Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenor:
-
Jason Webb
(University of Southern California)
Send message to Convenor
- Discussant:
-
Tomoyasu Kato
(Meiji University)
- Stream:
- History
- Location:
- Bloco 1, Piso 0, Sala 0.05
- Sessions:
- Saturday 2 September, -
Time zone: Europe/Lisbon
Short Abstract:
This panel seeks to turn a critical eye to conventions of periodizing Japan's "ancient" times first by comparing orientations historical, archaeological, and literary. How does each discipline indulge in its own collective fabrications of sequence, rupture, and inevitability? Can we improve things?
Long Abstract:
Periodization is the guardrail at a scenic but treacherous spot. It confers a certain kind of security, a feeling of chaos grasped and momentarily tamed. Perhaps therein lies its appeal. The enterprises of history, archaeology, and literature each answer the craving for periodization in different ways, using different criteria and (perhaps) different underlying values. Ancient Japan (from when to when? by whose definition?) is grist for sharply divergent conceptions of periods, sub-periods, and episodes. Historians, depending on their concerns, seem to favor developments in political and economic systems; archaeologists are apt to base theirs on the emergence (and decline) of tools, mounds, pottery, and agricultural technology; and literary historians often look to changes in poetic themes, forms, and stylistics. Of crucial importance too is the timeline (periodizable?) of materials, textual or otherwise, flowing from the continent into the archipelago. All in all, this summary - simplistic though it may be - is enough to provoke important questions: how do schemes of periodization across disciplines relate to each other? Are their incompatibilities irresolvable? Shall we content ourselves merely by concluding that perhaps truth lies in their composite? Our panel seeks to explore these questions by way of three presentations and a response from a learned discussant. Ken Sasaki will revisit the evolving and at times contested criteria by which Japanese archaeologists seek to demarcate the Yayoi and Kofun periods. Jason Webb will examine the preface to Keikokushū, the third and last the early Heian royal anthologies of Chinese languages poetry (and prose), focusing on how its compilers celebrated their historical moment as a high point for writing (bun), defined in contrast to "turbid" eras of the past, both domestic and abroad. Takehiko Yoshimura will survey how schemes of periodization in history and archaeology evolved from the Meiji period onward, and offer his own interdisciplinary proposal of alternatives. Tomoyasu Katō will serve as discussant.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Saturday 2 September, 2017, -Paper short abstract:
This paper reflects upon what kinds of criteria Japanese archaeologists use to distinguish the Yayoi Period from the Kofun Period. As new data are discovered, different criteria are selected to make the distinction.
Paper long abstract:
In the middle third century A.D. highly standardized keyhole-shaped mound tombs appeared in various regions of western Japan. Their emergence marks the beginning of the Kofun Period and at the same time the end of the Yayoi Period, when mortuary customs were regionally distinctive. Because Japanese archaeology is characterized by a heavy dependence on pottery analyses for the reconstruction of history, it is rather unusual to use mortuary evidence to distinguish time periods. To define the beginning of the Kofun Period Japanese archaeologists have confronted with two difficult issues. First, what was the meaning the “standardized mound form”? Keyhole-shaped mound tombs were built according to fixed sets of plans; for example, the Urama-Chausuyama keyhole-shaped mound tomb in Okayama is one-half of Hashihaka in Nara. The total length, diameter of the circular rear mounds, height of the rear mound, width of the joint between the rear and frontal mounds, width of the frontal mound, height of the frontal mound were exactly one half. The problem is dating the appearance of this standardization. A few Japanese archaeologists argue that small keyhole-shaped burial mounds constructed in the late second to early third century in a few regions of eastern and western Japan, as well as Nara, were built according to the fixed plan, but many archaeologists (including myself) do not approve of this hypothesis. The second issue relates to the chronological type of pottery in use at the time standardized keyhole-shaped mound tombs appeared; in other words, the chronological correlation between mound tombs and the type of pottery discovered at ordinary settlements. Ordinary pottery is not usually discovered at mound tombs. Excavations at the foot of the Hashihaka mound and the adjacent Makimuku site have provided a key to this question, showing that the type of pottery discovered at the foot of Hashihaka is best placed in the third to fourth stage of the Makimuku pottery chronology. This type marks the beginning of the Kofun Period settlements. Some archaeologists argue for the early appearance of standardization consider a type one stage earlier than the first stage of the Makimuku chronology as the beginning of the Kofun Period.
