When and from Where did the Japonic Language Enter the Ryukyus?-A Critical Comparison of Language, Archaeology, and History 著者 SERAFIM Leon A. journal or Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese publication title Language volume 31 page range 463-476 year 2003-12-26 その他のタイトル 日琉祖語はいつどこから琉球列島に到達したのか― ―言語・考古学・歴史の比較考察 URL http://doi.org/10.15055/00005292 When and from Where did the Japonic Language Enter the Ryukyus? -A Critical Comparison of Language , Archaeology, and History Leon A. SERARM Universityof Hawaii at Manoa Keywords : bigrade verbs, Hayato, Japanese, Japonic, Kagoshima, Kanmon dialects, Kyushu, language contact, mid-vowel raising, Nagasaki, nominalizer, Proto-Gusuku period, Ryukyuan From time to time historical linguists slip from their linguistic moorings and attempt to link their work in reconstruction to larger human history. I have been no exception. I have long specialized in the dialects of the Ryukyus, and my conjectures have focused on southern Japan. I would like to start with a short discussion of what I had claimed previ- ously, and what those claims were based on. In my 1994 paper (Serafim 1994) 1 supported Uemura Yukio's idea (1977) that Ryukyuan was part of a dialect spoken by the Hayato. I suggested that either some of them fled south at the time of the extension of Yamato power into southern Kyushu, or else some were already farther south than Yamato power reached, that is, in islands south of Kyushu, and they were cut off from their fellows to the north. Further, I assumed that the dialects of Kyushu, now under Yamato control, gradu- ally adopted Yamato dialect features, thus becoming more Yamato-like and less like the dialects of their fellows to the south. Meanwhile the dialects that were to become Ryukyuan also underwent their own changes, thus becoming even more different from the Hayato dialects to the north. I relied at the time on Pearson's 1969 book on Ryukyuan archeology. I have since made the acquaintance of Asato Susumu, an archeologist working in Okinawa today, and I have been reading his writings and considering his hypotheses for the last several years. I return to Asato and his co-author Doi's hypotheses below. I tried to set reasonable dates for the movement of Ryukyuan into the Ryukyus in part by considering when Japonic itself must have entered the Japanese archipelago. What I was reading in, for example, Hanihara (1990b), Nelson (1993), and Koyama (1990) persuaded me that a huge influx of so-called torayin from the Korean peninsula had started at the inception of the Yayoi period, and that these people brought not only themselves and their paddy-rice agriculture, but their language, Japonic, as well. 463 Leon A. SERAFIM Unbeknownst to me, Hudson (1994) was arguing much the same thing at the same time. Of course, others had different versions of the same idea much earlier. It appeared that there was a cline of physical anthropological features from north to south Kyushu, suggesting that there had been less and less torauin penetration the fur- ther south one looked. However, we know that all Kyushu and Ryukyu inhabitants today speak Japonic. Thus I felt that there had to have been cultural and linguistic diffusion to people who were not originally toraUin, that is, to the indigenous inhabitants of the archi- pelago. A similar diffusion outrunning the population movement should be the case in the eastern part of Honshu as well. At the time I felt that the latest date for the formation of a separate Ryukyuan be- yond the pale of Yamato was likely to have been just before or during the Nara period, about the time of the final subjugation of the Hayato. Pearson (1969: 119) had suggested a date of about 200 CE, citing glottochronological studies, though Hokama (197 1) citing the same studies by Hattori, opted for the later part of Hattori's range of dates, namely about 500 CE. If Pearson's dating was right, I speculated that the movement south might have been under pressure from encroaching toraUin agriculturists occupying more choice locations. At the time it seemed right to assume that any movement southward was masked by the presumed fact that the indigenous inhabitants of both southern Kyushu and the Ryukyus shared the same Jo-mon-like physical morphology. As for any movement into Sakishima, I assumed none, and that the adoption of Ryukyuan there was purely through diffusion. I noted that Pearson (1969: 119) consid- ered that this changeover probably happened at the time of the takeover of the Sakishima islands by the Ryukyuan kingdom, but that this seemed far too late for the degree of dif- ferentiation of the dialects only 500 years later. Nonetheless, I entertained a speculation about how such a rapid dialect adoption and differentiation might have happened. I suggested that groups