Collaborative Research
Historical Research on Livelihoods / Authority and Systems of Knowledge
| Type of Research | Scientific Research |
|---|---|
| Project Title | Historical Research on Livelihoods / Authority and Systems of Knowledge |
| Supervising Head of the Research Team | HIROSE Kazuo |
| Research Period | 2005–2007 |
| Purpose | In pre-modern society, the common people developed a variety of Seigyo (livelihoods) activities to help them survive famines, plagues, wars, and periods of low productivity; therefore, the society as a whole, including those in power as well as the common people, was deemed to possess an intellectual system by which to survive. This pre-modern intellectual system may be understood as one in which a rich store of scientific geographical knowledge on astronomy and nature, along with the technological knowledge to use it, medical knowledge on the human body and resilience, etc. were inextricable from magic, faiths, religious rituals, etc. It is the aim of the present research to reconsider the complete picture of the intellectual system in pre-modern society in which Seigyo, technology, and magic/faiths were undifferentiated from each other. As such a pre-modern intellectual system has not yet been clearly conceptualized, this group believes that the coined phrase "intellectual system" can be used to refer to it until a new concept is established. While discussing the differences in the concepts of Seigyo and division of labor in the fields of folkloristics, archeology, and historical science, this group will seek a commonly acceptable concept of Seigyo as well as various issues around concepts and methodologies employed for interdisciplinary research in different fields of study. |
2007
Result
| Cooperative Workshop by Branches A and B |
|---|
Schedule: June 2 (Sat.), 2007
|
［Establishing the Theme and Purpose of the Cooperative Workshop］
The members of Branches A and B agreed to identify the theme for discussion of what kind of regional system of wisdom was developed with the ancient natural environment, the diversity of Seigyo derived from it, and the responses of authority to it, at the time when Ise Bay was viewed as inland sea-based junction of east and west.
［Report and Content of Discussion］
IHARA Kesao proposed that the "Harbor of Sand," which developed over the river estuary on the west coast of Ise Bay in the ancient and medieval periods, disappeared due to the sedimentation that occurred in the early-modern period, and the "Harbor of Islands," with its sawtooth coastline, was preserved in the modern period; therefore, the diversity of Seigyo in the lower swampy zone must be reviewed by restoring the "Harbor of Sand" and "Harbor of the River Estuary" to the states described in the ancient and medieval histories.
According to YAMANAKA Akira, there is a Kofun on Himaga Island off Mikawa Bay, built in the late Kofun period and buried till the 8th century; pottery was discovered at the Kataokayama Old Kiln Site and wood slips with tributes of marine products of the 8th century detailed on them were excavated from the Kofun, probably indicating the existence of a Miyake (royal domain in Ancient Japan). Kataokayama Old Kiln Site, along with the Tenno Site, has an ancient lagoon feature that has been restored to its original state, from which Sue wares were thought to have been broadly distributed to various provinces. Kawawa-gun and Oga Miyake were regarded as a set; Anki-gun also had Tokui Kiln Site and a lagoon in it where Daianji Temple was set up on reclaimed land; and Kawawa-gun, Anki-gun, and Iino-gun are all counties small in terms of area located near seashores where there are supposed to have been imperial upland fields and/or rice fields, and which were producers of salt been carried as a tribute up to the imperial court, using Ise Bay inland-sea transportation. This report aims at understanding as a whole the relationships of all the elements, including various Seigyo, such as the Ise Bay estuary and lagoon, Kofun, Miyake, and the old kiln site, transportation of tributes by the order of the authority, setting up of Miyake, and actual geographical conditions of regions.
SAKAEHARA Towao's report on the traffic in the internal section of Ise Bay, revealed that there existed an intra-bay traffic from Shima to Madokata at the estuary of Iseizumo River to Ayuchigata in Owari-no-kuni to Chitaura. As maritime transportation is found to have been made in November, it is supposed that the fishermen in Shima cruised along the coast of Northern Ise for transportation of impersonal tributes and votive offerings.
Thus, the group was in a position to consider how the authority had set up the diversity of the Seigyo, with a Kofun, old kiln site, and salt production site, taking advantage of the lower swampy zone and the slightly higher strip, of the river estuary, bay, and lagoon, and had designated production zones for local specialties as transportation centers for tributes.
