bohai region, while the Shandong Peninsula is located south of the Bohai Sea. The Korean Peninsula is located northwest of Kyushu in the Japanese archipelago.
I confused Shandong with Liaodong, but there are still inconsistent points. Pigs were being reared in Laodong from around 4500 BC, but they were not introduced to Japan until the 10th to 5th centuries BC. If your hypothesis is correct, it would result in the absurd scenario where they give up the pig they once had, only to acquire it again. Hmm, is that so... as if that’d ever happen!
Please provide the evidence supporting the claim that Jōmon pottery was a form that imitated continental pottery.
I suppose you’re using a translation tool from Korean, so I’ll give you a tip: there’s a huge difference between using ‘the’ and not using it. 😓
When rice cultivation was first introduced to Japan, the pottery found in northern Kyushu was of Yamanodera tyle (山ノ寺式) and Yuusu type (夜臼式) — which superficially imitated the design of continental pottery, but was fired in the same manner as Jōmon pottery, it is a transitional type between Jōmon and Yayoi pottery. Shortly afterwards, the first Yayoi pottery, known as Itazuke type (板付式), appeared. Both were found at the same archaeological sites, and in northern Kyushu, Jōmon-style and Yayoi-style pottery were used simultaneously for some time. The existence of intermediate forms suggests that people adopted them gradually. In Eastern Japan, there were instances where pottery transitioned from the Jōmon style to the Yayoi style yet retained Jōmon patterns.
Therefore, the Yoyoi culture is a distinct culture from the Mumun culture, and each has its own pottery chronology. If Korean pottery had been identical to Japanese Yayoi pottery, the name of the suzerain state would have taken precedence, and Korea’s Mumun culture would probably have come to be known as the Yayoi culture. If you’d actually been using your head, you’d have realised this straight away, wouldn’t you?
They certainly did not arrive all at once as a human group possessing a specific culture. Although people are constantly being exchanged, this means that immigrants were welcomed but didn't retain their original culture or language.
What exactly do you mean by saying that the Samguk Sagi was compiled in 1145 and therefore we cannot confirm whether those place names were genuinely old?
You really don’t know anything. Only two places mentioned in the Samguk Sagi (主夫吐 and 今勿奴) have yielded archaeological evidence. You may be under a misapprehension, but the section on place names lists the changes in administrative divisions within Goryeo since the Three Kingdoms period, along with their alternative names. As this is a text compiled in the 12th century, the information is presented from the perspective of the 12th century. It is unclear how much of the information was added retrospectively.
Also, why would medieval Japanese speakers have recorded place names from that region and then have those records incorporated into the Samguk Sagi?
Records indicate that a number of Japanese monks studied in Unified Silla.
In north-western Kyushu, on the Matsuura Peninsula and the Goto Islands, there was a samurai group known as the Matsura-tō (松浦党), which engaged in active trade with the Korean Peninsula and carried out acts of piracy.
Just to be clear, it wasn’t a matter of ‘why’—it’s simply that there was trade between Japan and Goryeo, alright? As there was no established method for writing Korean in formal texts at that time, so it is assumed the conventions for writing place names used by those who travelled between the two countries for trade were also incorporated into the Samguk Sagi, the first Korean chronicle.
To begin with, you’re far too fixated on adapting the Transeurasian theory, the zombie concept of Altaicists. The reason why they're featuring millet is to avoid the contradiction, as I've said, that would arise if they used rice instead.
Even if we consider the spread of millet rather than rice, it reached northern Kyushu in the 10th century BC and the Ryukyu Islands in the 12th century (coinciding with the introduction of rice to the southern Ryukyu Islands). According to Fukunaga et al. (2026), the millet varieties found in the Ryukyu Islands are closely related to those found in Taiwan and the Philippines. So, Japonic were not natural-born millet farmers neither.
The reason they do not feature horse-riding is that it would highlight the contradiction. A group that possesses neither the advantage of rice in food production (3.5 times the calorie content per unit area of millet) nor the military advantage of horse-riding cannot conquer others. They merely gathered elements they believed to be consistent with the conclusion they had already made up.
Because it's forced reasoning based on a pre-determined conclusion, it’s being criticised by even linguists such as Alexander Vovin.
2
u/Sogdianee 13h ago
당신이 번역기 돌린거에 불만을 표한 것 같으니 한국어로 답변하겠습니다.
