HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE FAR EAST 587

Y ANGJIN P AI< and HYUNG IL PAl both explore the tensions within the practice and politics of Korean archaeology. South Korea is, of course, accessible and very conscious of its past, even though much of this is physically beyond the modern territorial boundaries. PAl discusses how the creation of modem Korean identity is bound up with archaeological activities, and PAK ex­plores two early states on the Korean Penin­sula. Intriguingly, the shared heritage and history of the two Koreas forms an unbreakable link, in spite of the modern political divide. The west is becoming increasingly aware of the richness of Korean cultures, as shown by the exhibition

R.eferences BARNES. G. 1999. The rise of civilisation in East Asia: The ar~

chaeology of China, Korea and Japan. London: Thames & Hudson.

in the British Museum last year on the Painted Tombs of Koguryo, which highlighted the de­plorable conservation of these treasures.

FUMIKO IKAWA-SMITH's concluding paper draws out some of the common themes which highlight the links between the national heritages in this disparate region. In compar­ing the five papers, she identifies four useful common points of reference: the nature of ar­chaeology in east Asia; the role of national iden­tity and origins; the management of cultural heritage and tourism; and the development of concepts of national identity, the 'other' and cultural origins.

Journal of East Asian Archaeology. Forthcoming.

Opposite. Location map o/the Far East, showing 1 Vietnam: 2 The Korean peninsula in the lst-3rd centuries AD; 3 Japan; 4 central China.

Jomon archaeology and the representation of Japanese origins

JUNKO HABU & CLARE F AWCETI*

Key words: Jomon period; Sannai Maruyama site, Japanese archaeology, nationalism, mass media, cultural tourism

Since 1992, on-going excavations of the Early to Middle Jomon period Sannai Maruyama site (3500-2000 DC) have uncovered the large size and complexity of this prehistoric hunter-gatherer settlement. Sannai Maruyama, furthermore, has become the first Jomon site in Japan to attract the attention of not only archaeologists, but also the media and the public. This paper argues that Sannai Maruyama's popularity is due to 1 the recent increased visibility of Jomon ar­

chaeology, 2 the dissemination of excavation results by

site archaeologists, 3 the pride of local people in the site, 4 the use of archaeology by the local govern­

ment to promote tourism, and

5 links drawn by Japanese intellectuals be­tween modem Japanese and their supposed Jomon ancestors.

The Sannai Maruyama site The Sannai Maruyama site is a large J oman period settlement located in Aomori Prefecture, Japan. The site dates primarily from the mid­dle of the Early Jomon period to the end of the Middle Jomon period (c. 3500-2000 BC). Ar­chaeological excavation at Sannai Maruyama has revealed an enormous site containing over 700 pit-dwellings, approximately 20 long houses, about 100 remains of raised-floor build­ings, approximately 250 adult grave pits and 800 burial jars for infants or children, several

.,. Habu. Department of Anthropology, 232 Kroeber Hall. University of California, Berkeley CA 94720~3710. USA. habu@qal.berkeley.edu Fawcett, Department of Sociology & Anthropology, 5t Francis Xavier University, P.O. Box 5000, Antigonish NS, Canada B2G 2W5. cfawcett@stfx.ca

ANTIQUITY 73 (1999): 587-93

588 SPECIAL SECTION

large middens and mounds containing garbage such as potsherds, stone tools, food remains and backdirt from houses (Okada 1998). In addition, over 40,000 boxes of artefacts including stone tools, potsherds, clay figurines, bone tools, clay, stone and bone ornaments, wood artefacts, rush and bark baskets and lacquered plates, bowls and combs have been uncovered, cata­logued and stored for analysis (Okada 1994; Okada & Habu 1995; Okamura 1995).

When, in 1994, excavations by the Board of Education of Aomori Prefecture revealed the vast size, complexity and richness of the site, Sannai Maruyama became a focus of public attention. Finds and interpretations of the site were pub­lished in Japanese newspapers and magazines and reported on television news programmes. More than a million tourists have visited the site to see excavated artefacts and features. Sannai Maruyama, furthermore, has been the topic of many academic and semi-academic conferences.

