The 'horse-rider theory' is a controversial proposal that Japan was conquered around the 4th or 5th century CE by a culture from northern Asia to whom the horse was especially important. Although archaeological evidence and genetics point to a close relationship between Japan and East Asia, especially Korea, during that period, the idea that a full military takeover ever occurred is deemed unlikely by most historians. The exact relations between the young states of the region remain unclear, and the issue is further clouded by nationalist agendas and a persistent projection of modern concepts of statehood and nationality on geographical areas which at that time would not have existed.

? ? ? ? ? “騎馬者理論”是一個(gè)有爭(zhēng)議的理念，即日本在公元4或5世紀(jì)左右被一種來(lái)自亞洲北部的民族所征服，馬對(duì)他們來(lái)說(shuō)特別重要。盡管考古證據(jù)和遺傳學(xué)表明，在那個(gè)時(shí)期，日本和東亞，特別是朝鮮之間有著密切的關(guān)系，但大多數(shù)歷史學(xué)家認(rèn)為，曾經(jīng)在日本發(fā)生過(guò)全面軍事接管的想法是不可能的。該地區(qū)早期國(guó)家之間的確切關(guān)系仍然不清楚，而民族主義議程和對(duì)現(xiàn)代國(guó)家和民族概念的持續(xù)投射在當(dāng)時(shí)不存在的地理區(qū)域上，使這個(gè)問(wèn)題更加模糊。

騎馬者理論

The 'horse-rider theory' (kiba minzoku setsu) was proposed by the historian Egami Namio in 1948 CE to explain the cultural and political development of Japan in the 4th and 5th century CE. Namio suggested that 'horse-riders', or more accurately, members of a culture originally from North Asia and then present in mainland Asia and the Korean peninsula for whom the horse was especially important, had travelled to Japan and spread their ideas and culture. The resulting conquest of the indigenous tribes in Japan led to a more unified country and what would become known as the Yamato state. Namio pointed to the archaeological evidence of large numbers of horse trappings discovered within Japanese tombs of the later Kofun Period (c. 250-538 CE) and their absence in the earlier part of the period as support for his theory.

? ? ? ? ? “騎馬者理論”（kiba minzoku setsu）是由歷史學(xué)家江上波夫（Egami Namio）在1948年提出的，用來(lái)解釋公元4、5世紀(jì)日本的文化和政治發(fā)展。江上波夫認(rèn)為，“騎馬者”，或者更準(zhǔn)確地說(shuō)，最初來(lái)自北亞、后來(lái)出現(xiàn)在亞洲大陸和朝鮮半島的一種民族，對(duì)他們來(lái)說(shuō)馬特別重要。他們來(lái)到日本并傳播他們的思想與文化，由此產(chǎn)生的對(duì)日本本土部落的征服導(dǎo)致了一個(gè)更加統(tǒng)一的國(guó)家和后來(lái)被稱(chēng)為大和國(guó)的地區(qū)。江上波夫指出，考古學(xué)證據(jù)表明，在古墳時(shí)代后期（約公元250-538年）的日本墓葬中發(fā)現(xiàn)了大量的馬具，而在該時(shí)期的早期則沒(méi)有這些馬具，他以這條論據(jù)來(lái)支持其理論。

東亞的文化聯(lián)系

A significant Korean influence on Japanese culture is attested by both archaeological and genetic evidence, which points to a migration of both people and ideas in the period in question. The Japanese Imperial family did mix with a Korean bloodline prior to the 7th century CE and the presence of an influential clan with Korean heritage, the Soga, is noted in the historical record. In addition, from the 4th century CE, friendly relations were established with the Korean state of Baekje (Paekche), which was firmly established by the late 3rd century CE and lasted until the conquest by its neighbour the Silla Kingdom in the mid-7th century CE. Baekje culture was exported abroad, especially via teachers, scholars, and artists travelling to Japan, and with them went Chinese culture such as classic Confucian texts but also elements of Korean-wide culture, for example, the court titles which closely resembled the bone rank system of the Silla kingdom or the wooden buildings constructed there by Korean architects and the large burial mounds of the period which are similar to those in Korea.

