13

Re-Examining Japanese Mythologies:Why the Nihon Shoki has two books of myths but the Kojiki only one1）

ヴィットカンプ　ローベルト F.

WITTKAMP, Robert F.

Initially,theso-called“Japanesemyths”wereatextualproductoftheKojiki（712）andtheNihon shoki （720）.Inthecourseofthecenturies,thesemythswerealtered,re-written,supplemented,andlatereventuallyexploitedtoserveJapanesenationalism.Asaresult,eventoday inusing theword“Japanesemyths”manypeoplethinkoftheKojikiastheofficialmythologyandofAmaterasuŌmikamiasthegenuineancestorgodof the imperial family.Thecreationof this imageasamonotonouslyuniformmythologyistheresultofvariousdevelopmentsandideolo-gies,butcomparativemythologybearspartoftheresponsibilityaswell. However,sincethelate1960sJapanesescholarshaveconductedaclosereadingofthemythicalnarrativescontainedinthefirstbookoftheKojikiandinthetwoinitialbooksoftheNihon shoki,respectively.Thishasrevealeddistinctdifferencesbetweenthetwocorpora,dispellingtheimageofahomogeneousmythology.Thesetext-orientedapproachescanofferaviableanswertothethornyquestionofwhytherearetwobooksofmythsintheNihon shokiwhereastheKojikihasonlyone.Thispaperwillelucidatesomeof thereasons forthepluralityandvariabilityofJapanesemythsaswellaswhyittooksolongtogiveaconvincinganswertothatquestion.

キーワード：古事記・日本書紀神話（mythsinKojikiandNihon shoki）、比較神話論（comparativemythology）、古事記神話の研究史（historyofresearchonKojikimyths）、構想（conceptualization）、上代史（pre-Heianhistory）

 1） ThisarticleisbasedonapresentationgivenatÉcoleFrançaised’Extrême-Orient/ItalianSchoolofEastAsianStudies（EFEO/ISEAS,Kyōto,May27,2019）,whichinturnwasbasedonthebookArbeit am Text　–Zur postmodernen Erforschung der Kojiki-Mythen （Wittkamp2018）.Pleasenotethatthepresentpaperprovidesonlythemostrelevantsources.

14

Inhis influentialbookImperial Politics and Symbolics in Ancient Japan－The Tenmu

Dynasty （2009）,HermanOomswritesaboutKōnoshiTakamitsuthathis“interpretation

constitutesaradicalbreakwithacenturies-oldhermeneuticsguidedbytheunquestionedaimto

clarify ‘the’Japanesemythology,thoughttoberetrievableasasingle-strandideologyfroma

numberofversions,somecontradictory,othersalmostrepetitious”（2009:29）.TorquilDuthie,

theauthorofMan’yōshū and the Imperial Imagination in Early Japan,confirmsthisassessment:

Mostrecentscholarshipboth inJapaneseand inEnglishreflects thepost-Kōnoshi

understandingthattherewasneverasinglemythohistoryoftheimperiallineage.（2014:

275）

ThecentralobjectiveofthesebooksisnotanexaminationofJapanesemythsperse.

Moreover,Kōnoshi’stheoriesdidnotmeetwithuniversalapproval.2）Althoughhisnameusually

appearsinconnectionwithJapanesemythsandmythology,aninspectionofthebibliographiesin

hislaterworksconcerningJapanesecomparativemythologyshowsthatrepresentativenames

suchasOkaMasao岡 正雄 （1898-1982）,ŌbayashiTaryō大林太良 （1929-2001）,Matsumae

Takeshi松前 健 （1922-2002）,orMatsumuraTakeo松村武雄 （1883-1969）aremissing.Seen

fromthisperspective,Ooms’assessmentofKōnoshiasmarkinga“radicalbreakwitha

centuries-oldhermeneutics”mightlackpersuasiveness,andtoday,evenDuthie’sterm“post-

Kōnoshi”requiresacloser look.Thissituationnecessitatesanoverviewofthehistoryof

researchonJapanesemyths,3）withtheaimofunderstandingwhytheanswertothequestion

posedinthetitleisfoundinrecentresearchafterKōnoshi.

Research on Japanese myths

MotooriNorinaga本居宣長 （1730-1801）establishedthefoundationofphilologicalKojiki

researchbyprovidingthetextwrittenexclusivelyinChinesecharacterswithtransliterations,

 2） OomswritesthatKōnoshi’s“rigoroushermeneutics,however,keepshimfromventuringbeyondthetexts,outofwhathecallsarefusal‘toreadwhatonewantstoreadinthem’”（2009:32-33）.

 3） TheoverviewfollowsWittkamp2018:29-36.Thethree-volumeKojiki no kenkyūshi （‘HistoryofKojikiresearch’）published in1999bytheKojikiGakkai ismoredetailedbutdoesnot take intoaccountdevelopmentsfromafteraround1995,whichareofparticularrelevancetothepresentpaper.

15Re-ExaminingJapaneseMythologies:

explanations,andcommentaries.Althoughhisquestforthefurukoto 古言,theancientwords

whichhethoughttobethetrueJapaneselanguagerepresentingthepristineJapaneseidentity,

wasultimatelynotsuccessful,hisresearchperfectlyfittedthedemandsofJapaneseideologies.

Themythswereutilized,exploited,andalteredintheserviceofJapanesenationalism.Today,

the44booksofMotoori’sKojiki-den古事記傳 （1798）formthebasisforcontemporaryKojiki

research.

WhileJapanesescholarsattheendofthe19thcenturybasedtheirKojikiresearchon

Motoori’sworks,modernKojikiresearchisprimarily inspiredbyBasilHallChamberlain’s

（1850-1935）Kojikitranslationfrom1883.Inadetailedintroduction,heclaimsthatsomeofthe

historical facts intheKojikiandNihon shokiarequestionablewhilecertainelementsof

Japanesemyths,evenwholenarratives,independentlyexistinotherpartsoftheworldaswell.

Sixyearslater,IidaNagao飯田永夫（1854-1918）translatedtheintroductionintoJapaneseand

provideditwithheadnotesinwhichheandsixotherJapanesescholarsdiscussChamberlain’s

claims.4）Ofcourse,Chamberlain’stheoriesdidnotmeetwithgeneralapproval,andsomewere

rejected.

TheJapanesediscussionofChamberlain’swork,whichMichaelWachutkadescribedas

“reziproke Interpretationskritik”（2018: 295, 302）,was an important step, and other

developmentsfollowed.In1904,TakagiToshio高木敏雄（1876-1922）introducedthemethodology

ofcomparativemythologyintoJapaneseresearchwithhisbookHikaku shinwa-gaku比較神話

学.TakagigraduatedfromTōkyōTeikokuUniversity,wherehehadstudiedGermanlanguage

andliteraturewithhisteacherKarlFlorenz （1865-1939）.Florenzhimselfwasascholarof

Japanese literatureandmyths,whonotonlypublishedasubstantialhistoryofJapanese

literaturebuttranslatedandannotatedtheJapanesemythsoftheKojiki,Nihon shoki,Sendai

kuji hongi先代旧事本紀 ,andKogo shūi古語拾遺aswell.5）

 4） Iida’stranslationandthediscussionwerepublishedasNihon jōkoshi hyōron: genmei eiyaku Kojiki日本上古史評論：言名英訳古事記；cf.Saigō1984:299-300.IidahadalreadypublishedanarticletointroduceChamberlain’stranslation inSeptemberofthesameyear （1883）;cf.Wachutka2018:294.WachutkadiscussesIida’stranslationandintroducesthesixscholars （pp.297-299）,onwhomseeWachutka2012,passim（inEnglish）.

 5） HistwobooksonJapanesemythsareJapanische Mythologie （1901）andDie historischen Quellen der Shinto-Religion（1919）,bothrepublishedin2014.HisGeschichte der japanischen Litteraturwaspublishedin1906;forFlorenz’lifeandwork,seeSatō1995.

16

TheworksofChamberlain,Florenz,andothersoncomparativemythology,suchasDas

Zeitalter des Sonnengottes（1904）byLeoFrobenius（1873-1938）,provethatmodernresearchon

Japanesemythsbeganas a fruitful international project,whichnevertheless lacked

sustainability.AlthoughscholarssuchasOkaMasaoandŌbayashiTaryōspentmanyyearsin

Europeandwereclosely involved in internationalresearch, themainstreamofJapanese

research on theKojikimyths developed not as an international but rather as an

interdisciplinaryprogramcomprisingcomparativemythology, folklorestudies,ethnology,

historiography,and,ofcourse, literarystudies.6）The labellingofthisstageofresearchas

“modern,”whichdistinctlydiffersfrompre-Chamberlain Kojikiresearch,inevitablymeansre-

labellingpreviousresearchas“pre-modern.”

AccordingtoTerakawaMachio,intheearly1960s,ŌtaYoshimaro太田善麿（1918-1997）

claimedthattheKojikiandNihon shokiaredifferentworkswithdifferentcontentsandshould

thereforebe examined separately.7）As seen above, interdisciplinaritywas themain

characteristicof“modern”researchonJapanesemyths.Furthermore,thesemodernapproaches

hadincommonthattheytreatedthetwochroniclesasasourceofmaterialstoexplorethe

realitiesoutsideoforunderlyingthetexts.8）ThisresultedintheideathatJapanesemyths

conveyeda“singlemythohistory”ora“single-strandideology,”eventhoughithasnowbeen

establishedthattheyhadinternationalorigins.Differencesbetweenseveraltextsorwithinone

textwereeither ignoredorexplainedawayasbeingduetodifferent linesorphasesof

transmission.

Inthelater1960s,SaigōNobutsuna西郷信綱（1916-2008）turneddecidedlyawayfromthe

 6） TheremarksoncomparativeresearchonJapanesemythsinWittkamp（ 2018 ）arebasedmostlyontheworksbyOkaandŌbayashi;seeŌbayashi1990and1994（12papersbyOkaeditedbyŌbayashi）.

 7） Cf.Terakawa2006:157,2009:171.TerakawareferstoŌtaYoshimaro’sfour-volumecontributionKodai Nihon bungei shichō-ron古代日本文芸思潮論publishedin1961-1966,specificallyvol.2（1962）and 3（1964）.