This paper asks how and why archaeologi­cal, popular and mass media representations of Sannai Maruyama have presented this Jomon period site as a key to understanding Japanese cultural identity. Such an understanding is sig­nificant because, until the 1990s, the Japanese public and mass media did not focus on sites from the Jomon period (c. 10,000-300 Be) as sources of knowledge about the origins of the Japanese people and culture. Rather, in the popular imagination, the roots of the Japanese people, culture and nation were linked to the process of state formation associated with the Yayoi (c. 3rd century Be-AD 3rd century) and Kofun (c. 4th-7th century) periods. The past two decades have seen 1 new expressions of Japanese nationalism,

including a search for Japanese identity in the prehistoric past,

2 the discovery of rich Jomon sites and 3 increased acknowledgement of the possibil-

ity of cultural diversity in Japan. In the 1990s, these factors have resulted in the possibili ty of an intense and sustained focus on Tomon archaeology as a source of knowl­edge about Japanese cultural origins.

Archaeology in contemporary Japan Japanese prehistory and proto-history have tra­ditionally been divided into four periods: the Palaeolithic, Jomon, Yayoi and Kofun (Aikens & Higuchi 1982; Barnes 1993; Imamura 1996;

Pearson 1992). Developing from the lithic-based Palaeolithic, the pottery-producing Jomon is characterized by the presence of large settle­ments and shell-middens, dependence on a hunting, gathering and fishing economy, sophis­ticated technologies and complex ritual. In contrast, the Yayoi period is characterized by reliance on rice agriculture, the use of metal tools and ritual objects and clear evidence of social stratification. The following Kofun pe­riod represented ancient state fonnation, and saw the construction of large burial mounds, many of which were built in a characteristic 'keyhole-shape' .

The number of archaeological sites excavated annually in Japan has risen rapidly since the early 1960s, as Japan developed into a major world economic power. In 1996 alone, approxi­mately 11,000 site excavations were carried out throughout the Japanese archipelago (Okamura 1997). The vast majority of these excavations were rescue projects conducted by administra­tive archaeologists prior to the construction of public or private development projects. Japa­nese archaeology enjoys wide publicity through the mass media and considerable public en­couragement and support.

The construction of Japanese ethnic and national identity in the historic and prehistoric past Although we will never know with certainty if people living in the Japanese archipelago dur­ing the Kofun period shared an ethnic iden­tity, present-day Japan is one of the only modern industrial states that has not consciously dis­tanceditselffrom its ethnicity (Porter 1997: 107). In Japan, as in some other Asian nations, na­tionalism and ethnicity go hand-in-hand. As several authors have painted out, for most Japa­nese, to be a national implies that one speaks the Japanese language, shares physical char­acteristics with other Japanese nationals and has a Japanese cultural background (Befu 1993b; Mouer & Sugimoto 1986; Oblas 1995; Sugimoto & Mouer 1989).

The process of nation-building and the con­struction of the modem Japanese ethnic and national identity can be traced to the decades spanning from Meiji restoration of 1868 until the Japanese defeat in 1945. This process was the result of conscious cultural policies cre­ated and implemented by political elites

HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE FAR EAST 589

(Fujitani 1993: 84; Gluck 1985). The focus of Japanese nationalism in the years leading up to and during World War II was the ideology of tennosej, or emperor worship. The politics of pre­war emperor worship, furthennore, made the interpretation of archaeological artefacts in terms of peoples , including the ancestral Japanese peo­plet difficult This was because archaeologists had to avoid interpretations of archaeological evi­dence that would question historical interpre­tations based on assumptions about the sanctity of the imperial lineage. These assumptions were found in the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki, ancient Japanese textual sources compiled during the 7th and 8th centuries. To avoid these ideologi­cal and political problems, archaeologists pro­duced detailed and apolitical typological studies of artefacts as the focus of their work (Bleed 1989; Edwards 1997b; Fawcett 1990; 1995; 1996; Fawcett & Hahu 1990; Habu 1989; Ikawa-Smith 1982).

