Misplaced Pages

Nissen dōsoron
Japanese propangada poster from the 1920's promoting a Japanese (內/right) and Korean (鮮/left) unity.
Korean name
Hangul	일선동조론
Hanja	日鮮同祖論
Transcriptions Revised Romanization Ilseon dongjoron
Alternative Korean name
Hangul	일한동조론
Hanja	日韓同祖論
Transcriptions Revised Romanization Ilhan dongjoron
Japanese name
Kanji	日鮮同祖論
Kana	にっせんどうそろん
Transcriptions Romanization Nissen dōsoron
Alternative Japanese name
Kanji	日朝同祖論
Kana	にっちょうどうそろん
Transcriptions Romanization Nitchō dōsoron
Alternative Japanese name
Kanji	日韓同祖論
Kana	にっかんどうそろん
Transcriptions Romanization Nikkan dōsoron

Nissen dōsoron (Japanese: 日鮮同祖論; lit. 'Theory on Japanese‑Korean Common Ancestry') is a theory that reinforces the idea that the Japanese people and the Korean people share a common ancestry. It was first introduced during the Japanese annexation of Korea in the early 20th century by Japanese historians from Tokyo Imperial University after adopting preexisting theories conceived during the Meiji era. It cites both the Nihon Shoki and Kojiki to emphasize that the Japanese people descended from the Japanese deity, Amaterasu and the Korean people from Susanoo, her younger brother.

Overview

The precursor to the theory was first conceived by three Japanese historians Shigeno Yasutsugu, Kume Kunitake, and Hoshino Hisashi with the publication of Kōhon kokushi gan (稿本国史眼) prior to the annexation.

The book asserted that the legendary figures Susanoo, the brother of Emperor Jimmu, Inahi no Mikoto and Empress Jingū had ruled or invaded ancient Silla (Korea). This was due to the fact that the aforementioned individuals were related to Silla in one way or another: Susanoo first arriving in Silla, Inahi no Mikoto being an ancestor to a king of Silla and Empress Jingū descending from Amenohiboko, a prince of Silla. Such views of Korea's historical subjugation to Japan became widely accepted in Japanese scholarship and integral to Japan's national history, as it was presented in other books of Japan's Meiji era (1868–1912), such as Ōtori Keisuke's Chōsen kibun (朝鮮紀聞) (1885), and Hayashi Taisuke (林泰輔)'s Chōsenshi (朝鮮史) (1892) which made similar arguments.

Japanese history revisionists used the story of Susanoo in particular, to link the deities of Japan to the deities of Korea in order to create a sense of justification over the annexation. One of which was to claim that the Korean god and the founder of the first Korean kingdom Gojoseon, Dangun was in fact the Japanese god, Susanoo.

This claim was based on the fact that Susanoo first emerged from the lands of Silla, a Korean kingdom during the Three Kingdoms period of Korea in a place called "Soshimori (曽尸茂梨)" but soon left the Korean peninsula to the Japanese archipelago as he was dissatisfied with the place according to both Nihon Shoki and Kojiki. Using this, Japanese historians claimed that Susanoo was the original Dangun who the Koreans descended from.

However, the claim was met with criticism from Korean historians as Dangun's alleged first founding of Gojoseon (2333 BC(?)–108 BC) was over two millennia prior to Susanoo's emergence from Silla (57 BCE–935 CE). To counter this, historians such as Shiratori Kurakichi, founder of the discipline of Oriental History (Tōyōshi 東洋史) in Tokyo Imperial University argued that the Korean deity was fabricated by Buddhist priests sometime after 372 CE. This allowed him to demonstrate "that Korea as a unified country developed relatively late in the history of Asia, and later than Japan", ultimately discrediting Dangun's supposed accomplishments in favor of the Japanese god. By the beginning of the rule, most Japanese historians denied Dangun's existence as a separate deity.

After discrediting Dangun as an autonomous and native god of the Korean people, Japanese officials such as Koiso Kuniaki (小磯國昭), Governor General of Korea, began to teach the youth that "the Japanese could trace their lineage to Amaterasu, whereas the Koreans descended from Susanoo who had appeared on Mount Soshimori in Korea."

