Takeminakata (タケミナカタ), also known as Minakatatomi or Takeminakatatomi, is a kami in Japanese mythology. Also known as  or  after Suwa Grand Shrine (Suwa Taisha) in Nagano Prefecture (former Shinano Province) in which he is enshrined alongside his consort , Takeminakata is historically worshiped as a god of wind, water and agriculture, as well as a patron of hunting and warfare, in which capacity he enjoyed a particularly fervent cult from various samurai clans during the medieval period such as the Hōjō or the Takeda. Takeminakata was also held to be the mythical ancestor of certain families who once served at the shrine as priests, foremost among them being the Suwa clan, the high priests of the Upper Shrine of Suwa who were also revered as living vessels of the god.

Whereas in the Kojiki (ca. 712 CE) and later derivative accounts, Takeminakata appears as one of the sons of the god Ōkuninushi who fled to Lake Suwa after being defeated by the warrior god Takemikazuchi, other myths (mostly of medieval origin) instead offer alternative explanations regarding the god of Suwa Shrine's origins and identity, portraying him either as an interloper who conquered Suwa by defeating the local kami, as a king from India who manifested in Japan, or as a snake or dragon deity.

Name

The god is named 'Takeminakata-no-Kami' () in both the Kojiki (ca. 712 CE) and the Sendai Kuji Hongi (ca. 807-936 CE). Variants of the name found in the imperially commissioned national histories and other literary sources include the following:

 Minakatatomi-no-Kami (南方刀美神)
 Minakatatomi-no-Mikoto-no-Kami (御名方富命神)
 Takeminakatatomi-no-Mikoto (健御名方富命 / 建御名方富命)
 Takeminakatatomi-no-Mikoto-no-Kami (建御名方富命神)

The etymology of the name '(Take)minakata(tomi)' is unclear. While most commentators seem to agree that take- (and probably -tomi) are honorifics, they differ in how to interpret the other components of the name. Some of the proposed solutions are as follows.

The Edo period kokugaku scholar Motoori Norinaga explained both take- (建) and mi- (御) as honorifics (称名 tatae-na), with kata (方) as yet another tatae-na meaning "hard" or "firm" (堅). Basil Chamberlain followed Motoori's lead and rendered the god's name as 'Brave-August-Name-Firm' in his translation of the Kojiki.
Ōta Akira (1926) interpreted take-, mi- and -tomi as honorifics and took Nakata (名方) to be a place name: Nakata District (名方郡) in Awa Province (modern Ishii, Tokushima Prefecture), where Takeminatomi Shrine (多祁御奈刀弥神社) stands. Ōwa Iwao (1990) suggests that the presence of Azumi people in both Awa and Shinano, as well as the possible connection between the Azumi and the Lower Shrine of Suwa, may explain the similarity between 'Takeminakata(tomi)' and 'Takeminatomi'.
Minakata has also been linked to the Munakata (宗像) of Kyushu. Matsuoka Shizuo (1936) interpreted Minakatatomi as originally being a goddess – citing the fact that the deities of Munakata shrine were female – that was later conflated with the male god Takeminakata.
Another explanation proposes minakata to mean "south(ern)" (南方). A variant of this hypothesis sees the name as hinting at a connection between the god and metalworking, in which the southern direction is important: Mayumi Tsunetada (1981) for instance proposed that Takeminakata's name refers to the southern pillar of a takadono (a high-roofed house housing a tatara furnace). Gustav Heldt's translation of the Kojiki (2014), where the name is translated as 'Brave Southward Smelter', follows this interpretation.
Yet another theory interprets mi(na)- to mean "water" (水), pointing to the god being a water deity perhaps associated with Lake Suwa. The full name is thought to derive from a word denoting a body of water or a waterside region such as 水潟 (minakata, "lagoon" or "inlet") or 水県 (mi(na)- "water" + agata "country(side)").
An alternative explanation for the word -tomi (as well as the -tome in '', the name of this god's consort) is to link it with dialectal words for "snake" (tomi, tobe, or tōbe), thereby seeing the name as hinting to the god being a kind of serpentine water deity (mizuchi).

Suwa Daimyōjin

During the medieval and early modern periods, the god enshrined in Suwa Grand Shrine – specifically, in the Upper Shrine (Kamisha) located southeast of Lake Suwa – was popularly known as Suwa Daimyōjin ( / 諏方大明神) or Suwa Myōjin (), a name also applied via metonymy to the shrine itself. The name '(Take)minakata(tomi)' was rarely used, if at all, during this period: indeed, medieval documents from Suwa Shrine simply refer to the god as sonshin / sonjin (尊神, "revered deity") or myōjin (明神, "bright deity" or "manifest deity"). This however is hardly unusual, as before the early modern period use of titles such as myōjin or gongen for various gods and their shrines were so widespread that these deities were rarely referred to by their classical names.

Other epithets applied to the Suwa deity include Nangū Daimyōjin (南宮大明神, "Daimyōjin of the Southern Shrine (Nangū)"), Hosshō Daimyōjin (法性大明神, "Dharma-Nature Daimyōjin"), a combination of the two such as Nangū Hosshō Daimyōjin (南宮法性大明神), or Suwa Hosshō Kamishimo (or Jōge) Daimyōjin (諏訪法性上下大明神, "Dharma-Nature Daimyōjin of the Upper and Lower Suwa [Shrines]"). Some of the war banners used by Sengoku daimyō Takeda Shingen (a devotee of the god) for instance contain the inscription Suwa Nangū Hosshō Kamishimo / Jōge Daimyōjin (諏訪南宮法性上下大明神 / 諏方南宮法性上下大明神). A hanging scroll given by Emperor Go-Nara (reigned 1526–1557) to the Upper Shrine in 1553 (Tenbun 22), written in the emperor's own calligraphy, refers to the god as Suwa Shōichii Nangū Hossho Daimyōjin (諏方正一位南宮法性大明神, "Dharma-Nature Daimyōjin of the Suwa Nangū, of Upper First Rank").

A number of explanations have been proposed for the origin of the term Nangū. One theory posits it to refer to the geographical location of the Upper Suwa Shrine, which is located southeast of Lake Suwa, at the southern half of Shinano Province, while another claims it to be derived from 'Minakatatomi' (南方刀美), one of the variant names for the deity, with minakata being apparently understood to mean "south(ern)" (cf. etymology of 'Takeminakata' above). The term has also been interpreted to come from the medieval belief that the Suwa deity was the guardian of the south side of the imperial palace or the Shinto-Buddhist concept that the god is an enlightened being who manifested in the world of men, which in Buddhist cosmology is the southern continent of Jambudvīpa.

Aside from Suwa Shrine, Nangū was also applied to Kanayamahiko Shrine in Mino Province (modern Nangū Taisha in Gifu Prefecture) and Aekuni Shrine (南宮大菩薩, Nangū Daibosatsu) in Iga Province (modern Mie Prefecture). A song in the late Heian period anthology Ryōjin Hishō associates the three shrines together, with Suwa Shrine being identified as the "head" of the three Nangū shrines (南宮の本山, nangu no honzan), the shrine at Mino as the "midmost shrine" (中の宮, naka no miya), and the shrine at Iga as the "youngest shrine" (稚の宮, chigo no miya).

Hosshō, meanwhile, is believed to refer to the concept of the dharmakāya (法性身, hosshōshin), the formless, transcendent ultimate truth that is the source of all buddhas, which are its physical manifestations (nirmāṇakāya). A certain medieval legend claims that the Suwa deity chose an eight-year-old boy to become his priest while declaring: "I have no (physical) body and so make this priest my body".

Mythology

In classical mythology

Parentage
Takeminakata is portrayed in both the Kojiki and the Sendai Kuji Hongi as a son of the god Ōkuninushi, although the former does not include him in its genealogy of Ōkuninushi's children. The Kuji Hongi meanwhile identifies him as the son of Ōnamuchi (Ōkuninushi) with one of his wives, Nunakawahime of Koshi.

Bout with Takemikazuchi

Takeminakata appears in both the Kojiki and the Kuji Hongi in the context of Ōkuninushi's "transfer of the land" (kuni-yuzuri) to the amatsukami, the gods of the heavenly realm of Takamagahara.

When the heavenly deities, headed by the sun goddess Amaterasu and/or the primordial deity Takamimusubi, sent Takemikazuchi and another messenger to demand that Ōkuninushi relinquish his authority over the earthly realm of Ashihara no Nakatsukuni (the "Central Land of Reed-Plains") to Amaterasu's progeny, he told the messengers to consult his son Kotoshironushi, who immediately accepted their demands and advised his father to do likewise. Upon being asked if he had any other sons who ought to express their opinion, Ōkuninushi told the messengers that he had another son named Takeminakata.

As he was saying this, this same Takeminakata-no-Kami came bearing a tremendous boulder (千引之石, chibiki no iwa, i.e. a boulder so large it would take a thousand men to pull) on his finger-tips and said:

"Who is it who has come to our land and is talking so furtively? Come, let us test our strength; I will first take your arm."

When [Takemikazuchi-no-Kami] allowed [Takeminakata-no-Kami] to take his arm, he changed it into a column of ice, then again changed it into a sword blade. At this, he (Takeminakata) was afraid and drew back.

Then [Takemikazuchi-no-Kami], in his turn, demanded [the right] to take hold of the arm of Takeminakata-no-Kami.

When he took it, it was like taking hold of a young reed; he grasped it and crushed it, throwing it aside. Immediately, he (Takeminakata) ran away.

They pursued him, and caught up with him by the lake of Suwa in the land of Shinano (科野国州羽海). As they were about to kill him, Takeminakata-no-Kami said:

"Pray do not kill me. I will go to no other place. Also I will not disobey the commands of my father, Ōkuninushi-no-Kami, and will not disobey the words of the words of Yae-Kotoshironushi-no-Kami. I will yield this Central Land of the Reed Plains in accordance with the commands of the Heavenly Deities."

With Takeminakata's surrender, Ōkuninushi finally agreed to cede the land to the amatsukami and withdrew himself into the unseen spirit world.

Variants

Suwa Daimyōjin Ekotoba

The opening section of the Suwa Daimyōjin Ekotoba, a Nanboku-chō period compilation of legends and other information regarding Suwa Shrine and its festivals, retells the Kuji Hongi version of this story, albeit with Takeminakata's shameful defeat notably omitted.

It is said in the Kuji Hongi that Amaterasu-Ōmikami gave a decree and sent two gods, Futsunushi-no-Kami (of Katori Shrine in Sōshū) and Takeikatsuchi-no-Kami (of Kashima Shrine in Jōshū), down to the land of Izumo, where they declared to Ōanamuchi (of Kitsuki in Unshū [and] Miwa in Washū), "The Central Land of Reed-Plains is the land entrusted to our heir. Are you willing to give it up to the heavenly deities?"
Ōanamuchi said, "Ask my son, Kotoshironushi-no-Kami (of Nagata Shrine in Sesshū; eighth [patron deity of] the Jingi-kan); he will give you an answer."Kotoshironushi-no-Kami said, "My father ought respectfully to withdraw, nor will I disobey."[The messengers said,] "Do you have any other sons who ought to speak?""There is also my son, Takeminakata-no-Kami (of Suwa Shrine)."[He] came, bearing a heavy boulder on his fingertips, saying, "Who is it who has come to our land and is talking so furtively? I wish to challenge you to a test of strength."

