Pathway to Japanese Literature

I. Introduction

In the field of historical geography, as part of ethnological surveys of our nation, our previous studies—"On Captive Emishi and Fushū" and "A Study of Easterners"—have now logically led us to explain why warriors were termed 'barbarians' during the medieval period.
The designation "Ebisu" undeniably corresponds to the Emishi documented in ancient histories—specifically, the Ainu people who still number approximately twenty thousand descendants in Hokkaido today.
As their dwelling lay in the eastern regions, they were occasionally termed Eastern Barbarians.
This is evidenced by Fujiwara no Kiyohira's votive inscription at Chūson-ji Temple in Hiraizumi: "This disciple [is] a distant chieftain of the Eastern Barbarians."
Minamoto no Yoritomo received appointment as Seii Taishōgun (Barbarian-Subduing Generalissimo) and founded his shogunate at Kamakura.
The Kyoto aristocracy scorned this development, disparagingly labeling them Eastern Barbarians while broadly referring to warriors as Ebisu.
Such references appear abundantly scattered through diaries, records, and archival documents from the Kamakura and Nanboku-chō periods.
The title Seii Taishōgun originally denoted commanders of triumphal armies subduing Eastern Barbarians.
Yet paradoxically, its bearers came to be designated themselves as Eastern Barbarians.
This fundamentally inverted the title's original purpose.
Though most warriors under shogunal authority claimed descent from noble houses—be they Minamoto, Taira, Fujiwara, or Tachibana—they were uniformly branded as barbarians.
This too seems utterly baseless.
Nevertheless, not only did others frequently employ this terminology, but at times the warriors themselves acknowledged it.
This constitutes nothing less than a peculiar historical phenomenon.

Proponents explain: "The Eastern Provinces were originally barbarian lands." Therefore, they despise the warrior government that arose in that land and call them Eastern Barbarians. This explanation may appear exceedingly simple and clear, yet it does not align with the facts. Indeed, in prehistoric times, the eastern provinces were likely truly the stronghold of the Emishi. No—not only in prehistoric times, but also in the 'State Letter' sent by Emperor Yūryaku (identified as King Bu) to the Song dynasty, which states that since ancestral times we have established the nation through martial prowess and subjugated 'fifty-five provinces of the Hairy People' in the east. Furthermore, when we carefully consider passages such as the Jōwa 2 (835) 'Explanatory Document' from the Mutsu Provincial Governor stating that 'over four hundred years have passed since the establishment of the Shirakawa and Kikuta Barriers,' cross-referencing these with records from the Hitachi Fudoki and other sources, we cannot but acknowledge that even during the historical period, there existed a time when the Emishi maintained settlements in the Kantō region. However, the people of the Nara period had long since forgotten this fact. In works from that period such as the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki, even Hitakami no Kuni—the land of the Emishi that Yamato Takeru subjugated during Emperor Keikō’s reign—is situated in the downstream region of the Kitakami River, which was then considered part of the Emishi’s settlement areas (see 'Hitakami no Kuni and the Hitakami River' in my own work One Hundred Historical Essays). Therefore, not only people of the Heian period and later, but even during the Kamakura and Muromachi periods, they consistently understood only Ōu as the Emishi’s homeland. In the fifth year of Bunji (1189), the Kamakura 'Ordinance' states: 'As Dewa and Mutsu are lands of barbarians, they have been repeatedly excluded from new regulations. We strictly adhere to old customs and have no new practices.' While this describes the actual conditions of the time, it cannot sufficiently serve as evidence for ancient periods; however, the Gishidai-shō explains captive Emishi as follows: 'Captive Emishi were originally imperial subjects who were abducted by barbarians and ultimately reduced to lowly servants.' Therefore, they are called captive Emishi or barbarian captives. Their group is in Mutsu and Dewa. The statement 'Later, they were relocated and settled in various provinces' must clearly be said to designate Mutsu and Dewa provinces as the captive Emishi’s homeland. Therefore, there exists no reason to denounce [the Minamoto clan] as Eastern Barbarians simply because they established their shogunate in the Kantō region.

Another interpretation posited: Warriors corresponded to what Confucius termed "northern strongmen," and since they were originally leaders of barbarian tribes, the Kyoto nobility—who had become inclined toward literary weakness and prized elegance—looked down upon them and labeled them "barbarians." However, this too was an interpretation ill-suited to our nation.

Our imperial ancestors established the nation through martial prowess from ancient times, and this great empire was formed through successive reigns’ eastern campaigns and western conquests.
Therefore, there was never any instance in antiquity of solely esteeming literary arts while despising martial prowess.
The official system of the Taihō Code also included military positions, and many nobles and distinguished families were appointed to these posts without causing any surprise.
Moreover, Kamakura warriors largely claimed lineage from various eminent families such as Minamoto, Taira, Fujiwara, and Tachibana.
Why should they [the Kyoto nobility], merely because these men were brave warriors, label them with the designation of northern strongmen—barbarians—and disparage them as Emishi?

If such was the case，then for what reason did the medieval Kyoto nobility call warriors “barbarians”? We ask this question，and from an ethnological perspective，shall attempt a modest explanation.

II. The Designations of Eastern Barbarians and Barbarians

That the Emishi—the ancient Ainu—were referred to as Eastern Barbarians or simply barbarians required no explanation here. The term "Emishi" already appeared in lyrics composed by Emperor Jimmu, while the designation "Eastern Barbarians" emerged in the text of Takeuchi no Sukune’s report during Emperor Keikō’s reign. Moreover, calling them "Ebisu" was simply a phonetic corruption of "Emishi." However, in Takeuchi no Sukune’s report, within the Eastern Barbarians lay the land of Hitakami; the people of that country, both men and women, wore their hair in topknots and adorned their bodies with tattoos, and were brave and fierce by nature. All of these were called Emishi.

