# Samurai--Were They of Ainu Extraction?



## arnisador (Nov 13, 2005)

Seen on E-Budo:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf065/sf065a01.htm



> [FONT=Arial,helvetica]Findings by American anthropologist C. Loring Brace, University of Michigan, will surely be controversial in race conscious Japan. The eye of the predicted storm will be the Ainu, a "racially different" group of some 18,000 people now living on the northern island of Hokkaido. Pure-blooded Ainu are easy to spot: they have lighter skin, more body hair, and higher-bridged noses than most Japanese. Most Japanese tend to look down on the Ainu.
> 
> [/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial,helvetica]Brace has studied the skeletons of about 1,100 Japanese, Ainu, and other Asian ethnic groups and has concluded that the revered samurai of Japan are actually descendants of the Ainu, *not* of the Yayoi from whom most modern Japanese are descended.
> [/FONT]



The Ainu had their own language which is not related to Japanese. Their origin remains something of a mystery.

A related link:
http://knifelogic.com/AJPA_78-1CLBrace_SM.pdf


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Nov 13, 2005)

the ainu were great warriors and considered to be some of the best archers in japan. but the fact remains, the samurai were a servile class of warriors to the japanese nobility that were completely expendable. it wasnt until they rose to power through militant force that they garnered any sort of reverance.
It's typical of the japanese to look down upon people that they feel are racially inferior.....look at okinawa.
I dont doubt that many of the ainu were brought into slavery and servitude of the nobility.......but after they rose to power, many people had their status elevated and removed.


----------



## Cyber Ninja (Nov 14, 2005)

Very interesting post Arnisador.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Nov 15, 2005)

indeed...very interesting and worthy of further reading.

Thanks, arni


----------



## jujutsu_indonesia (Nov 15, 2005)

Ahh.. that explains how they can respect a Korean like M. Oyama


----------



## SageGhost83 (Jun 2, 2007)

I remember hearing about this in Japanese History 400 class back in uni. The professor showed us lots of pics of Ainu soldiers and generals, they looked eerily similar to europeans. They had the mustaches, bigger body builds and all. It is very interesting indeed. I also read that the Ainu shared a common origin with the american indians. I forget the source...thinking...thinking...crap. You can yahoo it or google it and find the story. My professor also told us that the yayoi actually originated from a proto-korean stock in Pusan, and that the yamato uji was a korean clan that settled in ainu japan due to overpopulation. The big red dot in the japanese flag was a symbol depicting lord ameterasu, who is really the korean sun goddess of some sort. He would jokingly say that japanese are just koreans with a little bit of ainu in them. I don't know, I am not an expert on it. Just sharing what my Prof taught me in uni. History is quite interesting, indeed.


----------



## exile (Jun 3, 2007)

SageGhost83 said:


> I also read that the Ainu shared a common origin with the american indians. I forget the source...thinking...thinking...crap. You can yahoo it or google it and find the story.



I think your judgment here is pretty much on target, SG. What evidence was cited for the link? Given that there is no good evidence that `[A]merican [ I]ndians' _themselves_ share a common origin, it would be kind of difficult to make the still more outré case that the Ainu are related to all of 'em, eh? (We can leave Greenberg's supposed `Proto-Amerind' supposed grouping out of this; reputable historical linguists who actually _do_ linguistic reconstruction showed  long ago  that his `method of mass comparison' would identify virtually _any_ two lanuages chosen at random as genetically related). Ainu has suffered the same fate as Basque in Europe and other language isolates: there seems to be a compulsion to find other linguistic families to group them with, even if the evidence doesn't even support the ghost of a connection. Let's just say that any linkage of the Ainu to any other identified human population faces a burden of proof which no one has even _begun_ to meet.



SageGhost83 said:


> My professor also told us that the yayoi actually originated from a proto-korean stock in Pusan, and that the yamato uji was a korean clan that settled in ainu japan due to overpopulation. The big red dot in the japanese flag was a symbol depicting lord ameterasu, who is really the korean sun goddess of some sort. He would jokingly say that japanese are just koreans with a little bit of ainu in them. I don't know, I am not an expert on it. Just sharing what my Prof taught me in uni. History is quite interesting, indeed.



