Changes

The various versions of Tametomo's legend relate his death in different ways. Some sources have him dying in Okinawa, while others have him returning to Izu Ôshima and fighting off naval attackers sent by the emperor, only to kill himself in the end; still other versions of Tametomo's story have him escaping these Imperial assaults and traveling to [[Hachijojima|Hachijô-jima]], where he again fights off imperial forces and then commits suicide.

The various versions of Tametomo's legend relate his death in different ways. Some sources have him dying in Okinawa, while others have him returning to Izu Ôshima and fighting off naval attackers sent by the emperor, only to kill himself in the end; still other versions of Tametomo's story have him escaping these Imperial assaults and traveling to [[Hachijojima|Hachijô-jima]], where he again fights off imperial forces and then commits suicide.

The legend of his involvement in [[Ryukyu Islands|Ryûkyû]] is related in numerous [[Edo period]] texts; the precise origin of the myth is unclear, but it appears as early as [[1605]], in the monk [[Taichu|Taichû's]] account of [[Ryukyuan religion]], ''[[Ryukyu Shinto ki|Ryûkyû Shintô ki]]''. The story appears, too, in the [[1650]] official history ''[[Chuzan Seikan|Chûzan Seikan]]'', compiled by Ryukyuan royal advisor [[Sho Shoken|Shô Shôken]]. It is then repeated, or elaborated upon, in [[Arai Hakuseki]]'s [[1719]] book ''[[Nantoshi|Nantôshi]]'', [[Morishima Churyo|Morishima Chûryô's]] [[1790]] publication ''[[Ryukyu-banashi|Ryûkyû-banashi]]'', and [[Takizawa Bakin]]'s novel ''[[Chinsetsu yumihari tsuki]]'', which expands the story out to a full novel, among other works. This myth is said to have had a central place in Japanese popular conceptions of Ryûkyû in the Edo period, and even in Ryûkyû, a number of sites including [[Naminoue Shrine]] enshrine Tametomo's spirit or are otherwise associated with him.<ref name=yokoyama/>

The legend of his involvement in [[Ryukyu Islands|Ryûkyû]] is related in numerous [[Edo period]] texts; the precise origin of the myth is unclear, but some suggest it took form as early as around [[1400]].<ref>Gregory Smits, ''Maritime Ryukyu'', University of Hawaii Press (2019), 154.</ref> Though perhaps transmitted to Japan in the 1520s or 1530s, a truly articulated version of the legend appears perhaps for the first time in the monk [[Taichu|Taichû's]] [[1605]] account of [[Ryukyuan religion]], ''[[Ryukyu Shinto ki|Ryûkyû Shintô ki]]''. The story appears, too, in the [[1650]] official history ''[[Chuzan Seikan|Chûzan Seikan]]'', compiled by Ryukyuan royal advisor [[Sho Shoken|Shô Shôken]]. It is then repeated, or elaborated upon, in [[Arai Hakuseki]]'s [[1719]] book ''[[Nantoshi|Nantôshi]]'', [[Morishima Churyo|Morishima Chûryô's]] [[1790]] publication ''[[Ryukyu-banashi|Ryûkyû-banashi]]'', and [[Takizawa Bakin]]'s novel ''[[Chinsetsu yumihari tsuki]]'', which expands the story out to a full novel, among other works. This myth is said to have had a central place in Japanese popular conceptions of Ryûkyû in the Edo period, and even in Ryûkyû, a number of sites including [[Naminoue Shrine]] enshrine Tametomo's spirit or are otherwise associated with him.<ref name=yokoyama/>

This story is generally regarded today as pure fiction, and as an idea invented and perpetuated in order to justify Japanese dominion over the [[Ryukyu Kingdom|Ryûkyû Kingdom]].<ref>Yokoyama Manabu suggests that since the ''Ryûkyû Shintô ki'' was written before Satsuma's [[1609]] [[invasion of Ryukyu]], the story could not, strictly speaking, have been fabricated in order to curry favor with Satsuma. (Yokoyama, 53.) However, Satsuma asserted claims to Ryûkyû, and demanded tax or tribute, since at least the 1590s, so the Tametomo story still may have been created for that purpose.</ref> The first to assert its falsity was [[Kato Sango|Katô Sango]], in his [[1906]] publication ''Ryûkyû no kenkyû'' (lit. "Ryûkyû Research"). He asserted it was a total fabrication, and cited in particular four points of suspicion.<ref name=yokoyama/> The vast distance between Izu Ôshima and Ryûkyû is but one of many elements which make the story seem rather unlikely; had he been exiled to an island off of Kyushu, in the [[Amami Islands]] chain, such as [[Kikaigashima]], where the monk [[Shunkan]] was exiled a few years later ([[1177]]), it might be easier to believe. Yet, as recently as the 1950s, historian [[George Kerr]] devoted several pages to the Tametomo tale, and wrote that while it "cannot be verified at this time; neither can it be dismissed as pure fiction."<ref>Kerr, George. ''Okinawa: The History of an Island People''. Tuttle Publishing, 2000. p46.</ref>

This story is generally regarded today as pure fiction, and as an idea invented and perpetuated in order to justify Japanese dominion over the [[Ryukyu Kingdom|Ryûkyû Kingdom]].<ref>Yokoyama Manabu suggests that since the ''Ryûkyû Shintô ki'' was written before Satsuma's [[1609]] [[invasion of Ryukyu]], the story could not, strictly speaking, have been fabricated in order to curry favor with Satsuma. (Yokoyama, 53.) However, Satsuma asserted claims to Ryûkyû, and demanded tax or tribute, since at least the 1590s, so the Tametomo story still may have been created for that purpose.</ref> The first to assert its falsity was [[Kato Sango|Katô Sango]], in his [[1906]] publication ''Ryûkyû no kenkyû'' (lit. "Ryûkyû Research"). He asserted it was a total fabrication, and cited in particular four points of suspicion.<ref name=yokoyama/> The vast distance between Izu Ôshima and Ryûkyû is but one of many elements which make the story seem rather unlikely; had he been exiled to an island off of Kyushu, in the [[Amami Islands]] chain, such as [[Kikaigashima]], where the monk [[Shunkan]] was exiled a few years later ([[1177]]), it might be easier to believe. Yet, as recently as the 1950s, historian [[George Kerr]] devoted several pages to the Tametomo tale, and wrote that while it "cannot be verified at this time; neither can it be dismissed as pure fiction."<ref>Kerr, George. ''Okinawa: The History of an Island People''. Tuttle Publishing, 2000. p46.</ref>