MODEL BUILDING FOR PROTOHISTORIC JAPAN 45

2.
THE STARTING POINT OF YAMATO WA:
Homuda-wake (Ojin), the Founder The Textual Approach

As Saeki (1977) notes, it is possible to reconstruct Japanese history in the

second and third centuries to some extent on the basis of the account of the
Wo-jen in Chinese history, the Wei-zhi It is also possible to
reconstruct Japanese history in the fifth century to some extent on the basis of
the accounts of the five kings of Wa (A.D. 421-478) in the section on
Japan [Wo-guo ] in the Yi-man chuan of Song-shu. Never-theless
as Saeki notes, there are no extant sources for the fourth century and this is
why this period is often referred to as the mysterious fourth century . . . .
By the time the Kojiki and Nihongi were written, Wei-zhi was available to
their writers, and apparently the story of Jingu was inspired by the story of
the shaman queen Himiko recorded in this Wei chronicle. Indeed,
Nihongi (NI: 245) directly quotes the Wei-zhi record of the Queen [Himiko]
of Wa [for the year A.D. 239] in the chapter on Jingu . According to Tsuda
( 1950: 161-162), the record on Jingu was made to correspond to the Wa
Queen Himiko in Wei-zhi. As a result, the reigns of and
following rulers had to be pushed forward and lengthened. Furthermore, the
reigns of King Keun Chogo and King Keun Kusu of Paekche, which
are said to have begun the connection between Korea and Japan for the
fi rst time during reign , also had to be pulled up by two
sexagenary cycles . Tsuda, however, thinks that the postulation that
the reign of follows immediately after that of Jingu does not seem to
have been planned from the beginning.< J. 7 > Ledyard (1975) also notes that,
since the Wei-zhi was available to the writers of the Nihongi, and since it
placed Queen Himiko in the time frame of the 230s and 240s, they had to
arrange things so that the Wei-zhis information was fully reconciled. They
therefore gave Jingu a long reign [A.D. 200-269] that included a generation
on either side of Queen Himiko, and to do this they had to backdate the reign
of Homuda wake by two cycles, so that it was made to begin in 269
rather than in the more likely 389 (120 years later).
Kojiki and Nihongi made Homuda-wake the son of Jingu , and the
record on Jingu (NI: 224-253) therefore mixes up the stories of the Yayoi
period and those of the middle tomb period.1 Furthermore, Nihongi somehow
46 TEXTUAL APPROACH

decided to place the favorite myth of the Japanese people -- the conquest of
Silla -- during the regin of Jingu.2 Nihongi (NI: 230-232) narrates the story of
Jingu s conquest of Silla in an almost amusing childrens story fashion, but
contemporary Japanese histories have made the story an absurdly serious
business by using it as the evidence of the existence of a strong unified
nation-state in Japan in the third century.
Bronze mirrors as well as bronze weapons were brought from Korea to
Japan during Yayoi period. Bronze products (an alloy of copper and tin) were
all imported until their domestic production began in the late Yayoi period
(A.D. 100-300), mostly in the northern Kyu shu area. Katori Tadahiko (KEJ:
1. 174) states that: In ancient Japan, bronze mirrors were more treasures or
ritual implements than utilitarian items . . . It would appear that powerful
rulers obtained several mirrors from the same mold and distributed them to
their surbordinate chiefs as authority symbols. Saotome Masahiro (KEJ: 1.
174) also states that: Bronze weapons do not appear to have been used for
their original purpose in Japan. None show damage through use in battle . . .
bronze weapons in Japan were used . . . as symbols of power.
Egami (1964) states that in the light of the content of the early tomb-
mounds period, the bearers of this culture also lack[ed] the military element
required in carrying out subjugatory activities, and the idea that these people
of the early tomb-mounds period should have landed in south Korea, the
inhabitants of which were better armed, should have succeeded in subjugatory
activities, and should have returned home after fostering their horse-riders
culture is clearly contrary to the universal laws of history.
Mason and Caiger (1972: 10) note that the Chinese records do suggest
strongly that Japan was not yet a single political unit in the period from 221
to 265 A.D. of wh i ch the Chinese sch o l a rs we re wri t i n g. Indeed, no
Chinese record of Japan appears after that point until the beginning of the
fifth century. Sansom (1931: 36 n) writes that [i]t should be noted that there

