Ainu - Jomon relationship prooves by Neil Gordon Munro

Neil Gordon Munro Prehistoric Japan 1911:

p.: 665

The main points advanced against the Ainu origin of the primitive sites were that they did not make pottery, nor use stone implements and pit dwellings; the patterns on their wooden implements were supposed to exhibit little or no resemblance to those of neolithic pottery. Later research, however, has proved that pit dwellings have been used by the Ainu of Saghalin and the Kuriles, that they have

p. 666

used pottery and stone implements and that difference between the patterns of the Ainu and of the stone phase is less than has been stated, and can be readily accounted for.


p. 668
The failure of philology to establish an Aryan race warns us that language shares with the gross vestiges

p. 669
of culture the stigma of unrealiability. When, therefore, we find many localities where shellheaps exist bearing names traceable to Ainu roots, we can only assume that persons using the same language as the Ainu were formerly established in such places.


Ōmori, for instance, is generally supposed to be of Japanese origin, and to refer to a large wood or forest. But in suggesting that the name of this locality (which derives special interest from having been the firts shellmound in Japan to yield up its treasures to scientific reserach) comes from two Ainu words '[i]O[/i]' "projecting" and [i]Mori[/i] a "little hill", I am stating a topographical fact of much interest to a primitive people. A rising ground in the neighbourhood of the sea was of prime importance to the shell-mound builders. Here the village was safe from tidal waves and enjoyed a better strategical position than if built on the lower levels.

p. 672
... by the comparison of individual

p. 673
features that i established the identity of Japanese shellmound and Ainu crania and was led to the conclusion that they are of the same stock.

Prof. Koganei, who is at present carrying out an investigation of my specimens, has kindly drawn for me diagraphic outlines of No. 2 and an Ainu skull, which I have superimposed, Fig. 420

 (Prehistoric Japan p. 669)


The comparison of two isolated crania, it will be understood, is only made by way of illustration. The same degree of correspondence is not found in all the specimens any more than among the Ainu crania.

日本語の版は　http://tresi-nonno.blogspot.com/2012/06/blog-post_15.html