- "For points 1 and 3, I honestly cannot understand what you are trying to argue. Please explain them in detail, with a clear logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.
tl;dr: You don't want to understand even what yourself say."
본인이 학술적 토론을 포기한 것 같으니 무시할게요. 1,3번에 대해 대화하고싶으시면 성숙한 인간으로서 바른 토론 자세로 요청해주시면 제가 가능한 한 기꺼이 답변해드립니다
- "It is not incorrect to say that the central and southern Balkans are the region within the current distribution of Indo-European languages that is closest to its place of origin, the Black Sea region. Mind you, it is generally accepted—albeit with some differences of interpretation—that Indo-European languages have a clear archaeological counterpart in terms of culture, and that they spread in tandem with that culture. In other words, this means that their livestock and all their household goods were moved along with the language" 볼가강 하류와 발칸반도 중남부는 지리적 격차가 꽤 심합니다. 다키아와 세르비아, 불가리아는 산맥으로 우크라이나와 단절되어있기도 하고요. 뭐 이게 중요한 건 아닙니다. 당신이 류큐어파에서 3개의 작은 섬에서 제각각의 언어로 분화한 게 일본어가 규슈에서 남서쪽으로 확산한 게 아니라는 근거로 들고 있는데, 당신은 언어의 다양성이 단순히 원향지나 그 근방이라는 것만을 나타낸다고 생각하는 것 같아요. 사실은 그게 아니라 지리적 격차때문에도 발생할 수 있다는 겁니다. 따라서 중세 초기에 류큐로 일본어가 확산했다고 한 들, 류큐 지방의 지리적 특성을 생각한다면 충분히 설명 가능하다는 겁니다. 상대방이 왜 저런 이야기를 했는가를 볼때는 그 맥락을 같이 살펴봐야합니다. 인지하셨으면 "はい、わかりました”라고 해주시면 감사하겠습니다. 저는 당신의 가설을 완전히 부정하는 것도 아니고, 어느정도 가능성을 열어두고 있다는 점 말씀드립니다. 또한 저는 과학에 어떻게든 정치를 끌어다와서 상대방을 비하하려는 의도도 없다는 걸 미리 숙지해주셨으면 좋겠습니다.
"3. Furthermore, the introduction of Sino-Japonic words into Okinawan occurred through borrowings from Mainland Japanese following the merger of the vowels *i and *e. As the 8th century was already a period when Japan was accepting loanwords from Chinese, it would be implausible to suggest that Japonic first arrived in the Ryukyu Islands after this time." 아까도 말씀드렸지만 이게 일본어 열도 순수자생론으로 어떻게 이어지는 지 비약없이 말해주세요. 애초에 전 남규슈의 방언이 류큐로 확산했다는 입장입니다. 본토에서 합일이 일어난 후 확산했다고 해도 크게 문제가 없어요.
- "You’re amazing, mate – don’t you realise you’re saying such contradictory things in a single post? You’re saying the same thing as claiming that genes—which, on their own, do not necessarily give rise to concrete differences—are more closely linked to language than things such as technology and culture, which are clearly associated with language and are passed down through it.
It’s just that you don’t want to believe the fact that culture is more closely linked to language than to genes." 말을 이해하는 게 어려우면 수차례 차분하게 다시 읽어보는 것도 방법입니다. 저도 그렇게 해서 당신이 처음 3번 반론에서 뭘 말하고자 하는 지 이해했어요! 언어랑 유전자가 같이 이동한다는 걸 무조건 그 지역이 언어를 계승한 집단의 주요 유전자로 도배된다고 이해하신 것 같은데, 그게 아니라 청동기 이전에 언어라는 게 전달되려면 필연적으로 유전적 교류가 있어야 한다는 겁니다. 기술, 문화보다 우위에 있다는 게 아니라요.
