Northern Studies in Japan(1)　　　Irimoto Takashi

Introduction

　For some people, the North was the periphery far away from the center. For some others, it was a frontier that must be explored. And for the people who lived there, it was the ordinary place of their everyday lives. Today, the North is also recognized as a home where people can get back the nature and humanity that have been largely lost during the process of modernization. The North thus shows a various aspects in different times and for different people.
　From the viewpoint of human history, the North was of course an important stage for human adaptation and evolution in the process of their advance and dispersion to the Northern Eurasia and to the New World from their native land of Africa. From an academic perspective, then, the North is a place for the intellectual challenges of understanding human beings, learning the wisdom of their ways of life and looking toward their future.
　In this paper, I would like to review the changes and results of these intellectual challenges through studies of northern cultures, with the goal of discussing future prospects. I have conducted my studies in the framework of anthropology in general, and have never positioned myself as a specialist of northern studies in a relatively narrow sense. However, I might have been viewed objectively as a scholar of northern studies, based on my career of research and education at the Department of Anthropology of the University of Tokyo, universities in Canada, the North Asia Section of the First Research Department of the National Museum of Ethnology, and the Institute for the Studies of North Eurasian Cultures of Hokkaido University. Also, it is probably because my field covers the Athapaskan (Dene) in North America, the Ainu in Japan and the Koryak in Northern Eurasia, Mongolia, China, Tibet and India. Thus, even if it is insufficient, a review of northern studies in Japan from my point of view may be useful for people who study anthropology in the future. I would therefore like to discuss northern studies here from a comprehensive perspective and, at the same time, based on the experience of what I have mainly learned and specialized in. In the sections below, I describe what the “Northern Culture” is, as well as the eras of exploration, academics and the world. In the conclusion, I present an outlook for the future, which may be called the “age of the humanity.”

What is “Northern Culture?”

　Northern culture refers to the mode of life unique to northern areas in terms of ecology, society and culture, dating back to the advance into Northern Eurasia by modern man (Homo sapiens sapiens) in the history of human evolution and proliferation to North America. Northern culture is a whole body of cultures, which have changed, descended and developed up to today (IRIMOTO. 1992a: 1-2, 11-12; 2004a: 1-2, 54).
　I actually defined northern culture as mentioned above and stipulated the direction of our research in October 1990 when we launched the preparatory committee for the Hoppo Gakkai (Northern Studies Association, or NSA), founded the NSA in September 1991 and held the first international symposium in commemoration of the Association’s foundation at Hokkaido University in October of the same year. NSA was founded for the purpose of contributing to the understanding of human beings through studies of various northern cultures in Eurasia and North America, as well as through international exchanges. The Association has two functions; it is an association for regional studies and also an association for studies of human beings, that is, anthropology in a broad sense. In terms of regional studies, the northern region is the subject of the study, including Eurasia and North America, two important areas where sufficient studies and information are lacking. Japan has historical, ecological, and cultural characteristics indicative of its location on one end of the Eurasian continent. When one looks at Japan as part of the northern Pacific Rim region, however, a close relationship with North America is evident. Therefore, it is important to study Eurasia, Japan and North America, as a continuous and unified northern region.
　In the human evolutionary history, the Paleolithic culture of Japan is not unrelated to that of northern Eurasia, and some northern characteristics are also recognized in the Jomon culture, which followed Paleolithic culture. There are many ethnological aspects which Northern Eurasian cultures, Northern American cultures, and Ainu culture have in common. For example, the worldview behind the Ainu Bear Festival is based on the repetition of reciprocity between humans and deities – that is to say, their logic behind it is that their game animals are divinities wearing flesh and hides brought to humans as gifts, and divinities are sent-off by humans to their divine world, receiving worship and return-gifts, including inau, wooden sticks with shavings, home brew, and millet dumplings while being invited to visit the human world again. Such a worldview is commonly found in a wide range of Northern Eurasian and North American cultures. In addition, the shamanistic view of the world plays an important role in northern cultures in connecting nature (deities) and human beings.
　In ecological studies in northern regions, the main subject is how people live in northern climates. For example, snowshoes, technologically related to regions with snow accumulation, are most developed among the American boreal forest Indians, but are also found in Japan. Breeding and rearing reindeer are characteristic of Eurasia, but are traditionally not conducted in North America. In the latter region, the caribou (wild American reindeer), which belongs to the same biological species as the reindeer, occupies this niche only as game animals. This cultural difference stems from ecological and historical conditions.
　These various cultures of northern regions have changed up to today. Comparative studies of the current northern regions are as important as studies of prehistoric cultures and ethnographics. For example, Hokkaido has a natural environment similar to Scandinavian nations, Russia, Canada, the United States and other northern nations. These regions have a common goal; that is, to live comfortably during the long winter. Furthermore, changes in the environment greatly influence the northern ecosystem. Such changes should not be viewed as the problem of one nation, but should be seen as an international problem common to all northern regions.
　Therefore, research on northern culture is wide-ranging and also considered to be anthropological research. It is possible to proceed with research by considering northern regions as cultural domains, and constantly performing comparative reviews of whether the cultural characteristics are indeed northern characteristics or characteristics universal to all human beings regardless of geographical location. By doing so, we can consider northern culture in the context of overall human culture and approach a more universal issue; i.e. “What are human beings?”
　This manifesto of northern studies by Irimoto is characterized first by the broad definition of the research subject as northern regions including Northern Eurasia, Japan and North America; second, by application of shizenshi, which is – anthropology of nature and culture – to the research theory and method; and third, by the fact that the final goal of research is the clarification of a universal issue in anthropology – “What are human beings?” This differs greatly from conventional northern studies in Japan, which were limited to Hokkaido or adjoining northern regions in Japan, with the Ainu as the main focus, applied folklore/ethnology as methodology. Also, it differs in that the purpose was to clarify the origin of the Japanese people and culture. This change, however, was a natural consequence of changes in northern studies in Japan, rather than something that occurred suddenly. I therefore explain these changes in the subsequent sections.