? ? ? ? ? 考古學(xué)和遺傳學(xué)證據(jù)都證明了韓國(guó)對(duì)日本文化的重大影響，這表明在這一時(shí)期存在著人員和思想的遷移。在公元7世紀(jì)之前，日本皇室確實(shí)與韓國(guó)血統(tǒng)混雜在一起，歷史記錄中提到了一個(gè)有影響力的韓國(guó)血統(tǒng)的氏族——曾我族的存在。此外，從公元4世紀(jì)開(kāi)始，日本與韓國(guó)的百濟(jì)國(guó)（Paekche）建立了友好關(guān)系，百濟(jì)國(guó)在公元3世紀(jì)末成立，一直持續(xù)到公元7世紀(jì)中期，被其鄰國(guó)新羅王國(guó)征服。百濟(jì)文化被輸出到國(guó)外，特別是通過(guò)教師、學(xué)者和藝術(shù)家前往日本，并與他們一起帶來(lái)了中國(guó)文化，如經(jīng)典的儒家典籍，但也帶來(lái)了韓國(guó)范圍內(nèi)的文化元素，例如，與新羅王國(guó)的貴族等級(jí)制度非常相似的宮廷頭銜和韓國(guó)建筑師建造木制建筑的技術(shù)，以及當(dāng)時(shí)與韓國(guó)類(lèi)似的大型墓冢。

The Japanese state, then known as Wa, also sent a 30,000-man army to aid the deposed Baekje rulers, but this was wiped out by a joint Silla-Tang naval force on the Paekchon (modern Kum) River c. 660 CE. In addition to these activities, the 4th and 5th century CE saw diplomatic missions and trading between Japan and China, further highlighting that the presence of continental cultural practices and goods in Japan does not necessarily mean they came via conquering invaders.

? ? ? ? ? ?當(dāng)時(shí)被稱(chēng)為“倭”的日本國(guó)還派出了一支3萬(wàn)人的軍隊(duì)來(lái)援助被廢黜的百濟(jì)統(tǒng)治者，但這支軍隊(duì)在公元660年左右被新羅和唐朝在白川（今錦江）的一支聯(lián)合海軍部隊(duì)消滅。除了這些活動(dòng)之外，在公元4世紀(jì)和5世紀(jì)，日本和中國(guó)之間還有外交使團(tuán)和貿(mào)易往來(lái)，這進(jìn)一步強(qiáng)調(diào)了大陸文化習(xí)俗和貨物在日本的存在并不一定意味著它們是通過(guò)征服者而來(lái)。

軍事解釋中的難題

That a Korean force actually invaded and conquered Japan so that it became no more than a vassal state is quite a different matter, then, from a cultural interaction between neighbouring states. It seems unlikely a conquest did actually occur, and some sources, including the Japanese c. 720 CE Nihon Shoki (Chronicle of Japan), controversially suggest the reverse and that Japan had established a colony in southern Korea in part of the Gaya (Kaya) confederation. This is now largely considered a tall tale by the Yamato court in order to increase its prestige as the reality is it lacked both the political and military where-with-all to carry out such a conquest.

? ? ? ? ? 一支來(lái)自韓國(guó)軍隊(duì)實(shí)際入侵并征服了日本，使其成為一個(gè)附庸國(guó)，這與鄰國(guó)之間的文化互動(dòng)是完全不同的，似乎不太可能真的發(fā)生征服。一些資料，包括日本的《日本書(shū)紀(jì)》（約公元720年），有爭(zhēng)議地認(rèn)為情況正好相反，日本在韓國(guó)南部建立了一個(gè)殖民地，作為伽倻（Kaya）聯(lián)盟的一部分。這在很大程度上被認(rèn)為是大和朝廷為了提高其威望而編造的謊言，因?yàn)楝F(xiàn)實(shí)是它缺乏進(jìn)行這種征服的政治和軍事手段。

There was certainly an influx of Korean manufactured goods, weapons, and raw materials such as iron from Gaya but there is a notable absence of any new and distinct culture which one might expect to see following a military conquest. The historian M. J. Seth offers this plausible alternative explanation to a military invasion:

? ? ? ? ? More likely, the peoples on both sides of the Korean Straits were related and interacted with each other. Evidence suggests that between 300 BCE and 300 CE large numbers of people migrated from the Korean peninsula to the Japanese archipelago, where they introduced rice culture, bronze and iron working, and other technologies. Thus rather than the existence of Korean and Japanese peoples there was a continuum of peoples and cultures. The Wa of western Japan, for example, may have lived on both sides of the Korean Straits, and they appeared to have close links with Kaya. It is even possible that the Wa and Kaya were the same ethnic group. The fact that Japanese and Korean political evolution followed similar patterns is too striking to be coincidental. (31-32)

? ? ? ? ? 當(dāng)然，有大量的韓國(guó)制成品、武器和原材料（如鐵）從伽耶涌入，但明顯缺乏任何新的和獨(dú)特的文化，而這正是人們期望在軍事征服后看到的。歷史學(xué)家M.J.Seth對(duì)軍事入侵提供了這種合理的替代解釋?zhuān)?/strong>

? ? ? ? ? 更有可能的是，朝鮮海峽兩岸的人民是有關(guān)系的，并相互交流。證據(jù)表明，在公元前300年和公元前300年之間，大量的人從朝鮮半島遷移到日本群島，在那里他們引進(jìn)了稻米文化、青銅和鐵器加工以及其他技術(shù)。因此，與其說(shuō)存在著朝鮮族和日本族，不如說(shuō)存在著民族和文化的連續(xù)性。例如，日本西部的倭族可能生活在朝鮮海峽的兩岸，他們似乎與伽耶有著密切的聯(lián)系。甚至有可能，倭族和伽耶人是同一個(gè)民族。日本和韓國(guó)的政治演變遵循類(lèi)似的模式，這一事實(shí)太引人注目了，不可能是巧合。(31-32)

Japanese historians have traditionally sought to counter the 'horse-rider theory', and it has never been widely accepted in that country. Indeed, when Japan invaded Korea at the end of the 19th century CE, the government claimed that it was merely retaking possession of its former colony mentioned in the Nihon Shoki. More serious arguments against Namio's theory have since developed and these include problems with and manipulation of the chronology to match an invasion with the dating of tombs and relevant artefacts, an incomplete consideration of all the archaeological evidence, the false assumption that tombs show a clear and distinct break between the period with or without horse paraphernalia and other continental goods in them, and an assumption that an agricultural society and/or ruling elite would not adopt the cultural practices and luxury goods of foreign peoples without military conquest.

? ? ? ? ? 日本歷史學(xué)家歷來(lái)試圖反駁“騎馬者理論”，而這一理論在該國(guó)從未被廣泛接受。事實(shí)上，當(dāng)日本在公元19世紀(jì)末入侵朝鮮時(shí)，政府聲稱(chēng)它只是在重新占有《日本書(shū)紀(jì)》中提到的其前殖民地。此后，反對(duì)江上波夫理論的更嚴(yán)重的論點(diǎn)已經(jīng)形成，這些論點(diǎn)包括：為了使入侵與墓葬和相關(guān)文物的年代相匹配而對(duì)年表進(jìn)行的處理存在問(wèn)題，對(duì)所有考古證據(jù)的考慮不全面，錯(cuò)誤地認(rèn)為墓葬中是否有馬具和其他大陸物品顯示出明顯的斷代，以及認(rèn)為農(nóng)業(yè)社會(huì)和/或統(tǒng)治精英在沒(méi)有軍事征服的情況下不會(huì)采用外國(guó)人民的文化習(xí)俗和奢侈品的假設(shè)。

Korean historians and others have countered these arguments, insisting that a sudden cultural change is possible to identify in the archaeological and historical records and that the gradual nature of the change in tomb finds, tomb architecture, and political elites is greatly exaggerated. Some argue that linguistics and mythology both point to a mixing of the two cultures of Korea and Japan. Still others point to significant climate change which eventually resulted in a period of extended droughts around 400 CE and which motivated peoples to seek conditions more favourable to agriculture in the Japanese archipelago. No one, though, has as yet been able to provide direct evidence of how this transferral of culture occurred if not by peaceful means.