History

Pre-Meiji Period

The outlines of the theory can be traced back to mid-Edo period Kokugaku scholarship. Hirata Atsutane was among those who used their studies of Kojiki and Nihon Shoki to claim that Korean and Japanese history was intertwined from the period of ancient nation formation and that a hierarchical relationship in which Japan was dominant could be established. The view is currently unsupported. Arai Hakuseki claimed that Japanese ancestors came from the Mahan confederacy, and that there was a possibility that Kumaso was Goguryeo.

Post-Meiji Period

The Meiji period historians Hoshino Hisashi, Kita Sadakichi, and linguist Kanazawa Shosaburo have been criticized for promulgating theories of common ancestry used to justify Korea's annexation and policy of cultural assimilation.

Influence

The theory gained further momentum among historians with much emphasis put on the natures of both the Japanese and the Koreans by comparing the two ethnic groups to Amaterasu and Susanoo as siblings with shared heritage but vastly different personalities.

While embodying the collective identity of the Japanese, Amaterasu was depicted as a god of serenity and patience while Susanoo was depicted as an unruly younger brother who depended on his benevolent elder sister's leadership. In addition, as early as the medieval period, Susanoo was regarded as a "foreign" deity who had come to the Japanese archipelago from the Asian mainland and was only re-evaluated by Japanese historians when the annexation of Korea commenced. Susanoo's impulsive behavior and his mediocrity was supposedly inherited by that of the Koreans (the descendants of Susanoo) and thus was treated as a task for the Japanese (the descendants of Amaterasu) to redeem the Koreans from political turmoil and cultural barbarism as their "elder sibling".

There was also an ancient view that Ōkuninushi was a foreign deity from the Korean peninsula, which was also later used as justification for nissen dōsoron, although there is no evidence for this beyond the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki listing him as a descendant of Susanoo.

The contrast between Susanoo’s lack of self-control and Amaterasu’s serenity was used as a model for the relationship of the two "sibling" nations: in colonial discourse, the alleged immaturity of the Korean people and their state was often contrasted with Japan’s successful modernization, which in turn legitimated Japanese colonial rule. Japanese physical anthropologists themselves played a significant role in the "expansion and management" of colonial Korea.

Reception

Unsurprisingly, the majority of the Koreans were against the idea that the two ethnic groups derived from a common ancestry as much of the claims made by the nationalistic historians of Japan not only contradicted their own beliefs, but in turn also denied Koreans their own worshiped deity its autonomy. They insisted that "Koreans are without a doubt a unitary nation (tanil han minjok) in blood and culture." Following the 1938 introduction of a volunteer draft system for Koreans, during the Second Sino-Japanese War, the majority of Koreans who volunteered did so either out of coercion, such as threats to dispossess the business licenses of their alien parents, or out of hopes to escape political discrimination and obtain the right to vote and move freely by way of Japanese citizenship.

In contrast to its lukewarm reception in Korea, the theory of common ancestry enjoyed broad popular appeal in mainland Japan. The theory of common ancestry offered an enlarged version of the homogeneous nation theory that was applied to the entirety of the Great Japanese Empire. Interestingly, in contrast to pan-Asianism, the theory "only included Korea in the Japanese ethnic community, not the other colonies" (such as Manchuria or Taiwan) as Korea was indeed a country that had been in close contact with Japan throughout most of its history and thus must have created a close sense of affinity amongst the Japanese. Nissen dōsoron was the "main pillar" supporting the related concept naisen ittai (内鮮一体), or unity of the inland (内) with Korea, which was represented with the character 鮮 (sen), derived from the name Chōsen. The character for inland was used in place of the more common abbreviated prefix for Japan, ni (日), because Korea was interpreted as already being a part of Japan.

Aftermath

Due to overwhelming support of the theory, the Japanese Empire brought large influx of Koreans into the Japanese diaspora where their descendents remained in the islands as ethnic Koreans in Japan or Zainichi Koreans (在日韓国人・在日本朝鮮人). However, due to assimilation of the ethnic group and fewer people identifying themselves as Korean, the number of Zainichi Koreans have been slowly but steadily declining since the late 20th century, currently being the second largest ethnic minority group in Japan after Chinese immigrants.

