Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:52:53.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The reproduction of archaeological discourse: the case of Japan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Koji Mizoguchi
Koji Mizoguchi*
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Social and Cultural Studies, Kyushu University 4-2-1, Ropponmatsu, Chuo-ku, Fukuoka, Japan 810
Get access

Abstract

This paper argues that, if we are to understand the intrinsic nature of archaeology as a social practice, we have to situate the way in which we are conducting archaeological practices in both local and global contexts for considering a way forward. This contention is supported by a critical account of the current crisis situation in which Japanese archaeology operates. It is argued that this crisis situation has resulted from changes which have been taking place in both macro- and microlevels of Japanese social reality. A Marxist tradition, which had kept theory and practice of Japanese archaeology integrated with a certain sense of reality, collapsed from changes which took place in the international political climate and in domestic social conditions. Those changes had significant effects not only upon the discursive level of the consciousness of the archaeologist but also upon the non-discursive level of the consciousness of the archaeologist. The current condition of the non-discursive consciousness of the archaeologist makes it almost impossible to grasp the causes of the crisis and to consider a possible way out.

It is argued that the creation of a critical ontology, enabling us discursively to grasp the causes of the crisis, is badly needed to improve the situation. It is proposed that such a critical ontology should enable us to grasp the mechanism of the formation of non-discursive/practical consciousness of ourselves which, together with the experience of the material conditions, constitutes the subjective conditions under which we conduct our archaeological practice.

L'argument principal de cet article est que, si nous voulons comprendre la nature intrinsèque de l'archéologie en tant que pratique sociale, nous devons déterminer la manière dont nous conduisons nos recherches archéologiques à la fois dans des contextes locaux ou globaux, afin de pouvoir aller de l'avant. Cette assertion est corroborée par le compte rendu critique de la situation de crise actuelle que subit l'archéologie japonaise. On a affirmé que cette situation de crise résultait de changements qui se sont produits à la fois au macro-niveau et au micro-niveau de la réalité sociale japonaise. La tradition marxiste, qui avait maintenue un certain sens de la réalité intégré dans la théorie et la pratique de l'archéologie japonaise, s'est effondrée, suites à certains changements touchant au climat politique international et aux conditions sociales domestiques. Ces changements eurent des retombées considérables, non seulement au niveau discursif de la conscience de l'archéologue, mais aussi au niveau non-discursif de la conscience de l'archéologue. Étant donnée la condition actuelle de la conscience non-discursive de l'archéologue, il est presque impossible de comprendre les causes de la crise et d'en imaginer une solution potentielle.

Il semble que nous ayons vraiment besoin de créer une ontologie critique, nous permettant de comprendre les causes de la crise d'une manière discursive, afin d'améliorer la situation. On a suggéré qu'une telle ontologie critique devrait nous permettre de comprendre le mécanisme de la formation de la conscience non-discursive/pratique de nous-mêmes qui, considérée conjointement à l'expérience des conditions matérielles, constitue les conditions subjectives qui régissent nos recherches archéologiques.

In diesem Artikel wird versucht zu verdeutlichen, daβ wir, um die wesentliche Eigenheit von Archäologie als eine Sozialdisziplin verstehen zu können, die Art in der wir archäologische Forschung betreiben sowohl in lokalen als auch in globalen Zusammenhängen sehen müssen um dies als einen Schritt nach vorne zu bewerten. Diese Annahme wird durch eine kritische Vergegenwärtigung der augenblicklichen Krisensituation in der japanische Archäologie betrieben wird, unterstützt. Man fragt sich, ob diese Krisensituation das Resultat von Änderungen gewesen sein könnte, die sowohl auf Makro- als such auf Mikroebenen der japanischen sozialen Realität stattgefunden haben. Eine marxistische Tradition, die Theorie und Praxis japanischer Archäologie mit einem gewissen Realitätssinn integrieren konnte, brach wegen Änderungen, die im internationalen politischen Klima und den internen sozialen Bedingungen auftraten, zusammen. Diese Änderungen hatten bedeutende Auswirkungen, nicht nur auf der diskursiven aber auch auf der nicht-diskursiven Ebene des Bewuβtseins des japanischen Archäologens. Der gegenwärtige Zustand dieses nicht-diskursiven Bewuβtseins macht es beinahe unmöglich die Gründe der Krise zu erkennen und einen möglichen Ausweg abzuwägen.