When he took his hand, he caused ice to appear, and then he took up a sword. Upon arriving at the sea of Suwa in the land of Shinano, Takeminakata-no-Kami said, "I will go to no other place."

This is the story of [the deity's] manifestation (垂迹の本縁, suijaku no hon'en).

Although it was formerly thought that the absence of Takeminakata's defeat in this variant was an editorial decision by the Ekotoba's compiler, Suwa (Kosaka) Enchū (1295-1364, a member of a cadet branch of the Suwa clan based in Kyoto), Ryōtarō Maeda (2020) points out that the exact same omission already occurs in an extract of the Kuji Hongi kuni-yuzuri narrative titled "Concerning Suwa Shrine" (諏方社事, Suwa-sha no koto) appended to an extract of the Kojiki account (古事記上巻抄, "Excerpt from the Upper Volume of the Kojiki") found in the temple library of Shinpuku-ji (Ōsu Kannon) in Nagoya.

Based on textual affinities with the Urabe text of the Kojiki, this manuscript is thought to have been authored by a member of the priestly Urabe clan associated with the Yoshida and Hirano Shrines in Kyoto. Records indicate that during the medieval period, the Urabe (many members of whom served as officials in the Department of Divinities or Jingi-kan) made heavy use of the Kuji Hongi as a source text for inquiries regarding the histories of various shrines across the country. It is also known that during his research for information regarding Suwa Shrine, Enchū was in contact with two Urabe clan members: Urabe Kanetoyo (卜部兼豊, of the Yoshida branch), then senior assistant director (神祇大輔, jingi taifu) of the Jingi-kan, and Urabe Kanemae (卜部兼前, of the Hirano branch), either of whom may have been responsible for compiling the Kuji Hongi extract.

Although he was not responsible for excising Takeminakata's defeat and surrender from the narrative himself, its absence from his source text allowed Enchū to reimagine the Kuji Hongi narrative in a way that portrayed Takeminakata as a victor who vowed to stay in Suwa of his own volition, consistent with the portrayal of the Suwa deity as a triumphant warrior god in the Ekotoba's later portions. Whereas in the original Kojiki and Kuji Hongi narrative, Takemikazuchi is said to have "changed [his arm] into a column of ice, then again changed it into a sword blade" (取成立氷亦取成劍刃) after having it grasped by Takeminakata, Enchū (taking advantage of the ambiguous syntax of the original Classical Chinese text) chooses to read the text such that Takeminakata is now said to magically manifest a column of ice and a sword as a display of his power to Takemikazuchi (即氷ヲ成立、又劍ヲ取成, "he (Takeminakata) caused ice to appear, then again he took up a sword").

Other texts
Similar attempts at retelling or reinterpreting the myth in a more positive way are found in certain later versions of the story. In one version, for instance, Takeminakata is portrayed as going to Suwa not so much to flee from Takemikazuchi but to pacify it under the orders of his father Ōkuninushi.

A variant found in a commentary on the Nihon Shoki penned by a 15th-century monk named Shun'yu (春瑜), the Nihon Shoki Shikenmon (日本書紀私見聞), claims 'Suwa Daimyōjin' (諏防大明神) to be the third son of the deity Sannō Gongen, the guardian deity of Mount Hiei. After engaging in a failed rebellion against Amaterasu, the deity surrendered and settled down in the land of Shinano.

Local legends from within Nagano Prefecture claim Takeminakata to have passed or stayed in various places within the region during his escape. A local legend in Shimoina District (located south of Suwa) for instance claims that Takemikazuchi caught up with the fleeing Takeminakata in the modern village of Toyooka, where they agreed to an armistice and left imprints of their hands on a rock as a sign of their agreement. The rock, bearing the gods' supposed handprints (tegata), is found in Otegata Shrine (御手形神社) in Toyooka. After Takemikazuchi's departure, Takeminakata temporarily resided in the neighboring village of Ōshika, where he discovered hot springs of saltwater whilst hunting for deer.

The contest between Takemikazuchi and Takeminakata has also been sometimes interpreted as an origin myth for sumo wrestling and aiki. This interpretation apparently follows an alternative reading of the text which sees Takemikazuchi as not so much crushing and tearing Takeminakata's arm(s) off but seizing him by the arm and throwing him into the ground.

In later mythology

Entry into Suwa

A myth from the Suwa area portrays Suwa Myōjin as being opposed during his advent by the local god Moriya (Moreya).

A document supposedly submitted to the Kamakura shogunate in 1249 by Suwa Nobushige, then high priest or Ōhōri (大祝) of the Upper Shrine of Suwa, known as the Suwa Nobushige Gejō (諏訪信重解状 "The Petition of Suwa Nobushige"), relates a story from "the ancient customs" (舊貫) that the Suwa deity came down from heaven in order to take possession of the land of 'Moriya Daijin' (守屋大臣). The conflict between the two escalated into a battle, but as no winner could be declared, the two finally compete in a tug of war using hooks (kagi): Suwa Myōjin, using a hook made out of the wisteria plant (藤鎰), emerges victorious against Moriya, who used an iron hook (鐵鎰). After his victory, the god built his dwelling (what would become the Upper Shrine) in Moriya's land and planted the wisteria hook, which became a grove known as the 'Forest of Fujisuwa' (藤諏訪之森 Fujisuwa no mori). Whereas the Kojiki portrays Takeminakata as an earthly god defeated by a deity from heaven, this myth notably features the opposite scenario, in which the deity of Suwa descends from heaven and conquers the land below.

The Suwa Daimyōjin Ekotoba relates a variant of this myth as an origin story of Fujishima Shrine (藤島社) in Suwa City, one of the Upper Shrine's auxiliary shrines where its yearly rice-planting ceremony is traditionally held. In this version, the deity of Fujishima Shrine (藤島の明神 Fujishima no Myōjin) - usually equated with Suwa Myōjin - defeats "Moriya the evil outlaw" (洩矢の惡賊, Moriya no akuzoku) with a wisteria branch:

Regarding the so-called 'Fujishima no Myōjin': long ago, when the revered deity (尊神 sonshin) manifested himself, Moriya the evil outlaw sought to hinder the god and fought him with an iron ring (鐵輪), but the Myōjin, taking up a wisteria branch (藤の枝), defeated him, thus finally subduing heresy (邪輪 jarin, lit. "wheel/circle/ring of evil") and establishing the true Dharma. When the Myōjin swore an oath and threw the wisteria branch away, immediately it took root [in the ground], its branches and leaves flourishing in abundance, and [sprouted] beautiful blossoms, leaving behind a marker of the battleground for posterity. Fujishima no Myōjin is named thus for this reason.Kanai (1982). p. 262.

Two extant medieval genealogies of the Suwa (Miwa) clan also begin by recounting the legend of a battle between the Suwa deity, accompanied by the first high priest of the Upper Shrine, and 'Moriya' (守屋) during the reign of Emperor Yōmei (585-587).

In later versions of this story which combine it with the kuni-yuzuri myth, Moriya opposes Takeminakata after the latter had fled from Izumo. After being defeated, Moriya swears fealty to Takeminakata and becomes a faithful ally. Moriya is reckoned as the divine ancestor of the Moriya (守矢) clan, one of the former priestly lineages of the Upper Shrine.

While medieval sources such as Nobushige's petition and the Ekotoba situate the battle between the two gods in the slopes of Mount Moriya somewhere in the vicinity of the Upper Shrine (modern Suwa City), a variant legend first attested in Edo period texts instead place it on the banks of the Tenryū River (modern Okaya City).

Apart from Moriya, a few scattered local legends make reference to other deities who either submitted to the Suwa deity or refused to do so. One such god that is said to have opposed Suwa Myōjin and his new ally Moriya in local folklore was Yatsukao-no-Mikoto (矢塚男命), also known as Ganigawara (蟹河原長者 Ganigawara-chōja).

The story relates that Ganigawara, a horse breeder who wielded great authority in the region, held Moriya in contempt for surrendering to Takeminakata and had messengers publicly harass him by calling him a coward. When Ganigawara's servants began to resort to violence by shooting arrows in Takeminakata's newly built house, Takeminakata retaliated by invading Ganigawara's turf. Mortally wounded by an arrow in the ensuing battle, Ganigawara begs forgiveness from Moriya and entrusts his youngest daughter to Takeminakata, who gives her in marriage to the god Taokihooi-no-Mikoto (手置帆負命) a.k.a. Hikosachi-no-Kami (彦狭知神), who was injured by Ganigawara's messengers as he was keeping watch over Takeminakata's abode.

In another legend, a god named Takei-Ōtomonushi (武居大伴主神 or 武居大友主神) swore allegiance to Takeminakata and became the ancestor of a line of priests in the Lower Shrine known as the Takeihōri (武居祝). Yet another story relates that the Suwa deity forbade the goddess of Sakinomiya Shrine (先宮神社) in Owa, Suwa City from building a bridge over the creek before her shrine as punishment for her refusal to submit to him.

The Ōhōri

Before the abolition of the Suwa Grand Shrine's traditional priestly offices during the Meiji period, the Upper Shrine of Suwa's high priest or Ōhōri (大祝  'great priest'; also Ōhafuri) was a young boy chosen from the Suwa clan, who was, during his term of office, considered to be a living god, the visible incarnation or 'body' of the unseen god of the shrine.

The legend of how Suwa Myōjin chose his first priest is recounted in various sources, such as the Suwa Daimyōjin Ekotoba:

At the beginning of the god's manifestation, he took off his robe, put them on an eight year old boy, and dubbed him 'great priest' (Ōhōri). The god declared, "I do not have a body and so make this priest (hōri) my body."
This [boy] is Arikazu (有員), the priest of the sacred robe (御衣祝 Misogihōri), the founding ancestor of the Miwa/Jin (神, i.e. Suwa) clan.

Although most sources (such as the Ekotoba above) identify the boy with the semi-legendary priest Arikazu, who is said to have lived in the 9th century (early Heian period) during the reign of Emperor Kanmu (781-806) or his immediate successors Heizei (806-809) or Saga (809-823), two genealogical lists - of disputed historical reliability - instead identify the first priest with an individual named Otoei (乙頴) or Kumako (神子 or 熊古), a son of Mase-gimi (麻背君) or Iotari (五百足), head of the Kanasashi clan and kuni no miyatsuko of Shinano during the late 6th century.

