5.5 Linguistic, Archaeological, Horticultural and Cultural Evidence
95
longer period than is allowed for solely by a second-wave colony in the Yayoi
period. It seems unlikely that establishing such a late colony would have allowed
time enough to account for the observed morphological and genetic similarities
between Indonesian and Japanese populations. This is especially so given that Spice
Island colonists in both late first-wave and second-wave periods would have represented such a tiny proportion of the existing southern Japanese population that they
joined that their genetic and morphological contribution to that population would
have been minimal. Indeed, one would expect their genes and morphological characteristics to have been mostly submerged or lost. That this is not the case, we
believe, is an argument for earlier contact.
It is interesting that the genetic evidence Kumar cites involves mitochondrial
DNA for this implies not merely trading contact with Japan but the establishment
of a colony or colonies allowing for significant interactions over time between
Indonesian female colonists and Japanese men. As we have noted, recurrent visits by male spice traders would have left no imprint on Japanese mitochondrial
lines. Kumar points to the existence in modern Japanese maternal lines of three
mitochondrial sites (243, 325 and 136) shared only by Japanese, Indonesians and
in one instance Koreans. Considering the morphological evidence, Kumar argues
that “Taken together, these morphological studies reveal significant support for the
idea of a southern and most likely Indonesian group among the Yayoi” (pp. 269–
270). Considering mitochondrial, dental, craniometric and cranioscopic evidence
together, she argues further
The material surveyed here provides enough indications from a number of different
areas to suggest that Turner’s “dual origin” hypothesis (“Sundadont” Joman population +
“Sinodont” Yayoi population) should be replaced by a “triple origin” hypothesis: that the
present day Japanese population is the result of a three-way mixture consisting of the Jomon
population plus two different groups of immigrants in the Yayoi period, one of which is of
Indonesian origin (p. 273).
While the morphological and genetic evidence Kumar cites convincingly links
Japanese and Indonesian populations, it may well indicate first-wave as well as
second-wave interactions between the two. Yet aside from the circumstantial dating
evidence inherent in an early settlement of Palau, the dating margins for a first-wave
Japanese colony remain elusive.
5.5 Linguistic, Archaeological, Horticultural
and Cultural Evidence
As well as drawing on morphological evidence, Kumar provides linguistic, cultural, archaeological and horticultural evidence to support her case for an Indonesian
colony in Japan in the Yayoi period.
A second paper, co-authored by Phil Rose [5], a forensic phonetician, able to use
sophisticated statistical techniques to match voice samples, adds linguistic evidence
to support Kumar’s hypothesis that Indonesians may have set up their own kingdom
95
longer period than is allowed for solely by a second-wave colony in the Yayoi
period. It seems unlikely that establishing such a late colony would have allowed
time enough to account for the observed morphological and genetic similarities
between Indonesian and Japanese populations. This is especially so given that Spice
Island colonists in both late first-wave and second-wave periods would have represented such a tiny proportion of the existing southern Japanese population that they
joined that their genetic and morphological contribution to that population would
have been minimal. Indeed, one would expect their genes and morphological characteristics to have been mostly submerged or lost. That this is not the case, we
believe, is an argument for earlier contact.
It is interesting that the genetic evidence Kumar cites involves mitochondrial
DNA for this implies not merely trading contact with Japan but the establishment
of a colony or colonies allowing for significant interactions over time between
Indonesian female colonists and Japanese men. As we have noted, recurrent visits by male spice traders would have left no imprint on Japanese mitochondrial
lines. Kumar points to the existence in modern Japanese maternal lines of three
mitochondrial sites (243, 325 and 136) shared only by Japanese, Indonesians and
in one instance Koreans. Considering the morphological evidence, Kumar argues
that “Taken together, these morphological studies reveal significant support for the
idea of a southern and most likely Indonesian group among the Yayoi” (pp. 269–
270). Considering mitochondrial, dental, craniometric and cranioscopic evidence
together, she argues further
The material surveyed here provides enough indications from a number of different
areas to suggest that Turner’s “dual origin” hypothesis (“Sundadont” Joman population +
“Sinodont” Yayoi population) should be replaced by a “triple origin” hypothesis: that the
present day Japanese population is the result of a three-way mixture consisting of the Jomon
population plus two different groups of immigrants in the Yayoi period, one of which is of
Indonesian origin (p. 273).
While the morphological and genetic evidence Kumar cites convincingly links
Japanese and Indonesian populations, it may well indicate first-wave as well as
second-wave interactions between the two. Yet aside from the circumstantial dating
evidence inherent in an early settlement of Palau, the dating margins for a first-wave
Japanese colony remain elusive.
5.5 Linguistic, Archaeological, Horticultural
and Cultural Evidence
As well as drawing on morphological evidence, Kumar provides linguistic, cultural, archaeological and horticultural evidence to support her case for an Indonesian
colony in Japan in the Yayoi period.
A second paper, co-authored by Phil Rose [5], a forensic phonetician, able to use
sophisticated statistical techniques to match voice samples, adds linguistic evidence
to support Kumar’s hypothesis that Indonesians may have set up their own kingdom