<<

. 6
( 6)



the multiculturalist belief in its own universal validity makes it most intolerant to
views which it recognises to be intolerant, that quite often is not the case. That
explains the self-righteousness which characterises the way multiculturalists criticise
other views/social philosophies.
What we can do about the contradiction and paradox, it seems to me, is not
to attempt to create/cling on to a false sense of the possibility of setting up yet
another universal value system/stance such as the multiculturalist, with which we
archaeologists might come to believe we can halt the endless self-reproduction of
the chain of observations in the form of acquiring not a universal applicability but
a universal legitimacy (justice to the oppressed!) to the claim. As we saw, this is not
only impossible but quite ironically it might also be harmful in that it might promote
intolerance.
Reconciling different value systems, a fashionable choice lately, such as reconciling
different cultural value systems, reconciling processualism and post-processualism,
and so on, is not an answer, either, because the way to reconcile them is also bound
to be subject to critical scrutiny, i.e., observation. Besides, that might make what
is at issue blurred and lead to a dangerous accumulation of frustration/stress from
leaving indeterminacy uncared for, which might make resorting to over-simpli¬cation
of the matter such as resorting to the narratives of the extreme (see Chapter 5.2 and
5.3 above) an attractive choice.
What we can do is to observe the consequences of an observation all the time,
and at the same time to invent and reinvent a better technology to maintain the
continuation, with minimum stress, of the chain of observations which takes the form
of a continuously rearticulated archaeological dialogue. This is not to plunge into
bottomless relativism: we can at least observe the relationship between a speci¬c
observation and the condition upon which it is made. In other words, the way in
which an observation is made is also the way the condition upon which the observa-
tion is made is made sense of. By continuing to do this we can at least better prepare
ourselves, albeit each in our own way, for the possible risks which our archaeological
communication, regardless of whether culture-historical, functional, systemic, pro-
cessual, or post-processual, may entail; we can at least know and bear in mind that
any communication, even guarded by a critical self-consciousness, inevitably blinds
us to the stance, which might be harmful to some, as illustrated above by using
the silencing of the voice of the ˜oppressed™, in which we utter about information
Archaeology, Society and Identity 164


the moment we utter it. In other words, the immunisation of the way we continue
to communicate from chronically generated risks, i.e., to build in the mechanism
of reminding us of the intrinsic tendency of the communication in the functionally
differentiated society illustrated throughout the volume, is vital.
And, in doing the above, we have to carry on producing images of the past with
which people anchor their self identities in one way or another in this world of indeter-
minacy and multicultural frustration. After all, we cannot carry on communicating
without de-paradoxising the inevitable and intrinsic paradox of communication (see
Chapter 3), and the runaway expansion of the chain of signi¬ers, encouraged and
accelerated by hyper-capitalism, cannot be halted without the imposition of a closure
by using something perceived to be ¬xed and determined, such as the past. In that
sense, we need the past in order to live in the contemporary world maintaining sanity,
calm, thoughtfulness and tolerance to the other, others also having their own ways
to connect themselves to the past. An important task of archaeologists is not only
to carry on persuading people to be aware of the dangers and problems but also to
carry on producing many pasts that are all equally coherent, responsible to data, and
relevant to people.
6
Conclusion: demands for problematising and
explaining one™s position all the time


Throughout the volume, we have examined the way archaeology as a communica-
tion system is situated and reproduced in the functionally differentiated social systems
of contemporary society. Modernity, a different name for functionally differentiated
social formation, has been in need of sophisticated de-paradoxisation devices, because
the intrinsically paradoxical nature of communication, which was previously de-
paradoxised by taking for granted the hierarchical ordering of the world in which
the god, the king, the monarch, or something of that nature ultimately determined
what was good and right and what not, has to be dealt with in one way or the other
without referring to/relying upon transcendental value systems. How to de-paradoxise
the operation of communication systems, i.e., how to prevent them from stopping
their operation because of their indeterminacy, without relying upon their hierarchi-
cal con¬guration, in that sense, has been one of the most signi¬cant and determinant
themes of life in modernity, and the discipline of archaeology has been mobilised to
that end in different ways through time as modernity has matured and transformed.
By tracing this co-transformational process of modernity and archaeology, we have
revealed the nature of the crisis we are currently in and how it has come about.
This undertaking has made it painfully clear that to seek a way out of this crisis is no
simple task. We might even be mistaken in hoping that we can seek a way out because,
as illustrated throughout the volume, the crisis is a consequence of modernity, and we
are forced by the reality of the maturation, not the transformation to a new social
formation, of modernity to change our way of observing what is going on around
ourselves, as we did in this volume. As argued in Chapter 5, multiculturalism, a
form of post-modern thinking, does not re¬‚ect a drastic change in social formation.
Instead, its emergence has marked the fact that to communicate by assuming the
existence of universally shared values is no longer possible. Multiculturalism is a form
of our various attempts to cope with this harsh reality.
The volume has also revealed that just accepting and celebrating differences,
an attitude proliferating under the banner of multiculturalism, and of the post-
processualism in archaeology, is no answer. Rather, it has been argued, the celebra-
tion and promotion of differences might lead to some paradoxical consequences such
as that the promotion itself results in the prevention of differences being accepted
by the very group, i.e., the dominant majority, which the attempt targets to per-
suade to accept (see Chapter 5.4). Multiculturalism, epitomising the atmosphere of
the hyper-capitalist present, celebrating and promoting differences, it has also been
argued, can promote intolerance to those who believe there are different degrees of

165
Archaeology, Society and Identity 166


validity to different ways to identify oneself in the contemporary world, because the sense
of universal validity multiculturalists have about the position, which we saw in the
previous chapter was proven to be logically false, makes advocates self-righteous in
criticising those who do not share their position: see the vicious tone adopted by
some post-processualists in their critique of other archaeologies.
The remedy, obviously, does not lie with such strategies as simply reinstalling a
grand universal/universalising communicative framework such as Marxism. Rather,
what we shall strive for/what we can reasonably hope to achieve is (1) to contain
the existing risks which the irreversible process of the fragmentation of archaeolog-
ical communication has already yielded, (2) to minimise the potential risks which
it may be yielding, and (3) to imagine and create ways to carry out these objectives
and ways to carry on discussing how to implement, in the most effective way, these
objectives. We have already come to know that regulation by referring to grand narra-
tives/universal values of the horizon of choices which our communication inevitably
opens up all the time is impossible. Instead, we have to start by asking what the
problems are. Grand narratives and universal values used to tell us what the prob-
lems were: they emerged as obstacles to the achievement of an ideal society and/or
as deviations from morality, but no longer.
A profound dif¬culty in undertaking the above is that the experience of the suc-
cessful continuation of communication is a foundation of self identity, and a critical
examination of the mechanism of the reproduction of and the actual indetermi-
nacy of communication in fragmented micro-discursive spaces might be met with
an unexpectedly violent reaction or denial, which might cause the termination of the
dialogue altogether. As Harold Gar¬nkel™s ethno-methodology suggests (1984), if
the boundary of the internalised core of the experience of the (successful) continu-
ation of communication (practical knowledge/consciousness in Anthony Giddens™s
terminology, 1984, Chapter 1) was violated, people would react in a somewhat vio-
lent manner without logical explanation even for themselves (Gar¬nkel 1984; Heritage
1984). And that would certainly constitute a major obstacle to the objectives.
The so-called post-processual archaeologies/discourse can be characterised as the
project of sensitising this intrinsic interdependence between self identity and the
routinisation (/the accumulation of the experience of the successful continuation)
of communication. The project has put its analytical focus upon the coupling of
those interdependent factors with power, and has been elaborating the way to cap-
ture the process through which the uneven distribution of authoritative as well as
allocative resources was/is incorporated to the constitution and reproduction of self
identity in the present as well as in the past (e.g. Shanks and Tilley 1987). What
the project has yielded, the positive and negative, has already been well elucidated,
and a broad consensus is that the project has transformed the discipline of becoming
self-critical to the same extent as other related disciplines such as history, anthropol-
ogy, and sociology. However, the consideration and argument of this volume suggest
that archaeology has not become self-critical enough. The post-processual project has
not fully grasped how and why the project itself came into being in the ¬rst place
(however see Hodder 1999, Chapter 9). By ignoring the fact that the generation
Conclusion 167