 8） Theterm‘chronicles’isusedhereforthesakeofconveniencetorefertobothworks.TheNihon shokibooksNos. 3 to30arewritteninthestyleofChineseannals（biannian ti編年体 ,Japanese: hennentai）,onwhichseeWilkinson2015:612-620.TheKojiki,ontheotherhand,doesnotfollowachronologicalorderbutratheraspatialone,namingtheCourtswheretherulers lived.Ofcourse,theorderoftherulers isgenealogical,butthethreebooksoftheKojikimakenodistinctionbetween‘myth’and‘history.’ThefirsttwobooksoftheNihon shoki,however,whichhavetheoriginaltitle‘Shindai’神代（“AgeoftheGods”,usuallycalled: ‘Kamiyo’）,whileshowingthesamepattern,shifttotheChineseannalisticstylefromthetimeofJinmuTennōonwards.

17Re-ExaminingJapaneseMythologies:

methodsofcomparativemythology,historiography,andfolklorestudies,whichhecomparedto

dissectingacorpseorpeelingawaythelayersofanonion.9）Hefurtherusedthemetaphorof

zōsui雑炊 ,literally“ricegruel”,10）tocharacterizethesingle-strandmythology.Inanattemptto

readtheKojikimythsasmythicallanguageonceagain,11）heestablishedthefoundationforthe

approachlatertermedsakuhin-ron作品論.Thismethodunderstandsaliteraryworksuchas

theKojikiasasinglecoherentandself-containedunittobedifferentiatedfromotherworks.

Sakuhin-ron,whichissimilartoNewCriticisminitsclosereadingofthetext,canbetranslated

astext-immanence-basedanalysis.Itsbest-knownproponentisKōnoshiTakamitsu.

SinceSaigōandotherscholarstriedtorefute“modern”approaches,theirworksmaybe

collectivelydescribedaspostmodernKojikiresearch.12）However,itshouldbenotedthatthe

sakuhin-ronapproachseemstohaveexhausteditspossibilities,sincerecentscholarsareno

longerwillingtocomplywithKōnoshi’srigiddemandstofocusexclusivelyonthetextandto

refrainfromincludinganyextra-textualevidenceintheiranalyses.13）Asaresult,morerecent

researchadoptsawiderperspective,forexample,incorporatingapproachessuchastheoriesof

gradualtextualgenesisanddevelopmentoncemore.14）It iscrucialtoappreciatethatpost-

Kōnoshischolarshipattempts torebut sakuhin-ronwithout fallingbackonconventional

“modern”approaches.Manyconceptsestablishedbysakuhin-ron,suchastextualdifferences,

plurality,andself-containment,wereadopted.Theseconsiderationsandthefocusonthetext

explainwhybothsakuhin-ronandtheapproachestoabolishingsakuhin-ronmaybedescribedas

text-orientedorpostmodernresearch.

Kōnoshilabelledtheideaofasingleuniquemythologyas‘hitotsu no shinwa’to iu paradaimu

 9） Cf.Saigō1984:300-301.10） Cf.Saigō1984:230andKōnoshi1983:260.11） Cf.Saigō1967（latestedition2015）.12） Foraself-descriptionas‘postmodern’（posutomodan）seeSaijō2005: 4 -5.13） Cf.Terakawa2009:14-17;forasummaryofcriticalremarksonKōnoshi’sworks,seeWittkamp2018:64-

70,whoalsoshowsthatevencriticalworkssuchasSaijō2005neverthelessrelyonsakuhinron.14） InKōnoshi’sview,thesemethods,whichhesummarizesasikkei-teki hatten-dankairon-teki一系的発展段

階論的 （gradualdevelopmentonasimpletrajectory）,areresponsibleforthe“ricegruel （zōsui）”calledKiki shinwa;cf.Kōnoshi2013:73and2008:17 （“ricegruel”）.Kōnoshi locatesthebeginningsofthesemethods inTsudaSōkichi’swork,Shindaishi no atarashii kenkū神代史の新しい研究from1931;cf.Wittkamp2018:19.AnewapproachtotextgenesisisSaijō2005.Mizoguchi（ 2016:103-104 ）presentsamodelinfourstepstoshowthedevelopingtextualhistoryoftheKojiki.

18

（〈一つの神話〉というパラダイム）or“theparadigmofasingleJapanesemythology”（2013:138,

208）,andbysodoingautomaticallyimpliedaparadigmshift.However,thedevelopmentoftext-

immanence-basedKojikiresearchwasnotaparadigmshiftbecausetheoldparadigm,the

independentexistenceoftheso-calledJapanesemythselsewhere,wasneitherrejectednor

replaced.

AccordingtoSaigō,thenewdevelopmentrepresentedaturn（tenkan）.Intheunderstanding

ofculturalstudies,‘turn’signifiesanewapproachaddedtoexistingmethods.Furthermore,itis

notatallunusual forturns—suchassakuhin-ron—tohaveatendencyto ignoreexisting

approaches,suchascomparativemythology.15）Incontrasttothispostmodernturn,“modern”

researchontheKojikicausedagenuineparadigmshiftbecauseitendedtheoldworldviewofa

pristineanduniqueJapanesemythology,which,asalreadymentioned,wasnothingbuta

constructofJapanese ideology.Consequently,Ooms’assessmentofKōnoshi’sworksas“a

radicalbreakwithacenturies-oldhermeneutics”mustberelativized.Duthie’s“post-Kōnoshi”,

ontheotherhand,seemsapreferabletermforcriticaldevelopmentsafterKōnoshiandismore

suitableasacharacterizationofthenewapproachesafterthe 2 ndmillennium,whichattemptto

abolishKōnoshi’ssakuhin-ron.Thefollowingmodelsummarizesthehistoryofresearchonthe

Kojikimyths:

Premodern:MotooriNorinagaandtheKojiki-den,providingthephilologicalfoundation

Modern:BasilHallChamberlain’sKojikitranslationfrom1882:aninternationalapproach

combinedwith interdisciplinarity （e.g. comparativemythology:TakagiToshio;

historiography:TsudaSōkichi津田左右吉 ,1873-1961,ethnology:OkaMasao）

Postmodern:SaigōNobutsuna’s ‘turn’andKōnoshiTakamitsu’stext-immanence-based

analysisandtext-orientedresearch,whichendeavourtoovercometherestrictionsof

Kōnoshi’ssakuhin-ron

Premodernandpostmodernapproacheshaveclosereadingofthetext incommon,while

modernapproacheslookforwhatisoutsidethetextorunderliesit.16）Thefollowingmodelis

15） Saigōspeaksofhōhō no tenkan方法の転換 （“turnofmethods”）orhōhōteki tenkan方法的転換（“methodicalturn”）;cf.Saigō1984:302-302,andonturninculturalstudies,Bachmann-Medick2006.

16） PostmodernKojikiresearchusuallystartswithMotooriNorinaga’sKojiki-den,andpremodernand

19Re-ExaminingJapaneseMythologies:

designedtoschematizethecomplexityoftheseparaterealmsofKojikiresearch.Itshowsthe

fieldsor‘layers,’onwhichthedifferentapproachesanddisciplinestendtofocus.17）Onehasto

keepinmindthateverymodelisanextremesimplificationofacomplexrealityandcanthus

functiononlyasaheuristictool.Furthermore,thefollowingmodelcontainskeywordswhich,

althoughnotafocusofthepresentpaper,areimportantfortheunderstandingoftheKojikiand

Nihon shokichronicles:

1st layer（global,transregional）

◉oldmyths,elementsofmyths,mythicalbuildingblocks （Antoni2012,“Bausteine”）

originatingoutsideoftheJapanesearchipelago

◉materialmainlytransmittedorally （includingarchaeologicalartefacts, linguisticand

geneticdata）

2nd layer（‘OldJapanese,’transitionfromoralitytoliteracy）

◉mythsstemmingfromdifferentpartsoftheoutsideworldthatcontinued （altered,

enriched,abbreviated）tobetoldontheJapaneseislands

◉newmythsfromtheKoreanPeninsula（mostofthemorallytransmittedbut,fromthe7th

centuryonward,alsoinwrittenform）

◉Yamato’sseparationfromtheChineserealmcalled‘UnderHeaven’（tianxia天下）andthe

buildingofaJapanese‘UnderHeaven’（ame no shita天下）

◉firstwrittenconstitutionsandnarratives （teiki,kyūji）,whichprovidedmaterialforthe

compositionofthechroniclesKojikiandNihon shoki

3rd layer（writtentextsfromtheendofthe7thcenturyonward）

◉rearrangingandrewritingthatledtothefinalversionsofthetwochronicles （political-

ideologicalmyths）

◉constructingofapolitybasedonaritsuryōconstitution（toaddresstheunderlyingproblem

ofcreatingasystemofsuccessiontothethronebasedonhereditywithintheimperial

family）

postmodernaretightlyconnected.However,Motoorialsolookedforsomething（alanguage）underlyingthetext,whichconnectshisworkwithmodernresearch.

17） ThemodelisbasedonsuggestionsbyMatsumoto2003:73,78-79andAntoni2012:333.Bothscholarsprovideamodelconsistingoftwolayers;cf.Wittkamp2018:36-49.