One of these two texts is a genealogy of the Aso (阿蘇) clan of Aso Shrine in Kyushu known as the 異本阿蘇氏系図 (Ihon Asoshi Keizu). It reads in part:

Otoei (Ōhōri of the great god of Suwa): also known as Kumako (神子) or Kumako (熊古).
When he was eight years old, the great god Minakatatomi-no-Mikoto appeared, took off his robe and put them on Kumako, declaring, "I do not have a body and so make you my body." In the third month of the second year of Iware Ikebe no Ōmiya (587), a sanctuary (社壇) was built at the foot of the mountain at the southern side of the lake (i.e. Lake Suwa) to worship the great god of Suwa and various other gods ...

The other is the Ōhōri-ke Jinshi Keizu (大祝家神氏系図), a genealogy of the Suwa clan discovered in the Ōhōri's residence in 1884 (Meiji 17). It portrays Arikazu as a descendant of Kumako, the priest chosen by Takeminakata:

When Kumako was eight years old, the revered deity appeared, took off his robe and put them on Kumako. After declaring, "I do not have a body and so make you my body," he disappeared. This [Kumako] is the ancestor of Arikazu of the Miwa/Jin (Suwa) clan, the Misogihōri. In the second year of Emperor Yōmei, Kumako built a sanctuary at the foot of the mountain at the southern side of the lake.

The King of Hadai
A medieval Buddhist legend portrays Suwa Myōjin as a king from India who later achieved enlightenment and went to Japan to become a native kami.

A short text attached to a late 15th century copy of an ordinance regulating the Upper Shrine's ritual purity taboos (物忌み monoimi) originally enforced in 1238 and revised in 1317, the Suwa Kamisha monoimi no rei no koto (諏訪上社物忌令之事), relates that 'Takeminakata Myōjin' (武御名方明神) was originally the ruler of a certain Indian kingdom called 'Hadai' (波堤国 Hadai-koku) who survived an insurrection instigated by a rebel named 'Moriya' (守屋 or 守洩) during the king's absence while the latter was out hunting deer. After going to Persia to rescue its inhabitants from an evil dragon, the king ruled over it for some time as 'Emperor Suwa' (陬波皇帝 Suwa Kōtei) before retiring to "cultivate the seedling of virtue and realize the Buddhist path." He eventually manifested in Japan, appearing in various places before finally choosing to dwell in Suwa.

The Suwa Daimyōjin Ekotoba relates a slightly different, fuller version of the first half of this story as an origin myth for the Upper Shrine's hunting ceremony held every seventh month of the year at Misayama (御射山) on the slopes of the Yatsugatake Mountains:

If one should inquire about the origins (因縁 in'en, lit. 'causes and conditions') of this hunt: long ago, the Daimyōjin was the king of the land of Hadai in India who went out to hunt at Deer Park from the twenty-seventh to the thirtieth day of the seventh month. At that time, a traitorous vassal named Bikyō (美教) suddenly organized an army and sought to kill the king. The king, ringing a golden bell, looked up to heaven and shouted eight times: "I am now about to be killed by this rebel. I have hunted animals, not for my own enjoyment, but in order to lead them to the Buddhist path. If this my action is in accordance with Heaven's will, may Brahmā save me."
Brahmā then saw this and commanded the four great deva-kings to wield vajra-poles and destroy the army. It is said that the Misayama (三齋山) of today reflects that event. ... One should know, therefore, that the deity's compassionate hunting is an expedient means for the salvation of creatures.

Regarding the Upper Shrine's hunting rituals, the Monoimi no rei asserts that

[The shrine's] hunts began in the deer park of Hadai-no-kuni [in India]. [The use of] hawks began in Magada-no-kuni.

The second half of the legend (the slaying of the dragon in Persia and the king's migration to Japan) is used by the Ekotoba's compiler, Suwa Enchū, in a liturgical text, the Suwa Daimyōjin Kōshiki (諏方大明神講式), where it is introduced as an alternative, if somewhat less credible, account of the Suwa deity's origins (in comparison to the myth of Takeminakata of Izumo as found in the Kuji Hongi, touted by the same text as the authoritative origin story of the god) that nevertheless should not be suppressed. In this text, the king of Hadai is claimed to be a great-great-grandson of King Siṃhahanu (獅子頬王 Shishikyō-ō), Gautama Buddha's grandfather. Bikyō, the rebel who raised up an army against the king in India - identified as an incarnation of the Demon King (魔王) - is also said to have eventually manifested in Japan, opposing the deity in Suwa as "Moriya the evil outlaw."

A similar account appears in a work known as the Suwa Jinja Engi (諏訪神社縁起) or Suwa Shintō Engi (諏訪神道縁起), wherein the Suwa deity is identified as the son of Kibonnō (貴飯王), the son of Amṛtodana (甘呂飯王 Kanrobonnō), one of Siṃhahanu's four sons. The Lower Shrine's goddess, meanwhile, is the daughter of Prasenajit (波斯匿王 Hashinoku-ō), claimed here to be the son of Dronodana (黒飯王 Kokubonnō), another son of Siṃhananu.

The Suwa Mishirushibumi

During the Misayama festival as performed during the medieval period, the Ōhōri recited a ritual declaration supposedly composed by the Suwa deity himself known as the Suwa Mishirushibumi (陬波御記文), which begins:

I, Great King Suwa (陬波大王), have hidden my person during [the year/month/day of] the Yang Wood Horse (甲午 kinoe-uma).
[The name] 'Suwa' (陬波) and [the sign] Yang Wood Horse [and] the seal (印文) - these three are all one and the same.

Within the text, King Suwa (i.e. Suwa Myōjin) declares the Ōhōri to be his 'true body' (真神体 shin no shintai) and the Misayama (三斎山) hunting grounds below Yatsugatake (here likened to Vulture Peak in India) to be another manifestation of himself that cleanses (斎) the three (三) evils: evil thoughts, evil speech and evil actions. He promises that whoever sets foot at Misayama will not fall into the lower, evil realms of existence (悪趣 akushu); conversely, the god condemns and disowns whoever defiles the hunting grounds by cutting down its trees or digging out the soil.

A commentary on the Mishirushibumi, the Suwa Shichū (陬波私注 "Personal Notes on the Suwa Mishirusibumi," written 1313–1314), elaborates on the text by retelling the legend of Suwa Myōjin's consecration of his first priest:

The Daimyōjin was born during [the year/month/day of] the Yang Wood Horse and disappeared during [the year/month/day of] the Yang Wood Horse.
Sokutan Daijin (続旦大臣) was the Daimyōjin's uncle who accompanied him from India. When the Daimyōjin was to disappear, he took off his garments, put them on the Daijin, and dubbed him the Misogihōri (御衣木法理). He then pronounced a vow: "You shall consider this priest to be my body."

The same text identifies the god's uncle Sokutan Daijin with Arikazu.

Suwa Myōjin and the frog god

Two texts, the Monoimi no rei and the Suwa Shichū (陬波私注 "Personal Notes on the Suwa Mishirusibumi," written 1313–1314), mention an oral legend about Suwa Myōjin pacifying the waves of the four seas by subduing an unruly frog god.

Suwa (陬波) should be read as "the waves are calm." When a frog god (蝦蟆神), being a harmful god (荒神 kōjin), caused suffering to the realm, the Daimyōjin quelled it and came to reside here; [because] the four seas were calm, it is called Suwa.

After defeating this frog, Suwa Myōjin then blocked the way to its dwelling - a hole leading to the underwater palace of the dragon god of the sea, the Ryūgū-jō - with a rock and sat on it.

This story functions as an etiological legend for the annual sacrifice of frogs held every New Year's Day in the Upper Shrine (see below) as well as yet another folk etymology for the toponym 'Suwa' (rendered here as 陬波), here explained as deriving either from a term for a wave lapping onto the sea's edge or a reference to the deity's pacification of the waters: "the waves are calm."

The portrayal of Suwa Myōjin's enemy as a frog also hints at the deity's character as a serpentine water god. (As a point of comparison, the obscure snake god Ugajin was also credited with defeating a malevolent frog deity.) The frog god itself has been interpreted either as representing the native deities Mishaguji and/or Moriya, with its defeat symbolizing the victory of the cult of Suwa Myōjin over the indigenous belief system, or as a symbol of the Buddhist concept of the three poisons (ignorance, greed, and hatred), which Suwa Myōjin, as an incarnation of the bodhisattva Samantabhadra, his esoteric aspect Vajrasattva and the Wisdom King Trailokyavijaya (interpreted as a manifestation of Vajrasattva), is said to destroy.

The dragon (serpent) deity of Suwa

Folk belief has long held the god of Suwa Shrine to assume the form of a serpent or dragon. Consequently, the deity appears as such in a number of folktales and anecdotes.

In one such story, Suwa Myōjin once came to Izumo Province in the form of a dragon so gigantic that only his head can be seen; his tail was still at Suwa, caught in a tall pine tree by the shores of the lake. The other gods, upon seeing him, were so astounded and frightened at his enormous size that they exempted him from attending their yearly meetings. Thus, the deity of Suwa is claimed to be one of the very few kami in Japan who do not leave their shrines during the month of Kannazuki, when most gods are thought to gather at Izumo and thus are absent from most of the country. The supposed tree where the dragon's tail was caught (currently reduced to a stump) is locally known as .

A variant of this story transposes the setting from Izumo to the Imperial Palace in Kyoto; in this version, the various kami are said to travel to the ancient capital every New Year's Day to greet the emperor.

Another popular story promulgated by wandering preachers associated with the shrines of Suwa during the medieval period claimed the Suwa deity to have originally been Kōga Saburō, a warrior who temporarily became a dragon or a snake after a journey into the underworld.

Omiwatari

Cracks and ridges that form on a frozen Lake Suwa during cold winters have traditionally been interpreted as the trail left behind by Suwa Myōjin as he leaves the Upper Shrine and crosses the lake to meet his wife enshrined on the Lower Shrine on the opposite (northern) shore. Called Omiwatari (御神渡 'the god's crossing' or 'the god's pathway'), the cracks were considered to be a good omen for the coming year. The priests of the Grand Shrine of Suwa traditionally used the crack's appearance to divine the quality of the year's harvest. For the locals, the crack also served as a sign that the frozen lake was safe to walk upon. Conversely, the omiwatari's failure to appear at all (明海 ake no umi) or the cracks forming in an unusual way were held to be a sign of bad luck for the year.

Since the late 20th century, the omiwatari has become a much rarer sight than it was in the past due to rising temperatures caused by global warming.

As god of war

Suwa Myōjin is also considered to be a god of war, one of a number of such deities in the Japanese pantheon. The Ryōjin Hishō compiled in 1179 (the late Heian period) also attest to the worship of the god of Suwa in the capacity of god of warfare at the time of its compilation, naming the shrine of Suwa among famous shrines to martial deities in the eastern half of the country.

During the medieval period, legends claiming Suwa Myōjin to have appeared and provided assistance to eminent figures such as Empress Jingū or the general Sakanoue no Tamuramaro during their respective military campaigns circulated.

