Talk:Yamato people

The mention about shinto

Here is seriously wrong

"Clan leaders also elevated their own belief system that featured ancestor worship into a national religion known as Shinto.[16]'

This is about State shinto but not a shinto generally. Shinto itself has far older history than 19century. Clearly this description is kind of anti japan propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.106.95.33 (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RavenSummers.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

On Kofun coming from Korea

Kofun culture did come from Korea. Yamato Theory??? what is Japanese Yamato theory??? The origin of Japanese people: Genetic Evidence: DNA tests have confirmed the likelihood of this hypothesis. The Y-DNA ( Paternal line) of the modern Japanese is composed of 50 percent of haplogrop O, of Sino-Korean origins. More specifically, subgroup O3 is of Chinese origin, which O2b is Korean. The rarer subgroup O1 and O2a are of southern Chinese or southeast asian origin. DNA analysis of the Japanese people: Frequency in Japan: ( This is Yamato Theory): 03 Chinese origin: 21 percent, 02b Korean origin: 32 percent, Southern chinese origin: 1 percent, southeast asian origin: 0.1 percent. Yamato tribe is Korean origin ( 02b Korean origin DNA 32 percent). —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanDNA (talk • contribs) 07:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The old Kofun culture did come from Korean Peninsula as well Korean race ( Jomon and Yayoi). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonasia101 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yamato and Kofun comming from Korea discussion. Actually there isn't any discussion History and Culture is developed from Geographical location. For example, if Koreans or Korean peninsula didn't exist would Japanese( Yamato) or Japan exist today?? If you use common sense the answer would be No. Right?

Korea or Korean Peninsula had three kingdoms Koguryo ( Koma Jpn), Paekje ( Kudara Jpn), Shilla ( Shiragi Jpn), Kaya Confederacy (Shilla Kingdom) ( Minama Jpn). Koguryo, Kudara, and Kaya had long history interacting with Japan. When Shilla Kingdom unified Korean peninsula Kings and Queens from Koguryo, Paekje, Kaya ( followers) settled in Japan. The geographical distance closest to Korea and Japan is ( Kansai/Kinai) region. Kofun culture was born in Japan.

Lets think clearly without Japanese or Korean nationalism. If Koreans or Korean peninsula didn't exist today. Japanese or Yamato race exist modern world today?? The answer would be NO. Japanese are mixed between Korean and Ainu. Kofun culture reflects cultural interaction that forms Japanese race today that we call Yamato race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreakoreawatch (talk • contribs) 13:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence for the claim that Kohun came from Korea. In fact the opposite seems to be the case: Kofun was made earlier in Japan and later introduced to Korea. See http://www.hani.co.kr/section-009000000/2001/09/009000000200109062248001.html for example. Claims on "the military mentality" and the rest also are utterly unfounded.

The entire history subsections should be moved to either Kohun or Yamato period. "Yamato" (大和民族) is the name of the dominant ethnic group in Japan today. The name is not limited to the ancient people. --220.214.95.181 04:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The countrys of South of Korea peninsula in those days, Paekche,Imna and Silla are distinguished from Kogury the ancestors of Korean people because of their racial constituent. Bright888

korean influence on japanese early culture is widely acknowledged by western scholars. transmission of buddhism, confucianism, & chinese script from korea to japan is not seriously disputed. baekje, silla, & goguryeo are not considered separate races by western scholars. Appleby 22:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm questionig the fact that Kogury the ancestors of Korean people and three nations Paekche,Imna and Silla had same racial constituent. So it's better to say the three nations instead of Korea.Bright888

you may question it, but you would be in the very small minority. encarta says "Koguryŏ, also known as Goguryeo, an indigenous Korean kingdom that emerged in the 1st century bc."[1], & columbia encyclopedia says "Koguryo, a native Korean kingdom" [2]