The picture you've painted here is a speculative fantasy unsupported by any kind of evidence, linguistic or physical. Japanese and Korean have yet to be shown to be genetically related by the acid test of historical linguistics: systematic reconstruction of proto-vocabulary using the standard comparative method, with detailed working-out of the sound changes that link descendent subgroupings to their common ancestors. The vast difference between their respective vocabularies, showing not a trace of lexical resemblance beyond the same kind of random resemblances one finds between English and Mandarin or Dutch and Swahili, decisively undercuts any hoped-for use of linguistic evidence to link the Korean and Japanese populations; and we are still very far from being able to identify genetic tags that would permit _any_ statements, one way or the other, about genetic relations amongst the Korean, Japanese and Ainu.

It's true that history is _extremely_ interesting. But speculation purporting to be history is actually rather tedious; it almost invariable winds up supporting someone or other's contemporary self-serving agenda, typically at someone else's expense. Folk beliefs and `oral history' so frequently turn out to be, in effect, charters for claim to (or denials of) some group/faction/sect's legitimacy that all they do, in the end, is provide grist for cynical reflections about how little people really care about the truth when their own advantage is involved. And we already _know_ that, right? 

What I find somewhat odd is the idea that a single genetic group in feudal and post-feudal Japan would be linked to a single occupational specialization along the lines you're asking about. That sort of things seems to've happened in India, where ethnicity and profession are tightly linked in the caste system; but mediæval Japanese was organized on rather different lines, as I understand it. It's true that certain families, and clan groupings of families, had different specializations in some cases, but my impression is that the lines separating samurai and non-samurai families was somewhat fluid early on. Many of the proto-samurai seem to have been displaced peasants who were skilled with a variety of weapons and worked as mercenaries, guards and `enforcers' for wealthy merchant clans. It's hard for me to see how this formation process could have wound up being as ethnically exclusive as the question&#8212;did _the_ samurai belong to _the_ Ainu population&#8212;seems to entail.


----------



## SageGhost83 (Jun 3, 2007)

Ah, here is the link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11543902&query_hl=3

I personally don't know where the ainu came from or who they could be related to. However, I think that this piece of evidence was very peculiar, and could be a possible smoking gun, so to speak.

As far as the yayoi/proto-korean link. Like I said, my prof did the research and arrived at this conclusion. Therefore, he felt it necessary to teach to his class during lecture. The guy has a PHD in Asian history and a PHD in Asian cultural studies. Technically he is a professional, and he knows his stuff. Maybe he found something that the rest of us haven't, or maybe he found something that a lot of people aren't comfortable with admitting. Kind of like how most japanese are not comfortable admitting that they have some ainu blood in them. I dunno. I am merely stating information that I have recieved from a reliable source within academia.


----------



## SageGhost83 (Jun 3, 2007)

I definitely see what you are saying, though. And I am pretty sure that you know your stuff, too. So if I am wrong, then I definitely and humbly stand corrected. I am still learning, so please forgive me if I come off as sounding like a total boob.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 3, 2007)

I'm currently up to my neck in a Gran Turismo endurance race that I can't leave yet (taking a break to give my knees a rest ) but this is a subject about which I 'know' a little bit aka read somone elses work .

Consider this a place-holder post and I'll be back later (possibly tomorrow as it's late already) but the teaser-trailer is that Japanese ethnicity is more controversial than is commonly supposed.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jun 3, 2007)

exile said:


> What I find somewhat odd is the idea that a single genetic group in feudal and post-feudal Japan would be linked to a single occupational specialization along the lines you're asking about.


 
Thats where I get lost here too. Is it possible that some Ainu became soldiers who eventually evolved into Samurai? I guess so. But were "Samurai Ainu"? No not all of them, thats obvious isnt it?


----------



## exile (Jun 3, 2007)

SageGhost83 said:


> I definitely see what you are saying, though. And I am pretty sure that you know your stuff, too. So if I am wrong, then I definitely and humbly stand corrected. I am still learning, so please forgive me if I come off as sounding like a total boob.