The god of Suwa was also credited with the attempted Mongol invasions of Japan under Kublai Khan. The Taiheiki recounts a story where a five-colored cloud resembling a serpent (a manifestation of the god) rose up from Lake Suwa and spread away westward to assist the Japanese army against the Mongols.

On the seventh day, when the Imperial devotions were completed, from Lake Suwa there arose a cloud of many colours, in shape like a great serpent, which spread away towards the west. The doors of the Temple-treasury of Hachiman flew open, and the skies were filled with a sound of galloping horses and of ringing bits. In the twenty-one shrines of Yoshino the brocade-curtained mirrors moved, the swords of the Temple-treasury put on a sharp edge, and all the shoes offered to the god turned towards the west. At Sumiyoshi sweat poured from below the saddles of the four horses sacred to the deities, and the iron shields turned of themselves and faced the enemy in a line.

Analysis

Takeminakata in the Kojiki

Takeminakata's abrupt appearance in the Kojiki's version of the kuni-yuzuri myth has long puzzled scholars, as the god is mentioned nowhere else in the work, including the genealogy of Ōkuninushi's progeny that precedes the kuni-yuzuri narrative proper. Aside from the parallel account contained in the Kuji Hongi (which was itself based on the Kojiki), he is altogether absent from the Nihon Shoki's version of the myth. Early documents from Izumo such as the province's Fudoki also fail to mention any god named '(Take)minakata', nor is there apparently any sign of Takeminakata worship in Izumo in antiquity.

Pre-modern authors such as Motoori Norinaga tended to explain Takeminakata's absence outside of the Kojiki and the Kuji Hongi by conflating the god with certain obscure deities found in other sources thought to share certain similar characteristics (e.g. Isetsuhiko). While a few modern scholars still suppose some kind of indirect connection between the deity and Izumo by postulating that Takeminakata's origins lie either in peoples that migrated from Izumo northwards to Suwa and the Hokuriku region or in Hokuriku itself (the ancient province of Koshi, a region apparently once under Izumo's sphere of influence as can be inferred from the myth of Ōkuninushi's marriage to Nunakawahime), others instead propose that the connection between Takeminakata and Izumo is an artificial construct by the Kojiki's compilers.

The contest between Takeminakata and Takemikazuchi - an element absent in other versions of the kuni-yuzuri myth cycle - is often explained as being either a new myth invented to serve the interests of the imperial court and the Fujiwara clan, descendants of the Nakatomi clan that had worshiped Takemikazuchi as a patron deity (indeed, in other versions it is the god Futsunushi that takes center stage rather than Takemikazuchi, who is believed to have taken on Futsunushi's roles and attributes after the Nakatomi rose to power), or an adaptation/reversal of a myth concerning a battle between an interloping god and a local deity preserved in the Suwa region (see below), with Takeminakata (the invading conqueror in Suwa myth) being recast into the role of the subjugated earthly kami.

Suwa Myōjin and Moriya

The myth of Takeminakata's (Suwa Myōjin's) arrival in Suwa and his defeat of the god Moriya has been interpreted as the mythicization of a historical event in which a local lineage of chieftains who ruled the Suwa area was subjugated by invading outsiders, who subsequently set themselves up as the new rulers of the region - all the while still retaining the subjugated clan in an important position as the wielder of spiritual and ritual authority. This theory explains the relation between the Suwa (Miwa/Jin) and Moriya priestly families of the Upper Shrine of Suwa as that of the Moriya clan being the regional power supplanted by the newly arrived Miwa (Suwa) clan.

While one theory places this event during the end of the Jōmon period, thus portraying the new arrivals as agrarian Yayoi tribes who came into conflict with indigenous Jōmon hunter-gatherers, others instead propose this conflict to have taken place during the late Kofun period (late 6th-early 7th century), when keyhole-shaped burial mounds containing equestrian gear as grave goods - up to this point found mainly in the Shimoina region southwest of Suwa - begin to appear in the Lake Suwa area, replacing the kind of burial that had been common in the region since the early 5th century. This theory thus supposes these migrants to have been a clan allied with the Yamato kingdom that specialized in horse breeding and horseback riding. Indeed, the Yamato polity showed strong interest to Shinano because of its suitability as a place for grazing and breeding horses and considered it a strategic base for conquering the eastern regions. This clan, the Miwa (Suwa), is thought to be related to either the Kanasashi clan (金刺氏), an offshoot of a local magnate clan (kuni no miyatsuko) that later became the high priestly family of the Lower Shrine of Suwa, or the Miwa (Ōmiwa) clan (三輪氏) originally based on the area around Mount Miwa in Yamato Province. The theory suggests based on archaeological evidence that the Miwa (Suwa) came to the Suwa Basin from Shimoina, making their way northwards along the Tenryū River. In conjunction with this hypothesis, it is pointed out that in the Nobushige Gejō (believed to be the earliest attestation of this myth), the Suwa deity is said to have descended from heaven bringing with him bells, a mirror, a saddle and a bridle.

This theory that the legend of the Suwa deity's victory over Moriya reflects historical fact has recently come into question. Due to similarities between certain variants of this myth and medieval legends surrounding Prince Shōtoku's defeat of Mononobe no Moriya (e.g. Shōtoku's and Suwa Myōjin's opponents both being named 'Moriya', the deity's manifestation and the foundation of the Upper Shrine being dated to the year 587 - the same year as the battle between the Soga and the Mononobe clans - in some texts), some see the myth as being highly influenced by such stories about Shōtoku (so Ihara, 2008), while others regard it as an outright invention modeled on these legends (Harada, 2018). Aoki (2012) theorizes that the myth developed somewhere during the late Heian and early Kamakura periods, when the deity of Suwa came to be venerated as a warrior god, and cautions against uncritical application of this story to known archaeological data.

Takeminakata in imperial sources
While the Kojiki does not yet explicitly mention the worship of Takeminakata in Suwa, by the following century, we see the name applied to the god worshipped in what is now the Grand Shrine of Suwa: aside from the Kuji Hongi's (807-936 CE) reference to Takeminakata being enshrined in 'Suwa Shrine in Suwa District' the Shoku Nihon Kōki mentions the deity 'Minakatatomi-no-Kami of Suwa District, Shinano Province' (信濃国諏訪郡 ... 南方刀美神) being promoted from rankless (无位) to junior fifth rank, lower grade (従五位下) by the imperial court in the year 842 CE (Jōwa 9).

During the 850-60s, Takeminakata and his shrine rose very rapidly in rank (Montoku Jitsuroku, Nihon Sandai Jitsuroku), being promoted to the rank of junior fifth, upper grade (従五位上) in 850 (Kashō 3), to junior third (従三位) in 851 (Ninju 1), to junior (従二位) and then senior second (正二位) in 859 (Jōgan 1), and finally to junior first rank (従一位) in 867 (Jōgan 9). The influence of the Kanasashi-no-toneri clan is thought to be behind the deity's sudden progress in rank.

After a few decades, the 'Register of Deities' (神名帳 Jinmyōchō) section of the Engishiki (927) speaks of the 'Minakatatomi Shrine(s)' (南方刀美神社) as enshrining two deities and being the two major ('eminent') shrines of Suwa district. By 940 (Tengyō 3), the deity had been promoted to the highest rank of senior first (正一位).

Consort and Offspring

Yasakatome

Suwa Myōjin's spouse is the goddess , most often considered to be the deity of the Lower Shrine of Suwa or the Shimosha. Unlike the relatively well-documented Suwa Kamisha, very little concrete information is available regarding the origins of the Shimosha and its goddess.

's first historical attestation is in the Shoku Nihon Kōki, where the goddess is given the rank of junior fifth, lower grade (従五位下) by the imperial court in the tenth month of Jōwa 9 (842 CE), five months after the same rank was conferred on Takeminakata. As Takeminakata rose up in rank, so did , so that by 867 CE,  had been promoted to senior second (正二位). The goddess was finally promoted to senior first rank (正一位) in 1074 (Jōhō 1).

Stories and claims about the goddess are diverse and contradictory. Regarding her parentage for instance, the lore of Kawaai Shrine (川会神社) in Kitaazumi District identifies  as the daughter of Watatsumi, god of the sea,
which has been seen as hinting to a connection between the goddess and the seafaring Azumi clan (安曇氏). Another claim originating from sources dating from the Edo period is that  was the daughter of Ame-no-yasakahiko (天八坂彦命), a god recorded in the Kuji Hongi as one of the companions of Nigihayahi-no-Mikoto when the latter came down from heaven.

The ice cracks that appear on Lake Suwa during cold winters, the omiwatari (see above) are reputed in folklore to be caused by Suwa Myōjin's crossing the frozen lake to visit .

Princess Kasuga

The Kōga Saburō legend identifies the goddess of the Shimosha with Saburō's wife, whose name is given in some variants of the story as 'Princess Kasuga' (春日姫 Kasuga-hime).

Children

In Suwa, a number of local deities are popularly considered to be the children of Suwa Myōjin and his consort. Ōta (1926) lists the following gods:

Hikokamiwake-no-Mikoto (彦神別命)
Tatsuwakahime-no-Kami (多都若姫神)
Taruhime-no-Kami (多留姫神)
Izuhayao-no-Mikoto (伊豆早雄命)
Tateshina-no-Kami (建志名神)
Tsumashinahime-no-Kami (妻科姫神)
Ikeno'o-no-Kami (池生神)
Tsumayamizuhime-no-mMikoto (都麻屋美豆姫命)
Yakine-no-Mikoto (八杵命)
Suwa-wakahiko-no-Mikoto (洲羽若彦命)
Katakurabe-no-Mikoto (片倉辺命)
Okihagi-no-Mikoto (興波岐命)
Wakemizuhiko-no-Mikoto (別水彦命)
Moritatsu-no-Kami (守達神)
Takamori-no-kami (高杜神)
Enatakemimi-no-Mikoto (恵奈武耳命)
Okutsuiwatate-no-Kami (奥津石建神)
Ohotsuno-no-Kami (竟富角神)
Ōkunugi-no-Kami (大橡神)

Claimed descendants

Suwa clan

The Suwa clan who once occupied the position of head priest or ōhōri of the Suwa Kamisha traditionally considered themselves to be descendants of Suwa Myōjin/Takeminakata, although historically they are probably descended from the Kanasashi-no-toneri clan appointed by the Yamato court to govern the Suwa area in the 6th century (see above).

Other clans

The Suwa ōhōri was assisted by five priests, some of whom were also considered to be descendants of local deities related to Suwa Myōjin/Takeminakata. One clan, the Koide (小出氏), the original occupants of the offices of negi-dayū (禰宜大夫) and gi-no-hōri (擬祝), claimed descent from the god Yakine. A second clan, the Yajima (八島(嶋)氏 or 矢島氏), which served as gon-no-hōri (権祝), considered the god Ikeno'o to be their ancestor.

Worship

Shrines
As the gods of the Grand Shrine of Suwa, Suwa Myōjin/Takeminakata and  also serve as the deities of shrines belonging to the Suwa shrine network (諏訪神社 Suwa-jinja) all over Japan.