During the discussion session, opinions and views were exchanged on how the group should, in terms of division of time with regard to Ise Bay traffic, evaluate the continuity of the ancient and medieval periods and the changes in the times in which sedimentation and reclamation projects were promoted for the "Harbor of the River Estuary" and the "Harbor of Sand" in the early modern and modern periods; the differences in social organization under the Amabe Clan and others under the Ritsuryo system, and the differences in connecting, between the principle of the Ritsuryo system locally organizing counties and people and the system of individually organizing local specialties and symbolic matters.
Interim Report: Publication of the collected reports for the Forum of the National Museum of Japanese History
As the Interim Report of Cooperative Workshops in the Forum of the National Museum of Japanese History, the collected reports of the Forum "Japanese History Viewed from Seigyo―New Scope of Historical Science―" will be published by Yoshikawakobunkan, and summaries of the reports made at the workshops have been publicized after last year on the website of the National Museum of Japanese History, in an attempt to develop open research activities.
Result
［Publication of the Interim Report］
To make the 3-year-long cooperative research as open to the public as possible, the group organized the Forums of the National Museum of Japanese History (as in the schedule) and published "Japanese History Viewed from Seigyo" (Yoshikawakobunkan) as the Interim Report.
［Result of the Cooperative Workshop］
While Branches A and B have been able to hold cooperative workshops every year without fail, sharing information on research activities, they have also been independently engaged in their respective research activities. Discussions and research activities have been organized, concerned especially with the reason the concept of Seigyo is essential in developing a historical science as a new life history of the common people through the cooperative studies by researchers in the fields of archaeology, folkloristics, and philological historical science. The group is confident enough to say that it has been able to achieve a certain success in the attempt to seek out a new interdisciplinary research method.
［Field and Theme of Cooperative Research］
Judging from findings in the field excavation survey, it was clear that there were lagoons, which have now disappeared, and lower swampy zones, widely dispersed in plain field areas and coastal areas all across the Japanese archipelago in the pre-modern periods. It was an achievement for the researchers to be able to exchange views especially on changes in the local natural environment and transition of authority and Seigyo, by holding cooperative workshops to discuss Ise Bay and its ancient form.
2006
Research Achievement of the 2nd Year
| AB Branch Cooperative Workshop |
|---|
Schedule: June 4–5, 2006
*Discussion |
Preliminary Workshop for the Forum of the National Museum of Japanese History |
Schedule: October 8–9, 2006
*After the reports from all the Presenters, a final decision on the theme of the scheduled reporting has been made and the direction of discussion has been confirmed. |
| The 56th Forum of the National Museum of Japanese History |
Schedule: November 18 (Sat.), 2006
*Exchange of views in newsletters, etc. |
Result
［Development of the Concept of Seigyo in Folkloristics, Archaeology, and Japanese History］
Until last year the group studied the concept of Seigyo in the fields of history and archaeology (Paleolith, Jomon, and Yayoi) with a study of the concept in folkloristics and archaeology (from Yayoi to historic periods) pending for this year. Therefore, this year, YASMURO Satoru has been asked to make a report on the concept in the field of folkloristics, and ANDO Hiromichi in that of archaeology, from the start of rice cropping onward.
According to YASUMURO's report, in YANAGIDA Kunio's folkloristics, the concept of Seigyo is referred to as "production and Seigyo" in tangible culture, among the three research objects of tangible culture, language art, and mind and consciousness transmission. In the 1970s, the "theory of upland-cropping culture" and the "theory of East Asian evergreen forest culture" appeared as criticisms of YANAGIDA's theory of single-race culture based on rice cropping, leading to encouragement of the recording of work almanacs for Seigyo and Seigyo techniques relating to rice cropping, upland cropping, fish catching, and hunting, and to the development of the theory of Seigyo. It was also pointed out that in the 1990s and afterward, the theory of complex Seigyo (Seigyo complex) appeared on the stage.
ANDO reported that in the 1980s, AMINO's historical view appeared in the field of historical science on Japanese history as a criticism of the paddy-field-centered historical view, resulting in the development of historical sciences on upland cropping, mountain villages, and sea villages. In the field of Japanese archaeology as well, the theory of Seigyo, which points out the succession of Yayoi period to Jomon's Seigyo and the diversification of Seigyo, limiting the production volume of rice in paddy fields in and around Yayoi period, made its appearance. It was also pointed out that SAHARA Makoto, ANDO, and others all made critiques of the theory of diversification of Seigyo.