of post-processual discourse is itself a form of reaction to the progression of func-
tion differentiation in communication systems/the intensi¬cation of the condition of
modernity, the discourse effectively puts itself in the position of the transcendental:
criticising other discourses as being unaware of/uncritical about the negative ele-
ments and consequences of modernity and as uncritically adopting theories and
the methods re¬‚ecting them, but forgetting that it itself also derives from the self-
re¬‚exive fragmentation of communication systems, which leads to a wide range of
problems, some of which have been the subject of investigation in this volume.
The experience of failed communication by relying on the taken-for-granteds of
˜classic™ modernity, i.e., Reason, grand narratives such as Marixism, universal val-
ues/goals for humanity, and so on, were accumulated to such an extent that the
manner of communication and the old expectations one had about it had to be
abandoned. Instead, the strategy of reducing the stress and uncertainty of discom-
munication by con¬ning oneself to a micro-discursive space in which everyone feels
they share a certain set of values has been adopted. Micro-paradigms coexisting
under the broad umbrella of post-processual archaeologies can be understood as
such micro-discursive spaces. As long as the strategy continues, the sincerest attitude
to the residents of discursive spaces other than one™s own is to accept the existence
of other values and not to intervene in the way others communicate.
We have also recognised an important implication of the proliferation of such
micro-paradigms, that being the proliferation has been connected to the multicul-
turalistic demand of multivocality and empowering minority/indigenous voices. It
has been argued that the promotion of multivocality and the prioritisation of minor-
ity/indigenous voices may lead to consequences contrary to what is intended; in the
situation in which the relativity of every possible epistemic stance is well recognised
arti¬cially prioritising particular groups would almost certainly be met with hostile,
at times even violent, reactions due partly but importantly to the accumulation of
frustrations from endless relativisation.
Our investigation of the consequences of the proliferation of this type of attitude
to communication in general has revealed that not only has this attitude accelerated
the pace of the fragmentation of the general discursive space and the accumulation
of stress and hostility against those who are deliberately ˜empowered™ (one of the
most serious problems which multiculturalism currently faces: see Semprini 2000),
but it has also led to such harmful reactions as the conscious creation of a univer-
salising, pseudo-transcendental narrative, which I have termed above the narrative
of the extreme, in order to regain in the realm of perception the false sense of uni-
versal communicability. The consequences would be either the further deepening of
fragmentation- and discommunication-related nihilism “ or the increasing possibility
of political manipulation. What is going on in Japan is a mixture of both, and they
constitute a mutually enhancing vicious circle.
The conclusion of this volume, bearing this in mind, is rather simple in writing,
but would inevitably be complex in implementation: we need a kind of theory which
constantly reminds us of the necessity of, and supports, communication across the
boundaries of segmented micro-discursive spaces. To this end, we need a theory
Archaeology, Society and Identity 168


which is ontological in the sense that it enables us to relate our mundane archaeo-
logical practice to the mechanism of the constitution of contemporary society. We
should avoid theoreticism in constructing the theory because that would make yet
another source of nihilism/sense of irrelevance, but we should neither be worried
about nor avoid explicit theorisation. The fundamental function of the theorisation
is the creation of a continuously rearticulated set of guidelines to achieve and maintain
the continuation, as non-stressful as possible, of archaeological communication; only
the endless cycle of discursively con¬rming what the ego and the alter really mean
and explicitly criticising the implications of their utterances can get over the endless
generation of nihilism, the cause and consequence of uncertainty, related stress and
the generation of extreme measures such as the invention of transcendental narra-
tives. In that sense, conciliatory gestures, which have been repeatedly pointed out as
coming to characterise contemporary archaeology, may be rather harmful. Vague-
ness in the content of an opinion/thesis/utterance makes a commentary on/criticism
of it rather dif¬cult and raises the stress of coping with the uncertainty and allied
risks illustrated throughout this volume. Such a theory has to be one which prepares
us to cope with self-generating/articulating uncertainty and risks by illustrating the
mechanism behind the continuous regeneration of uncertainty and risks, and pre-
vents us from hastily resorting to easier-looking, but in actuality riskier and more
harmful, choices/solutions such as the invention of, and resorting to transcendental
narratives.
What I hope such a theorisation will lead to is to open up a sort of public dis-
cursive domain. However, this should be different from the Habermasian concept of
the ideal speech situation (Habermas 1987). In the ideal speech situation, anything
with the potential of distorting understanding of what is uttered, deriving from the
uneven distribution of various resources ranging from the command of language
through one™s biographical background to actual allocative resources, is eliminated.
In our project, on the contrary, we begin by accepting that the realisation of the
ideal speech situation is impossible. Not only the diversity of our biographic expe-
riences but also the fragmentation in the way we articulate re¬‚exive commentaries
to them in this high-/late-/post-modernity make impossible even the agreement of
what to eliminate as obstacles to the realisation of the ideal speech situation. Instead
of clinging to the illusion that we can eliminate the possibility of the intervention
of external (distorting) factors in the reproduction of communication systems, our
attempt would take the form of imagining a different way to appreciate the meaning,
tendency and potential of archaeological communication. We have to prepare our-
selves not only for the range of risks which we have already unintentionally created
through our archaeological communication but also for the range of risks which our
future communication may generate. However, unless we actually create risks, we
can neither see them nor prepare ourselves for them. The fragmentation of archae-
ological discursive space and our con¬ning ourselves to individual micro-discursive
spaces have given us comfort by reproducing the illusion that the indeterminacy of
communication can be overcome and that risks can be avoided. However, they also
make us blind to the risks which our communication is inevitably creating. The only
Conclusion 169


thing we can do is to urge ourselves to get across the boundaries of segmented micro-
discursive spaces and communicate, observe what risks are created, and articulate
further communication on them.
Not the tolerance of, or deliberate attempt of empowering, different stances but
only the mutual, endless demand for the explicit articulation of problematique, i.e., the
horizon of choices/issues for debate, can secure the productive and creative continua-
tion of archaeological communication and endow us with the imaginative problema-
tisation of new issues relevant to the present, at the same time avoiding falling into
the problem of post-modernistic nihilism/endless relativisation and the unconscious
generation of intolerance.
REFERENCES




Akasaka, Norio. 1996. Tohoku-gaku he (Toward the Tohoku region studies), Vol. 1 (in Japanese).
Tokyo: Sakuhin-sha.
Akazawa, Takeru. 1983. Saishu-shuryo-min no kokogaku (An archaeology of hunter-gatherers: an
ecological approach) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Kaimeisha.
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined communities: re¬‚ections on the origin and spread of nation-
alism. London and New York: Verso.
Anzai, Masahito. ed. 2002. Jomon shakai ron (Papers in the study of Jomon society), Vols. 1 and 2.
Tokyo: Dosei-sha.
Ari` s, Philippe. 1965. Centuries of childhood: a social history of family life. New York: Random
e
House.
Aston, W. G. 1972. Nihongi: chronicles of Japan from the earliest times to AD 697. Tokyo: Charles
Tuttle Co.
Balibar, Etienne and Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1991. Race, nation, class. London: Verso.
Barrett, John C. 1994. Fragments from antiquity: an archaeology of social life in Britain, 2900“
1200 BC. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 1988. Freedom. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
2000a. Globalization: the human consequences. Cambridge: Polity.
2000b. Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
Beck, Ulrich, Giddens, Anthony and Lash, Scott. 1994. Re¬‚exive modernization. Cambridge:
Polity.
Binford, Lewis R. 1962. Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity, 28 (2): 217“225.
Bradley, Richard. 2002. The past in prehistoric societies. London: Routledge.
Chapman, Robert. 2003. Archaeologies of complexity. London: Routledge.
Clark, J. Grahame D. 1939. Archaeology and society. London: Methuen.
Clarke, David L. 1978. Analytical archaeology (2nd edn). New York: Columbia University
Press.
Diaz-Andreu, Maria and Champion, Timothy. (eds.) 1996. Nationalism and archaeology in
Europe. London: UCL Press.
Fowler, Chris. 2004. The archaeology of personhood: an anthropological approach. London: Rout-
ledge.
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. London: Penguin.
2001 (1967). The order of things. London: Routledge.
Fuji, Naomoto, Inoue, Kaoru, and Kitano, Kohei. 1964. Kawachi ni okeru kofun no chosa
(Report of the excavation of the ancient burial mounds in Kawachi county) (in Japanese with
English summary). Osaka: The Institute of Japanese History, Osaka University.
Fujitani, Takashi. 1994. Ten™no no pejento (Emperor, nation, pageantry) (in Japanese). Tokyo:
NHK.
Fukunaga, Shin™ya. 1998. Dotaku kara dokyo he (From bronze bells to bronze mirrors) (in
Japanese). In Kodai kokka ha koshite umareta (The emergence of the Japanese ancient state)
(ed. by H. Tsude), pp. 217“275. Tokyo: Kadokawa.



