Chapter 3: The Development of Matsumoto’s Ideas on Southeast Asia in 1924-1932
4. The influence of diffusionist ethnology on Matsumoto’s ideas on Southeast Asia
4.2. The influence of the theory of Southern Pacific influence
Matsumoto’s works.
Under Przyluski’s influence, Matsumoto began arguing the Austro-Asiatic influence in
Japan, India, and China. Matsumoto’s research of the Japanese and the Austro-Asiatic languages
was criticized by many scholars including Wilhelm Schmidt. Still, Matsumoto received support
of the French scholars, such as Jean Przyluski and Paul Rivet, who argued the distribution of the
Austro-Asiatic languages over a much larger territory than Schmidt had proposed. Thus, as a
result of Przyluski’ influence, Matsumoto became a proponent of the Southern theory advocating
Japan’s connection with the South, especially with Southeast Asia.
department of the Parisian Museum of Natural Sciences.403 At the time Matsumoto was in Paris
in 1924-1928, Rivet presented writings on the diffusion of the Southern Pacific culture:
Melaneso-polynesians and Australians in America,404 Australians in America,405 and
“Malayo-Polynesians in America.”406 It can be surmised that Matsumoto also attended Rivet’s
lectures. This is because Rivet’s works were the second foreign work that Matsumoto introduced
to the Japanese readers after his return to Japan. First, Matsumoto wrote about Przyluski’s work
on the Austro-Asiatic influence in India, and then he presented about Rivet’s works on the South
Pacific influence in America in his paper “Far Eastern Research of Europeans (II).”407
Matsumoto also mentioned about Rivet’s research in his paper “The Japanese and the
Austro-Asiatic Languages.”408 In addition, he pointed out the most recent book by Rivet,
Sumerian and Oceanian(1929) in his article “Problems of the Austro-Asiatic languages”409 and
in his paper “Theories of Ancient Culture.”410 Through his references to Rivet in his writings, it
is apparent that Matsumoto paid attention to several of Rivet’s works in 1929-1932 when
Matsumoto presented his research of the Austro-Asiatic languages.
403 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Ōshūjin no Kyokutō kenkyū (II),” Shigaku, dai 8 kan, dai 3 gō, Mitashigakkai, 1929, p. 43 (365).
404 Rivet, Paul,Les Mélaneso-polynésiens et les Australiens en Amérique, Picard, Paris 1924
405 Rivet, Paul,Les Australiens en Amérique, Librairie ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris, 1925.
406 Rivet, Paul, “Les Malayo-Polynésian en Amérique”, Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris, Nouvelle Série, XVIII, 1926, pp. 143-145.
407 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Ōshūjin no Kyokutō kenkyū (II),” Shigaku, dai 8 kan, dai 3 gō, Mitashigakkai, 1929, pp. 43-60 (365-382).
408 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Nihongo to Ōsutoroajiago,” Shigaku zasshi, Shigakkai, dai 40 kan, dai 1 gō, 1929, p. 111.
409 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Ōsutoroajiago ni kan suru shomondai,” Kawai kyōju kanreki kinen ronbunshū, Kawaikyōju kanreki shukugakai, 1931, pp. 519.
410 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Kodai bunkaron,”Gendai shigaku taikei, Kyōritsusha shoten, 1932, pp. 55-57.
First, Matsumoto became interested in Rivet’s idea of the connection between Australia,
Oceania and the American continents. Rivet attempted to prove a close relationship of a North
American language with the Austronesian languages in his bookletAustralians in Americaand a
close relationship of a South American language with Australian languages in his paper
“Malayo-Polynesians in America” through the comparison of the vocabulary.411 Matsumoto
believed in Rivet’s research findings as he wrote in his paper “Far Eastern Research of
Europeans (II)”: “On 12 December 1924, the Nestor of the French linguistic circles Antoine
Meillet reported about two of Rivet’s researches in the Academie des Inscription et
Belles-Lettres and supported his theory as valuable. As Rivet says, the existence of a close
kinship relation between South Seas languages [Nankai go, 南海語] and the languages of the
American continent is difficult to believe quickly, but the mutual contacts among them should be
confirmed; [Rivet’s] research shed some light on the difficult issue of what are the origins of the
American languages, we can say that it indicated the direction of the future research.”412
Matsumoto expressed his support of Rivet’s conclusion in his paper “Theories of Ancient
Culture”: “Rivet demonstrated that the North American language family has relations with
Indonesia, Melanesia and Polynesia languages.”413 These statements suggest that Matsumoto
411 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Ōshūjin no Kyokutō kenkyū (II),” Shigaku, dai 8 kan, dai 3 gō, Mitashigakkai, 1929, p. 43 (365). Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Ōsutoroajiago ni kan suru shomondai,” Kawai kyōju kanreki kinen ronbunshū, Kawaikyōju kanreki shukugakai, 1931, p. 519. Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Kodai bunkaron,” Gendai shigaku taikei, Kyōritsusha shoten, 1932, p. 55.
412 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Ōshūjin no Kyokutō kenkyū (II),” Shigaku, dai 8 kan, dai 3 gō, Mitashigakkai, 1929, pp. 43-44 (365-466).
413 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Kodai bunkaron,”Gendai shigaku taikei, Kyōritsusha shoten, 1932, p. 60.
considered South Seas languages (Nankaigo, 南海語) a very broad language family that
included the Austro-Asiatic languages and the languages of Oceania and Australia (that
encompasses also Austronesian languages). This is also visible from Matsumoto’s incorporation
of the Austronesian languages in the Austro-Asiatic language family in his doctoral thesis The
Japanese and the Austro-Asiatic languages: A Comparative Study of Vocabulary(1928).
Second, Matsumoto discussed Rivet’s idea about the connection of the Sumerian
language with the Austronesian languages from Rivet’s book Sumerian and Oceanian.
Matsumoto presented Rivet’s comparative research in his paper “Theories of Ancient
Culture.”414 Matsumoto agreed in general with Rivet’s conclusion about the similarity of the
Sumerian language with the South Sea languages (Australia, Tasmania, Melanesia, Indonesia,
Mon-Khmer etc.): “From these examples, we can see that the vocabulary of the Sumerian
language is very similar to the vocabulary of the South Sea languages.”415 In his comparative
research, Rivet included also the Mon-Khmer languages from the Austro-Asiatic language
family.416 Thus, Matsumoto shared Rivet’s argument that the South Seas languages (including
Austro-Asiatic and Austronesian languages) expanded over a large territory since they came in
contact with the Sumerian language.
It has been mentioned earlier that Matsumoto borrowed Przyluski’s idea of the
Austro-Asiatic zone spreading from India in the West to Japan in the East. Under Rivet’s
414 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Kodai bunkaron,”Gendai shigaku taikei, Kyōritsusha shoten, 1932, pp. 55-57.
415 Ibid, p. 57.
416 Ibid, p. 57.
influence, Matsumoto imagined this cultural zone to be even broader – reaching as far as
America. Consequently, Matsumoto perceived Southeast Asia with the Austro-Asiatic languages
as a core of a larger South Seas culture that expanded in many directions in the ancient times.
Matsumoto’s concern for the South Seas was supported by the leader of the French
School of Sociology - by Marcel Mauss. Mauss discussed Melanesian and Polynesian culture in
his bookThe Giftand recommended Matsumoto to consider the comparison of the Japanese and
the Oceanic myths. Matsumoto brings this up in the second edition of his bookThe Research of
the Japanese Myths: “The comparative research of resemblance between the Japanese myths and
the myths of Pacific islands was recommended to me in Paris by Marcel Mauss, the great master
in the research of primitive religions...”417
However, there was an important difference between Mauss’ and Matsumoto’s approach
to the South Seas. Mauss considered the Southern Pacific culture to be suitable for researching
the basis for the modern society in general as was discussed in Section 2. (The influence of
sociologist ethnology on Matsumoto’s ideas on Southeast Asia). Matsumoto shared Mauss’
opinion, but he also tended to discuss the Japanese contacts with the South Seas culture and
emphasized the influence of South Seas culture under the various diffusionist influences. This
means that Matsumoto’s discussion of the South Seas languages was diffusionist in contrast to
the sociological approach of Marcel Mauss. Nevertheless, it is clear that Mauss also encouraged
417 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro,Nihon shinwa kenkyū, Ibundō, 1956 (2ndedition), p. 1.
Matsumoto to pay attention to Southern culture.
As a result of Mauss’ recommendation, Matsumoto became interested in the Southern
Pacific myths researched by diffusionist scholar Roland B. Dixon. Matsumoto read Dixon’s
book Oceanic418 because it represented a basic reading on Southern Pacific mythology at that
time. Moreover, Dixon who was Professor of Anthropology at Harvard University was the
teacher of Matsumoto’s teacher Utsushikawa Nenozo (1884-1947). Coincidently, Utsushikawa
visited Matsumoto in Paris before he established ethnology at Taihoku Imperial University in
Taiwan in 1928. During this time, Matsumoto helped Utsushikawa to collect necessary literature
on the South Seas in Paris.419 Therefore, it was most probable that Utsushikawa also encouraged
Matsumoto to study the South Seas and shared with him more about Dixon’s ideas. Thus, under
Mauss’ and Utsushikawa’s influence, Matsumoto considered Dixon’s work on Oceanic
mythology very significant.
In his book Oceanic, Dixon classified various Oceanic myths into two types: the
genealogical (evolutionary) type and the creative type.420 Furthermore, he divided Oceania into
five different regions (Polynesia, Melanesia, Indonesia, Micronesia, and Australia) according to
the characteristics of their mythology.421
418 Dixon, Roland Burrage,Oceanic, Marshall Jones, Boston, 1916.
419 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, Nihon shinwa no kenkyū, Dōbunkan, 1931, p. 177. “Kodai bunkaron” Gendai shigaku taikei, Kyōritsusha shoten, 1932, p. 178. Itō, Seiji, “Matsumoto Nobuhiro – ‘Nampōsetsu’ no kaitakusha,”Bunka jinruigaku gunzō, Nihonhen (3), Akademia shuppankai, Kyōto, 1988, p. 232
420 Dixon, Roland Burrage, Oceanic, Marshall Jones, Boston, 1916, pp. 2, 5, 18.
421 Ibid, pp. xi, xiv.
From Dixon’s book, Matsumoto adopted the classification of the myths on the
genealogical or evolutionary type and the creative type and paraphrased the Oceanic myths in his
book The Research of the Japanese Myths.422 Against this theoretical background, Matsumoto
singled out the similarities of the Japanese myth concerning the creation of Heaven and Earth
with the Polynesian myth of the evolutionary type: “The first half of the Japanese myth of the
creation of the world has similar points with this evolutionary myth of Polynesia.”423 This
approach to the Japanese myth was later adopted by Obayashi Taryo.424 In this sense, Dixon’s
book supported Matsumoto’s belief in the Southern influence on the Japanese culture although
Dixon himself did not discuss it at all.
In summary, Matsumoto became deeply interested in Southern culture due to influence
by diffusionist scholars and instigation from sociologist Marcel Mauss. From Rivet’s ideas,
Matsumoto developed a hypothesis that the South Seas including Southeast Asia was a cultural
zone where the Southern culture spread in ancient times. In addition, Matsumoto found
similarities between the Japanese myths and the Oceanic myths contained in Dixon’s research. In
this way, Matsumoto regarded the findings in Dixon’s book as evidence of the Southern Pacific
influence which was argued by Rivet.
422 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro,Nihon shinwa no kenkyū, Dōbunkan, 1931, pp. 178-179.
423 Ibid, p. 181.
424 Ōbayashi, Taryō, “Sōzōgata shinwa,” Nihon shinwa no kigen, Kadokawa shoten, 1961, pp. 58-64.
Ōbayashi also compared the Japanese myths with Oceanian myths in Ōbayashi, Taryō, “Tsuranaru Tōnan Ajia, Oceania,”Shinwa no keifu: nihon shinwa no genryū wo saguru, Seidosha, 1986, pp. 221-315.
Chart 1: Influences on Matsumoto’s ideas of Southern culture in France