It had stated this without explicitly equating the Emishi with Eastern Barbarians. Furthermore, in the wording of the edict that Emperor Keikō issued to his court officials:

"The Eastern Provinces remain unsettled; violent deities frequently arise.
Moreover, the Emishi have all rebelled and repeatedly plunder Our people.
Whom shall We dispatch to quell this disorder?"

the Emperor had recognized that beyond the Emishi, numerous violent deities contributed to the disturbances in the Eastern Provinces. Additionally, in the edict issued to Yamato Takeru:

"We have heard these Eastern Barbarians possess violent natures by instinct, making aggression their guiding principle.
Their villages lack chieftains; their towns want leaders. Each covets neighboring territories and plunders without cease.
In mountains dwell malevolent deities; in borderlands lurk treacherous spirits—blocking highways and barring paths, they inflict great suffering upon Our subjects.
Among these Eastern Barbarians, the Emishi stand as the most formidable.
They mingle promiscuously regardless of gender distinctions; fathers and sons share dwellings without separation. In winter they shelter in caves; in summer they nest in tree hollows.
Clad in animal pelts and drinking blood, brothers eye each other with suspicion. They scale cliffs like mountain birds and traverse grasslands like wild beasts.
When shown kindness, they forget it instantly; when crossed, they seek vengeance without fail.
Thus they conceal arrows in their topknots and hide blades within their garments—sometimes rallying kinsmen to raid border regions, sometimes ambushing farmers to abduct Our people.
Strike at them, and they vanish into tall grass; pursue them, and they disappear into mountain fastnesses.
Therefore from ancient times until now, they have remained untouched by imperial virtue."
[...]

In this passage, He clearly expounded that the Emishi were one category among the Eastern Barbarians.

In light of this, some have sought to recognize that in ancient times, there existed other ethnic groups besides the Emishi in our Eastern Provinces.
The *Hitachi Fudoki* explains that in ancient Hitachi, besides the Emishi—namely the Saeki of the Mountains and Saeki of the Plains—there dwelled the Tsuchigumo, known as Yakukahagi, thereby lending further credence to this theory; for this reason, we too once entertained such a view, but upon reflection now find this incorrect.
The so-called Eastern Barbarians here refer to those whom the compilers of the *Nihon Shoki* described rather haphazardly by borrowing terminology from Chinese historical texts; one need not necessarily interpret this as factual accounts of Takeuchi no Sukune having actually reported thus or Emperor Keikō having issued such edicts.
Therefore, there is also no need to interpret that there existed other ethnic groups besides the Emishi.

Furthermore, upon further reflection, as we had already discussed in detail in "A Study of Barbarian Captives and Captive Emishi",
as we had discussed in detail elsewhere, in our ancient histories, the term "Emishi" generally referred only to those raw barbarians, while their assimilated counterparts were distinguished as captives or captive Emishi.
Since the compilers of *Nihon Shoki* likely recorded Sukune’s words and the Emperor’s statements through the ideological lens of their time, it was reasonable to interpret that they collectively termed as "Eastern Barbarians" the ancestors of those then recognized as captive Emishi or Easterners, specifically designating only the strongest among them—the raw barbarians—as "Emishi"; this interpretation was not untenable.
The *Tang Shu* states, "Northeast of Wa lies a great mountain boundary; beyond this are the Mojin." This reflected the actual conditions during Emperor Saimei’s dispatch of envoys and did not necessarily describe ancient times; moreover, it did not mention any other barbarian tribes existing between Wa and the Mojin.
Considering the previously cited "state letter" of King Bu of Wa also spoke solely of subjugating the Eastern Mojin countries without mentioning others, we must acknowledge that at least during the historical period, there had existed no other powerful tribes in the eastern provinces besides the Mojin—that is, the Emishi.
The Eastern Barbarians should by all means be understood as having been the designation for the Emishi.
That they were simply called "barbarian" was of course the same.

However, during the Kamakura period, what the medieval Kyoto nobility labeled as Eastern Barbarians or simply barbarians often referred to the Kamakura Shogunate or became a term generally indicating warriors. In the section on Ikeda-juku from Toshimoto Ason's eastern journey in the *Taiheiki*: "Around Genryaku 1 [1184 CE], when Taira no Shigehira, the Middle Captain, was captured by the Eastern Barbarians and brought to this inn, the elder's daughter composed: 'In the gloomy hut of Niu along the Eastern Road—how he must yearn for his homeland.' These were tears that left not even the ancient pathos unexpressed."

Beginning with the aforementioned "Eastern Barbarians," *Kyōgoku-kyō Ki* recorded matters from Emperor Go-Saga's accession as "the imperial throne was like a scheme of the Eastern Barbarians." As seen in these instances among others, such examples proved too numerous to list. Furthermore, in Yoshida Kenkō's *Essays in Idleness*:

"Each person prefers only matters distant from themselves.
The monk upholds the warrior's way; barbarians know not how to draw bows.
He affects knowledge of Buddhist law, composes linked verse,
and dabbles in string and wind instruments."

The aforementioned "barbarians" clearly indicated warriors in general.
Also, in the same work:

Even those who appear foolish may utter a good word.
A certain rough barbarian of fearsome appearance encountered someone and asked, “Do you have any children?” When they replied that they had none, he concluded, “Then you must not know the pathos of things.”
“How terrifying that you must be conducting yourself with such a heart devoid of feeling!”
“It is precisely because of children that one comes to understand the pathos of all things,” he said.
This is indeed a reasonable conclusion.

The aforementioned rough barbarian refers to an uncouth warrior who appears to lack understanding of mono no aware (the pathos of things).

All of these referred to the Kantō warriors as designated by the Kyoto nobility; however, the Kantō warriors themselves, being aware that others labeled them as such, would at times even utter this term themselves.
In the message sent by Hōjō Yasutoki to the Rokuhara Tandai regarding the *Jōei Shikimoku*:

"In essence, [we] administered [these laws] by ensuring retainers demonstrated loyalty to their lords, sons practiced filial piety toward parents, and wives obeyed husbands—discarding the crookedness of human hearts and praising uprightness—all to secure peace for the common people. Yet in Kyoto, [our efforts] would likely be laughed at as mere writings compiled by ignorant barbarians who knew nothing of such matters."

This was precisely such an instance. These instances differed in nature both from the Kyoto nobility ridiculing Abe no Munetō as a barbarian and from Fujiwara no Kiyohira appointing himself as the Eastern Barbarians' distant chieftain and supreme leader of captive Emishi, instead constituting designations of Eastern Barbarians or simply barbarians for those who were not Emishi.