170
References 171


2002. Yamatai-koku kara Yamato-seiken he (From the Yamatai-koku to the Yamato political
organisation) (in Japanese). Toyonaka: Osaka University.
Fukuoka PBE. 1983. Mikumo-iseki IV (The excavation report of the Mikumo site, Vol. 4) (in
Japanese). Fukuoka: Fukuoka Prefectural Board of Education.
Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The end of history and the last man. New York: Free Press.
Gamble, Clive. 2001. Archaeology: the basics. London: Routledge.
Gar¬nkel, Harold. 1984. Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gellner, Ernest. 1983. Nations and nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration.
Cambridge: Polity.
1990. The consequence of modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
Gosden, Chris. 1999. Anthropology and archaeology: a changing relationship. London:
Routledge.
Gregory, Derek. 1994. Geographical imaginations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1987. The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2, lifeworld and system, a
critique of functionalist reason. Cambridge: Polity.
Habu, Junko. 2004. Ancient Jomon of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hamada, Seiryo. 1918. Kawachi-koku Kou sekki-jidai iseki hakkutsu hokoku (The report of
the excavation of the Kou site, Kawachi district): Kyoto teikoku daigaku bunka daigaku koko-
gaku kenkyu hokoku (Archaeological research report from Faculty of Letters, the Kyoto Imperial
University), Vol. 2 (in Japanese). Kyoto: Kyoto University.
Hara, Hidesaburo. 1972. Nihon ni okeru kagakuteki genshi- kodai-shi kenkyu no seiritsu to
tenkai (The establishment and the development of the social-scienti¬c study of Japanese
pre and protohistory) (in Japanese). In Nihon genshi kyousan sei shakai to kokka no keisei
(Primitive communism and the formation of state in Japan) (ed. by H. Hara), pp. 343“409.
Tokyo: Asakura Shoten.
Harunari, Hideji. 1984. Yayoi jidai hokubu kyushu no kyojyu kitei (Postmarital residential
rules of the northern Kyushu region in the Yayoi period) (in Japanese). Kokuritsu rekishi
minzoku hakubutsukan kenkyu hokoku (Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History)
1:1“40.
1985. Yayoi jidai Kinai no shinzoku kosei (The kin organisation of the Kinai region in
the Yayoi period) (in Japanese). Kokuritsu rekishi minzoku hakubutsukan kenkyu hokoku
(Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History) 5:1“47.
Harunari, Hideji, Fujio, Shin™ichiro, Imamura, Mineo and Sakamoto, Minoru. 2003. Yayoi
jidai no kaishi nendai (The absolute date for the beginning of the Yayoi period) (in
Japanese). In Nihon kokogaku kyokai dai 69 kai sokai happyo-yoshi (Abstracts for the 69th
annual meeting of the Japanese Archaeological Association). Tokyo: the Japanese Archaeo-
logical Association.
Harvey, David. 1989. The condition of postmodernity: an enquiry into the origins of cultural change.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Hashiba, Yusuke. 1889. Some results obtained from the comparative study of cordmark pot-
teries. The bulletin of the Tokyo Anthropological Society, 37(4): 231“238.
Hayashi, Kensaku. 1979. Jomon jidai no shuraku to ryoiki (Settlements and their territories
in the Jomon period). In Nihon kokogaku wo manabu (Studying Japanese archaeology),
Vol. 3 (eds. by H. Otsuka, M. Sahara and M. Tozawa), pp. 102“119. Tokyo: Yuhikaku.
Heritage, John. 1984. Gar¬nkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.
Hobsbawm, E. J. 1990. Nations and nationalism since 1780: programme, myth, reality.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hodder, Ian. 1982. Symbols in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
References 172


1986. Reading the past: current approaches to interpretation in archaeology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
1991. Postprocessual archaeology and the current debate. In Processual and postprocessual
archaeologies: multiple ways of knowing the past (ed. by R. Preucel), pp. 30“41. Carbondale:
Center for Archaeological Investigations.
1999. The archaeological process: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
2003. Archaeology beyond dialogue. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Hodder, Ian (ed.) 1982. Symbolic and structural archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
(ed.) 1991. Archaeological theory in Europe: the last three decades. London: Routledge.
Hodder, Ian and Hutson, Scott. 2003. Reading the past: current approaches to interpretation in
archaeology (3rd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hojo, Yoshitaka. 1999. Sanuki-gata zenpo-koen-fun no teisho (Introducing the notion of the
Sanuki type keyhole-shaped tumulus) (in Japanese). In Kokka keisei ki no kokogaku (The
archaeology of state formation period in Japan) (ed. by Department of Archaeology of Osaka
University), pp. 205“229. Osaka: Department of Archaeology, Osaka University.
2000. Zenpo-koen-fun to Wa-oken (The keyhole-shaped tumulus and the Wa polity) (in
Japanese). In Kofunjidaizo wo minaosu (Social structure and social change in the forma-
tive phase of the mounded-tomb period of Japan: a new perspective), pp. 77“135. Tokyo:
Aoki.
Hudson, Mark. 1999. Ruins of identity: ethnogenesis in the Japanese islands. Honolulu: University
of Hawaii Press.
Huntington, Samuel. 1998. The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Ikawa-Smith, Fumiko. 1982. Co-traditions in Japanese archaeology. World Archaeology, 13:
296“309.
Imafuku, Rikei. 1999. Jomon bunka wo taigen suru daini no dogu (Jomon non-functional tools
as the symbols of the Jomon culture) (in Japanese). In Saishin Jomon-gaku no sekai (Latest
outcomes of Jomon studies) (ed. by T. Kobayashi), pp. 84“95. Tokyo: Asahishinbunsha.
Imamura, Keiji. 1996. Prehistoric Japan: new perspectives on insular East Asia. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
Isomae, Jun™ichi. 1987. Dogu no yoho ni tsuite (The usage of Dogu clay ¬gurines) (in
Japanese). Kokogaku kenkyu (Quarterly of Archaeological Studies) 34 (1): 87“102.
1998. Kiki-shinwa no meta hisutori (A meta-history of the myths featured in the Kojiki and
Nihon-shoki imperial chronicles) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Yoshikawakobunkan.
Iwanaga, Shozo. 1986. Hoko-gata saiki (Japanese bronze spearhead-shaped implements)
(in Japanese). In Yayoi-bunka no kenkyu (Studies in the Yayoi culture), Vol. 6: Dogu to
gijutsu (Tools and technologies) (ed. by H. Kanaseki and M. Sahara), pp. 113“118. Tokyo:
Yusankaku.
Izumi, Takura, ed. 1996. Jomon doki shutsugen (The emergence of the Jomon pottery) (in
Japanese). Tokyo: Kodansha.
Jameson, Fredric. 1991. Postmodernism: or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. London: Verso.
Jay, Martin. 1984. Marxism and totality: the adventure of a concept from Lukcs to Habermas.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Kan, Sanjun. 2001. Nashonarizumu (Nationalism) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Iwanami.
Kensetsu-sho. 1997. Kokuei Yoshinogari rekishi-koen tatemono to fukugen kento chosa houkokusho
(The report of the reconstruction of the buildings of the Yoshinogari site for the display at the
Yoshinogari National Historical park) (in Japanese). Kanzaki: Kensetsu-sho Kyushu chiho
kensetsukyoku kokuei Yoshinogari rekishi-koen koji jimusho.
2000. Kokuei Yoshinogari rekishi-koen seikatsu fukugen tenji kihon sekkei houkokusho (The
report of the reconstruction of the lifeways of the residents of the Yoshinogari site for the display
References 173