Nihongis record on Jingu prior to A.D. 203 seems to have been based entirely on
1

the story of Himiko. However, the record for A.D. 205 is the story that occurred in
A.D. 418. Nihongis records for A.D. 203 and A.D. 213 represent the effort to link
Jingu and in a mother-son relationship. The records for A.D. 246 and thereafter
are almost entirely composed of stories that had possibly occur red in the late fourth
century (i.e., the middle tomb period).
2
It seems to have been the extreme hatred harbored by the people of Yamato Wa
against Silla that encouraged them to entertain such a daydream (i.e., the conquest of
Silla). Apparently the writers of Nihongi thought that the Jingu section would be the
right place to handle such a fantasy. Tsuda ( 1972: 453) also states that the record
of Jingus military expedition can not be a fact but a fiction.< J. 6 >
MODEL BUILDING FOR PROTOHISTORIC JAPAN 47

is no evidence of direct official relations between the Yamato and Chinese

kingdoms before A.D. 400.
The Yayoi period (300 B.C. - 300 A.D.) was followed by the tomb-mounds
period (300 A.D. - 700 A.D.), during which Japan was unified into Yamato
Wa and entered the protohistoric era. According to Egami (1964), the tomb-
mounds period is one of the most important periods in the whole history of
Japan, but opinions have been much divided over the question of how this
period of Japanese history is to be conceived, and at present there appears to
be little prospect of reaching general agreement in this matter.
Book One of Kojiki mythologically describes the activities of gods
and their colonization of the Japanese islands. Book Two begins with the tale
of Jimmu and finishes with . Book Three describes the reigns
of the post- rulers. Barnes (1988: 10) notes that: Jimmu is generally
recognized as a fictitious personage and variously has been identified either
with . . . Sujin , or with . . . . Barnes (1988: 13) adds: The
story echoes that of the eastward trek of Jimmu and . . . is thought to reflect
the same grain of reality.
The record of Kojiki on Okinaga-Tarashi-hime ( ) [Jingu,
] ends with the successful conclusion of her fighting against King
Oshikuma. Kojiki makes Homuda-wake [ ] the second
son of Okinaga-Tarashi-hime. This second child of Okinaga-Tarashi-hime is
called the August Child and Heir Apparent , and Kojiki states that
(KC: 283) it was known while he was in the womb that he would ru l e
countries . The authors of Kojiki as well as Nihongi postulated a
mother-son relationship between Jingu and swallowing up the two
cycles that separated them.3
According to Nihongi, Chu ai [Tarashi-Nakatsu-hiko] died in A.D. 200 and
Jingu [Okinaga-Tarashi-hime] died in A.D. 269. After the Wei records of the
Queens country in the third century, there is no further mention of Wa in
Chinese records until the beginning of the fifth century. Japan seems to have
been very much divided into chaos during the 120-year period between Jingus
d e ath and the enthronement of [ H o mu d a - wa ke] in A.D. 390.

3
A brief note preceding the chapter on Homuda-wake (KC: 295-296) seems to
reveal the agony of the authors of Kojiki in committing such a forgery. They were
apparently forced to write that the name Homuda-wake was the august name of the
august child of Okinaga-Tarashi-hime. Kojiki (KC: 295) states that a god wished to
exchange his name for the august name of the august child , and
that they were filled with awe; but they had to comply, saying, The name shall be
respectfully exchanged according to thy command .
48 TEXTUAL APPROACH

