The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 17 | Issue 7 | Number 1 | Article ID 5268 | Apr 01, 2019

1

Rethinking Early Ryukyuan History

Gregory Smits

Abstract

My recent book, Maritime Ryukyu, 1050-1650,is a revisionist history of the Ryukyu islands.Adopting the interdisciplinary approaches ofrecent Japanese scholarship, Maritime Ryukyupresents a new history of the region, treatingthe Ryukyu islands not as a unitary, naturalpolitical community but as locations within amaritime network that extended northward asfar as the southern coastal regions of Korea.This article briefly explains my trajectory inwriting the book and then summarizes some ofthe major arguments in Maritime Ryukyu.

Keywords

Ryukyu, Shimazu, Shō Shin, Shuri, officialhistories, wakō, Maritime Ryukyu, Omoro

I have been researching the history of theRyukyu islands (“Ryukyu” in the paragraphsbelow) since the 1980s. My first book, Visionsof Ryukyu: Identity and Ideology in Early-Modern Thought and Politics (1999, 2017),focused on the ideas, conflicts, and policies ofeighteenth century political actors. All of themajor figures in Visions were urban Okinawanelites residing in the Shuri-Naha area. Althoughthe story of competing visions among elites andthe Confucian-inspired program that eventuallyprevailed is important and compelling,pragmatic reasons also guided my choice oftopic. Primary sources are abundant for theearly modern era.

Moving backward in time, written sources of

the kind historians typically use rapidly becomesparse in the case of the Ryukyu islands. Forexample, it was only during the sixteenthcentury that the regime in Shuri began to usewritten records for domestic governance, andonly a very small number of those records areextant. Records connected with trade betweenNaha and other parts of Asia are abundant anduseful for the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,but they shed little light on domestic life or onparts of the Ryukyu islands other than the areaaround Naha. Accounts by Koreans who foundthemselves in the Ryukyu islands as a result ofshipwreck or human trafficking during the latefifteenth century and accounts by Chineseinvestiture envoys from the 1530s onward arethe only sources that discuss topics such asagriculture, laws, building style, local customs,and other matters connected with domesticsociety in Okinawa or other islands.

I had long been interested in early Ryukyuanhistory and mildly dissatisfied with theaccounts of it found in survey histories andeven many specialized works. Modern versionsof early Ryukyuan history tend to adopt thenarrative framework of the official histories ofthe Ryukyu kingdom, written betweenapproximately 1650-1750 (explained in moredetail below). The basic narrative, in whichlineages of kings arose in Okinawa as early asthe thirteenth century, ruled the entire island,and expanded their reach to other Ryukyuislands, had long struck me as unconvincing.

In 2015, I discovered that several scholars inJapan had been finding useful new ways toapproach Ryukyu’s early past. Usingmultidisciplinary approaches that includeinsights from anthropology, archaeology, and

APJ | JF 17 | 7 | 1

2

linguistics, they advanced new argumentsa b o u t R y u k y u ’ s p a s t a n d p r o v i d e dmethodologies that others might use andextend. I read this work with great interest aswell as scholarship on Omoro sōshi おもろさうし, a collection of songs first written downduring the 1530s. Especially helpful has beenwork over the past fifteen or so years byYoshinari Naoki 吉成直樹 and Fuku Hiromi 福寛美, who interrogate the Omoro songs for whatthey reveal about early Ryukyuan history andsocieties.1 Benefitting from this and otherinnovative work, I turned my attention to earlyRyukyuan history, and my book MaritimeRyukyu, 1050-1650 (University of HawaiʻiPress, 2019) has recently been published.

Maritime Ryukyu is a revisionist history. TheRyukyu depicted in its pages looks significantlydifferent from the Ryukyu portrayed by GeorgeH. Kerr,2 the Ryukyu in typical Japanese surveyhistories, or the Ryukyu of the official histories.In Maritime Ryukyu, for example, wakō 倭寇(armed mariners prone to marauding) are themajor actors in most previous work on earlyRyukyuan history. In that connection, theformal tribute relationship that developedduring the late fourteenth century between theMing court and Okinawan rulers whocontrolled the port of Naha was an attempt byChinese authorities to control piracy andsmuggling. Also in Maritime Ryukyu I pushforward to around 1500 the time when Ryukyubecame a centralized state, and I characterizethat state as a maritime empire. Military forcewas crucial in creating and maintaining thatempire, and Maritime Ryukyu pays closeattention to warfare, including the 1609 warbetween Shuri and Satsuma.

