Chapter 2: The Development of Matsumoto Nobuhiro’s Ideas on Southeast Asia in
2. The influence of Japanese scholars on Matsumoto’s study of ethnology
2.4. The influence on Matsumoto’s methodology
2.4.1. The ethnological methodology
attention namely to the mating customs of the primitive people which were preserved among the
contemporary primitive people of Southeast Asia. Thus, Matsumoto’s teachers in history
mediated Matsumoto some ideas of the French scholars on China and Southeast Asia.
evolutionist ethnologists, compared the ancient culture of the civilized people (in Matsumoto’s
case: Japanese and Chinese) with the contemporary culture of the people that were considered
primitive. Thus, Matsumoto adopted comparative research as an ethnological methodology.
Furthermore, he borrowed ethnological interpretations of the primitive culture by Western
scholars’ theories deduced from this comparative research. Due to his belief in the universality of
the primitive mind, he assumed that ethnological interpretations of the primitive culture could be
applied to the culture of any primitive peoples.
First, Matsumoto advocated the necessity of comparative research for historical study in
his graduation thesis “The Research of the Family in Ancient China”: “Therefore, we can
research the character of the ethnic groups of ancient China, and by comparison with the
similarities of the present uncivilized ethnic groups, we can clarify the insufficiencies in the
legends, writings, customs, systems etc. existing in ancient China.”172 In the same paper,
Matsumoto claimed “In the research of the social system of ancient Chinese people, it is
necessary to consider the comparison with the system of the different races which are at the same
stage of the mental development with them [Chinese] and clarify the true character [of the
Chinese social system].”173
He applied comparison in his other papers. For example, Matsumoto compared Sumatran
172 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Shina kodai seishi no kenkyū” (1921), Tōa minzoku bunkaronkō, Seibundō shinkōsha, 1968, p. 412.
173 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Shina kodai seishi no kenkyū” (1921), Tōa minzoku bunkaronkō, Seibundō shinkōsha, 1968, p. 425.
contemporary culture with the ancient Japanese custom utagaki. In “The Mountain Legends in
Fudoki,” he wrote, “In Sumatra, the Rechihi tribe believes that the Sun is man, the Earth is
woman, and think that the Earth will bear fruits by the relation of the two, thus they place a big
flat stone under the fig tree and they organize a festival every year ... The fact thatutagaki has a
religious meaning probably comes from the important element that is an agriculture festival.”174
The quoted Matsumoto’s arguments demonstrate that his comparison was very superficial.
He did not explicitly state which elements of the Sumatran custom correspond to which elements
of the Japanese custom. Consequently, Matsumoto’s comparison was in fact an association based
on matching of somewhat similar customs of different cultures. This practice using rationalist
deduction and induction was common for many evolutionist scholars in Matsumoto’s era.
Second, Matsumoto adopted ethnological theories interpreting primitive culture. He
adopted especially Frazer’s theory of totemism (Tōtemizumu,トーテミズム, belief in totem) in
his paper “The Family in Ancient China and Totemism.” He learnt about the existence of
totemism among Southeast Asian peoples and used this theory for claiming the existence of
totemism in ancient China.175 Matsumoto’s adoption of the Western ethnological theories will be
discussed in Section 4.2. (Matsumoto’s application of ethnological theories on Southeast Asia).
As a result of Kawai’s influence, Matsumoto called this ethnological approach
174 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Fudoki ni arawaretaru santake densetsu,” Tōkōkō, II, Keiō gijuku taiikukai sangakubu nenpō, Shuppan kagaku sōgō kenkyūjo, 1920, p. 39.
175 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, Shina kosei to tōtemizumu” (1921-1922), Tōa minzoku bunkaronkō, Seibundō shinkōsha, 1968, pp. 484-5.
“psychological research.” He borrowed it from Wilhelm Wundt’s ethno-psychology. He claimed
that it was the proper method to examine cultural history in “The Research of the Family in
Ancient China”: “...it is necessary to research about the ideas of the archaic people towards the
soul in its place related to ancestor worship. In starting a psychological research like this, we can
learn about the origin and significance of the clan system.” 176 In the same thesis, Matsumoto
criticized previous works for not conducting the psychological research: “I must say that it is
unfortunate that existing research on the family [姓], which did not use this psychological
research and this comparative method, could not clarify its meaning.”177 Thus, due to Kawai’s
mediation of Wundt’s ethnology, Matsumoto considered ethnological approach to ancient history
better that the orthodox historical approach.
Also, Matsumoto adopted interpretation of the ancient or primitive culture from Yanagita
as it was shown in Matsumoto’s writings on the mountain beliefs in Section 2.2. (The influence
of Yanagita Kunio on Matsumoto’s study of ethnology). Using Tylor’s theory of remnants,
Yanagita Kunio interpreted the culture of the ancient Japanese people from their daily customs in
his folklore studies. Yanagita believed that this theory helped explain why Japanese customs in
the countryside retained its ancient form.
However, contrary to Yanagita, Matsumoto researched primitive culture mainly from
books. Though he could not collect material on foreign peoples by himself, he did not base his
176 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Shina kodai seishi no kenkyū” (1921), Tōa minzoku bunkaronkō, Seibundō shinkōsha, 1968, pp. 425.
177 Ibid, pp. 426.
research findings from field work as Yanagita did, but on the written accounts of the various
primitive peoples around the world. Therefore, Matsumoto became an armchair ethnologist like
Frazer and not a field worker like Yanagita who did research on Japanese folklore.