Nevertheless, the Japanese court histories made apparently for the sake
of a single line for a myriad generations , the son of Jingu . The
period A.D. 269-389 represents the two sexagenary cycles that are missing in
Nihongi.4
Tsuda ( 1948: 314) asserts that what the Kiki intend to explain is
the origin of an imperial family and state and not the origin of
a people .< J. 2 > The records of Kojiki and Nihongi, which put the stories
of the Age of God (that is, the age of the imperial ancestors ) at the
beginning and thereupon move to the stories of the Age of Man, are solely
about the imperial family and not about our people.< J. 3 > Tsuda (
1975: 458) states that all kinds of situations that are considered to have taken
place in the 4th and 5th centuries are reflected in the stories of the Age of
God.< J. 1>
Tsuda ( 1966; 110-111) states that even academic studies on the
circumstances of the formation of the Japanese state or the origin
and nature of its imperial family have ignored the historical facts
that can clearly be gleaned from them; when people with arbitrary opinions or
those who wish to use history as a political tool seize political
power they begin to play with the power; furthermore, some scholars and
writers curry f avor with those in power, fabricating and loudly
supporting preposterous propositions that are bound to mislead
people. Academic studies have been suppressed by those wielding political
power and by the mass communication media ;< J. 12 > Tsuda contends that
all these obstinate ideas persist due to the lack of refinement and low
standard of culture among Japanese people; it particularly betrays the
absence of a critical spirit and the absence of an understanding of the value
and nature of a scientific approach to the search for truth which can establish
peoples ideology and behavior on the foundations of truth.< J. 13>
According to Hirano (1977), Tsuda So kichi (1873-1961) subjected the
Kojiki and Nihongi to strict textual criticism and concluded that many of the
early mythological sections were fabrications intended to legitimize the ruling
imperial clan. That is, Tsuda regarded as the founder of the Yamato
imperial clan on the basis of the fact that, while the fourteen emperors up to
Chu ai are referred to only by their posthumous titles in the Teiki
[compiled in the first half of the sixth century], the emperors from to
4
Ledyard (1975) notes that it was Naka Michiyo (1851-1908) who was able to
demonstrate, by reference to Chinese and Korean history, that for the period of the 3r d
and 4th centuries it was off by 120 years, or two sexagenary cycles.
MODEL BUILDING FOR PROTOHISTORIC JAPAN 49

Keitai are called by their real names used when they were princes.
Tsuda believed that the names of the rulers in the former groups were merely
fictitious.5 Indeed, many post-World War II Japanese historians believe that
the original Teiki had listed only the twelve emperors from to Keitai.
The form of imperial succession prior to Chu ai as recorded in the two
chronicles (Kojiki and Nihongi) was exclusively from father to son, whereas
in actuality this form of succession was established only after the reign of
Tenji in the latter half of the seventh century, and the succession prior to
Tenji had basically been fraternal. For these reasons Tsuda believes that the
accounts in Kojiki and Nihongi can be divided between Chuai and
Tsuda rega rds the descriptions of the period up to Chu ai as lege n d a ry,
dubious, and even, in some cases, preposterous. He denies the authenticity of
the stories of Jingu s expedition to Korea, and consequently the story of
birth in Tsukushi . (See 3 , 1984: 271-272.)
According to Hirano (1977), Tsudas criticism of the two chronicles should
be taken as a model ap p ro a ch to the reconstruction of ancient Japanese
history. Hirano (1977) summarizes the post-War development of theories of
the dynasty as follows. Hayashiya Tomojiro contends that the
Yamato court started with and that Jimmu and Sujin were merely
fictitious figures created through the glorification of deeds.6 Naoki
Kojiro maintains that a new dynasty was established in Naniwa by
and Nintoku, who belonged to a line other than that of the foregoing
dynastical rulers. Yoshii Iwao contends that the three emperors Keiko,
S e i mu, and Chuai, who have ap p e l l ations ch a ra c t e ri zed by the wo rd
Tarashihiko, are fictitious emperors inserted as stopgaps between the Sujin
dynasty [i.e., Sujin and Suinin, whose names were Irihiko and Irihime], and
the Nintoku dynasty. was merely a legendary figure conceived of as
the founder of the new dynasty. Naoki Kojiro further elaborates this view by
asserting that and Nintoku both originally represented the same person,
named Homu d a - n o - h i - n o - m i ko , who later came to be regarded as two

5
Ledyard (1975) notes that [i]n May, 1942, Tsuda So kichi, after a long hearing
and trial process, was convicted and sentenced to jail for insulting the dignity of the
Imperial family. His books had already been banned for over two years.
6
The contention that the Yamato Wa began with is also supported by the
frequent quoting of following statement in Nihongi (e.g., NII: 9): Since the days of
the Emperor in the womb [Homuda-wake] . . . See also Nihongi (NII: 34).
On the basis of Harima Fudoki, Aoki (1974: 42) states that: It seems that Homudas
reputation as the conquering king was such that he could make anything an excuse to
deprive a local chieftain of his title as a local ruler.
50 TEXTUAL APPROACH

different sovereigns, Homuda-wake and Ohosazaki. 7 (See also Inoue, et al.

