An
Archaeological History of Japan: 30,000 B.C. to A.D. 700. by Koji Mizoguchi.
University of Pennsylvania Press: 2002; xiii
+ 274 pages; 64 figures; ISBN 0-8122-3561-3.
Koji Mizoguchi's book
is a very different history of Japan to that we have read before. In
common with a number of books on Japanese archaeology, by Japanese archaeologists,
it is still a book about the nature of identity amongst the inhabitants
of the Japanese archipelago. The study of identity may be recent and
currently very much in vogue in Anglo-American archaeology (cf. Meskell
1999, Thomas 1996); but there is already a long tradition of writing
about the nature of Japanese identity in Japan (and in Japanese). Some
of these works, the so-called Nihonjin-ron and its critiques,
seek to define a unique and particular identity shared by all Japanese.
They trace this identity to its roots in the Japanese past, usually
to be found with the introduction of rice agriculture by the Yayoi population
from approximately 400 B.C. The island nature of Japan and the apparent
contiguity between the political expression of previous populations
and the current Japanese nation state have lent strong support to the
notion of a fixed or inherent 'Japaneseness' that is missing from most
other countries - except perhaps Britain. Critiques of Nihonjin-ron,
of which there are now a number, have set out to situate this writing
in its current social, political and economic context to understand
why it has come about and what purpose it serves. In comparison with
these critiques, however, Mizoguchi does not seek to problematise the
modern discourse, so much as to trace the nature of self-identification
of the populations occupying the Japanese archipelago from the Palaeolihthic
through to the end of the Kofun period. There can be no unique Japanese
identity with deep roots into prehistory if it is clear that the populations
themselves did not identify themselves in the same manner.
What we have in this
book, therefore is the following through from a 'universal' sense of
self identity that was fluid and based on individual abilities expressed
through the practical activities of every day life, through to a time
when quite separate identities would have been recognised between leaders
or elites, those select few people who created and maintained links
between regional groups, foreign polities (such as the Chinese dynasties)
and even the divine and other world, and the many commoners whose existence
was localised and defined according to the nature of rice agriculture
and their reliance on others to mediate with the Other.
Unlike archaeologists
who have considered identity through the literature on gender and the
body, Mizoguchi's approach is rooted in the practice approaches of Bourdieu
and Giddens, and is concerned with the identification of 'topographies
of identity', and how they are created, maintained and transformed.
In the language of practice theory, Mizoguchi's 'topography of identity'
compares to the structure or habitus, a structuring and structured
entity (through individual action and agency). The topography of identity
has both physical and subjective structures. The subjective structure
of Mizoguchi's topography of identity is intimately related to expectations;
"the expectations of how one would behave at a locale, the expectation
of how others would behave at that locale; and the expectation of how
the others would expect one to behave at that locale" (p21). The
physical structure comprises the spatio-temporal constellation of locales,
the material setting of each locale, and the range of individuals who
meet at such locales (p21). Changes in the subjective expectations or
the nature of the physical setting, Mizoguchi argues, bring about changes
in self-identities. Within this framework, material culture provides
the conditions upon which expectations are formed and the settings in
which they are activated. For Mizoguchi, therefore, tracing the nature
of identities through Japanese history is 'simply' a matter of following
through transformations in the topography of identity in its various
components outlined above.
Mizoguchi investigates
the shifting nature of identity following four broad periods of Japanese
archaeology: Palaeolithic, Jomon, Yayoi and Kofun. During the Palaeolithic
Mizoguchi argues that life was essentially uncertain: resources were
unpredictable in their number and location and human societies were
fluid in their response to this 'lack of fixity' (p64). Evidence from
Palaeolithic sites seem to indicate a constantly mobile way of life,
with human self-identities created and maintained through the personal
resources, abilities and skills possessed by individuals. Where the
archaeological record does seem to indicate distinct regional style
zones in material culture, such as with the geographical distributions
of knife-shaped tools or the later microblade manufacturing techniques,
Mizoguchi argues that these zones do not mark the boundaries between
societies with different identities but the limit of the areas occupied
by constantly moving bands. This begins to change towards the end of
the Palaeolithic. Evidence seems to suggest that accumulations of predictable
resources (such as salmon) began and the first sites with evidence for
longer periods of occupation. We also begin to see the use of material
culture as metaphorical referents for particular aspects of social life:
the 'MIkoshiba' hoard sites with metaphorical reference to the activities
of 'cutting down trees and hunting animals' (p69). This is the beginning
of identities and role-related expectations.