Encarta also says: "The pottery of the Yayoi culture (300? bc-ad 250?), made by a Mongol people who came from Korea to Kyūshū, has been found throughout Japan." "Chinese culture spread from Korea to the island kingdom of Japan, ruled by the Yamato clan" "Records exist of Korean Paekche monks traveling to Japan to build temples and forge large bronze images of the Buddha.... As a result of this early contact, however, Buddhism made significant inroads in Japan, Chinese characters were adopted for writing, and other Chinese influences affected Japanese culture." columbia encyclopedia also says: "Contacts with Korea were close, and bronze and iron implements were probably introduced by invaders from Korea around the 1st cent." Appleby 18:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

At least to say that in jomon era jomon people's lived in south korean peninsula and "wajin" lived in there in yayoi era (see chnese history "Gishi-Wajin-den").So it bettet to say the their racial constituents of Korea and three nations were diffrent. It is well-known fact.Bright888

please provide citations to reputable english publications at least as authoritative as encarta & columbia encyclopedia. there are many ancient chinese, japanese, & korean records that are conflicting & with varying credibility, which is why we need reputable, scholarly sources for the general consensus view. i've provided authoritative citations to the buddhism & chinese writing, korean invasion & general korean influence. please do not revert unless you can provide citations to back up your edits. Appleby 18:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

if you can provide credible, authoritative sources for what you want to change, we can discuss the details & try to come up with different wording, but please do not simply revert without providing reputable sources.Appleby 18:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

i think to think the three nations of south Korean nations in thoose days to be same krean nation is Korean ethnocentrism. Racial diversity in those days must not to be ignored. So it bettet to use three nations name.Bright888

and the three nations were under Japanese influence too.Bright888

please provide citations to reputable publications so we can discuss them instead of our personal opinions. Appleby 19:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Baekje is not equal to Korea. It better to write "Baekje broke down in the later 6th century."Bright888

please provide citations. Appleby 15:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

you must read "Gish Wajin-den".It is impossible to discuss about the age of around 5th century in east asia without reading chinese history.Bright888

there are many chinese, korean, & japanese records, & we are not supposed to do original research from ancient source material in foreign languages. see Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is a collection of consensus facts from reputable publications, like other encyclopedias. see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please explain your reverts after you read the wikipedia policies. Appleby 19:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

i think you suggesting that Baekje esnicsity is equal to Korea in 21 century. But at laest two langege were used in south Korea in 5th century in south Korea so the esnicsity is not clear. and ofcause you must read chinese history in those days too, if there were not the english translations.Bright888

i already changed "korea" to "korean peninsula" or "baekje." i'm not saying anything about ethnicity. i don't have to read chinese history original texts, we have to find reputable publications like other encyclopedias. that's wikipedia policy, please read. Appleby 20:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

i don't have to read chinese history original texts, we have to find reputable publications like other encyclopedias.

Why? Why? Why? Those encyclopedias you count on are second or third source materials, and you say we should ignore first materials? When searching Korean and Japanese histories, we DO need Chinese materials and it's almost impossible to discuss anything about ancient East Asian history without them. I can't believe you don't use Chinese histories though you understand classical Chinese. I understand Koreans have to stress Korean influence on Japan, but neglecting important sources is not good. What we should read are, for example, Hou Han Shu, San Guo Zhi (Dong Yi Zhuan) and so on...and many of them are available online. I have thought it's requisite to read them, but someone hasn't read them and wrote something about ancient Asian history at Wikipedia...unbelievable. 222.12.4.9 10:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

i think you want to confuse the esnisity name Korea and the place name korea. they are ofcause different things. you must prove the esnisity of korea is equal to Baekje by your sugesting publications. Bright888

