The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 7 | Issue 41 | Number 1 | Oct 12, 2009

1

Shuri Castle's Other History: Architecture and Empire inOkinawa

Tze M. Loo

Shuri Castle's Other History:Architecture and Empire in Okinawa

Tze M. Loo

The Ryūkyū Kingdom Festival (Ryūkyū ōchōmatsuri), organized and sponsored by the ShuriPromotion Association (Shuri shinkōkai), is afixture on Okinawa Prefecture’s cultural andtourist calendar.

2008 Shuri Castle Festival poster

This one-day festival is one part of the largerShuri Castle Festival (Shurijō sai); together,they celebrate the grandeur of the RyūkyūKingdom and its court traditions as a purecultural past for the prefecture.1 Of pivotalimportance to these events is Shuri Castleitself. Not merely the stage on which festivitiesunfold, Shuri Castle – with its vermillionarchitecture epitomized by its main hall(seiden) and Shurei Gate (Shurei mon), and itshigh, imposing ishigaki stone walls – is cast asthe very heart of Ryūkyūan culture. While thisrepresentation of the castle celebrates localculture, it is difficult to ignore the role it playsin Japan’s continuing colonization of Okinawa.By suggesting that Ryūkyūan culture not onlyexists, but flourishes within the framework ofthe Japanese nation state, this representationplays an important part in a narrative thatobfuscates the rupture of Japanese colonizationof the Ryūkyū Kingdom and naturalizesOkinawa’s inclusion into the modern Japanesenation state.2

Nowhere is the assimilative nature of culturalvaluation more stark than in the Japanesestate’s 1925 designation of Shuri Castle’s mainhall as a “national treasure” (kokuhō) of Japan.This designation is often lauded in the postwaras a sign of the Japanese state’s earlyrecognition of the value of Ryūkyūan culture,but it also deftly transformed a marker of aprior independence into a marker of inclusion.The official text explaining the designationreads:

This is the main hall of the formerShuri Castle, and it is the Ryūkyū’s

APJ | JF 7 | 41 | 1

2

most important and largest pieceof architecture … The currentbuilding was built in the 14th yearof Kyōhō (1730) and underwentsubstantial repairs in the 3rd yearof Kōka (1837). It has a very large,multilayered hip-and-gabled roof, astep canopy (kōhai) in the front[and demonstrates] uniqueRyūkyūan form and techniques.Even though its large pillars andthe decorative feature (fun) of thebargeboard (karahafū) resembleChinese style (kan shiki), the frog-leg strut (kaerumata) and dragoncarvings below the step canopy’sbargeboard carries the trace (obi)of the style of our Momoyamaperiod [and is] extremely novelartisanship.3

Assimilation is performed in several ways here.First, Shuri Castle’s history is told in terms ofJapanese reign names, mapping the castle’shistory onto a regime of Japanese temporalityeven though the Ryūkyū Kingdom at this timewas, for all intents and purposes, anindependent political entity. Second, while thedesignation recognizes the uniqueness ofRyūkyūan form and techniques and evenacknowledges its resonance with continentalstyles, the text – in the final analysis – foldsthese features into a narrative of Japanesearchitectural history. By discovering in theseRyūkyūan/continental features the “trace” of“our Momoyama” style, the designationskillfully sublimates any Ryūkyūan uniquenessinto a larger, encompassing, and originalJapanese cultural universe, diffusing thecritical potential in these markers of difference.

There was, however, another way in which thisdesignation appropriated and assimilated ShuriCastle into the Japanese national imaginary. Inorder for Shuri Castle’s main hall to bedesignated a national treasure in 1925, it was

converted into the worshipper’s hall ofOkinawa Shrine. This completed the layout forOkinawa Shrine, and Shuri Castle spent theperiod 1925 to 1945 as “Okinawa Shrine,” afunctioning node in the ideological universe ofState Shinto, put into the service of theemperor-centered Japanese nation state. Thistransformation occurred in part becauseJapanese heritage preservation laws until 1932stipulated that only Shinto shrine and Buddhisttemple buildings could be designated “speciallyprotected buildings” to receive state protectionand funding as “national treasures.” Theproblem is that the argument that the castle’sconversion was necessary for its preservationwas privileged, both at the time as well as inour present, such that Shuri Castle’s tenure asa Shinto shrine is overlooked and itssignificance downplayed. This article tracesShuri Castle’s other history, to tell the story ofits transformation into Okinawa Shrine in orderto reveal the nakedness of the violence ofJapanese colonialism as it is embedded in ShuriCastle.

The Silence around Okinawa Shrine

People have generally expressed surprise whenI’ve posed the question, “Did you know thatShuri Castle used to be Okinawa Shrine?” Thisis not entirely surprising considering thathistories of the castle – including the castle’s“official history” as it is told at the ShurijōCastle Park – do not reference its past asOkinawa Shrine. What is curious, however, isthat the castle’s history as Okinawa Shrine isnot exactly the object of a concerted campaignof silencing and obfuscation, with references toit readily available in the historical record. Forinstance, in prewar official inventories ofnational treasures compiled by the HomeMinistry (Naimushō) which list all designatedbuildings and objects, Shuri Castle’s main hallis listed as “the worshipper’s hall of OkinawaShrine” (Okinawa jinja haiden).4 In a relativelyrecent compilation by the Agency for CulturalAffairs (Bunkachō) of national treasures lost to

APJ | JF 7 | 41 | 1

3

war and disaster in the prewar period, theentry for Shuri Castle’s main hall, razed to theground as a result of American bombardment,was similarly listed as the worshipper’s hall.5

Thus as far as one version of the Japanesestate’s official record is concerned, “ShuriCastle” does not actually exist in the periodbetween 1925 and 1945, replaced instead by“Okinawa Shrine.”

Two different treatments of a photograph in arecent volume about Okinawa demonstratewhat is at stake. The photograph in questiondates from the 1920s and shows YamazakiMasatada, a medical professor from Kyushu infront of Okinawa Shrine’s main sanctuary(honden).

Yamazaki Masatada in front of OkinawaShrine's main sanctuary. From Nonomura

Takeo, Natsukashiki Okinawa

In a comment on the photograph, NonomuraTakao writes:

Considering the situation at thetime, there was no other method ofrescue except for the main hall totake on the name of OkinawaShrine’s worshipper’s hall, therebyreceiving financial aid from thestate in the form of a repairbudget. This was a turnaround fora building that was destined to bedemolished, and there was the

great repair in the early Shōwaperiod. This ingenious plan(myōan) was thought up by ItōChūta, and was seen toextraordinary success by SakataniRyōnoshin. [The castle] was savedas Okinawa Shrine. As theworshipper’s hall attached to themain sanctuary, Shuri Castle’smain hall sidestepped the big waveof the time.6

While all this is certainly true, this treatmentdeftly sublimates Shuri Castle’s becomingOkinawa Shrine into the larger aim ofpreserving the main hall and effectivelydismisses the transformation of the castle intothe shrine as a significant event in its ownright. By privileging a narrative ofpreservation, the meaning of the Shuri Castle’stransformation into Okinawa Shrine is strait-jacketed into an argument in which the end(preservation) justifies the means.

