O terminu ‘Jōmon’ in prispevku ruskih znanstvenikov k študijam kulture Jōmon

The article is devoted to the introduction of the term ‘Jōmon’ into Russian archaeological literature, its understanding, and the contribution of Russian scholars to Jōmon studies starting from the late 20th century. The recognition of the term and its use had some peculiarities which were caused not only by the language barrier and political events in the far eastern region, but mostly by the specifics of the archaeological investigations in the Russian Far East and the priority of research focused first on the Ainu origin, and then on the Palaeolithic rather on the nature of the Neolithic. The rise of the interest in Jōmon grew in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the discoveries of initial pottery with Final Pleistocene dates in Japan and Russia (Lower and Middle Amur Region). During the 1980s and 1990s this trend was realized in a series of publications, international conferences, and the first joint Russian-Japanese archaeological projects. The current stage is illustrated by the institualization of several research centres of Jōmon studies in Russia (Novosibirsk, Vladivostok), by a high level of international cooperation, and by a wide range of research topics, including chronological, technological, ritual and other aspects of the Jōmon period.Članek je posvečen vpeljavi in razumevanju termina ‘Jōmon’ v ruski arheološki literaturi ter prispevku ruskih znanstvenikov k študijam te kulture od konca 20. stoletja. Prepoznavanje tega strokovnega izraza in njegove uporabe je imelo nekaj posebnosti, ki so jih povzročile tako jezikovne pregrade kot politični dogodki na območju Daljnega vzhoda, predvsem pa posebnosti arheoloških raziskav na ruskem Daljnem vzhodu in prioritete raziskav, ki so se usmerile predvsem v izvor ljudstva Ainu ter v paleolitske študije in manj v naravo neolitika. Interes za Jōmon se je povečal šele ob koncu 60. in v zgodnjih 70. letih prejšnjega stoletja z odkritjem najstarejše lončenine iz obdobja finalnega pleistocena na Japonskem in v Rusiji (spodnja in srednja regija Amur). V 80. in 90. letih prejšnjega stoletja se je ta interes pokazal v seriji publikacij, mednarodnih srečanj in v prvih združenih rusko-japonskih arheoloških projektih. Sedanjo stopnjo razvoja pa ponazarja ve≠ raziskovalnih središč posvečenih študijam kulture Jōmon v Rusiji (Novosibirsk, Vladivostok), pa tudi višji nivo mednarodnih sodelovanj in širši razpon raziskovalnih tem, ki vključujejo kronologijo, tehnologijo, rituale in druge vidike obdobja kulture Jōmon

Knap & Keep

The tradition of lithic caches illustrates a special strategy of storing lithics which were extracted from chaîne opératoire for some time to be kept/hidden in a special place with/without subsequent return and use. For the Palaeolithic – Neolithic/Jōmon of the Far East (Russian part and the Japanese Archipelago) within the frame of 35 000–2400 cal BP, this tradition demonstrates an impressive multiplicity (more than 400 cases), high diversity, duration, dynamics, and local variability. Such an abundant source of data opens rich perspectives for detailed technological analysis, functional interpretations, and interregional correlations, with analogies in the Stone Age cultures of the Near East, Europe, and North America

The open-air site of Tolbor 16 (Northern Mongolia): Preliminary results and perspectives.

Numerous questions remain regarding the timing and the context of Upper Paleolithic emergence in Northeast Asia. Available data allow the recognition of a form of Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) documented in the Altai circa 45e40 ka 14C BP, and in the Cis- and Transbaikal around �37 ka 14C BP. In Northern Mongolia, a series of assemblages show intriguing similarities with IUP laminar assemblages from South Siberia and suggest long distance contact/movements of population during the first half of MIS3. These contacts are potentially enabled by the main river that drains into Lake Baikal, the Selenga. By cutting through the Sayan and the Yablonovy mountain ranges, the Selenga drainage system provides a potential corridor connecting South Siberia with the plains of Mongolia. The Tolbor 16 site (Ikh Tulberiin Gol, Northern Mongolia) is located circa 13 km from the confluence with the Selenga. The first results presented here suggest that the lithic assemblage and the ornaments discovered at Tolbor 16 document the early appearance of Upper Paleolithic in the region. This newly discovered site offers the possibility to generate high-resolution contextual data on the first appearance of the blade assemblages in Mongolia and to test the ‘Selenga corridor hypothesis’

