Jomon Reflections: Forager life and culture in the prehistoric Japanese archipelago

Reviewed by Ilhong Ko

The Text
References

 The text

Tatsuo Kobayashi’s Jomon Reflections: Forager life and culture in the prehistoric Japanese archipelago joins the list of publications that have endeavoured to make Jomon archaeology accessible to the non-Japanese speaking archaeological audience (e.g. Aikens & Higuchi 1982; Barnes 1993; Habu 2004. See also Kaner 1990 for a bibliography of English writings on Jomon archaeology). However, unlike these publications, Jomon Reflections is an English translation of a book that was originally intended for a Japanese lay audience. Therefore, it is possible to suggest that the first and foremost objective of this volume is to be an ‘ambassador’ of Jomon archaeology, a role it certainly fulfils. It is a handsome book, easy to read, with clear maps, informative figures and many striking colour photos guiding the reader through the basics of Jomon archaeology. This begins with examining the general nature of the Jomon way of life, vis a vis the preceding Palaeolithic period, in chapter two. The following two chapters present an overview of Jomon pottery: chapter three examines the emergence of Jomon pottery and charts its development according to a four stage system, while chapter four looks at the spread and establishment of regional pottery styles. The fifth chapter deals with the issue of subsistence in the Jomon period, and the next addresses the nature of Jomon social relations as it appears in the settlement and burial evidence. Chapter seven examines the evidence for ritual activities in this period, but more importantly, it also contains Kobayashi’s narrative for the demise of the Jomon way of life, a narrative which will be discussed at further length below. Finally, the last chapter presents the idea of the Jomon period being a time in which the socialisation of nature took place – the enculturation of the landscape through the construction of monuments being one mechanism by which this took place.

As the significance of this volume lies in it being a clear and concise guide to Jomon archaeology, rather than an in-depth archaeology tome, it would neither be fair nor productive to present a detailed critique of certain shortcomings inherent in this volume, such as the lack of critical, in-depth discussion in exploring issues of Jomon archaeology that are still open to debate (e.g. the emergence of Jomon pottery, the significance of the ‘dualistic principle’ identified in Jomon settlements and burials, and the possibility of social stratification in the Jomon period) or the use of ethnographic analogies that are at times ad hoc and tenuous (e.g. Jomon, Inuit and Ainu figurines, pp 148-9). The fact that interpretive approaches originally formulated in the context of the Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northwesten Europe were used in the interpretation of Jomon monuments, without any critical evaluation regarding the validity of their application in a Jomon context, is also problematic. One can only assume that further discussions which would have clarified these issues were not possible within the given scope of the volume. However, in addition to fulfilling its original role as an accessible introduction to Jomon archaeology, Kobayashi’s Jomon Reflections is also significant in that it brings to light the dilemma faced by many archaeologists working in East Asia, as well as other parts of the world: how to open the discipline up to the public^[1], acknowledging that our understanding of the past that cannot be divorced from the public’s, while at the same time avoiding the ‘over-politicisation’, for want of a better word, of archaeology.

Over the past 20 to 30 years, western archaeology has been confronted by alternative perspectives on the past, leading the discipline to accept a greater diversity of interpretations (Hodder 1999). Emerging alongside this has also been the ‘wider dissemination and democratisation of archaeological knowledge' ( ibid , 187). While East Asian archaeologists have been aware of these changes occurring in western archaeology, there still tends to be an intolerance towards alternative perspectives of the past, although some effort has been put into making archaeological interpretations more accessible to the public. One possible reason for this may have to do with the fact that, whereas in some western countries, such as the UK, there seems to be an understanding that archaeology must justify itself, or rather, its use of the taxpayers' money, by fulfilling a social and educational role, in East Asian archaeology, the continued importance of rescue archaeology, the traditional hegemony of academia, and the spectre of nationalism has meant that archaeology as a discipline needs no justification of its existence and thus there is less of an incentive for engagement with the public ^[1]. However, attempts are being made to take archaeological interpretations out of the ivory tower and make them more accessible, interesting and relevant to the public. Kobayashi's Jomon Reflections is a good example of this.