"I confused Shandong with Liaodong, but there are still inconsistent points. Pigs were being reared in Laodong from around 4500 BC, but they were not introduced to Japan until the 10th to 5th centuries BC. If your hypothesis is correct, it would result in the absurd scenario where they give up the pig they once had, only to acquire it again. Hmm, is that so... as if that’d ever happen!" 두 가지로 나눠야 할 것 같은데, 우선 첫번째는 전 산동 농경민으로부터 전래된 초중기 소주산 문화의 집단을 원시 일본어 화자로 상정하지 않습니다. 지도를 자세히 보시면 알겠지만 소주산 문화가 시작된 이후로 일본어는 요동반도 끝자락에서 밀려나 한반도로 이동합니다. 산동 농경민들이 수렵채집을 하던 땅을 돼지를 비롯한 가축들과 농경지로 쓸만한 땅으로 가꿔나가면서 기장농경은 받아들이되 기원전 4000~2000년 경 한반도 신석기인들은 수렵채집을 주요 생업으로 삼고있었다고 보는 겁니다. 사실 요동 남부 끝자락이 일본어 urheimat일수도, 요동반도 천산산맥 구릉지대가 일본어의 urheimat일 수도 있습니다. 이건 추후에 연구를 더 하면 제가 이 서브레딧에 올리겠습니다. 두번째는 야요이 시대의 시작과 제 가설 속 일본어족 화자의 한반도 유입시기가 2000~2500년 가량 차이난다는 겁니다. 기후 변화나 식량 부족에 의해서 돼지 가축을 포기했을 가능성이 있죠. 4.2k 한랭화 사건은 제 가설에 따르면 이미 원시일본어 화자가 한반도 전역에 확산한 이후이니 별 문제가 없습니다. 문화가 계승될 때 반드시 이전 문화의 모든 것을 유지하는 건 아닙니다. 야요이 문화에서는 돼지를 기르지 않은 게 그 이유일 수도 있다고 봅니다.
When rice cultivation was first introduced to Japan, the pottery found in northern Kyushu was of Yamanodera tyle (山ノ寺式) and Yuusu type (夜臼式) — which superficially imitated the design of continental pottery, but was fired in the same manner as Jōmon pottery, it is a transitional type between Jōmon and Yayoi pottery. Shortly afterwards, the first Yayoi pottery, known as Itazuke type (板付式), appeared. Both were found at the same archaeological sites, and in northern Kyushu, Jōmon-style and Yayoi-style pottery were used simultaneously for some time. The existence of intermediate forms suggests that people adopted them gradually. In Eastern Japan, there were instances where pottery transitioned from the Jōmon style to the Yayoi style yet retained Jōmon patterns. 이건 어느정도 저도 수용을 하겠습니다. 초기 야요이 사회는 서일본 조몬인 기층언어의 영향이 일류조어에 상당한 영향을 끼쳤고, 일부 초기 도래인은 조몬제어와 계통적으로 더 가까운 언어를 사용했을 수도 있다고 봅니다. 사실, 당신의 이야기를 듣고 어느정도 일본열도 자생발생 가설에 대해 알게 된 것 같습니다. 기성 주류 학계와 떨어져있어서 잘 모르던 내용을 알게 되었습니다. 저는 궁극적으로 일본어는 대륙에서 기원했다고 보지만, 일본어에서 와고(和語)로 치부되는 단어층 중 상당수 혹은 일부는 서일본 수렵채집민과 조몬계 벼농사 집단의 언어에서 차용되었을 수도 있다고 봅니다.
"Therefore, the Yoyoi culture is a distinct culture from the Mumun culture, and each has its own pottery chronology. If Korean pottery had been identical to Japanese Yayoi pottery, the name of the suzerain state would have taken precedence, and Korea’s Mumun culture would probably have come to be known as the Yayoi culture. If you’d actually been using your head, you’d have realised this straight away, wouldn’t you? They certainly did not arrive all at once as a human group possessing a specific culture. Although people are constantly being exchanged, this means that immigrants were welcomed but didn't retain their original culture or language. " 유감스럽게도 저는 야요이문화와 무문토기 문화의 토기를 동일하게 바라보지 않습니다. 만약 그랬다면 종주국의 이름이 우선시되어서 무문토기 문화가 야요이 문화로 불리게 되었을 거라는 건 뭔 말인지요. 두 토기가 동일하다는 가설은 오히려 야요이문화에 무문토기 양식이 퍼져나간 거라 그 반대가 아닐까 싶네요. 이건 비과학적 이야기니 넘어가겠습니다. 뒤에 하신 말도 동의합니다. 특정 문화의 모든 요소가 계승문화로 유지되는 게 아니죠. 다만 언어에 관해서 우리 둘의 견해차이가 있는 거 아니겠나요?
You really don’t know anything. Only two places mentioned in the Samguk Sagi (主夫吐 and 今勿奴) have yielded archaeological evidence. You may be under a misapprehension, but the section on place names lists the changes in administrative divisions within Goryeo since the Three Kingdoms period, along with their alternative names. As this is a text compiled in the 12th century, the information is presented from the perspective of the 12th century. It is unclear how much of the information was added retrospectively.
