contributor
27,126
edits
Changes
From SamuraiWiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchmove terminology to bottom, as it references context explained in the history sections
The ''wakô'' were raiders, pirates, or brigands active in East Asian waters in the [[Kamakura period|Kamakura]] to early [[Edo period]]s, the phenomenon peaking in the 16th century (the late [[Muromachi period|Muromachi]] or [[Sengoku period]]). The term might be literally translated as "Japanese pirates," the ''wa'' (倭) denoting Japan, but many ''wakô'' were in fact Chinese.<ref name=arano186>Arano. p186.</ref>
The ''wakô'' were raiders, pirates, or brigands active in East Asian waters in the [[Kamakura period|Kamakura]] to early [[Edo period]]s, the phenomenon peaking in the 16th century (the late [[Muromachi period|Muromachi]] or [[Sengoku period]]). The term might be literally translated as "Japanese pirates," the ''wa'' (倭) denoting Japan, but many ''wakô'' were in fact Chinese.<ref name=arano186>Arano. p186.</ref>
==Early Wakô==
==Early Wakô==
It was only with the turn of the 18th century that the ''wakô'' phenomenon really petered out and came to an end. The Tokugawa shogunate solidified its control over Japan - including, to the extent it ever would, over the Kyushu ''daimyô'' who allowed or encouraged ''wakô'' activities in earlier times. Meanwhile, greater European presence and activity in the region (though not in Japan itself) brought a degree of stability.<ref name=arano190/>
It was only with the turn of the 18th century that the ''wakô'' phenomenon really petered out and came to an end. The Tokugawa shogunate solidified its control over Japan - including, to the extent it ever would, over the Kyushu ''daimyô'' who allowed or encouraged ''wakô'' activities in earlier times. Meanwhile, greater European presence and activity in the region (though not in Japan itself) brought a degree of stability.<ref name=arano190/>
==Terminology==
The issue of terminology is thus quite central to discussion of the ''wakô''. The question arises as to why Chinese and Korean authorities, and the official records they produced, employed the term when, arguably, in many cases, that being described was either not Japanese, or not a band of pirates. Yet, as with many historical terms, the issue is complicated by the fact that officials, historically, had no intention, and made no conscious effort, to employ the term in a consistent manner. Rather, the term was often used, or avoided, for explicit political purposes - such as to attack or protect certain parties or interests; its usage also varied from individual to individual, from case to case, and from time to time.<ref name=so209>So. p209.</ref>
Nevertheless, in aggregate, an image emerges of Chinese and Korean use of the term ''wakô'', or "Japanese pirates," to refer not only to Japanese raiders, brigands and the like, but also to raiders and brigands of a number of other ethnicities (mainly Chinese), to smugglers and traders less involved in violent or predatory activity, and to the formal samurai invasion forces of [[Toyotomi Hideyoshi]]. The 17th century Official History of the Ming (''[[Ming shi]]''), among other primary sources, links the ''wakô'' to Japanese foreign relations policy, implying if not stating outright that the ''wakô'' were agents of the central Japanese authorities, and conflating pirate raids and the like with Hideyoshi's formal invasion forces. These sources also make little or no distinction between those who committed violent acts of piracy and coastal raids, and those who simply engaged in maritime trade in violation of Ming law. These conflations and distortions are reflected in much later scholarship, and in modern-day textbooks as well.
Some contemporary sources, however, were much more clear on the actual identities and activities of the so-called "Japanese pirates." A 1596 text by Vice Commissioner for Military Defense Ts'ai Feng-shih describes the "Wo" as not being all barbarians, i.e. Japanese, but as actually being led by spurious barbarians, i.e. Chinese, and goes on to recommend that the concern should be not with the "barbarians," but with the "spurious barbarians."<ref>Ts'ai Feng-shih. ''An Illustrated Discourse on the Maritime Defenses of Wen-chou and Ch'u-chou'' (''Wen-Ch'u hai-fang t'u-lüeh''). Cited in translation in So. p212.</ref> Similarly, Hsieh Chieh (d. 1604), wrote that "the pirates and the traders were the same people. When trade flourished, the pirates became traders; when trade was banned, the traders became pirates."<ref>So. p214.</ref>
==References==
==References==