The second treatment of this photo is in anessay discussing the role of old photographs inthe restoration of Ryūkyūan architecture.7

While the author acknowledges that thephotograph is one of the few which exist of theshrine, he notes that the photograph’s valuelies in what it tells us of the area around themain sanctuary. He is interested in theinformation the photograph provides, butignores the existence of the shrine itself. Thecastle’s tenure as a Shinto shrine is present,even acknowledged when it surfaces, and yetthose who come into contact with it seem ableto ignore its existence and its implications.What was the reality of Okinawa Shrine, andwhat were the conditions of its emergence?

Shuri Castle in the early Meiji period

Until the early 15th century, the RyūkyūKingdom was divided into three competingpower blocks, Hokuzan, Chūzan, and Nanzan.In 1429, Shō Hashi completed the unification of

APJ | JF 7 | 41 | 1

4

the kingdom and established Chuzan’shegemony over the other centers. The seat ofhis power was Shuri Castle, which remainedthe kingdom’s political and sacerdotal centeruntil 1879. Even before unification, the RyūkyūKingdom was already part of the Sinocentricworld order as the lords of Hokuzan, Chūzan,and Nanzan sought political legitimacy andtrading rights from the Ming emperor. Uponachieving unification, Shō Hashi received theChinese court’s investiture as the “King ofRyūkyū” and the kingdom’s submission to theChinese empire (while maintaining politicalautonomy) became a dominant factor inRyūkyūan life. The tribute relation was not onlypolitical, but was also economically profitableand transformed kingdom into a prosperouslinchpin in an “intra-Asia trade system” (Ajiaikinai kōei ken).8 The kingdom subscribed toChinese influence in other ways too as ChineseConfucianism became the dominant frameworkthat governed political, social and ethical life.9

In 1609, Tokugawa Japan’s southernmost fief,Satsuma, invaded the Ryūkyū Kingdom as itsought to appropriate the profits from thekingdom’s lucrative tribute trade. Satsumacould not impose its rule explicitly because ithad to allow the kingdom to maintain anappearance of independence in order for thattrade with China to continue. This resulted inthe period of “dual tribute” – where the RyūkyūKingdom paid tribute to both China and Japan –which effectively reduced the kingdom topoverty.10 Despite its “non-explicit”overlordship, Satsuma’s invasion marked thebeginning of Japan’s gradual colonization of theRyūkyū Kingdom which culminated the Meijistate’s formal annexation in the 1870s. TheMeiji state began this process in 1872 byunilaterally converting the kingdom into“Ryūkyū domain” (Ryūkyū han) and makingShō Tai (the last Ryūkyū king) into the “domainking” (han ō). In 1879, in what was termed theRyūkyū Dispensation (Ryūkyū shobun), MeijiJapan annexed the Ryūkyū Kingdom, turning itinto Japan’s southernmost prefecture, Okinawa.

The imposition of Japanese colonial rule meantthe absorption of the kingdom into Japan’sadministrative structure, a process whichentailed the neutralization of the Ryūkyūanking as a symbol of independence andautonomy. When the Meiji state formallyannexed the kingdom in 1879, it evicted ShōTai from Shuri Castle and installed him as amember of the Japanese aristocracy in Tokyo.The seat of his power was not exempt fromsimilarly radical change. Immediately after theannexation, the castle was converted intobarracks for the Kumamoto Garrison(Kumamoto chindai bunkentai heiei), to becomewhat Uemura Hideaki has called“Ryūkyū/Okinawa’s first foreign military base”in 1876.11 It suffered much damage in thisconversion as it was a process of displacementwhich broke existing meanings and replacedthem with new significations in both thephysical and symbolic registers. Maps of ShuriCastle from the 1880s demonstrate thesymbolic violence of this displacement in starkterms. The visual force in an 1893 map of thegarrison, for instance, lies in its demonstrationof the garrison’s complete takeover andredefinition of the site where even thebuildings that were not in use were labeled“empty” (aki) or left shaded in the stripes asthe building under use.12

Map of the Garrison. From Okinawa hontōtorishirabe sho (1893)

This conversion of the castle’s space to new

APJ | JF 7 | 41 | 1

5

uses coincided with its destruction as a palace.During his visit in 1882, the traveler F.H.H.Guillemard noted that he thought that the mainhall was “a holy of holies” but upon entering,

[a] more dismal sight could hardlyhave been imagined. We wanderedthrough room after room, throughcorridors, reception halls, women’sapartments, through the servant’squarters, through a perfectlabyrinth of buildings, which werein such a state of indescribabledilapidation. The place could nothave been inhabited for years.Every article of ornament had beenremoved; the paintings on thefrieze – a favorite decoration withthe Japanese and the Liu-kiuanshave been torn down, or wereinvisible from dust and age … In alldirections the woodwork had beentorn away for firewood, and anoccasional ray of light from aboveshowed that the roof was in nobetter condition than the rest ofthe building. From these damp anddismal memorials of past Liu-kiuangreatness it was a relief to emergeon an open terrace on the summitof one of the great walls …13

For Guillemard, the castle, along with anygreatness of civilization it marked, was a thingof the past. His observation that “the placecould not have been inhabited for years”establishes the scale of the dilapidation, butalso removes Shuri Castle even further fromthe present. The castle’s physical decline wastactile proof that the castle, and by extension,the Ryūkyū Kingdom itself, belonged to adifferent time, out of sync with the present ofMeiji Japan. The castle became a double woundon the Okinawan landscape: its dilapidatedpresence reminded Okinawans that the RyūkyūKingdom was now a thing of the past, and that

the eclipse of past greatness constituted thereality of the present.14

Shuri Castle’s physical decline created theconditions that broke the monopoly ofmeanings as a royal palace and opened it toredefinition, demonstrated in the calls for thepalace site to be returned to the prefecture andconverted into a site for popular pleasure. Withthe garrison’s departure in 1896, Okinawanscalled for the return of the castle to localcivilian use. In 1899, Shuri ward petitioned thecentral government that notions of socialprogress called for the development leisurefacilities in Shuri Ward for local use and toattract visitors from other prefectures, butOkinawa Prefecture had not achieved this.15

The solution, they proposed, lay with the castlesite, arguing that it would be regrettable if thecastle site – “the beauty of the Ryūkyū Kingdomfor several hundreds of years” – was lost due tothe current policy of abandonment.16 Thepetition asked the government to give thecastle site and its buildings to Shuri wardwithout cost. Tokyo denied this request. Shuriward tried again a year later, but this timerequested the sale of the buildings which theHome Ministry approved but only allowed theuse of the land for a thirty-year period.17 In1909, Shuri ward petitioned the centralgovernment for the sale of the land andsucceeded.18 In this way, ownership of ShuriCastle and its land was returned to theprefecture thirty years after Shō Tai’s eviction.Unfortunately the prefecture’s poor financesprevented any plans from coming to fruition.The castle’s main hall was so dilapidated thatsubstantial and expensive restoration workwould have been necessary simply to guaranteeits structural integrity. Before the prefecturecould raise the money, plans were alreadybeing made for the castle’s site to be used asthe precincts of Okinawa Shrine.

