Journal of Asian
and African Studies
http://jas.sagepub.com/
Austronesian Architectural Heritage and the Grand Shrines at Ise, Japan
Ezrin Arbi, Sreenivasaiah Purushothama Rao and Saari Omar
Journal of Asian and African Studies published online 21 November 2013
DOI: 10.1177/0021909613510245
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jas.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/11/24/0021909613510245
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal of Asian and African Studies can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jas.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jas.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Nov 24, 2013
OnlineFirst Version of Record - Nov 21, 2013
What is This?
Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on December 2, 2013
510245
research-article2013
JAS0010.1177/0021909613510245Journal of Asian and African StudiesArbi et al.
JAAS
Article
Austronesian Architectural
Heritage and the Grand
Shrines at Ise, Japan
Journal of Asian and African Studies
0(0) 1­–18
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0021909613510245
jas.sagepub.com
Ezrin Arbi, Sreenivasaiah Purushothama Rao
and Saari Omar
University of Malaya, Malaysia
Abstract
Austronesia, one of the largest language families in the world, covers a vast area from Madagascar in the
extreme west to Easter Island in the far east, Taiwan in the north to New Zealand in the south. The
languages are spoken by the people of insular southeast Asia, Micronesia, Melanesia and Polynesia in the
Pacific, as well as certain parts of the Asia mainland. The vernacular architecture of the people that belong
to this language family shows certain shared characteristics that seem to indicate a common origin in
the distant past. The Grand Shrines at Ise, Japan pose an intriguing phenomenon because they possess
striking architectural features that are reminiscent of Austronesian vernacular architecture. This paper is
an attempt to investigate the phenomenon using the findings of studies by experts from other disciplines
such as historians, anthropologists, linguists and others, based on the link between culture, language and
architecture.1
Keywords
Austronesia, vernacular architecture, Japan
Introduction
Since Austronesia is a linguistic construct, the discussion on its architectural heritage will necessitate a brief look at the concept of culture and the link between language and architecture within
its domain, which will be followed with discussion of the Austronesian language, people and their
vernacular architecture. Common elements in their traditional houses as identified by various
scholars will be summarised. Similarly, the focus on the Grand Shrine of Ise toward the end of the
paper will be preceded with a brief look at the Japanese language and culture, followed by description of the Japanese indigenous architecture to which the Ise Shrines belong. Comparison will be
Corresponding author:
Sreenivasaiah Purushothama Rao, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya,
50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on December 2, 2013
2
Journal of Asian and African Studies 0(0)
made between the characteristics and features found in the shrines with those found in the
Austronesian vernacular architecture.
Culture, language and architecture
Regarding the concept of culture, Tylor (1903) defined it as ‘that complex whole which includes
knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, laws, customs and all other capabilities and habits acquired by man
as a member of society’. Culture is made up of inherited artefacts, goods, technical processes,
ideas, habits and values. Social organisation should also be included in this definition, since it cannot be understood except as a part of culture. In brief, culture covers all systems that give a society
its identity and distinguishes it from others.
Koentjaraningrat (1985) adds an additional dimension, believing culture may be in the form of
ideas, activities and artefacts. As the first of his categories, ideas are abstract in nature, not visible
and exist only in the mind of those who subscribe to them. The second form is human activities and
their interaction with each other is concrete and observable. The third form of culture is the most
concrete and is the result of human activities in their social intercourse requiring the creation of
new tools, instruments, structures and buildings in the quest to meet their various needs. Dwelling
houses, places of worship and other architectural products obviously belong to the physical form
of culture, while at the same time being the result of human activities and one of the most important
of numerous manifestations of culture (Alfian, 1985).
The meaning of culture has been analysed by Koentjaraningrat (1966), using the concept of
‘cultural universals’ or constants which can be found in every society in the world regardless of its
level of development or location. He has identified the essential structure of cultural universals and
has presented seven fundamental aspects of every culture. They are: language, knowledge systems,
social organisation, facility systems, income-generating systems, religious systems and the arts.
Architecture, including vernacular architecture, as a cultural artefact is a form of physical culture. Language is a fundamental content of the culture that produces the artefact that not only
defines culture, but also reflects and perpetuates the basic assumptions and orientations of a given
culture (Oliver 1975).
