I am back after a long hiatus. To celebrate this joyous occasion, here’s a depressing article on the mistreatment of a Japanese historical site!

奈良の国史跡・桜井茶臼山古墳、石室内に落書き

 

桜井茶臼山古墳の石室天井に書かれていた落書き

奈良県桜井市の国史跡・桜井茶臼山古墳（３世紀末～４世紀初め）を発掘調査中の県立橿原考古学研究所は、鮮やかな水銀朱で彩られた石室内の天井に、アルファベットや漢字の落書きがあるのを確認した。

同研究所によると、落書きは「Ｓ」の文字が二つと、「福田」と読める漢字があり、蛍光エックス線分析で、成分は炭素とわかった。同古墳では １９４９年１０月と５０年８月に調査が行われ、その間、石室が開いていた時期があったといい、何者かが石室内に侵入し、ロウソクのすすなどで、落書きをしたとみられる。

同研究所は文化庁と対応を協議しているが、「文字を消すと水銀朱も消える可能性がある。石室に悪影響を与えているわけではないので、調査終了後、そのまま埋め戻す選択肢もある」としている。

（2009年10月24日14時08分 読売新聞）

As has been discussed over and over again, by the Late Yayoi, local powers were spread across the archipelago. We can look at archaeological sites to see the remains of these political units. Two History Review posts ago, I discussed Yoshinogari — one of such major, early powers. As Japan passed from BC to AD, more and more of these chiefdoms arose in northern Kyushu, the Japan Sea-side of Western Honshu, the Inland Sea-side of Honshu, in the Kinai, and in Chubu. If you look at a map with these place names on it, you can see that western Japan was very much explored territory. Eastern Japan, on the other hand, would remained a distant wilderness for the Yayoi immigrants for many centuries to come. Yes, there were chiefdoms over there, but they belonged to the Emishi and other groups. Because roughly the equivalent of the modern Japanese (a mixture of the Jomon natives and the Yayoi immigrants) wrote the 8th century histories, the far eastern chiefdoms are rarely mentioned and never in any detail.

We can look again at the Gishi Wajinden for information on the early chiefdoms. It is recorded that Japan was embroiled in warfare until the infamous Himiko was elected as leader. The extant and nature of Himiko’s rule is an intimidating debate that will no doubt never be agreed upon. She ruled the chiefdom of Yamatai 邪馬台国 that was either located in Kyushu or in the Kinai. There are several good books discussing the location of Himiko’s chiefdom. If you are interested in reading about the subject, I recommend checking out the following:

1. State Formation in Japan: Emergence of a 4th-century Ruling Elite

2. Himiko and Japan’s Elusive Chiefdom of Yamatai: Archaeology, History, and Mythology

3. Sacred Texts and Buried Treasures: Issues on the Historical Archaeology of Ancient Japan

There are several other good books, but I would read these first. The first book on the list (the one by Barnes) would need a good grounding in ancient Japanese history to understand, though, so I would read that one last).

Himiko ruled Yamatai until her death in the middle of the 3th century. During her rule, she established relations with Wei China, and gifts were sent from both parties. The ambassadors from Yamatai brought with them slaves and cloth, and Himiko received bronze mirrors, cloth, and other tribute items from Wei China in return. An excellent book that discusses this tribute relation between the two groups is:

Wang Zhenpin’s Ambassadors from the Island of Immortals: China-Japan Relations In The Han-Tang Period

To connect the earlier comment about the many various late Yayoi chiefdoms with the current topic of Himiko, let’s look to her domestic (rather than international) relations: “‘…[B]y the year 247, Himiko’s government was at odds with the “king” of the “country of Kunu,” which reportedly lay to the south of Wa, and Himiko solicited imperial support for her cause’” (48). The “imperial support” mentioned refers to help requested from Wei China. However, Himiko died in the midst of this altercation and a king took the reigns of leadership after her death. “‘Assassination and murder followed; more than one thousand were thus slain’” (48).

It was not until a “female relative” of Himiko took the throne did Japan quiet down again. We get the picture of a politically unstable Japan by reading the Chinese records. As Japan entered the Christian era, chiefdoms spread across Japan vied for power until the 4th and 5th centuries when it became clear that the Yamato polity would become dominant. However, signs of powerful expansion and increased control over the country does not mean that other chiefdoms did not hold local power nor try to take the power away from the growing Yamato polity. We will look at that in the next section (the Kofun Period).