Okinawa Shrine

Okinawa Prefecture first proposed the

APJ | JF 7 | 41 | 1

6

establishment of a prefectural shrine in April1910 to commemorate the fiftieth anniversaryof the Meiji emperor’s ascension.19 Theproposed shrine would install Minamoto noTametomo, Shunten, and Shō Tai as its residentdeities, selected because they were importanthistorical figures (san dai ijin) for OkinawaPrefecture who “made clear” (meiryō naru)Okinawa’s close relationship with mainlandJapan.20 However, the idea was abandonedbecause of the death of the Meiji emperor in1912. The motion to establish a prefecturalshrine resurfaced in 1914 and 1915, but wasdenied on both occasions. The 1914 proposal,which suggested establishing the prefecturalshrine within the grounds of Naminoue Shrine,was rejected as “impossible,” while the 1915proposal was rejected because the deities theprefecture proposed – Amamiko and Shinireku,both of which were mythical figures inRyūkyūan folk beliefs – were not recognized aspart of the Shinto pantheon. The HomeMinistry approved the establishment of“Okinawa Shrine” in March 31, 1923 forreasons that remain unclear and Shuri Castlewas chosen as the site because it had been thehistorical center of Okinawa’s politics and wasintimately connected with the prefecture’s“cultural enlightenment.”21

It is also possible that the Shuri Castle site wasselected for financial reasons. The 1915proposal budgeted 10,000 yen for developing a3,443 tsubo site (approximately 2.8 acres) inMawashi-cho, out of which 4,250 yen wasslated for roads and other infrastructuralcosts.22 The proposed site was close to ShuriCastle, and maps from the period indicate adensely populated area interspersed withrelatively large, aristocratic estates. That halfthe budget was set aside for infrastructure andother costs suggests that the site was quitecostly to develop.23 By contrast, the ShuriCastle site was largely available, even thoughpart of it was being used by the Shuri FirstPrimary School and Shuri Girls’ Craft School.Construction began in September 1923, and

the shrine’s main sanctuary was constructedbehind the castle’s main hall. Given its poorcondition, the decision was made to demolishthe castle’s main hall so that a newworshipper’s hall could be built on its site inorder to complete the spatial layout of OkinawaShrine.

It is at this moment on the brink of physicalerasure that Shuri Castle’s fortunes turned,almost entirely by chance. Kamakura Yoshitarō,a teacher who had spent some time in Okinawa,was visiting with friends in Tokyo one day inearly 1924 when he noticed a newspaperarticle reporting the main hall’s demolition.24

Kamakura recounts that he rushed immediatelyto see Itō Chūta, the eminent architect withwhom he was acquainted.25 Itō had never seenthe castle itself, but knew that it was animportant building.26 Itō in turn called on theHome Ministry and succeeded in halting thedemolition.27 Concerned with securing bothpermanent protection for the main hall as wellas official funding for its repair, Itō set out withKamakura in the summer of 1924 on a month-long study trip to Okinawa.

In his account of his role in saving the mainhall, Itō makes special mention of the mainhall’s dilapidated condition.28 He notes thatOkinawan authorities were keen to repair thebuilding, even though the impoverishedprefecture could not afford such a project.Unable to bear the loss of this “enormousbuilding with deep pedigree,” efforts to raisefunds for the building’s repairs continued evenas the castle’s inner courtyard was slated to begiven over to the new Okinawa Shrine. Itō’saccount stoked the drama of the moment:

… it was a large sum of money, andthere was no way to acquire it.With flowing tears, there was therealization that there was nothingelse that could be done except toabandon (migoroshi suru) the main

APJ | JF 7 | 41 | 1

7

hall.29

From a photograph of the main hall, Itō saidthat he knew that it was a “representativemasterpiece of Ryūkyūan architecture,” andafter succeeding in halting the demolition andsaving it from the “brink of death” (kyūshi niisshō), Itō took it upon himself to see what hecould do to further preserve the main hall. Hewrites,

I had to think of a concrete plan of how to savethis almost dead (hinshi) patient. Before doinganything, there was the urgent task (kyūmu) ofdiagnosing the patient’s condition. One aspectof my research in Ryūkyū was this importantmission.30

Itō’s assessment of his position was twofold:“Aside from welcoming me as a researcher ofRyūkyū, many Okinawan officials and civiliansalso welcomed me as the doctor (ishi) of ShuriCastle’s main hall.”31 Itō’s account conveys theurgency of his mission in which saving thecastle took top priority, but his claim that hewas welcomed by Okinawa officials andcivilians adds an important dimension byimplying the approval and support for his plansof Okinawans.

At the end of his study, Itō proposed that ShuriCastle’s main hall be used as the worshipper’shall of Okinawa Shrine, thereby qualifying it forpermanent state protection under the 1897 OldShrines and Temples Preservation Act. Thelocal newspaper carried an article with theheadline: “Shuri Castle’s Preservation, Themain hall becoming the worshipper’s hall ofOkinawa Shrine through the Shrine and TemplePreservation Law after receiving recognition asa prefectural shrine and receiving the HomeMinistry’s support is a good plan in ProfessorItō’s opinion.”32 The article noted that this wasthe best way for the main hall to receive therepairs it badly needed, and thanks to“Professor Itō’s efforts (rō),” Okinawa’s famoussite would now be preserved. A photograph of

the repaired main hall testifies to the castle’snew doubled reality: two plaques hang at theentrance to the hall, mark it as both a “nationaltreasure” and “worshipper’s hall”.

Detail, Showing "kokuhō" plaque on left,and "haiden" plaque on right.

The significance of Okinawa Shrine

As Itō’s commentary and the treatments of thephotograph with Yamazaki that I began thisessay with demonstrate, there is a strongdesire to apprehend the moment of the castle’smain hall’s designation in terms of itspreservation while ignoring its incorporation aspart of Okinawa Shrine. Through the use ofmedical tropes and the drama of the situation,Itō successfully conveys that he was mostconcerned with the preservation the castle’sbuildings. My intention is not to challenge this;Itō certainly had a deep and abiding love forbuildings and spent his career committed totheir preservation. However, to neglect thetransformation of the main hall into theshrine’s worshipper’s hall surely misses thepoint at best. At worst, it marks the success oferasure in which the ideological machinationsthat enable Shuri Castle’s transformation intoOkinawa Shrine are misrecognized as

APJ | JF 7 | 41 | 1

8

unimportant and regarded as irrelevant.33 Tofocus only on the preservation aspect of the1925 designation echoes the constitutive logicin colonial power that seeks to obfuscate thearbitrariness and violence of its rule. Here, theviolence of transforming Shuri Castle intoOkinawa Shrine achieves the perfect coverbehind the lofty goals of heritage preservation.