After Japan's defeat in 1945, its nationalist focus shifted abruptly away from the emperor. This was when the discipline of archaeology began to contribute to the creation of a new Japanese national identity for individuals and groups of very different political persuasions. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the interdis­ciplinary investigation of the Yayoi period Toro site and, several years later, the excavation by archaeologists and local villagers of the Kofun period Tsukinowa Tomb excited public inter­est (Edwards 1991; 1997a; Fawcett 1995; Kondo 1985; Wajima 1973). Academic, media, politi­cal and public interest in the Toro site drew on populist images of Japan as a rice-farming na­tion, creating a common sense of Japanese iden­tity linked to the ancient agrarian Yayoi past (Edwards 1991). Using the Tsukinowa Tomb, Marxist-oriented archaeologists stressed the importance of using archaeological excavation and analysis to make a new history by and for the Japanese common people (Fawcett 1990: 107; 1995; Kondo 1985; Wajima 1973).

Kaner (1996), who remains unread by most Japanese, and to a lesser extent Ikawa-Smith (1995) see archaeologists as partly responsible for perpetuating the idea that past and present inhabitants of the Japanese archipelago were ethnically homogeneous. Japanese archaeolo­gists, however, are largely concerned with try­ing to understand the lifeways of people in the Japanese archipelago, rather than determining their origins. Kaner considers this latter aim to

be both naIve and impossible (1996: 47). He concludes that there needs to be a change of focus from Japanese origins and the definition of contemporary Japanese ethnic or national identity towards an .archaeology examining diversity in the archaeological record of Japan. Ikawa-Smith (1995) argues that this sense of homogeneity has profoundly influenced the interpretation of Japanese archaeology since archaeologists have focused their efforts on understanding the creation and development of the Yamato state, and put cultural continu­ity at the centre of their description of Japa­nese prehistory and history. This has occurred in books aimed at the general public, even though most archaeologists are conscious of the cultural and physical diversity of the peoples who inhabited the Japanese archipelago in the past (Ikawa-Smith 1990: 68).

Nihonjinron A concept that helps us understand the rela­tionship between Japanese archaeology, ethnic­ity and nationalism is nihonjinron. Nihonjinron is a discourse on Japanese identity that focuses on describing and understanding the unique qualities ofJapant the Japanese people and Japa­nese culture. Much of it was produced by Japa­nese and foreign intellectual elites since the 1970s and was transfeITed into the popular realm through the mass media and business leaders eager to internationalize the Japanese work-force (Befu 1984; 1993a; Mouer & Sugumoto 1986; Yoshino 1992; 1997).

Scholars have criticized the two fundamen­tal elements of nihonjinron: that Japanese peo­ple, culture and society are unique and that Japanese people are homogeneous in terms of race, language and culture (Befu 1984; 1993a; Mauer & Sugimoto 1986: 99; Sugimoto & Mouer 1989; Yoshino 1997). Befu (1984; 1993b) and Mauer & Sugimoto (1986), furthermore, con­sider nihonjinron to be a subtle form of post­war Japanese nationalism which negates the true racial and cultural heterogeneity of Japa­nese society and de-emphasizes social and class conflict, thus maintaining the established so­cial order. Yoshino (1992), in contrast, argues that nihonjinron can be viewed as problematic when it creates barriers of chauvinism and mis­understanding, but can also be perceived as ad­vantageous when it allows the Japanese people to construct a positive sense of themselves.

590 SPECIAL SECTION

Since 1945, archaeological research has be­come an important way of constructing Japanese national identity (Fawcett 1996: 74). Popular pres­entations of archaeological work by specialists and non-specialists inform nihonjinron when they stress what excavated materials tell research­ers about the origins of the Japanese people and the development of the Japanese state. This post­war archaeology has been invaluable in creat­ing a renewed understanding of, and pride in, the accomplishments of the people who lived in the ancient Japanese archipelago. It has en­couraged the Japanese public to consider the important influences of mainland Asian peo­ples and culture on Japan's development. Con­versely, archaeological results have been used to bolster a sense of Japanese ethnic homoge­neity and uniqueness. For example, in the 1970s and 1980s, Asuka Village, an area in Nara Pre­fecture with large numbers of archaeological sites dating from the mid 6th to early 8th cen­tury, was preserved through special legislation and developed as an archaeological tourist cen­tre. Billed as the 'hometown of the Japanese heart' by the government and corporate spon­sors, Asuka Village has been used by business and government elites to link the modern Japa­nese to their nation's ancient past (Fawcett 1990: 170; 1996: 62).