Samguk Sagi(三国史紀）a korean history in 12c says that in Baekje it was diffrent the langage of the governing class and the langage of the people.Bright888

neutrality

ARE YOU SURE THAT YAMATO PEOPLE POPULATION IS 100,000,000 MILLION??? THE NUMBER IS FAR TOO FETCHED AND INACCURATE. MAJORITY OF THOSE 100,000,000 MILLION YAMATO PEOPLE ARE MIXED WITH KOREANS AND AINU BLOOD. SO HOW CAN YOU EVEN MENTION NUMBERS IN RESPECTED WIKIPEDIA SITE AND BELEIVE YAMATO RACE EXISTED IN PAST, PRESENT, AND FOR THE FUTURE. PLEASE MAKE WISE CHOICE AND EDUCATE NON-JAPANESE ABOUT YAMATO RACE DOES NOT EXIST. IT NEVER HAD EXISTED IN PAST AND PRESENT HISTORY. 100,000,000 MILLION YAMATO PEOPLE??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME. ACCEPT IT JAPANESE ARE MIXED BETWEEN KOREANS AND AINU. THATS YAMATO HISTORY. STOP ADDING NUMBERS PLEASE. DEEPLY APPRECIATE ABOUT EDUCATION AND INFORMATION NOT JUSTIFYING LIES FROM JAPANESE GOVERNMENT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonasia101 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yamato People is history. In reality Yamato people did not exist. If you want to discuss about history ( facts and figures) Yamato people consist Koreans and Ainu blood mixed thats ( Yamato people). Before Koreans and Ainu ( Yamato people) did not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonasia101 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Baekje esnicsity constituent is not clear refer to Samguk Sagi. At least it is not equal to Korea because of langeges. And Refet to Nihonshoki,Yamato's government extended to Imna(任那). And Baekje and Yamato had alliance to fight allied forces of Silla and Tang Dynasty of China(Hakusukinoe no Tatakai,(also known as Battle of Hakusonkou). So at least to say that Korean ethnicity today and that of Baekje and Imna were not correctly equal. This variousity of ethnicity were ordinarily thing like Ainu in Japan. So to think Baekje was Korean ethnicity is one of unnutral thinking.

Please write correctly.

please cite to reputable publications for your contentions. wikipedians do not do original research with ancient foreign language source materials, we collect consensus facts from well-known encyclopedias, media & scholarly works. please, read the wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:3RR. Appleby 19:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

please cite to reputable publications for your contentions. that Korean nation of today and Baekje are equal.if you cant you'd better to use Baekje in return for Korea.Bright888

The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Verifiability is the key to becoming a reliable resource, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be easily verified by readers and other editors.And Samguk Sagi and Nihonshoki are reliable and easily verfied ofcause.Bright888

every sentence in the korea section is cited. every time "korea" is used is cited to the source. samguk sagi & nihonshoki are not reputable publications, which go through professional fact-checking & layers of editors. they are original historical source material that are difficult to interpret without special historical expertise, and many parts are contradictory or mythical & interpretations are very much disputed. they are not credible sources of facts by themselves. Appleby 20:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

you think easily to be Korea in today and "Baekje" in those days are equal ethnisity but it is unusual and it must be proofed.please cite to reputable publications for your contentions. that Korean nation of today and Baekje are equal.if you cant you'd better to use Baekje in return for Korea.Bright888

I want to see most famous Korean and Japanese historys. If you cant you don't have reliance to write.Bright888

you have been reported for 3 revert rule violation. you tried to take out references to korean influence, despite my providing you with citations. after your reverts, i changed some wording, from "korea" to "baekje" or "korean peninsula," but you continued to revert & deleting everything. i decided to create a new subsection about korean influence, with citations to encyclopedias & even japan-pov websites, but you just continue to delete everything. this is not acceptable. the 3 kingdoms of korea are described in all reputable publications as "korean," this is not a serious dispute [3], & you haven't provided any citations, except your personal interpretations of ancient disputed source material. Appleby 21:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Korean has two means. One of it is place name and another is ethnic name.Yore argument is alwasy confusig of two of them. I think your thougt is one of ethnocentrism.It isn't acceptable.Bright888

i am not making any claims about ethinicity. you are trying to make some point that's hard to understand, especially without any references that english wikipedian readers can see. if you can provide some sources to what you want to add, i think the wording can be improved, but because of your constant reverts, for now, i have accurately summarized (keeping the use of "korea" or "baekje" the same as the source) & linked to the sources for every sentence. Appleby 22:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