In the process of engaging the public, however, attempts are made to present archaeological interpretations of the past as being linked directly to the public in the present, and therein lies the problem, for this often leads to the past becoming idealised when used in the construction of modern identities. The editor of Jomon Reflections acknowledges that this has particularly been the case for the Jomon period (iii). Kobayashi's portrayal of the Jomon period is also that of an idealised past, but more disturbingly, it contains an understanding of the past that can be perceived as being nationalistic. The editor of the volume attempts to deflect the criticism of nationalism that may be directed at Kobayashi's way by writing that ‘Kobayashi is sensitive to issues concerning the relationship between archaeology and nationalism but is also keenly aware of the need to communicate about archaeology in a way which engages his audiences'(iii). However, it can be said that this statement, in fact, reflects the reality of the situation that Kobayashi is guilty of pandering to – the reality being that it is a nationalistic message that engages Kobayashi's audience.

The issue of nationalism and archaeology is a complex one which has been addressed in depth by many archaeologists (e.g. Atkinson et. al. 1996; Kohl and Fawcett 1996). These studies have focused on the way archaeology has been, and still is, misused in the interests of nationalism, the fact that nationalism is an intrinsic part of the world which we live in today, and, given that nationalism is here to stay, the ways in which archaeology should deal with presenting interpretations of the past in this context. With regards to how archaeologists should respond to the issue of nationalism within their discipline, although there is no easy answer, the course of action suggested by Dennell (1996) appears to be one that most would agree with: ‘one of critical, concerned detachment: to challenge what we see as the bogus or contrived; to project alternatives; to demand impartiality; and, above all, to help contain extremist forces threatening both national and international stability’ (ibid, 33).

Unfortunately, Kobayashi fails to do so in Jomon Reflections and this has severe implications, particularly given the current socio-political climate in Japan in which its relations with its eastern neighbours are fraught due to what the latter perceive as Japan’s unapologetic attitude towards its colonial atrocities, and in which over a decade of economic recession and a sudden influx of migrant workers has lead to a revival of extreme right-wing nationalism (Wakisaka 2004). In particular, when discussing the introduction of rice farming, which brought an end to the Jomon way of life, Kobayashi is not only guilty of presenting a version of the past that is contrived and idealised, but is also guilty of presenting a version of events that panders to, and actively reproduces, the kind of nationalism that is based upon Japan’s hostility towards its neighbours, as will now be examined.

In discussing the introduction of rice farming from the Korean peninsula during the latter part of the Jomon period, which Kobayashi associates with the emergence of a new centre of figurine production in Kyushu during the late Jomon period (Chapter 7), he focuses not on the introduction of rice farming itself, but rather the Jomon population’s resistance towards this new way of life (the figurines being symbols of Jomon resistance). And while this attempt to understand the introduction of rice farming from a Jomon perspective is in itself not problematic, the way in which the event is portrayed – the terms and metaphors used – is extremely so:

Current archaeological thinking is that rice production was introduced to northwestern Kyushu by immigrants from the Korean peninsula in the Late Jomon… it is quite probable that the appearance of the rice-growing newcomers caused considerable disturbance and confusion… a major threat to their traditional ways. Figurines perhaps came to symbolise Jomon resistance to rice and their increased production can be interpreted as representing symbolic opposition to the threat of the incoming farming peoples as a part of a concerted campaign to preserve Jomon culture.

It was, however, a short-lived campaign in Kyushu , perhaps doomed to failure in the face of the inexorable spread of rice farming… front line had been pushed east… insufficient to halt the advance… from the Korean peninsula.

Yayoi culture had no need for clay figurines and the world view they represented, and so they were eradicated despite the occasional acts of resistance… the original heartland of Jomon clay figurines, succumbed to the Yayoi, an the tradition of making figurines died out…

(Kobayashi 2004, 151-153; my emphasis)

What is portrayed here is the pathos of the ‘eradication’ of the idealised Jomon way of life, brought about by the hoards of migrant populations from the Korean peninsula. One is compelled to be moved by the brave, yet futile, ‘resistance’ of the Jomon people. The use of military terms such as ‘campaign’ and ‘front line’ inspires one to see these figurine producing Jomon potters as soldiers in a war against foreign invasion. But not only does Kobayashi’s excessively melodramatic interpretation pander to nationalism and even nostalgia of a militant past, it also presents an inaccurate picture of the way that rice farming was introduced into the Japanese archipelago.