How then to read the moment of the 1925designation, against the hegemonic desire torender it a triumph for heritage preservation,in order to recover Okinawa Shrine as a site ofviolence? The context of prewar State Shintoprovides an important starting point. Bybecoming a Shinto shrine, Shuri Castle’s spacewas absorbed into the ideological universe ofState Shinto and disciplined by its particularlogic. Following the Council of State’s(Dajōkan) declaration of “the unity ofgovernment and rites” (saisei icchi) on March13, 1869, the Meiji state promulgated a decreestating that Shinto shrines “constitute[d] therites of the state” (jinja wa kokka no sōshi nari)on May 14, 1871.34 These measures definedShinto as the national religion and establishedShinto shrines as privileged spaces in thepolitical life of the Japanese nation state. Therole that the Grand Shrine of Ise played in theprewar era exemplifies the effect of thisconfiguration: worshipping at the specific siteof Ise Shrine was a mode of conduct for loyalJapanese imperial subjects to contribute tomaintaining the health of the national polity.35

One of the most prolific theoreticians of therole of shrines in State Shinto and theirrelationship to Japanese national identity wasnone other than Itō Chūta, the “savior” of ShuriCastle’s main hall. Beginning with hisinvolvement in the construction of Heian Shrinein Kyoto to commemorate the 1100thanniversary of transferring the capital to Kyoto,Itō designed and built a significant number ofimperial Japan’s most important Shintōshrines.36 Professionally, Itō was the HomeMinistry’s special consultant for constructing

Shintō shrines from 1898, leading MaruyamaShigeru to observe that Itō’s official position inthe bureaucracy was a way in whicharchitecture was placed in the service of thenation state.37 Itō developed his ideas aboutShintō shrines and their role in State Shinto inmany articles, regarding shrines as the physicalrepresentations of the link between theimperial house and the Japanese nation state.He argued that while Shinto bore somesimilarities with Chinese Taoism or CentralAsian religions, Shinto shrines were uniquely“Japanese” because they were for the worshipof the Japanese imperial house and its imperialancestors.38 Shinto shrines were, in otherwords, spaces that referenced the emperor andby extension, the imperial Japanese nationstate.

Far from being simply a staging ground ofShinto, shrine buildings could channelindividual emotion and feeling to focus on theworship of the imperial house.39 Itō considered“ideal” (risō) shrine architecture to fulfill twodifferent aims.40 The first, material aim wasfunctional: buildings and structures had to beeasy to use in a practical sense. Moreimportantly however, was shrine architecture’ssecond, spiritual dimension, which referred totheir ability to manifest the spirit that repaidone’s ancestors for their gratitude, to returnpeople’s hearts to the past, and to return to thefundamentals of the country.41 Itō’s ideas aboutthe relationship of architecture and nationalidentity, as well as his position on Shintoshrines as a specific site of Japanese nationalidentity means that he was not a politicallyneutral actor when it came to Shinto shrines.Itō’s actions brought the central culturalsymbol of the Ryūkyū Kingdom into StateShinto. This must in turn, at the very least,raise questions about Itō’s intentions inproposing the transformation of Shuri Castle’smain hall, and destabilize the comfortablenarrative of salvation and preservation that Itōand others have cast the process as.

APJ | JF 7 | 41 | 1

9

The Home Ministry regulated Shinto shrinesstrictly: not only who could establish a shrineand when, but also the very shape and contentof shrine precincts. These regulations appliedto the top-ranking national and governmentshrines as well as the prefectural and villageshrines at the bottom of the shrine hierarchy.42

The Home Ministry listed seven structures thata shrine would have to include: the mainsanctuary (honden), its surrounding fence, atorii, a worshipper’s hall (haiden), hall for foodofferings (shinsenjo), temizuya, and shrineoffices.43 These specifications constitute a set ofrules by the Japanese state to govern the spaceof Shinto shrines. Each of the seven structuresserved a specific function and shrines withoutthem were not recognized as shrines.44 Theradical alteration to Shuri Castle’s space thatresulted from its use as Okinawa Shrine isillustrated in a map titled “Old Shuri Castle”(Kyū Shurijō) which shows the castle’s originalbuildings overlaid with the new shrine’sbuildings, including the seven structures thatthe Home Ministry deemed necessary.

Map of Okinawa Shrine precints, showingnew and old buildings. Kyū Shurijō

Seen this way, it becomes clear that ShuriCastle’s transformation into a Shinto shrinewas not simply about the transformation of itsphysical space, but rather the transposition ofthe castle into a spatial economy centered onthe Japanese nation state.

This new configuration of space imposed aparticular regime of bodily practices thatregulated the conduct of those who entered it.

The main hall as Okinawa Shrine'sworshipper's hall. From Shashinshu Okinawa

A torii at the northwest corner of the courtyarddemarcated the shrine’s precincts, a line in thesand that marked the beginning of sacredspace. In the courtyard, there was a smallstructure on the left, stone lanterns at thebottom of the stairs, an offering box at theentrance to the hall, and a braided rope aboveit. The small structure is the temizuya, whereone washed one’s hands before approachingthe worshipper’s hall. Going up the stairs, onestopped in front of the offering box and threwin a coin. One then performed the proper ritualcombination of claps and bows to approach thegods deified in the main sanctuary. The braidedrope above the offering box marked off thespace it encloses as sacred, the hall and thearea behind off limits to the profane masses.

Okinawa Shrine enshrined five deities:Minamoto no Tametomo, Shunten, Shō En, ShōKei, and Shō Tai. As Torigoe has noted, thedeification of Minamoto no Tametomo and hisson Shunten emphasized Okinawa’s ethnic andblood proximity to mainland Japan and thelegend of Tametomo and Shunten is worthrecounting briefly here.45 After the HōgenRebellion, Tametomo – a direct descendent of

APJ | JF 7 | 41 | 1

10

the 56th emperor Seiwa – supposedly fled fromthe victorious Heike and escaped to the RyūkyūIslands. There he fathered a son, Shunten, with the daughter of a local chief who rose topower as the island’s first king the 12thcentury. Scholars like Hagashionna Kanjunhave shown that the Tametomo story (andShunten’s reign, for that matter) have nodocumentary evidence, but note that they havea long history of circulation as legends.46

Scholars agree that the first mention of thelegend is in the Buddhist monk Taichū’sRyūkyū shintō ki (1605), but was established aspart of the official record of the RyūkyūKingdom by Shō Shōken in his Chusan seikan(1650) and in turn popularized in Japan by AraiHakuseki in his Nantō shi.47 The politicalpotential of this narrative – that casts theRyūkyū royal family and the institution ofRyūkyūan kingship as descendents of theJapanese imperial family – for assimilatingOkinawa is obvious and it was reproducedfrequently in novels, school textbooks, andstudies of Okinawa history in the prewarperiod.48

What Torigoe does not discuss, however, is thatthe deification of the three Ryūkyūan kings wasa similarly powerful, politically inclusionarymove on Japan’s part. Shō En (r. 1470-1476)founded the second Shō dynasty; under his rulethe Ryūkyū Kingdom shifted from governmentby the individual monarch to an institutionallybased rule which contributed to its longevity.49

Shō Kei (r. 1713-1751) oversaw a culturalgolden age in which the kingdom’s best-knownConfucian intellectual Sai On flourished.50 ShōTai’s reign saw the Ryūkyū Kingdom enter intoformal Japanese control, cast in the prewar asopening the way for the modernization ofOkinawa. Taken together these five deitiesspeak to the appropriation of both the RyūkyūKingdom’s legendary past (Minamoto andShunten) and its recorded history representedby the other three: Shō En founded the SecondShō Dynasty in which Shō Kei’s reign markedits high point, with Shō Tai marking its end.