This process escalates
with the Jomon. In the early Jomon fixity continues and there is, according
to Mizoguchi, an association in Jomon identities between the regenerative
power of women and the regeneration of resources, evidenced by the production
of ceramic female figurines. Fluctuations in population numbers still
seem to indicate that there was a potential unpredictability to life
and any identity during this early Jomon. However, by the later Jomon
(the Middle, Late and Final Jomon periods as determined by Jomon ceramic
chronologies) fixity seems to permanently characterise life. Large core
sites, such as the Nishida site, with highly marked spatial configurations
and evidence for permanent occupation, attest to the growth of more
permanent identities based on fixed roles. The association between stone-lined
hearths, a locus of female activities, and the deposition of stone phalluses
suggests a need to balance the relationships between men and women at
a time of the development of fixed hierarchies.
With the Yayoi period,
rice cultivation begins in the Japanese archipelago. Traditionally Japanese
archaeologists have looked to the Korean Peninsula for the origin of
the Yayoi and the source for incoming Yayoi populations. Instead Mizoguchi
looks to the patterns within Yayoi archaeology to determine the nature
of Yayoi identities. The appearance of a fully developed rice paddy
field system indicates the organisation of considerable labour power,
indicating some form of social hierarchy. Indeed the Yayoi represents
the beginning of an emergent inequality between leaders and commoners,
and the tension between the two. Leaders cement their hierarchical position
by acting as the mediators between the community and the other, whether
that be the spirit world or foreign powers, such as the Han Dynasty
in neighbouring China. Commoners are made to believe that the success
of their community rests on the success that leaders have in this mediation.
New identities are created linking storage jars (for rice), the colour
red and human burials. Yayoi burials are often accompanied by weapons
indicating coercion, and prestige goods derived from China deposited
('destroyed') in graves to indicate the faith that leaders have in their
ability to continue their links with this particular Other. During the
Kofun period, the dependent relationship between leaders and commoners
is finally split, and the foundations of a royal state are fixed.
Whilst this history
starts from the Palaeolithic, the real substance of this book is in
Mizoguchi's interpretation of the Jomon, Yayoi and Kofun periods of
Japanese archaeology. These periods form the archaeological substance
for common discussions of Japanese identity. In traditional discussions,
the Jomon is an 'other' life, a world of rich crafts (especially ceramics)
and embodied knowledge. The Yayoi with its rice agriculture forms the
basis of the modern Japanese rural way of life and is characterised
by strategic knowledge and social order, whilst the Kofun period and
its well-known keyhole-shaped monumental tombs witnesses the origins
of the imperial heritage of modern Japan. Burial is key to Mizoguchi's
decipherment of the nature of identity, particularly in the Yayoi and
Kofun periods. Linear cemeteries in the Yayoi, with burials progressing
through the cemetery from north to south show a concern with a memory
for lineage. Mourners at a burial will see the body being lowered into
the grave against a backdrop (context) of previous burials. The development
and seclusion of Kofun keyhole-shaped burial monuments allows Mizoguchi
to identify the separation of the elite from the commoners to the extent
that commoners can no longer judge the effectiveness of their leaders
in their role of mediators.