SG, there's nothing to forgive! There's an issue of fact here, and the facts are complex, and there's a lot of science and inference involved. Comparative linguistics isn't my chief specialization in linguistics; I'm a syntactician, but I did spend a lot of years in my early career doing research, including quite a lot of comparative linguistics, with aboriginal languages of North America. I'm approaching this question as an ordinary working skeptic, who's willing to be convinced by anyone who has the goods; but there are some major questions that I'll need a lot of convincing on, and the stuff  I was talking about are some of those questions. You don't sound like a total, or even a _partial_ boob... look, there's a lot more going on than we've yet discovered, so it would be foolish to be dogmatic. But there _are_ are couple of pretty problematic points involved, is all...



Sukerkin said:


> I'm currently up to my neck in a Gran Turismo endurance race that I can't leave yet (taking a break to give my knees a rest ) but this is a subject about which I 'know' a little bit aka read somone elses work .
> 
> Consider this a place-holder post and I'll be back later (possibly tomorrow as it's late already) but the teaser-trailer is that Japanese ethnicity is more controversial than is commonly supposed.



Yes, this is something I've heard also from my colleagues in the East Asian dept. here. I'm very much looking forward to hearing your take on the question.



Blotan Hunka said:


> Thats where I get lost here too. Is it possible that some Ainu became soldiers who eventually evolved into Samurai? I guess so. But were "Samurai Ainu"? No not all of them, thats obvious isnt it?



What you say here is exactly what I've been thinking about this.  Sure, maybe some of the samurai had Ainu ancestry... but not _all_ of them, surely! I have to say, I'm just baffled at the idea, I can't imagine how it could have worked out that way...


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jun 4, 2007)

This is interesting but a sample group of 1100 is not anywhere big enough to draw such sweeping conclusions.  The development of Japanese civilisation is very interesting, as it can be viewed as a microcosm of ethnic interaction.  

The oldest peoples of Japan are the Ainu who inhabited the islands with the great drift of people toward North America about 50-60 thousand years ago, or earlier, when the Bearing Strait was passable.  They are probably associated with the Jomon culture (10000-300 BC).

The second people were the creators of the Yayoi culture (300BC-AD250).  These people were most likely from China or Korea originally and their great centres were on Kyushu and in western Honshu.  They spread rapidly throughout Honshu, driving back the Ainu natives. These people are associated with the priestess-queen Himiko (or perhaps Pimiko).  

Incidently, the name Himiko, or perhaps Himemiko, is strongly related to sun worship (Himikio = Sun Priestess, Himemiko = Sun Child), and many believe that the queen of Yamataikoku may have been the origin of Amerterasu (probably combined with solar elements brought from Korea).

The third group, the Yamato (250-710), would very much appear to have come from Korea.  They settled in the western parts of Honshu and are very likely to have had a close relationship with the people of Kyushu.  By the end of the Yamato period they controlled half of Honshu and most of Kyushu, blending their Buddhist beliefs and culture with the beliefs and culture of the Yayoi.

It is interesting to note that they refer to the Ainu as "Emishi", earth or spider people.  there was clearly a desire to portray the Ainu as less than completely human, not an uncommon tactic during warfare.  The Kanto was also referred to as the frontier, and someone who messed up would be sent to the frontier to fight the Emishi.

Given the fierce reputation the Ainu appear to have had it is not surprising to see later samurai wearing masks with big fierce mustaches and masses of hair.  It is very likely a throw back to the Yamato and Heian periods' conflict with the Ainu.

The liklihood of Ainu forming the 'samurai' caste of the Yayoi and Yamato cultures is slim.  The evidence that Doctor Brace has found suggests that Ainu may have served among the samurai, but I do not think that they constituted the entirety or even the majority.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 4, 2007)

Ah, you see, that's what delaying does for you  .

*ST* has laid out what it was that I had read :tup:.