The Yayoi Period ended in 250 AD. This dating schema is decided by the emergence of extremely large burial mounds (古墳, specifically Zenpoukouenfun 前方後円墳) which represent a greater level of political consolidation and expansion in local chieftains’ quest for power.

We can either look at Himiko as a major political figure or as one of many, many local chieftains that just got good publicity. Remember that she requested Wei Chinese help in her battle against the southern king of Kunu — she did not control all of Japan nor was she powerful enough to easily crush all of her adversaries. Because Himiko lived during a time when the only written evidence regarding Japan came from China, it is not surprising that we cannot read about the numerous other chieftains like Himiko who were spread across Japan.

Totman brings to our attention a very interesting possibility for the rise in Late Yayoi warfare:

“The late Yayoi warfare that spurred creation of fortified bastions and local polities occurred all across the country, and some archaeological evidence suggests that it was fostered or intensified by renewed climatic warming, which raised sea level enough to flood coastal paddy fields and settlements. That trend, it is argued, forced cultivators to open more upland, and it pitted magnates against one another as they struggled to seize territories for development or to control new areas of production” (48-49).

As has already been mentioned, the introduction of rice and metals to assist in the rice harvest led to population increase and social stratification. A system of have and have nots can be seen in the stratified system that then emerged, with chieftains at the top and farmers at the bottom.

Through expansion and warfare, villagers combined to create small regional groups. These groups expanded to form regional chiefdoms that were militarily, economically, and politically capable. Eventually, they grew into the famous chiefdoms of Izumo, Kibi, Yamato, Yamatai, Yoshinogari, etc…

These chiefdoms had capitals or central, important cities that were well-protected from military intrusion by moats and walls and watchtowers. Military technology evolved and many skeletons show signs of brutal warfare in the quest for power and for rice during times of famine. Himiko’s Yamatai is included in the list with Izumo, and Kibi, and Yamato because I want to challenge people to look at Yamatai in a different light.

We have reached the end of the Yayoi Period at 250 AD. As we leave Yayoi Japan, we see a highly fragmented country that is in no way unified. It is better to look at contemporary Japan as an archipelago filled with many, many countries at war. In a way, it is similar to the later Sengoku Period or the Chinese Warring States Period.

The leaders of each chiefdom or polity began to build for themselves massive graves. Instead of leaving their more glorified graves among the common cemeteries (集団墓地) with their people, they began at this time to segregate their tombs and place them on areas of higher elevation. The tombs of the Late Yayoi also increased in size and in quantity and wealth of buried grave goods. The Late Yayoi elite were buried in the characteristic Keyhole Tombs. These keyhole-shaped tombs are called Zenpoukouenfun 前方後円墳.

This is the kofun belonging to Emperor Nintoku:

I just got Habein’s “History of the Japanese Written Language” from my university library today.

There is reference on page 7 to “a Korean scholar named Wani” bringing “The Analects of Confucius” (“Rongo”) and “The Thousand-character Classic” (“senjimon”) to Japan “in the sixteenth year of Emperor Ojin’s reign”. Interested, I checked the online Sacred Texts version of the Kojiki because my books are several thousand miles away and the library is another long walk:

Again King Shō-ko, the Chieftain of the land of Kudara, sent as tribute by Achi-kishi one stallion and one mare. (This Achi-kishi was the ancestor of the Achiki Scribes. ) Again he sent as tribute a cross-sword, and likewise a large mirror. Again he was graciously bidden to send as tribute a wise man, if there were any such in the land of Kudara. Therefore receiving the [Imperial] commands, he sent as tribute a man named Wani-kishi, and likewise by this man he sent as tribute the Confucian Analects in ten volumes and the Thousand Character Essay in one volume,–altogether eleven volumes.

Kudara 百済 refers to the Japan-friendly Korean kingdom of Paekche. On the same page, Habein notes that the Nihon Shoki references Wani as well.