It is still very rare
to find a book in English about the archaeology of Japan. This is a
great pity given the great riches of Japanese archaeology. If, however,
you are looking for the most up to date, general archaeological introduction
to the archaeology of Japan, Mizoguchi's book will not be the answer
to your quest. A brief examination of the figures in the atlas of Japanese
archaeology produced for the Japanese Association for Quaternary Research
(Ona et al. 1992) will give some idea of the extraordinarily
rich archaeological record that now exists in Japan, and a better feeling
for the full range of archaeological evidence present. Mizoguchi's An
Archaeological History of Japan, however, is closely focussed on
an argument and using the evidence purely in relation to this argument,
and readers would for the moment find Imamura's book, albeit brief itself,
a better general introduction to the nature (chronology, geography and
variety) of the archaeological evidence that has been excavated in Japan
(Imamura 1996).
This book, however,
provides a quite different perspective on Japanese archaeology to those
currently available. The closest parallels to An Archaeological
History of Japan are not to be found in Japanese writings, but
in the recent literature on Prehistoric Europe; the works of John Barrett,
Richard Bradley and Julian Thomas all spring to mind and to quotation
within this text. This is not surprising since Mizoguchi's own archaeological
identity embraces his PhD thesis on the nature of Neolithic identities
in Britain with particular reference to the nature of burial practices
and memory through time (Mizoguchi 1993). It is also no surprise, given
this background, that the text comes alive when Mizoguchi reflects on
the character and sequencing of elite burials in the Yayoi and Kofun
periods. It is here that Mizoguchi seems to have a real feel for the
evidence and is at his most successful in constructing the topography
of identity. Whilst reading I was most frequently reminded of Richard
Bradley's The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain (Bradley
1984); Mizoguchi's approach is clearly a more recent development of
Postprocessual thinking in archaeology, but it has that same breadth
and focus on the longer term patterns that characterise this earlier
work by Bradley. And even though it is about the development of identities,
it takes the perspective of the broader structures, in the Giddens sense
of the term, that characterise this other work. In this sense, not only
should this book be recommended reading for archaeologists of Japan,
it also makes an ideal and original case study for those interested
in the archaeology of identity in general.
The breadth and scale,
however, that provides much of the clarity and strength in this book
is also its key weakness. Mizoguchi describes the structures of identity
for each period, but the absence of a detailed examination of a large
range of the full variety of the evidence for the period leaves out
much sense of individual negotiations of identities. Individuals are
reduced to examples of larger social groups, whether they be leaders,
commoners, elite in the Yayoi and Kofun periods, or men and women in
the Jomon and Palaeolithic. Theoretically we must imagine that individual
agents are negotiating their own personal identities, but practically,
this cannot be explored in a narrative of this scale. In this sense,
the social and physical topography of identity that Mizoguchi aims to
reconstruct is necessarily simplified. For the Jomon period, I can see
criticisms that will be made concerning the 'stereotypical representation
of men and women' as takers and givers of life respectively. It is really
only in the discussion of burials in the Yayoi and Kofun periods that
the beginning of a more detailed discussion of the negotiation of identities
(in this case among the families of leaders or elites) becomes visible.
The evidence, however, is clearly present to begin such an archaeology
and it one that we can look forward to. For the moment, this is a major
and challenging development in the archaeology of Japan that deserves
to be on many bookshelves.
Anthony Sinclair
School of Archaeology,
Classics and Oriental Studies,
University of Liverpool
Review Submitted: February 2003
References
Bradley, R. 1984. The Social Foundations
of Prehistoric Britain. London, Longman.
Imamura, K. 1996. Prehistoric Japan: New Perspectives on Insular East
Asia. London, UCL Press.
Meskell, L. 1999. Archaeologies of Social Life. Oxford, Blackwell.
Mizoguchi, K. 1993. Time in the reproduction of mortuary practices.
World Archaeology 25: 223-45
Ona, A., Harunari, H. & Oda, S. 1992. Zukai Nihon no jinrui iseki
(Atlas of Japanese Archaeology). Tokyo, Tokyo University Press.
Thomas, J. 1996. Time, Culture and Identity. London, Routledge.
The views expressed in this review are not
necessarily those of the Society or the Reviews Editor.
|