The most 'shocking' part of this that has come to light is that the Japanese imperial house had a Korean bloodline - this might not be such a 'big deal' to we gaijin but it is held to be so deeply shameful in Japan that research and mention of it is heavily frowned upon.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jun 4, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> Ah, you see, that's what delaying does for you  .
> 
> *ST* has laid out what it was that I had read :tup:.
> 
> The most 'shocking' part of this that has come to light is that the Japanese imperial house had a Korean bloodline - this might not be such a 'big deal' to we gaijin but it is held to be so deeply shameful in Japan that research and mention of it is heavily frowned upon.


 
Might explain why the Japanese have so desperately tried to conquer Korea on many occasions.


----------



## exile (Jun 4, 2007)

Brace's work rests almost entirely on assumptions about the robustness of deductions that can be made on the basis of craniometric data, assumptions which have yet to meet enough independent tests that we can confidently take such data as a reliable parameter for historical descent with respect to a common ancestry. That little fact makes almost everything Brace has been going on about for the past couple of decades just the teeniest bit suspect. If only it were that simple...


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jun 4, 2007)

exile said:


> Brace's work rests almost entirely on assumptions about the robustness of deductions that can be made on the basis of craniometric data, assumptions which have yet to meet enough independent tests that we can confidently take such data as a reliable parameter for historical descent with respect to a common ancestry. That little fact makes almost everything Brace has been going on about for the past couple of decades just the teeniest bit suspect. If only it were that simple...


 
Craniometric analysis of modern human groups was long ago shoved to the back of the toolshed by archaeologists and anthropologists.  It still has some use for analysing differences between hominids but only in the most broad sense.  In truth it was a technique developed to show that Europeans were more advanced than other "races" (I don't like that word).

I would much rather see a genetic analysis of the material.  But, even with such an analysis, the sample is simply too small to draw the conclusions that Brace has.  If we knew that there had only been 3000 'samurai' during the Yayoi period, then 1100 (not all of which are Ainu either) would be a significant sample with which to draw such conclusions.


----------



## exile (Jun 4, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> Craniometric analysis of modern human groups was long ago shoved to the back of the toolshed by archaeologists and anthropologists.  It still has some use for analysing differences between hominids but only in the most broad sense.  In truth it was a technique developed to show that Europeans were more advanced than other "races" (I don't like that word).



Exactly. The horrifying shadow of Cyril Burt falls across this material of Brace'sa terrible irony, of course, because Brace is a vocal and vehement critic of race as a concept supposedly founded in biology. 



Steel Tiger said:


> I would much rather see a genetic analysis of the material.  But, even with such an analysis, the sample is simply too small to draw the conclusions that Brace has.



Ditto, although the problem is that of obtaining robust genetic tags. Given that roughly 99% of genetic material is shared between _homo sapiens_ and chimpanzees (and bonobos are still more closely related to the hominid evolutionary lineage), it is going to be like looking for a single needle in a needle factory to identify a secure marker to distinguish paleo-Asian populations of modern human beings!



Steel Tiger said:


> If we knew that there had only been 3000 'samurai' during the Yayoi period, then 1100 (not all of which are Ainu either) would be a significant sample with which to draw such conclusions.



Right. And your use of scare quotes is right on the money; we don't exactly know just who was and was not a samurai over the past several hundred years. The concept `samurai' is just a tad, um, _fluid_ to be making claims of the strength that Brace seems to be doing....


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jun 4, 2007)

exile said:


> Exactly. The horrifying shadow of Cyril Burt falls across this material of Brace'sa terrible irony, of course, because Brace is a vocal and vehement critic of race as a concept supposedly founded in biology.


 
I didn't know that Brace was a critic of the race concept.

And we all know that race is nothing more than a socio-economic concept.




exile said:


> Ditto, although the problem is that of obtaining robust genetic tags. Given that roughly 99% of genetic material is shared between _homo sapiens_ and chimpanzees (and bonobos are still more closely related to the hominid evolutionary lineage), it is going to be like looking for a single needle in a needle factory to identify a secure marker to distinguish paleo-Asian populations of modern human beings!