at the Yoshinogari National Historical park) (in Japanese). Kanzaki: Kensetsu-sho Kyushu
chiho kensetsukyoku kokuei Yoshinogari rekishi-koen koji jimusho.
Kiyama-machi Iseki hakkutsu chosa-dan. 1983. Sendoyama iseki (The Sendoyama site) (in
Japanese). Kiyama: Kiyama-machi Iseki hakkutsu chosa-dan.
Kobayashi, Tatsuo. 1990. Jomon-sekai no dogu (The Dogu clay ¬gurine of the Jomon world)
(in Japanese). Kikan Kokogaku (Archaeology Quarterly), 30: 14“16.
Kobayashi, Yukio. 1961. Kofun-jidai no kenkyu (A study of the Kofun period) (in Japanese).
Tokyo: Aoki.
Kohl, Philip and Fawcett, Clare. 1996. Nationalism, politics and the practice of archaeology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Komori, Yoichi. 2001. Posutokoroniaru (Postcolonial) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Iwanami.
Komoto, Masayuki. 1982. Yayoi bunka no keifu (Sociocultural ancestory of the Yayoi culture)
(in Japanese). In Noko bunka to kodai shakai (Agrarian culture and ancient society), 48“56.
Tokyo: Yusankaku.
Kondo, Tadashi, ed. 1972. Chusenji kofungun (Chusenji tumuli) (in Japanese). Matsue:
Shimane Prefectural Board of Education.
Kondo, Yoshiro. 1983. Zenpo-koen-fun no jidai (The age of the keyhole-shaped tumulus) (in
Japanese). Tokyo: Iwanami.
Kondo, Yoshiro. ed. 1991. Zenpo-koen-hun shusei (The corpus of keyhole-shaped tumuli),
Chugoku-Shikoku hen (The Chugoku and Shikoku districts) (in Japanese). Tokyo:
Yamakawa-shuppan.
Kondo, Yoshiro and Sahara, Makoto. 1983. Kaisetsu (Commentary) (in Japanese). In Omori
kaizuka (Shell mounds of Omori) (by E. S. Morse 1879, translation and commentary by
Y. Kondo and M. Sahara), pp. 185“219. Tokyo: Iwanami.
Kono, Isamu. 1935. Kanto-chiho ni okeru Jomon-shiki sekki jidai bunka no hensen (Temporal
changes in Jomon style Stone Age culture). Shizen-gaku zasshi (Journal of Prehistoric
Studies), 7 (3): 1“63.
Kosugi, Yasushi. 2003. Jomon no matsuri to kurashi (The ritual and lifeways of the Jomon period)
(in Japanese). Tokyo: Iwanami.
Kristiansen, Kristian.1998. Europe before history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kristiansen, Kristian and Rowlands, Michael. 1996. Social transformations in archaeology.
London: Routledge.
Lechner, Frank and Boli, John. eds. 1999. The globalisation reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lucas, G. 2001. Critical approaches to ¬eldwork: contemporary and historical archaeological prac-
tice. London: Routledge.
Luhmann, Niklas. 1995. Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
1998. Observations on modernity. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press.
Lyotard, Jean-Fran¸ ois 1984. The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge. Manchester:
c
Manchester University Press.
Meskell, Lynn. 1996. The somatization of archaeology: institutions, discourses, corporeality.
Norwegian Archaeological Review, 29: 1“16.
1999. Archaeologies of social life: age, sex, class et cetera in ancient Egypt. Oxford: Blackwell.
Meskell, Lynn and Joyce, Rosemary. 2003. Embodied lives: ¬guring ancient Maya and Egyptian
experience. London: Routledge.
Mineyama TBE, ed. 2001. Akasaka-Imai funkyubo dai san-ji hakkutsu chosa gaiyo hokoku
(Akasaka-Imai tumulus: the preliminary report on the 3rd excavation) (in Japanese).
Mineyama: Mineyama Township Board of Education.
Mithen, Steve. 1996. Prehistory of the mind: the cognitive origins of art, religion and science.
London: Thames and Hudson.
Mizoguchi, Koji. 1995. Fukuoka-ken Amagi-shi Kuriyama iseki C-gun boiki no kenkyu (A
reexamination of location C of the Yayoi cemetery site of Kuriyama, Amagi City, Fukuoka
References 174


Prefecture) (in Japanese with English summary). Nihon kokogaku (Journal of the Japanese
Archaeological Association), 2: 69“94.
1997. The reproduction of archaeological discourse: the case of Japan. Journal of European
Archaeology, 5 (2): 149“165.
2000a. Kofun-jidai kaishi-ki no rikai wo meguru mondaiten (Some problems concerning
the beginning of the Kofun period): Yayoi-bosei kenkyu-shi no shiten kara (as seen from
the history of the study of Yayoi period mortuary practices) (in Japanese). In Kofunjidaizo
wo minaosu (Social structure and social change in the formative phase of the mounded-tomb
period of Japan: a new perspective), pp. 27“48. Tokyo: Aoki.
2000b. Bochi to maiso-koi no hensen (The transformation of the cemetery structure and
mortuary practices of the Yayoi period) (in Japanese). In Kofunjidaizo wo minaosu (Social
structure and social change in the formative phase of the mounded-tomb period of Japan: a new
perspective), pp. 201“273. Tokyo: Aoki.
2001. Yayoi jidai no shakai (Society of the Yayoi period) (in Japanese). In Gendai no kokogaku
(Contemporary archaeology), Vol. 6: sonraku to shakai no kokogaku (The archaeology of
settlements and societies) (ed. by R. Takahashi), pp. 135“160. Tokyo: Asakura.
2002. An archaeological history of Japan, 30,000 BC to AD 700. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
2005a. Identity, modernity, and archaeology: the case of Japan. In A Companion to Social
Archaeology (ed. L. Meskell and R. Preucel), pp. 396“414. Oxford: Blackwell.
2005b. Genealogy in the ground: observations of jar burials of the Yayoi period, northern
Kyushu, Japan. Antiquity, 79 (304): 316“326.
Mizuno, Masayoshi. 1969. Jomon jidai shuraku kenkyu no kisoteki sosa (A basic procedure
for the study of Jomon settlements) (in Japanese). Kodai bunka (Ancient Culture), 21 (3
and 4): 1“21.
Murakami, Yasuyuki. 2000. Tekki seisan ryutsu to shakai henkaku (Iron production and
exchange and social transformation) (in Japanese). In Kofunjidaizo wo minaosu (Social
structure and social change in the formative phase of the mounded-tomb period of Japan: a new
perspective), pp. 137“200. Tokyo: Aoki.
Naito, Masanori. 2004. Yoroppa to Isuramu: kyosei ha kano ka (Europe and Islam: is coexistence
possible?) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Iwanami.
Nakaya, Jiujiro. 1934. Nihon Sekki-jidai ni okeru tairiku-bunka no eikyo (The in¬‚uence of the
culture of mainland Asia on the Japanese archipelago during the stone age) (in Japanese).
Kokogaku (Archaeology), 5 (4): 91“103.
Nihon Daiyon-ki gakkai, Ono, Akira, Harunari, Hideji, and Oda, Shizuo, eds. 1992. Zukai
Nihon no jinrui iseki (Atlas of Japanese Archaeology) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Tokyo University
Press.
Nishikawa, Nagao. 1995. Introduction: Nihongata kokumin-kokka no keisei (The forma-
tion of the Japan-type nation state) (in Japanese). In Bakumatsu Meiji-ishin ki no
kokumin-kokka keisei to bunka henyo (The formation of the nation-state and cultural trans-
formation in the ¬nal Edo and Meiji eras) (ed. by N. Nishikawa), pp. 3“42. Tokyo:
Shin™yo-sha.
NKK (Japanese Archaeological Association), ed. 1971. Maizo bunkazai hakusho (A report on
the protection and destruction of buried cultural properties) (in Japanese). Nihon Koko-gaku
Kyokai (Japanese Archaeological Association). Tokyo: Gakuseisha.
1981. Dai niji Maizo bunkazai hakusho (The second report on the protection and destruction of
buried cultural properties) (in Japanese). Nihon Koko-gaku Kyoka (Japanese Archaeological
Association). Tokyo: Gakuseisha.
2003. Zen-cyuki Kyusekki mondai no kensho (Inspection of the Early and Middle Palaeolithic
problem in Japan) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Nihon Koko-gaku Kyoka (Japanese Archaeolog-
ical Association).
References 175