Maritime Ryukyu situates the Ryukyu islandswithin nautical networks extending northwardthrough the Tokara islands, the SatsunanIslands 薩南諸島, coastal Kyushu, the islands ofIki 壱岐 and Tsushima 対馬, and the southernpart of the Korean Peninsula. Ryukyuan cultureand people did not spring from the soil of

Okinawa. They came from northern locations,and Maritime Ryukyu highlights the deepJaponic roots of the Ryukyu islands. It alsoadvances other new arguments about earlyRyukyuan history.

The rest of this article introduces some of thosearguments in question-and-answer format. I donot cite specific page ranges or chapters inMaritime Ryukyu because most arguments areinterconnected and develop over the course ofmultiple chapters and contexts.

Who dwelled in the Ryukyu islands andfrom where did these people come?

This question became urgent during the latenineteenth century as anthropologists,archaeologists, linguists, and others sought todiscover the roots of various national or ethnicgroups in and around Japan. Much of thatearlier scholarship and the assumptions behindi t appear problemat ic in h inds ight .Nevertheless, in recent decades, significantagreement among different academicdisciplines has emerged regarding the bigpicture.

Although once part of the Eurasian continent,the Ryukyu islands have existed for at least400,000 years, well before the advent ofmodern humans. We cannot be certain whofirst set foot in them. Going back to about theninth century of the Common Era, the Ryukyuislands were sparsely populated. People relatedto Jōmon-era Japanese were the mainpopulation from Okinawa northward. Acrossthe Kerama Gap, Austronesian peoples relatedto the indigenous peoples of Taiwan lived in theMiyako and Yaeyama island groups. Although Ifind the concept of indigeneity problematic, ifwe had to identify the islands’ indigenouspeople, these two groups would be areasonable choice. They vanished relativelyquickly, eliminated or absorbed by waves ofseafaring people from the north. These

APJ | JF 17 | 7 | 1

3

northerners swept into the Ryukyu islandsduring the eleventh and twelfth centuries andestablished stone fortresses (gusuku) andcastles at harbors. They were mainly Japanese,but people, culture, and technology from theKorean peninsula also found its way into theRyukyu islands during the gusuku era (ca.11th-14th centuries).3

During this time, the Ryukyu islands were partof maritime networks extending from southernKorea to Tsushima, Iki, and Hakata, movingsouth along the western coast of Kyushu, andthen through the Satsunan and Tokara islands吐噶喇列島. In other words, the gusuku eraRyukyu islands were not isolated. They werepart of a much larger network of people, goods,and cultures.

Writing in 1924, linguist Miyanaga Masamori宮良當壮 repeated a hypothesis already incirculation regarding the Ryukyuan word fornorth, nishi. The argument is that this termcomes from ancient Japanese inishi 過去,meaning “the past.” In other words, the north(Kyushu and vicinity) was Ryukyu’s past.4

As recently as five years ago, I tended to regardthis kind of argumentation, whether byMiyanaga or by more famous intellectuals likeIha Fuyū 伊波普猷, as reflecting assimilationistpressure and therefore unreliable. To be sure,assimilationist pressure was intense during theearly twentieth century, and it contributed toconclusions that subsequent scholarship hasrejected. However, the general point thatscholars like Miyanaga and Iha made duringthe early twentieth century, based mainly onlinguistic evidence, now has strong supportfrom other disciplines, especially archaeology,physical and cultural anthropology, and newerstudies in linguistics. “Impact of northernculture” is one term anthropologist TanigawaKen’ichi 谷川健一 used for the strong north-to-south flow of people and culture into theRyukyu islands during the gusuku age.5 Inshort, the origin of the cultures and peoples of

the Ryukyu islands is mainly coastal Japan, withsome connections to the Korean peninsula.

When, if ever, did “Ryukyu” become acountry, or kingdom, or some other kind ofunitary entity?

Geopolitically, the Ryukyu islands came underat least the nominal rule of Shuri by the end ofthe long reign of Shō Shin 尚真 (r. 1477-1527).Specifically, Shō Shin subdued power centerswithin Okinawa, conquered the island ofKumejima 久米島 in the 1490s and/or in 1506,conquered the Yaeyama islands 八重山列島 in1500, conquered Yonaguni 与那国 around 1513or 1522, and may also have conquered Kasari笠利in northern Amami-Ōshima 奄美大島aroundthe same time. During the 1520s, local rulersserving as Shuri’s agents begin to appear in thevarious northern Ryukyu islands. The empirethat Shō Shin forged, however, was restive.Uprisings and re-conquests occurredoccasionally throughout the sixteenth century.After 1609, the northern Ryukyu islands cameunder the direct control of the Shimazu lords,and today they are part of KagoshimaPrefecture. Prior to Shō Shin’s reign, not evenOkinawa, much less the entire Ryukyu islands,were a unitary political entity in the sense ofbeing under the control of a single ruler.

