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
4.1. The influence of the theory of Austro-Asiatic languages
4.1.2. Matsumoto’s adoption of the theory of the Austro-Asiatic languages
vocabulary and the vocabulary of the Austro-Asiatic languages. Przyluski, who was deeply
concerned with the Austro-Asiatic languages at that time, encouraged Matsumoto to inquire
about the similarities between the Austro-Asiatic languages and the Japanese language.382
Matsumoto spent a summer holiday at Przyluski’s summer house in Chamonney Valey.383
113 Japanese roots of Austro-Asiatic words, and this number is not absolute: new researches
permit, without doubts, multiple examples. In these conditions, we are convinced about the broad
relation of Japanese and Austro-Asiatic languages.”385
However, his argument on the cause of the similarities between the Japanese and the
Austro-Asiatic languages was contradictory because he claimed that there were the Japanese
roots of words in the vocabulary of the Austro-Asiatic languages. At the same time, he
emphasized the importance of the Austro-Asiatic element for the formation of the Japanese
language.386 His sentence on the Japanese roots of words in the Austro-Asiatic vocabulary was
probably a mistake because Matsumoto never presented an argument of the Japanese influence
on the Austro-Asiatic languages. Nevertheless, it is clear that Matsumoto adopted Schmidt’s
theory of the Austro-Asiatic languages following the model of Przyluski’s comparative research
of the Sanskrit vocabulary with the vocabulary of the Austro-Asiatic languages. Therefore,
Matsumoto claimed the influence of the Austro-Asiatic languages in Japan in the similar way
Przyluski claimed the influence of the Austro-Asiatic languages in India.
Nonetheless, Matsumoto misinterpreted Schmidt’s theory in his doctoral thesis. This was
because he compared the Japanese and Ryukyu languages with the Austro-Asiatic languages and
the Austronesian (Malayo-Polynesian) languages387 despite entitling the thesis The Japanese
385 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, Le japonais et les langues austroasiatiques: étude de vocabulaire comparé, P.
Geuthner, Paris, 1928, p. 96.
386 Ibid, p. 96.
387 Austronesian languages, or Malayo-Polynesian languages, are distributed in maritime Southeast Asia, Oceania and Madagascar. Few Austronesian speakers are also in continental Southeast Asia.
and the Austro-Asiatic languages: A Comparative Study of Vocabulary.388 This means that,
unlike Schmidt, he did not distinguish between the Austro-Asiatic languages in continental
Southeast Asia and the Austronesian languages in insular Southeast Asia and the Pacific as
separate language families. This fact was criticized by Schmidt at the Congress of German
Linguists in Vienna in 1930. At this conference, Schmidt noted that Matsumoto used the term
“the Austric languages” for indicating two groups of the Austro-Asiatic languages and the
Austronesian languages.389 Przyluski also misinterpreted Schmidt’s theory in his preface to
Matsumoto’s thesis.390 Since the research of language genealogies was in its embryonic stage,
it was natural that various interpretations of the Austro-Asiatic language family existed. Thus, it
is clear that Matsumoto adopted Przyluski’s interpretation and included the Austronesian
languages into the Austro-Asiatic languages following Przyluski’s instruction.
Moreover, Schmidt rejected the conclusion of Matsumoto’s thesisThe Japanese and the
Austro-Asiatic languages: A Comparative Study of Vocabularythat the Austro-Asiatic languages
played a significant role in the formation of the Japanese language.Schmidt declared that there
was no genealogical relationship between the Japanese and the Austro-Asiatic languages. In
addition, Japanese linguist Kobayashi Hideo also dismissed the results of Matsumoto’s linguistic
388 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, Le japonais et les langues austroasiatiques: étude de vocabulaire comparé, P.
Geuthner, Paris, 1928, pp. 45-93.
389 Schmidt, Wilhelm, “Nihongo to Ōsutorisshugo tono kankei” (“Die Beziehungen der austrischen Sprachen zum Japanischen”),Indoshina no minzoku to bunka, Iwanami shoten, transl. by Matsumoto Nobuhiro, 1942, p.
357.390 Przyluski, Jean, “Preface,” in Matsumoto, Nobuhiro,Le japonais et les langues austroasiatiques: étude de vocabulaire comparé, P. Geuthner, Paris, 1928, p. VII.
research due to the lack of evidences in 1928.391 Matsumoto defended his thesis against
Schmidt’s criticism in his Japanese writing arguing that Schmidt misunderstood his purpose and
that Matsumoto discussed only the relationship between the Japanese and the Austro-Asiatic
languages, and not their common genealogy.392
Obviously, Matsumoto was confused about the meaning of the comparison of the
Japanese and the Austro-Asiatic cultures due to the concurrent influence by evolutionist,
sociologist and diffusionist ethnologists. While evolutionists and sociologist ethnologists
searched for common elements of the various cultures to clarify the cultural basis of the mankind,
diffusionist ethnologists compared various cultures (languages) in order to clarify their
genealogy and then pointed out the common origin of the compared languages. Consequently,
Matsumoto interpreted the common culture by two ways. First, he was based on the
evolutionist-sociologist hypothesis of universal primitive culture when he compared various
peoples’ customs. Second, he followed the hypothesis of cultural diffusion when he compared
languages.
However, Matsumoto had the support from some French scholars. In addition to
Przyluski, diffusionist ethnologist Paul Rivet (1876-1958), acknowledged Matsumoto’s
391 Kobayashi, Hideo, “Nihongo no shozoku mondai – Matsumoto Nobuhiro shi no kingi wo yomu,”Minzoku, dai 4 kan, dai 1 gō, Minzoku hakkōjo, 1928, p. 165.
392 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Ōsutorikku gozoku ha hatashite sonzai nasuya,” Shigaku, dai 10 kan, dai 1 gō, Mita Shigakkai, 1931, p. 96. Schmidt, Wilhelm, “Die Beziehungen der austrischen Sprachen zum Japanischen,” Wien Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte und Linguistik, Vol. I, Wien, 1930, pp. 239-252 opt. cit. in Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Kodai bunkaron,” Gendai shigaku taikei, Kyōritsusha shoten, 1932, pp. 94-95.
Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Ōsutoroajiago ni kan suru shomondai,” Kawai kyōju kanreki kinen ronbunshū, Kawaikyōju kanreki shukugakai, 1931, pp. 513-519.
conclusion on the Austro-Asiatic influence on Japan. In his bookSumerian and Oceanian, Rivet
discussed theories claiming the influence of Southern culture including Przyluski’s and
Matsumoto’s opinions.393 Rivet wrote in relation to the result of Matsumoto’s doctoral thesis: “O.
Gjerdman signalized a great number of lexical accords between Ainu and the Austronesian
languages … Furthermore, a Japanese scholar, Matsumoto brought evidence on similarities
between the same languages and the Japanese language.”394 This means that Rivet also
disagreed with Schmidt’s definition of the Austro-Asiatic and Austronesian languages. Hence,
the opinion on the Austro-Asiatic influence encompassing Austronesia was shared by some
scholars in the French ethnological and linguistic circles. For this reason, Matsumoto could
continue to claim the validity of his comparative research of the Japanese and the Austro-Asiatic
languages.
Matsumoto republished his linguistic research from his doctoral thesisThe Japanese and
the Austro-Asiatic languages: A Comparative Study of Vocabularyin his paper “Problems of the
Austro-Asiatic languages”395 and in his writing “Theories of Ancient Culture.”396 His only
correction was that he decreased the number of the common root words of the Japanese and the
Austro-Asiatic languages from 113 to 97.397 He again argued the close relationship of the
393 Rivet, Paul, Sumérien et Océanien, Librairie ancienne honoré champion, La Société de linguistique de Paris, Paris, 1929, p. 11.
394 Ibid, p. 9.
395 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Ōsutoroajiago ni kan suru shomondai,” Kawai kyōju kanreki kinen ronbunshū, Kawaikyōju kanreki shukugakai, 1931, pp. 481-522.
396 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Kodai bunkaron,”Gendai shigaku taikei, Kyōritsusha shoten, 1932, pp. 81-95.
397 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Ōsutoroajiago ni kan suru shomondai,” Kawai kyōju kanreki kinen ronbunshū, Kawaikyōju kanreki shukugakai, 1931, p. 512. Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Kodai bunkaron,” Gendai shigaku
Japanese language with the Austro-Asiatic languages (Ōsutoroajia go, オーストロアジア語)
without defining the relationship specifically: “From this table of correspondences, it is clear that
the vocabulary of the Japanese language has a close relationship with the vocabulary of the
Austro-Asiatic language family. But what kind of conclusion can be drawn from it? Is it the
common origin of the Japanese language and the Austric language family? At the present point,
we cannot state it clearly. But, should we admit that both languages had contacts and mixed up,
and the Japanese language borrowed the vocabulary from the Austric languages? It is also
difficult to give a safe answer to it. Today the only proven fact is that the Southern elements
played an important role in the formation of the Japanese language.”398 Thus, although
Matsumoto did not know how to interpret the similarities between the Japanese language and the
Austro-Asiatic languages, he accepted the diffusionist interpretation of the Austro-Asiatic
influence on the Japanese language because his teacher Jean Przyluski and Paul Rivet argued
about the Austro-Asiatic influence.
However, Matsumoto did not only agree with Przyluski’s opinion on the Austro-Asiatic
influence in India. He also surmised the existence of the Austro-Asiatic elements in China. In his
paper “Theories of Ancient Culture” (1932), he first paid attention to the archaeological fact that
the stone implements found in China were not made by the ethnical Chinese. 399 Then, he
taikei, Kyōritsusha shoten, 1932, p. 93.
398 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Ōsutoroajiago ni kan suru shomondai,” Kawai kyōju kanreki kinen ronbunshū, Kawaikyōju kanreki shukugakai, 1931, p. 513. Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Kodai bunkaron,” Gendai shigaku taikei, Kyōritsusha shoten, 1932, p. 94.
399 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Kodai bunkaron,”Gendai shigaku taikei, Kyōritsusha shoten, 1932, p. 5.
claimed that he believed in the contacts of the Austro-Asiatic languages and the Chinese
language.400 Finally, he followed Przyluski’s opinion that the Southern culture influenced the
Chinese culture: “According to Mr. Przyluski, the custom of the spring festival is a living topic
in China’s tales in which a girl throws a ball and chooses her spouse like this, and this is the
influence of Southward [Nampō, 南 方] peoples on the China’s culture.”401 Thus, under
Przyluski’s influence, Matsumoto did not take the theory of the Austro-Asiatic languages only as
a linguistic theory, but he imagined a zone of the Austro-Asiatic culture which encompassed
India, Southeast Asia, China and Japan. Since he believed in the diffusionist theory of Southern
influence, he surmised that the Austro-Asiatic culture spread from a center in Southeast Asia to
India, China and Japan.
In summary, Matsumoto adopted Wilhelm Schmidt’s theory of the Austro-Asiatic
languages under Jean Przyluski’s influence. This theory established a genealogical connection
between some languages of Southeast Asia and India. However, Matsumoto adopted Przyluski’s
interpretation of Schmidt’s theory which emphasized the influence of the Austro-Asiatic
languages including Austronesian languages not only from the linguistic perspective, but also
from the ethnological perspective. Thus, Matsumoto mixed the Austro-Asiatic language family
with the Austronesian language family and linguistic genealogy (Austro-Asiatic and
Austronesian) with ethnological genealogy. This ambiguity is typically seen further in
400 Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, “Kodai bunkaron,”Gendai shigaku taikei, Kyōritsusha shoten, 1932, p. 77.
401 Ibid, p. 109.
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.