Austronesia
The term Austronesia is derived from the combination of the words: ‘auster’ which is ‘south wind’
in Latin and ‘nesos’ meaning ‘island’ in Greek. It has been used by linguists and anthropologists to
identify one of several language family groups that exist in the world. Comprising some 1200
member languages the Austronesian language family represents about one-fifth of the known languages in the world (Tryon and Tsuchida, 1995), covering almost two-thirds of its circumference,
from Madagascar in the extreme west to Easter Island in the far east, from the Ryukyu Islands or
Taiwan in the north to New Zealand in the south (Jacob, 2006). Austronesian languages are now
spoken by people in insular southeast Asia, Micronesia, Melanesia and Polynesia in the Pacific, as
well as in some parts of Asia (Bellwood, 2006; Tanudirjo, 2006). The Malay Peninsula, some parts
of mainland southeast Asia and certain coastal parts of New Guinea are also within its territory
(Simanjuntak et al., 2006).
Map 1 is one of several maps prepared by different scholars that show the coverage of the
Austronesian world, in which Thailand is not included. Benedict (1975) argues that although current Thai language does not belong to the Austronesian family, its proto-language ‘Austro-Thai’
has many reconstructed terms that also include words such as platforms/storey, house post, and
ladder/steps leading up to the house, from which the linguists were able to visualise the early type
Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on December 2, 2013
3
Arbi et al.
Map1. Limits of the Austronesian language family.
Sources: Bellwood in Waterson, 1997 and Fox, 1985.
of dwellings used by the speakers of the language. Benedict insisted it shows common origin with
the rest of Austronesia. Another interesting point that begs a closer look is the distance between
Taiwan and the southern parts of Japan and how the two are linked by a series of little islands. This
is an important point that helps to strengthen the argument in this paper.
Before the term Austronesia was accepted and extensively referred to denote the language family being discussed, the terms ‘Malayan’, ‘Polynesian’ and Malayo-Polynesian were occasionally
used as a substitute by some writers.
The origin of the Austronesian speaking people is still a subject of some controversy (Fox
2004). Meacham (1984–1985) suggests the vast triangular area within present day Taiwan, Sumatra
and Timor, while Oppenheimer (1998) has theorised that they originated from the sunken Sunda
shelf. Wolff (1995) is of the opinion that the homeland of the Austronesians could have been in
mainland Asia, Taiwan or the Philippines-Celebes island group. However, to date, the most widely
accepted view among scholars seems to be what is known as the ‘Out of Taiwan’ model proposed
by Bellwood (1979, 1985, 1991, 1995, and 2006). He has hypothesised that the early Austronesian
societies were formed in Taiwan following the original migration from southern China around
8000 years ago, and that movement into the islands of southeast Asia and Oceania then occurred
from that Taiwanese base. This argument has been strengthened with linguistic findings by Blust
(1988,1999) and Comrie (2001), who further claim that the Austronesian language can be subdivided into two groups, namely the Malayo-Polynesian branch scattered over the Pacific islands and
the Formosan languages of Taiwan comprising several subgroups. Speakers of the language family
include many sub-races of the Mongoloid and Australomelanesia branch with some intermixture at
contact lines, showing that language is not intrinsically related to biological groups or body types
(Jacob, 2006).
From this focal point of Taiwan, during the 2nd millennium BC, the Proto-Austronesians dispersed in all directions with tremendous impact, covering parts of mainland Asia, the whole of
insular Southeast Asia, Micronesia, Melanesia and Polynesia. Apparently, Austronesia does not
belong to one particular community or nation, but instead to the whole people within the area of
Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on December 2, 2013
4
Journal of Asian and African Studies 0(0)
dispersal (Simanjuntak et al., 2006). The Japanese archipelago whose southern tip is only a short
distance away from Taiwan is almost surrounded by the Pacific islanders who speak the Austronesian
language. There is also a string of small islands, including Ryukyu, acting like a bridge between
Taiwan and Japan’s main island of Honshu. If these seafaring people could sail as far as Madagascar
and New Zealand, it is inconceivable that they did not venture north to the islands closer to them.
Austronesian vernacular architecture
Before focusing our attention on the Ise Shrines, it would be pertinent to have some idea about the
Austronesian vernacular architecture that will form the basis for this comparison.
The earliest attempt to draw conclusions from similarities of architectural styles in southeast
Asia, Melanesia and Micronesia, including their links with Japan and Madagascar was first made
by Vroklage (Waterson, 1997). Vroklage assembled sketches of 15 indigenous houses from the
region, most of which have pile foundations, saddleback roofs and gable horns (Figure 1). Based
on those examples he hypothesised that the roofs with pointed ends must symbolise the boats used
by the ancestors of these seafaring peoples when they dispersed throughout the islands.
