Origins of the Japanese

Only in the last twenty years, beginning roughly from the early 1970's, have both foreign and Japanese scholars begun to penetrate the mythology and romanticism surrounding the origins of the Japanese people and nation. Until 1945, a refusal to follow nationalistic ideology linking the Imperial family and, by extension, the Japanese populace with primordial deities mentioned in the ancient books the Kojiki and the Nihon shoki could land a scholar in very hot water. Early writings, such as those by Meiji historian Naka Michiyo (1878, 1888) and the Taisho scholar Tsuda Sokichi radically reinterpreted the classical sources but, for "insulting the dignity of the Imperial family" in Tsuda's case, he was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison in 1942 (Ienaga 1972 cited in Ledyard 1975). To a certain extent, the Imperial Household continues to exercise a portion of its prewar power by refusing to permit excavation of Imperial tombs, fearing that archaeology would further undermine its "sacred" authority by corroborating what already are incontestable links between the Japanese people, the Korean peninsula, and the continent of Asia (Covell 1984).

It wasn't until the economic success of post-war Japan landed products and business representatives (followed by tour groups) in various places around the world that the questions "Who are the Japanese? Where did they come from? and How did they get to be the way they are?" came to be posed. As Miller points out (1980: 18), the older generation already knew the answers to these questions and the younger generation was too busy gaining an economic foothold to really care. However, with the publication of Egami Norio's contention (1950, 24th printing 1973) that a race of horse riding people (kiba minzoku ) "invaded" Japan in the 4th century, the scholarly debate, nurtured by exciting archaeological discoveries, began in earnest soon after the war and eventually carried over into popular literature by the 1970's. The media seized the issue and inundated the populace with easily understood and quickly available answers, mixing evidence from archaeology, physical anthropology, genetics, and linguistic history in an effort to solve this identity crisis. But, fearing a relativization of traditional values that might derail the economic recovery and subvert social cohesiveness, pre-war ideology of cultural and racial "uniqueness" and "separateness" was dressed in the new garb of nihonjinron ("theorizing on the Japanese") by scholars and governmental bureaucrats (see part five for more discussion on this topic). This movement was amplified by the popular press until article after article professing to "solve" the question of Japanese identity and origins only concealed it further. However, before surveying the literature and controversies about the early origins of the Japanese nation and state (part three of this essay), it would be beneficial to examine studies on prehistory which can inform and frame discussion on later historical periods.

One of the most interesting English-language works surveying the recent discoveries of Japanese archaeologists and physical anthropologists is by Mori and Matsufuji (1988). Not only do they push back the dates for the origins of human habitation of Japan--debunking the 30,000 B.C. date of early Jomon as "too recent"--they cite convincing evidence to substantiate this claim. While as late as l976, 30,000 year-old evidence of human habitation was still rare, a wooden artifact recently unearthed in Hyogo prefecture (1981) has been dated by carbon-14 process to be roughly 30,000 years old. Also, by surveying the work of scientists studying artifact stratification in the context of volcanic ash deposits from the three major eruptions of the last 100,000 years (Aso: 70,000 B.C.; Aira: 22,000 B.C.; Kikai 6,300 B.C.) they have ascertained that artifacts having stemmed points similar to those of paleolithic Korean culture, points found in the Kanto plain near Tokyo with origins in the Kozushima islands (which separated 20,000 years ago), and fashioned stone tools (axes) dated by C-14 at 30,000 B.C. all demonstrate a paleolithic culture with the ability to work wood and fashion boats.

Though the evidence could be considered circumstantial, it is important because it establishes the likelihood that inter-island as well as continental contact reaches back to at least 30,000 B.C. and probably before as well. They surmise that the first inhabitants settled when the archipelago was still "attached" to the continent anywhere from 200,000 to 120,000 B.C., with increasing settlements caused by peoples (and species) fleeing continental glaciation (Pearson 1976a) even after the land was separated by rising seas. Pearson also states in a newly edited volume (1988)--one soon to become the new standard by which Japanese archaeology is measured--that regional and temporal variation in paleolithic technology aged 15,000 years old is well documented, and that from 14,000 years ago, microlithic tools became common. Furthermore, a kokeshi-like human effigy, found in Oita prefecture, has been dated to between 20-l5,000 years. With the northwestern tip of Hokkaido only 150 miles from the Siberian coast, the islands of Iki and Tsushima providing steppingstones between the Korean and Kyushu coasts, and with warm currents from the south seas passing close to the southeastern coast of Japan, it is not difficult to surmise a steady flow of outside cultural influences all through Japan's long prehistoric period.

Additional studies collected in Aikens and Takazawa (1986) point to a higher degree of sophistication and social stratification for the middle and late Jomon periods (5000-3500 B.C. and 3500-1000 B.C. respectively) than previously thought (Hall and Beardsley 1965, Befu 1971). Hayashi (1983) asserts that three kinds of social differentiation have been excavated as far back as 5000 B.C. The first are large settlements with pit-houses, workshops, storage pits, ritual centers, cemeteries, and refuse disposal areas--with the corresponding conclusion for the existence of a social elite. Next are smaller sites with only one or two pit-houses, followed by very small sites without pit-houses, only scattered bone and pottery shards. Not only do the large settlements revamp existing notions of small, nomadic bands of hunter- and-gatherers, Akazawa (1985) holds that, in the case of shell-midden peoples, root-crop agriculture was also practiced to maintain the high population density.