20

Historiographyisinterestedinallthreelayers;comparativemythologywasconcernedwith

thefirstlayer;whileKōnoshi’ssakuhin-ron,particularlyhislaterwork,focusedexclusivelyon

thethirdlayer.Thesecondlayerwasmoreorlessneglectedinbothcomparativemythological

andtext-immanence-basedanalysis.Thislayer,particularlyitshistoricalandtextualtransitionto

thethirdlayer,isthefieldthatmostrecentworksareconcernedwith.18）

The two lines（or systems） of myth transmission

Thequestionposedinthetitleofthepresentarticlehastobeseeninthecontextofpost-

Kōnoshiresearch,which,asmentionedabove,seekstoincorporate“modern”approachesto

myth.Tobetterunderstandtheissueasummaryofthepresentstateofknowledgeconcerning

theoriginsofJapanesemyths isdesirable.Ofcourse,thisknowledgehas—ingreatpart—

alreadybeenuncoveredbycomparativemythologyandethnology.However,inthecontextof

“modern”research, itwasnotdeployed intheanalysisof thetexts inorderto identify

differences,butrathertoshowextratextualsimilarities.19）Asarguedabove,thefirstscholar

explicitlysuspiciousoftheuniquenessofJapanesemythswasChamberlain.Althoughhis

assumptionswererathervagueandalthoughscholarssuchasFlorenzandOkajumpedto

conclusionsinseveralinstances,researchontheoriginsofJapanesemythsbecameincreasingly

thoroughandcomprehensiveinthe20thcentury.Today, it iscommonknowledgethatthere

weretwolinesorsystemsofmythtransmission,usuallylabelledassouthernandnorthern.20）

Thisknowledgeisnotrestrictedtospecialists.Forexample,MiuraSukeyuki,whoisoneof

themostradicalcriticsoftheconceptofKiki shinwa記紀神話 （themythsoftheKojikiand

Nihon Shokiunderstoodas‘the’Japanesemyths）,21）gaveafour-partlectureontheKojikion

18） Aspectsbelongingtothis liminalspacebetweenthesecondandthethird layerhavealreadybeenscrutinizedinmodernapproaches.Anexampleisseiritsuron成立論,i.e.thequestionofhowthetextsgraduallyachievedtheirpresentform.KōnoshiattributesseiritsurontothehistorianTsudaSōkichianduncompromisinglyrejectsthismethodology;seeYamaguchi/Kōnoshi2007:434,Wittkamp2018:19-28.

19） Recentapproachesconsidergeneticandlinguisticaspectsaswell.20） BesidesOkaandŌbayashi,someothernamesdeservetobementionedhere,suchasToriiRyūzō鳥居龍

蔵（1870-1953）,MatsumuraTakeo,MatsumotoNobuhiro松本信廣（1897-1981）,andMishinaShō’ei三品彰英（ 1902-1971 ）;cf.Wittkamp2018:183.ForToriiandMatsumura,seeSaijō2005:71;andforMatsumoto

（mythsfromthesouth）andMishina（mythsfromKorea）,seeHirafuji2015.21） Seethesection‘ThespellnamedKiki’（「記紀」という呪縛‘Kiki’to iu jubaku）inMiura2013:8-9andp.

11,whereheevenspeaksof“mindcontrol”（maindo konturōru）.

21Re-ExaminingJapaneseMythologies:

NHKeducationtelevision （E-tere）.Inthecourseoftheprogram （broadcastedinSeptember

2013）,hepresentedachartoftheso-calledKojikiworldview（Kojiki no sekaikan古事記の世界

観）.Itconsistedofaverticalworldview （suichokuteki sekaikan垂直的世界観）andahorizontal

worldview（suiheiteki sekaikan水平的世界観）,representingthenorthernlineandthesouthern

line,respectively.Besidesthesetwobasicorientations,othercharacteristicslistedbyMiura

were“patriarchal,tennō,andYayoi”forthenorthernlineversus“matriarchal,deitiesofthe

land（kuni tsu kami国 つ 神）,andJōmon”forthesouthernsystem.22）Theverticalworldview

presentedinMiura’schartputsTakaamanoHara （“thehighplainsofheaven”）atthetop,

AshiharanoNakatsuKuni （“thecentralrealmofreedplains”）inthemiddle,andYomino

Kuni （“LandofYellowSprings”）atthebottom.23）Realmsbelongingtothehorizontalworld

viewareTokoyonoKuni,amysteriousworldbeyondthesea;WatatsuMinoMiya,thepalace

oftheseadeity;andNenoKatasuKuni,theworldtowhichSusanoWoeventuallyretiredand

whereOhoanamujiwaspromotedtoOhokuninushi,GreatMasteroftheLand.24）

AmapinMiura’sbookbasedontheNHKprogramdepictsanareafromEastAsiato

AustraliaandthePacificIslands.Miuralocatesinthisextendedregiontheoriginsofsome

famousnarrativesbelongingto thesouthernsystem,suchas theaccountsofKonohana

SakuyabimeandSusanoWo,the lost fishinghook （i.e. thefamousstoryofthebrothers

UmisachiandYamasachi）,andtheso-called“islandpulling（fishing）”（kuni-hiki國引）fromthe

mythsoftheIzumo Fudoki出雲風土記.25）Miuraestimatesthearrivalofthesenarrativeswithin

22） Thewords‘line’and‘system’bothrefertoJapanesekei系asinnanpōkei南方系andhoppōkei 北方系,southernandnorthernline;forthechartseeMiura2016:95.

23） ThefirsttwonamesfollowtheKojikitranslationbyHeldt2014:7,16,buthisrenderingofYomotsuKuniwith“thelandoftheUnderworld”isnottenable,becausetheKojikidoesnotpresentYomo （Yomi）tsuKuniasasubterraneanworld.SinceSatōMasahide’s佐藤正英influentialarticle,‘YomotsuKuninoarika’黄泉国の在りか,publishedinGendai shisō現代思想（September1982）,thequestionhasbeenthesubjectofdiscussion.It isasiftheKojikideliberatelyavoidsrevealinganyexactinformationonits location;seeWittkamp2018:190-196.

24） HeldtranslatesTokoyonoKuniwith“Everworld”（cf.Heldt2014:246）andNenoKatasuKuniwith“thelandthatliesbeneaththehardearth’sroots”（p.30）.Hereagain,thesuggestionofasubterraneanworldisquestionable.Yamaguchi/Kōnoshi （2007:54-55）explainne根,literary ‘root,’asanexpressionfor“faraway;”cf.Wittkamp2018:201-204,withothersources.

25） Cf.Miura2016:107.Miura’slocalizationoftheoriginofthesemyths,e.g.theislandfishingontheNiueIsland,seemtobetooprecise.Presumably,theiroriginistobesoughtinamuchlargerarea,sincethepathoftheirtransmissiontotheJapaneseislandsisnotyetclear.

22

theJōmonperiod.Exactdatesareunknown;nevertheless,thesemythsareprobablyoldenough

tobelabelledasautochthonousorindigenous.Incontrast,thehistoryofthemythsfromthe

northernsystemontheJapaneseislandsismuchmorerecent.Miuradatestheirorigintothe

Yayoiera,whichlastedfromabout500BCE（orearlier）toabout300CE,butevidenceindicates

thattheywerestillbeingtransmittedintothe 5 thcentury,adatewhichmightbemorerelevant

forthepresentpaper.

ThemainitemsofthemythsfromthenorthernlineinOldJapanesenarrativesarethe

existenceoftheheavenlyrealmTakaamanoHara（Kojiki）,thedescentofHonoNinigi26）from

TakaamanoHararelatedinthe tenson kōrinmyths（tenson kōrin shinwa天孫降臨神話）,anda

militaryexpeditionbythedescendedrulertotheeast （tōsei東征）.AccordingtoMizoguchi

Mutsuko,thesenarrativesoriginallybelongedtogetherandformedonecontinuousstory,which

shecallskenkoku densetsu建国伝説orkenkoku shinwa建国神話,thenational foundation

myth.27）Themusuhigodsmentionedinthetwochronicles,particularlyTakamiMusuhiand

KamuMusuhi,arealsotypicalof thenorthern lineandwereworshippedattheYamato

Court.28）

Anothersignificantaspectofthesemythsthatneedstobeaddressedistheidentityofthose

whotransmittedthem.Themythsofthesouthernlinepresumablyweretoldalloverthe

Japanesearchipelagoformanycenturies,buthistorical,political,andreligiouscircumstancesled

tochangesinthenarrativetoldbythepowerfulgroupswithinYamato,thelaterpoliticalcenter

oftheJapaneseIslands.AccordingtoŌbayashiTaryōandotherscholars,thetransmittersofthe

26） TheabbreviationofthenameAme-nikishiKuni-nikishiAmatsuHi-takaHikoHonoNiniginoMikoto天邇岐志國邇岐志天津日高日子番能邇邇藝命isusually‘Ninigi.’However,itisimportanttoincludetheelement“Ho”番becauseitappears likelythatthisphonogramforhowasuseddeliberatelytobringtogetherho穂 （“riceear”）,asinOshihomimi （Amaterasu’sson）,andho火 （“fire”）,aswellasinthenamesofthethreegenerationsafterHonoNinigi,toblurdifferencesbetweenthenarrativespreferredbydifferentgroups;cf.Wittkamp2018:142,171,442.

27） SeeMizoguchi2016:21.However,“forreasonsofspace”（ibid.）shedealsexclusivelywithtenson kōrin shinwa;seealsopp.103-104,130,etc.Theconceptofkenkoku shinwacanbetracedbacktoTakagiToshio’sbook,Nihon kenkoku shinwa日本建国神話from1912.

28） TheritualsatCourttoworshipthemusuhideitieswerecalledtsukinami no matsuri月次祭 （literally‘monthlyrituals’）.TheywereamongthemostimportantritualsatCourtandwereconductedinthe 6 thand12thmonthbythetennōpersonally（tennō shinsai天皇親祭）,presumablyfromthelate 7 thorearly 8 thcenturyonwards;cf.Dettmer2010:5,7,Ooms2009:106-108 （seealsoindexp.352）,Mizoguchi2016:72-74,orMaruyama2001:187.