Culturally, the question is similarly complex.One reason is that the Ryukyu islands were notisolated until the seventeenth century, a pointreinforced by DNA studies. People flowedthrough the islands in all directions, althoughthe dominant direction was north-to-south.Perhaps the clearest cultural marker islanguage. All Ryukyuan languages are relatedto Japanese and its dialects. The Ryukyu islandsconstitute a distinct group of languages withinthe larger Japonic family, and the boundariesbetween different Ryukyuan languages orgroups of languages tend to correspond tophysical barriers such as the Kuroshio currentflowing between Amami-Ōshima and the Tokara

APJ | JF 17 | 7 | 1

4

islands or the Kerama Gap between Okinawaand the southern Ryukyu islands. However,linguistic boundaries do not necessarilycorrespond to other cultural boundaries. Forexample, there are close connections betweenthe religious culture of the Tokara islands andthe Ryukyu islands. Similarly, certain deitiesfuneral customs, and other aspects of culturecan be found throughout the entire maritimeregion described above.

In short, defining “Ryukyu” as a unitary entitywith clear boundaries is difficult in any realm.It is interesting that today, mainly because ofthe promotion of the Ryukyu kingdom as atourist attraction, one often encounters theterm “Ryukyu” in Okinawa. In Amami-Ōshimaand other northern Ryukyu islands, by contrast,the R-word is typically applied only to certainspecies of plants and animals. There isconsiderable interest in local culture andecology within the northern Ryukyu islands.However, I am not aware of any popularnostalgia for or interest in the Ryukyu kingdomin today’s Amami-Ōshima or Tokunoshima 徳之島. Insofar as there is any popular memory ofthe “Naha-yu” 那覇世 (era of rule by Naha) inthe northern Ryukyu islands today, thedominant image is one of oppression byOkinawa.

Where did Ryukyuan history start?

Thanks to the discovery of the Gusuku sitegroup (Gusuku isekigun 城久遺跡群) in 2006,this question is relatively easy to answer: theisland of Kikai 喜界. During the tenth throughtwelfth centuries, Kikai was the administrativecenter of the three northernmost Ryukyuislands. It was a regional trade hub andtechnology center. During the thirteenthcentury, Okinawa gradually surpassed Kikaiand the northern Ryukyu islands in wealth andpower for reasons that I explain in MaritimeRyukyu. Even as late as the fifteenth century,however, Kikai retained considerable power.

Repeated military attacks by forces from theShuri-Naha area during the 1450s and 1460seventually ended Kikai’s long tenure as aregional power center.

Why did Okinawa give rise to so many“kings” starting in the 1370s?

One reason that Okinawa rose to prominencevis-à-vis Kikai is that the harbor at Naha couldaccommodate ships of any size because freshwater from rivers flowing into the harborsuppressed the growth of coral. Naha was theonly harbor in the Ryukyu islands that couldaccommodate large Chinese-made ships.

The story that “king” Satto 察度 (ruler of theUrasoe-Naha area) initiated formal tributaryrelations in 1372 with the newly-created Mingdynasty is well known. Moreover, the Mingdynasty soon granted favorable trade terms tothe port of Naha including unlimited tributeshipments (the usual limit was once every threeyears) and gifts of Chinese-made ships. Suchactions suggest that the Ming dynasty lookedfavorably upon Okinawa, but superficialappearances can be deceiving. Ming policy hadtwo interrelated goals. One was to channelpiracy and smuggling into the lawfulframework of tribute trade. (Ryukyuans werepirates and smugglers in Chinese eyes.) Theother was to use Naha as a conduit forinternational trade, thereby reducing theeconomic pain within China of the Mingdynasty’s own Maritime Prohibitions. Theseregulations prohibited private trade withforeign countries. The tribute trade via Naha,therefore, functioned partially to mitigate theadverse impact of this restriction. Statedsimply, the Ming court made trade throughNaha highly profitable to provide an incentiveto the wakō (pirates) who controlled localpower centers in the Ryukyu islands to interactwith China lawfully.