The deification of these five figures folds thebeginning and the end of the RyūkyūKingdom’s history into the frame of StateShinto, and by extension, into the frame of theJapanese nation state and national imaginary.

How important or effective was the OkinawaShrine? Did it register in the minds ofOkinawan people as a site of State Shinto andwhat might this have meant to them? On theone hand, a 1936 report by Shuri city notedthat “the number of worshippers increasedevery year, such that the sense of respect [forthe national polity] has now graduallydeepened.”51 On the other hand, Torigoe notesthat worshippers were rarely seen at OkinawaShrine, and he sees this as evidence of theforced nature of the Okinawa Shrine’sestablishment and its disjuncture with whatOkinawan popular religion.52 Okinawa Shrine’srelative unpopularity seems to be borne out byrecords in the Okinawaken jinja meisai cho,which lists the details of twelve shrines inOkinawa prefecture, including each shrine’shistory, acreage, number of buildings, and thenumber of registered worshippers.53 OkinawaShrine’s 4,914 ujiko households do not appearto be an insignificant number, especially whencompared to Sueyoshi Shrine’s mere 160 ujikohouseholds.54 However, Okinawa Shrine’snumbers pale in comparison to YomochiShrine’s 126,430 sūkeisha households.55 Giventhese numbers, it is likely that Okinawa Shrinewas hardly the most popular and most-visitedof shrines, demonstrating the distance thatOkinawan people felt from State Shinto as awhole.

However, to assess Okinawa Shrine’simportance only in terms of the numbers ofworshippers misses out on an important way inwhich spaces operate, and neglects how theparticular space of the Shinto shrine functions.In particular, it misses how some spaces affecttheir environment simply by virtue of theirpresence, regardless of how residentpopulations feel about them. Overseas Shinto

APJ | JF 7 | 41 | 1

11

shrines (kaigai jinja), established in Japanesecolonies (colonized Korea, Taiwan) as well as inlocales with significant Japanese populations(Honolulu) illustrate this point. Overseasshrines were originally established for Japanesenationals in foreign lands as sites to connectideologically and spiritually with the Japanesemainland, but many scholars have shown howoverseas shrines also served as physicalreminders of Japanese state power in thecolonies for local populations.56 In addition topractices like compulsory visitations, whichforced upon local populations a consciousnessof the presence and function of the shrines,these shrines, often in geographicallyprominent sites (as in the case of ChosenShrine, Taiwan Shrine, and Okinawa Shrine)were hard to ignore as sites on the landscape.A colonized population’s participation atshrines allows us to comment on the role theseshrines played in people’s lives, but it is alsoimportant to pay attention to other reactionsthat local populations had to the space. Theseinclude non-participation at the shrines (exceptunder duress) or their outright rejection ofState Shinto, both of which do not necessarilyrender the shrines as unimportant orineffective spaces.

Hildi Kang’s collection of oral histories fromKorea under Japanese colonial rule includesaccounts by people who talk about how theyrejected State Shintō, but were forced to visitthe shr ines anyway. One of the mostprovocative vignettes however is a shortaccount by a housewife who recalled: “ThePusan Shrine stood on top of the hill near thepier. We climbed up there many times, onholidays, but only for picnics. A beautiful view.”Even though this individual did not visit Pusanshrine to worship, she was clearly aware ofhow the space had been marked.57 PusanShrine existed as a place of worship even ifpeople choose not to enter it or to use for otherpurposes, a space that local populations wereforced to take into account, whether inconfrontational ways or otherwise. In this

sense, a lack of visitors or worshippers toOkinawa Shrine because of resistance to StateShinto or from indif ference does notnecessarily render the space ineffective.Okinawans’ failure to embrace the castle site as“Okinawa Shrine,” while signifying their lack ofinterest in participating in State Shinto, alsoreflects the success of that project in alienatingthe castle as a site of meaning for Okinawanpeople.

Conclusion

Let me return to the photograph of the shrine’smain sanctuary with which I began this essayand the question that it raised: what mightaccount for this condition which allows for oneaspect of the photograph to be noticed and notthe other? In other words, what determineshow historical materials and its “facts” areused? One possible explanation is that this isanother effect of the Battle of Okinawa, whichresulted in the death of between a quarter anda third of Okinawa’s population and the totaldestruction of its capital, Naha and much of thebuilt environment of southern and centralOkinawa. In addition to the loss of life, many ofthe materials that constitute a historicalarchive were lost. The result has been a paucityof materials about Okinawa’s history, and thisexerts a certain pressure on materials that doexist. While the prefectural and villagegovernments, tertiary institutions, and librariesin Okinawa are involved in an ongoing effort tocollect and inventory what remains, the paucityof materials is a stark reality.58 In this context,the value of existing materials increasesbecause they are (possibly) some of the onlysurviving traces of an “original” Okinawa.Alongside attempts to preserve what remains,there is a significant preoccupation withrecovering the Okinawan past that was lost as aresult of the war. This desire to recapture whatwas lost affects the treatment of historicalmaterials from the prewar period, and createsa tension that the project to rebuild ShuriCastle illustrates.

APJ | JF 7 | 41 | 1

12

Calls for the castle’s rebuilding, which began inearnest in the 1970s, cast the rebuilding as therecovery of an important piece of Ryūkyūancultural heritage as well as the repayment of adebt the mainland owed Okinawa for itssacrifices in WWII.5 9 Advocates for therebuilding appropriated then-prime ministerSato Eisaku’s proclamation that “Japan’spostwar will not be over until Okinawa revertsto the mainland” and turned it into the slogan“Okinawa’s postwar will not be over until ShuriCastle is rebuilt.” This clever adaptationintended to demonstrate how important therebuilding was to Okinawans by inserting ShuriCastle into a larger discussion about Okinawa’srelationship with mainland Japan and makingthe castle a symbol of that process. The pushfor the rebuilding gained official sanction in1982 in the Second Okinawa DevelopmentPlan. In 1984, Okinawa Prefecture released theShuri Castle Park Basic Plan (Shurijō kōenkihon keikaku) and a committee under thea u s p i c e s o f t h e N a t i o n a l O k i n a w aCommemorative Park Office took charge ofShuri Castle’s rebuilding.60

The committee’s first and most important taskwas the rebuilding of the castle’s main hall.According to one of the architects involved inthe rebuilding, the committee had very littlesense of what Shuri Castle looked like.61 Thecommittee spent much of their first yeargathering materials – including KamakuraYoshitarō’s photographs and notes, and TanabeYasushi’s 1937 monograph Ryūkyū Kenchiku –and analyzing them in order to produce anaccurate model of the main hall. A significantbody of materials were the project reports fromthe castle’s/Okinawa Shrine’s 1932 restoration.Labeled “Worshipper’s Hall Okinawa Shrine”[figs. 7 and 8], these were extensive plans ofthe main/worshipper’s hall structural detail. Asa way to express their intentions for theproject, the committee coined the followingmotto: “To regenerate the main hall that hadbeen rebuilt in 1712 and designated a nationaltreasure in 1925.”62