The Sannai Maruyama preservation movement Before the excavations of the Jomon Sannai Maruyama site in 1992, the main media and public focus was on Yayoi period and later sites as keys for understanding the origins of Tapa­nese people and culture (Edwards 1991: 3; 1997b). In july 1994, the discovery ofafeature associated with six large pits containing wooden posts at Sannai Maruyama was widely reported on television and in newspapers. Thereafter thousands of people visited the site. The ar­chaeologists encouraged public visits to Sannai Maruyama and voluntarily explained various site features to visitors (Okada & Habu 1995J. Al though these archaeologists did not believe they had enough political influence to save Sannai Maruyama on their own, and they wanted the Japanese public to appreciate the importance of the site and provided organized tours. In short, while archaeologists did not organize a preservation movement themselves, they educated the public about the significance

of the site. Soon individuals living in Aomori Prefecture wrote letters to newspapers and lob­bied the prefectural government to fund the site preservation. Part of the impetus for this span-. taneous and unplanned movement was the public's knowledge about the importance of archaeological remains, a knowledge cultivated by the mass media. Their efforts bore fruit when, two weeks after media reports appeared of the discovery of a six-post feature, the governor of Aomori Prefecture announced that Sannai Maruyama would be preserved. Archaeologists responded by organizing a two-day public in­terpretation program at the site attended by 8000 people (To'o Nippo Sha 1997). Throughout the summer and the autumn 'Sannai Maruyama fever' swept the nation. Archaeologists, the excavators and various media groups (Okada et a1. 1996) organized academic symposia and public lectures about Sannai Maruyama involv­ing Jomon sprcialists. Articles appeared in newspapers and on television specials. In March 1997, Sannai Maruyama was designated a Na­tional Historical Site (KunishisekO. By July 1997, more than 1 million people had visited the site (To'o Nippo Sha 1997).

The media, tourism and the public: the cultural context of the Sannai Maruyama 'boom' The popularity of the Sannai Maruyama site can be explained in terms of a combination of factors. First, the large number of sites exca­vated over the past several decades (Habu 1989: 40; Tanaka 1984; Tsude 1995) and extensive coverage of these excavations by the mass me­dia (Fawcett 1990: 260-63; Oblas 1995) have engendered public interest in archaeological dis­coveries. The first Japanese archaeological site to receive extensive media coverage was the Takamatsuzuka Tomb (7th-8th century) in Nara Prefecture, which became famous when archae­ologists announced that it contained wall-paint­ings showing clear resemblance to those discovered in continental Koguryo tombs (see Yangjin Pak, this volume). This discovery sug­gested that the Japanese imperial court might have had close ties with state-level societies on the continent. In 1972, front-page newspa­per coverage of the site throughout Japan re­sulted in large nwnbers of non-specialist visitors (Sako 1996). Pundits and archaeologists alike dubbed Takamatsuzuka an 'archaeological

HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE FAR EAST 591

boom'. From then until the early 1990s, sev­eral other sites, including the intact 6th-cen­tury Fujinoki Tomb in Nara Prefecture and Yoshinogari, a Yayoi period moated settlement and burial site in Saga Prefecture, made front­page headlines in Japan (Edwards 1996). Me­dia and public interest in these sites provided insights into Japanese ancient history at the time of state formation. Unlike its predecessors, however, Sannai Maruyama, the latest Japanese 'archaeological boom', extends public interest back to the pre-state Jomon period.

