Religion in archaic Japancompiled at least 100 years after the end of the Kofun period. Further destabilizing the historical
credibility of texts like the Kojiki is the fact that their relatively seamless narrative of imperial
lineage back to the descent of the gods is not matched by the archaeological record. There are
ideological agendas at play in the Kojiki and Nihon shoki that reflect the need for the increasingly
powerful great kings and queens—later referred to as emperors and empresses—to consolidate
and legitimate their claims to authority. These narratives tell us more about the period in which
they were written than the earlier time periods they purport to recount.
Asuka period (600–710) ritual practices and beliefs
By the beginning of the seventh century, an extended family of ruling elites had formed what is
known as the Yamato court. This constituted a significant move toward creating a polity that
included a much wider area and that began to consolidate formerly independent kingdoms under
an increasingly unified reign. As we have seen, ruling authority had previously been legitimated
by the construction of kofun and other symbols of power. The Yamato court, however, turned to
newly embraced Buddhist ritual practices and beliefs to further legitimate its rule. Although
there is some textual evidence available for interpreting Asuka period religion—the Nihon shoki,
for instance, recounts Buddhism’s importation to and acceptance in Japan—archaeological
material remains important for understanding this time period. A textual passage may describe a
Buddhist temple, for example, but archaeological excavations can provide a much clearer picture
of the overall design, size, spatial orientation, and other aspects of the building and its site. Sim-
ilarly, the archaeological record is important for comparative studies of material culture found in
different parts of Japan, or between items found on the Japanese archipelago versus similar items
found on the East Asian mainland. This kind of comparative research is essential for making reas-
onable claims about the movement of people and culture across times and places.
Buddhist scholars have tended to pay scant attention to the archaeological record, relying
instead on written texts for interpreting Buddhism’s early history on the Japanese archipelago.
The Nihon shoki, because of its comparatively detailed account of the transmission of Buddhist
material culture and ideas to the Japanese archipelago, has been the subject of much scholarly
scrutiny. According to the Nihon shoki, Buddhism was introduced to the Japanese islands in
552 ce, a gift from the Korean king of Paekche (J. Kudara) to the Japanese emperor. Further, this
account indicates that there was disagreement between Yamato court factions over the wisdom
of accepting and worshipping a “foreign” god (kami) such as Buddha. In the end, we are told,
Buddhism was embraced, becoming, from a contemporary scholarly perspective, an ideological
support for the political power coalescing around the Yamato court.^52
The Nihon shoki’s story of Buddhism’s transmission to the Japanese archipelago is, however,
fraught with a number of problems that have long been recognized by modern scholars.^53 The
Nihon shoki was compiled in 720 ce by imperial command. The account of Buddhism’s trans-
mission to Japan, therefore, is nearly two centuries after the fact. Although the official account of
the transmission of Buddhism to the Japanese archipelago is historically suspect, the intention
behind it seems clearer. The Nihon shoki account reflects the extent to which Buddhist ritual prac-
tices and beliefs had become central to aristocratic families. The ruling family also needed to
assert its control over Buddhist ritual practices as a means to legitimate political authority. The
Nihon shoki was at least one vehicle for doing so, representing Buddhism as a commodity accepted
in a particular year by, and under the control of, the ruling family and its supporters.^54
Despite this official record, the transmission of Buddhism was significantly more complicated
than the Nihon shoki account suggests. Tamura Enchō, for instance, notes that there were two
main transmission routes that Buddhism traversed from the East Asian mainland to Japan. The