“The Kojiki, politics, and the comparative study of

Japanese mythology”

Klaus ANTONI
University of Tübingen, Germany

4th Conference of the

International Association for Comparative Mythology
Harvard University, October 6 - 8, 2010

1. Introduction

From the second half of the Meiji period to the end of the Pacific War (1889 -
1945), Japanese mythology formed a spiritual and ideological basis of the
modern Japanese state, of its specific polity (kokutai), and of State Shint! in
general. More precisely, the primary mythological basis was the Divine Or-
der (shinchoku) by the Sun Goddess, Amaterasu-!mikami, to her grandson
Ninigi no mikoto and his descendants, handed down in the earliest sources
of Japanese tradition, the Kojiki (712) and the Nihongi (720).1 The modern
Japanese ideology of the incomparable ‘uniqueness’ of the national polity
(kokutai)2 was based on the legitimizing claims of the court mythology,
handed down in those official records of the early eighth century. An objec-
tive scientific study of these myths, especially in the sense of critical cultural-
historical comparison, inevitably had to collide with this sacrosanct state ide-
ology, as can be seen in a number of cases. For instance, any proof of connec-
tions between the ‘indigenous’ mythology and the traditions of the continen-

1 Cf. Kojiki and Nihonshoki

2 Cf. Antoni 1998

1
tal mainland or of the southern archipelago in early history challenged the
doctrine of a static, ever existing Japanese ‘divine country’.
Therefore, the importance of a free scientific study of mythology dur-
ing the postwar period cannot be overestimated. Instead of dogmatic propo-
sitions about the origin of the Japanese people and its ruling family, the re-
alization of an extraordinarily complex and historically widely differentiated
ethnogenesis and early nation-building now became possible.
By virtue of comparative analyses, proof was able to be given that
various parts of the total mythological narrative were produced by formerly
autonomous myth-making groups. Such evidence points to the originally
heterogeneous structure of Japanese religions. This branch of analytical and
comparative mythological research has only been able to operate without re-
strictions since the end of World War II. One of its founders, the scholar
Tsuda S!kichi (1873 - 1961)3, still had to endure retaliatory measures before
and during the war because, contrary to the legally binding doctrine of the
time, he did not regard the myths as historically true records legitimizing the
eternal power of the imperial court, as the nativist thinkers of the “national
school” (kokugaku) since the Edo period as well as later nationalists had
claimed. For instance, he disputed the legend of the alleged foundation of the
empire by a certain “Jinmu-tenn!” in the year 660 B.C., a myth that is widely
taken as historical fact even today. Tsuda pointed out the purely legendary
character of the ‘historical records’ from which such myths were taken.
Thus, since the end of the war, research on Japanese mythology and
Shint! in general has received an enormous impetus, and finally the way has
been cleared for an ideologically unbiased analysis. The discernment of the
original heterogeneity of the total mythical lore, despite the fact that it is well
organized in the literary records of the ancient sources, can be regarded as
the most important result of comparative mythological research. It was real-
ized that the Japanese myths were only in the rarest of cases unique and

3 Cf. Naumann 1996: 18.

2
without parallels in regions outside of Japan. And it also turned out that sin-
gle mythical episodes – for instance, accounts of the origin of death – were
also to be found, in their essential form, in the mythologies of neighboring
cultures, such as those of China, Korea and the Malay-Polynesian region.
Thus this critical approach to the Japanese myths, by showing their hetero-
geneous origin, resulted in a complete scientific deconstruction of State
Shint! and its ideological basis.
In this sense, the enlightening effect of a free scientific research, start-
ing in the postwar period, cannot be overestimated. Without the critical, cul-
tural-historical and comparative analyses of Japanese mythology, the dog-
matic doctrines of prewar political Shint! might have remained unexamined
even to this day. These studies brought to light the extremely complex and
historically gradual genesis of Japanese culture and religion, whose origins
were liberated from an artificially constructed and ideologically motivated
ethnocentric isolation, and placed within the overall context not only of East
Asian history but of human history in general. The idea of the ‘homogeneity’
of Japan, which was ideologically rather than religiously founded, and which
was rooted in the traditionalistic constructions of premodern times, can
therefore no longer be sustained. Japan can be seen as an island country (shi-
maguni) geographically, but certainly not culturally!
Academic study has been able to prove that certain mythical themes,
interwoven into the systematized court mythology during historical times,
originated with different population groups, who, during prehistorical times,
migrated to the Japanese islands from different parts of the Asian continent,
Southeast Asia, and the South Seas – a fact that points to the initial heteroge-
neity of the Japanese culture(s) and religion(s). It goes without saying that
the discovery of ‘foreign’ – that is, Korean, southern Chinese and Indonesian
– elements within Japanese mythology is not just of scientific interest but has
important political implications, since it touches upon the ideological self-
conception of modern Shint! as, at heart, an explicitly ethnocentric religious
system.