There is rhetoric in this article which is suggesting that Japanese people were incapable of having racist beliefs prior to Western contact and further suggesting that Japanese people had no agency in adhering to racist beliefs because they were supposedly "imported" by Westerners. The section titled "After Meiji Restoration" begins directly with the sentence "Scientific racism was a Western idea that was imported from the late nineteenth century onward." Note the purposeful use of the passive tense and the strategic placement of that sentence at the beginning of the section. In the section "Contemporary usage", there are two sentences which read "Japanese propaganda of racial purity returned to post-World War II Japan because of the support of the Allied forces. U.S. policy in Japan terminated the purge of high-ranking fascist war criminals and reinstalled the leaders who were responsible for the creation and manifestation of prewar race propaganda." This connection isn't established with sufficient evidence to justify the deeply-rooted racism that existed, and is being used to further promote the rhetorical strategy of portraying racism as a foreign concept that was forced upon innocent Japanese people, a claim for which there is no specific evidence stated in the article. 126.133.217.39 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Yamato people are an ethnic group, not a history

Yamato people is history. If you want to discuss history ( facts and figures). Yamato people or race consist Korean and Ainu blood mixing thats Yamato people. Before Koreans or Ainu arrival ( Yamato people) did not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonasia101 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Yamato people," or the Yamato minzoku (大和民族), is a name of the dominant ethnic group of Japan today (see ja:大和民族). It's not a name for some ancient people or for the people of the Yamato court (大和朝廷). It's a term coined in the late 19th century by modern Japanese anthologists. If you want to describe the ancient history of Japan, go to Kohun or Yamato period or some other appropriate articles instead. --220.214.94.30 11:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yamato is dominant group??? are you sure your all Yamato??? The origin of Japanese people: Genetic Evidence: DNA tests have confirmed the likelihood of this hypothesis. The Y-DNA ( Paternal line) of the modern Japanese is composed of 50 percent of haplogroup 0, of Korean-Sino origin. More specifically, subgroup 03 is of Chinese origin, while 02b is Korean. The rarer subgroup 01 and 02a are of southern chinese or southeast asian origin. DNA analysis of the Japanese people: Frequency in Japan: ( 03 Chinese origin: 21 percent, 02b Korean origin: 32 percent, 01 southern chinese origin: 1 percent, 02a southeast asian: 0.1 percent) so Yamato tribal origins are Korean origin 02b ( Korean origin DNA 32 percent of Japanese DNA). Don't give us Yamato theory bullshit alright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanDNA (talk • contribs) 07:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yamato people or Yamato nation?

Yamato people or Yamato nation??

Yamato people: Koreans and Ainu ( mixed) Yamato grammar: Korean language. Yamato 80 percent writing characters: Chinese. ( unlike Koreans Japanese depends on Chinese characters for daily life usage). Yamato historical birth: Korea and Kyushu/ Kansai plain. Yamato blood line: Koreans. For example, Emperor lineage comes from Korean Kingdom " Paekje/ Kudara in Japanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonasia101 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Anybody can help me about Japanese name for Yamato People 大和民族? I know 民族 in Chinese means nation, and Chinese scholars use this word for all ethnic minorities. But I'm not sure its Japanese meaning. Is it same with Chinese?--CenkX (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

DNA analysis of the Japanese people: Frequency in Japan: ( 03 chinese origin:21 percent, 01 south chinese origin: 1 percent, southeast asian: 0.1 percent, O2B Korean origin: 32 percent). Yamato origin is Korean origin 32 percent DNA 02b. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanDNA (talk • contribs) 07:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do the Yamato people get to be considered an ethnicity?

But not the French people? For some reason it's racist to even speak of a French ethnicity. 184.96.201.159 (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Who ever said French wasn't an ethnicity, and what does that have to with this page? If, you want complain about reverse racism or how everything is anti-white or whatever there already exists pages on wikipedia that would be better for that. Don't bring your agenda where it doesn't belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.104.4 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

BC or AD?