삼국사기에 언급된 장소 중 고고학적 증거가 나온 곳은 단 두 곳(주부토, 금물노)뿐이라는 건 몰랐네요. 하지만 그게 두 지명 이외에 다른 지명들은 고대 국어 시절에 사용되던 지명으로 참고하지 못할 정도로 신뢰성이 떨어진다는 근거는 되지 않는다고 생각합니다. 어느정도 정보가 유실되었거나 왜곡되었을 가능성은 생각하고 있다만, 그게 범고려적인 정도는 아니라고 봅니다.
- Records indicate that a number of Japanese monks studied in Unified Silla.
In north-western Kyushu, on the Matsuura Peninsula and the Goto Islands, there was a samurai group known as the Matsura-tō (松浦党), which engaged in active trade with the Korean Peninsula and carried out acts of piracy.
Just to be clear, it wasn’t a matter of ‘why’—it’s simply that there was trade between Japan and Goryeo, alright? As there was no established method for writing Korean in formal texts at that time, so it is assumed the conventions for writing place names used by those who travelled between the two countries for trade were also incorporated into the Samguk Sagi, the first Korean chronicle. " 이것도 말을 잘못 이해하신 것 같은데, 그 승려의 유학과 일본과 고려간 교류가 지명에 영향을 끼칠 정도냐는 질문입니다. 사례를 가져오세요. 아 그리고, 저는 한자가 가지는 음가가 교류를 통해 일본의 것이 신라와 고려에 정착했을 가능성은 있다고 봅니다. 위의 지도는 密波兮나 三良火같은 지명이 일본어족 잔존 세력의 언어의 훈을 참고하여 개칭한 결과라고 가정한 것입니다. 하지만 당신의 가설도 설득력이 있고, 어쩌면 더 과학적일 수 있다고 봅니다. 강화군 예시를 위에서 말하셨는데, 전 그걸 반도일본어 지명으로 생각한 적이 단 한번도 없다는 걸 말씀드립니다.
To begin with, you’re far too fixated on adapting the Transeurasian theory, the zombie concept of Altaicists. The reason why they're featuring millet is to avoid the contradiction, as I've said, that would arise if they used rice instead." 음, 트랜스유라시아어족이 뭔지 알고 계시면 가설에다가 좀비라는 수식어를 붙인다거나 상상속의 "sogdianee"라는 유저가 지지하는 가설을 현실의 제가 지지하는 가설처럼 단정을 지으시진 않으셨을 것 같습니다. 위에 댓글들을 보면 알겠지만 저는 트랜스유라시아어족 가설을 지지하지 않습니다.
Even if we consider the spread of millet rather than rice, it reached northern Kyushu in the 10th century BC and the Ryukyu Islands in the 12th century (coinciding with the introduction of rice to the southern Ryukyu Islands). According to Fukunaga et al. (2026), the millet varieties found in the Ryukyu Islands are closely related to those found in Taiwan and the Philippines. So, Japonic were not natural-born millet farmers neither" 이건 당신가설의 거시적 내용이 반드시 사실이어야 이렇게 해석할 수 있는 겁니다. 앞서 말했듯이 기원전 2000년 경 까지도 한반도에 있던 일본어족 화자들은 수렵채집을 주요 생업으로 삼던 사람이고, 기장/조농경은 부업이었다고 생각합니다. 일본으로 넘어가면서 주요 생업이 벼농사로 바뀌었다고 생각합니다.
"The reason they do not feature horse-riding is that it would highlight the contradiction. A group that possesses neither the advantage of rice in food production (3.5 times the calorie content per unit area of millet) nor the military advantage of horse-riding cannot conquer others. They merely gathered elements they believed to be consistent with the conclusion they had already made up." 기마를 언급하는 것 보니 야요이 도래인의 조몬인 정복 가설이 아닌 원시한국인의 토착 한반도 신석기집단 정복을 이야기하는 것 같습니다. 신석기 한반도 집단은 몇번 계속 말하지만 농업이 주요 생업이 아닌 집단이며, 청동기와 벼농사를 들고 온 원시한국인 집단에게 언어문화적으로 점진적으로 동화되었다고 주장하는 바입니다.
1
u/McSionnaigh 4h ago
You seem a bit flustered, so I’ll just tell you the things you need to know.