23Re-ExaminingJapaneseMythologies:

myths fromthenorthernsystemwerethe imperial family, thepriestsat theCourt, the

“allochthons”fromChinaandtheKoreanpeninsula,29）andtheso-calleduji氏groups（“clans”）

ofthemuraji連andbanzō伴造 （tomo no miyatsuko）,i.e.groupsthatwerebounddirectlyto

theimperialfamilyinYamato.30）

Thequestionofwhyitwassoimportantfortheimperialfamilytopossessuniquemyths

distinctfromtheonesofotherujigroups,especiallyfromthosewhichcirculatedamongthe

powerfulfamiliesintheregionsfurtherawayfromYamato,isacentralthemeoftext-oriented

Kojikiresearch.Whiledifferentattemptsweremadetoanswerthequestion,allpointtopolitical

circumstancesduringthetransitionfromtheeraofkingdomstoaritsuryōstatebasedona

constitution.Severalentriesinthetwochroniclesandothersourcesconfirmthatattheendof

the 7 thcenturytheTenmu-Jitōdynastywasstilldependentonthegoodwillandapprovalofthe

chihō gōzoku地方豪族.Thesepowerfulfamilies,spreadalloverthecountry,werethemain

carriersofthemythsbelongingtothesouthernline.31）

A new wave from the north？

In1948,thehistorianEgamiNamio江上波夫（1906-2002）proposedhisfamoustheorythat

ahorse-ridingnationortribesfromtheKoreanPeninsulaconqueredtheJapaneseIslandsand

built akingdom （kiba minzoku seifuku ōchō-setsu騎馬民族征服王朝説）.Although the

‘HorseriderTheory’asawholewasrejectedbymanyscholars,archeologicalfindingsinJapan

29）“Allochthons”comesfromOoms2009:xviii,43,51,etc.（shoban諸蕃）.TherewasalivelydiscussiononthePMJSlistinSummer2019concerningthetranslationofban,butitseemsthatOoms’proposalwaspassedover insilence.However,histranslationappearstobeappropriate,becausetheexpressionisstrangeenoughtorendertheoriginalconcept,whichmusthavehadasimilareffectofstrangeness,withoutbeingdisparaging.However,takingitasanantonymtoautochthonwouldbemisleading,andtheriskofobscuringthehybridcharacterofthesocietyremains,too.

30） Ōbayashisubdividesthemythsintothreegroups:theAmenoMinakanushigroup,theKuninoTokotachigroup,andtheUmashiAshikabiHikojigroup,namedafterthreedeities.Whilethecarriersofthelattertwogroupswerethericefarmersandfishermenalloverthecountry,thecarriersoftheAmenoMinakanushigroup,whichbelievedinagodinheaven （ame）,werethepredecessorsoftheimperialfamilyandthepriestsaroundthem;cf.Ōbayashi1990:18-41 （groups）andpp.41-47 （carriers）.SeealsoMizoguchi2000:82-84,2016:103-104.

31） SeeKōnoshi2013:167andthechapter‘LegitimierungundErnennung’（‘legitimizationandappointment’）inWittkamp2018:111-121.

24

indicateprofoundculturalchangesoccurringduringthelate4thand5thcentury.32）Mostevident

arethe“ 5 th-centurykeyholetombsbuiltontheŌsakaplains”aboutwhichGinaL.Barnes

writesthat“startinginthemid- 5 thcentury,thetombsbegintoyieldhorse-trappings;andin

the 6 thcenturytheybecomethemaingravegoods.”33）Sheexplainsthat“horsegearisonly

oneofthetypesofartifactsadoptedfromtheKoreanPeninsulainthe 5 thcentury,which

witnessedthemigrationofskilledcraftspeople,scholars,andelitesfromthePeninsula”（ibid.）.In

addition,wecanassumethatthesepeoplebroughtnotonlyartifactsandtechnicalknow-how

withthembutalsostoriesandmyths.Theriddleofthesuddenappearanceofahorseculture

nowseemstohavebeensolved.HistoricalevidenceindicatesthattheKoreankingdomBaekje

（Paekche;JapaneseKudara）askedYamatoforsupportagainstGoguryeo （JapaneseKōkuri）

andsenthorsestogetherwithtrainerstotheJapaneseIslandstoteachthemhorsekeeping.34）

AnotherscholarwhopushedthetheoryofJapanesepredecessorsfurtherisMizoguchi

Mutsuko.35）Herresearchisofparticularrelevanceforthepresentpaperbecausesheconnects

theevidenceofarchaeologyandhistorywithmythology.Shebeginsthefirstchapterofher

bookAmaterasu no tanjō—kodai ōken no genryū o saguru（‘TheBirthofAmaterasu—InSearch

oftheOriginsoftheAncientKingdom’）byconfirmingthe“strikingsimilarities”betweenthe

tenson kōrinmyths,whichshe,too,regardsasthe“kerneloftheKikimyths （themyths

containedinKojikiandNihon shoki）,”andthemythsaboutthefoundersorancestors （shiso

shinwa始祖神話）oftheancientstate（s）of theKoreanPeninsula.Referringtoprevious

research,shepointsoutthattheselattermythswereconnectedtothoseoftheoldhorse-riding

32） AccordingtoGinaL.Barnes,itwasW.Edwardswho,in1983,rejectedEgami’s“fancifultheoryonceandforall inEnglish”（2007: 9 ）.However,theconferencetalkscollectedbytheeditorialcommitteeoftheKodaishishinpojiumu“hakken,kenshō:Nihon no kodai”（2016II）showthatEgami’sideasarenotentirelyoffthetableasJapaneseandKoreanscholarscontinuetodebatetheissueof‘HorseRiderCultureandtheInnovations inAncientTimes’（Kiba bunka to kodai no inobēshon騎馬文化と古代のイノベーション）.Egami’sintriguingpaperisincludedinthesecondvolume（cf.pp.10-60）.

33） Cf.Barnes2007:9,18.34） Cf.Shiraishi2016:100.Hegivesanoverviewofthe“horseculture”（uma no bunka馬の文化）ofthelate

4thandearly5thcenturies（pp.88-101）.Accordingtohim,horsesdidnotexistontheJapaneseislandsbeforethattime（p.92）.

35） Mizoguchidiscussesherobservations inMizoguchi1982,2000,andotherworks.Forthesakeofconvenience,inthepresentpaperIrefermainlytoMizoguchi2016 （2009,1sted.）,whoseintroductionisbasedonpreviousworks;seealsoWittkamp2018:45,pp.47-49,andpp.451-468.

25Re-ExaminingJapaneseMythologies:

nomadsfromthe“fargrasslandsofnorthernEurasia.”Whilethereismucharchaeologicaland

historicalevidencetosupportthesesimilarities,Mizoguchiopinesthatthequestionsofthewhen

andthewhyofthereceptionofKoreaninfluencesarerarelydiscussedadequately.36）

MizoguchiquotesthearchaeologistSawaraMakoto佐原真 （1932-2002）,whoalsorejects

Egami’s ‘HorseriderTheory’butneverthelessconfirmsthat“duringthistime,manypeople

camefromtheoutside（toraijin渡来人）,”andthat“itiscertainthatthecultureofhorseriding

tribeshadarrived.”37）Forthesereasons,Mizoguchiwidenedthescopeofherinvestigationofthe

JapanesemythsandexamineddevelopmentsinnorthernChinaduringthe4thand5thcenturies.

Thisera,usually labelledasWuhuShiliuguo五胡十六國,literally“FiveBarbariansSixteen

Kingdoms”（Japanesegoko jūrokkoku）,38）wasidentifiedbyMizoguchi （2016:21-23）ashaving

witnessedviolentupheavalsandmigrations inNortheastAsia,whichaffectedtheKorean

PeninsulaandthustheJapaneseIslandsaswell.39）Inthiscontext,sheattemptstoexplainthe

arrivalofnomadmythsfromnortheastAsia,particularlythenarrativessummarizedunder

kenkoku shinwa.

The tenson kōrin myths

Thetenson kōrin myths,theaccountsofHonoNinigi’sdescentfromheaven,areconsidered

tobethecentralnarrativesoftheJapanesemythsofthetwochroniclesbecausetheyattempt

36） Cf.Mizoguchi2016:20.ThedeliberateuseofthetermKiki shinwainpost-KōnoshiKojikiresearchhastobeseenasdisapprovalofKōnoshi’spersistentobjections to it.This isveryevident in the titleofMizubayashiTakeshi’sbook,Kiki shinwa to ōken no matsuri （‘Kikimythsandthekingdomrituals’）.HisintroductionoffersacriticismofKōnoshi’stheories;seeMizubayashi2001: 3 -37（newlyreviseded.,original1991 ）andWittkamp2018:18-20.Kōnoshi’scriticismofthetermKiki shinwaisacentralpartofalmostallofhisworkssince1983;cf.Kōnoshi1983:259-279.

37） Sawara1987,quotedafterMizoguchi2016:21.38） EndymionWilkinsonexplains“SixteenKingdoms”as“theconventionaltermformorethan23mainly

short-liveddynasties （andonelong-livedone）establishedindifferentpartsofNorthChina,Sichuan,andGansubetween304and439（noneofwhichwascountedinthelegitimatesuccession）.［...］Collectivelythenon-ChinesepeopleswhofoundedstatesintheNorthatthistimewereknownasthewuhu五胡 （fivebarbarians）”（2015:728）.Helists23dynastiesinatable（p.729）;“long-livedone”referstotheBei-Wei北魏dynasty,whichlastedfrom386to534（ibid.）.

39） AccordingtoShiraishi,GogryeowasundergreatpressurefromtheQianyuan前燕 （JapaneseSen’en）dynasty,whichwasestablishedbytheXianbei鮮卑（JapaneseSenpi）nomads,oneofthe“FiveBarbarians”andthefoundersoftheXianbeiEmpire;cf.Shiraishi2016:97.

26

toestablisha legitimatehereditary line fromthehighestgodatthetopof theheavenly

hierarchytotheimperialfamilyonearth.Thenarrativewithwhichwearefamiliartodayis

thatcontainedintheKojiki,whichpresentsAmaterasuastheancestordeityoftheimperial

family.ButtothismustbeaddedtheaccountofNihon shokiwhichoffers fivedifferent

narratives:themainversionoftheninthblockandthealternativeversionsNos.1,2,4,and

6.40）Inthissection,Iwill isolateandcomparesomecoreelementsofthesixaccounts.In

readingwhatfollows,threefactshavetobekeptinmind.First,thattheelevenblocksofthe

Nihon shokimythsarecontainedintwoseparatebooks,theprimarytopicofthepresentpaper.

Second,thatitsninthblock,containingthenarrativesofHonoNinigi’sdescent,istheopening

chaptertothesecondbook.Andfinally,thatit isthisninthblockinwhichTakamiMusuhi

appearsforthefirsttimeinthemainnarrative.