Habein expresses skepticism over the authenticity of these two chronicles’ accounts of Wani – both of the figure of Wani and the range of possible dates. Therefore, it is proposed that imported goods bore the first kanji 漢字 – the examples given in the book are mirrors and swords, gifts that were very common from both Korea and China to the Japanese court (7-8).

Even mirrors given to chieftains like Himiko in the 3rd century had Chinese characters inscribed on them and the Yayoi Japanese certainly weren’t blind. Even if they were, they could have felt the inscribed characters. There’s really no way around the fact that the 3rd century Japanese had some exposure to Chinese writing, even if they didn’t adopt it right away. Furthermore, there was nothing stopping curious artisans from copying the characters for design purposes or immigrant workers from teaching the local people, as seen on 2nd and 3rd century pottery fragments in Japan (J. Edward Kidder, Jr. “Himiko and Japan’s Elusive Chiefdom of Yamatai.” University of Hawaii Press, 2007. Page 113).

The importation of Chinese books was the greatest step towards the Japanese adopting the Chinese writing. “Chinese books on philosophy and Chinese translations of Sanskrit works on Buddhism must have been brought into Japan and studed by Japanese in the fifth and sixth centuries” (8). Habein digs deeper:

“The earliest known Buddhist temple, Houkouji, was erected at the end of the sixth century in the area of Yamato, where the emperors took their residence before 710. The Japanese court must have been involved in studying various aspects of Buddhism, including reading Buddhist literature in Chinese, for a long time before they built the temple, which was the embodiment of their faith in Buddhism” (8).

There were “writings” before the Kojiki 古事記 (712) and the Nihon Shoki 日本書紀 (720) (remember, the former is 記 and the latter is 紀):

1. Kinsekibun 金石文, which were inscriptions in metal or stone goods ( 8 )

2. Written documents of (a) genealogical, (b) historical, or (c) political value.

(a) Lineage was very important in early Japan. Keeping a record of “begats” helped determine relationships between political entities and positions in society. Genealogies also served a political purpose of legitimation: if one group could prove through a blood line that they were descended from the gods, then their power would be assured.

(b) In the 7th century (before the 8th century Kojiki and Nihon Shoki), no longer extant historical records were composed by Shotoku Taishi 聖徳太子 and the head of the Soga clan 蘇我氏.

(c) The 17 Article Constitution (Kenpou Juushichijou 憲法十七条) was supposedly written by Shotoku Taishi in 604 and can be found in the Nihon Shoki (8). The reason I use the word “supposedly” is that there has been recent scrutiny of not only the early date of 604 but of the authorship by Shotoku Taishi, himself. Interestingly, the identity of Shotoku Taishi has been convincingly called into question by some.

The late Yayoi aristocrats had decent exposure to items inscribed with Chinese characters. Like other continental designs, poorly or unskillfully copying the characters and applying them to art or crafts was a fascinating but largely unproductive (in my mind) step towards domestic literacy.

“Chinese books on philosophy and Chinese translations of Sanskrit works on Buddhism” brought to Japan in the 5th and 6th centuries are what really spurred the early Japanese to begin to learn the Chinese writing system.

The Yayoi Period is famous for two types of pottery: Hajiki 土師器 and Sueki 須恵器. The former is represented in English as “Haji ware” and the latter as “Sue ware”.

“…by late Yayoi pottery production was becoming a specialist’s craft, and in following centuries most households came to use a standardized, reddish earthenware known as hajiki (Haji ware), which remained the daily-use ware of most people into the twelfth century” (45).

Hajiki (below)

I find Totman’s notice that Hajiki was the everyday man’s earthenware until the twelfth century amazing. In an early post it was mentioned that not much changed at the local level throughout hundreds of years of Japanese history — this is one evidenced example.

Sueki was “more highly fired” and “wheel-thrown”, being brought in by “fifth century immigrants” (45). Because Sueki was “Produced by professionals using more elaborate equipment and more costly procedures, Sue ware was expensive and became the preferred ware of the ruling classes” (45).

Sueki (below)

Totman notes that Sueki was often buried in kofun with the interred individuals, as it was a status symbol of their class.

If you compare the pottery of the Yayoi Period to that of the Jomon Period, you’ll notice that even though the Jomon Period is famous precisely for its pottery, the Yayoi’s pottery is more refined and toned down in style:

(Middle Jomon pottery)

Doesn’t it seem strange that we find no open criticisms by once-independent local powers of the blatant myths of legitimation found in the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki?