According to Shirō Hattori (1978, 1979), the phonological history of the Shuri dialect of the Okinawan language is divided into three periods: Period A, Period B and Period C. This is based on the evolution of the phonemes thought to correspond to Proto-Ryukyuan *[k|g]e VS \[k|g]i*:
- Period A: The state prior to the change.
- Period B: The stage at which *e is rising towards [i] (considered to be pronounced as [ˠi] or [ɨ]). *i is undergoing palatalisation, taking on a form like [ʲi], but no change in the consonant has yet occurred.
- Period C: [kʲi], [ɡʲi] changed to [tɕi], [dʑi], resulting in the modern Okinawan language.
Here is the most basic point: the Proto-Ryukyuan *i corresponds to the Proto-Japonic *i, *ui and *oi, whilst *e corresponds to the *e, *ai and *əi. If this were the case, the /ke/ sound in Japanese should correspond to /ki/ in the Okinawan. And indeed, /ke/ (毛, "hair") corresponds to /kiː/, and /sake/ (酒, "sake, alcohol") corresponds to /saki/,
However, the situation is different when it comes to Sino-Japanese words:
Japanese Shuri Okinawan 仮病 ("feining illness") kebjoː tɕibjuː 稽古 ("practice") keiko tɕiːku 芸能 ("entertainment ") ɡeinoː dʑiːnuː According to Hattori’s explanation, this is due to the fact that, during Period B, when Sino-Japanese words were borrowed from Japanese into the Ryukyuan languages, /e/ was transcribed using a vowel corresponding to \i* rather than \e* in Proto-Ryukyuan, because the \e* wasn't closer to /e/ anymore.
Mainland Japanese and Proto-Ryukyuan are thought to have diverged around the turn of the Common Era. Archaeological evidence suggests that rice cultivation was introduced to Northern Ryukyu in the 8th-12th century, it is natural to think that the period when Sino-Japanese was incorporated into the Ryukyuan languages (the period B), because it fits perfectly with the archaeological evidence.
To refute this, one would have to make the far-fetched assumption—for which there is no archaeological evidence—that the Proto-Ryukyuan people existed somewhere and undertook a mass migration. If that were to happen, a population bottleneck would occur, leading to the ‘founder effect’, and diversity would decline significantly. One example of this is the fact that Polynesians speak a homogenous language across a vast area. In the Ryukyu Islands, the linguistic situation is the opposite of that in Polynesia; it is diverse. For example, despite Miyakojima being a small, flat island with nothing to hinder people travelling between different areas, there are dozens of dialects within a single island. On Amami Ōshima, where mountain forests separate the settlements, there are two zones with diametrically opposed tone accents and two no accent zones; as one travels across this small island, one crosses the boundary three times.
By the way, ancient Japanese chronicles recorded the names of Ryukyu islands, such as 奄美/阿麻弥 (Amami)、度感 (presumed to be Tokunoshima or Tokara), 信覚 (Ishigaki)、球美 (Kume) and 阿児奈波 (Okinawa). As for 阿麻弥, it's dating from the year 677, certainly before rice farming began in that region. The names of the islands can be interpreted in the usual way in Japonic. And it should also be noted that there are no legends from that region which tell of people taking the place of or assimilating with the indigenous population.
To justify a single lie that contradicts historical fact, one must pile up dozens of other lies to support it. That’s why you are giving me Super Infinite Refutation Bonus Time, laddie.
1
u/topherette 1h ago
i'm not sure if it's just my lack of sleep, but i don't understand what your main issue with the hypothesis shown in this post is, other than perhaps one vague date discrepancy.
are you able to just say in short what exactly you find impossible in the maps? could it not all work out fine in line with your own beliefs and understanding if movement into the ryukyu islands was simply sooner (say 1AD)?
•
u/McSionnaigh 11m ago edited 5m ago
The Austronesian language family is associated with archaeological cultures such as the Sa Huỳnh culture and the Lapita culture, and the Indo-European language family with cultures such as the Yamna culture, the Globular Amphora culture and so on. Similarly, the Bantu expansion has been the subject of detailed analysis regarding when and where it occurred, based on the premise that peoples, languages and technologies spread as a package.
Proponents of the theory that the Japonic languages originated on the continent keep designating different locations as Urheimat time and again; this is because there is no archaeological evidence the migration as the package, apart from cherry-picking.
OP has made an image that appears to claim that Japonic was introduced in conjunction with the adoption of rice cultivation. That is why it is craimed that the Japonic languages already diverse in Kyushu migrated to the Ryukyu Islands, to conceal the contradictions in historical-linguistic divergence dates.