Butfirstarésuméofthestoryline,includingthedevelopmentsleadingtothedescent.The

followingoverviewsummarizestheKojikitext,whichdiffersfromtheNihon shokiversions.As

alreadymentioned,itisverylikelythattheaccountofthedescentfromheavenwasoriginally

partofalongernarrative,whichMizoguchidescribesasnationfoundationmyths （kenkoku

shinwa）.Someof theNihon shokiversionscontain fragmentsofaccountsofamilitary

expeditionintotheeast,whichcanbesummarizedundertheoriginaltermkuni-magi覓國 ,the

questforthegoodland,41）directlyfollowingHonoNinigi’sarrivalatMountTakachiho.These

fragmentsareabsentintheKojikinarrative.However,theactualnarrativeofthisexpeditionin

bothchroniclesisthetaleofJinmu’sjourneytotheeast,whichmarksthebeginningofthe

secondKojikibookandofthethirdNihon shokibook.TherelevantepisodesintheKojikitext

ofHonoNinigi’sdescentfromheavenare:

1.AfterthecreationoftheworldAshiharanoNakatsuKuni （“earth”）iscompletedby

Ohokuninushi,AmaterasugivesanordertohersonOshihomimitodescendandreign

40） TheNihon shokimythsconsistofelevenblocksthattogetherformthemainversion.Alternativeversions,varyinginnumberandlength,interspersethem,buttheblocksmustbereadasonecoherentnarrative.Thealternativeversionsarewritteninconspicuouslysmallercharactersinsertedintwolinesintothetext.Eightalternativeversionsaccompanytheninthblock,containingthetenson kōrinmyth,butonlyfourofthemtellofHonoNinigi’sdescent.Inusingtheterm“blocks”IfollowMetevelis1993:386-387,whodescribesthemas“mainvariants”and“variants.”

41） Cf.Wittkamp2018:170-171,456,460.

27Re-ExaminingJapaneseMythologies:

overtheearth（firstcommand）.

2.SinceOshihomimirealizesthattheearthisstillinchaos,AmaterasuandTakamiMusuhi

dispatchadeitytosubjugatethegodsoftheland,butthatmissionandasubsequentone

fail.

3.Athirdmissionissuccessful,andOhokuninushihandsoverthelandtoTakaamanoHara

（“heaven”）togetherwiththerighttoruleit.

4.AmaterasuandTakagi（＝TakamiMusuhi）giveanotherordertoOshihomimito

descend（secondcommand）.

5.Duringthethreemissions,Oshihomimifathersason,HonoNinigi,andproposestosend

himtoearthinsteadofhimselftheproposalisimmediatelyandtacitlyaccepted.Takagi

isnotmentionedthereafter.

6.HonoNinigireceivestheordertodescendandreignovertheearth.

7.Amaterasuprovideshimwithattendantdeities,amirror,jewels,asword,andgiveshim

instructionsonhowtoworshipher（themirror）andanotherdeityinIse.

8.HonoNinigiandtheaccompanyingdeitiesdescendtoMountTakachiho,thestarting-

pointofthenarrativesofthefirstthreegenerationsontheearth — butwithoutthe

kunimagi,thequestforthegoodland.

Themostsignificantaspectofthesixtalesaspoliticalmythsconcernsthedeity（kami神）

whogavethecommandtodescend（shireishin指令神・司令神）,becausethecommandinggod

isconsideredtobetheancestordeityoftheimperialfamily.Thefollowingtableshowsthe

presenceofthecommandingdeitiesAmaterasu（At）andTakamiMusuhi,aliasTakagi（TM）,

withinthesixnarratives:

Table 1 : The commanding gods.

Kojiki（integration） No.1 No.2 No.4 No.6 Nihon shoki

（mainversion） Receiverofthecommand

At At At --- --- --- OshihomimiAt＋TM --- --- --- --- --- Oshihomimi（ 2 ndcommand）

（At＋TM） At At TM TM TakamiMusuhi HonoNinigiAt --- --- --- --- （TakamiMusuhi） HonoNinigi’sdescent

28

Thebracketsaroundnamesindicatethatthetextcontainsnoexplicitinformationonthem,

thoughthenarrativeandgrammaticalcontextshintatthegivennames;concerningHono

Ninigi’sdescentintheKojiki,Amaterasuistheonlyactinggodmentioned.Also,thesymbol“---”

indicatesthatthecommanditselfdoesnotappear.42）Table1showsthattheNihon shokimain

versionandthealternativeversions4and6presentTakamiMusuhialoneasthecommanding

god.Incontrast,thealternativeversions1and2haveAmaterasuasthesolecommandingdeity.

IntheKojiki,however,AmaterasuandTakagi（TakamiMusuhi）acttogether,butthenarrative

givesmoreweighttoAmaterasu.Inthissense,theKojikinarrativeisdistinctlyclosertothe

alternativeversionsNos. 1 and2.Thisiscorroboratedbyanotherfact:whiletheNihon shoki

mainversion（NSK）andthealternativeversionsNos.4and6donotcontainthetwocommands

toOshihomimi,theKojikicontainsthefirstcommandderivedfromalternativeversionNos.1

and2.

ThefactthatonlytheKojikinarrativecontainsthesecondordertoOshihomimisuggests

thatitmightbethemostrecentofalltheversions.43）Thisassumptionbecomesmoreplausible

whenweexamineadifferentelementof thenarratives, thezuihanshin随伴神, i.e. the

accompanyingdeities.SaijōTsutomudividesthemintotwogroups（kei）:a）the“military

expedition to theeastgroup”（東征系tōsei-kei）andb）the“rockcavegroup”（石屋戸系

iwayado-kei）whofigureintheaccountofAmaterasu’shidingintherockcave.Theyarefound

inthevariousversionsasfollows:

42） Atthebeginningof theninthmythblockmainversion,Amaterasu ismentionedshortlyas theGrandmotherofHonoNinigi,butsheplaysnoroleintheactionsthatfollow.

43） SeveralelementsandpassagessupporttheassumptionthattheKojikipresentsthemostrecentversionofthemyth;cf.Wittkamp2018:545 （indexentry:‘Kojiki-MythenalsjungsteMythenfassung’）.Thesecondcommandpresumablyhastodowithnarratologicalneeds.However,evenTakagi （TakamiMusuhi）acknowledgesthisgodandthemythsherepresents,butonemustnotforgetthatthisconcernsthesecondcommand,whichislessimportantinanycase.

29Re-ExaminingJapaneseMythologies:

Table 2 : The accompanying deities（zuihanshin） in tenson kōrin myths.

Kojiki（integration） No.1 No.2 No.4 No.6 NSKAccompanyingdeitieszuihanshin

AmenoOshihi

AmatsuKume

--- --- AmanoOshihiAmeKushitsunoOhokume

--- --- a）expeditiontotheeastgrouptōsei-kei

AmenoKoya

Futotama

AmenoUzume

Ishikoridome

TamanoOya

TokoyonoOmohikane

TajikaraWo

AmenoIhatowake

AmanoKo-yane

Futotama

AmanoUzume

Ishikoridome

Tamanoya

AmanoKoyane

Futotamamorobe no kami諸部神

--- --- --- b）rockcavegroup

iwayado-kei

Forb）,theepisodeofAmaterasu’shidingintherockcave,Nihon shokimainversion（NSK）

andalternativeversionsNos.4and6donotprovidethenamesoftheaccompanyingdeities.

OnlyalternativeversionNo.4givestwonames,whicharefromthe“rockcavegroup,”andboth

ofwhicharenotmentionedintheotherNihon shokitexts.TheKojikibringsallthenames

together,whichcorroborates thehypothesis that it isamorerecentversion.Asimilar

conclusioncanbedrawnfromthedifferentarrangementsofthecommandinggods.Whilethere

aretwogroupsofnarrativespresentingeitherAmaterasuorTakamiMusuhiascommanding

deities,onlyintheKojikidotheyacttogether,althoughthereisanoticeableemphasison

Amaterasu.

Forthese（andother）reasonsSaijō（2005:159）subdividesthesixversionsintothreegroups:

1）the“Amaterasuline”withalternativeversionsNos.1and2;2）the“TakamiMusuhiline”

withtheNihon shokimainversionandalternativeversionsNos.4and6;and3）theKojiki

30

versionwhichformsitsownsystem,referredtoas“integration”（tōgō統合）.Incidentally,the

latter’sunderlyingunitaryconceptmightalsoexplainwhytheKojiki is theonlyversion

containingthesecondcommand,whichwasissuedbythetwodeitiestogether.

Furtheranalysisofother“elements”couldpotentiallyrevealadditionalinformation.Itwould,

forexample,be interestingto lookattheelementsconnectedtotheIseShrine,whichare

containedonlyintheKojikiandalternativeversionNo.1.44）Focusingontheguidingquestionof

thispaper,theelementsshownintables1and2allowustoentertainSaijōTsutomu’sand

MizoguchiMutsuko’stheories.WhiletheKojikiattemptstobringthedifferentstory-lines

together（“integration”）,afeaturealsodescribedas“continuity”（renzokusei連続性;seebelow）,

theNihon shokimainversiondrawsadistinctlineofseparationbetweentheaccountofHono

Ninigi’sdescentfromheavenandelementsconnectedtotheAmaterasuline,suchasthenames

mentionedintherockcaveepisodeandOshihomimi,Amaterasu’sson.45）Sincetheepisodeof

Amaterasu’shidingintherockcaveisalsoanessentialpartofthemyth,itisnotsurprisingthat

itisalsocontainedintheNihon shokimainversion（seventhblockwith3alternativeversions）.

However,theNihon shokimainversionandthealternativeversionsNos.4and6containno

namesthatwouldconnectthetwoaccounts.ItisnoteworthythattheKojikinotonlybringsall

thenamestogetherbutfurthermoreaddsanotherone,AmenoIwato-wake,uniquetothattext.

BothYamaguchiandKōnoshiregardthementionofthisdeity’snameas“quitesurprising,”and

assume that its“appearancehas todowith theepisodeof therockcave”（2007:115）,

presumablybecauseiwatomeans“rockcave.”

The Amaterasu line and Takami Musuhi line

“Modern”researchprovidedseveralanalysesofdifferentepisodes,attemptingtoisolate

44） WhileintheKojikitheaccountoftheoriginoftheIseShrineisfoundinbook1,whichcontainsthenarrativesconsideredtodaytobemyths,theNihon shokimainversionseparatestheaccountoftheoriginfromthefirsttwobooksofmyths （shindai）;itispartofthehistoriographicalbooks,whicharewritteninthestyleofChineseannals（biannian ti）.