In this context, by 1374, two other kings

APJ | JF 17 | 7 | 1

5

appeared in Okinawa, one ostensibly in thenorth and another ostensibly in the south. Thesouthern kings also had various uncles andother royal relatives eager to trade with China.Suddenly Okinawa was awash in royalty.Interestingly, three kings (east, central, andwest) also appeared in the tiny Sultanate ofSulu soon after it established formal ties withthe Ming court.6

It is important to keep the term “king” (王wáng) in perspective. In the context of Ryukyu,Sulu, or any other state with ties to the Mingdynasty the title “king” was, in effect, a licenseto conduct trade and diplomacy granted by theMing court. The Ming court formally investedkings as rulers of territories, and holders of thetitle typically commanded significant localpower. In and of itself, however, the title kingdid not say anything about the actual extent ofits holder’s power or the prevailing governingstructure. Okinawa in the 1370s was an islandin which one or more kings (recognized by theChinese court) resided. However, neither theisland of Okinawa nor the Ryukyu islands as awhole were kingdoms at that time, in the senseof being a state under the control of a monarchexercising territorial control.

Okinawa’s three kings, and even some relativesof the southern king, all conducted tradethrough the port of Naha, using the services ofthe same group of resident Chinese to takecare of the paperwork and other details.Usually shipments from different Okinawankings arrived in Fuzhou from Naha at the sametime aboard the same ships. Moreover,sometimes the same Okinawans appeared inChinese records as envoys of one king, andthen envoys of another. What was going on? Wecannot know the details, but it appears thattrade under the auspices of multiple kings wasa way to accommodate numerous Okinawanwarlords who sought to participate in theprofitable tribute trade.

By the end of the 1420s, this accommodation

either came to an end or narrowed insofar asonly one king conducted trade with China,albeit with no reduction in total trade volume.The explanation in Ryukyu’s official historieswas that one king conquered the others, but wehave no strong evidence for this claim. Therecognition of a single king in Okinawa wasprobably an administrative reorganization byresident Chinese merchants in connection withcomplex events that led to the rise toprominence around 1405 of Shō Hashi 尚把志(r. 1422-1439). This change led to an upsurgein warfare because ambitious local rulerssought to seize control of Naha, makethemselves king, and profit from the lucrativetrade with China.

The Ryukyu islands (adapted from GoogleMaps)

Ryukyu Kingdom or Shuri Empire?

One of those ambitious local rulers, Shō Shin,eventually succeeded in eliminating orneutralizing potential opponents both withinOkinawa and in other islands. In addition tomilitary conquest, Shō Shin made Shuri intothe strong center as the capital of theseterritories. This process included the creationof a new religious hierarchy, with the Shurichief priestess at its head, the creation of newofficial rites, the formal division of Okinawaand other islands into administrative districts,large-scale construction of temples and

APJ | JF 17 | 7 | 1

6

monuments, and the use of written documentsin domestic administration and tax collection.

Today it is common to call this state the Ryukyukingdom, and it is common to imagine thiskingdom as having existed one or morecenturies before Shō Shin’s time. However, Igenerally avoid the term kingdom in MaritimeRyukyu. “Ryukyu kingdom” is not absolutelyincorrect. From about 1500 onward there was astrong monarch who ruled from Shuri and heldthe title king. The term kingdom, however,suggests that Shō Shin’s territory was anorganic political community. Instead, Icharacterize Shō Shin’s Ryukyu as a maritimeempire. It was the product of military conquestand agents dispatched from Shuri governedplaces like Amami-Ōshima in the north orIshigaki in the south. Even though these agentstypically developed local roots, their malechildren returned to the center, leaving theirparents to grow up in Shuri as servants innoble households there. Moreover, parts of theempire occasionally rebelled against Shuri,resulting in warfare. I do not use the termempire lightly, and Maritime Ryukyu contains adetailed discussion of the matter.

This point is especially clear when we look atthe situation from the standpoint of islandsother than Okinawa. This lack of an outsideperspective is a serious problem in the existingEnglish-language literature, my own past workincluded. Maritime Ryukyu represents an initialattempt at recalibration, one that I plan tofollow up in future projects.

Why are the tombs of the kings and majorwarlords of the First Shō “dynasty” widelydispersed?

The royal remains of the Second Shō dynastyare relatively orderly. The bones of most of thekings and major royal relatives reside in theTamaudun mausoleum in Shuri. (Those buriedelsewhere are significant as problematic

members of the lineage.) By contrast, thetombs of the kings of the first Shō dynasty, andthe other major warlords of that era, aredispersed all over central and southernOkinawa. In the paragraphs below, letters inbrackets indicate the approximate location onthe map. Clicking on letters that are linksbrings up a photograph of the relevant tomb.