Vroklage later strengthened his argument based on physical resemblances by citing some nautical vocabulary used by numerous ethnic groups in Indonesia when naming parts of their houses.
They use terms such as ‘mast’, ‘sail’, ‘rudder’ and call their village heads and other important
persons by a term that is the equivalent of ‘ship’s captain’. This aspect of Vroklage’s argument has
also been supported by Lewcock and Brans (1975) and Schefold et al. (2004) by bringing more
linguistic evidence to bear on the copious use of boat symbolism in common nomenclature and use
in Indonesia. Vroklage further theorises that the straight ridge line evolved as a degenerated version of the originally curved hull due to people’s desire to simplify the building task. Using
Vroklage’s theory as a starting point, Lewcock and Brans further studied the role of the boat as an
architectural symbol and made keen observations about how the features of the boat have been
incorporated into the structure and symbolism of these house types.
In her book The Living House, Roxana Waterson (1997) presents a detailed discussion of the
indigenous houses of southeast Asian people, whose anonymous craftsmen have produced some of
the most spectacular and beautiful wooden buildings anywhere in the world. Although the main
focus of her book is Indonesia, in the course of tracing the historical connection between architectural forms, her research expanded to include the entire Austronesian world. She made a conclusion that in all their diversity and subtle variation, the architectural styles of traditional buildings
found in this vast territory demonstrate certain shared similarities that seem to indicate a common
origin in the distant past. There are some recurring features worthy of attention. These are: the use
of timber, the raised floor supported by timber piles or stilts and the saddlebacked roof. The second
prominent feature of the style is the saddlebacked roof on which the ridge line extends beyond the
gable walls. Furthermore, the gables are usually decorated with finials, often but not always in the
form of crossed horns (Figure 2). The whole structure, in which the walls are always non-loadbearing, is held together without the use of nails, but instead tied with ropes or joined with a mortise and tenon system that is fastened with pegs or wedges.
Domenig (1980) proposes a theory that the origins of the Austronesian style of architecture
developed in the southern part of China during the Neolithic period. It was not yet culturally
‘Chinese’, because northern Chinese influences only came down to the south during the Han period
from 206 BC to 220 AD onward. The culture of southern China during that time was closer in
character to that of the southeast Asian region. It was this culture that became the source of influence on the Bronze Age culture of Dong Don with its centre in North Vietnam, as well as the
developments in Japan.
Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on December 2, 2013
5
Arbi et al.
Figure 1. A collection of Austronesian indigenous houses showing saddle roofs and gable horns.
Source: Drawn by Vroklage, 1936 (in Waterson, 1997).
As the main material used by the Austronesians in their buildings is timber, which is very perishable, it is not easy to resolve archaeologically how long they have been using pile foundations.
There is very scanty evidence from prehistoric sites to establish with confidence the source of these
dwellings. Nevertheless, Dumarcay (1990) draws our attention to two archaeological findings. The
Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on December 2, 2013
6
Journal of Asian and African Studies 0(0)
Figure 2. A compilation of finials of southeast Asian gable houses drawn by Domenig (1980).
first one is the excavation of a prehistoric site in the Ratchaburi region to the west of Bangkok in
which the remains of a house has been unearthed, of which only the location of its piles remains.
From materials found in the vicinity of the dwelling, archaeologists postulate that it belongs to the
Neolithic Ban Keo civilization which lasted from 1800 to 1300 BC. The arrangement of the piles
is so precise and well preserved that the dwelling could easily be reconstituted and would look just
like many present indigenous dwellings in southeast Asia. Another site at Ban Chiang, in northeast
Thailand, has also revealed the position of piles of a dwelling, which probably had split woven
bamboo walls and was covered with mud.
Engraved images shown on bronze drums of the Dong Son culture from North Vietnam provide
us with more concrete proof of the use of a pile structure and saddle roof during the early Bronze
Age (Bellwood, 1979; Lewcock and Brans, 1975). This Bronze Age civilization covered a large
part of southeast Asia from about 600 to 400 BC until the first century AD and produced many
artefacts, the most outstanding of which are bronze drums. The tympanum of the bronze drum are
decorated with designs in a variety of motifs including fauna and geometry, and have been found
in many places on the mainland of Southeast Asia as well as the eastern and western islands of
Indonesia. Some of these decorations depict saddle-roofed and pile-built houses and clearly show
a three-tiered division of inhabited space typical of many traditional dwellings in present day
Southeast Asia, as shown in Figures 3 and 4. On some of the Javanese temples of the 9th to 14th
centuries, there are friezes clearly showing several types of houses with raised floors supported on
piles and an extended gable line on the roof. They undoubtedly represent the common practice
during those periods, although nowadays most dwellings on the island sit directly on the ground.
Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on December 2, 2013
7
Arbi et al.
Figure 3. Tympanum of a Dong Son bronze drum showing saddle-roofed pile-built houses.
Source: Bellwood, 1979.
From the Malayo-Polynesian subgroups of the Austronesian language family, Blust
(1987,1988,1999) reconstructs some terms that include those for ridge pole, rafter, thatch, house
post, storage above the hearth, notched log ladder and public buildings. Based on these terms, Blust
concluded that speakers of these languages had settled in villages that may have included both
dwelling houses and public structures and that their houses were raised on posts, the floor being
reached by means of a ladder. The roof must have also been gabled because of the existence of a
ridge pole.
In his essay on Austronesian-Indonesian connections, Gunawan (1998) draws our attention to
the fact that in addition to linguistic affinities, we can also discern some distinctive cultural attributes, including architectural features that can be found throughout the Austronesian territory. The
following list has been assembled by combining the points raised by Domenig (1980), Blust
(1987), Waterson (1997) and Gunawan (1998):
- - - - - - - - Generally rectangular floor plan
Raised post and beam structure
Division into three levels of space
Elevated floor level
Entrance by ladder
Soaring thatched pitched roof
Ridge line extended beyond the gable walls
Finials of the gable often in the form of crossed horns
Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on December 2, 2013
8
Journal of Asian and African Studies 0(0)
Figure 4. Houses represented on Dong Son drums.
Source: Bellwood, 1979.
- - - - The whole structure built without nails
Mortise and tenon joinery fastened with pegs or wedges
Non-timber elements are tied with ropes
Non-load-bearing walls.
The characteristics and features found in the Ise Shrines will be analysed and compared with the
above list.
Japanese language and culture
An attempt to address the link posed in the title of this paper will necessitate a brief description of
the Japanese language and culture before focusing our attention on the Ise Shrines. For many years
there have been ongoing debates among linguists about the Japanese language and many hypotheses have been proposed about the link between it and other languages. A majority of Western
scholars are of the view that the Japanese language belongs to the Altaic family, which includes
Turkish in the extreme west, Azeri in Azerbaijan, Turkmen in Turkmenia, Kazakh in Kazakhstan,
Kirghiz in Kirghystan, Uzbec in Uzbekistan, Uigur in western China, Mongolian in Mongolia,
Korean in Korea, Hungarian in Hungary and Finnish in Finland.
Labberton (1924), however, related the Japanese language to south and southeast Asian languages such as Vietnamese, Tibetan, Burmese and Tamil, while several other linguists were of the
opinion that the link is with the Austronesian family of languages such as Tagalog, Malay, Javanese,
Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on December 2, 2013
9
Arbi et al.
Maori, Tongan, and not with those previously mentioned. Another theory that has gained momentum in Japan since the 1970s is that the Japanese language is actually a mixture of Altaic and
Austronesian languages. This theory, first proposed by Polianov, is now supported by notable
Japanese linguists such as Murayama, Sakiyama and Itabashi (Ishizawa, 2007). Benedict (1975)
has proposed an even more extreme theory in which he has reclassified Japanese as a member of
the Austronesian family.
According to Young and Young (2004), people from various parts of Asia entered Japan in prehistoric times. There have in fact been so many immigrants that Japan is actually made up of four
ethnic types: the Tungus, the Mongolian, the Malayan and the Ainu (Tomoya and Stierlin, 1990).
So it is not surprising to find that many linguists, including some from Japan itself, are beginning
to accept there are indications that in the very early days the Japanese language was influenced by
an Austronesian substratum. Although there is no conclusive archaeological evidence found so far,
Bellwood (1979) postulates that some cultural exchange had taken place between speakers of
Proto-Austronesian and Proto-Japonic languages during the prehistoric period without significant
ethnic intermixture. Given the fact that there is a close geographical proximity as noted earlier and
slight similarity in physical appearance between the people of Taiwan and the southwestern areas
of Japan such as the Ryukyu Islands and Kyushu, the possibility seems to be quite plausible. The
‘hybrid’ theory that accepts the link with the Altaic family, while hypothesising influence from the
Austronesian languages, is now getting increasingly stronger support (Miyagawa, 2007). According
to Tomoya and Stierlin (1990), in the Neolithic period, the inhabitants of Japan probably spoke a
language or languages related to the southeast Asian linguistic stock, while the northern language
group with an Ural-Altaic grammar system came in at a later period.