Secondly, archaeologists felt a profeSSional responsibility to infonn the public about the size, quality and importance of Sannai Maruyama. Before the site was saved they did this largely through on-site presentations. After site pres­ervation was assured, they worked with the media to publicize excavation results at a se­ries of symposia and lectures as well as through articles in newspapers and magazines. While the presentation of some of this information was academic in tone, archaeologists also wrote non-specialist articles and even created comic­strip explanations of the site for children.

Third, the people of Aomori Prefecture took regional pride in the site, their most important historical symbol. They visited Sannai Maruyama themselves, advertised the site as a reason why tourists from other parts of Japan should visit Aomori, and some of them acted as volunteer tour guides at the site (Okada et a1. 1996: 201). Sannai Maruyama put Aomori on the Japanese map.

Fourth, the prefectural government was anx­ious to promote Sannai Maruyama as a tourist site that would attract visitors to the undevel­oped rural area, located at the tip of the main island of Honshu, 600 km north of Tokyo. At the site on 19 July 1998, the governor of Aomori Prefecture declared cultural tourism to be a new focus for prefectural development. In his dec­laration, the governor pointed out that Sannai Maruyama added temporal depth to Aomori's natural beauty and traditional cultural assets. Furthermore, he stated that Aomori Prefecture, which he called 'the hometown of the Japanese nation', was one wing of international society. He also declared Aomori Prefecture to be a cultural and tourist centre (Kimura 1998). Kimura's statement symbolically links Aomori Prefecture to the Japanese nation and the in­ternational sphere beyond Japan's borders.

Finally, Sannai Maruyama demonstrates a new tendency among some intellectuals and members of the Japanese public to think of the J omon period as a time when core and funda­mental aspects of Japanese culture first appeared. For example, Takeshi Umehara, an influential Japanese intellectual, suggests that the roots of the Japanese culture and Japanese character can be found in the Jomon and Ainu cultures (Umehara 1995; cf. Ikawa-Smith 1990: 60-61; 1995: 53). He-also argues that the 'spirit of the Jomon cul­ture' Varnon no seishin) can still be found in modern Japanese culture, particularly in the Tohoku region (Umehara 1995). Tadao Umesao, another well-known Japanese intellectual, also sees a distinct link between the Jomon culture of Sannai Maruyama and contemporary Japa­nese culture (Umesao et a1. 1995). The articu­lation of these ideas by respected thinkers has encouraged the public to consider the Jomon period as part of their ancestral heritage.

Discussion and conclusion In the previous section, we argued that the Sannai Maruyama 'boom' resulted from sev­eral interrelated factors. These include: the increased prominence of lomon archaeology over the past two decades; the desire of archae­ologists working at Sannai Maruyama to dis­seminate widely the results of their work; pride felt by the Aomori people in the historical im­portance of their area; the Aomori Prefectural government's decision to use Sannai Maruyama to promote Aomori as a tourist destination and the tendency of influential Japanese thinkers to see in Sannai Maruyama evidence of the importance of the Jomon period in the devel­opment of modem Japanese culture.

We suggest that the Sannai Maruyama phe­nomenon described in the previous section is significant for several reasons. First, although Japanese scholars have since the 1950s discussed the possibility of the Jomon being the founda­tion of Japanese culture, prior to the Sannai Maruyama 'boom' popular understanding had traced Japanese cultural origins to the rice-pro­ducing and socially stratified Yayoi and Kofun periods. Rice cultivation and social stratification were seen as so central to Japanese culture and identity (Edwards 1991: 15; Ohnuki-TIemey 1993) that the possible location of Japanese origins in the 'primitive' society of Jomon hunter-gath­erers was not actively discussed. The Sannai

592 SPECIAL SECfION

Maruyama 'boom' brought to the public's at­tention the complexity of the Jomon culture.

This new understanding of the Jomon allowed a paradigm shift toward public acceptance of it as key to understanding the development of Japanese culture. The idea that the Sannai Maruyama excavation demonstrated the com­plexity of the Jomon culture for the first time has been largely created by the mass media. Since the 1960s, archaeologists have argued that Jomon hunter-gatherers often lived in large settlements, possessed a sophisticated material culture and had a high population density and complex social organization. In other words, archaeologists have long recognized that the Jomon people were far from being 'barbarous wanderers'. The image of the Jomon people as impoverished and primitive nomads has been perpetuated largely by the media.