As god of wind and water

The Nihon Shoki's record of Yamato emissaries worshipping the god of Suwa alongside the gods of Tatsuta Shrine - worshipped for their power to control and ward off wind-related disasters such as droughts and typhoons - implies that the Yamato imperial court recognized the deity as a god of wind and water during the late 7th century. One theory regarding the origin of the name '(Take)minakata' even supposes it to derive from a word denoting a body of water (水潟 minakata; see above).

Snake-shaped iron sickle blades called nagikama (薙鎌) were traditionally used in the Suwa region to ward off strong winds, typhoons and other natural disasters; it was once customary for nagikama to be attached to wooden staves and placed on one corner of the rooftop of the house during the autumn typhoon season. Nagikama are also traditionally hammered onto the trees chosen to become the onbashira of the Suwa Kamisha and Shimosha some time before these are actually felled. In addition to these and other uses, the blades are also distributed to function as shintai for branch shrines of the Suwa shrine network.

Association with snakes and dragons

Suwa Myōjin's association with the snake or the dragon in many stories featuring the god such as the Kōga Saburō legend (see 'Legends of Suwa Myōjin' above) might be related to his being considered as a deity presiding over wind and water, due to the association of dragons with winds and the rain in Japanese belief. (See also mizuchi.)

Under shinbutsu-shūgō

During the Middle Ages, under the then-prevalent synthesis of Buddhism and Shinto, Suwa Myōjin was identified with the bodhisattva Samantabhadra (Fugen), with the goddess of the Shimosha being associated with the thousand-armed form of the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara (Senju Kannon). During the medieval period, Buddhist temples and other edifices were erected on the precincts of both shrines, including a stone pagoda called the Tettō (鉄塔 "iron tower") - symbolizing the legendary iron tower in India where, according to Shingon tradition, Nagarjuna was said to have received esoteric teachings from Vajrasattva (who is sometimes identified with Samantabhadra) - and a sanctuary to Samantabhadra (普賢堂 Fugendō), both of which served at the time as the Kamisha's main objects of worship.

With the establishment of State Shinto after the Meiji Restoration in 1868 and the subsequent separation of Buddhism and Shinto, the shrine monks (shasō) attached to Buddhist temples in the Suwa shrine complex were laicized, with Buddhist symbols and structures being either removed or destroyed; Buddhist ceremonies performed in both the Kamisha and the Shimosha, such as the yearly offering of the Lotus Sutra to Suwa Myōjin (involving the placing of a copy of the sutra inside the Tettō), were discontinued.

As god of hunting

Suwa Myōjin is also worshipped as a god of hunting; not surprisingly, some of the Kamisha's religious ceremonies traditionally involve(d) ritual hunting and/or animal sacrifice.

For instance, the Frog Hunting Ritual (蛙狩神事 kawazugari shinji) held every New Year's Day involves the shooting (or rather, piercing) of frogs captured from a sacred river or stream within the Kamisha's precincts with miniature arrows. This ritual - which has come under harsh criticism from local activists and animal rights groups for its perceived cruelty to the frogs involved - was traditionally performed to secure peace and a bountiful harvest for the coming year.

Another festival, the Ontōsai (御頭祭) or the Tori no matsuri (酉の祭, so called because it was formerly held on the Day of the Rooster) currently held every April 15, feature the offering of seventy-five stuffed deer heads (a substitute for freshly cut heads of deer used in the past), as well as the consumption of venison and other game such as wild boar or rabbit, various kinds of seafood and other foodstuffs by the priests and other participants in a ritual banquet.

One of the Suwa Kamisha's hunting festivals, the Misayama Festival (御射山祭), formerly held in a field - the kōya (神野 'the god's plain') - at the foot of the Yatsugatake Mountains for five days (from the 26th to the 30th of the seventh month), was one of the grandest festivals in Suwa during the Kamakura period, attracting many of the samurai class from all across Japan who engaged in displays of mounted archery, bouts of sumo wrestling and falconry as part of the festivities, as well as people from all walks of life. The Shimosha also held its own Misayama Festival at the same time as the Kamisha (albeit in a different location), in which various warrior clans also participated.

Suwa Myōjin's association with the mountains and hunting is also evident from the description of the ōhōri as sitting upon a deer hide (the deer being an animal thought to be sacred to Suwa Myōjin) during the Ontōsai ritual as practiced during medieval times.

Suwa Myōjin and meat eating

At a time when slaughter of animals and consumption of meat was frowned upon due to Mahayana Buddhism's strict views on vegetarianism and the general Buddhist opposition against the taking of life, the cult of Suwa Myōjin was a unique feature in the Japanese religious landscape for its celebration of hunting and meat eating.

A four-line verse attached to the Kōga Saburō legend popularly known as the Suwa no kanmon (諏訪の勘文) encapsulates the justification of meat eating within a Buddhist framework: by being eaten by humans and 'dwelling' inside their bodies, ignorant animals could achieve enlightenment together with their human consumers.

The Kamisha produced special talismans (鹿食免 kajiki-men "permit to eat venison") and chopsticks (鹿食箸 kajiki-bashi) that were held to allow the bearer to eat meat. Since it was the only one of its kind in Japan, the talisman was popular among hunters and meat eaters. These sacred licenses and chopsticks were distributed to the public both by the priests of the Kamisha as well as wandering preachers associated with the shrine known as oshi (御師), who preached the tale of Suwa Myōjin as Kōga Saburō as well as other stories concerning the god and his benefits.

As war god

Suwa Myōjin is also considered to be a god of war, one of a number of such deities in the Japanese pantheon. Besides the legend of the god's apparition to Sakanoue no Tamuramaro (see above), the Ryōjin Hishō compiled in 1179 (the late Heian period) also attest to the worship of the god of Suwa in the capacity of god of warfare at the time of its compilation, naming the shrine of Suwa among famous shrines to martial deities in the eastern half of the country.

During the Kamakura period, the Suwa clan's association with the shogunate and the Hōjō clan helped further cement Suwa Myōjin's reputation as a martial deity. The shrines of Suwa and the priestly clans thereof flourished under the patronage of the Hōjō, which promoted devotion to the god as a sign of loyalty to the shogunate. Suwa branch shrines became numerous all across Japan, especially in territories held by clans devoted to the god (for instance, the Kantō region, traditional stronghold of the Minamoto (Seiwa Genji) clan).

The Takeda clan of Kai Province (modern Yamanashi Prefecture) were devotees of Suwa Myōjin, its most famous member, the Sengoku daimyō Takeda Shingen being no exception. His devotion is visibly evident in some of his war banners, which bore the god's name and invocations such as Namu Suwa Nangū Hosshō Kamishimo Daimyōjin (南無諏方南宮法性上下大明神 'Namo Dharma-Nature Daimyōjin of the Suwa Upper and Lower Shrines'). The iconic horned helmet with the flowing white hair commonly associated with Shingen, popularly known as the Suwa-hosshō helmet (諏訪法性兜 Suwa-hosshō-(no)-kabuto), came to be reputed in some popular culture retellings to have been blessed by the god, guaranteeing success in battle to its wearer. Shingen also issued an order for the reinstitution of the religious rites of both the Kamisha and the Shimosha in 1565.

Family tree

See also
 Moreya
 Mishaguji
 Takemikazuchi
 Suwa taisha
 Onbashira Festival
 Ōkuninushi
 Snake worship
 Suwa Daimyōjin Ekotoba

Notes

References

Bibliography

Inoue, Takami (2003). "The Interaction between Buddhist and Shinto Traditions at Suwa Shrine." In

Suwa, Enchū. Suwa Daimyōjin Ekotoba, in

External links
Official website of Suwa Grand Shrine
Official website of Moriya Shrine (洩矢神社公式HP)
Jinchōkan Moriya Historical Museum  on Chino City's official website

Agricultural gods
Hunting gods
Japanese deities
Japanese mythology
Legendary serpents
Nature gods
Shinto
Shinto kami
Sky and weather gods
War gods
Wind gods
Suwa faith
Kunitsukami

Takeminakata


The Third Test of the 1948 Ashes series was one of five Tests in the The Ashes cricket series between Australia and England. The match was played at Old Trafford in Manchester from 8 to 13 July 1948, with a rest day on 11 July. The match was drawn after the whole of the fourth day and the first half of the fifth day was washed out due to rain; England had the upper hand before the weather intervened. The draw maintained Australia's 2–0 lead in the series, which was established through victories in the first two Tests. As Australia were the holders of The Ashes, the draw meant that England could do no better than level the series 2–2 by winning the last two Tests, and thus Australia retained The Ashes.

The Test started amid controversy following the omission of leading England batsman Len Hutton for performing poorly in the previous match. Having largely failed—apart from brief periods—to challenge Australia in the first two Tests, the hosts had made four changes to their team in an attempt to find a combination that could threaten the visitors' supremacy. Australia made their first change for the series, ending the Test career of veteran batsman Bill Brown after two poor matches. England captain Norman Yardley won the toss and elected to bat. Denis Compton left the field after being bloodied in the head by a Ray Lindwall bouncer. At this stage, the hosts were at 33/2 with an injured player, and they batted defensively for a period to try and regroup. Having received treatment, Compton returned with England in difficulty at 119/5 midway through the day and proceeded to score 145 not out, aided by several dropped catches, helping England to recover to 363 all out on the second afternoon.

Compton and seamer Alec Bedser were involved in a mix-up, resulting in the latter being run out and ending a 121-run partnership. Lindwall was the most successful bowler, taking 4/99. During the England innings, Australian opener Sid Barnes, who had gained much attention throughout the season for fielding at point-blank range in front of the batsman on strike, was hit in the ribs by a Dick Pollard pull shot and had to be carried from the ground and hospitalised. In reply, Australia batted steadily to be 126/3 by the end of the second day but then fell to 172/6—effectively seven wickets down with Barnes unable to bat after collapsing again—before evading the follow on by reaching 221. Australia scored slowly through the innings, finding the hosts' bowlers difficult to negotiate; Bedser took 4/81 and Pollard 3/53.

England began their second innings and were strongly placed on 174/3 at the end of the third day, an overall lead of 316 with seven wickets in hand. They had been aided by several dropped chances against Cyril Washbrook, who reached 85 by the close of play. However, rain meant that no play was possible on the fourth day and England did not have the opportunity to capitalise on their favourable position and set Australia a high runchase. Yardley declared on the final morning, but play did not start until mid-afternoon due to continuing inclement weather. The Australian batsman thereafter played for a draw; they batted slowly and reached 92/1 when stumps were drawn, not making an attempt to chase the 317 for victory. Arthur Morris made 54 not out, his second half-century of the match to go with his 51 in the first innings, registering Australia's top-score on both occasions. Although 30% of the playing time was lost to rain, the match still managed to set a record for the highest attendance at a Test match in England, surpassing the mark set in the previous Test.