Genomic Insights into the Formation of Human Populations in East Asia

厦门大学人类学研究所、厦门大学生命科学学院细胞应激生物学国家重点实验室王传超教授课题组与哈佛医学院David Reich教授团队合作，联合全球43个单位的85位共同作者组成的国际合作团队通过古DNA精细解析东亚人群形成历史。研究人员利用古DNA数据检验了东亚地区农业和语言共扩散理论，综合考古学、语言学等证据，该研究系统性地重构了东亚人群的形成、迁徙和混合历史。这是目前国内开展的东亚地区最大规模的考古基因组学研究，此次所报道的东亚地区古人基因组样本量是以往国内研究机构所发表的样本量总和的两倍，改变了东亚地区尤其是中国境内考古基因组学研究长期滞后的局面。 该研究是由王传超教授团队与哈佛医学院（David Reich教授）、德国马普人类历史科学研究所（Johannes Krause教授）、复旦大学现代人类学教育部重点实验室（李辉教授和金力院士）、维也纳大学进化人类学系（Ron Pinhasi副教授）、南洋理工大学人文学院（Hui-Yuan Yeh助理教授）、俄罗斯远东联邦大学科学博物馆（Alexander N Popov研究员）、西安交通大学（张虎勤教授）、蒙古国国家博物馆研究中心、乌兰巴托国立大学考古系、华盛顿大学人类学系、台湾成功大学考古所、加州大学人类学系等全球43个单位的85位共同作者组成的国际合作团队联合完成的。厦门大学人类学研究所、厦门大学生命科学学院细胞应激生物学国家重点实验室为论文第一完成单位。厦门大学人类学研究所韦兰海副教授、胡荣助理教授、郭健新博士后、何光林博士后和杨晓敏硕士参与了研究工作。The deep population history of East Asia remains poorly understood due to a lack of ancient DNA data and sparse sampling of present-day people1,2. We report genome-wide data from 166 East Asians dating to 6000 BCE-1000 CE and 46 present-day groups. Hunter-gatherers from Japan, the Amur River Basin, and people of Neolithic and Iron Age Taiwan and the Tibetan plateau are linked by a deeply-splitting lineage likely reflecting a Late Pleistocene coastal migration. We follow Holocene expansions from four regions. First, hunter-gatherers of Mongolia and the Amur River Basin have ancestry shared by Mongolic and Tungusic language speakers but do not carry West Liao River farmer ancestry contradicting theories that their expansion spread these proto-languages. Second, Yellow River Basin farmers at ～3000 BCE likely spread Sino-Tibetan languages as their ancestry dispersed both to Tibet where it forms up ～84% to some groups and to the Central Plain where it contributed ～59-84% to Han Chinese. Third, people from Taiwan ～1300 BCE to 800 CE derived ～75% ancestry from a lineage also common in modern Austronesian, Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatic speakers likely deriving from Yangtze River Valley farmers; ancient Taiwan people also derived ～25% ancestry from a northern lineage related to but different from Yellow River farmers implying an additional north-to-south expansion. Fourth, Yamnaya Steppe pastoralist ancestry arrived in western Mongolia after ～3000 BCE but was displaced by previously established lineages even while it persisted in western China as expected if it spread the ancestor of Tocharian Indo-European languages. Two later gene flows affected western Mongolia: after ～2000 BCE migrants with Yamnaya and European farmer ancestry, and episodic impacts of later groups with ancestry from Turan.We thank David Anthony, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Katherine Brunson, Rowan Flad, Pavel Flegontov,Qiaomei Fu, Wolfgang Haak, Iosif Lazaridis, Mark Lipson, Iain Mathieson, Richard Meadow,Inigo Olalde, Nick Patterson, Pontus Skoglund, Dan Xu, and the four reviewers for valuable comments. We thank Naruya Saitou and the Asian DNA Repository Consortium for sharing genotype data from present-day Japanese groups. We thank Toyohiro Nishimoto and Takashi Fujisawa from the Rebun Town Board of Education for sharing the Funadomari Jomon samples, and Hideyo Tanaka and Watru Nagahara from the Archeological Center of Chiba City who are excavators of the Rokutsu Jomon site. The excavations at Boisman-2 site (Boisman culture), the Pospelovo-1 site (Yankovsky culture), and the Roshino-4 site (Heishui Mohe culture) were funded by the Far Eastern Federal University and the Institute of History,Archaeology and Ethnology Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; research on Pospelovo-1 is funded by RFBR project number 18-09-40101. C.C.W was funded by the Max Planck Society, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 31801040), the Nanqiang Outstanding Young Talents Program of Xiamen University (X2123302), the Major project of National Social Science Foundation of China (20&ZD248), a European Research Council (ERC) grant to Dan Xu (ERC-2019-ADG-883700-TRAM) and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (ZK1144). O.B. and Y.B. were funded by Russian Scientific Foundation grant 17-14-01345. H.M. was supported by the grant JSPS 16H02527. M.R. and C.C.W received funding from the ERC under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant No 646612) to M.R. The research of C.S. is supported 30 by the Calleva Foundation and the Human Origins Research Fund. H.L was funded NSFC (91731303, 31671297), B&R International Joint Laboratory of Eurasian Anthropology (18490750300). J.K. was funded by DFG grant KR 4015/1-1, the Baden Württemberg Foundation, and the Max Planck Institute. Accelerator Mass Spectrometry radiocarbon dating work was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) (BCS-1460369) to D.J.K. and B.J.C. D.R. was funded by NSF grant BCS-1032255, NIH (NIGMS) grant GM100233, the Paul M. Allen Frontiers Group, John Templeton Foundation grant 61220, a gift from Jean-Francois Clin, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. 该研究得到了国家自然科学基金“中国东南各族群的遗传混合”、国家社科基金重大项目“多学科视角下的南岛语族的起源和形成研究”、厦门大学南强青年拔尖人才支持计划A类、中央高校基本科研业务费等资助