45） ThereareseveralattemptstoanswerthequestionoftheneedtopresentHonoNinigiasTakamiMusuhi’sgrandson.AccordingtoSaijō（2005:164）,TsukushiNobuzane（1962,‘ThebirthofAmaterasu’）connectedthemythicalaccounttothehistoricalfactthatJitōputhergrandsonObito （Monmu）onthethrone.OnecouldsaythatthemythsareakindoftestcasetolegitimizeJitō’sact.However,thisideawascriticizedbySaijōTsutomu（ibid.）asareflectionofhistoricalrealityandopportunism;cf.Wittkamp2018:444-445.

31Re-ExaminingJapaneseMythologies:

theirconstituentelements.Theultimateaimwastorevealdifferent linesoftransmission,

differentsteps （dankai 段階）oftextgenesis,ordifferent“forms”（kata）thatgraduallyledto

theirfinalshapeinthetwochronicles.46）Tables 1 and 2 abovearebasedontheanalysesby

SaijōTsutomuandMizoguchiMutsuko.47）Saijō’scontributionwasoriginallypublishedin1994,

andalthoughMizoguchi（2000:66-93）repliedtohimdirectlyinhisbookof2005,whichincludes

thepaperasChapter5,Saijōdidnotrespond.48）

BothscholarsdescribethetwolinesorsystemsastheAmaterasulineandTakamiMusuhi

line.Mizoguchi’ssubstantialbook,‘TheDualStructureoftheKingshipMyths:TakamiMusuhi

andAmaterasu’（Ōken shinwa no nigen kōzō—Takami Musuhi to Amaterasu）,revealsinits

subtitlethatthe“dualstructure”referstoTakamiMusuhiandAmaterasu.49）Thetopicsofthe

46） AmodelthatwasextremelyinfluentialwasintroducedbyMishinaShōei.Itdistinguishesthree“forms”（kata型）:1.onlyTakamiMusuhiisthecommandingdeity,2.AmaterasuandTakamiMusuhiarethecommandingdeities,and3.onlyAmaterasu isthecommandingdeity （Mishina1943,quotedafterTerakawa2009:22）.Whilethesethreeformscorrespondwiththeanalysisconductedabove,theproblemisthatMishinaassumedtheirgradualdevelopmentintheorderlisted.Hence,alternativeversionsNos. 1 and2 wouldbethemostrecentversions.Terakawa,Saijō,andMizoguchirejectthisorder.Forthem,Mishina’ssecondform—theKojikinarrative,notthetext—isthemostrecentform;cf.Wittkamp2018:449-450.

47） Cf.Saijō2005:161（original1994 ）andMizoguchi2000:68（presentingSaijō’stable）,pp.72-73,orp.76.Foradetaileddiscussion,seeChapter3.7（‘Dietenson kōrin-Mythen’）inWittkamp2018:441-485.

48） ThisfailuretorespondtoMizoguchiisprobablyconnectedtothegeneralproblemthatJapaneseworksinbookformareusuallynotmonographsbutcollectionsofpublishedarticles.Theycanbearwitnesstomanyyearsofcommitmenttoacertaintheme,andifpublishedinajournalwithagoodacademicreputation,thepreviouspublicationmighttosomeextentguaranteethequalityofthecontent.Ofcourse,therearemanyexceptions,butitseemstobecommonpracticetoputthepaperstogetherwithoutincludingnewresearchoreditingtheminawaythatavoidsredundancy.AsfarasIcansee,theexceptionstothisacademicpracticearetheshinshoformat,i.e.booksintendedforageneralaudiencethatareusuallybasedonlongresearchand,inmostcases,provideintroductions（e.g.Mizoguchi2016andMiura2013）;andintroductorymonographs （kaki-oroshi書下ろし）,suchasthoseprovidedbythe“Shibundōkokubungakukakioroshishirīzu.”

49） Inherbook,whichonlypartiallyconsistsofpreviouslypublishedarticles,Mizoguchidescribestheperiodbetweenthe5thand7thcenturyas“Yamatoōken jidaiヤマト王権時代”（2000:1）.Heraimistorevealthe“thinkingandculture”（ibid.）ofthattime,andinherlaterbook（originally2009）shedescribesYamatoōken jidaiasatimewhen“societywithoutwritingchangedintoasocietywithwritings”（2016:220）.Thetermōken,tobedistinguishedfromchōtei朝廷,theImperialCourt （2000:10）,istracedbackbySaijō （2005:4 - 5 ）tothe1960s,i.e.toworksfromSaigōNobutsunaandotherscholarswhowereinfluencedbyworkssuchasJamesG.Frazer’sThe Magic Art and the Evolution of Kings（Ōken no jujutsuteki kigen王権の呪術的起源）,ArthurMauriceHocart’sKingship（Ōken王権）andotherworksbyculturalanthropologists.

32

sectionsofthefirsttwochaptersshowthatMizoguchifollowsthisdualstructurethroughthe

“creationmyths”（創成神話sōsei shinwa）,thetenson kōrinmyths,andthe“mythsofthetwo

chronicles,”tothequestionofthe“highestgods”（saikōshin最高神）,whoarethe“ancestor

deitiesoftheimperialfamily”（kōsoshin皇祖神）.ConcerningthenorthernlineoftheJapanese

myths,shereferstopreviousscholarssuchasEgamiNamioandOkaMasaobutonlytoassert

thatherresearchisclosertotheworkofŌbayashiTaryō.50）Theterm“northern”（hoppō北方）

appearsrepeatedlyintheintroductorychapter,forexample, in“startingfromtheHun,the

culturalandcivilizationareaofthenorthernhorseridingnomadpeople,”andshementionsthe

“southern”line,too.51）Inanutshell,itisverylikelythatherunderstandingof“Amaterasuline”

and“TakamiMusuhiline”correspondstothetheoryofthemythsofthesouthernandnorthern

line.

SaijōTsutomu’scollectionofpapers（2005）isanattempttoestablishanewfieldofresearch

calledseisei-ron生成論 （“textgenesis”）intendedtodissociatehimselffromKōnoshi’ssakuhin-

ron （2005:10）.Itisagoodexampleofnewresearchbyascholartryingtoshedlightonthe

transitionfromthesecondtothethirdlayerandatthesametimeseekingtodistancehimself

fromKōnoshi’ssakuhin-ronwhileusingmethodstypicalofthatapproach.

Inonefootnote（andonlythere）,hereferstoOkaMasao,MishinaShōei,andŌbayashiTaryō

tomentiontheirtheorythatthetenson kōrinmythsmightbeconnectedtonarrativesfromthe

KoreanPeninsula,butimmediatelycastsdoubtonthishypothesis.52）Healsobrieflymentionsthe

“mythsofthenorthernline,”53）butinchapterfive,whichwasoriginallypublishedin1994and

whichanalyzestheelementsofthetenson kōrinmyths,thepossibilityofinfluenceofmyths

fromthenorthernlineiscompletelyexcludedfromhisexamination.Theexclusionhastobe

seenasdeliberate.Inhisoriginalarticle,thisissuewasofminorimportancebecausehewas

bentonproposingadifferenttheory.HesawconnectionstoChinesethinking,particularlyto

tenmei shisō天命思想, the ideaofamandate fromheavengiven toapersonofvirtue

（yūtokusha有徳者）,whichcanbetakenaway（yixing geming易姓革命,Japanese:ekisei

50） Cf.Mizoguchi2000:10andconcerningŌbayashi2000:188andp.199.51） Cf.Mizoguchi2000:3,185,269,294etc.52） Cf.Saijō2005:190,footnote2.53） Cf.Saijō2005:72withreferencetothepapersbyToriiRyūzō （1925）andMatsumuraTakeoalready

mentioned.Chapter3wasoriginallypublishedin1995.

33Re-ExaminingJapaneseMythologies:

kakumin）if therulership fails.54）Saijōregardsthe tenson kōrinmythsasanattemptto

synchronizeChinesethinkingwiththeactualneedsoftheimperialfamilytolegitimizealineof

rulershipbasedonheredity.Therulershipofthefamily,particularlyasitisrelatedintheKojiki,

couldthusbejustifiedasaneternalmandatefromheaven,whichcouldnotbetakenaway

becauseithadbeengrantedbythehighestgodsinheaventotheimperialfamilyandwas

meanttobepassedonbysuccession.55）Thisisanintriguingideawarrantingfurtherinquiry.56）

However,itisdisappointingthatSaijōdidnotconsiderMizoguchi’smodelofthedualstructure

mentionedabove.

Final remarks and observations on the Kojiki text

Thereasonswhythecompilersofthetwochroniclesrearrangedthemythsindifferent

formsneedtobeexaminedfurther.However,thereisnodoubtthattheaccountofAmaterasu’s

hidingintherockcaveandthetenson kōrinmythareeitherdeliberatelyconnected（Kojiki）or

deliberatelykeptapart （Nihon shokimainversion）.Concerningthisfact,SaijōandMizoguchi

agree,57）eveniftheirinterpretationsofitaretotallydifferent.

Thepresentpaperhasofferedobservationsonthedifferenttextsthemselvesaswellasthe

scholarlyresearchonthem （observationofthesecondorder）.Oneconsiderationwhichboth

SaijōandMizoguchihaveoverlookedcalls fora finalcomment.Admittedly, it israther

inconspicuous,yetitfacilitatesanunderstandingofthetext’sstructure,whichiswhyitshould

beaddressed.It isfoundonly intheKojikiandprobablyservesthefunctionofenhancing

narrativecoherenceandofestablishinganotherconnectionbetweentherockcaveepisodeand

54） TheTenmu-JitōdynastyendedwiththeenthronementofKōninTennōin770,whentheTenchilinewasrestored.BeforemovingthenewcapitalHeiankyō,KanmuTennōworshippedhis fatherKōninwithChineserituals,probablytolegitimizethenewlineviaekisei kakumin;seeHigashi1999:140-141.

55） SeeChapter 6 ‘FromCommandtotheSonofHeaventoDescentofHeaven’sGrandson’（天子受命から皇孫降臨へtenshi jumei kara kōson kōrin e）inSaijō2005:175-194.

56） MizoguchiattemptedtoshowthattheinfluenceofChinesethinkingmustberelativized.Oneofheraimsistoshowthatmanysuchforeignideas,motifs,elements,andviewsaremorelikelyconnectedtothenomadsofnortheastAsia;cf.Mizoguchi2000:188-198and2016:51-59.