Background

Led by Donald Bradman, Australia had proceeded through the first two months of their 1948 England tour undefeated. After winning 10 of the 12 games before the Tests, eight of these by an innings, they won the First Test by eight wickets. Before the Second Test, they defeated Northamptonshire by an innings before drawing with Yorkshire. Bradman's men then crushed England by 409 runs in the Second Test at Lord's. Between Tests, they defeated Surrey by ten wickets and crushed Gloucestershire by an innings and 363 runs, having amassed 774/7 declared, their highest score of the season, and the second highest ever by an Australian team in England.

When the teams reconvened at Old Trafford for the Third Test, leading English batsman Len Hutton had been dropped. The reason was said to be Hutton's struggles with Lindwall's short-pitched bowling in the previous Test, during which he scored 20 and 13. Observers noticed Hutton backing away from the fast bowlers. The English selectors believed such a sight would have a negative effect on the rest of the side—which was not in good batting form—as it was a poor example from a key player. According to journalist and retired Australian Test leg spinner Bill O'Reilly, Hutton's second innings at Lord's had been the worst of his career and gave the impression he had been scared of the Australian pace attack. The omission generated considerable controversy, and pleased the Australians, who felt Hutton was England's best batsman, and thought he had been treated poorly by the selectors. Former Australian batsman Jack Fingleton pointed out that while Hutton had batted erratically and appeared uncomfortable in the previous Test, he also had a strong track record against the tourists, having made 52 and 64 for the Marylebone Cricket Club against Australia in the lead-up matches, and 94, 76 and 122 retired ill in his last three Test innings during the previous Ashes series of 1946–47. O'Reilly regarded Hutton's omission as punitive and vindictive. He said if Hutton needed to be shielded from the new ball attack, then England should have reshuffled their batting order to place their beleaguered opener down the order. O'Reilly said that as Hutton had a large range of attacking strokes, he was not a stereotypical, defensive opener who was mainly used to wear down the opening bowlers, and could be used in the middle order as an aggressor.

Hutton's opening position was taken by debutant George Emmett, who made 43 and nine for Gloucestershire in Australia's preceding tour match. In that match, two of Australia's leading pacemen, Keith Miller and Bill Johnston, did not bowl. Despite scoring 76 and 92 in the preceding match against Warwickshire, Emmett was not having a prolific season; he ended the summer with an average of 36.11.

England made three further changes. Spinner Jack Young and paceman Dick Pollard replaced the spin pair of Doug Wright and Jim Laker in the bowling department, meaning England would only play one slow bowler. Wright and Laker had struggled to penetrate the Australian batting lineup in the Second Test, taking match figures of 2/123 and 2/128 respectively. In contrast, Pollard had taken match figures of 4/85 for Lancashire in a match against Australia earlier in the season, and had taken 27 wickets in four county matches in the past fortnight. The selection was seen as being influenced by the fact the Test was being staged at Lancashire's home ground, where Pollard was familiar with the conditions, and the Australians had a high regard for him. In the month since being dropped for the Second Test in favour of Wright, after taking 1/107 in the First Test, Young had returned to play for Middlesex, taking 27 wickets in five matches. Alec Coxon, the Yorkshire allrounder who made his Test debut in the previous match at Lord's and opened the bowling, taking match figures of 3/172 and scoring 19 and a duck, was replaced by Jack Crapp, a debutant batsman. Crapp had scored 100 not out and 32 for Gloucestershire in the preceding match against the tourists. It was only the third century scored against Australia during the tour, and was part of a season in which Crapp had made four centuries and six half-centuries in 16 matches thus far. Coxon's omission was believed to have been caused more by off-field events than sporting merit. There was a story that he punched Denis Compton—whom he disliked and considered self-important—in the dressing room, but Coxon always denied this. However, there was certainly an altercation and Coxon was never selected again. O'Reilly interpreted the omission of the Yorkshiremen Hutton and Coxon at the expense of the Gloucestershire pair of Crapp and Emmett as symptoms of a regional bias in the English selection panel. He pointed out that only one of the four selectors—England captain Norman Yardley, who was also from Yorkshire—was from the north of the country.

Australia dropped Bill Brown, who had scored 73 runs at a batting average of 24.33 in three Test innings during the season. Brown was Australia's reserve opener, but Bradman opted to play him out of position in the middle-order, instead of using a specialist. Brown had also struggled in his unfamiliar position in the matches against Worcestershire and the Marylebone Cricket Club, scoring 25 and 26. According to O'Reilly, Brown had appeared out of place in the middle-order because he was used to the opener's classical role of defending against and wearing down the opening bowlers, rather than attacking. He was replaced by the all rounder Sam Loxton, who had hammered an unbeaten 159—including several sixes—against Gloucestershire, and that innings was particularly noted for his quick footwork, which he used to charge and attack the off spin of Tom Goddard.

Scorecard

England innings

Australia innings

8 July: Day One

The match started amid clear weather, a far cry from the previous Ashes Test at the ground in 1938, which was abandoned without a ball being bowled due to continuous rain for several days. The outfield was also smooth and green, a contrast to its state during World War II, when it was left cratered by German bombing raids. Yardley won the toss and elected to bat.

The change in England's opening pair did not result in an improvement on the scoreboard. A run out was narrowly avoided following a mix-up on the first ball, and Cyril Washbrook and Emmett appeared to be uncomfortable on a surface that offered early assistance to the bowlers. The Australians started with Ray Lindwall and Bill Johnston taking the new ball, but Bradman had misjudged the breeze and had to swap his bowlers' ends. For this purpose, Loxton bowled a solitary over. He was erratic in his length and bowled three long hops outside leg stump at the debutant Emmett, who ignored the opportunity to attack and let the balls pass. At the other end, Washbrook also played watchfully and avoided any horizontal bat shots, apart from a missed cut against Johnston's bowling. Overall, the English openers appeared comfortable in the first half-hour of play.

With 22 runs on the board after half an hour of play, Washbrook played around a yorker from Johnston and was bowled, much to the disappointment of his Lancashire home crowd. Johnston had been bowling from over the wicket, and his left-arm deliveries had generally been swinging back into the right-handed Washbrook. However, the opening batsman did not detect Johnston's variation ball, which was released from wide of the crease and angled across more sharply without curling back in. Washbrook played inside the line of the ball, which hit his stumps. Australia nearly had two wickets in the same over as the new batsman Bill Edrich struggled. He played loosely outside the off stump to the first ball but did not get an edge, and on the third delivery he faced from Johnston, Edrich survived again. Receiving a ball on middle and leg stump, he tried to defend it straight back down the pitch, rather than the conventional stroke to the leg side, and managed to edge the ball past the slips for four.

Six runs after the fall of Washbrook, the diminutive Emmett fended a rising ball from Lindwall to Sid Barnes at short leg, leaving England 28/2. Surprised by Lindwall's bouncer, Emmett took his eyes from the ball and fended with one hand on the horizontally-held bat, while ducking his head down below his arms. The ball bounced slowly off the pitch and after hitting Emmett's bat, rebounded gently up in the air for Barnes to collect. In Australia's match against Gloucestershire immediately preceding the Test, Lindwall bowled a bouncer to Emmett, who hesitantly parried it away for a single. Lindwall did not deliver any more bouncers to Emmett during the match, and O'Reilly thought the paceman was quietly waiting until the Tests to expose his opponent's weakness against the short ball. O'Reilly concluded that Australia's pace duo "had again disposed of the English opening batsmen with the minimum amount of effort."

Edrich eschewed attacking strokeplay as he and Denis Compton attempted to establish themselves. He was hurried by the pace of Lindwall and Johnston, making many last-moment movements to either hit the ball or withdraw from a shot.

Lindwall bowled a series of short balls. One hit Compton on the arm and the batsman attempted to hook another bouncer, but edged it into his face. Upon hearing the umpire's call of no-ball while the ball was travelling towards him, and knowing he was immune from dismissal, Compton decided to change his stroke. Having initially positioned himself to deflect the ball into the leg side, he then attempted to hook the ball, but could not readjust quickly enough. The velocity of the ball was such that it rebounded from his head and flew more than halfway to the boundary before landing. This forced Compton to leave the field with a bloodied eyebrow with the score at 33/2. After a ten-minute delay, Crapp strode to the centre for his debut innings, and he got off the mark from his first ball, gliding Lindwall past gully for a single. Lindwall then struck Edrich on the hand with another short ball, provoking angry heckling from spectators who compared him to Harold Larwood, a 1930s paceman who targeted batsmen with Bodyline, a strategy of intimidatory bowling. Edrich and Crapp then engaged in grim defensive play, resulting in one 25-minute period during which only one run was added, as England reached lunch with their total on 57/2. Edrich had made 14 from 90 minutes of batting, while Crapp had made 11 in 60 minutes. One of the motives of batting slowly without taking risks was to ensure the innings lasted long enough that it would still be in progress by the time Compton recovered from his concussion, so he could resume batting. Edrich appeared to be lacking in confidence due to his recent run of low scores, and thus hesitant to play with any attacking intent, whereas Crapp was usually circumspect. For a series of accurate overs from Ernie Toshack, Crapp repeatedly defended a sequence of deliveries to Arthur Morris at silly point. Toshack's first five overs were all maidens.

Upon the resumption, Crapp began to accelerate, hitting a six—which flew directly back over the bowler's head and over the sightscreen—and three driven boundaries from the off spin of Ian Johnson. This was a stark contrast to Johnson's first ten overs before lunch, which had yielded only seven runs. Crapp was eager to use his feet to get to the pitch of Johnson's deliveries, and subsequently dealt with the spin fairly comfortably, whereas many of his compatriots stood in their crease and found matters much more difficult. He then hit Toshack to Barnes at short leg, but the catch was dropped. However, Crapp did not capitalise as Toshack conceded only eight runs in a sequence of eight overs. Australia took the new ball with the score at 87 and Lindwall trapped Crapp—who did not offer a shot—leg before wicket for 37; the batsman misjudged the line of a straight ball and thought it had pitched and struck his leg outside off stump. Tom Dollery came in and took a single to get off the mark but then missed a Johnston yorker and was bowled. This dismissal mirrored that of Washbrook's in that Dollery failed to detect Johnston's variation ball, and thus played for swing when there was none. England had lost two wickets for one run to be 97/4. Captain Norman Yardley came in and played the fast bowling of Lindwall and Johnston with relative ease, retreating onto the back foot to allow himself more time to play his shots. Edrich was struck on the hand and Yardley edged to Keith Miller in the slips cordon on the half-volley.

After 170 minutes of slow batting, Edrich gloved a rising Lindwall delivery and was caught behind by wicket-keeper Don Tallon. At 119/5, Compton returned to the field, his head wound having been stitched to stop the bleeding. He and Yardley played carefully until the tea break, and only the England captain offered a chance; Barnes was unable to complete the reflex catch at short leg from the bowling of Toshack. After the resumption of play, Yardley on-drove Lindwall for a four, but lofted Ernie Toshack, who had been bowling leg theory, into the packed on-side where he was caught by Johnson at forward square leg. Toshack's defensive bowling had caused the English skipper to lose patience and his departure for 22 left the score on 141/6.