When nobles not directly related to the Yamato clan read these two domestic histories, what did they think? Did they know they were reading a largely fabricated text?

If the Yamato polity constructed a domestic history text that supported heavenly origins and was filled with supernatural events out of the blue, this would seem rather ridiculous and unbelievable. However, the polity drew upon already existent sources—ranging from myth-history to diaries to genealogy lists. Therefore, much of the Yamato Sun Line tradition could have been simply copied from these older texts giving the compilers’ imaginations a nice holiday—the affair would then have become rather plug-and-chug. If the main audience of the Nihon Shoki was the aristocratic court, would the writing of the legitimatory text, itself, be considered bloviation? Were the intended readers simply reading falsified claims they knew to be false—this knowledge a given due to their lofty court positions, hereditary stories passed through griots of sorts, and personal and regional histories?

I was looking through “My Documents” folder this evening and stumbled across the following little thing I had written while I was reading J. Edward Kidder, Jr.’s “Himiko and Japan’s Elusive Chiefdom of Yamatai”. All page numbers are from this text.

————————–

Neither the Hou Han Shu, the Wei Zhih, nor the Sui Shu (20; Kidder notes that only these three Chinese texts contain information on Himiko) give us any indication that Himiko, herself, was off battling the rebellious Chiefdom of Kona (304). A practitioner of Kidou (The Way of the Demons), undoubtedly a form of Shamanism, her power was assured by a different avenue than military strength. Using ritual objects to commune with the kami and symbolize her status as the highest shaman in the land, she could surely command neighboring chieftains to fight rebellious fringe groups for her. Therefore, she is different than the Yamato Kings that immediately followed. Sujin, Suinin, and the generators of the Yamato polity seem to have had a much more active role in their military. The argument that female rulers wouldn’t be involved in military matters is shut down by the roles of Jingu, Saimei, Kogyoku, and Jito, all very influential women. Social stratification can be seen in the society described by the Wei Zhih, with Himiko at the head. However, she does not seem to have taken all responsibilities under her belt.

While the typical image of the Japanese ruler is that of a figure with dual secular and spiritual responsibilities, during the Late Yayoi period, the Wei Zhih reveals a separation of secular and religious roles, with Himiko claiming the latter and a chieftain of Ito and her younger brother (apparently two separate individuals) claiming the former (16). However, this is not to say that they were of equal rank or deserving of equal respect (Himiko’s religious affiliations and powers surely assured her more respect—albeit grown out of fear) as the Shaman, herself. Just as regional chieftains became a part of the Yamato web of alliances (from the 4^th century on) when they adopted the round keyhole tomb shape for their grave, Himiko sported a similar web of alliances. While we don’t have any unifying emblem to evidence this web as we do in the subsequent Kofun period with the round keyhole tomb, the Wei Zhih gives us enough evidence to hypothesize. But, in the end, the Wei Zhih has enough exaggerations, ambiguities, and flaws to leave us hypothesizing until the cows come home.

However, an unexamined text is not worth mentioning, so here is what I think: the Wei Zhih mentions a gradual process of unification during the Yayoi period of chieftains across the archipelago (at least as far as Mount Fuji, 289), shrinking from 100 chiefdoms during Han times to 30 times during Himiko’s (12); these numerous chieftains are composed of Wa people and not necessarily as under Yamatai’s jurisdiction. Himiko is said to have direct control over 20 chiefdoms during her reign. There is a rebellious chiefdom mentioned (Kona) and surely there were others farther northeast that were too distant for active communication to exist. This gradual formation of a conglomerate entails the creation of the so-called “web of alliances.” The newly incorporated chieftains who ruled each respective chiefdom would likely be local representatives of Himiko and carry out her wishes.

———————————

It’s very rough and doesn’t really go anywhere, but I learned a lot through the readings and attempted to think about various theories. If you find points you agree or disagree with, please contact me through the comments. I’m always looking for someone to discuss history with!

If you have done any reading on ancient Japan, the name Yoshinogari 吉野ヶ里 should bring to mind images of a walled, watchtower-equipped, moated village complex.