Japanese traditional architecture
Young and Young (2004) have organised the traditional architecture of Japan into several genealogical groups on the basis of historical origins and stylistic influences. According to them the most
important group, which is primarily made up of palace, residential, and tea house styles, originated
from prehistoric raised structures; while other major groups include the houses of common people
that evolved from prehistoric residential and other buildings.
As noted earlier, during the prehistoric period, people came to Japan from different parts of
Asia, bringing their own cultures that are generally referred to as being Pre-Buddhist. Young and
Young (2004) subdivide Pre-Buddhist influence into four periods, namely: the Pre-ceramic Period
(?–10,000 BCE), Jomon Period (1000–3000 BCE), Yayoi Period (3000 BCE–300CE) and the
Tomb Mound Period (300–710CE). These early inhabitants, who were originally hunters and gatherers, eventually developed pottery, agriculture and permanent settlements, and increasingly developed types of architecture.
Some Japanese scientists and archaeologists agree that the Japanese culture is related to the
immigrants who came to Japan during the Yayoi period from mainland Asia, possibly from Korea.
However, quite a number speculate that the main influence is from southern China via Taiwan. The
name Yayoi is from an archaeological site in southwest Honshu, where the remains of this culture
were first found. The Yayoi introduced rice cultivation and raised floor construction, which was
first intended for rice storage to protect the grains from rats and dampness (Domenig, 1980).
While discussing the boat as an architectural symbol in southeast Asia, Lewcock and Brans
(1975) have also made some reference to China and Japan where, according to them, its provenance has been forgotten. However, they are quite emphatic that in the case of Japan, there is a
strong link with the Dong Son culture discussed earlier. From the first and second century AD
bronze bells and clay tomb models, it is evident that building representation of these periods is
Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on December 2, 2013
10
Journal of Asian and African Studies 0(0)
Figure 5. Pre-Buddhist artefact, Japan. Bronze bell showing pile-built house.
Source: Kazuo and Kazuo, 1985.
closely related to the Austronesian vernacular architecture (Figures 5 and 6). Waterson (1997) also
observed some features of Japanese traditional architecture are very strongly southeast Asian and
speculates that there must have been some kind of historical link between the two.
It is to be noted that the introduction of Buddhism into Japan took place through Korea only in
the sixth century. Most sources agree on the year 538, but the date 552 has also been used. This was
followed by the penetration of Chinese influence from 645 onward that profoundly changed the
character of Japanese traditional architecture (Chuji, 1995; Kazuo and Kazuo, 1985; Sadler, 1963).
The Grand Shrines at Ise
The Grand Shrines at Ise, considered the most venerated ancient religious monuments in all of
Japan, are situated on the Kii Peninsula in Mie Prefecture, on the southeastern corner of Honshu
Island in Japan (see Figures7a,7b, 8a and 8b). Located amid an ancient cedar forest, they consist of
two shrine compounds several kilometres apart. Naiku, the inner shrine, is for the sanctification of
Amaterasu – the sun goddess, while Geku, the outer shrine, is dedicated to Toyukehime – the goddess of fertility and grain. Each compound contains a number of buildings, including ancillary
shrines, workshops and storehouses, but all of them are identical in style and collectively referred
to in Japan as Ise Jingu. According to an official chronology, the shrines were first built in the year
4 BC, although most historians believe it was several hundred years later. In any case, Ise Jingu
predates the introduction of Chinese and Buddhist influences on traditional Japanese architecture,
which has overshadowed the prehistoric heritage (Young and Young, 2004).
Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on December 2, 2013
11
Arbi et al.
Figure 6. Form of ancient Pre-Buddhist house, Japan.
Source: Sadler, 1963.
Figure 7a. The Grand Shrines at Ise. The main compound viewed from the south.
Source: Young and Young, 2004.
While the religious architecture of Japan centres on Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples,
Shinto, ‘the Way of the Gods’, represents the indigenous animistic religion of Japan. It is based on
the belief that anthropomorphic deities as well as the spirits of awe-inspiring elements of nature
such as trees and mountains are considered sacred (Kazuo and Kazuo, 1985). This is exactly the
same with the prevailing indigenous beliefs of the Austronesians.
The roots of Shinto architecture go back to the very beginnings of Japanese civilization and
their unique forms are derived from the granaries of the pre-literary age. Young and Young (2004)
Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on December 2, 2013
12
Journal of Asian and African Studies 0(0)
Figure 7b. An aerial view of the shrine.