(Adapted from Google Maps)

Shō Shishō 尚思紹 (r . 1406-1421) wastechnically the first king. However, except thathe was probably born in Kyushu near Sashiki 佐敷 (modern Ashikita 葦北 in KumamotoPrefecture), we know nothing about him. He isburied at Sashiki Yōdore 佐敷ようどれ [A](https://psu.box.com/s/fwznwi5l9zt76vz4atox0aln3mr3ftoz) in Sashiki 佐敷, Nanjō City 南城市, in southeast Okinawa. This area is thepower center from which his son Shō Hashiemerged. However, Shō Hashi and the next two

APJ | JF 17 | 7 | 1

7

kings, Shō Chū 尚忠 (r. 1440-1444) and ShōShitatsu 尚思達 (r. 1445-1449) are buried fara w a y i n Y o m i t a n 読谷 [ B ](https://psu.box.com/s/zi691qaw59tdj33rdv2ukuau5cy60j9g) in central Okinawa.

The tomb of Oni-Ōgusuku lies beyond thesign warning of falling tree danger

Path to the tomb of Shō Hashi in Yomitan

Shō Kinpuku’s 尚金福 (r. 1450-1453) tomb is inUrasoe 浦添, north of Naha [C], but theremains of his younger brother, Shō Furi 尚布里 (dates uncertain) are in Fusato 富里 [D](https://psu.box.com/s/ajnxizfzcuz386mzoe97ida0c05le6eh) near the Chinen Peninsula insoutheast Okinawa. Shō Furi went to war withKinpuku’s son, Shō Shiro 尚志魯 (d. 1453 or1454). This uncle-nephew war resulted in thedestruction by fire of much of Shuri castle andthe deaths of both parties, at least according tothe official story. Archaeological evidenceconfirms severe castle damage, but the details

APJ | JF 17 | 7 | 1

8

of who was at war with whom and what exactlyhappened are murky. In any case, Shō Taikyū尚泰久 (r . 1454-1460), whose preciserelationship within the lineage not even theofficial histories agree upon, emerged to takethe throne in the wake of the Furi-Shiro war.

Taikyū was almost certainly born in Goeku 越来in central Okinawa, a son of the local warlord,and initially he was entombed in that area.However, his bones were moved several times,and in 1910 ended up far away, in Fusato [E](https://psu.box.com/s/ptn1muq58nit3nwcjr6j22wnqgms91yy) near Furi’s tomb. Taikyū’sdaughter Momoto-fumiagari 百十踏揚 (d. ca.1469-70), acclaimed in Omoro songs as apotent shamanic dancer, resides slightly northo f F u s a t o , i n T a m a g u s u k u [ F ](https://psu.box.com/s/718vk20xzur2nbrizfhood96sbng1jfl). However, the remains of herhusband, the powerful warrior Oni-Ōgusuku 鬼大城 (d. ca. 1469) are at Chibana Castle 知花城[ G ](https://psu.box.com/s/6v78bo0i5jnhwahaf4ze90rlznolsbf9) in the Goegku area, thehomeland of Shō Taikyū. The last king of thedynasty, Shō Toku 尚徳 (r. 1461-1469), isportrayed in the official histories as both eviland fond of warfare. Such is the reputation oflast kings in Confucian histories. His tomb is int h e U e m a 上間 d i s t r i c t [ H ](https://psu.box.com/s/fnonx6c38mc9yl73srmpnomqyzkqjj9u) on the outskirts of Naha,commanding a splendid view of the city below.

View of Naha from near the tomb of ShōToku

There are reasons specific to each case thatexplain the location of the present tomb, andfor some kings, past intermediate burials.Zooming out to the big picture, the dispersedtombs suggest that the era of the first Shōdynasty, and the transition to the second(roughly the fifteenth century), was a time ofupheaval and warfare. Moreover, the dispersalof remains also suggests that not all of themembers of the First Shō “dynasty” werebiological relatives. Careful examination ofother evidence including Omoro songs, afamous temple bell inscription, and the actionsof several kings points to the same conclusion.

What were the origins of the second Shōdynasty?