I will briefly discuss Yoshinogari to kill three birds with one stone: (1) Yoshinogari is a notable location mentioned in any book focusing on early Japan; (2) it is a good representation of the fortified villages of the time period; and (3) broad changes that affected the village, itself, also affected the path of the country, as well.

Yoshinogari is located in Saga Prefecture, Kyushu, near the Ariake Sea. It’s the subject of a very interesting Hudson and Barnes Monumenta Nipponica article entitled “Yoshinogari: A Yayoi Settlement in Northern Kyushu“.

During the Yayoi Period, as Totman lays out, small villages of “five to ten houses and 50-75 residents” gradually combined and transformed into communities of “hundreds or perhaps one to two thousand people by the end of the Yayoi” (42). He calls these enlarged communities, “fortified bastions”, which is a very apt term because moats and watchtowers certainly give no other image. It was during this time of political consolidation — communities banding together and forming chiefdoms or kingdoms of varying size — that Yamatai, Izumo, Kibi, and other such chiefdoms were at their prime.

Yoshinogari, as a settlement, was no difference: archaeologists can trace its evolution. Onwards from 200 BC, Totman notes that hunting was given up for agriculture and stone implements were discarded for iron. As mentioned in previous posts, social stratification was emerging during the Yayoi Period. Looking at the Yoshinogari grave goods and the presence of a large, segregated burial mound (a very early type of kofun 古墳 that lacked the characteristic keyhole shape and, if I remember correctly, moat) we can see this evidenced perfectly. Similar to the goods received later by Yamatai’s Himiko, the ruler at Yoshinogari no doubt was involved in trade: with both “the Ryukyus and the continent”. An older theory even posits Himiko as the ruler of Yoshinogari, but the evidence is not too kind to that theory.

Totman says that Yoshinogari’s “pre-eminence…persisted at least into the second century CE”; this means that the heyday of Yoshinogari generally preceded that of Yamatai’s Himiko (who lived in the first half of the 3rd century).

Besides villages becoming large communities that were equipped with moats, watchtowers, and other defenses against the growing spread of domestic warfare, the Yayoi population became segregated (I’m bringing that up again). We can look at 3rd century Japanese conditions by analyzing a quite famous Chinese history: the Gishi Wajinden. English translations can be found online here and here (the latter is an annotated section on Himiko). J. Edward Kidder, Jr., however, has a brand new translation in his “Himiko and Japan’s Elusive Chiefdom of Yamatai” that is heavily annotated, as well.

The Gishi Wajinden has sparked great debate on the location of Himiko’s chiefdom of Yamatai, for the directions and distances are incorrect and confusing.

The text describes the Japanese people (the Wa 倭 people) as a very “natural” group of people: they rely on the world around them. Interestingly, body paint of “pink and scarlet” is mentioned. Kidder has a fascinating discussion on the use of cinnabar in early Japan and such pigments were used in wall decorations in kofun (mostly located in Kyushu). For images of such decorated kofun, do an image search for 装飾古墳 or check earlier links on this blog for good websites or PDFs.

The text says that there were no horses in Japan. This passage is obviously a staple in the argument that there were no horses in Japan prior to the 5th century introduction of them by Koreans. While it would seem natural that if there were horses in Japan when the visiting Chinese observers wrote they would be included in a list of the present animals, I am still skeptical. The visiting Chinese surely had most of their contact with the upper stratum of Yayoi society — if anyone were to own horses it would be them, naturally, correct? However, since the text mentions the absence of horses, we can lean towards the conclusion that there weren’t any. I seem to be stuck with the mindset that there were horses prior to said 5th century introduction and even though their numbers greatly decreased, it is improper to say that Japan lacked horses in general. Perhaps I’m being overly picky (of course I am), but I feel that the issue is interesting enough to be strict in the matter. Either way, a good discussion of the issue can be found in Kidder’s Himiko book.

And now for something completely interesting: what weapons did the Wa people use for invasion and slaughter?”‘Their weapons are spears, shields, and wooden bows made with short lower part and long upper part; and their bamboo arrows are sometimes tipped with iron or bone”‘ (43).

These pictures are from my private collection — when I was a foreign exchange student in Kyoto.