His distinction of settlements fitting into one of three ecological niches--forest/freshwater, forest/estuary, and forest/Pacific-shelf littoral ecosystems--paves the way for a theory for the cultivation of rice spreading within indigenous populations governed by long-established ecological relationships with forest and aquaeous environments. Rice cultivation took hold in the west and interior not simply because of the fertile plains (which can be found throughout Japan wherever rivers enter the sea) but because the cultivation of rice didn't conflict with the established "seasonal procurement" of hazelnuts, walnuts, and seeds from the forests (Suzuki 1984). Since the productivity of forests was low in the spring--a time when planting and weeding was essential to the growing rice plants--both systems could be accommodated. Furthermore, the pre-rice Jomon lifestyle had established adequate storage facilities for forest products which could easily be adapted to the requirements of rice.

The important conclusion of this volume of studies is that the process of "continentalization" continued gradually from the Paleolithic and Neolithic Jomon times to the present day. Earlier assertions of Malayo-Polynesian influences, such as those posited by Murayama (1976), remain plausible but have not been traced to archaeological or linguistic discoveries of definite linkages.

Joseph Kitagawa (1966, reprinted 1987) provides one of the most rounded discussions concerning theories of early racial origins for the Jomon and Yayoi peoples even if it is somewhat dated. Not only does he neatly summarize the controversy as to whether or not the Ainu are the "original" Jomon-period Japanese, he presents Oka Masao's culture-complex hypothesis developed in Vienna in 1933 but, predictably, not published due to the danger of pre-war Japan's ideological hothouse. This theory holds that sporadic infiltration of northern and southern Asiatic peoples (the Melanesian, Austroasian, Tungusic, Austronesian, and Altaic) into Japan during the early stage of the Jomon period provides the foundation for structuring subsequent culture, society, and peoples in Japan. Judging from evidence excavated from a wide variety of shell-mounds, the early peoples of Japan did not reduce their physical differences through intermixing. In fact, from the Ota, Tsugumo, and Yoshigo excavations have yielded hundreds of skeletons, yet each has its own characteristics (Kidder 1977). Kidder, in an earlier work, accentuates this important finding as a way to counter western notions that the Japanese "all look alike":

There are today still so many different types--the long-faced, the round-faced; northern and southern differences; country and city variations; dark-skinned varieties, light skinned kinds; some of these even bred consciously in recent centuries, but combinations of these characteristics in all areas--that one would hesitate to refer to the Japanese as a race; similarly, already prehistoric people showed gross distinctions, crossed before arriving and perpetuating the fusion trend with the types on the islands. (1959:89).

Changes in the skeletal remains from the Jomon period that overlap with those of the Yayoi are attributed to a more nutritious diet and the strengthening of the body in the process of obtaining it (Bleed 1972, Kidder 1977). Kidder's archaeological study, Japan Before Buddhism (1959), establishing continental influences of the Tungusic and Altaic groups via pottery, is a treasure-house of drawings, photographs, and maps. Yet, unlike the above quotation, he is generally cautious with his interpretations, doing little more than to make a series of correspondences between the Jomon, Yayoi, and Kofun eras with likely predecessors in Korea. It is precisely here that scholarly debates concerning the origins of the nation and early state-- centering on cord-impressed pottery, bronze mirrors, bells, and other artifacts--all take ammunition for their theoretical broadsides. However, though the nihonjinron ideas of Japanese culture and society developing in isolation die hard, few scholars would now deny that Japanese civilization was ever isolated or unique, even at the earliest stages for which it can be recovered or in any way identified. Instead, an increasing familiarity with broader contexts throws more light on Japanese origins.

Nowhere has a wide perspective entered into the literature more than in theories about the linguistic origins of the Japanese language. One camp (Miller 1974, 1980; Martin 1966) proposes an Altaic-Korean influence and the other (Lewin 1976, Murayama 1976, Ohno 1970) subscribe to the notion of the above possibility wedded to Malayo-Polynesian influences as well. Even Aikens and Higuchi's Prehistory of Japan (1982) can't resist entering the fray, providing long lists of Korean-Japanese linguistic equivalencies. Agreement will probably never be reached on the extent of each tradition on Japanese language, but at least there is consensus that, in addition to Chinese, there are outside influences. This marks a vast improvement over earlier studies (such as those by the Shinto scholar Motoori Norinaga in the l8th century) asserting outside words were "nativized" and subsumed into a wholly distinct and singular linguistic tradition by the indigenous tongue's kotodama, or "power of words."

Any closing discussion bridging the prehistoric and historic eras of Japanese origins must take into account two important articles--one on the "horserider" hypothesis and the other on early Yamato kingdoms. Greater detail will be provided in the next section of this essay, but when considering broader contexts in the origins of the Japanese, Gari Ledyard's 1975 article expanding and substantiating Egami's earlier kiba minzoku theory is a brilliant piece of detective work. Textual and archaeological evidence is, in his hands, ultimately incriminating in exposing the myth of not only a "single-lineage" Imperial family but of the "pure" blood of the Japanese. Kiley (1973) also builds on this idea, holding that what became the first Japanese state emerged from and later strategically concealed the imported structure's of continental invaders.

Thanks to articles like these, Japan's historical debt to Korea and nomadic horse-riding tribes of central Asia is only beginning to be acknowledged. One might legitimately ask why ancient history remains such a controversial subject, yet they would need look no further than modern Japan's 80,000 Shinto shrines, Imperial household agencies, right-wing political factions, or even the yakuza clans to find a perpetual and, at times, vehement denial of these scholastic discoveries. To assent to the legitimacy of wider-ranging sources in understanding just exactly who the Japanese are is threatening and disquieting to those satisfied with pre-war ideology or post- war nihonjinron persuasiveness. A more diffused origin encompassing much of Asia might ultimately be translated into more global responsibilities for those areas the Japanese have "roots" to, with corresponding swings of what are now still highly insular economic and political policies as well. The work of scholars to provide persuasive arguments for Japan's complex prehistoric origins remains far from complete. --John Nelson, formerly Japan Faculty, UT Austin