Notomi, Toshio. 1997. Yoshinogari iseki: Hozon to katsuyo eno michi (The Yoshinogari site: toward
the preservation and public use) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Yoshikawa-kobunkan.
Obayashi, Taryo. 1977. Yamatai-koku (in Japanese). Tokyo: Chuokoron-sha.
OCJW. 1996. Jomon no tobira (The Jomon world ™96), Tokyo: Organizing Committee of the
Jomon World ™96.
Oda, Fujio. 1990. Yayoi shuraku iseki no chosa to hozon mondai (The rescue excavation and
failed preservation attempt of a Yayoi site) (in Japanese). Kobunka Danso: Journal of the
society of Kyushu prehistoric and ancient cultural studies, 22: 215“224.
Oguma, Eiji. 1995. Tan™itsu-minzoku shinwa no kigen (The myth of the homogeneous nation) (in
Japanese). Tokyo: Shin™yo-sha.
1998. Nihon-jin no kyokai (The boundaries of the Japanese) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Shin™yo-sha.
Okada, Yasuhiro and NHK Aomori Hoso-kyoku. ed. 1997. Jomon toshi o horu: San™nai-
Maruyama kara gen-Nihon ga mieru (Excavating the Jomon town: seeing prehistoric Japan
from the Sannai-Maruyama site) (in Japanese). Tokyo: NHK Shuppan.
Okamura, Michio. 1996. Jomon bunka toha nandaroka (What is the Jomon culture?) (in
Japanese) In Jomon no tobira (The Jomon world ™96) (ed. by Organizing Committee of the
Jomon World ™96 Exhibition), pp. 72“81. Tokyo: Organizing Committee of the Jomon
World ™96.
2000. Jomon no seikatsu-shi (The life of the Jomon people) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Kodansha.
Okazaki, Takashi. 1971. Nihon kokogaku no hoho (The methods of archaeology in Japan)
(in Japanese). In Kodai no Nihon (Japan in the ancient times), Vol. 9, pp. 30“53. Tokyo:
Kadokawa.
Okubo, Tetsuya, Fuchinokami, Ryusuke and Yoshitaka, Hojo. 2005. Ryobo mondai 2004
(Issues and problems related to the ˜imperial mausolea™ in the ¬scal year of 2004) (in
Japanese). Kokogaku kenkyu (Quarterly of Archaeological Studies), 51 (4): 1“7.
Osawa, Masachi. 1998. Sengo no shiso kukan (The discursive space of post-Second World War
Japan) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Chikuma-shobo.
2002. Bunmei no uchinaru shototsu (The internal clash of civilisations) (in Japanese). Tokyo:
Chikuma-shobo.
Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The social system. London: RKP.
Preucel, Robert. ed. 1991. Processual and postprocessual archaeologies: multiple ways of knowing
the past. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois Univer-
sity.
Rekishi-gaku kenkyu-kai. ed. 1951. Rekishi-gaku no seika to kadai, Vol. 2 (Annual review of the
study of history: the outcomes and issues in historical studies 1950).
Renfrew, Colin. 1984. Approaches to social archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Renfrew, Colin and Cherry, John. 1986. Peer“polity interaction and socio-political change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ruoff, Kenneth J. 2001. The people™s emperor: democracy and the Japanese monarchy, 1945“1995
(Harvard East Asian Monographs, No. 211). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Saga PBE. 1979. Futatsukayama (in Japanese) Saga: Saga Prefectural Board of Education.
1994. Yoshinogari (in Japanese). Saga: Saga Prefectural Board of Education.
1997. Yoshinogari iseki: Heisei Ni-nendo∼Nana-nendo no hakkutsu-chosa no gaiyo (A prelimi-
nary report on the excavation of the Yoshinogari site: 1990∼1995 ¬eld seasons) (in Japanese).
Saga: Saga Prefectural Board of Education.
2000. The Yoshinogari site: Japan™s largest site of an ancient moat-enclosed settlement. Saga: Saga
Prefectural Board of Education.
2003. Saga-ken Yoshinogari iseki: Nihon saidai no kango-shuraku ato (The Yoshinogari site:
Japan™s largest site of an ancient moat-enclosed settlement) (in Japanese). Saga: Saga Prefec-
tural Board of Education.
References 176


Sahara, Makoto. 1987. Taikei Nihon no rekishi 1: Nihonjin no tanjo (A new history of Japan, Vol.
1, The birth of the Japanese) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Shogakukan.
2003. Gishi-Wajinden no kokogaku (An archaeology of Gishi-Wajinden) (in Japanese). Tokyo:
Iwanami.
Sakai, Naoki. 1996. Shizan sareru Nihon-go, Nihon-jin (Japanese language and the Japanese as
stillborn) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Shin™yo-sha.
Schnapp, Alain. 1996. The discovery of the past: the origins of archaeology. London: British
Museum Press.
Semprini, Andrea. 2000. Le Multiculturalisme. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Shanks, Michael and Tilley, Christopher. 1987. Re-constructing archaeology: theory and practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Anthony. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell.
2001. Nationalism. Cambridge: Polity.
Sokolovskii, S. and Tishkov, V. 1996. Ethnicity. In Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthro-
pology (ed. by A. Barnard and J. Spencer), pp. 190“193. London: Routledge.
Sørensen, Marie Louise S. 1996. The fall of a nation, the birth of a subject: the national use
of archaeology in nineteenth-century Denmark. In Nationalism and archaeology in Europe
(ed. by T. Champion and M. Diaz-Andreu), pp. 24“47. London: UCL Press.
Suzuki, Kimio. 1984. Nihon no shinsekki jidai (The Neolithic period of Japan) (in Japanese).
In Koza nihon rekishi (Seminars in Japanese history), Vol. 1 (ed. by Rekishi-gaku kenkyu
kai and Nihonshi kenkyu kai), pp. 75“116. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.
Takahashi, Kenji. 1914. Kida hakase no ˜Joko no funbo™ wo yomu (Comments on Dr. Kida™s
˜Tumuli of the ancient times™) (in Japanese). Kokogaku Zasshi, 4(7): 29“36.
Takahashi, Ryuzaburo, Takeshi Toizumi, and Yasushi Kojo. 1998. Archaeological studies of
Japan: Current studies of the Jomon archaeology (in English). Nihon kokogaku (Journal
of the Japanese Archaeological Association), 5: 47“72.
Takakura, Hiroaki. 1973. Funbo kara mita Yayoi jidai no hatten katei (The process of social
development in the Yayoi period as seen from the burial and cemetery) (in Japanse).
Kokogaku kenkyu (Quarterly of Archaeological Studies) 20 (2): 7“24.
1995. Kin™in kokka-gun no jidai: Higashi Ajia sekai to Yayoi shakai (The age of the golden seal
polities: golden seals issued by the Han empire of China) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Aoki.
Takesue, Jun™ichi. 1990. Murasaki-gawa no Yoshinogari: Kitakyushu-shi Kamitokuriki iseki
(A site comparable to the Yoshinogari: Kamitokuriki site, near the river Murasaki,
Kitakyushu City). Kobunka danso: Journal of the Society of Kyushu Prehistoric and Ancient
Cultural Studies, 23: 25“34.
2002. Yayoi no mura (The settlement of the Yayoi period) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Yamakawa.
Taki, Koji. 1988. Ten™no no shozo (The portraits of Emperor Meiji) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Iwanami.
Tanabe, Shozo and Sahara, Makoto. 1966. Kinki (The Kinki region) (in Japanese). In Nihon no
kokogaku (Japanese archaeology), Vol. 3: Yayoi jidai (The Yayoi period) (ed. by S. Wajima),
pp. 108“140. Tokyo: Kawade-shobo-shinsha.
Tanaka, Yoshiyuki. 1995. Kofun-jidai shinzoku kozo no kenkyu: hone kara mita kodai shakai (A
study of the kinship structure of the Kofun period: an osteoarchaeological approach to the ancient
society) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Kashiwa.
2000. Bochi kara mita shinzoku kazoku (Kin- and family-groups as seen from the cemetery
structure) (in Japanese). In Kodaishi no ronten (Arguments in the study of ancient Japan),
Vol. 2 (ed. by H. Tsude and M. Sahara), pp. 131“152. Tokyo: Shogakkan.
Teshigawara, Akira. 1991. Shin kyokasho to koko-gaku (New school textbooks and archaeol-
ogy) (in Japanese). Kokogaku Kenkyu (Quarterly of Archaeological Studies), 38 (3): 4“9.
1995. Nihon kokogaku no ayumi (A history of Japanese archaeology) (in Japanese). Tokyo:
Meicho Shuppan.
References 177