The origin of the Second Shō dynasty isrelatively obscure by comparison with the first.Its founder was Kanemaru 金丸 (also Kanamaruor Kanimaru), who seems to have been a closeassociate of Shō Taikyū. The official historiesclaim that Kanemaru came from the village ofShomi 諸見 on the tiny Island of Izena 伊是名,just to the north of Okinawa. More likely hisimmediate roots were in Nakijin 今帰仁, a

APJ | JF 17 | 7 | 1

9

power center in northern Okinawa. However,we know nothing of Kanemaru’s family lineeven one generation before him.

Kanemaru apparently went into hiding incentral Okinawa during Shō Toku’s reign, buthe re-emerged after his death, took the throneas Shō En 尚円 (r. 1469-1476), and killed thesurviving members of Shō Toku’s immediatefamily. Kanemaru’s younger brother took thethrone as Shō Sen’i 尚宣威 (r. 1477), but wassoon killed in a coup that brought Kanemaru’sson, Shō Shin, to the throne.

What are Ryukyu’s official histories, andwhy are they problematic, especially forevents prior to the sixteenth century?

Ryukyu’s official histories are Chūzan seikan中山世鑑 (1650), Sai Taku bon Chūzan seifu蔡鐸本中山世譜 (1701), Sai On bon Chūzanseifu 蔡温本中山世譜 (1725), and Kyūyō 球陽(1745 and updated thereafter). Chūzan seikan(Mirror of Chūzan or Reflections on Chūzan) iswritten mostly in Japanese. Sai Taku bonChūzan seifu is ostensibly a Chinese translationof Chūzan seikan, but it contains additionalcontent. Sai On bon Chūzan seifu was asignificant revision of the 1701 work, in partbecause Sai On had access to official Mingrecords that previous authors lacked. All ofthese works are organized with royal reigns asthe major sections. Kyūyō, by contrast,although dated according to royal reigns, is acollection of articles about political, cultural,and technological matters.

The official histories functioned in part topresent Ryukyu to the rest of East Asia.Although the individual works often differ incontent, and the 1725 Chūzan seifu is relativelymore skillful at dealing with problematic orcomplex matters, all of these works are basedon a classical Chinese conception of history.This conception assumes that human affairsplay out within a morally-attuned cosmos. The

cosmos tends to reward morally correctbehavior and punish evil behavior, even if notalways immediately. History, therefore,becomes a morality play. Last kings of a line,for example, are always morally deficient andoften depraved. Their moral deficiency is thereason that they were last kings, not becausethey were victims of circumstances beyondtheir control. King Shō Toku, for example,could not have been anything but evil in thisview. Similarly, the official histories portrayK a n e m a r u ’ s s e i z u r e o f p o w e r a n denthronement as Shō En as a morally uprightdeed, not victory in a power struggle. Firstkings are almost always successful in takingthe throne mainly because of their virtue,which makes military success possible.

In addition to inherent biases, the officialhistories reflect the paucity of sources that Idescribed toward the start of this article.Chūzan seikan compiler Shō Shōken 向象賢(1615-1675) was part of the first generation ofelite Okinawans able to engage both Chineseand Japanese l i t e rary cu l ture w i thsophistication. In the introduction, Shō Shōkenexplains that he created the work afterinterviewing elderly officials. In other words,the first official history relies on legendarymaterial for most domestic events prior to thesixteenth century, and later histories built onthe framework Chūzan seikan established.

For these reasons and others, I wrote MaritimeRyukyu without relying on the official historiesfor material prior to the sixteenth century.Moreover, my approach was to be suspicious ofany claim made in the official histories thatcould not be corroborated by some kind ofexternal evidence. From the sixteenth centuryonward, such evidence becomes more plentiful.Within this skeptical context, I also read theofficial histories comparatively and against thegrain.

Why did the Ryukyu empire and the

APJ | JF 17 | 7 | 1

10

Shimazu domain go to war in 1609?

Broad historical trends played a part inengendering the conflict. To mention one ofthem, early Ryukyuan rulers (known in Japan asyononushi 世の主; recall that “king” was aChinese title) developed cordial relations withthe Ashikaga shoguns and Sakai merchantsthroughout the fifteenth century. The Ashikagashoguns valued Ryukyu as a conduit for exoticgoods and expected little in the way of formaldiplomacy from Ryukyuans who traveled to theKyoto area. As the shogunate faded intoobscurity circa the 1550s, under pressure,Ryukyu initiated formal diplomatic relationswith the Shimazu lords of southern Kyushu.Prior experience dealing with the Ashikagashogunate had not prepared Ryukyuans for themuch more demanding world of Sengoku erasamurai diplomacy. Ryukyu, in effect, hadstumbled into the major leagues of Japanesediplomacy at the same time that its wealth wassharply diminishing in the wake of Mingdynasty relaxation of the Maritime Prohibitions.The result was a series of tense and difficultembassies from Ryukyu to Shimazu. Therewere many other background factors, includingsevere factional struggles within Okinawa andeven an armed revolt during the 1590s.