 
Work like this could be very interesting.  It may go in very different directions from those that might be expected.  For example, when genetic investigation were done of the Maori population in New Zealand, they found a surprisingly strong connection to China.  Any such work in Japan might turn up three major contributing groups - Chinese, Korean, and some, much older, paleo-Asian group.




exile said:


> Right. And your use of scare quotes is right on the money; we don't exactly know just who was and was not a samurai over the past several hundred years. The concept `samurai' is just a tad, um, _fluid_ to be making claims of the strength that Brace seems to be doing....


 
Brace seemed to be suggesting that the samurai were some sort of servile caste within Japanese society.  Very Strange.  But then trying to project the concept of a samurai back beyond the Yamato period is a bit strange to me.  I believe the samurai were a creation of the Yamato period.  They are a result of a dramatic change in Japanese society with the introduction of another migrating group.  It might be worth while looking for samurai origins in the ancient kingdom of Silla.  There are lots of other similarities.


----------



## exile (Jun 5, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> I didn't know that Brace was a critic of the race concept.



Yes, quite vehemently (according to some other stuff of his that I've read) in fact. So it's weird that he's using these craniometric parameters to make deductions about ethnicity....



Steel Tiger said:


> IAnd we all know that race is nothing more than a socio-economic concept.



Yup. I read stuff of Dobzhansky's that was arguing eloquently that `race' as a concept had no biological status that he wrote in the late 1950s... there was a great phrase he used: `nothing more than a cross section of arbitrarily chosen gene frequencies'. I still remember that from my undergraduate physical anthro courses, forty-five years ago... that long ago? _Please,_ not that long ago!... sigh... that long ago, eh?






Steel Tiger said:


> IWork like this could be very interesting.  It may go in very different directions from those that might be expected.  For example, when genetic investigation were done of the Maori population in New Zealand, they found a surprisingly strong connection to China.  Any such work in Japan might turn up three major contributing groups - Chinese, Korean, and some, much older, paleo-Asian group.


 
The stuff going on with ethnic `mixing' and exchange of genes in subarctic Asia isif the truth were knownsufficiently complex and heterogeneous to pose a gigantic threat to that Japanese conviction of racial superiority which has been such a prominent part of Japanese cultureand which has earned them the limitless hostility of Chinese, Japanese and other Asian peoples....




Steel Tiger said:


> IBrace seemed to be suggesting that the samurai were some sort of servile caste within Japanese society.  Very Strange.  But then trying to project the concept of a samurai back beyond the Yamato period is a bit strange to me.  I believe the samurai were a creation of the Yamato period.  They are a result of a dramatic change in Japanese society with the introduction of another migrating group.  It might be worth while looking for samurai origins in the ancient kingdom of Silla.  There are lots of other similarities.



I've wondered about that sort of thing. Too bad reliable information is so hard to come by at those time depths...


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jun 5, 2007)

exile said:


> Yup. I read stuff of Dobzhansky's that was arguing eloquently that `race' as a concept had no biological status that he wrote in the late 1950s... there was a great phrase he used: `nothing more than a cross section of arbitrarily chosen gene frequencies'. I still remember that from my undergraduate physical anthro courses, forty-five years ago... that long ago? _Please,_ not that long ago!... sigh... that long ago, eh?


 
Now that is interesting.  To think that the concept of race was being challenged at the same time as things like apartheid were being conceived and implemented.  Perhaps there is hope for us yet.




exile said:


> The stuff going on with ethnic `mixing' and exchange of genes in subarctic Asia isif the truth were knownsufficiently complex and heterogeneous to pose a gigantic threat to that Japanese conviction of racial superiority which has been such a prominent part of Japanese cultureand which has earned them the limitless hostility of Chinese, Japanese and other Asian peoples....


 
Well anything that can get rid of thoughts of racial superiority is a good thing.  Most cultures have plenty to offer without such things.  Japanese culture is definitely one of them.




exile said:


> I've wondered about that sort of thing. Too bad reliable information is so hard to come by at those time depths...


 
The best we can come by are various annals from China, Japan ,and Korea.  Unfortunately, they are anthologies and have many controdictions in them.  The Chinese works of the time seem more reliable, but do not discuss Japan very much beyond recognition of the existence of states and some trade relations.


----------