57） Saijō2005:157-164onthe“continuityoftherockcaveepisodeandthekōrinepisode”（iwayado-korinjō no renzokusei石屋戸・降臨条の連続性）andMizoguchi2000:82-91onthe“non-continuity”（fu-renzokusei不連続性）oftheepisodes.

34

theaccountofHonoNinigi’sdescent:58）

爾［...］幷五伴緖矣支加而天降也。於是副賜其遠岐斯｛此三字以音｝八尺勾璁、鏡、及草

那藝劒

Andsotheyassignedtheirrolestotheleadersofthefivesacredprofessions［...］andsent

themdownfromheaven.

AtthistimethegreatandmightyspiritHeavenShining ［Amaterasu］gavehergrandson

herlongstrandsofmanycurvedpendants,themirrorusedtolureheroutofHeaven’s

BoulderCavern,andtheswordGrassScyther.（Omissions,additions,andunderliningbythe

authorofthepresentpaper）

Theelementofinteresthereistheunderlinedverbformwokishi遠岐斯（woku,‘tolureout,’

with-kiindicatingpasttense,hereinattributiveform-shi）becauseitiswrittenphonographically.

Theglossimmediatelyafterthewordmakesclearthatthecharactersarephonograms.Why

usephonograms,whichareobviouslyonlycomprehensiblewiththehelpofagloss,particularly

if therearesimplealternatives？Forexample, thecharacter招couldhavebeenused.

Furthermore,thequestionarisesofwhythewordisusedinthefirstplace.Itisabsentfromthe

Nihon shokimainversionafterall.Evidently,theremustbeanexplanationthathasnothingto

dowiththesemanticsoftheword.Probably,theaimwastomakethewrittenexpression

sufficientlyprominentsoastoguidethereader’smemorybacktothefirstappearanceof

wokishiintheaccountofAmaterasu’shidingintherockcave.Inthatepisode,themirrorwas

usedtolureheroutofthecave,andtheretheexpressionwokishiiswrittenwiththesame

phonograms,followedbyaglossconfirmingthedesiredreading.Consequently,bothepisodes

areconnectednotonlybyelementsofcontent （i.e.thenamesofthedeitiesandtheitemsthat

Amaterasugavetothegroup）butalsobythephonographicallywrittenverbwokishiandits

gloss,whichissuppliedinbothinstances,eventhoughaglossinthefirstoccurrencewould

certainlyhavesufficed.59）

58） JapanesetextafterKurano1971:126,128,EnglishtranslationbyHeldt2014:49.59） Theuseofphonogramsposesaspecialproblemfortranslation.However,thisexamplealoneshowsthat

thescriptmustofnecessitybetakenintoaccountinthetranslation.MyproposalforaGermantranslationis“Daraufgeruhte［sieihm］jeneyasaka-Krummjuwelenund［jenen］Spiegel,die［sieausderHöhle］raus-

35Re-ExaminingJapaneseMythologies:

Thiskindoftextualconnectionisparticularlyinterestingbecauseitisdetectableexclusively

onthelevelofthetextualsurface.60）Theappealtothereadingeyenotonlystrengthensthe

coherenceofthetext,italsocorroboratestheassumptionthatthetextsaremorethanmythical

mattertransmittedviaoralnarratives.TheKojikiandNihon shokiarepoliticaldocumentsin

nature.Theyareexamplesoftextual‘conceptualization’（kōsō構想）,61）andofthephenomenon

thathasbeentermedpoliticalmyth-making.InthecaseofJapanesemyths,writtentextsand

politicalmythsaredifferentaspectsofthesamephenomenon.

BecauseofthisitisessentialtorethinkthestructureoftheNihon shoki,particularlythe

chronological orderof theChineseannals.According toOgawaYasuhiko,EastAsian

manuscriptsinmakiform（juan巻,Japanesekan/maki）presentself-containedentities.62）These

twoaspects—Chineseannalsandcoherentmaki—wouldsuggestthatanewbook（maki）ofthe

Nihon shokimeansanewchapterofhistory.63）Theprinciplealsoappliestothefirsttwobooks

ge-lockt ｛diesedreiZeichendemLautnach｝hatten,undweiterhindasKusanagi-Schwert,undweiterhin ［...］”（2018:452）.Thephonogramsarerenderedinitalicsandsubdividedintothreesyllables（accordinglywo-ki-shi）.Theglossappearswhereitissupposedto — immediatelyaftertheword —andisrepresentedbyasmallerfont.

60） Detailedanalyseslikethisonearetypicalofthetext-immanence-basedmethodology,whichcomparestheoccurrenceofwordsorcharacterswithinthetextitself.

61） ScholarssuchasYoshiiIwao吉井巌（1922-1995）,NishimiyaKazutami西宮一民（1924-2007）,andSuganoMasao菅野正雄（born1932）showhowmuchemphasistheKojikiputsonconceptualization;seeWittkamp2018:44-45,49-52and forananalysisof ‘TheBodyasaModeofConceptualization in theKojikiCosmogony’seeWittkamp2018a （ aPDFfileisavailableatthejournal’shomepageandmyprofilesatacademia.eduandresearchgate.net）.

62） Cf.Ogawa2010:88-98;manuscriptsinrollsarecalledkansubon巻子本 .63） Thepossibilityremainsthatthereasonforthedivisionintotwobooksismerelyaquestionoftextlength.

IntheShinpenNihonkotenbungakuzenshūedition,book 1 coversabout90pages（vol.1,pp.18-107）andbook 2 about80pages（vol.1,pp.110-185 ）;theamountoftextisroughlyequal.Ontheotherhand,thetwobooksdedicatedtoTenmuTennō（books28and29 ）haveabout40pagesinbook28（vol.3,pp.301-345 ）andabout120pagesinbook29 （vol.3,pp.348-469）.Presumably,thereasonforthisimbalanceisconnectedtothecontents.Book28describesthecircumstanceslegitimizingOhoama’s （Tenmu’s）coupd’étatandbook29theneweraunderTenmuTennō.Theimbalancesuggeststhatthereasonforthedifferentlengthsofthebooks （maki）liesintheircontent.Concerningthefirsttwobooks,onehastoaskwhythesecondbookwith 3 blockshasalmostthesameamountofpagesasthefirstbookwith 8 blocks,whichpresenttheaccountsofthelongprocess— inmythicalterms — fromthebeginningofthecosmostothecreationoftheworld,andthecomplicateddevelopmentsleadingtothegiftoftheearthtoheaven.Comparedtothis,thecontentsofbook 2 appearmuchsimpler.However,whencountingthelinesoftheoriginaltexts（presentedontheright-handside）,onecanseethatthenumberisthesame:135linesinbook

36

withthecommontitle‘Shindai’（‘Kamiyo’）.WhileSaijōalsoscrutinizeddifferencesinthetextual

versionsaspartofastudyofcontinuityanddiscontinuity,itwasMizoguchiwhosolvedthe

riddleoftheconceptualproblemofthetwoShindaibooks:

［...］Thecontentsof ‘shindai,BookI’presentamythicalsystemwhichcollectsand

structurestheautochthonousJapanesemythsandstoriesthatweretransmittedsince

ancienttimes.Thestructureofthecontentsof‘shindai,BookII’isthatofkenkoku shinwa

［...］.Itwasmodeledaftertheoriginmythsoftherulersofthenorthernline,whichwere

importedduringthefifthcentury.（2016:103）

Themythsofthefirstbookpresenttheancientnarratives,whilethesecondbookmarksthe

beginningofanewera,theageofTakamiMusuhi,theancestorgodoftheimperialfamilyand

probablythemostimportantgodofthebanzōandmurajigroupsattheFujiwaraandNara

Courts.

Ashasbeennotedabove,theTenmu-Jitōdynastyinthelate 7 thcenturywasstilldependent

ontheapprovalofthepowerfullocalfamilies （chihō gōzoku）.OtheraspectsoftheKojikitext

indicatethatthecompilers’strategywastoemphasizetheroleofthechihō gōzoku,presumably

togaintheirgoodwill.Theso-calledIzumomythspresentinKojikihavetobeconsideredhere

becausetheyoccupy justatinypartof theNihon shokinarratives.Anotherexampleof

conceptualizationisthetext’streatmentoftheancestorgodsoftheujigroups.ForTenmu,this

wasadelicatetaskofparticularsignificance.However,atthebeginningofthe 8 thcentury,the

historicalcircumstanceswerechanging.TheKojiki’ssweettalkaimedatthelocaluji-families

（chihō gōzoku）anditspreferentialtreatmentoftheirmythsanddeitieswasanattemptto

guaranteetheirsupportforthesovereignadministrationoftheruler （tennō shinsei天皇親政）,

whichwasclaimedtobehereditary.Thisattemptmightinfacthaveovershotthemark.64）

Eventually,Tenmu’smeasureswereoverruledbecausetheideaofatennō shinseisystemwas

notgenerallyacceptedandthebureaucratsundertheleadershipoftheFujiwarafamily,who

1 and130linesinbook2,thoughitshouldbenotedthattheeleventhblockconsistsofonly 4 lines.ItseemsthecompilersoftheNihon shokiwenttogreatlengthstoembellishthemainnarrativesofblock 9 and10inbook2.

64） Seechapter5,‘Conceptualizationandideologicalpreferences,’inWittkamp2018a:58-62.

37Re-ExaminingJapaneseMythologies:

hadsuccessfullystrengthenedtheirpowerbymarryingtheirdaughtersintotheimperialfamily,

weregainingmorepowerandself-confidence.65）Anewofficialideologywasrequired,66）andas

attestedobservanceoftheimportanttsukinamiritualproves,theworshipofthemusuhigods

wastherealityattheYamatoCourt.Whyshouldthisrealitybehiddeninthebackground？

Bibliography: Antoni,Klaus:Kojiki - Aufzeichnungen alter Begebenheiten.Berlin:VerlagderWeltreligionenimInsel

Verlag,2012.Bachmann-Medick,Doris:Cultural Turns. Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften.Reinbek:

Rowohlt,2006.Barnes,GinaL.:State Formation in Japan. Emergence of a 4 th-century ruling elite.LondonandNew

York:Routledge,2007.Dettmer,HansA.:Der Yōrō-Kodex,vol.1-4.Wiesbaden:OttoHarrassowitz,2009-2015（vol.1:2009［Die

Gebote,Buch1］,vol.2:2010 ［ DieGebote,Buch2-10］,vol.3:2012 ［ DieVerbote］,Bd. 4 :2015［generalindex］）.