However, even during these periods, they did not necessarily denounce only the shogunate or warriors as barbarians. Cases referring to true Emishi were not uncommon. In the Kanazawa "Shōmyōji Documents",

Regarding the prayer services at this temple, during the period when the Emishi have already been pacified, the efficacy of Buddhist rituals has been most profoundly felt, and [we] are especially gratified. Respectfully stated.

Bunpō 2nd Year, 5th Month, 21st Day

Takatoki (kaō)

Shōmyōji Temple Elder

The "Emishi" mentioned here needless to say referred to the Emishi who were still residing in northern Ōu at that time.
Furthermore, in the *Hōreki Kanki*:

In the spring of Genkō 2 [1322 CE], there existed in Ōshū individuals named Andō Gorosaburō and Dō Matahirō.
Their ancestor, a man called Andō Gorō, had been placed in Tsugaru as Yoshitoki’s deputy to guard against the Eastern Barbarians, and this was his lineage.
The two men had a dispute.
Takasuke received numerous bribes from both parties and issued directives to both sides.
They waged battle as local barbarians.
As a result of this, the Kantō government repeatedly dispatched strike forces.
Although many troops perished, as years passed, the matter was concluded.

The term "Eastern Barbarians" or simply "barbarians" in such contexts refers precisely to the Emishi themselves.
Consequently, the Kamakura Shogunate or warriors in general who were called by these same designations of Eastern Barbarians or simply barbarians must indeed have been recognized by the Kyoto nobility as Emishi.

3. The Designations of Eastern Barbarians and Barbarians (Continued)

In the previous section, we cited several texts including *Tsurezuregusa* and presented examples showing that warriors were referred to as "barbarians" in the medieval period, with eastern warriors specifically termed "Eastern Barbarians"; we shall now continue this discussion to supplement what was omitted.

In an anonymous poem from the *Fumakushō* anthology:

How mighty flows the water plunging from Barbarian Island in Yaso Ujigawa of warriors!

This poem concerned Barbarian Island in the Uji River, but it went without saying that it combined warriors and barbarians with their valor. And this did not necessarily refer to Eastern Barbarians but rather denoted warriors in general.

In the “Tsuge no Ogushi” section of the *Masukagami*,

The Prince underwent his coming-of-age ceremony on the third day of the tenth month and became known as Prince Hisaaki.
On that same tenth day, he departed directly from the Retired Emperor’s residence to the northern district of Rokuhara—the very place where the Prince had previously crossed—and from there journeyed eastward.
When he arrived in Kamakura on the twenty-fifth day of the same month, a solemn contingent of warriors came forth to receive him.
Raising the blinds of his chrysanthemum-adorned palanquin, the Prince observed with reassurance the barbarians—unaccustomed to such imperial attention—who had gathered around him in attendance.

This refers to the guardian warriors being called barbarians.

In the same work, in the "Spring Parting" section,

Chūnagon Norifusa journeyed east as an imperial envoy. Having served since ancient reigns and advanced in years, he was now regarded throughout the realm as a man of integrity and esteem. When he forthrightly declared that His Majesty [Emperor Go-Daigo] remained wholly unaware of these matters, even the hearts of the rough barbarians softened at such an august gesture, and they resolved to report the situation with utmost deference.

This refers to the shogunate officials being called barbarians.

In the Nagato-bon *Heike Monogatari*,

Yoshimori declared: "How now, Lord Awa! Where do you think you are going? We have stormed Yashima Castle and put it to the torch!"
"The Minister was captured alive, the Left Gate Guards Lieutenant fell in battle, and the New Middle Counselor, Lord Noto, was indeed present."
“Your father, Lord Awa Minbu-dono, deigned to come as a surrendered prisoner, and I have taken him into custody under my charge.”
Hearing this, the over three thousand horsemen—barbarians who had gathered from various provinces—each sought to be the first to flee.

This referred not to eastern warriors but rather to soldiers hastily assembled from various provinces under the Taira faction.

Concerning this designation of warriors as Ebisu, Bachelor of Letters Kikuchi Jinrei's recently published work *Nara-Heian Jidai no Ōu Keiei* (*Hōkō Sōsho*, Volume 2) offered an exceedingly brief explanation as follows.

The Emishi were called "Emishi" in antiquity.
In the medieval period, this was corrupted to Ebisu.
(omitted) Although Emus in the Ainu language means "modern sword" or "blade," it originally derived from brave warriors and their retainers.
The Emishi are precisely this.

That is to say, Mr. Kikuchi asserts that in ancient Ainu language, brave warriors and retainers were called "Emushi".
If such a thing were indeed true, then referring to warriors as "barbarians" could be viewed simply as this ancient term having fortuitously persisted among our people—an explanation of utmost simplicity.
However, we do not yet know the ancient Ainu language.
Nor do we possess any convenient means to ascertain this.
On what basis does Mr. Kikuchi make this claim? It is not without doubt.
Mr. Kikuchi further develops his argument:

"Eastern Barbarians" was a title that people in later times came to call warriors who established themselves in these lands, based on the historical fact that the Emishi had once inhabited the Kantō region and were known for their bravery," he argues.

This appears somewhat inconsistent with the earlier argument.
It goes without saying that "Eastern Barbarians" originally referred to the Emishi themselves, as amply evidenced in ancient historical records. Moreover, as we have previously demonstrated, designating Kantō warriors as "Eastern Barbarians" need not derive from that region having once been inhabited by barbarians.
By Mr. Kikuchi’s own reasoning, if brave warrior retainers were indeed called *Emushi* in ancient Ainu language, then labeling those valiant Kantō warriors as "Eastern Barbarians" could be understood through the term itself alone—rendering superfluous any appeal to the fact that Emishi once dwelled in those lands as part of this circuitous explanation.

Dr. Tsuboi published “A Study of the Emishi” in *The Journal of Archaeology* (Volume 4, Number 3),
Just as "Takeru" (梟師) had ultimately become an honorific title, "Emishi" too had also come to be an esteemed name.
A certain minister of the Soga clan appeared in official histories under both the names 蝦夷 (Emishi) and 蝦蛦 (Emishi).
Emishi was also called Ebisu.
Which of these was the original term remained uninvestigated; however, it was evident that they were the same word.
In later periods, Kantō warriors came to be called Azuma Ebisu (Eastern Barbarians), and warriors in general were referred to as Ebisu (Barbarians), yet these did not appear to have been derogatory epithets.
Therefore, might the original meaning of Emishi/Ebisu have been "brave warriors" or "military men"?