This brought wicket-keeper Godfrey Evans to the crease and exposed the hosts' lower-order. The last of the specialist batsmen, Compton nearly departed soon after when he leaned forward to a leg-side delivery from Johnson's off spin. He overbalanced and stumbled forwards, and Tallon removed the bails. There were no television replays to assist the umpires in those days, and although the attempted stumping appeared close to the naked eye, the benefit of the doubt was given to the batsman and the appeal rejected. Compton made use of this and attacked Toshack successfully, forcing Bradman to make a bowling change. In fading light, Compton combined with the gloveman to add 75 runs for the seventh wicket in 70 minutes, before Lindwall removed Evans—who attempted a wild slash—to leave England 216/7. Compton reached stumps on 64, accompanied by Alec Bedser, who was on four, as England ended the day at 231/7. Compton had been dropped one-handed on 50 by Tallon, before being missed on 64 by the wicket-keeper from the bowling of Johnston just before stumps.

9 July: Day Two

England resumed on the second day at 231/7 amid dark skies and the threat of rain; Australia was unable to break through despite taking the new ball. Bedser stubbornly defied the Australians, playing with a straight bat and stretching forward onto the front foot to block the ball. Tallon dropped Compton for the third time, off the bowling of Johnston when the batsman was on 73. Lindwall bowled well below his top pace in the morning session and the batsmen slowly accumulated their runs. Bedser was the more defensive of the two Englishmen, and Compton drove Toshack past mid on for a four to register his second century of the series, after 235 minutes of batting. Lindwall then beat Compton in each of his last three overs before lunch, but the Englishman survived. England reached lunch at 323/7 having added 92 runs without losing a wicket. Compton was on 123 and Bedser on 37, having brought up their century partnership. Five minutes were lost in the morning session when a stray dog invaded the playing arena and evaded policemen and a number of Australian fielders who attempted to catch it.

Immediately subsequent to the resumption, Compton took two boundaries from Lindwall's first over and another from Johnston's subsequent over. He then hit a ball into the covers and Bradman and Loxton collided in an attempt to prevent a run. Compton called Bedser through for a run on the misfield, but Loxton recovered and threw the ball to the wicket-keeper's end with Bedser a long way short of the crease. It ended an innings of 145 minutes, in which Bedser scored 37 and featured in a 121-run partnership with Compton. According to O'Reilly, it was the only mistake Compton made in his innings. The stand fell five runs short of England's highest Test partnership for the eighth wicket against Australia, a mark set by Patsy Hendren and Harold Larwood.

Pollard came to the crease and soon pulled a ball from Johnson into the ribs of Barnes, who was standing at short leg. Barnes stood closer than virtually all in that position, with one foot on the edge of the cut strip and he was unable to evade the ball. Barnes "dropped like a fallen tree", and had to be carried from the ground by four policemen and taken to hospital for an examination. Throughout the season, Barnes had received a mixed reception for his tactics; it was agreed they had a negative effect on the batsman, and there was a debate as to whether it was in the spirit of the rules. Compton hit two fours and Bradman responded by putting all of his men on the boundary to offer Compton a single so Pollard would be on strike and could be attacked. The Australia skipper then brought his men in close during the latter part of the over to prevent Compton from taking a single and regaining the strike for the following over. Compton was unable to farm the strike as he desired.

Toshack then bowled Pollard and Bradman caught Young from Johnston's bowling as England were dismissed for 363. Compton was unbeaten on 145 after 324 minutes of batting, having struck 16 fours. Lindwall took 4/99 and Johnston 3/67. Miller did not bowl, so the four remaining frontline bowlers sent down no less than 38 overs each.

Australia came out to bat halfway through the middle session. Having dropped Brown, Barnes's injury left Australia with only Arthur Morris as a specialist opener. Johnson was thus deployed as Australia's makeshift second opener. He had never opened at Test level, but had once batted at No. 3 when used as a nightwatchman after the fall of the first wicket late on a day's play. He was unable to make an impact—Bedser removed him for one, caught by Evans at chest height off the inside edge from a ball that reared from the pitch. It was a difficult catch as Evans was standing up to the stumps and he had little time to react to the ball's change of direction. O'Reilly criticised the use of Johnson as an opener, as vice-captain Lindsay Hassett had transformed himself into a defensive batsman with little backlift and a guarded approach. Johnson's dismissal brought Bradman in to face the new ball. The Australian captain thus had to face Bedser, who had already dismissed him three times in the Tests with a new ball, and Pollard, who had troubled him in the match against Lancashire. Pollard then trapped Bradman lbw with an off cutter that struck the Australian captain on the back foot for seven to leave Australia in trouble at 13/2. This provoked a strong cheer from the crowd in support of Pollard, the Lancashire local. Australia were pinned down as Pollard bowled 17 consecutive overs from his long run, aiming for leg stump to stifle the scoring. He was partnered by Bedser, who bowled unchanged for 90 minutes.

Morris and vice-captain Lindsay Hassett rebuilt the innings, adding 69 for the third wicket in 101 minutes. They played sedately without trying to take risks. Hassett fell after being beaten in flight by Young.  Aiming to break Young's restrictive leg side bowling, Hassett charged down the pitch and lofted a drive for four. However, in attempting a similar lofted drive over cover, he mishit the ball, which was caught by Washbrook at wide mid-off. Miller joined Morris and they took the score to 126/3 at stumps, with their personal tallies on 23 and 48 respectively. The run rate picked up in the last 50 minutes of the day as the pair added 44 runs; Miller was the more attacking of the Australian duo during this time.

10 July: Day Three

The weather was sunny on the third morning, and a large Saturday crowd had arrived from afar to watch proceedings; as a result, the gates were closed by 9:00 am with the ground already filled. The large gallery again encroached on the playing arena, which was not fenced. In the first hour, Australia struggled against the new ball. Miller was beaten three times in one over by Bedser before Pollard trapped him for 31, after Australia had added only nine runs in the first hour. Four runs later, Bedser removed Morris for 51, leaving Australia 139/5. It had been a slow morning for Morris, who took 21 minutes to add to his overnight total and reached his half-century 45 minutes into the day's play, having added only four runs to his overnight score. At the same time, Barnes had come out to bat upon Miller's dismissal, despite having collapsed while practising in the nets due to the aftereffects of his rib injury. He batted after refusing to stay in hospital and returning to the ground in spite of his bruised and discoloured ribs. He made a painful single in 25 minutes of batting before the injury became too much and he had to be taken from the ground with the assistance of Bradman among others, before being sent to hospital to be put under observation. Barnes would eventually miss two and a half weeks of cricket.

Tallon and Loxton added a further 33 before the former was caught behind from Edrich with the score at 172/6. Lindwall came into bat with Australia facing the prospect of the follow on. He received five consecutive bouncers from Edrich, one of which hit him in the hand and caused visible pain, evoking cheers from the home crowd. Loxton and Lindwall added a further 36 before the former was bowled by Pollard, leaving Australia 208/7, still five runs behind the follow-on mark. Johnston helped Lindwall advance Australia beyond the follow-on before Bedser removed both. Johnston was reprieved in his brief innings when he edged a delivery from Pollard in the direction of Edrich at first slip, but Evans dived across, trying to catch the ball in his right hand. The wicket-keeper could not hold on to the ball at full stretch, and the resulting deflection further to the right wrong-footed Edrich, who was moving the other way, and it went past him. From second slip, Crapp dived left behind Edrich but the ball landed a few centimetres beyond his fingers. However, in the next over Bedser, Johnston edged the ball in the same manner and Crapp caught the ball easily. Lindwall was the last man out for 23, while Toshack was unbeaten without scoring. Australia were thus bowled out for 221, giving England a lead of 142 runs. Bedser and Pollard were the most successful bowlers, taking 4/81 and 3/53 respectively.

At the start of England's second innings, Washbrook took a single from Lindwall, who then removed Emmett for a duck. The paceman pitched an outswinger on the off stump and Emmett edged it to wicket-keeper Tallon, who took it in his right hand while taking a dive.

Emmett's departure brought Lindwall's tormentor Edrich to the crease. Bradman advised his speedster not to bowl any bouncers at Edrich, fearing such actions would be interpreted as retaliation and provoke a negative media and crowd reaction. After not bowling in the first innings, Miller came on and immediately broke through Washbrook's defences, only to see the ball graze the stumps without dislodging the bails. Washbrook then drove Lindwall for four before Miller bounced him in the next over. After two Miller outswingers had evaded the outside edge of Washbrook, the batsman appeared unsettled. One bouncer was hit over square leg in an uncontrolled manner for a four, and another flew in the air, narrowly evading Loxton at fine leg. Lindwall followed Miller's lead towards Washbrook and was no-balled by umpire Davies for dragging his foot beyond the line. Following a disagreement, Davies threw Lindwall his jumper, but the matter faded away and the bowler was not no-balled again after discussing the matter with Bradman.

Lindwall then bounced Washbrook again and this time the England opener went for the hook shot. The ball flew high in the air straight towards Hassett at fine leg, who dropped the catch on his third juggled attempt. Having received a life on 21, Washbrook settled down as Loxton replaced Lindwall, while Johnson replaced Miller. Washbrook scored on both sides of the wicket and reached 50 in only 70 minutes as England proceeded to 80/1.

Lindwall returned for a new spell and almost hit Washbrook in the head. After tea, Edrich hit Miller for four. Although Lindwall did not retaliate for the bouncers he received in the first innings, Miller did so with four consecutive short balls, earning the ire of the crowd. Miller struck Edrich on the body before Bradman intervened, ordered him to stop, and apologised to Edrich. Edrich and Washbrook settled and put together a 124-run partnership in only 138 minutes, England's largest of the series to that point. Edrich hit a four to long on, followed by a lofted off drive for six from the bowling of Toshack, generating momentum in their favour. However, Washbrook called Edrich through for a quick single soon after. The batsmen hesitated and after both Englishmen had paused in the middle of their run, Morris threw down Edrich's stumps from cover, ending the partnership at 125/2. Edrich had struck eight boundaries and a six in his 53.

Toshack then removed Compton for a duck, caught in the slips by Miller, leaving England three wickets down with the score still on 125. Crapp joined Washbrook and helped see off the new ball, stopping Australia's fightback as England reached 174 by the close without further loss. Washbrook was unbeaten on 85 and Crapp 19. England were 316 runs in front with two days of play remaining and seven wickets in hand. Their position was aided by the Australian fielders, who dropped Washbrook twice more. The Lancastrian was on 78 when he again hooked Lindwall to long leg and was again dropped by Hassett. The Australian vice-captain responded by borrowing a helmet from a nearby policeman to signify his need for protection from the ball, much to the amusement of the crowd. After adding two more runs, Washbrook was dropped in the slips cordon by Johnson from the bowling of Toshack. At the end of the day's play, Washbrook purchased a drink for Hassett in gratitude for the dropped catches.

