© Alexander Akulov

The First Approach to The Ainu Language History

Ainu are indigenous people of Japan. According to many anthropologists (Neil Gordon Munro, Yamaguchi Bin, Hanihara Kazurф and others) Ainu don't have any similarities with any population in Asia and Oceania except of people of Japanese Neolithic culture or so called “Jфmon culture”. Skeletons of modern Ainu are very similar to these of Jфmon period. In this connection it is possible to state that it was Ainu who were the founder of Jemon culture.

In the period of Jemon Ainu language was spoken from Ryukyu to Hokkaido. Toponyms of Ainu origin corroborate this fact: Fuji - Huci – "grandmother", "kamuy of hearth", Tsushima  tuyma – "distant". Ainu were sea fishers, hunters and didn't practise agriculture so a vast space of wild nature was absolutely necessary for the existence of their culture. Ainu have never had any big settlements, the biggest social unit of Ainu was local group – utari. To maintain balance in nature and in human population was matter of vital importance for Ainu.

According to Oka Masao in the middle of Jemon period Austronesian newcomers from South-West Asia appeared in the southern part of Japanese archipelago. The main economical practice of these newcomers was agriculture. Agriculture destroyed the balance of nature and Ainu were forced to move northward. Ainu migration to the island of Sakhalin, the islands of Kuriles and Kamchatka began. Due to this fact in middle Jemon Ainu began to appear modern dialects: dialects of Sakhalin, Islands of Kuriles and dialects of Japanese islands. In Jemon Ainu also might exist some dialects but I suspect that it’s impossible for us to learn it anyhow. Also it is very difficult to reconstruct Ainu language of middle Jemon. However the language of middle Jemon most likely was similar to modern Ainu at least in structural meaning.

There is a quite popular thought that if we are going to reconstruct ancient Ainu we should base on the Sakhalin Ainu because the most pure Ainu is presented by the Sakhalin dialects while Ainu of Hokkaido was seriously undergone influence of Japanese and because of it is a depraved Ainu and cannot be the base of reconstruction.

I think that neither Hokkaido nor Sakhalin dialects present “pure Ainu” and if we are going to reconstruct the Ainu of middle Jфmon we should not base on one dialectal group. We should analyze all dialects and collect the common features and then we would be able to draw a picture of middle Jemon Ainu.

When Ainu moved northward they influenced strongly on the culture of Nivkh, Itelmen and Oroch. This fact is reflected by language: for example: Ainu word kotan – “settlement”, “inhabited area” exists in Old Mongolian as gotan, in the language of Gold – hoton, in Manchurian language – hotan, in Nivkh language – hoton. Or, for example, Ainu word inau, designating little baton with shavings – one of the most important objects of Ainu religion, exists in Nivkh language – nau, in Oroch language – ilau. In Itelmen language there is word kamul/kamuy – “spirits living in volcanoes and geysers”, originated from Ainu word kamuy – “super human being”. I think that it is possible to speak about Ainu colonization because in Ainu language exists original, not borrowed word to express the modality of “should”, “must” – easirki while such a languages as Nivkh, Itelmen, Oroch use borrowed words to express this modality and originally have just two modalities: “want” and “cannot”. Modality “should” is a marker of highly organized social system. Due to this parameter Ainu differ radically from such ethnical group as Nivkh, Oroch and Itelmen and due to this fact I think it is possible to speak about Ainu colonization.

In the end of Jemon in Japanese archipelago appeared a group of newcomers from Siberia. These migrants spoke an Altaic language and were the founder of Yamato state and the main ethnic group of forming Japanese ethnicity. After the foundation of Yamato state began the epoch of permanent war between Ainu and Japanese. Japanese for quite a long time were not as good fighters as Ainu. Only after some centuries of permanent fighting Japanese became samurai. And there are many elements of Ainu origin in samurai technique of fighting. Only in the middle 15th century Japanese could reach southern Hokkaido and founded a settlement there. Since that time the colonization of Ainu began. After Meiji restoration influx of Japanese to Hokkaido increased and japonization of Ainu became much more active and fierce. As a result by the middle of 20th century Ainu language practically went out of use.