Secondly. the Sannai Maruyama 'boom' is significant because it had regional support. Although one of the themes used to promote Sannai Maruyama was the site's importance in understanding the life of the Japanese people's ancestors, much of the impetus for site preser­vation and development has come from the Aomori people and prefectural government. By making Sannai Maruyama a symbol of their region, the people and leaders of Aomori con­structed a regional identity based on their links to nature through their Jomon past. Aomori Prefecture is not the only region of Japan to develop local identity using a Jomon site. In the southern Japanese prefecture of Kagoshima, the prefectural government has used newspa­per advertisements featuring artefacts excavated from the Initial Jomon Uenohara site to present an image of their region as an innovative and progressive place worth visiting.

Finally, Sannai Maruyama is important be­cause non-academic, public discussions of the site are not so much part of the discourse of nihonjinron, which emphasizes the uniqueness of the Japanese people and culture, as part of nihonbunkaron, a related discourse that stresses the development and characteristics of Japa-

References AIKENS, C. &: T. HIGUCHI. 1982. Prehistory of Japan. San Diego

(CA): Academic Press. BARNBS, G. 1993. China, Korea and Japan: The rise of civiliza­

tion in East Asia. London: Thames &: Hudson. BEFU, H. 1984. Civilization and culture: Japan in search ofiden­

tity, in T. Umesao, H. Befu &: J. Kreiner (ed.), Japanese

nese culture. This is significant because, al­though physical anthropologists (e.g. Hanihara 1991) have discussed the genetic relationship between the Jomon people and modern popu­lations of the Japanese archipelago (including both the Ainu and the ethnic Japanese), until the discovery of Sannai Maruyama links be­tween the Jomon and modern Japan were not emphasized by the mass media. Recent popu­lar fascination with Jomon period archaeology results from the realization that Jomon culture, as seen at Sannai Maruyama, is highly sophis­ticated; not only is the site large, but it con­tains the remains of complex living and ritual structures and artefacts. Because of Sannai Maruyama, the Japanese public and the media have begun to contemplate a relationship be­tween themselves and the Jomon people.

In conclusion. we suggest that the recent use of Jomon sites such as Sannai Maruyama as models of Japanese ethnicity can be explained in two ways. First, the appeal of these sites may have to do with their role in the reification of the traditional ideology of Japanese linguistic, cultural and biological homogeneity by push­ing the origins of Japanese seishin (spirit or essence) further into the prehistoric past. This is a conservative and reactionary position that upholds the political and social status quo of modern Japan. In contrast to this view, one could argue that current interest in Jomon sites might provide a broader framework for a re-exami­nation of Japanese ethnicity. Recently, the marginalized Ainu and Ryukyuan people, who live primarily in the regions of Hokkaido and Okinawa respectively, have been vocal in their demands for political, legal and social recog­nition (Hanazaki 1996). Broad public accept­ance of a prehistoric cultural and biological link between the modern ethnic Japanese and the Ainu and Ryukyuans could result in a new paradigm of the archaeological past which would focus on prehistoric diversity rather than homogeneity and would provide space for a modern-day acceptance of ethnic diversity within Japan.

civilization and the modern world: Life and society: 59-75. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnography. Senri Eth­nological series 16.

1993a. Cultural nationalism in East Asia. Berkeley {CAl: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of Califor­nia.

HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE FAR EAST 593

1993b. Nationalism and nihonjinron: representation and identity, in Befu (ed.): 105-35.

BLEED, P. 1989. Foreign archaeologists in Japan, Archaeologi­cal Review from Cambridge 8(1): 19-26.

DENOON, D., M. HUDSON, G. MCCORMACK 8: T. MORRIS-SUZUKI. 1996. Multicultural Japan: Paleolithic to Postmodern. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

EDWARDS, W. 1991. Buried discourse: the Toro archaeological site and Japanese national identity in the early postwar period, Journal of Japanese Studies 17(1): 1-23.

