With the passage of time and wars burning across the land of China, direct documentary evidence is currently lacking; however, from the perspective of the history of East Asian architectural culture transmission, morphology evolution, and functional transformation, we can still infer a historical evolutionary path: “Chinese Huabiao → Korean Hongsalmun (홍살문) → Japanese Torii.”
This argument does not assert “plagiarism,” but rather proposes a highly probable model of cultural transmission and localization.
I. Origin and Core Concept: From “Libel Wood” to “Boundary Gate”
The Core Prototype of Chinese Huabiao: Wooden “Libel Wood” (Feibangmu)
The original form of the Chinese Huabiao was not the exquisite stone dragon pillars seen in front of Tiananmen today. According to ancient records such as Huainanzi and Gujinzhu, the Huabiao was initially a wooden pillar established at key transportation points during the era of Yao and Shun, known as “Libel Wood” (Feibangmu) or “Huanbiao.” Its function was to allow the people to write remonstrances or comment on current affairs, while also serving to demarcate roads and territories.
This “wooden vertical pillar + horizontal wood” structure is the starting point of the entire evolutionary chain.
Commonality of Core Functions: Demarcating Sacred Spaces
Huabiao were originally established at the seats of royal power (palaces, bridgeheads, tombs), and their function was to mark a sacred, authoritative, or special realm (the royal realm). The core function of the torii is precisely to mark the barrier (kekkai) between the divine realm and the human world.
This core concept of “marking a sacred/authoritative space with a gate or pillar” is the most fundamental internal connection between the Huabiao and the torii.
II. The Key Intermediary: “Hongsalmun” (홍살문) on the Korean Peninsula
To prove the connection between the Huabiao and the torii, one must find the intermediate link in the evolutionary path. The “Hongsalmun” on the Korean peninsula is precisely this key bridge.
Transitional Morphology
- Huabiao: Early versions were wooden, later developing into stone, with a structure of a single pillar + a horizontal plate at the top (cloud plate), often with elaborate decorations.
- Hongsalmun: The structure is extremely simplified—two wooden pillars + one (or two) horizontal beams, with dense “arrow-shaped” decorations above the beams (hence the name “Red Arrow Gate”). It completely discarded complex elements like dragon and phoenix carvings found on Huabiao, retaining only the core “two pillars, one horizontal” structure. This simple form is almost identical to early Japanese torii (such as the Shinmei Torii).
- Torii: Similarly consisting of two vertical pillars (hashira) and two horizontal beams (kasagi, shimaki), it can be seen as a further simplification and standardization of the Hongsalmun structure.
Evolutionary chain: Huabiao (wooden prototype) → Hongsalmun (simplified transitional form) → Torii (finalized)
Functional Transformation
- The function of the Huabiao gradually shifted from “receiving admonitions” to “demarcation and decoration.”
- The Hongsalmun was established at the entrances of state altars, ancestral shrines, tombs, and palaces, with its function clearly defined as “segregating sacred space from secular space.”
- The function of the torii is completely consistent with that of the Hongsalmun, both serving as barriers at the entrance to the divine realm.
This high degree of functional overlap strongly suggests the transmission of cultural concepts.
Feasibility of the Historical Path
The Korean Peninsula has served as a bridge for Chinese culture to spread to Japan since ancient times (for example, Buddhism, Chinese characters, and architectural techniques all entered through this path).
States such as Baekje and Goguryeo had close exchanges with the Central Plains dynasties of China and definitely had the conditions to introduce the architectural form of the “Biao.” Even various historical buildings and traditional utensils currently regarded as national treasures in Japan (such as tatami) are basically derived from designs of the Tang Dynasty in China.
Subsequently, through the “Toraijin” (naturalized people) on the Korean peninsula or exchanges between Japan and Korea, the concept and simplified form of the “Boundary Gate” were introduced to Japan.
III. Japan’s Localization and Transformation
The Japanese did not simply copy the form but underwent a process of localization, which explains why the torii looks quite different from the Huabiao:
- Material Selection: Japan has abundant forest resources, and Shintoism advocates nature, so they insisted on using wood (although stone and bronze were used later, wood remained the mainstream). While early Chinese Huabiao were also wooden, stone became the mainstream for durability in later periods.
- De-politicization: The original political connotations of the Huabiao, such as “receiving admonition” and “imperial power,” were completely stripped away. It was thoroughly integrated into the Shinto system of nature worship, becoming a purely religious symbol.
- Aesthetic Minimalism: It discarded all redundant decorations, pursuing extreme simplicity, tranquility, and a sense of power, reflecting the aesthetic consciousness summarized by the Japanese.
Conclusion
In summary, we can construct such a reasonable hypothesis: The “Libel Wood” or “Huanbiao” of ancient China, as a structure marking sacred and authoritative domains, along with its core concept and original “two pillars, one horizontal” structure, was absorbed by the Korean peninsula and simplified into the functionally pure “Hongsalmun.”
After this form was introduced to Japan, it was localized by the ancients, who were adept at absorbing and transforming foreign cultures, according to their own Shinto beliefs and aesthetic tastes, eventually forming the torii with Japanese characteristics that we see today.
Therefore, rather than saying the torii is “plagiarized” from the Huabiao, it is more accurate to say that it is another unique cultural flower of the ancient architectural imagery of the Huabiao that spread and evolved within the East Asian cultural circle (Chinese cultural circle) and blossomed in Japan. This argument successfully connects the origin of the torii with ancient Chinese culture and explains why its current form differs so much from the Huabiao.