This hypothesis was questioned.
Dr. Tsuboi’s doubt stemmed from how modern Ainu language exclusively uses *emus* to mean "sword," whereas examining European parallels shows that ancient terms like *Degen* originally meant "youths," "heroes," or "retainers," while modern German uses *Degen* merely to denote swords worn by military personnel. From this analogy, it was hypothesized that if the Ainu terms *Emushi/Emus* had existed in antiquity, their original meaning might have been "brave warriors" or "military men."
However, this remained merely one hypothetical theory presented to academia.

However, Mr. Kikuchi proceeded a hundred steps further and boldly asserted: "Although Emushi in the Ainu language means 'present-day sword' or 'blade,' it originally derived from brave warriors and their retainers." Mr. Kikuchi did not state here that [his argument] was based on the doctor’s theory. Therefore, Mr. Kikuchi’s theory should be regarded as having been researched independently from Dr. Tsuboi, and Dr. Tsuboi’s hypothetical theory must be understood as having been fortuitously completed through Mr. Kikuchi’s work. Moreover, we do not yet know whether the term "Emushi" actually existed in the ancient Ainu language. Furthermore, even if we were to grant its existence, since we cannot ascertain whether this [term] ever meant brave warriors and retainers (Dr. Tsuboi himself never definitively asserted that "Emushi" existed in antiquity), we must interpret Mr. Kikuchi’s theory as being based on Dr. Tsuboi’s propositions—given the relative timing of their publications—and cannot help but suspect that Mr. Kikuchi misunderstood these ideas and presented them as his own original thesis. If this indeed proves to be the case, we cannot help but deeply regret it for Mr. Kikuchi.

Incidentally,

Mr. Kikuchi’s work *Nara-Heian Jidai ni Okeru Ōu Keiei*—as befits a publication whose release had been recommended by Drs. Mikami and Hagino—skillfully organized numerous historical materials and skillfully cited various scholars’ theories, making it a valuable reference for understanding contemporary barbarian affairs.
However, due to viewing ancient history through an overly thick Emishi-tinted lens, it has the flaw of listing even many individuals lacking any evidence of being barbarians as such—a most regrettable point when seeking to understand the broader situation.

In cases where one cites others' theories, there are instances where their names are recorded and instances where they are not.
Even when omitting names for theories already formally published through academic documents—a practice that might still warrant some leniency—the act of citing without permission works that remain unpublished and whose authors' publication intentions remain unclear compels us to profoundly lament this circumstance for both this book and its author.
Particularly in such cases where the original theorist's name has been concealed, even assuming no malicious intent on the author's part, the consequences would extend beyond mere plagiarism of scholarly theories to inevitably result in academia recognizing this [theory] as establishing priority [for the plagiarist].
Moreover, should original theorists—unaware their work had already been published by others—later present it themselves, uninformed third parties would inevitably denounce this as plagiarism instead.
We cannot help but be appalled.

When we first examined this book, we were astonished to find frequent correspondences between theories we had not yet published to the world—those presented solely to a small circle of informed colleagues through lectures in academic settings and discussions at scholarly gatherings—and the content contained herein.
If this were merely a coincidental convergence, we would rejoice here at having found a fellow proponent of this theory among newly emerging scholars; however, should that theory prove—unfortunately—to bear any direct or indirect relation to our own scholarship, it would constitute a profound regret for academia, for this very work, and most particularly for this promising young author.
All scholars should understand that theories merely presented orally to limited informed circles differ substantially in nature from those formally published in writing. Since oral transmission inherently risks potential misstatements by the speaker or misunderstandings by listeners, those wishing to cite such material must first verify its accuracy with the original theorist and obtain their explicit consent before publication.
Not to mention cases where one conceals the theorist’s name and presents it as if it were one’s own academic theory.
We do not venture to say this specifically about the present work, nor do we suggest that the author has intentionally engaged in such practices; however, as their arguments frequently intersect with matters discussed in this essay and not a few correspond with what we intend to publish in the future, we merely append this note in passing.

4. The Saeki Units and Warriors

The fact that the Saeki Units—a corps tasked with guarding the palace gates under the command of Saeki no Sukune, a member of the Ōtomo no Sukune clan—were organized from the Emishi people is something we have discussed in On Captive Emishi and Prisoners. We have discussed this in On Captive Emishi and Prisoners. Regarding this matter, there have already been differing theories published. This includes works such as Mr. Saitō Misumi’s rebuttal published in Volume 20, Number 3 of *Kokugakuin Zasshi*. Mr. Saitō's theory argues that among those similarly called Saeki Units, there were originally two types: those descended from Prince Yamato Takeru's captives belonged to the Emishi people, whereas the Saeki Units guarding the palace gates—sharing lineage with their commander Saeki no Sukune—are said to derive from Ameoshihi no Mikoto's descendants and belong to the heavenly deities' clan. Moreover, despite our limited insight into why this should be so, we promptly published a rebuttal in the following month's issue of the same journal, yet to this day have been unable to obtain a further response. Therefore, we still believe this likewise belongs to the Emishi people. The main argument of my humble view is presented in *On Captive Emishi and Prisoners*. As these matters have already been explicated in detail within the section titled "Emishi and the Saeki Units" [of my prior work] and in the article "A Response to Elder Saitō Regarding the Saeki Units Being Barbarians" published in *Kokugakuin Zasshi* Volume 20, Number 4, I shall refrain from reiterating them here.

In short, the practice of equating Emishi with warriors had existed since at least the time of the Saeki Units' formation—that is, from the reign of Emperor Yūryaku.
Moreover, this applied solely to those under Saeki no Sukune tasked with guarding the palace gates.
The so-called Saeki Units existed in great numbers elsewhere as well.
The *Nihon Shoki* records that at the time of its compilation—during the early Nara period—Saeki Units reputedly descended from Prince Yamato Takeru's captives were present in five provinces: Harima, Aki, Awa, Sanuki, and Iyo.
That these Saeki Units were not exclusively assigned to gatekeeping duty could be inferred from the *Shinsen Shōjiroku*'s account regarding those of Harima.
Though said to originate from Prince Yamato Takeru's captives, tradition holds the Harima Saeki Units once dwelled secluded in mountain valleys, completely isolated from society until their existence had long been forgotten.
Furthermore, during Emperor Nintoku's reign, the Saeki Unit of Ina District in Settsu Province shot and killed deer from Ukano Field—which His Majesty cherished—and presented them.
The Emperor resented this act and ordered their relocation to Aki Province.
This incident is recorded as marking the origin of the Saeki Unit of Nuta in Aki Province that persisted into the early Nara period.
The Nuta Saeki clan appears to have remained prosperous thereafter, with Saekibe Mikuni—holding Junior Sixth Rank, Upper Grade—being granted Junior Fifth Rank, Lower Grade in May 782, then receiving the surname Saekinutamura no Muraji in June 783.
Though settled in Ukyō at that time, his granted surname Nuta Muraji confirms he originated from the Nuta Saeki Unit of Aki.