Thomas, Julian. 1996. Time, culture and identity: an interpretive archaeology. London:
Routledge.
Tilley, Christopher. 1991. Material culture and text: the art of ambiguity. London: Routledge.
1994. A phenomenology of landscape: places, paths, and monuments. Oxford: Berg.
Toma, Seita. 1951a. Eiyu-jidai (The ancient heroic age) (in Japanese). In Rekishi-gaku no seika
to kadai, Vol. 2 (Annual review of the study of history: the outcomes and issues in historical
studies 1950) (ed. by Rekishi-gaku kenkyu-kai), pp. 16“20. Tokyo: Iwanami
1951b. Nihon minzoku no keisei (The genesis of the Japanese nation) (in Japanese). Tokyo:
Iwanami.
Tomoeda, Toshio. 1991. Kozo to hendo (Structures and their changes) (in Japanese). In
Shakai gaku no kiso (An introduction to sociology) (eds. by T. Imada and T. Tomoeda),
pp. 121“149. Tokyo: Yuhikaku.
Trigger, Bruce. 1989. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tsuboi, Shogoro. 1887. Koropokgru seems to have inhabited Hokkaido. The Bulletin of the
Tokyo Anthropological Society, 2 (12): 93“97.
Tsude, Hiroshi. 1998. Soron: Yayoi kara Kofun he (Introduction: from the Yayoi to the Kofun
period) (in Japanese). In Kodai kokka ha koshite umareta (The emergence of the Japanese
ancient state) (ed. by H. Tsude), pp. 8“50. Tokyo: Kadokawa.
Tsukinowa kofun kanko kai. 1960. Tsukinowa kofun (The Tsukinowa tumulus) (in Japanese).
Yanahara: Tsukinowa kofun kanko kai.
Turner, B. 2003. Foreword. In Embodied lives: ¬guring ancient Maya and Egyptian experience
(by L. Meskell and R. Joyce), pp. xiii“xx. London: Routledge.
Ucko, Peter J. ed. 1995. Theory in archaeology: a world perspective. London: Routledge.
Umehara, Takeshi and Yasuda, Yoshinori. ed. 1995. Jomon bunmei no hakken: Kyoi no
San™naimaruyama iseki (The discovery of the Jomon civilization: the amazing Sannai-
Maruyama site) (in Japanese). Tokyo: PHP.
Wada, Sei and Ishihara, Michihiro. (trans.) 1951. Gishi Wajinden, Gokanjo Waden, Sojo
Wakokuden, Zuisho Wakokuden (in Japanese). Tokyo: Iwanami.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The modern world system: capitalist agriculture and the origins of
the European world economy in the sixteenth century. New York: Academic Press.
Watabe, Yoshimichi, et al. 1936, 1937. Nihon rekishi kyotei (Seminar in Japanese history), Vols.1
and 2 (in Japanese). Tokyo: Hakuyo-sha.
Waters, Malcolm. 1999. General commentary: the meaning of modernity. In Modernity: crit-
ical concepts (ed. by M. Waters), pp. xi“xxiii. London: Routledge.
Watsuji, Tetsuro. 1951. Shinko Nihon kodai bunka (Japanese ancient culture (new edition)) (in
Japanese). Tokyo: Iwanami.
Weber, Max. 1930 [1904]. The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Charles
Scribner™s Sons.
Wiwjorra, Ingo. 1996. German archaeology and its relation to nationalism and racism. In
Nationalism and archaeology in Europe (ed. by T. Champion and M. Diaz-Andreu),
pp. 164“188. London: UCL Press.
Yagi, Shozaburo and Shimomura, Misokichi. 1893. Report on the exploration of a shell-
mound lately discovered at Shizuka, Hitachi. The Bulletin of the Tokyo Anthropological
Society, 8 (87): 336“389.
Yamagata, Mariko. 1992. The Shakado ¬gurines and Middle Jomon ritual in the Hofu basin.
Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 19 (2/3): 129“138.
Yamamoto, Teruhisa. 1995. Sekibo (Stone club/rod) (in Japanese). In Jomon bunka no kenkyu
(Studies in the Jomon culture), Vol. 9 (ed. by S. Kato, T. Kobayashi and T. Fujimoto),
pp. 170“180. Tokyo: Yusankaku.
References 178


Yamanouchi, Sugao. 1937. Jomon doki no taibetsu to saibetsu (The establishment of the
phases and regional sequences of the Jomon pottery) (in Japanese). Senshi kokogaku
kenkyu (Studies in prehistoric archaeology), 1 (1): 29“32.
Yamao, Yukihisa. 1986. Shinban Gishi-wajin-den (in Japanese). Tokyo: Kodansha.
Yasuda, Hiroshi. 1998. Ten™no no seiji-shi (The political history of the reign of the emperors
Mutsuhito, Yoshihito, and Hirohito) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Aoki.
Yoshida, Akira. 1972. Dorei-sei kenkyu no shomondai (Issues in the study of the slavery stage
in the social evolutionary process of Japan) (in Japanese). In Rekishi-kagaku taikei (Studies
in historical sciences), Vol. 2 (ed. by A. Yoshida), pp. 297“320. Tokyo: Azekura Shobo.
1995. Himiko no jidai (The era of Queen Himiko) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Shin™nihon shuppan.
INDEX




achieved status 91, also see ascribed status cognitive archaeology 129
af¬rmative action 123 Cold War, the 12, 14, 56, 60, 132, also see eastern
Agency for Cultural Affairs (of Japan) 1, 152 and western blocks
Ainu 66“67 Cold War equilibrium, the 71, 79, 80, 118,
ancestors 139, 150 135, 161
ancestral images 19 colonialism 56
the Japanese Imperial family/household 64, 79, Columbus, Christopher 84
103, 141 communication, ˜semantics™ of 45, 45“47, 60,
˜our (i.e., contemporary Japanese)™ ancestors 8, 85“86
151“152 as the minimum unit of society/sociality 15, 44
Anderson, Benedict 23, 63 binary code(s) of distinction (for the
apathy 29 reproduction of a system/
archaeological journals 152, 157“158 discourse) 47“48, 65, 104, 150, 153,
ascribed status 91, also see achieved status 156“157, 159
assimilation 65“68, 69 horizon(s) of choices 15, 41, 83
immunisation 164
Bauman, Zygmunt 136 indeterminacy of 16“17, 38, 41“46, 79, 98,
Beck, Ulrich 30, 35 126, 165“168
binary code(s) of distinction (for the reproduction Luhmann™s theory of communication/social
of a system/discourse) 47“48, 65, 104, systems 37“46
150, 153, 156“157, 159 paradox/de-paradoxisation 45, 79, 85, 98, 104,
Binford, Lewis 125 117“118, 119, 164, 165
biographical knowledge 150 symbolic communication medium/media 49,
blind spot 160 48“50, 52, 53, 55, 60
buried cultural property 149 system“environment boundary 43, 43“44, 114,
135, 166
capitalism 12, 31, 73, 131, 161 communitarianism 32
heavy capitalism 7, 29, 118, 136 complexity 35“36, 39, 38“41, 85, 86, 105, 106,
hyper-capitalism 14, 29, 33, 131, 133, 108, 115, 137, 138, 140, 150
149“151, 162, 164 de¬nition of 35
imperialistic capitalism 73 corporate group/unit (e.g. lineage, clan, etc.) 75,
light capitalism 7, 8, 29, 136 89, 90“93, 95, 100, 105“106, 107,
Catalhoyuk 14“16 108“109, 114, 145
central place 4, 91 Cranborne Chase 20
chain of signi¬ers 127, 129, 143, 145, cyberspace 152
164
China 61, 72, 93, 94, 148 De Nebrija, Antonio 84
Chinese dynasties 72 deconstruction 130
Chinese empire 72 developmental stages 73, 77
Wei dynasty 115, see Weizhi differentiation (of communication/social systems),
Weizhi (a Chinese imperial chronicle), see functional 46, 47“48, 52“53, 55“57, 79,
Weizhi 117“119, 122, 135, 149, 152, 159, 161,
citizenship 19, 22, 25“26, 35, 61, 133“134 165
class 22, 25, 26, 73, 74, 136, 160 hierarchical 46, 47, 63“64, 79, 85, 104, 117,
class af¬liation 48, 159“160 159, 165
class-based virtue/codes of conduct 104 segmentary 45
middle class 136 diffusionist/diffusionism 68
traditional industrial capitalist-based disembedding/disembedment 49, 61, 62, 71, 134,
society 31 also see re-embedding/
re-embedment
working class 136