3 , 1984: 272-274.)
Kiley (1973) also states that the genealogies given in those works [Kojiki
and Nihongi] for the first nine rulers . . . only confirm Mizunos conclusion,
based on totally diffe rent grounds, that the fi rst nine empero rs in the
chronicles were late seventh century fabrications. Kiley (1973) continues:
It may be repeated . . . that communities reigned over by sacerdotal rulers,
such as Himiko and Sujin . . ., are not necessarily states in the strictest sense.
The earliest reliable genealogical material on Yamato kings . . . relates to the
fourth century conquerors and the polity they founded. The founding of the
conquest polity in Yamato is, predictably, almost without documentation.
Some historians identify the first historic ruler of this polity as the Emperor
of the chronicles, and others prefer his son, Nintoku. . . .
Choi (1990c) has recently made a critical survey of these textual approach-
es by Japanese historians. According to him, Tsuda indeed made some posi-
tive contributions (Choi, 1990c: 46), but he proves that Tsudas approach was
still far from a model approach. Likewise, the post-War Japanese historians
made some positive contributions, but they still could not emancipate them-
selves from pre-War tradition. In any case, the post-War textual approaches
were accompanied by studies on the fo rm ation of Yamato Wa within the
larger context of development in Korea based on archeological discoveries.
Egamis reconstruction of ancient history, in particular, was very much, if not
completely, unconstrained by traditionally preconceived notions.
Tsuda ( 1948: 641) states that as a historical fact, the period during
wh i ch the imperial clan accomplished the unifi c ation of Japan wa s
approximately the beginning of the 5th century. And yet Tsuda reveals a
s t rong distaste for the propositions that suggest a fo reign ori gin of the
imperial family. According to Tsuda ( 1966: 120), the contention that the
descent of Heavenly Children represents the ancestors of the imperial
family coming into this land from abroad, or the contention that

The contention that Yamato Wa began with either

7
or Nintoku may also be
supported by such statements in Shoku-Nihongi (Sansom, 1924: 23) as: Inasmuch as
during this time there has been born an Imperial Prince [Sho mu] as the Heir to
succeed to the Heavenly Rule, We are pleased to appoint the Lady Fujiwara, who is
His Mother, to be the Empress Consort . . . This is not only of Our time, for the
Sovereign that ruled in the High Palace of Naniwa took to himself as Empress
the Lady Iwa-no-hime, who was the daughter of Sotsuhiko of Kazuraki, and together
with her ruled and governed the Realm under Heaven. This is not a strange new
governing, but a Custom which has been followed since the beginning.
MODEL BUILDING FOR PROTOHISTORIC JAPAN 51

the newly arrived foreign people conquered the aboriginal people is

the result of interpreting each of the unreasonable stories recorded in Kiki as
reasonable fact . This attitude may appeal to the intellectuals;
however, since the stories of the Ages of God are essentially unreasonable,
the effort to interpret each of them reasonably can not be regarded as an
academic method. To regard the descent of Heavenly Children as the arrival
of the people of Heavenly Children is to ignore the method of
academic research used to consider the identification of race or the
< J. 4 >
migration path . One can also observe Tsudas emphatic denial of
the arrival from Paekche of a company of seventeen districts led by
Achi no Omi . According to Tsuda (1972: 29), the statement of
Shoku Nihongi that the province of Takechi [ ] was so
fully occupied by people of the seventeen districts that people of
other names amounted to only one or two out of every ten people
counted is absurd . According to Tsuda, it was impossible for
immigrants to occupy most of the land that was near the political
center of the Yamato Court .8 < J. 5 > As indicated by the
c riticism of Choi, all these statements reveal the limitations in Tsudas
thinking.9

8
Shinsen Sho jiroku (Saeki : 357-358) states that the people brought by Achi
no Omi constructed the Imaki Province which was later renamed Takechi Province
, and since the area became ove rc rowded, they were eventually
dispersed to other areas such as Settsu , and Harima . It also states
that their descenants include an Asuka Village Chief , an Aya-bito Village
Chief , and an Imaki Village Chief .
9
The following statements of Tsuda (1963) help us to see the basic framework of
his thinking: studies so far have succeeded in throwing no light whatsoever on the
original habitat of the Japanese people, or on the route and period of their migration . .
. The Japanese people differ from the peoples of Korea, Manchuria, and Mongolia, in
point of physique, language, as well as mode of life . . . [E]ven in the immediate
neighborhood of Japan, there are hardly any people related by blood to the Japanese.
Possibly in order to support the so-called Imna Japanese Government story, Tsuda
adds: It is conjectured, however, that among those who inhabit the southern part of
the Korean Peninsula, there are some who are blood-relations of the Japanese.