Project reports from 1932 restoration ofmain hall/worshipper's hall. Labeled

"National Treasure Architecture OkinawaShrine Worshipper's Hall" from Kokuhō jūyō

bunkazai kenchikubutsu zushū

Project reports from 1932 restoration ofmain hall/worshipper's hall. Labeled

"National Treasure Architecture OkinawaShrine Worshipper's Hall" from Kokuhō jūyō

bunkazai kenchikubutsu zushū

This motto illustrates something of how presentdemands and desires to recover a lost pastimpacts the treatment of historical materialsrelated to that past, for what would it mean totake this motto seriously? The committeeintended the motto to signal their commitmentto an authentic reconstruction of Shuri Castle –that is, the castle as it existed since its last

APJ | JF 7 | 41 | 1

13

rebuilding in 1712 after a fire, the same onerecognized by the Japanese state as culturallyvaluable in 1925.63 However, the motto actuallyexceeds these intentions because it gestures atmuch more than the castle itself by invokingJapan’s colonial encounter with the RyūkyūKingdom. The period from 1712 to 1925 inRyūkyū-Japan relations is dominated by thestory of Japanese colonialism and the RyūkyūKingdom’s loss of autonomy, first through thesystem of dual tribute and then through formalJapanese annexation that culminated in 1879.The nature of this relationship left its trace onShuri Castle too: because the Ryūkyū Kingdomdid not have enough materials due to itsincreased impoverishment, the 1712 rebuildingcould proceed only after Satsuma fiefpresented the kingdom with over 19,000 logs ofwood. Many of materials the committee usedfrom the Meiji period and after – especiallyKamakura’s photographs [figs. 9 and 10] –show not a glorious architectural structure butare rather visual proof of the castle’s decay anddestruction. The materials from the restorationof “Okinawa Shrine’s Worshipper’s Hall,”labeled as such, have the potential to raisedifficult questions about the transformation ofthe castle’s space into a Shinto shrine and thepolitical aims this served. One need onlyscratch the surface for the materials to tell astory of Japanese colonialism and its damage toShuri Castle. What is so interesting about thismotto is that if we were to take it seriously –that is, to engage with it in all its implicationsas a principle to produce knowledge aboutShuri Castle – is that it invites attention to theviolence and arbitrariness of Japanesecolonialism, the very things that need to bemanaged if the narrative of Okinawa’s inclusioninto the Japanese nation state is to be cast as anatural, seamless, and beneficial one.

Kamakura Yoshitarō's photograph of ShuriCastle's main hall. From Kamakura Yoshitarō,

Okinawa Bunka no iho

Kamakura Yoshitarō's photograph of ShuriCastle courtyard in front of main hall. From

Kamakura Yoshitarō, Okinawa Bunka no iho

And yet, despite the motto’s potential todestabilize, the realities of the conditions ofShuri Castle’s existence in the period between1712 and 1925 slip from the committee’s viewas they made choices about what to recognizein the materials and what to ignore. Dominatedby the desire to regenerate the castle, ShuriCastle’s multiple histories entered into acalculation where not all elements of thehistorical document are accorded equal value.Instead they are subject to a certain “politicalarithmetic” based on the demands of thepresent. The treatments of the photograph of

APJ | JF 7 | 41 | 1

14

Yamazaki and the shrine’s main sanctuary areexamples of this: the photograph is valorizednot for what it says about the shrine, but forthe information that it provides of the areaaround it. This is, of course, a reasonable use ofthe photo, but in the process we see how ShuriCastle’s other history – which has the potentialto destabilize comfortable narratives about thecastle’s cultural value and raise questionsabout how the castle was used in schemes tonaturalize Japanese colonialism – is quietly lostin the demands of the present.

Tze M. Loo is assistant professor of history atthe University of Richmond. She wrote thisarticle for The Asia-Pacific Journal.

Recommended citation: Tze M. Loo, "ShuriCastle's Other History: Architecture andEmpire in Okinawa," The Asia-Pacific Journal,Vol. 41-1-09, October 12, 2009.

Notes

1 In 2005, the chairperson of the Shuri CastleFestival planning committee noted that “TheShuri Castle Festival is being fixed as the eventthat transmits (hasshin) the culture of theRyūkyū Kingdom. [We would like] throughcolorful events, to deepen understandingtowards Okinawan culture.” “Shurijō sai 10-gatsu 28-30 nichi ni kaisai kettei,” Ryūkyūshinpō, September 7, 2005.2 This is similar to the observation that LauraHein and Mark Selden make regarding the useof Shurei Gate on the 2000-yen banknote. Theysuggest that “by appropriating Shuri Castle asa symbol of Japanese nationhood suitable tograce the currency, Tokyo is again assertingcontrol over Okinawans and subordinatingthem to the nation.” Laura Hein and MarkSelden (eds.), Islands of Discontent: OkinawanResponses to Japanese and American Power(Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003) 12.Gerald Figal has recently shown howconstructions of the Ryūkyūan past are part of

a complicated recasting of Okinawa as a touristdestination. See his “Between War and Tropics:Heritage Tourism in Postwar Okinawa,” ThePublic Historian 30 (May 2008), 83-107.3 “Shin shitei tokubetsu hogo kenzōbutsugaisetsu,” Kenchiku zasshi, May 1925, No. 39,Vol. 470, 31.4 Kuroita Katsumi, ed., Tokukenkokuhōmokuroku (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1927).5 Bunkachō, Sensai tō ni yoru shōshitsubunkazai: nijisseiki no bunkazai kakochō(Tokyo: Ebisukosho shuppan, 2003).6 Nonomura Takao (ed.) , ShashinshūNatsukashiki Okinawa: Yamazaki Masatada raga aruita Shōwa shoki no genfūkei (Naha:Ryūkyū shinpōsha, 2000), 14.7 Taira Hiromu, “Ryūkyū kenchiku no fukkō tokoshashin no yakuwari” in Nonomura Takao,Natsukashiki Okinawa: Yamazaki Masatada raga aruita Shōwa shōki no genfūkei (Naha:Ryūkyū shinpōsha, 2000), 44-47.8 Hamashita Takeshi and Kawakatsu Heita(eds.), Ajia kōekiken to nihon kōgyōka,1500-1900 (Tokyo: Riburo pōto, 1991) 9.9 Gregory Smits has traced the way thatRyūkyūan court cultivated increasingly“Chinese” and Confucian representations andpractice of kingship of the sage king, whichincluded the decoupling of the Ryūkyūan king’spower from its historical relationship with thepowerful female priestesses in Ryūkyūanreligion. Iyori Tsutomu has traced how thechanges in the architecture of Shuri Castle’smain hall (specifically looking at the changes tothe bargeboard above the main hall’s canopy)were part of this policy of suppression. GregorySmits, “Ambiguous Bounderies: RedefiningRoyal Authority in the Kingdom of Ryukyu,”Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 60 (June2000), 89-123; Iyori Tsutomu, “Ryūkyū ōken nobasho: Shurijō seiden karahafu no tanjō to sonokaishu ni tsuite,” Kenchikushi gaku 31 (1998),4-610 George Kerr suggests that the RyūkyūKingdom saw its income reduced by more thanhalf, from 200,000 koku to 80,000. George H.Kerr, Okinawa: The History of an Island People:

APJ | JF 7 | 41 | 1

15

Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1975), 179.11 Hideaki Uemura, “The Colonial Annexation ofOkinawa and the Logic of International Law:The formation of an ‘indigenous people’ in EastAsia,” Japanese Studies 23 (2003), 120.1 2 Okinawa ken (ed.) , Okinawa hontōtorishirabe sho meiji 26-nen , 1893.13 F. H. H. Guillemard, The Cruise of theMarchesa to Kamschtka and New Guinea. Withnotices of Formosa, Liu-kiu, and various islandsof the Malay Archipelago (London: JohnMurray, 1886), 58-59. Italics are mine.14 This is perhaps not dissimilar form OrhanPamuk’s exploration of the the effect ofOttoman ruins as reminders of past greatnesson Turks today and the melancholy (hüzün) thatresults from it. Orhan Pamuk, IstanbulMemories of the City (New York: Knopf, 2006).15 “Kyū Shurijōseki nami kenbutsu haraisageseigan no gi nitsuki ikensho” in Maehira Bōkei,“Kindai no Shurijō,” in Yomigaeru Shurijō:rekishi to fukugen Shurijō fukugen kinenshi(Naha: Shurijō fukugen kiseikai, 1993),276-277.16 “We would like to use this land as a park,turn the buildings into a museum, establish anentertainment area displaying hundreds ofthings beginning with tropical plants that aredifferent from that of other prefectures, andhistorical treasures that are different fromplaces whose development is different. This isin planning for public leisure, but at the sametime, to encourage economic developmentthrough foreigners who visit, to start thedevelopment of [our] civilization.” “KyuShurijōseki nami kenbutsu haraisage seigan nogi nitsuki ikensho.”17 “Kanyūchi kariuke oyobi kenbutsu kaishū noken” in Ryūkyū shinpō, January 29, 1903. Alsoin Maehira, “Kindai no Shurijō,”277. See also“Shurijō jisho taifu nami kenbutsu haraisage noken,” Rikugun sho dainikki meiji 38-nen,National Archives of Japan.18 The land was sold for 1514 yen 15 sen.Maehira, “Kindai no Shurijō,” 278.1 9 The information in this paragraphsummarizes parts of Torigoe Kenzaburō’s

Ryūkyū shūkyōshi no kenkyū (Tokyo: Kadokawashoten, 1965), esp. 655-660.20 “Kensha sonsha kensetsu riyūsho” in TorigoeKenzaburō, Ryūkyū shukyoshi no kenkyū, 655.For the Minamoto’s relationship to the Ryūkyūislands, see George H. Kerr, Okinawa: TheHistory of an Island People: Charles E. TuttleCompany, 1975).21 Jinja kyōkai zasshi, 22:5 (1923), 34. Okinawaken jinja meisai chō, Okinawa PrefecturalLibrary collection, publication date unknown.22 Figures are given in Torigoe, Ryūkyūshūkyōshi no kenkyū, 659. He set the costs forthe construction of the buildings at 5000 yen.23 Torigoe notes that the prefecture’s attempt toraise funds from among Okinawans for theshrine in 1914 failed. He took this as anindicator of the shallowness of Okinawans’civilization and cultural development (mindō),as well as a lack of interest in establishing theprefectural shrine. Torigoe, Ryūkyū shūkyōshino kenkyū, 659.24 Kamakura Yoshitarō, Okinawa bunka no ihō(Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1982), 61. Kamakuradoes not note the title of the article he saw, butit was likely “Okinawa ōchō no Shurijō wotorikowashi okinawa jinja konryū,” Kagoshimamainichi shimbun, 25 March 1924. See also ItōChūta, “Ryūkyū kikō,” in Kengaku kikō (Tokyo:Ryūgin sha, 1936), 31.25 Kamakura’s account can be found in hisOkinawa bunka no ihō (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten,1982).26 Itō Chūta, “Ryūkyū kikō,” Kagaku chishiki 5(1925), 31.27 He achieved this with an emergencyprovisional designation under the 1919 HistoricSites, Places of Scenic Beauty, and NaturalMonuments Preservation Law.28 Itō, “Ryūkyū kikō,” 30.29 Itō, “Ryūkyū kiko,” 31.30 Itō, “Ryūkyū kikō,” 31.31 Itō, “Ryūkyū kikō,” 31.32 “Kensha no nintei wo etaru ato shajihozonhōni yotte seiden wo okinawa jinja no haidentonashi naimushō no iji ni yoru no ga tokusakuItō hakushi no iken,” Ryūkyū Shinpō, 9 August

APJ | JF 7 | 41 | 1

16

1924. The text of this article is reproduced inYoshiike Fumie, “‘Firudo noto dai 22 kanryukyi’ wo moto ni,” Masters thesis, KyotoInstitute of Technology, 2006, 177.33 Ernesto Laclau’s observation that “[t]heideological would not consist o f themisrecognition of a positive essence, butexactly the opposite: it would consist of thenon-recognition of the precarious nature of anypositivity, of the impossibility of any ultimatesuture” is theoretically instructive here.Ernesto Laclau, “The Impossibility of Society”in his New Reflections on the Revolution of OurTimes (London: Verso, 1997), 92.34 Wilbur Fridell, “The establishment of ShrineShinto in Meiji Japan,” Japanese Journal ofReligious Studies 2 (1975), 143. HelenHardacre gives a slightly different translationof this phrase: “shrines as offering the rites ofnation.” Hardacre, Shinto and the State1868-1988, 97.35 See for instance Hiroike Chikuro, Ise jingu towaga kokutai (Tokyo: Nichigetsusha, 1915).36 These included the rebuilding of the GrandShrine of Ise (1899 and 1909), Yahiko Shrine(Niigata, 1916), Meiji Shrine (1920), theexpansion of Atami Shrine (1922), various partsof Yasukuni Shrine including the Yūshūkan, andthe expansion of the Grand Shrine of Izumo. Ofthese, Ise, Meiji, and Yasukuni shrines standout as especially privileged sites as the nexus ofsacral, imperial, and state power that StateShintō enabled. In addition, Itō was alsoresponsible for the design and construction ofShintō shrines in the Japanese empire’scolonial possessions, beginning with the GrandShrine of Taiwan in 1901, but also KarafutoShrine (1912), and the Grand Shrine of Chosen(1925).37 Maruyama Shigeru, Nihon no kenchiku toshisō: Itō Chūta shoron (Tokyo: Dobun shoin,1996), 121.38 Itō, “Sekai kenchiku ni okeru nihon noshaji,”316-31739 Itō Chūta, “Jinja kenchiku ni taisuru kōsatsu.”40 Itō, “Jinja kenchiku ni taisuru kōsatsu,”17.41 Itō, “Jinja kenchiku ni taisuru kōsatsu,”18-20.