3
Thus the enlightening effect of the free academic research which began in the
post-war era can hardly be overstated. Without the cultural-historical and
comparative analyses of Japanese mythology by critical scholars, the dog-
matic teachings of the pre-war era might have remained unchecked to this
very day as the foundation of Japanese religion and culture.
In this short study, I would like to concentrate on the work of two
such scholars, the late !bayashi Tary" (1929 – 2001) and his former colleague
at the University of Vienna, Nelly Naumann (1922 – 2000). Both were of sub-
stantial value for my own studies and my understanding of the field of Japa-
nese mythology, and I think of them with the deepest sense of gratitude and
admiration for their perception of the significance and nature of Japanese
mythology.

2. !bayashi Tary"

!bayashi Tary" (1929-2001), formerly professor of Ethnology at T"ky" Uni-

versity, offered fundamental insights into the basics of his view of Japanese
mythology in a book published in 1986.4 The book consists of twenty-four of
his most important articles spanning some twenty years of academic re-
search. !bayashi makes a case for the legitimacy of comparative and cul-
tural-historical analysis regarding the various and heterogeneous elements in
the different mythological complexes of the Japanese tradition. Thus
!bayashi continues the path set out in his early work, which reached a first
peak as early as his fundamental work Nihon shinwa no kigen (“The Origins of
Japanese Mythology”) from 1961 (1973).5 While other authors, such as Alan
Dundes in a reader on the theory of myths, disdained the comparative and
cultural-historical methods as allegedly belonging to the nineteenth century

4"bayashi 1986, cf. Antoni 1988

5"bayashi 1961 (1973). Cf. further works by the author, e.g.: (1977) „The Origins of Japanese
Mythology“. In: Acta Asiatica, vol. 31, 1977: 1-23. (1981) Inasaku no shinwa, T!ky!. (1982) Ise
und Izumo. Die Schreine des Schintoismus (Die Welt der Religionen), Freiburg: Herder. (1984)
„Japanese Myths of Descent from Heaven and Their Korean Parallels“. In: Asian Foklore Stu-
dies, vol. XLIII, 1984: 171-184.

4
and being obsolete among current methods of analysis (cf. Dundes 1984, see
below), !bayashi points not backward to the past, but ahead to the seem-
ingly old-fashioned methods of profound academic research. This method of
research uses patterns and structures within the tales of mythical events
merely as a means of comparison, rather than as an ultimate goal in and of
themselves. It thereby provides us with deeper insights into the complexity
of Japanese myths and into the historical and geographical connections that
link the Japanese tradition with mythologies of other regions of the world, as
well as illuminating the paths of diffusion of various motifs and types. As
!bayashi’s collection clearly shows, this methodological basis provides the
researcher with ways of analyzing the composition of Japanese mythology
and finding the origin of each myth within the context of systematized
mythical tradition.
As !bayashi states several times (e.g. 1986: 266), it is not sufficient for
a deeper understanding of the relations between Japanese and other my-
thologies to compare Japan and, for example, Southeast-Asia exclusively.
One must always have the ancient traditions of China and Korea in mind as
well. He points out that the various elements of Japanese mythology have
their origin in culturally and geographically dissimilar backgrounds. Relics
from the J"mon period can be found, as well as myths and mythologems dat-
ing, according to !bayashi, from a slash-and-burn farming stratum. These
elements are said to have their origins in southern China and came to Japan
as early as Late J"mon period. Other myths, such as the myth of ‘umisachi
and yamasachi’6 often quoted by !bayashi, stem from the Yayoi period and
are seen to have their origins in the South, especially in the geographical area
of the Austronesian language complex. But in this case as well, southern
China is said to be the original center of diffusion. The myths of kingship do
have their nearest parallels in the Korean traditions; they, as !bayashi points
out several times, are connected with the culture of the Kofun period in Ja-