With the rapid development of modern Japan after World War II and the growing threat of North Korea, so did its nationalism which made the reputation of the Zainichi Koreans become less favorable among the Japanese as many had favorable connections with North Korea and Chongryon. This forced the ethnic Koreans to become a target of hostility and animosity which in turn made Nissen dōsoron now a blasphemous theory and an obsolete piece of history for the Japanese.

Scientific consensus

While the Japanese and Korean people certainly are expected to share a considerable degree of genetic affinity by virtue of historical and geographic proximity, modern population genetics has provided a means to quantitatively measure the extent to which such an affinity is present.

The modern Japanese cluster is said to be the most similar with the Korean one; in a haplotype-based study, the Japanese cluster was found to share 87–94% of its genetic components with the Korean cluster, compared with a Han Chinese result of only 0–8%, a distinct contrast. Moreover, the genetic affinity to the Korean cluster was particularly strong among a cluster hailing from Shimane specifically and Honshu more broadly, but relatively less pronounced, albeit still overwhelming, in the Kyushu clusters. In any case, however, the study clarifies that "the estimate of ancestry profile cannot provide the definitive history of original migration, unless it will be further verified against historical evidence."

A 2022 study indicates that Yayoi populations had approximately 60% Jōmon ancestry, which decreased to 13%-15% in modern Japanese due to genetic contributions from agricultural populations related to northern China during the Kofun period. These northern populations were associated with farming communities from the Yellow River and West Liao River basins, which also influenced genetic admixture in Korea.

Historical accuracy

Though being a controversial theory for both nations, contemporary historians have directed to certain historical accounts that could suggest a close relationship between the Japanese Imperial family and the Korean peninsula.

First, the claims made by Empress Jingū and her conquest to invade Korea as part of her quest to obtain the "promised land" is linked to the empress's own background of being of Korean descent. Her distant ancestor, Amenohiboko is believed to be a prince from Silla who left Korea to settle in Japan. Some theorize that Jingū was fixated on Korea due to her ancestor coming from the peninsula and deemed it as her mission to retrieve it for her own. Regardless of the historical accuracy surrounding her expedition and her triumphant return, the consensus is that this was the first instance when Korean influence was first seen in the Japanese imperial line. In fact, world-renowned linguist and Japanese language expert Alexander Vovin states that due to Amenohiboko being of Korean origin, Jingū and her son and successor, Emperor Ōjin might have been native speakers of the Korean language.

Another example of Korean influence is shown when Emperor Kanmu (or Kammu) was ascended to the throne. His mother, Takano no Niigasa who was of Korean descent was deemed unfavorable for being a royal consort to Emperor Kōnin and for being an individual of foreign origin, which indirectly affected Emperor Kanmu in a negative way. To circumvent this, Kammu emphasized multiple times the importance of Korean culture to Japan. Sources such as the "Jinnō Shōtōki" by Kitabatake Chikafusa states that a record that claimed of Japan's origin with Korea was lost during Kammu's time, which indicates that such intentions were highly regarded during Emperor Kanmu's reign up until the book's disappearance.

昔『日本は三韓と同種也』と云事のありし、かの書をば、桓武の御代にやきすてられしなり。
Originally, it was recorded that "Japan and the Three Kingdoms of Korea are the same" but the book was lost during Emperor Kanmu's reign.

— Kitabatake Chikafusa, Jinnō Shōtōki

Kammu's newly found lineage marked the start of the Heian period with his Korean ancestry being passed down to his descendants which ultimately spread to multiple clans and members during the Sengoku period with numerous clans being able to trace their lineage back to Korea.

The stretch of Korean influence was officially recognized in 2001 where Emperor Akihito told reporters "I, on my part, feel a certain kinship with Korea, given that it is recorded in the Chronicles of Japan that the mother of Emperor Kanmu was one of the descendant of King Muryeong of Baekje." It was the first time that a Japanese emperor publicly referred a Korean blood in the imperial line.

Though Nissen dōsoron is not a socially acceptable notion, historians state that there is no denial in the connections between Japan and Korea.