A similar notion of new arrivals coming in ‘waves of advance’, bringing with them a new subsistence strategy and overwhelming the indigenous population is one that has also been presented for the European Neolithic, and it is perhaps likely that Kobayashi’s understanding of the introduction of rice farming in the Kyushu region was influenced by this European model. However, this ‘wave of advance’ model has been met with severe criticism in the European context based on both the dating evidence and the patterning of sites (Whittle 1996). In addition, Kobayashi’s turbulent picture of the Jomon-Yayoi transition goes against what has been identified in the archaeological evidence. For example, Barnes maintains that the series of artefacts, features and manufacturing technologies, originating from the Korean peninsula and appearing in Jomon contexts ‘did not arrive as a package but intermittently over a millennium; thus the rise of the Yayoi culture must be viewed as a synthesis of north Kyushaun Jomon and Peninsular Bronze Age elements.’ (Barnes 1993, 171). In addition, Kobayashi’s version of events in which the Jomon population ‘succumbs’ to the Yayoi culture ignores a fundamental point – it was, ultimately, the Jomon people who chose to live a new way of life. Given that there seems to be little evidence of warfare around the time of this transition, what we must accept is that while the incoming rice farmers may have presented an alternative subsistence strategy, it was, in the end, the choice of the Jomon population to adopt and reproduce that new way of living.

Of course, this is not to deny the resistance towards this new farming way of life that may have existed among Jomon populations, and it is most probable that figurine production did indeed act as a way of maintaining the ontological security of Jomon communities faced with uncertainty, this being the reason for the emergence of a new centre of figurine production which coincides, spatially and temporally, with the introduction of rice farming in the region. In this sense, Kobayashi’s interpretation of figurine production in the context of the Late Jomon period would have had much to offer to the archaeological discourse regarding social reproduction and the active nature of material culture. Unfortunately, however, it can be argued that in trying to step closer to the public domain, Kobayashi went one step beyond the boundaries of responsible archaeological scholarship, and in making his interpretation of the Jomon period more engaging to the general public, has rendered it extremely problematic for the archaeological community.

References

Aikens, M. C. and Higichi, T. 1982. Prehistory of Japan . New York : Academic Press.

Atkinson, J. A, Banks, I. and O’Sullivan, J. (eds.). 1996. Nationalism and Archaeology. Glasgow : Cruithne Press.

Barnes, G. L. 1993. China , Korea and Japan : The Rise of Civilization in East Asia . London : Thames and Hudson .

Dennell, R. 1996. Nationalism and identity in Britian and Europe . In J. A Atkinson, I. Banks, and J. O’Sullivan (eds.). Nationalism and Archaeology. Glasgow : Cruithne Press.

Habu, J. 2004. Ancient Jomon of Japan . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press

Hodder, I. 1999. The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Oxford : Blackwell Publishers.

Kaner, S. 1990. The Western Language Jomon. In G. L. Barnes (ed.) Hoabinhian, Jomon, Yayoi, Early Korean States . Bibliographic Reviews of East Asian States. Oxford : Oxbow Books, 31-62.

Kohl, P. L. and Fawcett, C. 1996. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Wakisaka, M. 2004. Uyoku: The Japanese Right-Wing Nationalism. Postgraduate Student Interdisciplinary Conference in East Asian Studies 2004. The University of Sheffield , School of East Asian Studies.

Whittle, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic: The Creation of New Worlds . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Footnotes

[1] Here I speak for Korean and Japanese archaeology based on both my first-hand experience as a Korean archaeologist, and on second-hand accounts from my Japanese colleagues.

The Reviewer

Ilhong Ko is a PhD student at the Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield . She has worked in archaeology in South Korea and is interested in the dolmens of Bronze Age Korea . Her research is on dolmen construction and social reproduction in the EBA-MBA in Jinan , southern Korea .