6 Cf. Kojiki, p. 125-135; Nihonshoki, p. 163-186.

5
pan; the author regards the existence of this kind of myth as a convincing
proof of a deep historical relationship between the ruling house of Japan and
ancient Korean royalty. For the worldwide spread and diffusion of mythical
motifs and topics, the area of Central Asia is, as !bayashi states, of great im-
portance. This region has the function of a “channel to the four points of the
compass.”
Thus the author emphasizes, as a result of his research, that Japanese
mythology is deeply connected with the mythologies of the antique Eurasian
high civilizations. With this argumentation !bayashi makes an important
step toward liberating Japanese mythology from limitations and isolation
that are a direct result of the orthodox and still surviving idea of the incom-
parable uniqueness of Japanese tradition.
With this collection of articles on the origins of Japanese mythology,
the author argues against some of the basic beliefs of the orthodox Japanese
self-conception. In an academically profound way, !bayashi points out that
Japanese culture is, at its most basic foundation, a mixture of highly hetero-
geneous elements which can be traced back as far as the dawn of Japanese
history. It becomes clear from his work, for example, that Japanese culture
did not start from a point marked by the introduction of rice cultivation only,
as declared by Yanagita Kunio (1875 – 1962) and his followers, but has its
roots earlier in the different strata of the J"mon period. Also of great impor-
tance are !bayashi’s insights into the mythological legitimation and history
of Japanese royalty and its relation to continental, especially Korean, tradi-
tions. The most fruitful aspect of this collection is therefore !bayashi ‘s clear
analysis of the connection between Japanese mythology – which always also
implies the culture as a whole – and traditions from neighboring parts of the
world.
At this point it bears explaining that Japanology, or Japanese Studies in the
German speaking world, draws its origin from two sources that are different
and yet linked in a close reciprocal relationship. On one side is the so-called
Vienna School in Austria, which can be considered part of ethnology, and on

6
the other side there exists a philological and historical tradition with direct
links to native Japanese national philology, kokubungaku and the earlier ko-
kugaku. Both scholars under consideration here, !bayashi Tary" and Nelly
Naumann, whose work I will discuss shortly, originally belonged to the
comparative Vienna school, having studied together at Vienna University.
They knew each other very well, sharing many points of interest. But Nelly
Naumann, without question, was the more “political” thinker of the two. If
Japanology were simply to follow the nativist kokugaku, or folklore studies in
the sense of the Yanagita School, it would always remain a prisoner of the
isolationist, Japanese ethnocentrist view. This was the credo of both scholars’
study of comparative mythology.

3. Nelly Naumann

In scientifically elucidating the heterogeneous origins of Japanese myths,

only a few researchers play an important role, but among them Nelly Nau-
mann (1922 – 2000)7 deserves to be given a special place of honor. In her
analyses – especially of Japanese mythology – she explicitly turned against
some of the main pillars of Japanese self-conception, such as the conviction
that Japan is ethnically and culturally homogeneous. She also positioned her-
self against the mainstream of Japanese folklore studies in the tradition of
Yanagita Kunio, as well as the traditional conception of tenn! (“Emperor”),

7 Cf. Antoni 2001. For major works by the author c.f. (e.g.): (1971) Das Umwandeln des Him-
melspfeilers. Ein japanischer Mythos und seine kulturhistorische Einordnung. (Asian Folklore Stu-
dies-Monograph No. 5), T!ky!: AFS. (1981) Kume-Lieder und Kume. Zu einem Problem der japa-
nischen Frühgeschichte. (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, XLVI, 2), Wiesba-
den: Kommissionsverlag Franz Steiner. (1988) Die einheimische Religion Japans, Teil 1, Bis zum
Ende der Heian-Zeit (Handbuch der Orientalistik V/4/1/1) Leiden, New York, Köln: E. J.
Brill. (1994) Die einheimische Religion Japans, Teil 2, Synkretistische Lehren und religiöse Entwick-
lungen von der Kamakura- bis zum Beginn der Edo-Zeit (Handbuch der Orientalistik V/4/1/2)
Leiden, New York, Köln: E. J. Brill. (1996) Die Mythen des alten Japan. Übersetzt und erläutert
von Nelly Naumann, München: Beck. (2000) Japanese Prehistory. The Material and Spiritual Cul-
ture of the J!mon Period (Asien- und Afrika-Studien der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Bd.
6), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