Paper short abstract:
Radically different conceptions of period and periodization are possible when focus is shifted from political and military power to a perceived status of writing. This paper uses the early ninth-century anthology Keikokushū to explore alternative definitions and assessments of historical periods.
Paper long abstract:
Of the three early Heian royal anthologies of writings in Chinese, Keikokushū, the third, was most ambitious: its retrospective girth spanned more than a century (707-827); its compilers gathered works by 178 writers; its diversity of genres, including fu, shi, prefaces to poems, and a substantial number of examination essays, was, in the Heian court, unprecedented. Although only a fraction of these materials survive, the sizable architecture of Keikokushū indicates that its sponsor and compilers intended it to be a grand monument to early Heian achievements in the writing of Chinese. Befitting such a conception, the Keikokushū preface, even more than the prefaces of the two previous royal anthologies, has things to say on issues beyond simply poetry composition at the Heian capital. Its depiction of Han and Six Dynasties literary history, though highly abbreviated, contains judgments that are surprisingly critical, a tone that differs greatly from the enthusiastic early reception of Cao Pi during the same early decades of the Heian period. The work of Yang Xiong, for example, is characterized as foolish and detrimental to the Way, and entire periods (Qi, Northern Zhou, Sui) are renounced for allowing the principles of good writing perish. Nonetheless, as prefaces to anthologies are apt to emphasize, writing prevails, even if it must "pass through murky waters to become clear." This presentation will explore the following questions: 1) how do the evaluations purveyed by Keikokushū correlate with transformations in literary historiography of the Tang period? 2) what tensions arise between the sweeping references to Chinese literary history in the Keikokushū preface and the precise local functions of the anthologized prose and poems? 3) Might the Keikokushū conception of era suggest a counterpoint to the conventional period demarcations relied upon by historians and archaeologists?
Paper short abstract:
A survey of periodization methods across disciplines affirms that differences in the criteria used to distinguish periods causes incompatibilities in timeline conceptions. Can periodizations of the "premodern" Japanese past be unified? Should they be? This paper seeks to contribute to the debate.
Paper long abstract:
The schematic established for Japanese history prior to the Meiji Restoration took cues from the tripartite division of European history (ancient/medieval/modern) and resulted in a basic distinction between "ancient" and "medieval." Ancient Japan, compared to the Greek and Roman worlds, was taken to be that of an "ancient slave system," and the medieval centuries, when considered in comparison to manor society of Western Europe, was dubbed "medieval feudalism." But due to the vastly different political arrangements of the Kamakura/Muromachi periods and the Edo period, it became conventional to place the Kamakura/Muromachi eras under the purview of medieval history, and the subsequent Edo period under the purview of modern history. Mainstream histories of Japan generally rely on the four-tier conception of Primitive, Ancient, Medieval, and Modern. Yet other perspectives complicate this tidy schematic, for example: 1) the so-called insei period, when considered as political history, elongates conceptions of the medieval; 2) cultural and artistic pursuits tend to cherish and preserve "classical" traits; and 3) Kyoto-centered researchers use the notion of ōchō kokka to argue that medieval society commenced around the turn of the tenth century. Attention to periodization in the field of archaeology introduces yet more complexity. Jōmon, Yayoi, Kofun and the like, as designators for eras, use as their criteria the evidence of tools and the emergence of a productive agricultural economy (rice). Because these developments are not directly tied to political innovations, discourse about 1) the appearance of human culture in the archipelago, 2) the formation of Jōmon culture, 3) how agrarian culture was constituted, and 4) the birth of round kofun, proceed on a trial-and-error basis. Literary history too adheres to its own conventions such as jōko and chūko. In short, at present there is no consensual interdisciplinary scheme of periodization that goes beyond those established by and within academic disciplines such as history, archaeology, and literature. Should there be? In this presentation I will make some proposals that we can debate together.