In addition to these, there were many Saeki Units across various provinces in antiquity.
Those that survived as village names in later periods can be seen in Tanba, Mino, Echigo, and other provinces.
In the fifth year of Emperor Ninken’s reign, he took pity on the loyal death of Saekibe Uriwa, gathered the Saeki Units that had been scattered across various provinces, and bestowed them upon Uriwa’s descendants, establishing them as Saeki no Miyatsuko.
The *Shinsen Shōjiroku* establishes the Saeki no Miyatsuko as descendants of Ameoshihi no Mikoto, grandson of the Heavenly Thunder Deity, and lists them among the heavenly deities’ clan.
Although we have not definitively clarified whether this [Saeki no Miyatsuko] is indeed identical to the Saeki no Miyatsuko descended from Uriwa, we do not hesitate to assert that Uriwa himself belonged to the Saeki Units and—like the scattered Saeki Units across various provinces placed under his descendants’ command—was of Emishi ethnicity.
While we cannot now fully clarify under what conditions these Saeki Units dispersed across various provinces existed, combining accounts from the *Shinsen Shōjiroku*—which states that the Saeki Units of Harima dwelled isolated in mountain valleys and only became aware of upstream inhabitants when green leaves floated down the river—with records of the Saeki Unit of Ina District shooting deer, we may infer they retained vestiges of old Emishi ways. Though they understood little beyond cultivating vegetables, their primary livelihood appears to have remained hunting.
Thus, their nature being simple yet fiercely brave, those who served their lord were people who declared: “If I go to sea, I shall become a water-soaked corpse; if I go to mountains, a grass-grown corpse. Let me die by my lord’s side—never shall I die in peace.”
As they likely were, those who observe the characteristics of the Ainu should be able to comprehend their state at that time through comparison with this.
How fitting indeed that they were selected and employed as warriors to guard the palace gates.

However, they were not employed solely as warriors guarding palace gates. Saekibe Uriwa of Maeaki was indeed a retainer of Prince Ichinobe no Oshiha. The term *chōnai* (帳内) is read as "*toneri*." Just like *toneri*, close attendants, provisioners, and similar roles, they stayed near the person they served, managed affairs, and protected them. And indeed, these [Saeki Units] were identical in both substance and nature to the warriors themselves who came to be known as household retainers or warrior retainers from the medieval period onward. The soldiers of the Chūefu during the Nara period were called Tōtoneri. They were soldiers organized from Easterners. The soldiers of the Jutōe during the same period were also called Jutōtoneri. The meaning of "*toneri*" should be understood through its definition. The appellation *samurai* for warriors in later periods—signifying “those who serve their lords”—was identical in meaning and function to what were termed retainers (*toneri*), close attendants (*kinjū*), and palace attendants (*shojin*). Saekibe Uriwa, retainer of Prince Ichinobe no Oshiha, was indeed identical in substance to what later came to be called warriors—namely, "*samurai*." Among the close attendants of Prince Suminakatsu, son of Emperor Nintoku, there was a Hayato known as Sasuriuri who, having been lured by Prince Mizuhawake, took up a spear and stabbed Prince Suminakatsu to death. Moreover, they were indeed '*samurai*'. At that time, the Hayato people—being an alien race—were also employed as attendants to nobles. And the fact that the Emishi Saeki Units were employed as retainers by nobles shared the same principle as this. This was but a single example, and while it should serve as material for extrapolating others, we must state that the interrelatedness between warriors and barbarians had ancient origins.

5. Captive Emishi, Prisoners, and Warriors

That both captive Emishi and prisoners should belong to the barbarian race is something we have previously elaborated in *On Captive Emishi and Prisoners*.
We maintain that we have elaborated on its details within that work.
While there has been no dispute since ancient times that those captive Emishi (夷俘) were indeed Emishi (蝦夷), the account in *Gōshidai Shō* stating that "prisoners (俘囚) were originally imperial subjects" gave rise to the theory that prisoners were descendants of those frequently abducted by inland barbarians (夷). As this argument became widely circulated, We have particularly emphasized this point.
Subsequently, a new theory has emerged.
They assert that "captive Emishi" (俘囚) should correctly be written as "floating prisoners" (浮囚), interpreting them not as barbarian tribes but rather as inland vagrants who were relocated to border regions for military settlements.
The text is published in *Geibun* Volume 6, Number 6 (issued June 1915).
The Chakumin Kikei theory differs in its foundational premise from the conventional view that captive Emishi were originally imperial subjects abducted by barbarians, and should be regarded as another distinct interpretation.
However, as We have already cited in *On Captive Emishi and Prisoners*, prisoners were called captives, labeled barbarians, and treated as alien beings—or alternatively, referred to as prisoners even when they were descendants of captive Emishi who had settled inland and held court ranks, thus being far from vagrants. Given such overwhelming evidence that they too were barbarians—compounded by later periods’ complete conflation of captive Emishi and prisoners without distinction—We continue to maintain our prior theory to this day.