179
Index 180


eastern and western blocks, the 56, 72, 132 archaeologist 138, 149
Edo feudal regime 31, 63“64, 66 children 58
education 81, 84, 102 citizen(s) 26
Fundamental Law of Education, the 83 ethnic 21“22, 23“24
School Education Law, the 83 Japanese 57, 60, 97, 118
school textbook screening exercise (of Japan), national 55“57
the 82, 83 ideology 37, 75, 98, 127
Egypt (ancient) 128 indeterminacy (of communication) 16“17, 38,
Emperor (of Japan) 52, 55, 57, 58, 62“64, 71, 81, 41“46, 79, 98, 126, 165“168
97“100, 101, 118, 134 Inland Sea region, the 107, 108“112
ancient 68, 103, 116, also see Okimi instrumentalism/instrumentalist stance (in the
Ojin, see mausoleum of ˜Emperor Ojin™ study of ethnic identity) 21, also see
Meiji 98 primordialism
episteme 99, 126 Internet culture 152
epistemology 130, 143, 160, 162 iron tools/source material 112
colonial 123
western 32 Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. (JNFL) 143
essentialism 31 Japanese emperor system 52, 57“59, 71“72, 73,
ethnie (Anthony Smith™s term) 24“25, 58“59, 63, 81, 97, 102, 104, 114, 115“118
66, 80“81 imperial chronicle (Kojiki and Nihon-shoki)
Japanese 59 64, 70, 141
ethno-archaeology 124, 130 family/household 50“52, 58“59, 63“65,
ethnography 8“9 67“70, 72“75, 77, 79, 103“104, 141
ethnomethodology 152, 166 family/household, ancestor of 64, 103,
evolutionism 161 141
exchange 75, 106, 112“114, 145 genealogy/line 55, 63, 68, 81, 114, 116, 118,
141
feminist scholarship 145 household agency (Kunai-cho) 50, 103
forged Palaeolithic sites (in Japan) 156 mausolea 58, 73, 103
Foucault, Michel 126 mythology 68, 76
Fukuyama, Francis 33 Japaneseness 81, 139“140, 148
Futatsukayama (Yayoi cemetery) 8 Jomon period, the 139“145
functional differentiation, see differentiation as the ˜stone age™ 141
archaeology 76“77, 78“79, 139
Gar¬nkel, Harold 166 as ˜timeless™/historyless 140, 141
Gellner, Ernest 23“24 as the ˜prehistory™ of Japan 138, 141
general public 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 33, 82, 140“141, as the ˜safe™ domain of archaeological studies
144, 146“147, 149, 150, 152 65, 70, 72, 76, 78“79
general systems theory 161 as the culture of aboriginal populations 64,
Giddens, Anthony 18, 30, 35, 61, 166 68“70
globalisation 14, 161 circular settlement 140
and homogenisation 29 clay ¬gurines 142, 144
and post-processual archaeologies 133 Jomon discourse 139, 146
de¬nition of 28 Jomonness 140, 142, 144
grand narrative 11“12, 122, 132, 161, 166“167 reconstruction of subsistence scheduling 78
ritual 140, 142, 147
Habu, Junko 147, 156 Sannai-Maruyama (settlement site) 138, 143,
Hamada, Seiryo 70 145“146, 154“156
Harunari, Hideji 106“108 discourse 138, 146, 148, 150
Hashihaka tumulus 112 site-catchment analysis 78
hierarchical differentiation, see differentiation Jomon“Yayoi division/dichotomy 139“145
henge monuments 127
hermeneutical archaeology 129 Kawachi plain 75, 103, 112, 115
hermeneutics 125“126, 127 Kinki/Kansai region 75, 103, 107, 113,
Himiko 6, 8, 10 108“115
Kofun (mounded tomb) period, the 58“59, 68,
discourse 82
narrative 159 73, 74, 93“94, 100, 103, 113, 106“116,
historical materialism 161 139“141, 149
Hodder, Ian 13“14, 124“125, 130 archaeology 103“105, 114, 117
Hashihaka tumulus, see Hashihaka tumulus
Huntington, Samuel 33
keyhole-shaped tumuli 52, 58, 68, 75,
identity 17“18, 27, 29, 30, 51, 52, 85, 101, 117, 94, 103“105, 107, 113, 109“114,
135, 152, 157, 159 115“116
Index 181


mortuary ritual 114 Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
Okimi (paramount chiefs of ancient Japan (of Japan) (MLIT), the 1
before the establishment of the title Ten™no minority/indigenous voices 123, 130, 132, 162,
(emperor)), see Okimi 167
Tsukinowa tumulus, see Tsukinowa tumulus modernism 32, also see methodological
Yamato court, see Yamato court universalism/objectivism
Koguryo (ancient polity in the northern part of modernist view (in the study of nationalism) 23,
Korean peninsula and north-eastern also see perennialist view
China) 93 modernity, de¬nition/constitutive characteristics
Koyama, Shuzo 146 of 19“20, 35, 133, also see Waters,
Malcolm and functional differentiation
liberalism 132 project of 84
linguistic turn 126 re¬‚exive 30, 35
Luhmann, Niklas 15, 30, 38“41, 45“47, 122, modern social formation, classical 29“31,
159 55“57, 84, 94, 97, 102, 133, 151
theory of communication/social systems, see radicalised 18, 29“31
communication second-order observation, see second-order
Lyotard, Jean-Francois 122 observation
Morse, Edward Sylvester 60, 64, 70
Marxism 11“12, 116, 166 multicultural 14
as a grand narrative 11“12 attitude 124
as the dangerous domain of archaeological frustration 164
studies 72 multiculturalism 31“32, 123, 133, 159, 160, 162,
classical/traditional Marxist thought 121“122, 165, 167
134“135 as the most intolerant social philosophy 163
developmental stages 73, 77 multinational conglomerates 161
Japanese Marxist approach/archaeology multivocality 123, 130, 135, 167
124“125, 138
Marxist archaeologists 72, 100 Nara Cultural Properties Research Institute, the
archaeology 36“37, 72, 116 151
discourse 118, 136 Nara Prefecture/basin 58, 75, 103, 112, 115
doctrine 100 narrative 6, 8, 10, 37, 81, 137, 141, 142, 147,
historians 72, 99, 100 150, 152, 153, 154, 159
history 72 archaeological 53, 55“57, 149
Marxist-led socialism 136 ethnic unity 23
Marxist-oriented logic 8 evolutionary 161
social totality 138 grand narrative 11“12, 122, 132, 161,
totalising tendency 138 166“167
universalising narrative 18 indigenous population 130
USSR-led 72 Marxist developmental stages 77
mass media 29, 160 national body, the 65“71
material culture 124“126, 130, 139 non-academic 8
as meaningfully constituted 125 of continuity 103, 118
Jomon 139, 141 of Himiko 159
reading 126, 127, 129 of the extreme (largest, oldest, etc.) 17, 18,
Mausoleum of ˜Emperor Ojin™ 59 135, 138, 148, 149, 150, 154“159, 163,
Maya (classical) 128 167“168
Meiji period, the 84 origin narrative 6“7
Meiji, administration 98 origin(s) of the Japanese 72
constitution 62, 71, 98 transcendental/universalising 18, 138, 148,
Emperor Meiji 98 167, 168
government 66 ethno-nationalistic 17
restoration (1867) 31, 58, 60, 61, 64, 66, 133, National body (Koku(nation/state)-tai(body)),
144 the notion of 61“63, 65“68, 71“73,
state 99 76, 78“81, 94“95, 97“99, 118, 134,
memory 19, 24, 44, 85, 132, 135 139
methodological universalism/objectivism nationalism 21, 23, 27, 31
32 civic type, the 23
middle class 136 ethnic type, the 23
middle-range research strategy 78 nation-state 11, 17, 21, 24, 31, 51, 49“53,
Ministry of Education (of Japan) (Ministry of 55“104, 118, 132, 144
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and and language 21“24
Technology: ˜MEXT™) 82 circularity and paradox of 24, 24“26, 62
Index 182