? ? ? ? ? 韓國(guó)歷史學(xué)家和其他一些人反駁了這些論點(diǎn)，堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為在考古和歷史記錄中可以識(shí)別出突然的文化變化，而墓葬發(fā)現(xiàn)、墓葬建筑和政治精英的變化的漸進(jìn)性質(zhì)被大大夸大了。一些人認(rèn)為，語(yǔ)言學(xué)和神話(huà)學(xué)都指出了韓國(guó)和日本兩種文化的混合。還有人指出，重大的氣候變化最終導(dǎo)致了公元400年左右的長(zhǎng)期干旱，并促使人們?cè)谌毡救簫u尋求更有利于農(nóng)業(yè)的條件。不過(guò)，到目前為止，還沒(méi)有人能夠提供直接的證據(jù)，說(shuō)明如果不是通過(guò)和平手段，這種文化的轉(zhuǎn)移是如何發(fā)生的。

總? ? ? 結(jié)

In conclusion, the merits and weaknesses of the theory are well summarised here by the historian K. Henshall:

? ? ? ? ? Like most theories, it has some plausible elements and some weaknesses. It is not impossible that horse-riders from Korea or Manchuria or northern China did establish a presence in early Japan - possibly even a ruling presence, and possibly by force - but if so they would surely have realized there was nowhere further to go and either settled in Japan or returned whence they came. (158)

? ? ? ? ? 總之，歷史學(xué)家K.Henshall在這里很好地總結(jié)了該理論的優(yōu)點(diǎn)和缺點(diǎn)：

? ? ? ? ? 像大多數(shù)理論一樣，它有一些合理的因素和一些弱點(diǎn)。來(lái)自朝鮮、滿(mǎn)洲或中國(guó)北部的騎馬者確實(shí)在早期日本建立了一個(gè)存在——甚至可能是一個(gè)統(tǒng)治者的存在，而且可能是通過(guò)武力來(lái)管理。但如果是這樣，他們肯定會(huì)意識(shí)到?jīng)]有地方可去了，于是要么在日本定居，要么返回原居住地。(158)

The controversial 'horse-rider theory' not only lacks concrete and persuasive evidence to support it but even its very emphasis on one dramatic moment of history being responsible for significant cultural and political changes in Japan seems rather dated and simplistic in terms of modern studies in history where the complexities, subtleties, and multidirectional nature of cultural exchange over long periods of time are now much more appreciated by historians, archaeologists, and the public alike.

? ? ? ? ? 有爭(zhēng)議的“騎馬者理論”不僅缺乏具體和有說(shuō)服力的證據(jù)支持，甚至它強(qiáng)調(diào)一個(gè)戲劇性的歷史時(shí)刻對(duì)日本的重大文化和政治變化負(fù)有責(zé)任，這在現(xiàn)代歷史研究中顯得相當(dāng)過(guò)時(shí)和簡(jiǎn)單，因?yàn)楝F(xiàn)在歷史學(xué)家、考古學(xué)家和公眾都更重視長(zhǎng)期文化交流的復(fù)雜性、微妙性和多向性。

參考書(shū)目：

Ebrey, P.B. Pre-Modern East Asia. Wadsworth Publishing, 2013.

Edwards, W. "Event and Process in the Founding of Japan: The Horserider Theory in Archeological Perspective." The Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer, 1983), pp. 265-295.

Farris, W.W. "Ancient Japan's Korean Connectiona۬." Korean Studies, Vol. 20 (1996), pp. 1-22.

Henshall, K. Historical Dictionary of Japan to 1945. Scarecrow Press, 2013.

Hong, W. "Yayoi Wave, Kofun Wave, and Timing: The Formation of the Japanese People and Japanese." Korean Studies, Vol. 29 (2005), pp. 1-29.

Mason, R.H.P. A History of Japan. Tuttle Publishing, 1997.

Seth, M.J. A History of Korea. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010.

SONG-NAI RHEE, C. MELVIN AIKENS, SUNG-RAK CHOI and HYUK-JIN RO,. "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan: Archaeology and History of an Epochal Thousand Years, 400 B.C.a€“A.D. 600." Asian Perspectives, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Fall 2007), pp. 404-459.

作者：Mark Cartwright

????????? 駐意大利的歷史作家。他的主要興趣包括陶瓷、建筑、世界神話(huà)和發(fā)現(xiàn)所有文明的共同思想。他擁有政治哲學(xué)碩士學(xué)位，是《世界歷史百科全書(shū)》的出版總監(jiān)。

原文網(wǎng)址：https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1105/the-horse-rider-theory-in-ancient-japan/

標(biāo)簽：