Nowadays Ainu exist in the island of Hokkaido only. Their number is about 25 thousands. Most of them are members of “Utari” organization and sometimes membership itself is marker of one's being Ainu. Contemporary Ainu are very well included into context of Japanese culture, many who identify themselves as Ainu practically don't differ from Japanese and cannot speak Ainu. In this connection the question of Ainuhood appears. One may say that Ainu save their traditional rituals which are performed in the so called ethnographical settlements such as Siraoi. But it is well known that most of so called “traditional Ainu rituals” (for example famous marimo ritual performed in the lake of Akan) were invented by Japanese without any care of traditional Ainu culture but just in order to attract tourists. “Traditional Ainu life” has been seriously destroyed and changed and those who are involved in Ainu tourist business but cannot speak Ainu should not be considered as Ainu.

Nowadays when globalization increases when differences between cultures disappear fast what can be the base for identification a person as a member of certain ethnic group? Only language can save and maintain traditional cultures nowadays. According to Whorf if people use a certain language they adopt certain concepts, certain way of world view, certain way of thinking through this language. Language is the key for a certain cultural tradition. Because of it in the case of Ainu, I think, it is possible to state the following: those who have some Ainu blood but cannot speak Ainu hardly should be treated as Ainu, only those who can speak Ainu should be treated as Ainu. But Ainu language is considered as a dead one by most of contemporary anthropologists and linguists. For example if we turn to the last issue of Ethnology we can learn that there are only 15 Ainu speakers. It seems to be rather strange that there are only 15 Ainu speakers among 25 thousands Ainu. Such point of view bases on the fact that Japanese linguists consider as Ainu native speakers only those who used Ainu language as mother tongue in their childhood and youth. These native speakers remember some prayers, songs and tales but they cannot produce any spontaneous utterance and their communicative ability is equal to zero. Because of it the surviving grandmas hardly can be treated as Ainu native speakers. And the real number of Ainu speakers is unknown.

Ferdinand de Saussure wrote that no one language can die due to its inner causes. Language can die only if ethnicity using this language disappeared or if a stronger tribe imposed its language to an another tribe. Consequence is the following: no one language can exist and function normally without existence of certain social need for this language. Though there is the Law about preservation and maintain of Ainu language and culture traditional Japanese indifferency, tourist business and also the fact that Japanese government is not going to recognize Ainu's right to be Ainu seriously disturb normal existence of Ainu language and culture. There are many centers, foundations and societies devoted to the Ainu language restoration, but all they are just half measures, because only autonomy can save Ainu language as well as any other language. In this connection question of possible passing of Kunashir, Iturup and Habomai archipelago to Japan becomes especially actual: Russia and Japan both have been sharing Ainu territories for last 300 years but they always forget to ask Ainu. Ainu were "unconvenient" for Japanese colonization as well as for Russian. But we should not forget that Ainu still exist and they have much more rights to be the owner of so called "northern territories". The pass of "northern territories" to Ainu would be the first real step to real saving and maintaining of Ainu culture and language.

4. References:

Munro N.G. Prehistoric Japan Yokohama, 1911;

Whorf L.B. Language, Thought and Reality: selected writings N.Y.– L., 1959;

Yamaguchi B. Skeletal Morphology of the Jomon People //International Symposium on Japanese as a member of the Asian and Pacific population, September 25 – 29 1990, Kyoto;

Chiri M. 知里真志保 地名アイヌ語小辞典 札幌 Sapporo 2000;

Hanihara K. 埴原和郎 日本人の誕生。人類はるかなる旅 Tokyo 1996;

Bereznitskii S.V. Березницкий С.В. Мифология и верования орочей (Mythology and Creeds of Oroch) СПб., 1999;

Ostrovskii A.B. Островский А.Б. Мифология и верования нивхов (Mythology and Creeds of Nivkh) СПб., 1997;

Saussure F. de Соссюр Ф. де Заметки по общей лингвистике (Notes on General Linguistics) М., 2001;

Volodin A.P. Володин А.П. Ительмены (The Itelmen) СПб., 2003.