would have adopted the language piecemeal from island to island and from village to village, and that each time a new group adopted the language from their neighbors, it would have undergone a further set of changes due to substratal influence. The result would be very rapid change, leading to the great differentiation among the present-day dialects there. They would also have undergone ordinary sound change, just like any other language, adding even more to the thick layer of changes. I suggested further that this would explain why the languages seemed decreasingly "Japa- nese" as one moved to the west. A prediction suggested itself, namely that the farther west one went, the thicker the layering of sound changes would turn out to be. I do not think that anyone has attempted to test this hypothesis so far. However, the fact that Yonaguni, the westernmost dialect, has undergone a double set of vowel raisings is sug- gestive. Such a hypothesis also necessitated a constant leftward branching in the dialect subgrouping. I was interested in the possibility that, in terms of linguistic subgrouping, Sakishima was just a sister of South Okinawan, and not a sister of Northern Ryukyuan as a whole. Similarly I was interested in whether the same possibility could be 464 When and from Where Did Japonic LanguageEnter the Ryukyus? entertained for Ryukyuan as a whole vis-d-vis the dialects of Kyushu, namely that Ryukyuan might just be a sister of some single dialect of Kyushu. Since I followed the position of Thorpe (1983) that Central Japanese was the first dialect to split off from Proto-Japonic, I necessarily viewed Ryukyuan as, in terms of its origin, just another Western Japanese dialect. I further assumed that the reason that Kyushu dialects and Ryukyuan are so different today is politics - the Kyushu dialects underwent a period of change under the influence of Yamato that made them more similar to it, and the Ryukyuan dialects went their own way. Now I would like to introduce some recent work by Asato & Doi, by Hudson, and by Unger. Asato Susumu has argued that the Ryukyus became part of the Japonic world from around 900 CE (Asato and Doi 1999). Here 1 will try to lay down the basic claims that Asato (mostly) and Doi are making. Asato, an archeologist, and Doi, a physical anthropologist (1999), pool their re- sources in order to bring the strongest evidence to bear in favor of a hypothesis that the Ryukyuans and their language and culture came from Kyushu in what Asato has come to call the Proto-Gusuku period, starting around 900 CE. In effect, they are claiming that the entire package came all at once: people, culture, language. Asato stresses the role of trade in the events that led to the establishment of the Ryukyuan cultural sphere. Given this, it is not clear to me what role the discussion of Nagasaki merchants plays, unless it is to suggest that the people who populated the new Ryukyuan homeland came from this region. In any case, they are claiming that the movement of soon-to-be- Ryukyuans into the Ryukyus was driven by the Song Chinese need for medical and luxu- ry products. This differs markedly from the claim that I had supported in 1994, originated perhaps by Uemura Yukio, that it was the Hayato fleeing from the Yamato advance that had brought the soon-to-be-Ryukyuans into the Ryukyus. According to Asato and Doi, before the Proto-Gusuku period was the Shell- Midden period, considered by most archeologists, and by both Asato and Doi, to be a highly variant local form of Mmon culture. The Shell-Midden people were foragers. The Proto-Gusuku people knew agriculture. The Shell-Midden people had no metal imple- ments, while the Proto-Gusuku people apparently produced their own iron implements. The living sites of the Shell-Midden people in some cases are the same as the sites of later Gusuku-period habitations, but some differ. Asato and Doi infer that the newcomers assimilated the Shell-Midden people. The population during the Proto-Gusuku period "exploded ," so that by the beginning of the Gusuku period, it had grown by a factor of ten. One reason that Asato and Doi believe that these Gusuku people are the ancestors of modem Ryukyuans is that their habitation sites are the same as modem habitation sites, suggesting a direct continuity from that time until the present. In Sakishima, earlier cultures had pottery, but the culture immediately preceding the Proto-Gusuku culture did not. Pottery of a different variety returned with the Proto- Gusuku culture. 465 Leon A. SERAFIM There is a dearth of physical anthropological evidence for what Asato calls the Proto-Gusuku period, but the populations before and after this period are clearly morpho- logically different - with the post-Proto-Gusuku group being morphologically like medieval Japanese mainlanders.