With these reports, the contents of the lively discussion are outlined below:
- Even in the fields of folkloristics, archaeology, and historical science, the concept of Seigyo has not been clearly defined or positioned in the research history, so that researchers tend to use it for their own convenience. Thus, occasions for discussion or debate such as this are very precious.
- The term "Seigyo," used in the fields of folkloristics, archaeology, and historical science, has not been established to refer to an integrated concept for an overview of the whole; it seems to be nothing but a proposition.
- Researchers in the fields of folkloristics and archaeology employ the concept of Seigyo from the viewpoint of Seigyo or life-sustaining activities to discuss various activities of the common people such as production, resulting in analysis of a diverse combination of rice cropping, upland cropping, fish catching, and hunting. However, the theory of Seigyo in folkloristics seems to be less applicable to the theories of state and society.
- Some researchers in archaeology and historical science insist that the rice cropping-centered historical view is helpful in terms of social organization from the Yayoi period till the Meiji period. It was therefore considered necessary to establish the concept of Seigyo as a means for linking the theories of Seigyo and division of labor, the theory of social organization, and the theory of state.
［Research Results of the Forum of the National Museum of Japanese History］
After joint reporting and discussion by Branches A and B, a forum was organized, for the original purpose of research and to obtain various opinions and criticisms through interim wrapping-up and publicizing the groups; research in the process. The number of visitors was 142, and the questions and opinions received were far more than expected; the forum was adjudged to be greatly meaningful and useful.
KOMOTO Masayuki's report showed that methods of research on Seigyo almanac in archaeology merely follow the "Items of Investigation" as the method of almanac investigation. KIMURA Shigemitsu's report also revealed that research on subjects in medieval history, for which sufficient historical records are not available, such as on upland cropping and minor grains, adopt the method used in folkloristics to consider wisdoms based on experiences and customs, and contributing to these wisdoms development. YOKOTA's reports pointed out the growing desire to get an overall picture the of the variety of Seigyo of common people from sources such as histories of paddy-field rice cropping, mountain villages, and fishing villages, and the theory of multiple incomes. It was confirmed across the board that the concept of Seigyo would be important in illuminating the history of common people's lives, literary records of which had been very scarce.
According to NOMOTO Kanichi's report, almanacs from mountainous areas indicate how people were developing a variety of complex Seigyo. YOKOTA's report also pointed out that the study of histories of mountain villages and silk cultivation instruction manuals revealed a significant store of people's wisdom. KIMURA's report as well proposed that paying special attention to histories of medieval mountain villages would be helpful in developing the theory of Seigyo. Through all these reports, it was confirmed that the theory of Seigyo needs to be further developed and enriched in historical science in order to obtain a clear overview of the actual conditions of the lives of Japanese people.
YOKOTA Fuyuhiko's report pointed out that considering the reality of a variety of divisions of labor in a family, multiple incomes, and the actuality of craftspeople in various fields of business and in peripheral positions in early modern society, there were a variety of means for survival, apart from those related to the land. NOMOTO further explained in his report that Seigyo had a chain structure with a variety of Seigyo conducted by husbands, wives, and adolescents, and a rich variety of women's occupations. In the meeting for general discussion as well, it was revealed that shedding light on the common people's rich knowledge of the environment and nature would result in a theory of the life environment.
In the general discussion session, from the viewpoint of further developing the theory of Seigyo, exchanges of opinions were made on the necessity of deepening the theories of tools, market merchandise, services to the imperial court, and land category and on the detailed almanacs of life, various professions, the Seigyo chain structure, and the storage of oral wisdoms based on customs and experiences.
The group received questions from the audience about the progress of research overseas on the theory of Seigyo. The audience was curious to understand whether or not the group was still at the stage of accumulating results of individual research, since the theory of Seigyo had not been established yet as an academic field, and whether or not the shift in interest from division of labor to professions and Seigyo means an increased elaboration of historical science. The group received the opinion that in order to clarify the historical details of the life of the common people, it would be indispensable to further cultivate the theory of Seigyo for the common people's survival. After the forum was closed, the presenters said that the engagement was qualitatively good, as they had been asked questions on issues of significance.
The group is planning to publish all these reports and discussions as an interim report.