Source: Tomoya, 1990.
Figure 8a. The main sanctuary of Ise at Naiku.
Source: Young and Young, 2004.
believe the shrines are an early example of the basic principles of what is typically Japanese architecture. They use thatch for roofing, exposed and unpainted wood for beams and walls, a raised
Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on December 2, 2013
13
Arbi et al.
Figure 8b. Plans and Elevations of the main shrine.
Source: Tomoya and Stierlin, 1990.
structure on wooden posts, and the siting of a building always honours the natural surroundings.
All of these practices are almost identical with those in the Austronesian world.
The shrines were evidently built just like a residence and had not since been altered (Sadler,
1963). Traditionally, the shrines are rebuilt every 20 years, by demolishing and reconstructing
them with exactly the same specifications and details. The practice began in 685 AD during the
reign of the Emperor Temmu, the first emperor to rule over a united Japan. The rebuilding programme was instituted to guard against the growing influence of Buddhism and Chinese culture
(Young and Young, 2004). There is also speculation that the practice is followed to reintroduce
each new generation to the traditional crafts used in the past in seamless succession. Although there
have been several lapses in this renewal exercise, the present shrines, restored in 1993, have undergone their 61st repetition to date (Block, 1974; Adams, 1998; Waterson, 1997; Witcombe, 2007;
Young and Young, 2004).
The main Naiku sanctuary has a rectangular plan, three bays wide and two bays deep. The structure is made of henoki wood (Japanese cypress) obtained from a forest reserve nearby and used in
Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on December 2, 2013
14
Journal of Asian and African Studies 0(0)
Figure 9a. Toraja house, Sulawesi.
Source: Waterson, 1997.
Figure 9b. North Thai house, Chiang Mei.
Source: Dorothy Pelzer in Waterson, 1997.
the construction without relying on nails, as all joints are mortised, tenoned and pegged as commonly practised by the Austronesians. All buildings are covered by an impressive-looking roof that
Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on December 2, 2013
15
Arbi et al.
is thatched with the stems of a mountain reed – natural material available in the vicinity. The use
of reeds, fibres and leaves is a typical tradition in the Austronesian vernacular architecture. The
gable ends of the roof have crossed-horn finials which are common throughout southeast Asia as
noted earlier. The shrines are raised above the ground on pillars and entered by a ladder, a typical
feature of Austronesian vernacular. The overall appearance of the buildings constituting the shrines
has also attracted the attention of Sadler (1963), a historian, who first wrote his book before the
Second World War when the term Austronesian was not yet widely used. He described these early
structures, which were built just like a residence, as being very definitely of a Polynesian type,
brought by ‘invaders’ from the south. Sadler further argues that only after the entry of Buddhism
into Japan did temples begin to be built in the Chinese style. From the above discussion and analysis of the images, those characteristics and features found in the Austronesian vernacular architecture previously listed, are also embodied in the Grand Shrines of Ise.
Two other features are worthy of note. Firstly, the ridge beam is supported by two free-standing
pillars at both ends. This use of end columns has some degree of similarity with those found in the
Toraja indigenous houses on the island of Sulawesi in Indonesia (Figure 9a). Secondly, the fencing
of a veranda with a balustrade around the elevated floor is reminiscent of the practice in some
islands and certain areas of mainland southeast Asia as shown in Figures 9a and 9b.
Conclusions
Although Japan is situated outside the Austronesian world as depicted by linguists and anthropologists in various current maps, the close proximity between Taiwan and the Japanese archipelago
makes it inconceivable that these seafaring people did not venture into Japan from the Austronesian
territory. From the above discussions it can be safely concluded that during the Pre-Buddhist period
a cultural link was already established between Austronesia, with its original home in Taiwan, and
the southern part of Japan. This happened before Chinese and Buddhist influences profoundly
permeated and decisively changed various aspects of Japanese culture.
From the comparative analysis it is obvious that the Grand Shrines of Ise share all the characteristics and features found in Austronesian vernacular architecture. These include not only architectural style, construction technique and the usage of materials, but also the occurrence of certain
symbolic features. Together they indicate a common origin in the distant past. Moreover, the principles of Shinto are almost identical with the indigenous animistic beliefs of the Austronesians, as
the devotees of the Ise Shrines also believe in the sacredness of deities and awe-inspiring elements
of nature that are venerated in the shrines. It can be safely said that the Grand Shrines at Ise are
indeed a part of the Austronesian heritage.
