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.