2005
Research Achievement of the 2nd Year
Schedule: June 4 and 5, 2005
*Exchange of views in round-table discussions, newsletters, etc. |
Result
Although the cooperative workshop with the two different branches was held just once, involved discussion on clear points at issue was seen. The points of contention are discussed below:
(1) [On Evaluation of Modern Rationalism]
The first point of contention raised was the question of how to realize a "relativization of modern rationalism." In response to this, researchers variously questioned the mode of evaluating the progress, achievement, and history of change in modern rationalism, pointed out that criticism of modern rationalism tends to help mysticism go too far, and expressed sympathy with the notion of clarifying the balance and mixed structure of magic and technology. Based on this discussion, the group recognized that proceeding with cooperative research in such a way that it would be able to conduct "restrained research and discussions" was an issue; a study of the pre-modern intellectual system would have to be undertaken so that it would not fall into the extreme of mysticism or negation of modern nationalism, while the positive aspects and achievements of modern rationalism were evaluated.
(2) [About the Interrelationship between the theories of Seigyo and Division of Labor]
There was a lively exchange of views around the fact that the Theory of Seigyo had been presented as a criticism of the theory of division of labor. Through this exchange, the group determined the direction of its cooperative research, which would be undertaken bearing in mind how to evaluate the merits and demerits of the theory of division of labor; further, based on such evaluations, the group would need to identify the merits of establishing the concept of Seigyo.
(3) [Merits of the Theory of Division of Labor]
According to FUJIO Shin'ichiro's report, the Theory of Seigyo employed in archaeology has been developing as the "theory of Seigyo for survival," discussing the appearance of such Seigyo in prehistoric times and the Jomon period, on the premise of division by the theory into the periods of primitive society, agrarian society, and industrial society. According to YKOTA Furuichi, in Japanese early modern history, the theory of multiple incomes, such as in mountain and fishing villages, came out of the theory of social division of labor, now developing into the theory of Seigyo in agrarian communities. In other words, one fresh view is that the theory of Seigyo was proposed as a developed form of the theory of division of labor. First, the theory of division of labor is very useful in macroscopic analysis of historical shifts as rough division into periods, the history of industries in Japan, and the theory of the stages of social development. Second, division of labor brought about diversification into various industries, so the theory of division of labor has definite merit for analyzing occupational division, the formation of hierarchical classes and organization by those in power of common people with functional competence, service-burden share and power organization, etc. Considering all this, it is a definite challenge to further deepen the unified view of the theory of division of labor and the theory of Seigyo.
(4) [Merits of the Theory of Seigyo]
With reference to the merits of the Theory of Seigyo, MIZUBAYASHI Takeshi raised a question, saying, "If the concept of Seigyo means 'survival,' it may be a super-historic concept commonly applicable to all the periods in history. Whatever translation may be given to the concept, we would have to consider the universality of the concept." When the group asked NISHIMOTO Toyohiro (a zooarchaeologist) of the National Museum of Japanese History to confirm the translation in the field of zooarchaeology, he clearly pointed out that "Seigyo" is translated as "subsistence," meaning "maintenance of life." This is consistent with the question raised by NAGURA, who felt, "The 'Seigyo' of the theory of Seigyo should be pronounced in the Japanese way as 'Seigyo,' not 'Seigyo'. Isn't it appropriate to place greater importance on its implication of 'Seigyo,' encouraging us to gain a comprehensive view of common people working for survival?" NOMOTO, as a folklorist, proposed consideration of the concept of Seigyo element. Based on these opinions, it seems essential to deepen the understanding of Seigyo as concept notion by which to study microscopic history from the comprehensive view of the system of technology and knowledge for survival of the common people.
(5) [Issues to Be Resolved with Reference to the Theory of Seigyo]
From the discussion, it was clear that the group needed to reconsider the use of the concept of subsistence included in the theory of Seigyo as a criticism of modern industrial society within the field of archaeology, after clarifying the theory of division of labor, in order to employ the concept of Seigyo as an analytical category of historical science in the broad sense of the term, going beyond the borders of criticism of the concept of division of labor and the case studies of the theory on mountain and fishing villages. Issues to be further discussed in the cooperative research are how the theory of Seigyo in Yayoi and Kofun periods, in terms of archaeology, and in archaic society, in terms of historical science, has been discussed in relation to the theory of division of labor and the theory of division into periods, and further, how the reality of "Seigyo" for the survival of the common people in social crises such as famines, plagues, and wars has been analyzed.
