Talk:Mumun pottery period

[Untitled]

just wondering if the title is consistent with other wikipedia articles. which generally avoids capitalizing, except for the first word. but i see "Bronze Age" is capitalized. "Jomon" doesn't even have "pottery period" after it. i don't know enough pottery period names to check further. any thoughts? Appleby 01:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

title etc should follow wikipedia format

i agree that the title and other proper nouns should follow the format that you mention ^^. Mumun 16:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

further to my agreement with captialization, I changed nouns in the text but i could not find a way to adjust the title of this article. my excuse is that i'm relatively new -- but it is strange that i don't know how to change a title. any suggestions on how to do that? Mumun 16:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think it might be OK to have it as "Mumun Pottery Period," not that it matters much either way; the name of a historical period generally functions as a proper noun, more or less. Cf. Joseon Dynasty. -- Visviva 15:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

more pictures

Could we have some plans or reconstructions of typicall sites or buildings? Is there an idea to the origin of the various building designs? Do the megalithic structures follow a similar design typology to that of ancient Europe? --T.woelk 09:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As things stand, plans and reconstructions of Mumun architectural features can be found in some form at Igeum-dong and Prehistory of Korea. I haven't been able to get around to posting an non-copyrighted image of reconstructions yet, but the raised-floor buildings at Yoshinogari, even though they are not as ancient as Mumun examples, are somewhat similar. Detailed information on the typology of megalithic burials in Korea is placed at Megalithic tomb. Yes, some of the types of megaliths bear morphological similarities to Early Neolithic Euro-examples, especially the Northern or table-style that corresponds mostly to the Early Mumun and is found mostly in North Korea and Liaoning. -- Mumun 無文 14:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I really wonder wether some sort of advanced method to move large stones was handed from culture to culture during neolithic times.... Raised floor buildings? Both sites, Igeum-dong and Yoshinogari, describe the larger buildings to have raised floors. Would these be the oldest longhouses on stilts? Yet the longhouses at Daepyeong are described to be similar to those of the Iroquois with several hearths lined along the middle? Surely these could not have had raised floors. So there are several types of buildings: 1.Smaller pit houses with a central hearth. 2.Long houses with a row of central hearths (in pits?). 3.Small houses with raised floors (post holes spaced evenly). 4.Large houses (longhouses?) with raised floors (post holes placed close to each other along the outer contours). Ok lets speculate a little. The small pit houses were the earliest? As society evolved an extanded household maybe a family enlarged the design by lengthening the building whenever adding a hearth community. Raised floor buildings where invented when better carpentry skills evolved, maybe beginning with granaries or some sort of tower/shrine. Later larger a lot longer than wide buildings with raised floors where built. These had lots of post holes along the outer walls spaced rather close to each other. Except for the small pit houses none of the other constructions had posts in the inner space. The last sentence does rise some questions on the roof supporting designs. As it seems some of the architectural designs where exported to Japan. As you may have noticed my main interest came from the long house article that I have been working on for some time now. So did this house design maybe make it to Taiwan? The possible origin of the long houses known in the austronesian group? Do both maybe have an origin in some culture from mainland China? Is there maybe an analogy in the raised floor halls of the anglo saxon nobles the derived from simpler ground level buildings. Oh well enough speculating for today. --T.woelk 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I respond to your queries below:

• Archaeologists from Jeonbuk University in Korea excavated a megalithic cemetery several years back in the Upper Geum-gang River area and found long, deep, and well used tracks dug into adjacent land, leading away from the cemetery. They interpret these tracks as the surface used to drag capstones across the landscape.
• I am not sure if Igeum-dong (c. 700 - 550 B.C.) and Yoshinogari (from 500 - 400 B.C. to Middle Yayoi?) features would have been the oldest longhouses raised up on timbers. It seems to me that similar looking, but slightly smaller features were excavated at Sannai Maruyama in northern Honshu, Japan. Sannai Maruyama is a Jomon site. Should note that the raised floor buildings at Sannai Maruyama aren't really longhouses as such, but the long axis of the building is about 2 times longer or more than the length of the short axis. ...And don't forget the Early Neolithic in China...
• Lots of AMS radiocarbon dating shows that the longhouses at Daepyeong and other parts of Korea were around between 1100-850 B.C. (latter part of the Early Mumun). They are all pit-houses and so they have some morphological differences with Iroquoian and Huron longhouses. Some of the earlier Mumun longhouses have one or more hearths constructed on the surface of the pit-house floor using thin stone slabs. The later Mumun longhouses have hearths that are shallowly dug into the floor of the pit-house.
• Some floors of Mumun longhouses show evidence of fire-hardening, indicating that the dirt floors my have been prepared for use. In Japan, evidence shows that some Jomon pit-houses were covered with weaved mats. Specific areas of Mumun pit-houses may have been covered with wooden planks, etc. Excavations are sometimes done somewhat quickly in East Asia, and since excavators don't always seem to focus on recovering that kind of information, it is an open question.
• If one speaks generally about the Mumun, the roofed area of Early Mumun pit-houses is LARGE, as the article states. If one looks at the pit-houses of the previous era, the Jeulmun, the pit-houses of that time gradually became larger from the Middle to Late Jeulmun. On the other hand, the transition from the Early Mumun to the Middle Mumun is marked by the appearance of pit-houses that are small in roofed area.
• There are a number of competing theories about the origins of Yayoi in Japan. Several of the theories suggest that populations moved from the southeast Korean peninsula to Western Japan, bringing with them various technologies. It may be that Mumun people took the technology for building long raised floor building with them to Kyushu along with wet-rice farming etc.

I am not sure that we can pin down the ultimate origin of longhouses in Asia.

--Mumun 無文 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mumun pottery period. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927194611/http://review.aks.ac.kr/AttachedFiles/7-1-kim%20gyongtaek.pdf to http://review.aks.ac.kr/AttachedFiles/7-1-kim%20gyongtaek.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Late Mumun Period appears repetative

Unless others disagree, the late Mumun period section seems to be very repetitive in explaining both the concentration of settlements and the potential increase in conflicts. Recommend RightQuark (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Improved Inline Citation

There is a lack of inline citations in the "Chronology" section, and there are no Inline citations in the "Late Mumun" sub-section. This makes it difficult to properly determine what source each statement is supported by. CATCTATTACCAC (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This made it difficult for me to re-evaluate the phrase-

Why would such a formidable ring-ditch, so massive in size, have been necessary?

-to remove it's narrativized tone. CATCTATTACCAC (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)