In addition to these broad trends, specificdecisions and pressures also propelled eachside toward war. For example, soon after theTokugawa bakufu came to power, the Shimazulords came under pressure to enlist Ryukyu asa diplomatic go-between to facilitate a possibletrade agreement between the Ming court andthe bakufu. During the first decade of theseventeenth century, King Shō Nei repeatedlyrefused requests, which became demands, thathe use his good offices in this way. Why? Thereasons are connected with the complex eventsconnected with warfare in Kyushu, the rise topower of Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and Ryukyu’sroles in Hideyoshi’s invasion of the continent.

Did Ryukyu become part of Japan followingthe 1609 warfare?

The war ended badly for Ryukyu. Although ittook a few years after 1609 for the details toget sorted out, the Ryukyu empire became a defacto part of the Shimazu domain. UnderShimazu auspices, Ryukyu’s court sent 18official missions to the Shogun’s court in Edobetween 1634, and 1850. Occasionally, recentand contemporary accounts of modernOkinawan history claim that Ryukyu was an“independent kingdom” prior to 1879. Ryukyupossessed limited autonomy after 1609, but itwas not independent.

Notice my wording: soon after 1609, Ryukyubecame part of the Shimazu domain. For thatvery reason, Ryukyu became cut off from therest of Japan. Specifically, the Shimazu rulersincorporated the northern Ryukyu islands intotheir direct holdings. They took the islandsfrom Okinawa southward and created theappearance of an independent kingdom for thepurposes of creating a conduit to China.Initially, Ming officials were highly suspiciousof post 1609 Ryukyu. Although they were notaware of the details of Shimazu-Ryukyurelations, they knew that Ryukyu was under“Japanese” control. Ming officials thereforeresisted the resumption of China-Ryukyutributary relations. Gradually, however, aregular tribute schedule resumed. During theQing dynasty, some Chinese officials andenvoys were aware of Ryukyu’s status assubordinate to Japan, but they chose to look theother way. Anxious about endangering ties withChina, Ryukyuan officials became vigilantabout Ryukyu appearing independent in theeyes of the Qing court. It was because of theneed to appear interdependent to maintain tieswith China that early modern Ryukyu was ableto carve out some autonomy.7

This process of creating the appearance of anindependent k ingdom inc luded de -Japanification policies imposed by the Shimazu

APJ | JF 17 | 7 | 1

11

overlords and enforced by Ryukyuan officials.(As a simple example, the common component“Yamato” disappeared from male childhoodnames early in the seventeenth century.) Oneimportant point to keep in mind is that prior to1609, although Ryukyu was not part of anyJapanese state, culturally and economically itwas closely tied to Japan and had long been so.The combination of de-Japanification policiesand, more importantly, Shimazu’s closing off ofRyukyu to the rest of Japan except underlimited and highly controlled conditions,accelerated the creation of a distinctiveRyukyuan cultural identity. The many wajin 倭人 (Japanese and hybrid Japanese people)residing in Ryukyu became Ryukyuans from the1620s onward.

Notice that this question is quite complex. Interms of people and culture, it would makesense to say that Ryukyu was a frontier regionof Japan until 1609. Soon thereafter, free travelbetween the reconfigured “Ryukyu kingdom”and other parts of Japan came to an end. Thesmall number of Ryukyuans who visited Japanduring the early modern era did so in highlyorchestrated official settings. This period ofrelative isolation vis-à-vis Japan helped set thestage for the painful process of Okinawanassimilation into Japan during the latenineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

What are some potentially fruitfuldirections for future research?

Maritime Ryukyu covers the period 1050-1650,albeit with some excursions into later historyfor perspective. What would the history of thissame period, or perhaps shifted a few centuriescloser to the present, look like from thestandpoint of, for example, the harbor ofYamatohama 大和浜 in Amami-Ōshima?Although the village of Yamatohama is smalltoday, it was sufficiently prominent in 1609 tobe one of three landing places of the Shimazufleet in its conquest of the island. “Ryukyuan”

history would look much different fromYamatohama, or any other port outside ofOkinawa, compared with the view from Shuri-Naha. I am not recommending narrow historiesof small localities. Instead, what I amsuggesting is histories of larger regions fromlocal, non-Shuri perspectives. The power ofShuri would, of course, still be felt in eachlocality, but our understanding of the regionwould benefit from changes in perspective.