The employment of captive Emishi—that is, the Emishi—as soldiers had origins of considerable antiquity.
When Emperor Yūryaku passed away, the five hundred Emishi led by General Kibi no Oshiro—commander of the Silla expedition—heard this news. Conferring among themselves, they declared: "The Emperor who governed our land has perished; we must not lose this opportunity." Thus they gathered once more and invaded neighboring provinces.
These five hundred Emishi who had accompanied the Silla expeditionary force were likely those who had either been taken captive or surrendered as a result of contemporary campaigns against the Emishi.
That both being barbarian tribes—one group called the Saeki Units and the other Emishi—should be understood as distinguishing between the former, who had long resided inland and consequently undergone significant changes in their customs, and the latter who still dwelled in barbarian territories remaining as uncivilized barbarians.
The *Nihon Shoki* does not record subjugation campaigns against barbarians during Emperor Yūryaku’s reign.
However, as the *Book of Song* contains in King Bu of Wa’s state letter a record stating that "since our ancestors’ time, we have subjugated fifty-five countries of hairy people in the eastern regions," we can infer such campaigns must have occurred during this reign. Furthermore, the Nakatomi Shihire Muraji entry in the *Shinsen Shōjiroku* states: "During Emperor Yūryaku’s reign, there were Eastern Barbarians who refused submission—each man being formidable enough to repel imperial forces. At this, Ofunokoren donned five layers of armor, advanced into the enemy’s stronghold, and annihilated them in a single day without burdening government troops." From such accounts, we may reconstruct the circumstances of that era.

The subjugation of foreign tribes and their conscription into military service was not unique to Japan's case with the Emishi; examples abounded throughout history and across regions.
In China there existed the saying, "Use barbarians to subjugate barbarians."
Our nation too adopted this practice, with armies during the Nara and Heian periods' barbarian-subjugation campaigns frequently employing captive Emishi and prisoners, often repeating phrases such as "Using barbarians to subjugate barbarians is the ancient superior strategy."
Moreover, their employment was not limited to subduing barbarians; as previously noted, during Emperor Yūryaku's reign they had even been intended for use in the Silla expeditionary force.
At times they were deployed for Kyushu coastal defense; at others employed to pursue and suppress bandits and pirates in inland regions—there existed so many such instances that enumerating each would prove tedious.
As Saeki Unit clans in inland regions gradually assimilated with others and their traces became submerged among the Japanese populace, the employment of captive Emishi and prisoners grew ever more prevalent.
By the mid-Heian period government troops had become utterly ineffective, forcing authorities to rely on barbarian soldiers and barbarian police whenever difficulties arose.
However, they were not merely employed as soldiers or police officers.
Their influential members often held court ranks and decorations, with no small number being appointed as military officers in the Guard Headquarters.

As previously published in Volume 21, Number 4 of this journal (issued April 1913) under "The Theory That Sakanoue no Tamuramaro Was a Barbarian," we discussed Michishima no Sukune Shimada—Middle Captain of the Inner Palace Guards (Outside the Regular Establishment), concurrently Governor of Harima Province, Great Kuni no Miyatsuko of Mutsu Province, Senior Fourth Rank, Upper Grade—as a particularly notable example within that work. Now if Sakanoue no Tamuramaro was indeed believed by Ōshu residents during the Former Nine Years' War period to belong to the captive Emishi class, we must further count him among their most illustrious examples of social advancement.

Thus, these captive Emishi and prisoners were not only employed as military officers or soldiers; they were also frequently utilized as retainers and provisioners—those who should be regarded as the origins of warriors, namely "samurai."
In the entry for the ninth month of Jōwa 6 (839) in the *Shoku Nihon Kōki*:

It was decreed:
"The Appointment Code stipulates that both retainers and provisioners shall be limited to eight-year terms.
The statute of Jinki 5 [728 CE] establishes that provisioners of Junior Fifth Rank, Lower Grade are selected for ten-year terms.
Henceforth, the selection limits for Junior Fifth Rank, Lower Grade provisioners shall be properly implemented in accordance with the code.
Only Jingūji, Negi, Hafuri, Kuni no Miyatsuko, Gesan'i, Gunji, and captive Emishi are exempt from this limitation."

It states.
Though this text remained profoundly ambiguous and difficult to interpret comprehensively—given that captive Emishi in general could not have been subject to fixed appointment periods—we must construe that here, in stipulating term limits for retainers and provisioners, those captive Emishi employed under these roles were not necessarily bound by the eight-year restriction.
There were frequent examples of captive Emishi serving as attendants to nobles.
One such example occurred at the beginning of the Jōgan era when Yoshiyako no Hirono, a retainer of former Echigo Governor Tomo no Tatsuo, beat to death Monobe no Inakichi—the scribe who had secretly reported his master’s crimes to the authorities.
In the Shōmonki, among Taira no Masakado’s trusted retainers there appears Takebe no Koharumaru.
Upon examining his surname and location, they were likely of the captive Emishi class.
"In Mutsu Waki," when Minamoto no Yoriyoshi beheaded Fujiwara no Tsunekiyo he declared, "Your ancestors have served as retainers in my household for generations."
And Tsunekiyo’s son Kiyohira styled himself a distant chieftain of the Eastern Barbarians and proclaimed himself to be at the head of the captive Emishi.
We may also consider this another example of captive Emishi serving as household retainers to nobles.

The so-called hairy people with luxuriantly grown beards and mustaches were indeed the ideal model of warrior retainers.
The Konjaku Monogatari records an account of Tarōsuke, retainer of Yogo Shōgun Taira no Tsunemoto,
A man over fifty years of age, greatly corpulent, with a long beard, appearing ferociously fearsome.
He truly appeared to be an excellent soldier.

It states:
As for the origins of the term "warrior retainers" (郎等), while various theories exist, they fundamentally shared the same nature as those once called "retainers" (帳内) and "provisioners" (資人)—entities that evolved in form over time—and were indeed identical to what constituted "samurai."
Moreover, among these warrior retainers, they employed fearsome-looking Emishi-style stalwarts with long beards, making people think, "Truly excellent soldiers indeed."
These warrior retainers, transformed from categories like retainers and provisioners, were precisely what later came to be called warriors.
The correlation between warriors and barbarians must be said to possess profoundly deep historical roots.

VI. Easterners and Warriors

The rise of warriors in the Eastern Provinces.
For We who sought to clarify the conditions of the ancient Eastern Provinces through historical-geographical study, this stood as an ideal research topic.
Moreover, due to its content bearing numerous correlations with the main text, it had been Our initial plan at the drafting stage of this work to discuss these matters in detail and thereby perfect the concrete proofs for designating warriors as barbarians.
However, as the narrative extended beyond expectations—with its serialized publication already surpassing a year in duration, compounded by the accumulation of numerous matters requiring publication in subsequent issues—We decided to expediently conclude this work in the present issue. Accordingly, We deferred related research to future publications, here recording only Our conclusion that warriors emerging in the Eastern Provinces from the mid-Heian period onward primarily belonged to the so-called Easterners, and intend to advance Our inquiry further upon this foundation.