Another very interesting topic is that of Yayoi divination: “‘Whenever they undertake an enterprise and discussion arises, they bake bones and divine in order to tell whether fortune will be good or bad. First they announce the object of divination, using the same manner of speech as in tortoise shell divination; then they examine the cracks made by the fire and tell what is to come to pass’” (44). Kidder mentions that porpoise and boar bones were used and Philippi (the translator of the most recent edition of the English-language Kojiki) notes the magical importance placed on deer scapulae in such divination ventures.

Our knowledge of Himiko warns us that shamans were not uncommon in ancient Japan. “’When [the ancient Japanese] go on voyages across the sea to visit China, they always select a man who does not arrange his hair, does not rid himself of fleas, lets his clothing get as dirty as it will, does not eat meat, and does not approach women. This man behaves like a mourner and is known as the fortune keeper. When the voyage turns out propitious, they all lavish on him slaves and other valuables. In case there is disease or mishap, they kill him, saying that he was not scrupulous in his duties’” (44). This figure, that of the professional abstainer, is quite intriguing.

The Japanese seem to be a very animistic people. The Yayoi people practiced “Shinto”. The word we are quite familiar with is in quotes because it’s not what we are familiar with. The Shinto we all know and love had its main origins in the Meiji Period of reform. What I’m about to describe is my take on Yayoi religious practices: the natural geography of the archipelago made segregated communities natural. Therefore, each community would have different customs and beliefs, to some extent. Therefore, religious practices and deities would also be quite diverse from one end of the country to the next. Different racial groups would naturally have different belief systems and deities. Until the different groups reached a greater level of mixing, such diversity would make for a broad spectrum of cultic activity. Animism and natural spiritualism prevailed, making the scattered “Wa” people wary of natural phenomena that we have come to understand.

Lastly, it is during the Yayoi Period that large burial mounds appear. There are different camps and disagreements concerning the evolution of the kofun, so it can’t be expected that any blog post will be comprehensive on the subject. The people discussed in the Gishi Wajinden bury their dead in a burial mound and observe a period of mourning and related ritual activity (including water purification) (45). While the text is not specific, it can be assumed that this practice refers to important individuals in the community: archaeological evidence has shown us that there were public cemeteries for commoners and segregated burial mounds for the elite.

An Archaeology Magazine article from earlier this year is very applicable to this blog’s readership.

“Insider – Turning Japanese“

It’s only an abstract, but if you have access to the full article there are some good interview quotes from Japanese archaeologists. Here is the abstract from the Archaeology Magazine website:

For the last four years, Shin’ichiro Fujio and Mineo Imamura have been leading a revolution in Japanese archaeology from a warren of fluorescent-lighted hallways under the National Museum of Japanese History in Chiba, just outside Tokyo. The two men–one an upstart archaeologist, the other a chemist nearing the end of his career–argue that Japanese society is significantly older than once thought.

Their findings, which rely heavily on the accelerated mass spectrometry method of radiocarbon dating (AMS), have rocked the traditional world of Japanese archaeology. For more than a century, Japanese archaeologists depended on comparisons of metal artifacts and pottery to date the critical transition to agriculture and rice farming on the islands to around 300 or 400 B.C. The dawn of the agriculture-intensive Yayoi period marked the end of the Jomon, a culture of hunter-gatherers who occupied the islands beginning around 13,000 B.C. The Yayoi period was a sudden cultural and technological leap forward. Within a few hundred years, the introduction of rice paddy farming, iron and bronze tools, and a sophisticated social structure led to a population explosion across the Japanese archipelago. In effect, the Yayoi period was when Japan became “Japanese.” For a society obsessed with its heritage and past, the period is a touchstone.

If the Yayoi took five or six centuries to establish themselves as the dominant culture on the islands, as Fujio and Imamura suggest, the scenario pitting Yayoi invaders against the helpless Jomon becomes much less credible. “The new idea is that the newcomers became familiar with the Jomon, and the Jomon adopted new techniques,” Fujio says. “There was no battle between Jomon and the newcomers.”

The Hou Han Shuu contains mention of an interesting Yayoi maritime travel practice: that of the professional abstainer.

