Diagrams: Two perspectives on the Emishi
Before
100AD AD 400 to
850
AD 1000 to
1500
AD
1500 to present
|
Jomon Emishi
Ezo
Ainu
Pre-history
proto-historic
Tohoku
post Heian Aomori and
Jomon
culture Epi-Jomon
culture Satsumon culture in Hokkaido
Ainu
culture
Kamegaoka culture Tohoku Yayoi
culture
Hiraizumi culture in Tohoku (post conquest culture)
|
This diagram represents a summary view of the website, and shows a straight line from the Jomon people of pre-history to the Emishi, and from the Emishi to the Ezo (and Ainu), though the two were distinctly different culturally due to historical circumstances and changing cultural influences. They were not exclusively made up of those with Jomon ancestry, as those in the Tohoku gradually mixed with frontier Japanese during and after the conquest as they were integrated into the ritsuryo government hierarchy, and those in Hokkaido mixed to some extent with the former Okhosk peoples when Hokkaido was settled and came under Ezo control. So that as centuries went by the separation between the Emishi who came under Japanese rule and those who settled in Hokkaido diverged, both in terms of cultural influence and even ethnically.

This view is
shared by the earliest scholars working in the fields of history and archeology
as well as some of the latest in
More
recently, Takahashi Takashi in Emishi, 1986,
was of the view that conservatively the Emishi were
an Ainoid people who spoke an Ainoid
language in areas of the Tohoku in what is today Iwate and

The larger circle
represents the Emishi, primarily Tohoku natives who
have not submitted to the Yamato state, but are not too different ethnically
from contemporary Japanese. Within their ranks are Ainoid
people who are part of the larger group Emishi, but
are not central to that group. They are located further north in northern
Tohoku and
This
viewpoint emerged after the war, and has become the dogma of a sizable number
of archeologists who have influenced historians in both
Despite this
effect, the view that the Jomon/Ainu were just one
component of the Emishi group as a whole does have
merit. Simply, the issue comes down to numbers for either argument
diagramed: were the majority of the Emishi made up of Jomon ancestors? Depending on how this is answered
scholars find themselves on one side or the other.
Kenjiro 2007.2.9 (Revision 2011.9.6)