Regarding what Easterners are, I believe We have nearly exhausted its essentials in *On Easterners*, published across Volumes 23 to 24 of this journal. They were indeed—just as the Saeki Units’ soldiers had once proclaimed, “If we go to sea, let us be corpses waterlogged; if we go to mountain, let us be corpses overgrown with grass—only at our great lord’s side shall we die,” and devotedly guarded their sovereign—the valiant warriors who earned Emperor Shōmu’s trust as those who declared, “Though arrows may pierce our foreheads, none shall pierce our backs,” and protected their lord with single-minded devotion. In ancient times when the soldiers of the Saeki Units guarded the imperial palace gates, they—together with the soldiers of the Kume Units—operated under a system dividing responsibility for the left and right gates. The Kume Units were originally drawn from people of the Western Provinces. Therefore, if we were to equate the Saeki Units with Easterners, then the Kume Units should be termed Westerners or Chikushi people. Thus positioned left and right, both Kume and Saeki Units were celebrated for their unwavering loyalty and martial prowess. However, by the Nara period, these Chikushi people had grown effete over time, becoming unfit for military service—to such an extent that even Kyushu’s coastal defense required dispatching Easterners from distant regions. Moreover, as their frequent troop rotations proved excessively burdensome, authorities temporarily abolished this practice and reemployed Chikushi people instead, whereupon border defenses promptly fell into ruin. In the “petition” from Dazaifu dated Tenpyō Shōhō 2 (766 CE),

Defending against bandits and guarding the borders originally depended on the armies of the Eastern Provinces; maintaining forces and displaying authority was not solely the domain of Chikushi’s soldiers.

This statement serves as an exemplary illustration of this situation.
In the Nara period this already held true, and in the Heian period and beyond, the so-called Bushidō—characterized by cultivating bravery and martial prowess, comparing one’s life to the lightness of a goose feather for their master (the “relied-upon” person), and striving faithfully while single-mindedly cherishing their name—could only be observed among these Easterners.
Should we not discern the circumstances that gave rise to warriors in the Eastern Provinces?

Even in the Western Provinces, warriors were not entirely absent from the start; however, their martial prowess and loyalty could not compare to those of Eastern Provinces warriors.
*The Tale of the Rise and Fall of the Minamoto and Taira* records Saitō Bettō Sanemori's words:

"It was the custom of Eastern warriors that even when fathers died, their sons would not retreat; even when sons were slain, their parents would not withdraw; they fought on heedless of life or death, clambering over mounds of corpses again and again.
The soldiers on our side—those called mobilized warriors from the Kinai region and nearby provinces—would use a parent's injury as pretext to withdraw with their entire clan and children.
When their lord was killed, his warrior retainers would flee together with their brothers under pretext of seizing an opportune moment."

It states.
One should observe how extreme this disparity became.
How fitting indeed that the Taira clan, rooted in the Western Provinces, suffered such swift defeat before the Minamoto clan based in the Eastern Provinces.
Thus during the Kamakura period, warriors became almost exclusively the domain of Easterners.
Here, We must not fail to reiterate Our past research findings regarding what constitutes these so-called Easterners.
To wit:

1. Descendants of the people of the Tenson race who migrated to the Eastern Provinces

2. Descendants born from intermarriage between the Emishi and these migrants

3. Descendants of Emishi who assimilated into the Tenson race

.
We, even now, count the aforementioned three categories as constituent elements of Easterners.
Naturally, were one to discuss this matter in exhaustive detail, there may also be descendants of Han and Korean immigrants.
The so-called descendants of heavenly and earthly deities must also be counted among these.
Moreover, while these three aforementioned categories should generally suffice for enumeration, even those belonging to the Tenson race—having been influenced by their place of residence to become imbued with simple and valorous customs while distancing themselves from urban effeminacy—must be said to have cultivated a warrior-like spirit characterized by what was called “Though arrows may pierce our foreheads, none shall pierce our backs,” adopting spiritually the strengths of the Eastern Barbarians regardless of bloodline, which combined with the inherent virtues of the Tenson race to foster single-minded devotion in “protecting their lord with undivided loyalty.”

We must not forget that among the ancestors of these Easterners are included those who were widely referred to as Eastern Barbarians in ancient legends.
The Nihon Shoki states that among the Eastern Barbarians there are Emishi.
And those that should be considered Eastern Barbarians other than the Emishi are indeed none other than the ancestors of the Easterners themselves.
Of course, there were many who later immigrated from central Japan to join them.
Moreover, as they had come under the influence of barbarians and fully transformed into Easterners, it was not without reason that the Kyoto nobility viewed them as barbarians.
The correlation between warriors and barbarians must be said to have a long history.

VII. Easterners and Clan Names

Easterners—who as warriors of the Eastern Provinces came to be praised for their martial prowess even in later generations—largely bore the family names of prestigious clans such as Minamoto, Taira, Fujiwara, and Tachibana.
Indeed, they themselves believed they were descendants of imperial and divine lineage, and there were likely many who were also recognized as such by others.
And some of them must have indeed been true descendants of imperial and divine lineage.
However, on the other hand, there are not a few cases where some clearly resorted to fabricated claims.
Since the Nara period, there had been exceedingly many who, as captive Emishi, were granted the family names of old houses such as Abe, Ōtomo, and Kōzuke that held influence in barbarian lands.
Such as the ancestors of Abe no Sadatō, who occupied the six districts of Mutsu and resisted the imperial army—should they too be considered one of these?
The Kiyohara clan, leaders of Dewa Province, and the Oyakata Fujiwara clan based in Hiraizumi were indeed regarded as captive Emishi; particularly one such as Fujiwara no Kiyohira himself assumed being a captive Emishi.
Moreover, in their genealogies, they claim descent from Kiyohara no Fukayabu and are called the progeny of Fujiwara no Hidesato.

