Paper short abstract:

This paper complicates the simplistic assumption that prewar overseas shrines were merely sites of assimilation by looking at the centrality of the local landscape in the foundation of overseas shrines.

Paper long abstract:

Shinto shrines are often described as one of the most important ways the Japanese empire assimilated its colonial subjects. But in the late 19th century, the theology underpinning the model overseas shrine was rooted in the local land. This model pattern was first set by Sapporo Jinja, founded in 1869 and dedicated to the Three Pioneer Kami. The first of these three was O-kunitama, described as the spirit of the land itself. It became typical for shrines to be located on conceptually virgin land, and official shrines were required to have extensive grounds planted with trees, including native varieties. In short, the model overseas Shinto shrine constructed as a part of Japan's development (kaitaku) of its colonies (shokumin-chi) included literally breaking ground (taku) and planting (shoku) trees.

Although this land-oriented model of shrine began as typical, two other trends in the prewar establishment of Shinto shrines overseas developed. First, there was a shift in focus towards transforming people rather than land. This included a move away from venerating Kunitama and a trend towards converting indigenous ritual sites into Shinto sites. Second, Japanese diasporic communities, especially outside of Japan’s formal empire, shored up their liminal position as migrants by recreating their old hometown shrines. This linked shrines to specific locations in mainland Japan. These overseas shrines sometimes venerated local historical figures and/or deities, but they were more likely to venerate Amaterasu than Kunitama. Postwar, Shinto shrines founded overseas have utilized and adapted these prewar trends. While some postwar shrines are still located on mountainous “virgin” land and enshrine Kunitama, other overseas “shrines” lack a building or even physical site.

This paper complicates the simplistic assumption that prewar overseas shrines were merely sites of assimilation. It looks at the centrality of the local landscape in the foundation of overseas shrines and how that shifted towards a focus on people in the mid 20th century. It ends by suggesting some ways these prewar trends have been adapted or rejected by shrines founded overseas postwar.