New Reasearch on the Kumaso, Hayato



Kumaso Exhibit, Saitobaru Burial Mound Museum, Saito



“The Kumaso were a group of Japanese people who lived in southern Kyushu from the beginning of recorded Japanese history until sometime in the Nara period.”

“Evidence points to them speaking the Austronesian language.”

“The Nihonshoki says that the 12th Emperor Keiko and his son Prince Yamatotakeru both conducted military missions in order to subjugate them. It also says that the 14th Emperor Chuai (husband of Empress Jingu) fought against Kumaso in the northern Kyushu because they had revolted against Yamato court by allying with Silla kingdom on Korean peninsula. They had been assimilated during Nara period and ceased to revolt.”

The above three quotes are typical misunderstandings of the Kumaso and the Hayato.  The first quote is wrong is because the Kumaso and Hayato lived in Kyushu long before recorded history.  They are the indigenous people of Kyushu.  The second quote is wrong because there is absolutely no evidence that the Kumaso or Hayato spoke an Austronesian language.  How could people indigenous to Kyushu speak a language common to Borneo, Polynesia, and native Philippines?  They didn’t because the Kumaso and Hayato were native to Kyushu.

The third quote is from a writing from the 8^th Century CE that was handed down from oral stories and put into writing with much embellishment along the way.  Taking the “Nihonshoki” as historical evidence is like modern Greeks trying to take their mythology as historical fact.  A further fact is that it was a Yamato invasion of Kyushu to further their empire that brought the Kumaso and Hayato under control.

Genetic testing has shown that there was little difference between the Kumaso, Hayato, and Yamato.  What all these quotes miss is that the Japanese archipelago, barring Hokkaido, developed at the same pace, had contact with each other, had contact with Sinic people after 1000 BCE, and emerged in civilizational patterns at the same times.  If anything it was merely cultural differences.  How is that?

Well, consider the Saxons and Celts.  They lived on the same archipelago and the patterns of civilization ran the same.  Their languages were fairly understandable to each other.  The difference came with the Roman and Norman invasions.  In this example the difference is that there was no foreign invasion of Japan, but the Yamato who were genetically linked to the Kumaso and Hayato invaded Kyushu to expand their empire.

A trip today to the Saitobaru Burial Mounds Museum confirms this.  In this museum is an extensive library on anthropology, archaeology, and history.  What one finds is that what commonly thought as history has been slowly debunked.

From Dr. Ryu Otani’s book “The Kumaso” we find:

There is absolutely no evidence, genetically, to show the Kumaso or Hayato were separate in lineage or language from the rest of Shikoku or Honshu.  They were simply the indigenous people of Kyushu.  Both the Kumaso and Hayato inhabited areas all over the island of Kyushu.  If anything it was a mere difference in culture one would expect by a separation of islands, much like the evolutionary process in the Galapagos.  The Kumaso were generally highlanders and the Hayato were generally lowland dwelling people.  Kumaso and Hayato were brothers of the Yamato. (54)

As to the Austronesian language, Mark Hudson in his book “Ruins of Identity” explains:

I have argued that it is difficult to see any evidence of population movements from Austronesia speaking areas into the Japanese islands in late prehistory. (197)

In fact, like the rest of the Japanese archipelago Kyushu was influenced by Sinic civilization.  Hiromichi Hongo, an anthropologist, explains in his book “Kumaso, Hayato History”:

Archaeology and testing show a definite link to Hayato and Kumaso being influenced at the same times as the rest of Japan’s archipelago by the Sinic people of China and Korea.  The Bronze and Iron Ages arrived at the same times and the development from hunting to agricultural societies follows the same time frame.  This refutes earlier postulations from no evidence, aside from myths, that Japanese civilization spread from south to north.  It also shows the Hayato and Kumaso were genetically linked to the rest of Japan, barring the Ainu of Hokkaido who are actually the sole people of Japan that are genetically different from the rest of the Japanese people. (92)

The same conclusion was reached by geneticists who conducted tests on Kumaso, Hayato, Yamato, and Ainu remains.  This is what was reported in the “Japanese Journal of Genetics”:

Genetic testing on Yamato, Kumaso, Hayato, and Ainu remains found the following results.  Yamato, Hayato, and Kumaso were genetically related.  The Ainu, however, were genetically more related to Siberian people of the time, and distant from other people of the Japanese islands.  The people of Okinawa are also distant genetically from the Kumaso, Hayato, and Yamato.  This disproves previous postulations of south to north migration of the Hayato and Kumaso.  Barring the people of Okinawa and the Ainu, the people of Japan are genetically identical. (15+)

The conclusion then is obvious, the Kumaso and Hayato were genetically related to the Yamato and shared common ancestry.  Mythical books cannot prove historical facts.  The Ainu and Okinawa people are not genetically related to the rest of Japan, and the Japanese government has recognized this fact.  It is time for the rest of the world to stop believing bad science and start reporting what Japanese geneticists, archaeologists, and anthropologists have found.  Wikipedia and others are so misleading in their articles on the Kumaso and Hayato.  I offer this:

Wikipedia the Kumaso

Wikipedia the Hayato

Another site on false Kumaso information

There is absolutely no evidence to prove a Malay/Polynesian ancestry to the Hayato and Kumaso.  There is plenty of evidence to show they were native to Japan and genetically related to the rest of Japan, barring the Ainu and the Ryuku people of Okinawa.  The Ainu and Ryuku are the sole people not genetically related the rest of Japan.

Sources:

Hongo, Hiromichi. “Kumaso, Hayato History”, Yoshigawa Museum. 2004 ed

Hudson, Mark. “Ruins of Identity”, University of Hawaii. 1999

Japanese Journal of Genetics volume 27 issue3, spring 2010.  “Hayato, Kumaso, and Yamato”

Otani, Ryu. “The Kumaso”, Tokyo University. 2006