Technology plays an important role in thepages of Maritime Ryukyu. Shipbuilding andnavigation are obvious examples, but perhapseven more important was metalworking.Blacksmiths play crucial roles in the legendarybiographies of early Ryukyuan rulers. ManyRyukyuan deities originated as legendaryblacksmiths from Yamato who enriched somelocality by bringing tools (weapons or hoes andother agricultural implements) and knowhow.Metalworking in southern Okinawa and theiron industry in Kumejima were major factorsin both warfare and in economic prosperity.Moreover, in part a legacy of Ryukyu’s wakōroots and in part because of water resourceconstraints in many parts of the Ryukuyuislands, control of water resources was theclassic mark of a potent ruler Ryukyu. Theseand other technologies became especiallycrucial after 1609, when Ryukyu increasinglyhad to rely on its own resources. Another usefuldirection for research, therefore, would bestudies that combine environmental historywith the history of technology.

Maritime Ryukyu attempts to answer manyquestions, but it also highlights areas for futureinquiry. It is my hope that the book will suggestnew approaches and topics for future research.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Bruce Batten for his veryhelpful comments on a previous draft of thisarticle. I would also like to thank the personnel

APJ | JF 17 | 7 | 1

12

of the Chinen Division Japanese Air SelfDefense Force Base for expeditiously allowingme inside the base to photograph Sashiki

Yōdore.

Gregory Smits is Professor of History and Asian Studies at Pennsylvania State University. Anhistorian of Japan, broadly defined, his interests range from the fourteenth through the earlytwentieth centuries. A specialist in the history of the Ryukyu islands and of the impact ofearthquakes on society, he is the author of Visions of Ryukyu: Identity and Ideology in Early-Modern Thought and Politics(http://www.amazon.com/dp/0824820371/?tag=theasipacjo0b-20), Maritime Ryukyu,1050-1650(https://www.amazon.com/Maritime-Ryukyu-1050-1650-Gregory-Smits/dp/0824873378/), andco-editor with Bettina Gramlich-Oka of Economic Thought in Early-Modern Japan(http://www.brill.nl/economic-thought-early-modern-japan). He is the author of two studies ofJapanese earthquakes: When the Earth Roars: Lessons From the History of Earthquakes inJapan (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00J6U4TSE/?tag=theasipacjo0b-20) and Seismic Japan:The Long History and Continuing Legacy of the Ansei Edo Earthquake(http://www.amazon.com/dp/0824838173/?tag=theasipacjo0b-20).

Notes1 See, for example, Yoshinari Naoki and Fuku Hiromi, Ryūkyū ōkoku tanjō: Amami shotō shikara 琉球王国誕生：奄美諸島史から (Birth of the Ryukyu kingdom: from the history of theAmami islands), Shinwasha, 2007.2 George H. Kerr, Okinawa: The History of an Island People, Rev. ed. (Rutland, VT: TuttlePublishing, 2000).3 For a thorough summary of recent findings in Ryukyuan archaeology, see Richard Pearson,Ancient Ryukyu: An Archaeological Study of Island Communities (Honolulu: University ofHawaiʻi Press, 2013).4 Miyanaga Masamori, “Waga kodaigo to Ryūkyūgo to no hikaku” 我が古代語と琉球語との比較,in Shigaku 史学, vol. 3, no. 3 (September, 1924): 64. It is possible that nishi meaning northindeed derived from inishi meaning the past, but this point is not certain.5 Tanigawa Ken’ichi, Yomigaeru kaijō no michi, Nihon to Ryūkyū 甦る海上の道・日本と琉球(Bungei shunjū, 2007), section title “Kita no bunka no shōgeki” 北の文化の衝撃, pp. 222–225.6 Founded in 1405, the Sultanate of Sulu included islands in the Sulu Archipelago, parts ofMindanao, and portions of Palawan and NE Borneo.7 For a close examination of the complexities of Ryukyuan diplomacy within East Asia and theworld during the nineteenth century, see Marco Tinello, “A New Interpretation of theBakufu’s Refusal to Open the Ryukyus to Commodore Perry(https://apjjf.org/2018/17/Tinello.html),” The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, Volume 16,Issue 17, Number 3 (September 1, 2018).