There should be clarification on whether the dates are in BC or AD. The Yamato started to kick out the Jomon in the 300s BC, and so when I'm seeing stuff about the Yomato Court in x century, I don't know whether it's from AD or BC. A casual reader who came upong this page would have no idea either in all likelyhood. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Tevet 5774 17:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ryukyuans Unrelated

The whole section lacks credible sources and needs to be redone. I specifically have a problem with the assertion that the Yamato and Ryukyuans being related is a discredited ideological claim. From a purely linguistic standpoint the Yamato and Ryukyuans share a linguistic heritage, meaning that they are indeed related groups. The debate is whether they are Yamato or not, not if the two groups are related. Canodae (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have reworded it a bit. It is now more neutral/correct.--AsadalEditor (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

14 Sources for the first sentence?

There seem to be a huge number of sources (14) given for the first sentence, "The Yamato people are an East Asian ethnic group and a nation which is indigenous to the Japanese archipelago." It could be worth trimming this down, as on WP:CITETRIM. I've noticed one pair of duplicates which I will address. Fiwec81618 (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Mention about Shinto in this page.

About here " The Yamato clan set up Japan's first and only dynasty. Despite the existence of many other folk practices in Japan, the Yamato clan leaders successfully elevated their own belief system that featured ancestor worship into a national religion known as Shinto."

The situation abd history of imperial shinto and Shinto itself is not like that illiberality. The Shinto is not limited in imperial shinto of yamato tribes.

For example even if imperial shinto was centerIng the culture of shinto, There is coexisted the Izumo shrine for izumo tribe, Azumi shrine for Azumi tribe, miwa shrine , kamosu shrine and so on for each of tribes and maintain each of  fork local traditions in each shrine.
Do not mention about shinto like that way. It is clearly disrespectful for the culture and history of shinto.  I sense some amount of anti japan intentions from this article. 126.233.131.209 (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Mention about shinto in this page 2

About here "The Yamato clan set up Japan's first and only dynasty. The clan became the ruling faction in the area, and incorporated native Japanese and Korean migrants.[2] The clan leaders also elevated their own belief system that featured ancestor worship into a national religion known as Shinto.[2]"

> incorporated native Japanese and Korean migrants.

Some of ancient migrants people was also Chinese such as Hata clan. But most of the clan is basically wa Japonic people or Peninsular Japonics even if he is not yamato, such as izumo, azumi, kumaso, hayato, hyuuga, mononobe , abe, and so on. Why Korean only have to be emphasized while most of the clan is just nothing but a Wa Japonic and Penisular Japonic.

Korean means Koreanic language speaking people but most of the traijin who brought Chinese culture to japan was kan jin (chinese in who were in Korean kingdom) and Peninsular Japonics in Beakje and gaya.
Also shinto is not only the ancestor worship but it is included various fork traditions of each of locals especially relate Hydroponic rice cultivation and worship for nature ,

Such as mountein ,sea and forest of kami. Also Sun warships and rituals related Hydroponic rice cultivation.

Do not write the article with your narrow imagines especially about Shinto. 
If you do not know well, just delete and do not mention it.

Also one point is imperial family was not practiced only shinto but they practiced buddisim togather too. So not fullly shinto = yamato imperial family actually. Reality is Not such simple as you think like the article you make here 126.254.164.96 (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Immigrants at kofun period is not only Korean but more Chinese kan jin

Most of immigrants at kofun era is Chinese not Korean.

""According to the 815 book, Shinsen Shōjiroku, 317 clans of 1,182 clans in the Kinai region of Honshū were considered to have foreign ancestry. 163 were from China, 104 from Baekje ("Paekche" in the older romanization), 41 from Goguryeo, 6 from Silla, and 3 from Gaya.[12] They may have immigrated to Japan between 356 and 645.""

It means most of clan in yamato era(kofun era) was mostly japanese themselfs and next more immigrants from china and lesser from Korean.