1996. In pursuit ofHimiko: Postwar archaeology and the loca­tion ofYamatai, Monumenta Nipponica 51(1): 53-79.

1997a. Review of ObI as' Perspectives on race and culture in Japanese society: The mass media and ethnicity, Journal of Japanese Studies 23(1): 234-7.

1997b. Japan's new past: how a century of archaeology helped dispel a nation's mythic origins, Archaeology 50(2): 32-42.

FAWCETI, C. 1990. A study of the socio-political context of Japa­nese archaeology. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Depart­ment of Anthropology, McGill University.

1995. Nationalism and postwar Japanese archeology, in P. Kohl 8: C. Fawcett (ed.), Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology: 232-48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1996. Archaeology and Japanese identity, in Denoon et a1. (ed.): 60-80.

FAWCETT, C. & J. HAou. 1990. Education and archaeology in Japan, in P. Stone & R. MacKenzie (ed.), The excluded past: Archaeology in education: 217-32. London: Unwin Hyman.

FUJITANI, T. 1993. Inventing, forgetting, remembering: toward a historical ethnography of the nation-state, in Befu (ed.): 77-106.

GLUCK, C. 1985. Japan's modern myths: Ideology in the Late Meiji period. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.

HABU, J. 1989. Contemporary Japanese archaeology and soci­ety, Archaeological Reviewfrom Cambridge 8(1): 36-45.

HANAZAKI, K. 1996. Ainu Mosher and Yaponesia: Ainu and Okinawan identities in contemporary Japan, in Denoon et al. (ad.): 117-34.

HANIHARA, K. 1991. Dual structure model for the population history of the Japanese, Japan Review 2: 1-33.

IKAWA-SMITH, F. 1975. Japanese ancestors and paleolithic ar­chaeology, Asian Perspectives 18(1): 15-25.

1982. Co-traditions in Japanese archaeology, World Archae­ology 13(3): 296-309.

1990. The ideology of cultural homogeneity in the prehis­toric Japanese archipelago (L'ideologie de l'homog~n~it~ culturelle dans l'archeologie prehistorique japonaise), Anthropologie et Socit§te 14(3): 51-76. (In French.)

1995. The Jomon, the Ainu, and the Okinawans: the changing politics of ethnic identity in Japanese archeology, in D. Dicks (ed.), Communicating with Japan: Images past, present, and future: 43-56. Montreal: Concordia University.

IMAMURA, K. 1996. Prehistoric Japan. Honolulu (HI): Univer­sity of Hawaii Press.

KANER, S. 1996. Beyond ethnicity and emergence in Japanese archaeology, in Denoon et al. (ed.): 46-59.

KIMURA, M. 1998. Aomori Prefectural cultural tourism estab­lishment declaration {Aomori Ken Bunko Kanko Riken Sensen). Aomori Prefectural pamphlet. (In Japanese.)

KONDO, Y. 1985. Reflections on future directions on postwar Japanese archaeology (Sengo nihon kokogaku no hansei to kadai), in Y. Kondo, Introduction to Japanese archaeo­logical studies (Nihon Kokogaku Kenkyu Josetsu): 444-87. Tokyo: Iwanami. (In Japanese.)

MaUER, R. 8: Y. SUGIMOTO. 1983. Images of Japanese society: A study in the social construction of reality. London: Kegan Paul.

OOLAS, P . 1995. PerspectIves on race and culture in Japanese society: The mass media and ethnicity. Lewiston (NY): Edwin Mellen Press.

OKADA, Y. 1994. Discovery of a large settlement (Sugata 0

arawashita kyodai shuraku), Weekly Asahigraph (25 Oc­tober 1994): 56-63. (In Japanese.)

1998. Changes in intrasite settlement patterns at the Sannai Maruyama site (Sannai Maruyama iseki no shuraku hensen). Paper presented at the 8th International Con­ference on Hunting and Gathering Societies. 25 October 1998, Aomori, Japan. (In Japanese.)