It is hoped that further studies on the legacy of the Austronesian vernacular architecture should
also include the Pre-Buddhist architectural heritage of Japan. At the same time, it would be in order
to suggest to the linguistic and anthropology experts that they look into the realignment of the
Austronesian world map and consider including the southern part of Japan and perhaps a bigger
part of the southeast Asian mainland.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Professor James Steele, School of Architecture, University of Southern California,
USA, for reviewing the manuscript and for his insightful comments. The authors also acknowledge the assistance given by Dr Nazli Che Din, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment, University of
Malaya for his input on the Ise Shrines since he has firsthand experience of visiting the Shrines during his stay
in Japan. The authors wish to record their appreciation to the reviewers of the manuscript, as their comments
have enhanced the presentation.
Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on December 2, 2013
16
Journal of Asian and African Studies 0(0)
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
sectors.
Note
1. An earlier version of this paper was published in 2008 in Arbi E, Austronesian vernacular architecture
and the Ise Shrine of Japan: Is there any connection? Journal of Design and Built Environment 4(1):
1–12.
References
Adams C (1998) Japan’s Ise Shrine and its thirteen hundred year old reconstruction tradition. Journal of
Architectural Education 52(1): 49–60.
Alfian (ed.) (1985) Persepsi Masyarakat Tentang Kebudayaan [Community perception on culture]. Jakarta:
Gramedia.
Bellwood P (1979) Man’s Conquest of the Pacific: The Pre-history of Southeast Asia and Oceania. Auckland:
Collins.
Bellwood P (1985) Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. North Ryde, New South Wales: Academic
Press.
Bellwood P (1991) The Austronesian dispersal and the origin of languages. Scientific American 265(1): 88–
93.
Bellwood P (2006) The early movements of Austronesian-speaking peoples in the Indonesian region. In:
Simanjuntak T, Pojoh IHE and Hisyam M (eds) Austronesian Diaspora and the Ethnogenesis of People
in Indonesian Archipelago. Jakarta: LIPI Press, pp.61–82.
Bellwood P, Fox J and Tryon D (1995) The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives.
Canberra: Department of Anthropology, Australian National University.
Benedict PK (1975) Austro-Thai Language and Culture. New Haven: Human Relations Area Files Press.
Block FG (1974) The rites of renewal at Ise. Monumenta Nipponica 29(1): 61–66.
Blust R (1987) Lexical Reconstruction and Semantic Reconstruction: The Case of the Austronesian House
Words. Amsterdam; USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Blust R (1988) The Austronesian homeland: A linguistic perspective. Asian Perspectives 26(1): 45–67.
Blust R (1999) Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: Some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics. In: Zeitoun E and Li PJK (eds) Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on
Austronesian Linguistics. Taipei: Academia Sinica, pp.31–94.
Chen Voon Fee (ed.) (1998) The Encyclopaedia of Malaysia, Vol.5. Architecture. Singapore: Archipelago
Press.
Chuji K (translated by Riggs LE) (1995) Minka: Traditional Houses of Rural Japan. Tokyo: Kodansha
International.
Comrie B (2001) Languages of the world. In: Aronoff M and Rees-Miller J (eds) The Handbook of Linguistics.
Oxford: Blackwell, pp.19–42.
Diamond JM (2000) Taiwan’s gift to the world. Nature 403: 709–710.
Domenig G (1980) Tectonics of Primitive Roof Building: Materials and Reconstructions Regarding the
Phenomenon of the Projecting Gables on Old Roof Forms of East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Oceania.
Zurich: ETH.
Dumarcay J (1990) The House in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Oxford University Press.
Fox JJ (1985) Possible Models of Early Austronesian Social Organization. Asian Perspectives 26(1):
35–43.
Fox JJ (2004) Current developments in comparative Austronesian studies. Paper prepared for the symposium,
Austronesia Pascasarjana Linguististik dan Kajian Budaya, Universitas Udayana, Bali, 19–20 August.
Gunawan T (ed.) (1998) Indonesian heritage: Architecture. Singapore: Didier Miller.
Ishizawa T (2007) Kontroversi tentang asal-usul bahasa Jepang: Bahasa Jepang ada hubungan dengan
bahasa Autronesia? [Controversies of the origin of Japanese language: Japanese has connection with
Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on December 2, 2013
17
Arbi et al.
Austronesian Languages]. Surabaya, Universitas 17 Augustus (UNTAG). Available at www.02.246.
ne.jp/-semar (accessed 12 February 2012).