Es wird argumentiert, daβ die Erzeugung einer kritischen Ontologie, die uns diskursiv befähigen könnte die Gründe der Krise zu begreifen, äuβerst wichtig ist um die Situation zu verbessern. Man nimmt an, daβ solch eine kritische Ontologie es uns ermöglichen sollte den Mechanismus der Entstehung unseres nicht-diskursiven/praktischen Bewuβtseins zu verstehen, das zusammen mit der Erfahrung auf dem Gebiet der Sachkultur, die subjektiven Bedinungen herstellt, unter denen wir unsere archäologische Forschung praktizieren.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of European Archaeology , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1997 , pp. 149 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anzai, Masahtto, 1990. Mumonji shakai no kouko-gaku (The archaeology of non-literate societies) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Rokko Publisher.Google Scholar
Bapty, Ian and Yates, Timothy, (eds), 1990. Archaeology after Structuralism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barnes, Gina, 1993. China, Korea and Japan: The rise of civilization in East Asia. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Bauman, Zygmunt, 1988. Freedom. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold, 1984. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony, 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony, 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony, 1991. Modernity and Self identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Hara, Hidesaburo, 1972. Nihon ni okeru kagakuteki gennshi- kodai-shi kenkyu no seiritsu to tenkai (The establishment and the development of the social-scientific study of Japanese pre- and protohistory). In Hidesaburo, Hara (ed.), Nihon genshi kyousan sei shakai to kokka no keisei (Primitive communism and the formation of state in Japan): 343–409. Tokyo: Asakura.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, 1987. Ethnomethodology. In Giddens, Anthony and Turner, Jonathan (eds), Social Theory Today: 224–272. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian, 1992. Theory and Practice in Archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kondo, Yoshiro (ed.), 1960. Tsukinowa kofun (The Tsukinowa tumulus) (in Japanese). Yanahara: Tsukinowa kofun kanko-kai (Committee for the publication of ‘The Tsukinowa tumulus’).Google Scholar
Kondo, Yoshiro, 1983. Zenpo koen fun no jidai (The age of keyhole-shaped tumuli) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Iwanami Publishers.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven, 1974. Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Niiro, Izumi, 1986. The plan of The intemarinal Institute on Japanese Culture' and Umehara ‘Japanology’ (in Japanese). Quarterly of Archaeological Studies 33–1: 18–27.Google Scholar
Shanks, Michael and Tilley, Christopher, 1987a. Social Theory and Archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Shanks, Michael and Tilley, Christopher, 1987b. Re-constructing Archaeology: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Takakura, Hraoaki, 1973. Funbo kara mita yayoi jidai shakai no hatten katei (The developmental stages of the Yayoi period society as seen from the mortuary evidence) (in Japanese). Quarterly of Archaeological Studies 20–2: 7–24.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Migaku, 1984. Japan. In Cleere, Henry (ed.), Approaches to Archaeological Heritage: 82–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomoeda, Toshio, 1991. Kozo to hendo (Structures and their changes) (in Japanese). In Imada, Takatoshi and Tomoeda, Toshio (eds), Shakai gaku no kiso (An introduction to sociology): 121–149. Tokyo: Yuhikaku.Google Scholar
Tsuboi, Kiyotari, 1992. Issues in Japanese archaeology. Acta Asiatica 63: 1–20.Google Scholar
Tsude, Hiroshi, 1969. Rokuju-kyu nen, shigatsu, Tokyo (April, 1969, at Tokyo: Reflections of the annual meeting of the Japanese Archaeological Association) (in Japanese). Quarterly of Archaeological Studies 16–1: 1–7.Google Scholar
Tsude, Hiroshi, 1995. In search of the common ground for Japanese and Anglo-American archaeologists: Prerequisite to the internationalization of Japanese archaeology (in Japanese). In Society for Archaeological Studies (ed.), Current Issues and Prospects for the Future in Japanese Archaeology: A celebration of the Society of Archaeological studies 1954–1994: 339–347. Okayama: Society for Archaeological Studies.Google Scholar
Turner, Jonathan, 1987. Analytical theorising. In Giddens, Anthony and Turner, Jonathan (eds), Social Theory Today: 156–194. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar