The theory proposes that the original capital of Japan was located in Kyushu, and when the Kofun period began, the Yamato Kingship moved the capital east to the Kinai region, before eventually moving it to Kyoto, and finally Tokyo, the current capital.[1]
The Yamato District, Fukuoka is located in the Yamato Province of Chikugo Province, in his "Foreign Affairs Record", Chikugo Province, Yamato District, Fukuoka. Since then, the mainstream of academic circles has been divided into two mainstream theories: the "Honshu theory (by Naitō Torajirō and others) and the "Kyushu theory (by Shiratori Kurakichi and others). The Kyūshū theory, however, has a different explanation. The Kyushu theory, however, is divided into two camps: one that claims that the Yamataikoku was "moved" (the "To-kyo" theory) and the other that it was not.
There are two theories about the subsequent Yamatai Kingdom; one is that it was conquered by the Kinai forces, and the other is that it moved eastward and conquered the Kinai.[a] In the past, it was the first time that the Japanese government had been involved in the war.[b][c]
Basic rationale
The basic arguments for the Kyushu theory of the Yamatai Kingdom include the following.
Basis
Considering the distance from Obikata-gun to the Queen's country as an itinerary rather than a straight line, out of the 12,000 ri, it took 10,500 ri to get to Itokuni, which is located in Fukuoka Prefecture, and the remaining 1,500 ri (three times the distance of 500 ri from Suiroku to Itokuni, which is located in Karatsu City, Saga Prefecture), is not enough to locate the Yamatai Kingdom beyond Kyushu.[d]
Comparing the Gounakukoku, which was in conflict with the Yamataikoku, to the power of Kumamoto (Kuma), the official of the Gounakukoku, "Goukochi Heigu," is a transliteration of "Kikuchihiko.[e]
Based on the view that the "burial chamber with coffin and no burial chamber" that describes the burial method of the Yamataikoku in the Book of Records of the Wei Dynasty is considered to be a jar coffin, many jar coffins have been excavated in the Kitakyushu region, and many tombs with sarcophagus and no burial chamber have appeared. Also, from the description of "no burial chamber," burial tombs in the Kinai region with a burial chamber are not applicable.[f]
There is a theory that the Hashibashi grave mound, which is said to be the oldest stylized forward and backward circular mound in Nara PrefectureSakurai City, was built in the latter half of the 3rd century and is considered to be Himiko's burial mound. However, after the death of Himiko, a male king ascended to the throne, but it is recorded that the country was in turmoil again, and it is almost impossible to build a burial mound with the largest mound at that time when the country was in turmoil. In addition, there are no traces of martyrdom in the area surrounding the tomb. Also, the tombs of neighboring places such as the Korean Peninsula at that time were all around 30 meters on each side, and it is unreasonable to assume that Japan was the only country to build a huge tomb (Chopsticks Tomb). In addition, the Museum, Archaeological Institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture, which conducted the Archaeological excavation of the Hokenoyama burial mound, which is said to predate the Chopsticks Tomb in terms of age. Archaeological Institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture, who conducted Excavation of the Hokenoyama burial mound in 2008, concluded that the burial mound was built in the middle of the 3rd century based on the excavated artifacts.[2][3] Because the range of Radiocarbon dating results of burial chamber wood is reported to include the first half of the 4th century,[4] some have questioned the dating of the middle of the 3rd century.[5]
Advocates
Advocates of the Kyushu theory of the Yamataikoku include Arai Hakuseki, Shiratori Kurakichi, Dairoku Harada, Taku Tanaka,[6]Takehiko Furuta, Kenzaburo Torigoe,[7] Toshiaki Wakai,[8] Biten Yasumoto, Toshio Hoga and others. In addition, it is said that research based on domestic materials such as "Kiki" tends not to be taken into consideration, despite the indications of Taro Sakamoto's "The Birth of the Nation" and Hidesaburo Hara, and Toshiaki Wakai said about this tendency before the war. He criticizes the repressed theory of Sokichi Tsuda as being caused by being touted even after the war.[8]
^The former assumes the conquest of Kitakyushu during the Keiko, Seigyo, and Chuai dynasties, as seen in the Chronicles. The latter theory is based on the fact that the Jimmu's Eastern Expedition is a reflection of the Jimmu's Eastern Expedition, but some argue that the Book of Sui is unacceptable as it may differ considerably from the existing mythology. However, it is possible that the writings in the Book of Sui
^In the latter half of the Edo period, scholars of Japanese studies proposed the theory of "false arrogance" (the theory that Kyushu forces presumed to have presided over the Imperial Court. These include Hon'i Nobunaga's "Onokebisu Gaikoku", Tsurumine Boshin's "Sogoku Gaikoku Ko", and Kondo Yoshiki's "Seihan Gensetsu".)
^In modern times, there is the Kyushu dynasty theory [ja] by Takehiko Furuta and others (the theory that the representative dynasty of the Japanese archipelago was consistently located in Kyushu and declined after the Battle of Baekgang. (This theory has received some attention in academic circles, including the publication of an article in Shigaku zasshi. This is a theory that has received much attention in academic circles.
^Miyake Yonekichi states that the 12,000 ri is the distance to Fuyakuni, where the distance is known, and Yamada Yoshio states that this is not the actual distance, which is partly unknown, but merely the sum of the 7,000 ri to Gwoja Korea and the 5,000 ri of the circumference of the Japanese land. This is not a combination of the real distances, which are partly unknown, but merely the sum of the 7,000 ri to Gouja Korea and the 5,000 ri of the Japanese land. The Takehiko Furuta, who advocates the Kyushu dynasty theory, advocates a reading that "the same route is marked twice, as distance and number of days, for the sake of accuracy".
^The Kinai theory does not seem to give any special interpretation to the official name, even if it considers Gounakukoku to be a force from Keno or the Tokai region, such as Kuwana or Kano. Naito Konan, who holds the Kinai theory, ascribes Gu-nu-kuni to Kumaso and "Gu-ko-chi-beigu" to Kikuchi-hiko, in view of the violent clashes between the imperial court and Kumaso in the reign of Emperor Keiko, which he considers to be close to the time of the Yamataikoku. This would mean that the direction is correct here, but he says there is no problem with the description of Gounakukoku because it belongs to a different system from the itinerary article. In Weilüe it is written "拘右智卑狗", but this can be regarded as a typographical error, since in ancient Japanese the vowel never appeared in the middle of a word. The Kibi, Izumo, and Higashi-Shikoku theories consider the Gugnu Kingdom to be a Kawachi power.
^There is an opinion that the Hokenoyama burial mound, which was built at the same time as the Chopsticks Tomb or even earlier, has a coffin and burial chamber and was built in the first half of the 4th century.