Jacob Teuku (2006)The problem of Austronesian origins. In: Simanjuntak T, Pojoh IHE and Hisyam M (eds)
Austronesian Diaspora and the Ethnogenesis of People in Indonesian Archipelago. Jakarta: LIPI Press.
Kazuo N and Kazuo H (1985) What is Japanese Architecture? Tokyo: Kodansha International.
Koentjaraningrat (1966) Pengantar Antropologi I [Introduction to Anthropology]. Jakarta, Indonesia: Rineka
Cipta.
Koentjaraningrat (1985) Manusia dan Kebudayaan in Indonesia [Man and Culture in Indonesia]. Jakarta:
Jambatan.
Labberton DVH (1924) Preliminary results of researches into the original relationship between the Nipponese
and the Malaypolynesian languages. Journal of the Polynesian Society 33(4).
Lewcock R and Brans G (1975) The boat as an architectural symbol. In: Oliver P (ed.) Shelter Sign and
Symbol. London: Berrie and Jenkins, pp.107–116.
Meacham W (1984–5) On the improbability of Austronesian origins in South China. Asian Perspectives
26(1): 89–106.
Miyagawa S (2007) The Japanese Language. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Available at: http://web.
mit.edu.jpnet/articles/japanese language.html (accessed 15 Feubruay 2012).
Oliver P (ed.) (1975) Shelter Sign and Symbol. London: Berrie and Jenkins.
Oppenheimer S (1998) Eden in the East: the Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia. London: Phoenix.
Sadler AL (1963) A Short History of Japanese Architecture. Tokyo: Tuttle.
Schefold R, Nas P and Domenig G (2004) Indonesian Houses. Singapore: Tradition, NUS Press.
Simanjuntak T, Pojoh IHE and Hisyam M (eds) (2006) Austronesian Diaspora and the Ethnogenesis of
People in Indonesian Archipelago. Jakarta: LIPI Press.
Tanudirjo DA (2006)The dispersal of Austronesian-speaking people in the Indonesian region. In: Simanjuntak
T, Pojoh IHE and Hisyam M (eds) (2006) Austronesian Diaspora and the Ethnogenesis of People in
Indonesian Archipelago. Jakarta: LIPI Press, pp.83–98.
Tomoya M and Stierlin H (ed.) (1990) Architecture of the World: Japan. Lausanne: Benedikt Taschen.
Tryon DT and Tsuchida S (1995) Comparative Austronesian Dictionary: An introduction to Austronesian
Studies. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Tylor EB (1903) Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art
and Custom. London: J Murray.
Waterson R (1997) The Living House: An Anthropology of Architecture in South-East Asia. Singapore:
Oxford University Press.
Witcombe CL(2007) Shrine at Ise, Japan. USA: Sweet Briar College. Available at http://witcombe.sbc.edu/
sacredplaces/ise.html (accessed 21 February 2012).
Wolff (1995) The position of the Austronesian Languages of Taiwan within the Austronesian Group. In:
Li,P.J-K et.al., (eds) Austronesian Studies relating to Taiwan. Taipei: Academia Sinica, Institute of
History and Philosophy, Symposium Series 3, pp.521–84.
Young D and Young M (2004) Introduction to Japanese Architecture. Tokyo: Periplus.
Author biographies
Prof. Ezrin Arbi is the Founding Dean of the Faculty of Built Environment at the University of Malaya, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia. He is Emeritus Professor in the Department of Architecture. His main interest is in
Vernacular Architecture and Islamic Architectural Heritage. He has presented several research papers in the
Local and International Seminars as well published papers in refereed journals.
Sreenivasaiah Purushothama Rao is Assoc. Professor at the Department of Architecture, Faculty of Built
Environment, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He is a Chartered Building Services Engineer.
He has done extensive research on Sustainable Buildings and technologies. He has won several Local &
International awards for his research and publications, the notable amongst them being the “Double Gold and
Diamond Award for Earth Sciences” for his research on Sandwich bricks with his colleague Mr. Asrul
Mahjuddin Ressang Bin Aminuddin.
Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on December 2, 2013
18
Journal of Asian and African Studies 0(0)
Saari Omar is Assoc. Professor at the Department of Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment at the
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He did his graduate studies at the Architectural Association
School of Architecture (AA), London, majoring in housing and urban studies. He is a member of the Board
of Architects Malaysia since 2009. As a professional architect, Saari is a director of a medium sized architecture practice. His fields of interest are in Architectural Education (Approach and Pedagogy), Housing Design
and the Professional Practice. His primary research is on Urban Mass Housing. He has published several
papers in refereed journals.
Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on December 2, 2013