7
and in particular the orthodox interpretation of mythology underlying this
conception.
In her extensive studies on Japanese folklore and mythology, she as-
sumed a consistently historical point of view, which meant that she compre-
hended the phenomena of tradition in relation to their historical contexts and
not as witnesses of a supra-temporal and quasi-metaphysical general Japa-
nese culture. In this way, she implicitly demonstrated the processes of
change in the genesis of cultures. There is hardly a more suitable example for
demonstrating the fact that culture develops and changes than the Japanese
myths Nelly Naumann studied so intensely. While she clearly grasped the
political background behind the creation of a state mythology in the eighth
century, she also succeeded in restoring the original religious meaning of
particular mythologems within the total mythological corpus by the means
of intensive case analysis. Furthermore, she always stressed that Emperor
Tenmu (r. 673 - 686) was the outstanding personality who, for dynastic rea-
sons, pushed for the systematic organization of the myths into a binding my-
thology and what later on came to be called shint!. The method used to re-
veal the intrinsic religious quality of the myths was, therefore, historical re-
gression. Only by stepping back into early and pre-historical periods was it
possible to discover a cultural-historical milieu in which myths still had a
genuinely religious meaning. It is a widespread tendency in Japanese folk-
lore studies to find in the wet rice cultivation of the Yayoi period the back-
ground explaining not only mythology as such but also the nucleus of Japa-
nese culture conceived as a static phenomenon. Contrary to such tendencies,
Nelly Naumann, on the basis of her own painstaking analysis of sources in-
cluding the artifacts of material culture, considered the stratum of early
hunters in the J"mon period as providing a historical template for under-
standing mythical events.
The religious substance of the myths was always Naumann’s primary
scholarly interest. This substance, she believed, could be found buried both
under the centuries of time before the myths were utilized in the service of a

8
political mythology and within the political mythology itself. Then, after ex-
cavating this substance, she believed it could be understood by applying his-
torical methods. In order to understand the early meaning of these myths,
Nelly Naumann regarded it as imperative to compare typologically, geo-
graphically, and historically relevant parallels from inside as well as outside
Japan. In this regard, she contrasted sharply with the range of interpretations
given by scholars in the kokugaku tradition, which traditionally focused ex-
clusively on Japan. While the concept of Shint" since the official chronicles of
the eighth century remained inseparably linked to the state and government,
the consideration of the myths themselves threw open the door to the fasci-
nating world of early religiosity in Japan as it was imbedded in the cosmos of
the universal history of humankind.
Research on Japanese mythology, as developed by Nelly Naumann,
was characterized by an ethnological orientation, yet it was also based on
philological hermeneutics. For this reason, it never occurred to her to ask
whether Japan should be studied from a comparative cultural point of view.
Being absolutely immune to any temptations of cultural hubris and isolation-
ism, she not only challenged such authorities as Yanagita Kunio but also fur-
nished proof that early Japanese culture had been embedded in a universal
context. She was justifiably skeptical of excessive pontificating on methods
and theory, since she believed they could obstruct an unbiased view of the
sources, which in here view were the only reliable basis. As for her own
methodological approach, it can justifiably be called ethnological in the sense
that it was comparative.
Nelly Naumann's research interests put her much more into the center
of the political and ideological dispute of recent years than she herself has
possibly ever realized. Just a few years after the end of World War II, for the
first time in the German-speaking world, she published writings about the
early history and mythology of Japan that contradicted everything that both
official Japan and Germany had considered to be sacrosanct until just a few
years before. For Naumann, who was completely insusceptible to the lure of