Duthie,Torquil:Man’yōshū and the Imperial Imagination in Early Japan.LeidenandBoston:Brill,2014（Brill’sJapaneseStudiesLibrary,vol.45）.

Heldt,Gustav:The Kojiki - An Account of Ancient Matters.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity,2014.HigashiShigemi東茂美:Man’yōshūtochugokubungaku『万葉集』と中国文学.In:TadaKazuomi多田一

臣（ed.）:Man’yōshū handobukku万葉集ハンドブック.Tōkyō:Sanseidō,1999,pp.140-147.HirafujiKikuko平藤喜久子:KindaishokuminchishugitoKojikikenkyūnoyami近代植民地主義と『古事

記』研究の闇.In:YōsenshaHenshūbu洋泉社編集部（ed.）:Kojiki - kodaishi kenkyū no saizensen古事記―古代史研究の最前線.Tōkyō:Yōsensha,2015,S.220-235.

KodaishiShinpojiumu‘hakken,kenshō-Nihonnokodai’HenshūIinkai古代史シンポジウム「発見・検証日本の古代」編集委員会（eds.）:Kiba bunka to kodai noinbēshon騎馬文化と古代のインベーション.Tōkyō:Kadokawa,2016（Hakken,kenshō-Nihonnobunka,vol.Ⅰ-Ⅲ）.

KojikiGakkai古事記学会（ed.）:Kojiki no kenkyūshi古事記の研究史.Tōkyō:TakashinaShoten,1999,pp.287-308（Kojikikenkyūtaikei,3vol.）.

KojimaNoriyuki小島憲之/NaokiKōjirō直木孝次郎/MōriMasamori毛利正守 :Nihon shoki日本書紀 ,

65） Thesedevelopmentsmightbethebeginningofthedifferentiationbetweenkenryoku権力 （power）andken’i権威（authority）,whichpresumablyledeventuallytothedifferentiationbetweentheauthoritycenterinHeiankyōandthepoliticalcenterinKamakura;cf.Wittkamp2018:28,p.46.

66） Therewereotherreasonsinvolvedaswell,primarily,theissueofheredity.AccordingtotheKojiki,itwouldhavebeenimpossibleforObitotobecomethenewtennōbecausehismotherwasaFujiwara.InKojikiideology,themotherofthenewtennōhadtobeadaughteroftheformertennō;cf.Wittkamp2018:11,92,96,130-131.AccordingtoYajimaIzumi,thepresentationoftheKojikiwassomethinglikeastopgapsolutionforlegitimizingObito（Shōmu）astheCrownprince;cf.Yajima2008:232-234.Significantly,Shōmuwasenthronedin724,fouryearsafterthesubmissionoftheNihon shoki,whichdoesnotreflectthestricthereditaryrulesoftheKojiki.

38

vol.1-3.Tōkyō:Shōgakukan,2012（1sted.1994;ShinpenNihonkotenbungakuzenshū,vol.2-4）.KōnoshiTakamitsu神野志隆光 :Kojiki no tassei - sono ronri to hōhō古事記の達成―その論理と方法.

Tōkyō:TōkyoDaigaku,1985.―:Kojiki no sekaikan古事記の世界観 .Tōkyō:YoshikawaKōbunkan,2008（2nded.,1sted.1986）.―:Kojiki to Nihon shoki-‘tennō shinwa’no rekishi古事記と日本書紀―「天皇神話」の歴史.Tōkyō:

Kōdansha,2013（21stprinted.,1sted.1999）.KuranoKenji倉野憲司 :Kojiki古事記 .In:KuranoK./TakedaYūkichi武田祐吉 :Kojiki - Norito古事

記・祝詞.Tōkyō:IwanamiShoten,1971,pp3-361（1sted.1958;Nihonkotenbungakutaikei,vol.1）.MaruyamaYumiko丸山裕美子:Tennōsaishinohen’yō天皇祭祀の変容. In:ŌtsuTōru大津透etal.

（eds.）:Kodai tennōsei o kangaeru古代天皇制を考える.Tōkyō:Kōdansha,2001,pp.179-229（Nihonnorekishi,vol. 8 ）.

MatsumotoNaoki松本直樹 :Kojiki shinwaron古事記神話論.Tōkyō:Shintensha,2003.Metevelis,Peter:AReferenceGuidetotheNihonshokiMyths.In:Asian Folk Studies52,1993,pp.383-

388.MiuraSukeyuki三浦佑之:Kojiki o yominaosu古事記を読みなおす.Tōkyō:Chikuma,2013（2nded.,1sted.

2010）.―:Hyakufun de meicho bukkusu:Kojiki - rekishi wa hitotsu de wa nai 100分 de 名著ブックス：古事

記―歴史はひとつではない.Tōkyō:NHK,2016（2nded.,1sted.2014）.MizubayashiTakeshi水林彪:Kiki shinwa to ōken no matsuri - shinteihan記紀神話と王権の祭り―新

訂版.Tōkyō:IwanamiShoten,2001（newlyreviseded., 1 sted.1991）.MizoguchiMutsuko溝口睦子:Nihon kodai shizoku keifu no seiritsu日本古代氏族系譜の成立.Tōkyō:

Gakushūin,1982.―:Ōken shinwa no nigen kōzō:Takami Musuhi to Amaterasu王権神話の二元構造:タカミムスヒとア

マテラス .Tōkyō:YoshikawaKōbunkan,2000.―:Amaterasu no Tanjō - kodai ōken no genryū o saguruアマテラスの誕生―古代王権の源流を探

る.Tōkyō:Iwanami,2016（shinsho,2nded.,1sted.2009）.ŌbayashiTaryō大林太良:Nihon shinwa no kigen日本神話の起源.Tōkyō:TokumaShoten, 1990

（original1961）.―（ed.） :Oka Masao ronshū: Ijin sono ta - hoka jūni-hen岡正雄論集―異人その他十二編.Tōkyō:

Iwanami,1994 （collectionof12papersbyOkaMasao;original:Ijin sono ta - Nihon minzoku/bunka no genryū to nihon kokka no keisei,1979）.

OgawaYasuhiko小川靖彦:Man’yōshū - kakusareta rekishi no messēji万葉集―隠された歴史のメッセージ.Tōkyō:Kadokawa,2010.

OkaMasaoseeŌbayashi1994.Ooms,Herman: Imperial Politics and Symbolics in Ancient Japan. The Tenmu Dynasty, 650-800.

Honolulu:UniversityofHawai'i,2009.SaijōTsutomu西條勉:Kojiki to ōke no keifugaku古事記と王家の系譜学.Tōkyō:KasamaShoin,2005.SaigōNobutsuna西郷信綱:Kojiki no sekai古事記の世界.Tōkyō:Iwanami,1967（37thprinting）.―:Kojiki kenkyū古事記研究.Tōkyō:Miraisha,1984（8thed.,1sted.1973）.SatōMasako:Karl Florenz in Japan:Auf den Spuren einer vergessenen Quelle der modernen japanischen

Geistesgeschichte und Poetik.Hamburg:OAG,1995（MOAG124）.ShiraishiTaichirō白石太一郎:Nihonrettōnokibabunkawadonoyōnishitehajimattanoka日本列島

39Re-ExaminingJapaneseMythologies:

の騎馬文化はどのようにして始まったのか. In:Kodaishi shinpojiumu“hakken,kenshō -Nihonnokodai”HenshūIinkai古代史シンポジウム「発見・検証日本の古代」編集委員会（eds.）:Kiba bunka to kodai no inbēshon騎馬文化と古代のインベーション.Tōkyō:Kadokawa, 2016, pp. 88-103

（Hakken,kenshō-Nihonnobunka,vol. 2 ）.TerakawaMachio寺川眞知夫:Susa no Wo no seikaku to seiyakuスサノヲの性格と誓約. In:Ueda

Masaaki上田正昭（ed.）:Kojiki no shinkenkyū古事記の新研究 .Tōkyō:Gakuseisha,2006,pp.156-171.―:Kojiki shinwa no kenkyū古事記神話の研究.Tōkyō:HanawaShobō,2009.Wachutka,Michael:Kokugaku in Meiji-Period Japan: The Modern Transformation of ‘National

Learning’ and the Formation of Scholarly Societies.Leiden:GlobalOriental,2012.―:ReziprokeInterpretationskritikalsImpetuskritischerNoesis:BasilHallChamberlainsEinleitung

seinerÜbersetzungdesKojikiimSpiegelvonIidaNagaosNihon jōkoshi hyōron.In:Wachutka,M./MonikaSchrimpf/BirgitStaemmler （eds.） :Religion, Politik und Ideologie: Beiträge zu einer kritischen Kulturwissenschaft （Festschrift furKlausAntoni zum65.Geburtstag）.Munchen:iudicium,2018,pp.289-305.

Wilkinson,Endymion:Chinese History. A New Manual.Cambridge （Massachusetts）/London:HarvardUniversity,2015（Harvard-YenchingInstituteMonographSeries,vol.100;1sted.1998）.

Wittkamp,RobertF.:Arbeit am Text - Zur postmodernen Erforschung der Kojiki-Mythen.Gossenberg:Ostasienverlag,2018（DeutscheOstasienstudien,vol.34）.―:TheBodyasaModeofConceptualizationintheKojikiCosmogony.In:「東西学術研究所紀要」第

51輯、2018a 年（Tōzai gakujutsu kenkyūsho kiyō,vol.51,2018a,pp.47-64）.YajimaIzumi矢嶋泉 :Kojiki no rekishi ishiki古事記の歴史意識.Tōkyō:YoshikawaKōbunkan,2008.YamaguchiYoshinori山口佳紀/KōnoshiTakamitsu神野志隆光:Kojiki古事記.Tōkyō:Shōgakukan,

2007（1sted.1997;ShinpenNihonkotenbungakuzenshū,vol.1）.