So articles must mentions immigrants from china if it mentions about Koreans.

Also , read this ""Juha Janhunen (2010) University Helsinki , suggested that Koreanic expanded from Silla, and replacing Japonic languages in the rest of the peninsula.[56] . "

Janhunen also suggests that early Baekje was still predominantly Japonic-speaking before they got replaced or assimilated into the new Korean society.[4]

So it means 6 clans from Silla in yamato era is surely related modern Korean language speaking people.

So influence from chinese(kan jin) on ancient kofun era of japan is much stronger than koreanic language speaking people (han jin).

Also read this as examples

　Whitman (2012), Cornell University ,suggests that the Yayoi are not closely related to the proto-Koreans but that they were present on the Korean peninsula during the Mumun pottery period. According to him, Japonic arrived in the Korean peninsula around 1500 BCE and was brought to the Japanese archipelago by the Yayoi at around 950 BCE. The language family associated with both Mumun and Yayoi culture is Japonic. Koreanic arrived later from Manchuria to the Korean peninsula 300 BCE"".

There were so many peninsula Japonics people in ancient Korea and they went to japan at kofun era.

Again 317 clans of 1,182 clans in the Kinai region of Honshū were considered to have foreign ancestry and from silla(modern Korean language speaking people)is only 6 clans. 133.106.73.173 (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

New data that may make big changes to the article

This has been published on the 17 April 2024 and changes somehow the view of genetic origin of Yamato people.

Concerning ancestral origins of the Japanese population, we recommend that our data should be interpreted in the context of existing models, including the widely accepted “dual structure” model and the recently proposed tripartite origins model.

In addition, it should be acknowledged that both dual structure and tripartite origins models represent simplifications, although the latter may offer several advantages (note S9).

Note S9: Perspective on "dual structure" and "tripartite origins" models

We would like to discuss differences and implications between the "dual structure" model and "tripartite origins" model, arguing that the latter might be a superior theoretical framework. First, although there is a consensus from both models that there had been multiple migration waves in Japan's prehistory, the "dual structure" model suggests/implies that the genetic differences in the Japanese population primarily stem from the extent of admixture between those continental people and Jomon. In comparison, the "tripartite origins" model emphasizes the significance of admixture between EA and NEA ancestry. Second, the term "Yayoi" in the "dual structure" model is ambiguous, as it can refer to heterogeneous groups of people. While defining Yayoi individuals as those with continental ancestry who migrated to Japan during the post-Jomon period may be historically or genetically valid, this definition lacks both specificity and resolution. Various waves of migration to Japan, from Yayoi period to post-Kofun era, could encompass individuals with EA, NEA, or a mixture of known or unknown continental ancestries. Although all these groups could technically be considered as having originated from Continental Asia, such a broad categorization fails to capture the nuanced differences among them. On the other hand, in the "tripartite origins" model, if we assume that the early-arriving people in Yayoi era and the later-arriving people in Kofun era may have different genetic or cultural/linguistic backgrounds—albeit the genetic differences may be challenging to distinguish due to the shallow divergence time between NEA and EA and scarcity of ancient genomes at the moment—this model may offer a better fit to the major cultural and societal shifts observed during the Yayoi and Kofun periods. Thirdly, the 'tripartite origins' offer a plausible explanation for the origin of the Japanese language by introducing NEA ancestry into the framework, as evidence suggests that the Proto-Japonic language can be traced back to Northeast Asian roots (42). While it should be acknowledged that both "dual structure" and "tripartite origins" models are themselves simplifications and that the actual population history might be more complex. Additionally, we suggest that future studies could investigate the potential link between Northeast Asia and the Izumo civilization. It has been shown that the phonology and tone system of dialect in present-day Northeast share similarities with those of Izumo, suggesting a potential migratory connection between the people of Northeast and Izumo (85). This potential link between Northeast/Emishi and Izumo is intriguing given the prominent position that the ancient Izumo occupies in Japanese prehistoric mythology and religion (113, 114).

--77.75.179.1 (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)