9
nationalist interpretations of Japan's religious history, there was but one path
to follow: consulting only the available sources and analyzing them critically
(i.e. by a hermeneutic-comparative method), while at the same time keeping
in mind the artifacts of material culture when comparing non-Japanese
sources. Because of this methodological approach, she found it impossible to
believe, for example, that the mythical and legendary ruler Iware-biko of
written tradition could have ever become the nationally sublimated figure of
Jinmu-tenn" in the sense promoted by Meiji and Sh"wa ideology. Ideological
constructs of this kind did not find expression in her work. In this view,
“Japanese mythology” was nothing but a field for research into Japan's early
history that was to be approached with the tools of historical criticism of
sources and comparison – it was not a means for constructing a mysterious
national polity, but in fact destroyed such ideological constructs.
Within mainstream Japanese Studies in the German-speaking world
after the war, the conception of this discipline as advocated by Nelly Nau-
mann remained a minor branch. Because both the field of research (early his-
tory) and methodology (comparative and cultural-historical) seemed to be
hopelessly old-fashioned, the fundamental significance of such research was
rarely recognized. This has only begun to change in recent years.

4. Conclusion

Already this brief outline of some aspects of post-war comparative studies on

Japanese mythology has shown that an essentialist or static approach does
not at all account for its complex historical realities. In the 1980s, the histori-
cal comparative method generally received bitter criticism, being thought of
as old-fashioned and out of date. This point of view was elaborated for ex-
ample by the previously mentioned Alan Dundes in his work Sacred Narra-
tive (1984). In particular, his statements concerning the methodological an-
tagonism between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, an antagonism de-
scribed as a shift from diachronic to synchronic methods, seems highly ques-

10
tionable to me in many respects. Is it really true, one may ask, that diachronic
analysis of myths only means “speculating about possible origins”, as Dun-
des (1984: 3) states? It should be realized that cultures are not just systems of
previously set structures and functions, unchangeable and fixed for all time,
but rather are subject to permanent change. Thus as an important expression
of culture, myths cannot be placed outside the changes of culture and society.
What is needed is not only a comparative method, but a method that takes
the historical, diachronic dynamics of the problem into consideration. To call
diachronic methods generally obsolete, and to regard the synchronic patterns
of structuralism and/or functionalism as the only legitimate methods to
study myths in our modern times, seems more than questionable to me.
As the works of the two scholars under consideration here, !bayashi
Tayr" and Nelly Naumann, prove, the historical comparative approach is
much more up to date and alive than its critics realize.

5. Works cited

Antoni, Klaus

1986 Review of: Alan Dundes (ed.) 1984. In: Asian Folklore Studies,
vol. XLV-2, 1986, S. 299-301.
1988 Review of: !bayashi Tary" 1986. In: Asian Folklore Studies, vol.
XL-VII-2, 1988, S. 330-333.
1998 Shint! und die Konzeption des japanischen Nationalwesens (kokutai).
Der religiöse Traditionalismus in Neuzeit und Moderne Japans,
(Handbuch der Orientalistik, Band V/ 8), Leiden: Brill.
2001 „In Memoriam: Nelly Naumann. December 20, 1922 -
September 29, 2000“ (together with Maria-Verena Blümmel). In:
Asian Folklore Studies, vol. LX-1, 2001: 135-146.

Dundes, Alan

1984 Sacred Narrative. Readings in the Theory of Myth. Berkeley, Los

Angeles, London: University of California Press.

11
Kojiki (Shinpen) Nihon koten bungaku zensh" , vol. 1, ed. Yamaguchi Yo-
shinori uand K"noshi Takamitsu. T"ky": Sh"gakkan 1997.

Naumann, Nelly

1996 Die Mythen des alten Japan. Übersetzt und erläutert von Nelly
Naumann. München: Beck.

Nihonshoki Nihon koten bungaku taikei, vol. 67 and 68, ed. Sakamoto Tar" et
al. T"ky": Iwanami 1965.

!bayashi Tary"

1973 (1961) Nihon shinwa no kigen. T"ky": Kadokawa Shoten.

1986 Shinwa no keifu. Nihon shinwa no genry" o saguru. T"ky": Aoni-
sha.

12