See also

• Toraijin
• Nichiryū dōsoron (in Japanese) : Theory that reinforces the idea that the Japanese people and the neighboring Ryukyuan people share a common ancestry.
• Nichiyu dōsoron: Theory that reinforces the idea that the Japanese people and the Jewish people share a common ancestry.

References

1. Oguma, Eiji; 小熊英二 (1995). Tan'itsu minzoku shinwa no kigen : "Nihonjin" no jigazō no keifu = The myth of the homogeneous nation (Shohan ed.). Tōkyō. ISBN 4-7885-0528-2. OCLC 34028233.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
2. ^ Shigeno, Kume, Hoshino. Kōhon kokushi gan (in Japanese). Tokyo: Shigakkai.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. Ch'oe, Yŏng-ho (1980). "An Outline History of Korean Historiography". Korean Studies. 4 (1): 17. doi:10.1353/ks.1980.0003. ISSN 1529-1529. S2CID 162859304.
4. ^ Weiss, David (2022). The god Susanoo and Korea in Japan's cultural memory : ancient myths and modern empire. London, United Kingdom. ISBN 978-1-350-27118-0. OCLC 1249629533.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
5. "Nihon Shoki", Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 935–936, 2021, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58292-0_140217, ISBN 978-3-030-58291-3
6. The Kojiki : an account of ancient matters. Gustav Heldt, Yasumaro Ō, Lisa Hamm. New York. 2014. ISBN 978-0-231-53812-1. OCLC 899002167.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link)
7. ^ Tanaka, Stefan (1993). Japan's Orient : rendering pasts into history. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-91668-5. OCLC 43476109.
8. Kim, Myungok (2018). A Historical Study on the Awareness on the Myth of Dangun (in Korean). South Korea: KCI.
9. Scholl, Tobias (2018). Die Konstruktion von Gleichheit und Differenz : der Kolonialdiskurs einer gemeinsamen Abstammung von Japanern und Koreanern, 1910–1945. Iudicium Verlag GmbH. München. ISBN 978-3-86205-561-6. OCLC 1017950659.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
10. ^ "Heibonsha World Encyclopedia, 2nd Edition, 日鮮同祖論とは". コトバンク (in Japanese). Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved 2022-10-14.
11. Ch'oe, Yŏng-ho (1980). "An Outline History of Korean Historiography". Korean Studies. 4: 1–27. ISSN 0145-840X. JSTOR 23717670.
12. Nihon tochika no kaigai jinja : Chosen jingu taiwan jinja to saijin. Koji Suga, 浩二 菅. Tokyo: Kobundo. 2011. ISBN 978-4-335-16066-0. OCLC 922882212.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
13. Torrance, Richard (2019). "Ōnamochi: The Great God who Created All Under Heaven". Japanese Journal of Religious Studies. 46 (2): 277–318. doi:10.18874/jjrs.46.2.2019.277-317. ISSN 0304-1042. JSTOR 26854516. S2CID 209442321.
14. Kim, Hoi-eun (2016). "Reauthenticating Race: Na Sejin and the Recycling of Colonial Physical Anthropology in Postcolonial Korea". The Journal of Korean Studies. 21 (2): 449–483. doi:10.1353/jks.2016.0019. ISSN 0731-1613. JSTOR 45204089. S2CID 151827812.
15. Shin, Gi-Wook; Chang, Paul Yunsik (2004). "The Politics of Nationalism in U.s.-Korean Relations". Asian Perspective. 28 (4): 119–145. ISSN 0258-9184. JSTOR 42704481.
16. Uchiyamada, Yasushi (2005). "The Face of the Japanese Body Politic". Political and Legal Anthropology Review. 28 (2): 282–306. doi:10.1525/pol.2005.28.2.282. ISSN 1081-6976. JSTOR 24497698.
17. Oguma, Eiji; 小熊英二 (1998). "Nihonjin" no kyōkai : Okinawa, Ainu, Taiwan, Chōsen, shokuminchi shihai kara fukki undō made (Shohan ed.). Tōkyō: Shin'yōsha. ISBN 4-7885-0648-3. OCLC 41118156.