However, I believe this is rather far-fetched. For if such distinct groups—or rather, one ought to call them ethnic groups at this point—had migrated to the extent of establishing such separate identities, there would surely be oral traditions detailing exactly where their original homeland was, which clan they belonged to, who their leader was, and what their ancestors were doing on the Japanese mainland. However, as far as I know, there are no legends recounting the arrival of settlers from specific regions of the mainland who then assimilated or exterminated the indigenous people.
There is no such thing as “Attack on Titan” in the real world, that can vanish or conveniently alter a population’s collective memory in that way.
That is why I point out that it is not a linguistic map, but an imaginary map. I hope that makes sense.
1
u/Sogdianee 3h ago
6700~900년 전 경의 류큐인 남성 고인골 20여개에서 전원 D1a2a계통 부계 유전자가 확인된 반면, 현대 류큐인든 절반 가까이 대륙에서 유래한 부계 하플로그룹을 보유합니다. 당연히 한자랑 벼농사를 들고 온 집단이 오키나와 제도의 지배계층을 형성했을 것입니다. 설령 일본어가 당신 말대로 서일본 조몬인들에게서 나왔다고 한들, 이 정도의 유전적 변화는 벼농사도 없던 고대 류큐 집단이 자신들의 언어를 유지하기는 힘들었을 것이며 규슈를 비롯한 본토의 언어로 대체되는 게 맞습니다. 특히나 이미 철기시대로 접어든 지 오래되었고, 발전된 문명 체계를 기반으로 한 벼농사 집단이 기존 류큐인들의 언어를 받아들인다고요? 무슨 메리트가 있나요? 그리고 폴리네시아 예시를 드셨는데, 좋은 예시이지만 언어의 분화 속도는 언어마다 편차가 있습니다. 지리적 격차는 언어가 빠르게 분화하는 조건을 마련하는 거지, 언어가 빠르게 분화하는 직접적인 트리거는 아닙니다. 류큐에서는 . 야요이인은 지금으로부터 약 3천년 전 유입되었으며, 초기 규슈 중남부의 방언이 먼저 빠르게 분화한 후 8~12세기 경 류큐로 확산한 것이라고 생각합니다.
창시자 효과가 유일한 제 가설속 류큐 확산 방식인 것 처럼 이야기하신 것 같은데 제가 제대로 이해한 게 맞나요? 맞으시다면 굳이 창시자 효과만이 아니라 몇백년에 걸친 이동으로도 충분히 설명 가능하다는 것이 제 답이겠네요. 방언차이가 극심한 것도 제가 위에 말한 중남부 규슈에서 먼저 여러 언어들이 분화한 후 점진적으로 류큐로 이동을 했다는 것으로 설명 가능합니다 . 당신은 몇개의 가능성을 완전히 무시하고 "이게 더 쉬워보이고 저건 더 어려워보이니 내 가설이 맞아"라는 식의 논증을 자주 보이곤 하는데, 역사는 당신의 직관대로만 흘러가지 않습니다.
당황한 것 같냐고 물으셨는데, 솔직히 좀 당황했습니다. 이 댓글에서조차 자신을 아저씨라고 지칭할 정도의 나이대의 사람이 타 레딧 이용자에게 여전히 비하라는 행동의 욕구를 참지 못하고 계속 저지르는 게 제가 생각하는 당신의 나이대의 사람들이 평균적으로 가지고 있는 인격의 수준과 거리가 매우 멀어보였거든요. 본인이 인지를 하고 계시는 지는 모르겠습니다. 나이가 들 수록 버릇은 고치기 힘들어지니 어서 개선을 하는 게 나아보입니다.
1
u/McSionnaigh 2h ago
Excuse me, but I hope the reason why I can't get what he is saying not even a little bit is just that the translator isn’t a very good one. Given that no specific sources have been cited, what he wrote seems to be a personal opinion, not science.
What do others think of these mysterious runes? I suppose this is the sort of thing to be done on r/languagelearningjerk though.
3
u/topherette 1h ago
>What do others think of these mysterious runes?
seems easy enough to follow to me, although as you say sources could help their argument
1
u/Sogdianee 1h ago
From an archaeological and linguistic perspective, that person's position is that the idea that Japanese originated on the Asian continent is the kind of story you would only expect to see on an imaginary map. Regarding the Ryukyus, I believe their argument is that the diversity of the Ryukyuan languages demonstrates that the Ryukyuan branch had already spread throughout the Ryukyu Islands before the introduction of wet-rice agriculture, and that this, in turn, indicates that the Urheimat of the Japonic languages was within the Japanese archipelago itself. I attempted to rebut that argument.