“When [the ancient Japanese] go on voyages across the sea to visit China, they always select a man who does not arrange his hair, does not rid himself of fleas, lets his clothing get as dirty as it will, does not eat meat, and does not approach women. This man behaves like a mourner and is known as the fortune keeper. When the voyage turns out propitious, they all lavish on him slaves and other valuables. In case there is disease or mishap, they kill him, saying that he was not scrupulous in his duties” (Totman’s “A History of Japan”, page 44).

Interestingly, in Kontu, Papua New Guinea, there is a practice remaining from ancient times called “shark calling“, where a village magician will capture a shark with a noose-like apparatus from his canoe and beat the shark to death with a club. The shark will then be brought back to the village and both eaten and used for rituals. The shark has a spritual quality that connects the villagers to their ancestors. The Kontu deity Moroa created sharks, caught the first shark, and passed down the “shark calling” magic to human beings.

The “shark caller” abstains from sex, sleeping in the same bed as his wife, showering, and any contact with stray animal dung around the village for a set period of time.
His abstentions are to purify himself in advance for the magical ritual and to enhance the magic, itself.

If you’ve read the first volume in the Cambridge History of Japan, the possibility of Southeast Asian influence on early Japanese mythology is surely a possibility. Furthermore, if you side with those that believe that the Japanese language has a Malayo-Polynesian origin, then the similarities mentioned above are thought-provoking.

There are many similarities between cultures around the world. Some of those similarities are due to contact relations, while others are coincidence.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have entered “protohistory“. Our main evidence is still that which is dug up at archaeological sites, but we now have our first written documents giving us a commentary on the archipelago from the distant Han Dynasty in China.

The Hou Hanshuu is a Chinese dynastic chronicle from the 1st century A.D. It makes mention of “diplomatic delegations, ‘tribute missions’ in the terminology of the day, to the Han dynasty’s outpost of Lolang in northern Korea” (41); I believe, if my memory serves me right, that the first mention of Japan is for a 57 A.D. entry. These political missions were sent from chieftains (rulers of chiefdoms/political units/communities) in Kyushu. Interestingly, Totman notes that these chieftains “may well have been recent immigrants or their descendants” (41).

The next major mention regards Himiko “just before 250 CE” (41). Himiko deserves a post all to herself. In fact, she’s got a book all to herself: J. Edward Kidder, Jr.’s “Himiko and Japan’s Elusive Chiefdom of Yamatai“. No doubt a blog post on her will do her no justice — please check the book out.

The Song Dynasty’s chronicle, the Sungshuu, contains mention of the 5 Kings of Wa. In the 470s, “the ruler ‘Bu’ (the Kinai magnate Yuryaku of Japanese accounts) presented himself as a mighty but distant chieftain who sought the Liu Sung emperor’s support for his schemes of conquest, specifically requesting the emperor to appoint him

supreme commander of the campaign, with the status of minister, and to grant to others [among my followers] rank and titles, so that loyalty may be encouraged.” (41)

The complex nature of Wa (倭; Japan at this time was referred to as “Wo” by the Chinese; “Wa” is the Japanese rendering) relations with China are covered well (and quite enjoyably) in Wang Zhenping’s “Ambassadors from the Island of Immortals: China-Japan Relations In The Han-Tang Period“. The relationship had political, economic, and social dimensions. It was a quest for legitimacy on the part of the Japanese. It was a typical “border relation” on the part of the Chinese. Wang Zhenping explores the bilateral nature of the relationship. In return for sending these missions to his court, the Chinese emperor awarded military and political titles and lavish goods to the Japanese ruler (specifically I have Himiko in mind).

“During the [two centuries following the 470 A.D. reference in the Sungshuu] continental influence continued pouring into Japan. Immigrants provided expertise on matters political, military, and technological.”

This influence culminated in the late-7th -early 8th century Ritsuryou 律令 system、which greatly changed/restructured the Japanese political and military world. Therefore, these two centuries are going to be very important.

In my dating schema, I end the Yayoi Period at around 250 A.D., which makes Himiko a transitional figure, dying circa 248 A.D. Therefore, the tribute missions that began in the first decades (or, at least, began being recorded) after the birth of Christ began a relationship and process that would eventually channel Japan into the relatively centralized, learned, aristocratic court that sponsored Buddhism and the arts.