OKADA, Y. & J. HABU. 1995. Public presentation and archaeo­logical research: A case study from the Jomon Period Sannai Maruyama site. Paper presented at the 1995 Chacmool Conference, Calgary.

OKADA, Y., S. KOYAMA 8: K. ICHIKAWA. 1996. Local people's support of Jomon cultural studies (Shimin ga sasaeru Jomon bunka), in Y. Okada 8: S. Koyama (ed.), Discussion about the Jomon period: The world ofSannai Maruyama (Jomon Teidan: Sannai Maruyama no Sekal1: 199-216. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppan Sha. (In Japanese.)

OKAMURA, M. 1995. The Sannai Maruyama site (Sannai Maruyama iseki), in Agency for Cultural Affairs (ed.), Excavation of the Japanese archipelago: New archaeo­logical discoveries in 1995 [Hakkutsu Sareta Nihon Retto: '95 Shin-hakken Koko Sokuho): 20-25. Tokyo: Asahi Shinbun-sha. (In Japanese.)

1997. Buried cultural properties administration: my 15 years in archaeology (Maibun gyosei: kokogaku to watashi no 15 nen), Cekkan Bunkazai Hakkutsu Shutsudo Joho De­cember 1997. (In Japanese.)

OHNUKl-TlERNEY, E. 1993. Rice as self: Japanese identities through time. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University: Press.

PEARSON, R.J. 1992. Ancient Japan. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution. Arthur M. Sackler Gallery.

PORTER. B. 1997. Concepts of nationalism in history. in Van Horne (ed.): 93-114.

SAKO, K. 1996. Takamatsuzuka Kofun, in Asahi Graph (ed.), Review of archaeological excavations over the past 50 years (Sengo Goju Nen: Kodaishi Hakkutsu So-makun} 115-19. Tokyo: Asahi Shinbunsha. (In Japanese.)

SUGIMOTO, Y & R. MaUER. 1989. Constructs for understanding Japan. London. Kegan Paul International.

TANAKA, M. 1984. Japan, in H. Cleere (ed.), Approaches to the archaeological heritage: 83-88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

To'o NIPPO SHA. 1997. The Sannai Maruyama Site, New Edi­tion (Shinpan Sannai Maruyama I5e101. Aomori: To'o Nippo Sha. (In Japanese.)

TSUDE, H. 1995. Archaeological theory in Japan, in P. Ucko (ed.) Theory in archaeology: A world perspective: 298-311. London: Routledge.

UMEHARA, T. 1995. The ancestral home of the spirit of the Japa­nese people (Nihonjin no seishin no kokyo), in T. Umehara & Y. Yasuda (ed.), Discovery of the Jomon civilization: Amazing discoveries at the Sannai Maruyama site Vornon Bunmei no Hakken: Kyoi no Sannai Maruyama Isek;): 12-30. Tokyo: PHP Kenkyujo. (In Japanese.)

UMESAO. T., S. KOYAMA &: Y. OKADA. 1995. Image of a city­Sannai Maruyama (Nihon no rekishi wa Sannai Maruyama kara hajimaru), Sannai Maruyama Jomon Era File 3: 3-8. (In English and Japanese.)

VAN HORNE, W.A. (ed.). 1997. Global convulsions: Race, eth­nicify. and nationalism at the end of the twentieth cen­tury. Albany (NY): State University of New York.

WAJIMA, S. 1973. The scholarly significance of the Tsukinowa Kofun excavation (Tsukinowa Kofun no gakumon teki igi 0 chusin nil, in S. Wajima, The scientific spirit and development of Japanese archaeology (Nihon Kokogaku no Hattatsu to kagakuteki seishl1: 664-80. Okayama: Wajima Seiichi Chosaku shu kanko'okai. (In Japanese.)

YOSHlNO, K. 1992. Cultural nationalism in contemporary Ja­pan: A sociological enquiry. London: Routledge.

1997. Cultural nationalism and 'internationalization', in Van Home (ed.): 131-46.