13 July: Day Five

The rest day was followed by the fourth day, which was abandoned due to persistent rain. Despite this, 21,000 spectators came in anticipation of the weather clearing so that some play would be possible. However, a northeasterly depression from the Faroe Islands brought ongoing precipitation and prevented any play.

Yardley declared at the start of the fifth day after a pitch inspection, leaving Australia a victory target of 317, but the rain kept falling and the entire first session was abandoned. The umpires had decided to start play half an hour later than normal, but this was not possible and they helped the ground staff to clean up the wet surface. Bradman chose to use the light roller and play was supposed to begin as soon as the lunch break ended.

Further delay meant play began after the tea break, and the pitch played very slowly because of the excess moisture, which also caused there to be little bounce in the surface. With Australia not looking to chase the runs because the time available was not reasonable, Yardley often had seven men in close catching positions. In the first half-hour, Australia showed little attacking intent and scored only six runs. Young replaced Pollard and Johnson immediately swept him for four, before edging the next ball to Crapp, who completed the catch. Johnson fell for six to leave Australia at 10/1.

Bradman came in and played his first 11 balls from Young without scoring, while Morris hit two streaky shots for four from Bedser. Yardley used the spin of Young and Compton for an hour, while Morris and Bradman made little effort to score. For 105 minutes, Morris stayed at one end and Bradman at the other; neither looked to rotate the strike with singles. Bradman only played eight balls from Morris's main end, and at one point was so startled by his partner's desire for a single that he sent him back. The tourists thereafter batted in an unhurried and defensive manner to ensure a draw, which was sealed by a series of periodic rain interruptions. They ended on 92/1 from 61 overs, a run rate of 1.50, with 35 maidens. It was the slowest innings run rate to date in the series. Morris finished unbeaten on 54, his fourth consecutive half-century of the series. O'Reilly criticised the approach taken by the Australians in the closing stages of the match, attributing it to Bradman's orders. He said the pitch was made so tame by the heavy rain that they could have played in a natural and attractive manner to entertain the spectators, rather than defending carefully. He said Bradman's "unwillingness to take a risk or to accept the challenging call of some particular phase of the game is one of the greatest flaws" in his leadership.

The attendance of 133,740 exceeded the previous record for a Test in England, which was set in the preceding match at Lord's even though more than 30% of the playing time had been lost.

Aftermath

After being aided by rain while in a disadvantageous position during the Third Test, the Australians had only one tour match—a victory over Middlesex—to prepare for the next Test at Headingley. Barnes was unable to recover from his injury in this short space of time, and was replaced by Neil Harvey. Instead of opting to use reserve opener Brown to replace Barnes, Australia played Hassett out of position to partner Morris, while Harvey took a middle-order slot.

For England's part, Washbrook's second innings half-century at Old Trafford, aided by multiple dropped catches, was regarded as a major factor in his retention for the Headingley match, having scored only 63 runs in the first five innings of the series. He was reunited with Hutton, whose controversial exile lasted only one Test before Emmett was dropped. Dollery, who had made only 38 in three innings in the Second and Third Tests, was replaced by all-rounder Ken Cranston. Despite being productive in domestic matches during the season, Cranston had struggled in his previous outings against the tourists. In two matches against Australia, he had managed only 47 runs in three innings and a total of 2/109.

Washbrook and Hutton put on 168 for the first wicket, the first time England had put on more than 42 for opening stand, as the hosts went on to make 496, their highest score for the series. Despite this, Australia's batsmen set a world record by chasing down 404 on the final day to win by seven wickets and take a series-winning 3–0 lead.

Following the historic win at Headingley, Australia had five tour matches before the final Test. They won three while two ended in rain-curtailed draws. During this period, Barnes returned to action after recuperating from his rib injury. Australia then completed the series in style with a convincing innings victory in the Fifth Test at The Oval to complete a 4–0 result. The Fifth Test was the last international match, and the tourists only had seven further matches to negotiate in order to fulfil Bradman's aim of going through the tour undefeated. Apart from two matches against the South of England and Leveson-Gower's XI, which were washed out after Australia had secured first innings leads of more than 200, Bradman's men had little difficulty, winning the remaining five fixtures by an innings. They thus became the first touring Test team to complete an English season undefeated, earning themselves the sobriquet The Invincibles.

Notes

References

The Invincibles (cricket)
3
Ashes 3
Test cricket matches
Ashes, 3rd Test
Ashes 1948

Third Test, 1948 Ashes series


Sheldon Oberman (May 20, 1949 – March 26, 2004) was a Canadian children's writer who lived in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Oberman (known to friends as Obie) grew up in the city's North End. After graduating from St. Johns High School, he studied literature first at the University of Winnipeg and then at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Oberman lived and travelled through Canada, Europe and the Middle East before he returned to Winnipeg in 1973, where he received his teaching degree. In 1975, he started working as an English, Drama and Journalism teacher at Joseph Wolinsky Collegiate, a job he held for nearly 30 years.

Oberman started writing in the mid-seventies, inspired by bedtime stories he told his children. An important development in his career as a writer was the summer he spent at the Banff School of Fine Arts where he studied under W.O. Mitchell. Oberman published twelve books, including the award-winning Always Prayer Shawl (1999), The Shaman's Nephew (1999; short-listed for the Governor General's Award), The Island of the Minotaur, and   "Solomon and the Ant and other Jewish Folktales" (2006),  (published posthumously).

Oberman acted and directed in both film and stage plays, and toured North America as a professional storyteller. He wrote columns and freelance articles for the Winnipeg Free Press and published children's songs, stories and poems in a number of magazines, journals and anthologies.

He died of stomach cancer on March 26, 2004.

Selected bibliography
A Mirror of a People: Canadian Jewish Experience in Poetry and Prose (1985)
TV Sal and the Game Show from Outer Space (1993)
The Business with Elijah (1993)
The White Stone in the Castle Wall (1994)
The Always Prayer Shawl (1999)
By the Hanukkah Light (1997)
The Shaman's Nephew (1999)
The Wisdom Bird: A Tale of Solomon and Sheba (2000)
Island of the Minotaur: Greek Myths of Ancient Crete (2003)
Solomon and the Ant and other Jewish Folktales (2006)

Awards

 1994: National Jewish Book Award in the Children Picture Book category for The Always Prayer Shawl

References

External links
Official Website

1949 births
2004 deaths
Canadian children's writers
Deaths from stomach cancer
Writers from Winnipeg
Academic staff of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
 Canadian schoolteachers
 University of Manitoba alumni

Sheldon Oberman


Genova Brignole railway station is the second largest station of Genoa, northern Italy; it is located on Piazza Verdi in the town center at the foot of the Montesano hill (the main long-distance station is Genova Piazza Principe station). Brignole is used by about 60,000 passengers a day and 22,000,000 per year.

History
The first station was built in 1868, but the current building was opened in 1905 for the Genoa international exposition.  A project proposal was presented in 1902 by the engineer Giovanni Ottino that provided for a building for a 105 metre long, divided into three buildings on a central axis of symmetry. The building incorporates romantic "renaissance" themes of the French school of architecture, enriched by extensive decorations. The pilaster jambs and frames of the first floor are mostly white. The Roman-style facade, overlooking Piazza Verdi, is decorated with stucco and stone from the quarries of Montorfano. The walls of the rooms inside are decorated with frescoes by De Servi, Berroggio and Grifo.

Current Status
The station is on the line to Rome and trains operate from it to Milan, Turin, and the French border at Ventimiglia.

The station is composed of several levels:
basement: central heating, store rooms and accommodation;
street level: ticket offices, shops, and Ferrovie dello Stato (FS) offices;
mezzanine: platform level, occupied by restaurants, waiting room, and local FS offices;
upstairs: FS headquarters offices and accommodation.
The station has 9 passenger platforms and 2 freight platforms. It is controlled by Grandi Stazioni, a subsidiary of FS, that took over the development of major Italian railway stations.

Genova Metro
The north end of the station was rebuilt and connected with the Genova Metro station, bearing the same name, in 2012. The newly built metro station offers access to the pedestrian walkways from the neighboring area of Borgo Incrociati and shares part of the floor space with the railway station. In 2013 there are still works in progress to repave the tunnels and open new commercial spaces in areas freed by precedent renewals.

See also
History of rail transport in Italy
Railway stations in Genoa
List of railway stations in Liguria
Railway stations in Italy

References

Brignole
Railway stations in Italy opened in 1868

Genova Brignole railway station


Contour advection is a Lagrangian method
of simulating the evolution of one or more contours or isolines of
a tracer as it is stirred by a moving fluid.
Consider a blob of dye injected into a river or stream: to first order it could be modelled by tracking only the motion of its outlines.
It is an excellent method for studying chaotic mixing:
even when advected by smooth or finitely-resolved velocity fields,
through a continuous process of stretching and folding,
these contours often develop into intricate fractals.
The tracer is typically passive as in
but may also be active as in, representing a dynamical property of the fluid such as vorticity.
At present, advection of contours is limited to two dimensions,
but generalizations to three dimensions are possible.

Method

First we need a set of points that accurately define the contour.
These points are advected forward using a trajectory
integration technique.
To maintain its integrity,
points must be added to or removed from the curve
at regular intervals based on some criterion or metric.
The most obvious criterion is to maintain the distance between adjacent points
within a certain interval.
A better method is to use curvature since fewer points are required for
the same level of precision.
The curvature of a two-dimensional, Cartesian curve is given as:

where  is the radius of curvature
and  is the path.
We need to keep the fraction of arc traced out between two adjacent points,
, where  is the path difference between them,
roughly constant

In,
cubic spline fitting is used both to calculate the curvature
and interpolate new points into the contour.
The spline, which
is fitted parametrically,
returns a set of second-order derivatives.

Surgery

A powerful refinement to the technique involves cutting out filaments that have become too
narrow to be significant.
If the distance method of adding/removing points is used,
then it is relatively straight forward
to check the distances between all combinations of points.
If a distance between non-adjacent points is too small,
then the two points are separated from their neighbours,
joined together and their neighbours joined also.
Points may then be removed if necessary.
Once we allow surgery, we allow multiply connected domains inside the same contour.
A piece of the contour only one point in length would be removed from the simulation.
The most challenging part of the exercise is keeping track of all the points in order
to reduce the number of distance calculations---see nearest neighbour search.
If the curvature method is used,
then it may be difficult to recognize when two sections of the contour
are close enough to apply the surgery because of differing spacing
in strongly curved versus relatively straight sections.

Validation

Advected contours, e.g. of trace gases (such as ozone) in the stratosphere,
can be validated with satellite remote sensing instruments using a method called isoline retrieval.

External links
 ctraj: A library for Lagrangian advection simulations.

References

Fluid dynamics
Meteorological concepts
Numerical climate and weather models

Contour advection