18. Pai, Hyung Il (2001). "The Creation of National Treasures and Monuments: The 1916 Japanese Laws on the Preservation of Korean Remains and Relics and Their Colonial Legacies". Korean Studies. 25 (1): 72–95. ISSN 0145-840X. JSTOR 23719472.
19. Kim, Kyu Hyun (2004). "Reflections on the Problems of Colonial Modernity and "Collaboration" in Modern Korean History". Journal of International and Area Studies. 11 (3): 95–111. ISSN 1226-8550. JSTOR 43107105.
20. Hester, Jeffry T. (2008). "Datsu Zainichi-ron: An emerging discourse on belonging among Ethnic Koreans in Japan". In Nelson H. H.; Ertl, John; Tierney, R. Kenji (eds.). Multiculturalism in the new Japan: crossing the boundaries within. Berghahn Books. p. 144–145. ISBN 978-1-84545-226-1.
21. 過去１０年間の帰化許可申請者数，帰化許可者数等の推移 (in Japanese). Retrieved 2021-08-15.
22. "Caste, Ethnicity and Nationality: Japan Finds Plenty of Space for Discrimination". Hrdc.net. 2001-06-18. Retrieved 2016-08-17.
23. Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (July 2021). "国籍・地域別 在留資格（在留目的）別 在留外国人" [Foreigners by nationality and by visas (occupation)].
24. Woodward, Jude (2017-08-30), "The rise of Japanese nationalism", The US vs China, Manchester University Press, doi:10.7228/manchester/9781526121998.003.0006, ISBN 9781526121998, retrieved 2022-05-23
25. Tanabe, Shunsuke (March 2021). "Sociological studies on nationalism in Japan". International Sociology. 36 (2): 171–182. doi:10.1177/02685809211005347. ISSN 0268-5809. S2CID 234834919.
26. Higuchi, Naoto (2021-01-28), "Japan's Postcolonial Hate Speech", Hate Speech in Japan, Cambridge University Press, pp. 363–380, doi:10.1017/9781108669559.017, ISBN 9781108669559, S2CID 234015678, retrieved 2022-05-23
27. CORRECTED: Pro-Pyongyang group rules out link to abduction Archived 2007-03-22 at the Wayback Machine (Asian Political News, November 18, 2002)
28. Takeuchi F, Katsuya T, Kimura R, Nabika T, Isomura M, Ohkubo T, Tabara Y, Yamamoto K, Yokota M, Liu X, Saw WY, Mamatyusupu D, Yang W, Xu S, Teo YY, Kato N (2017). "The fine-scale genetic structure and evolution of the Japanese population". PLOS ONE. 12 (11): e0185487. Bibcode:2017PLoSO..1285487T. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0185487. PMC 5665431. PMID 29091727.
29. Wang, Rui; Wang, Chuan-Chao (2022-08-08). "Human genetics: The dual origin of Three Kingdoms period Koreans". Current Biology. 32 (15): R844–R847. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2022.06.044.
30. Rambelli, Fabio (2018). The Sea and the Sacred in Japan: Aspects of Maritime Religion. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9781350062870.
31. "Nihon Shoki, Volume 9". Archived from the original on 2014-04-25. Retrieved November 5, 2019.
32. Kanzaki, Shiho. "The history of Shigaraki pottery". www.the-anagama.com. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 26 August 2016.
33. The Suinin Chronicle of Nihonshoki "是以近江国鏡谷陶人。則天日槍之従人也"
34. Vovin, Alexander (2012-06-14). Immigrants or Overlords? Korean Influences on Japan in the Archaic Period: a Linguistic Perspective. Institut für Kulturund Geitestesgeschichte Asiens. p. 29.

35. "According to the legend, future Emperor Ōjin was born in Kyūshū after Empress Jingū returned from her military expedition to Korea. It is highly doubtful that he was given a Korean name in order to honor the defeated enemies. This fact brings us to a reasonable suspicion that both Ōjin and Jingū were actually native speakers of Korean."

    — Alexander Vovin (2012), Immigrants or Overlords? Korean Influences on Japan in the Archaic Period: a Linguistic Perspective

36. Guardian.co.uk

• Historiography of Japan
• Historiography of Korea
• Japan–Korea relations
• Korea under Japanese rule
• Theories of history