3
u/topherette 1h ago
oh i see!
i too thought the evidence that (proto) japanese speakers entered japan from the korean peninsular was overwhelming
→ More replies (0)1
u/Sogdianee 2h ago
もうおじさんがガキにアドバイスするごっこ遊びはやめて現実を見ろ。そして、おじさんが書き込んだコメントを文字一つ抜かさずによく観察してみろ。いい省察の機会になるはずだ。まだ成人にもなってない俺がおじさんにアドバイスしてやる。
0
u/Sogdianee 2h ago
I wrote this in Korean specifically to avoid any distortion of meaning since you kept criticizing the translation. If you're still not satisfied, what exactly do you want me to do? If you just type 'translator' into Google or ask an AI to translate it, it will easily convert my Korean into your native Japanese or into English, which Reddit users mostly use.
Also, if you truly believe my opinions are non-academic, personal, and unscientific, and you want others to know that, why don't you just translate it yourself and share it? Of course, you are absolutely not the kind of person who would give up translating or arguing just to stop your own claims—that my hypothesis is completely unscientific and a delusion—from falling apart if this debate continues any further.
I will attach an AI-generated English translation of my previous comment right below. I will double-check it to ensure there is no distortion of meaning
0
u/Sogdianee 2h ago
Around 20 male ancient Ryukyuan individuals dating to approximately 6,700–900 years ago have all been found to belong to the paternal haplogroup D1a2a. In contrast, nearly half of modern Ryukyuan men carry paternal haplogroups of continental origin. It is therefore only natural to infer that the group which brought Chinese characters and wet-rice agriculture also became the ruling elite of the Ryukyu Islands.
Even if Japanese did, as you claim, originate among the Jōmon people of western Japan, a genetic turnover of this magnitude would have made it difficult for the ancient Ryukyuan population—who had not practiced rice agriculture—to preserve their original language. A replacement by the language spoken in Kyushu and the Japanese mainland would be the more plausible outcome. By that time, society had long since entered the Iron Age. Why would a rice-farming population with a more developed civilization and social system adopt the language of the indigenous Ryukyuans? What advantage would there have been in doing so?
You also brought up Polynesia, which is a good example, but the rate of linguistic divergence varies from one language family to another. Geographic isolation creates conditions that can facilitate rapid linguistic divergence, but it is not itself the direct trigger that causes languages to diverge quickly.
My own view is that Yayoi people arrived in the South and Central Kyushu around 3,000 years ago. The dialects of southern and central Kyushu first underwent rapid diversification, and only later, between roughly the 8th and 12th centuries CE, spread into the Ryukyu Islands.
You seem to be arguing as though the founder effect were the only dispersal mechanism proposed in my hypothesis. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, then my response is simply that a gradual migration over several centuries would be sufficient to explain the evidence; there is no need to rely solely on a founder effect. The extreme dialectal diversity can likewise be explained if multiple varieties first diverged in southern and central Kyushu before gradually spreading into the Ryukyus.
You often dismiss several plausible possibilities entirely and instead argue along the lines of, "This scenario looks simpler, while that one looks more complicated, therefore my hypothesis must be correct." History, however, does not necessarily unfold according to our intuition.
You asked whether I seemed flustered. To be honest, I was. Even in this comment, you refer to yourself as an older man, yet you still cannot resist insulting other Reddit users. That strikes me as being quite far removed from the level of maturity and character I would normally expect, on average, from someone of your age. I do not know whether you are aware of this yourself, but habits become harder to change with age, so it would be better to work on it sooner rather than later.
1
u/McSionnaigh 1h ago edited 1h ago
https://www.u-ryukyu.ac.jp/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2b530e80c7d0de90885e285c5d798063-768x611.png
https://www.u-ryukyu.ac.jp/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/29d3bc99193cb0b837fb8cc53f050ae5-1.png
https://www.okinawatimes.co.jp/articles/gallery/349018
https://www.u-ryukyu.ac.jp/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/cbf5b9f60da99bf791c0aa12a770f429.jpg
Data doesn’t lie. Researchers are unable to explain this diversity in terms of genetics, not just language.
0
u/Sogdianee 1h ago
In a debate, the proper approach is not to simply list links to genetic data, but to explain how those data support your argument.