However, it was not without doubt whether these genealogies were indeed in use during their time.
The *Hyakurenshō* records Kiyohara no Takehira as Taira no Takehira.
At that time, might they have falsely assumed the Taira surname?
The Oyakata Fujiwara clan were said to have held various positions of considerable standing since Hidesato’s time—some serving as Chinjufu Shōgun (Northern Defense Commanders), others as Shimotsuke no Kami (Governors of Shimotsuke), among other roles.
Moreover, Kiyohira’s father Tsuneyori was indeed a hereditary family servant of the Minamoto clan since ancestral times.
Being a hereditary family servant of the Minamoto clan, how could he have served as Chinjufu Shōgun or Shimotsuke no Kami?
Tsuneyori was called Watari no Gon-Dayū.
At that time, there must have been no theory yet positing them as descendants of Hidesato.
No—not only Tsuneyori but even his son Kiyohira, upon achieving his ambition and coming to rule six districts, still identified himself as a captive Emishi.
How could they simultaneously claim to be descendants of Chinjufu Shōgun Hidesato?
The emergence of these fabricated claims should be understood to have occurred at a later date.
Moreover, the *Azuma Kagami* entry for the 7th day of the 9th month, Bunji 5 (1189), records Yuri Hachirō’s words: “The late Oyakata (Yasuhira) is the legitimate heir of General Hidehira’s main line.”
“...have inherited the title of Chinjufu Shōgun for three generations, and so forth.”
By that time, this genealogy was already considered credible.
Was their assumption of the Fujiwara name due to their family having served for generations as stewards of Fujiwara clan estates?
And when Hidehira came to aspire to become Chinjufu Shōgun, it must have been that he attributed his lineage to General Hidesato.
Moreover, those who had served as Chinjufu Shōgun were only of Hidesato’s single generation.
When he was appointed to this position, Kujō Kanezane lamented, declaring, “This is the foundation of an age of turmoil.”
The matter is recorded in the diary *Gyokuyō*.
However, when it came to the era of Yasuhira, son of Hidesato, his retainer Yuri Hachirō went so far as to boast that the Oyakata had been third-generation Chinjufu Shōgun.

The fact that forged genealogies gained acceptance so rapidly is astonishing.

The Oyakata Fujiwara clan were already captive Emishi. Their clan members must indeed have been of shared lineage. The Azuma Kagami entry for the 16th day of the 8th month of Bunji 2 (1186) describes Saigyō, stating: "Hidesato, Lay Priest and Governor of Mutsu, belongs to the same clan as this holy man." Saigyō, whose secular name was Satō Norikiyo, belonged to a military house claiming nine generations of direct succession since Hidesato Ason through its tradition of archery and equestrianism. Satō Tsugunobu and Satō Tadanobu—who hailed from Ōshū to serve Minamoto no Yoshitsune—were likewise part of Hidehira's clan. The same text's entry for the 22nd day of the 9th month of Bunji 2 (1186) states: "Satō Tadanobu is a close relative of Chinjufu Shōgun Hidehira." Moreover, all these men were acknowledged by society as exemplary warriors. This stands as but one instance; might we not extrapolate others from it?

The fact that the Oyakata Fujiwara clan were recognized as captive Emishi or as barbarians was uniformly recorded in late Heian period records.
Minamoto no Yoritomo was appointed as Seii Taishōgun (Barbarian-Subduing Generalissimo) and subdued them.
It must be said that this was a case where name and reality perfectly corresponded.
Furthermore, the *Azuma Kagami*—a record of Kamakura—explicitly acknowledged that the provinces of Mutsu and Dewa were indeed barbarian lands.
Nevertheless, beginning with this very text, not a single Kamakura-period historical record documenting Yasuhira and his fellow defeated commanders employed the derogatory term "barbarian" in reference to them.
This was why later generations generally found it difficult to believe they had been captive Emishi; yet upon reflection, one finds that not only Norikiyo, Tsugunobu, and Tadanobu but also among the distinguished warriors themselves, there existed not a few who shared this lineage—and moreover, by that time, they were no longer recognized as a barbarian tribe.
Particularly among their family members, warrior retainers, and others belonging to relatively lower ranks, it could be inferred that there were especially many of this group.
Even into the Tokugawa period, the term "bearded ones" persisted, and warrior retainers—like those of the Yogo Shogun and Tarosuke—continued to consider abundant facial hair as desirable.
It could be inferred that they regarded the Emishi—that is, the Kebito (Hairy People)—as their ideal.
The correlation between warriors and barbarians must be said to have had numerous origins.

VIII. Conclusion

Based on what has been discussed above, we believe we have roughly delineated the relationship between warriors and barbarians.
The Emishi were indeed employed in antiquity under designations such as the Saeki Units or captive Emishi, serving both as soldiers and attendants to nobles; in truth, those who became warriors—that is, “samurai”—were far from few in number.
Moreover, they came to be esteemed as both courageous and loyal individuals.
Within this context, there also existed Easterners.
These were men who had received direct or indirect influence from the Emishi and were similarly employed as soldiers and noble attendants.
Indeed, they too numbered significantly among those who became warriors—that is, “samurai.”
At times when government soldiers had grown enfeebled and inhabitants of other regions proved timid, only these captive Emishi and Easterners came to be particularly relied upon as military men.
In later eras, captive Emishi gradually assimilated until they became indistinguishable from so-called Easterners, giving rise across the Eastern Provinces and Ōu region to a unified warrior class.
They upheld what came to be known as the Warrior Code—sparing neither life nor limb for their lord (the “relied-upon one”), preferring advancement to retreat, and single-mindedly prizing honor—in precise continuity with how the ancient Saeki Units were extolled through verses like “Should we go to sea, let water-soaked corpses be our fate,” and how Easterners were praised for declaring “Though arrows pierce our brows, none shall strike our backs.”

Thus even if these warriors shared no blood ties with the Emishi, even if they themselves believed no such connection existed, and even if others did not recognize one either—given their single-minded emphasis on martial prowess over literary cultivation (the lack of education among Kantō warriors being discussed in *Easterners Study*), coupled with their rough demeanor and uncouth bearing—it was inevitable that the Kyoto nobility would come to regard them as barbarians. This must be acknowledged as a natural consequence.
Not to mention that in reality, there were not a few among them who maintained direct or indirect connections with barbarians.
Therefore, while labeling warriors as barbarians certainly carried derogatory intent, we maintain that seeking a racial explanation for this phenomenon also constitutes a valid perspective.