42 These regulations start in the 1870s as thethen Ministry of Doctrine (Kyobushō) issuedregulations on the size the format of nationaland government shrines. See also YamauchiYasuaki, Jinja kenchiku (Tokyo: Jinja shinpōsha,1972), 194-202 for some of these regulations.43 Optional structures were also recommended.See Kodama Kuichi, Jinja gyōsei (Tokyo: Tokiwashobō, 1934), 48.44 Kodama, 54.45 Torigoe, Ryūkyū shūkyōshi no kenkyū, 656.Also see note 37 above. George Kerr asks:“What better man to serve as a link betweenOkinawa and Japan than the legendaryMinamoto Tametomo?” Kerr, Okinawa, 50.46 Higashionna Kanjun, Ryūkyū no rekishi(Tokyo: Shibundō, 1957), Textbooks onOkinawan history today trace the beginnings ofpolitical history to the 13th century, and treatthe period of Shunten’s reign as myth. See forinstance Okinawaken kyoiku iinkai, Gaisetsuokinawa no rek ish i to bunka (Naha:Okinawaken kyoiku iinkai, 2000).47 Shō Shōken was a pro-Japan, Ryūkyūanstatesman who is credited with being theearliest proponent of the theory of commonRyūkyūan and Japanese ancestry (nichi-ryūdōso ron) who was writing from within aRyūkyū Kingdom subdued by Satsuma.48 Kikuchi Yūhō, Ryūkyū to Tametomo (Tokyo:Bunrokudō shoten, 1908); Bungakusha, ed.,Shōgaku sakubun zensho (Tokyo: Bungakusha,1883); Shimabukuro Genichiro, Okinawarekishi: densetsu hoi (Mawashison okinawaken:Shimabukuro genichiro, 1932).49 Kerr, Okinawa, 102.50 Gregory Smits, Visions of Ryūkyū: Identityand Ideology in Early-Modern Thought andPolitics (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,1999).51 “Shuri shi kinen shi” in Naha shishi, Vol. 2,No. 2, 374. Kaji Yorihito has also foundnewspaper reports on Okinawa Shrine’s vibrantand busy shrine days. Kaji, 100-101.52 Torigoe, 66053 Okinawa Prefectural Library collection. Allthe figures that follow come from this material.

APJ | JF 7 | 41 | 1

17

54 Ujiko refers to the group of people reside inan area around a shrine and who are registeredwith it. They are somewhat analogous to thenotion of “parishioners” in terms of theirrelationship to the site of worship. KokugakuinUnivers i ty ’s onl ine Shinto g lossary(http://eos.kokugakuin.ac.jp/modules/xwords/entry.php?entryID=1161) defines ujiko this way:“Generally, a group from the land surroundingthe areas dedicated to the belief in and worshipof one shrine; or, the constituents of thatgroup.”5 5 Sūkeisha a lso refers to a shr ine’sworshippers and is often used interchangeablywith ujiko. However, strictly speaking, whereujiko refers to worshippers who live within theshrine’s defined district, sūkeisha refers toworshippers from outside that area. YomochiShrine’s numbers are those for “Okinawaprefecture as a whole” (Okinawa ken kaichien). Yomochi Shrine was nevertheless apopular shrine and seems to have enjoyedsupport from the local population, in partbecause its resident deities were Ryūkyūanheroes, rather than deities from the Shintopantheon. For more on Yomochi Shrine, seeKaji Yorihito, Okinawa no jinja (Naha: Okinawabunko, 2000), 106-111. See also Kadena City’swebsite (http://www.town.kadena.okinawa.jp/k a d e n a / s o u k a n / s o u k a n _ 0 1/soukan_kona012.html) on the shrine,56 See for example Mitsuko Nitta, Dairenjinjashi: aru kaigai jinja no shakaishi (Tokyo:Ofu, 1997), Koji Suga, Nihon tochika no kaigaijinja: chosen jingu taiwan jinja to saijin (Tokyo:Kobundo, 2004), and Akihito Aoi, Shokuminchijinja to teikoku nihon (Tokyo: YoshikawaKōbunkan, 2005). See also Minoru Tsushi’sShinraku jinja: yasukuni shisō wo kangaerutameni (Tokyo: Shinchosha, 2003). Forcompulsory visitations, see Takeshi Komagome,“Shokuminchi ni okeru jinja sanpai,” inSeikatsu no naka shokuminchi shugi (Kyoto:Jinbunshoin, 2004), 105-129, TakeshiKomagome, Shokuminchi teikoku nihon nobunka togo (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1996).57 Hildi Kang, Under the Black Umbrella: Voices

from Colonial Korea, 1910-1945 (Ithaca:Cornell University Press, 2005), esp. 114. Seealso pages 111-116.58 The efforts of the Okinawa PrefectureCommittee for the Promotion of Culture(Okinawaken bunka shinkōkai) and theOkinawa Prefectural Board of Education(Okinawaken kyōiku iinkai) to compilehistorical materials are exemplary. The latter’sOkinawaken shiryō (Okinawa PrefectureHistorical Materials) series is an importantcollection of primary source material from theprewar. This is reflected in the mission of theOkinawa Prefectural Archives. In remarkscommemorating the opening of the archives onAugust 1, 1995, the then director MiyagiEtsujirō commented that “because almost all[of Okinawa’s] prewar records were lost in thispast war, it was a situation where we had toput postwar documents at the center [of ourefforts].” Okinawa Prefectural Archives,ARCHIVES, vol. 1 (1996), 3. Photographs seemto receive special attention: Ryūkyū shinpō sha,ed., Mukashi okinawa: shashinshu (Naha:Ryūkyū sh inpôsha , 1978) , Shur i tsuhawaidaigaku horeisokan henshu iinkai, Bōkyōokinawa shashinshū (Tokyo: Honpō shoseki,1981), Okinawa terebi hoso kabushiki gaisha,ed., Yomigaeru senzen no okinawa: shashinshu(Urasoe: Okinawa shuppan, 1995), Okinawaterebi hoso kabushiki gaisha, ed., Yomigaerusenzen no okinawa: shashinshū (Urasoe:Okinawa shuppan, 1995).59 Shurijō fukugen kisei kai kaihō 1, 1982, 3.60 Okinawa kaihatsu chō, Okinawa shinkōkaihatsu keikaku. dai ni ji (Naha: Okinawakaihatsu chō, 1982).61 Kiyoshi Fukushima, “Shurijō fukugen sekkeini tsuite no zakkan,” Okinawa bunka kenkyū 21(1995), 40.62 「1712年に再建され、1925年に国宝指定された正殿の復元を原則とする」, Fukushima,“Shurijō fukugen sekkei ni tsuite no zakkan,”46.63 Shuri Castle was rebuilt three times beforeafter fires destroyed it in 1453, 1660, and 1709.