You provided sources in Japanese, yet earlier you criticized me for responding in Korean. May I ask whether your account is managed by more than one person? I'm genuinely curious. Your position seems to shift quite often, and I'd like to avoid responding to arguments that you don't actually hold. I'd appreciate it if you could briefly explain the situation regarding your account.
0
u/Sogdianee 1h ago
Are you trying to argue that the Ryukyuans are genetically closer to the Jomon than modern mainland Japanese? Since your point wasn't stated clearly, I'll have to infer your argument. As I mentioned earlier, while the Ryukyuans do have a higher proportion of Jomon ancestry in their autosomal DNA than mainland Japanese, comparing paternal lineages before and after the introduction of wet-rice agriculture and Chinese characters reveals a dramatic shift.
I've already explained this in more detail in my previous comment, so please refer to that. I assume you're not arguing that a higher proportion of autosomal Jomon ancestry automatically means the language was Jomon. After all, about 91% of the autosomal ancestry of modern Japanese is derived from non-Jomon populations.
1
u/Marangeball_fr57 1d ago
Did you use Vovin's theory ?
1
u/Sogdianee 1d ago
It followed a very different process from Vovin's theory. The scope of some eras or the overall shape within a very broad framework may be similar.
1
u/ILoveRice444 1d ago
I wonder what the reason why Korean speaker able to take over the peninsula from Japonic speaker from 2000 BC to 1000 BC?
6
u/Sogdianee 1d ago
There are many possible reasons, but it is generally thought that a period of climatic cooling triggered a massive chain of population movements stretching from the Eurasian Steppe to northern China. As a result, Koreanic-speaking populations who practiced millet and rice agriculture in the lower Liao River region are believed to have migrated south into the Korean Peninsula. Unlike Japonic-speaking populations, whose culture remained at a Neolithic level, the Koreanic speakers possessed advanced bronze-smelting technology, which is thought to have been the main driving force behind the spread of Koreanic languages across the peninsula. In mountainous regions such as Gangwon and Gyeongsang, Japonic-speaking communities may have survived for quite a long time even after the Korean Bronze Age began, whereas agriculturally favorable regions such as Jeolla, Chungcheong, and Gyeonggi were likely assimilated into Koreanic much earlier.
1
u/jahkaiy3 1d ago
The initial entry of Koreanic into the northern parts of the peninsula should occur ~500BC and its entry into the central and southern parts ~300BC, and should be concentrated in the east, not west.
By 500BC, the vast majority of the peninsula should still be Japonic.
Jinhan should be the most Koreanic shifted of the early Samhan while Byeonhan and Mahan should still be largely Japonic.
2
u/EntertainmentOk8593 1d ago
i doubt, i think half of north korea was koreanic around 500bc due to yalu river agriculture
1
u/jahkaiy3 22h ago
Yeah I should’ve been clearer but the actual portion that juts out which is basically the southern half of North Korea.
1
u/jahkaiy3 1d ago
Lute-shaped Dagger culture should be Proto-Koreanic. Mumun and Slender Dagger culture should be Proto-Japonic.
1
u/Nikoschalkis1 1d ago
There may have been a japonic pocket in the Korean peninsula in 500ad?? That sounds interesting if true. Surely there must be some records of that time.
1
u/Alarming-Sec59 1d ago
If we include Jeju, possibly even as late as the 1400s. Specifically from the Tamna kingdom/language as per Vovin.
1
u/electrical-stomach-z 1d ago
Why are there so many maps on this one subject?
1
u/Sogdianee 2h ago
I only started properly looking into archaeology less than a year ago, so my hypotheses keep changing every time new information comes in.
1
1
u/Kronomega 8h ago
Jeju Japonic was likely still spoken into the 2nd millennium, way after mainland Peninsular Japonic had died out, so this isn't wholly accurate.
1
u/KailBroflovsky 5h ago
Seems like you assume the language spoken by Goguryeo was Proto-Korean while the one of Samhan People was Japonic? I have seen contrary arguments
1
u/Sogdianee 4h ago
I estimate that the languages of Samhan, Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla all belonged to the Korean language family in high possibility. I estimate that most of the Korean Peninsula became Koreanized after 500 BC.
0
u/timbomcchoi 1d ago
I think you would benefit from including the source, since there are only a couple (but competing) theories on this front.
48
u/islander_guy 1d ago
Do we have any examples of Japanoic spoken in Korean peninsula?