nation-state (cont.) religion 20, 25, 26, 45, 47, 48, 160
de¬nition of 22 rescue excavation/archaeology/archaeologist 4,
homogenising media 26“27 3“9, 13, 137“138, 146, 149“152, 154“157
nihilism 18, 149, 160, 167“169 Revolution
Northern Kyushu region 105, 109, 107“112, 114 American 20
nostalgia 153“154 French 20
Industrial 20
Okamura, Michio 140 rice agriculture/paddy-¬eld agriculture 6, 8, 9, 73,
Okimi (paramount chiefs of ancient Japan before 105, 106, 139, 141, 143, 144, 148, 156
the establishment of the title Ten™no ritual 127
(emperor)) 97, 103
Omori shell-middens 60, 70 Sahara, Makoto 114“115, 140
ontological security 11 San™in region 107, 109, 108“109
archaeology 19 Sannai-Maruyama (Jomon settlement site) 138,
inequality 73“76 143, 145“146, 154“156
˜national body™ of Japan, the 63, 67 discourse 138, 146, 148, 150
Japanese ancient state 159 and the Jomon ˜civilisation™ 146
Emperor system 97 class-divided 156
Imperial genealogy 63, 116 school textbook 57“58, 81“84, 86, 87, 91“94, 95,
Imperial household/family 72, 104 98, 100, 101, 148
way of life 148 Second World War 56, 58, 65, 71, 72, 76“79,
the/Japanese nation/Japanese race 8, 60, 64, 97, 102, 104, 116“118, 134, 139, 141,
66, 67, 72, 97 143“144, 159
keyhole-shaped tumulus, the 104 second-order observation 15“18, 161“162
narrative 6“7 segmentary differentiation, see differentiation
nation 60, 80 self identi¬cation, ethnic 21
unilinear descent system 106 in classical modernity 94
other/otherness, the 21“22, 86, 147, 164 national 56
of contemporary Japanese people 143
paradox/de-paradoxisation 45, 79, 85, 98, 104, of citizens 26, 56
117“118, 119, 164, 165 of the educated 84
patriarchy/patriarchal family 95, 93“97, 98, 99, self identity/identi¬cation 14, 26, 29, 30, 50, 56,
107 60, 76, 86, 102, 128, 136, 137, 138, 150,
perennialist view (in the study of nationalism) 23, 152, 153, 157, 160, 164, 166
also see modernist view semantics 45, 45“47, 60, 85“86
Petrie, Flinders 70 September 11th incident, the (the 9.11) 32,
phenomenology/phenomenological approach 128, 33
129 settlement 138
Pitt Rivers, Lieutenant General 20, 47 circular 140
political correctedness 32, 123 Jomon 77, 138, 140, 145“146, 156, also see
pop-art 131 Sannai-Maruyama
post-modernism 32, also see multiculturalism Yayoi 4, 91, also see Yoshinogari
post-processual archaeology/archaeologies 16, 32, Shichida, Tadaaki 7, 9
123“124, 130“131, 133, 159“161, site-catchment analysis 78
166“167 Smith, Anthony 23“25, 63
hermeneutical archaeology, see hermeneutical social archaeology 36“37, 41, 76, 78
archaeology social evolution 105
somatised archaeology, see somatised socialism 12, 122, 132, 136
archaeology sociality 15, 35, 38, 36“44, 45
primordialism (in the study of ethnic identity) 21, sociology 166
also see instrumentalism/instrumentalist Luhmann, Niklas, see Luhmann, Niklas
stance re¬‚exive sociological theory 9
problem of order, the 37, 38 somatised archaeology 128, 129, 130, 145
processual archaeology 78, 124“126, 163 stakeholder(s) 1, 9, 13, 14, 82, 130, 149, 159,
Protestant Christian belief 118 162
psychic systems 39, 38“42 stratigraphic excavation 68
public discursive domain 168 structural analysis 126“127
symbolic communication medium/media 49,
race 60, 64, 71“72 48“50, 52, 53, 55, 60
Reason 116, 167 system“environment boundary, 43, 43“44, 114,
re-embedding/re-embedment 49, 62“63, 134, also 135, 166
see disembeding/disembedment systemic archaeology 36“37
re¬‚exive monitoring 30, 35 systemic thinking/approach 37, 78
Index 183


TAG (British Theoretical Archaeology Group) Yayoi period, the 4, 139“141, 149
16, 132 Yayoi, as dynamic/historical 141
Takakura, Hiroaki 105“106, 108 as the ˜history™ of Japan 141
Tanabe, Shozo 114“115 bronze implements (weapon-shaped, bells, etc.)
Tanaka, Yoshiyuki 93, 108 75, 76, 142
taxonomy of sites 138 cemetery 8, 107
Teshigawara, Akira 82, 87, 88 chief/chieftain 106
textbook, see school textbook core regions 107
The Clash of Civilisations 33, also see Huntington, corporate group/unit (e.g. clan), see corporate
Samuel group/unit
thick description 52, 133 culture 68, 114, 144
Tohoku region 143, 147 discourse/discursive space 139, 143, 144, 146,
Tokugawa feudal clan 64, 98, also see Edo feudal 148
regime Early Yayoi Period 114, 145
Toma, Seita 72 Futatsukayama (Yayoi cemetery), see
traditionalism 32, also see communitarianism Futastukayama
Transcendental Late Yayoi Period 1, 6, 8, 58, 88, 89, 91, 93,
concept(s) 55 94, 107, 108, 109, 112, 113
discourse 149 Middle Yayoi Period 6, 89, 90“91, 107,
entity/entities 18, 50“51, 138 114
guarantee/guarantor 52, 53 mortuary compound/compound
narratives 18, 167“168 cemetery/burial group 89, 90“94, 109,
position 14, 15 107“112
the 14, 26“27, 29, 49, 49, 50, 51, 52“53, 57, mortuary practices 105, 107
71, 98, 146, 148“149, 167 post-marital residential patterns 106
value systems 165 residential compound 91, 92
tribe 91 ritual 75, 142
Tsuboi, Shogoro 60, 67 social evolution 105, 107, 108, 115
Tsukinowa tumulus 77, 137 socio-cultural complex 143
typo-chronology 68 the beginning 73
tribe see tribe
Wa (ancient name used by the contemporary Yayoi“Kofun transitional phase 74, 88, 100,
Chinese of Japan) 6, 88, 93 102, 108
Wallerstein, Immanuel 72 Yayoiness 144
Waters, Malcolm 19 Yoshinogari, see Yoshinogari
websites 157“158 Yayoi“Kofun archaeology 77, 78
Weizhi (a Chinese Imperial Chronicle) 6, 8, 9“10, as radical political discourse 79
81“82, 88, 91, 93“94, 99 as the dangerous domain of archaeological
working class 136 studies 65“68
world-systems theory/perspective 72 discourse 77, 78“79
Yoshida, Akira 93
Yamatai (Yamatai-koku, an ancient Japanese Yoshinogari (settlement site of the Yayoi period) 2,
polity) 6, 10, 81“82, 86, 88, 93, 94, 97, 4, 5, 1“18, 82, 143, 146, 149, 151, 154,
100, 102, 156, 159 155, 159
Yamato court (Yamat- chotei) 97, 115 discourse 150
Yasuda, Yoshinori 146 reconstruction of 1, 157
CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN ARCHAEOLOGY


Titles in series

The Archaeology of Class in Urban America
STEPHEN A. MROZOWSKI

Archaeology, Society and Identity in Modern Japan
KOJI MIZOGUCHI

<<

. 6
( 6)