Age of Exploration

　In the following three sections, I explain the characteristics and results of northern studies by dividing them into three ages. The first is the Age of Exploration, starting in the 4th century, when the Yamato Imperial Court was formed, then the unified government of Japan, to the Chusei (medieval period) and the Kinsei (modern times) in the mid-19th century, when the Edo period ended. The second is the Age of Academics in the Kindai (modern period) from the Meiji Restoration to the end of Pacific War. The third is the Age of the World up to the end of the 20th century, when the bipolar Cold-War structure after the war collapsed. These divisions are of course not mutually exclusive. It just means that characteristics of northern studies can be observed more clearly by looking at northern studies objectively by age. It is because researchers engaged in northern studies seem to have proceeded with their studies with intellectual challenge to the north as their driving force regardless of the ages, although there are differences among individuals, and their observations may have been affected by the times in some cases. Based on the above conditions, next I explain northern studies during the Age of Exploration.
　Interest in the north could be found in Japan since old times. The north was an object of exploration from the formation of the Yamato Imperial Court up to the end of the Edo period in 1867. Needless to say, the interest in the north was for acquisition of knowledge on ethnic groups in surrounding areas, such as the Emishi in the north and Hayato in the south, which were subdued and integrated during the process of Japan’s political unification, rather than for academic purposes. For example, Nihon Shoki (Chronicles of Japan, TONERI-SHINNO et al. ed. 720/1669), compiled in 720 as Japan’s oldest anthology of official history by Imperial Command, states that the Mishihase, currently regarded by ethnologists as a Tungus-speaking ethnic group, came to the northern Sado Island of Etsu Province (present-day eastern Fukui, Toyama and Niigata) in 544, but islanders did not approach them, calling them ogres and monsters rather than people (HOKKAIDO ed. 1989: 5).
　It also states the following events: chiefs of the ancient Emishi including Ayakasu, who lived in the present-day Aomori, Akita and northern Miyagi Prefectures in northern Japan and are believed by many Japanese specialists to be related with ancestors of the Ainu both physically and linguistically, came to the Imperial Court in Yamato (present-day Nara) in 581 and took an oath pledging their obedience. Abe no Omi went on an expedition leading 180 warships in 658 and 659 and forced the Emishi in Wanita, Aita and Nushiro (present-day Akita) to pledge their loyalty to the Imperial Court. He also led 200 warships in 660 and conquered the Mishihase with the support of the Mutsu (now known as Aomori and a part of Iwate) Emishi and Oshima (now Hokkaido) Emishi (HOKKAIDO ed. 1989: 5; OBAYASHI 1994: 125,127-128). Nihon Shoki also states that, in 659, there were three groups of Emishi – those in Tsukaru (modern Aomori), Shishi Emishi and Niki Emishi – from the far side, and the Niki Emishi visited the Imperial Court to offer a tribute (HOKKAIDO ed. 1989: 5). It can be seen that Niki Emishi lived closest to Yamato and were the most obedient to the Imperial Court out of the ancient Emishi groups.
　In Jussai Kofuku Ezosho, or Emishi Surrendering to the 10 years old Prince Shotoku, (unknown author, 1323/1959: 25; 1323/1968: no. 159,186-187; 1323/1973 : 11-13) in the pictorial biography of Prince Shotoku written around 1323, there is a legendary scene in which Prince Shotoku, ten years old at the time, suggested to the Emperor Bidatsu to invite the Emishi chief Ayakasu and his men to the bank of the Hatsuse River and then persuaded them to obey the Imperial Court. While this is said to be the oldest genre picture of the Ainu (i.e., a picture that depicts Ainu customs) remaining to this day, it is obvious from the description in Nihon Shoki that this was a picture of Emishi in Honshu and not the Ainu in Hokkaido. It is naturally not known to what degree this picture, painted at the end of the Kamakura era, was based on the knowledge on the Ainu in Hokkaido or the Emishi in Honshu. As indicated by many descriptions in Nihon Shoki, however, it is true that knowledge on the Emishi had already been collected in those days. Considering such a background, it was presumed that people appearing in the picture were the Emishi. While the people in the picture depicted bows and quivers, also found in Ainu culture, they wore feather and fur shawls, hoods and headbands, and had spears decorated with cloth slightly different from those of the Ainu. They also wore shoes that looked like long boots, which did not exist in Ainu culture. This picture had been evaluated negatively as an imaginary painting depicting the Ainu incorrectly. As mentioned before, however, this can be interpreted as a picture of the Emishi and is likely the oldest and only genre picture of the Emishi. If this is true, the abovementioned differences from the Ainu in the modern times have important meaning as the characteristics of the Emishi in Honshu, rather than just being the products of imagination.
　In fact, analysis of the description of Emishi in Nihon Shoki revealed some facts concerning their mode of living and view of the world. They sustained themselves by hunting, gathering, fishing, as well as cultivating wet rice, and breeding horses. They divided a year into two seasons – summer and winter, and the times of their revolts against the Imperial Court were related to the transition of these two seasons; i.e., the breaks between subsistence activities, being concentrated at the end of winter or the end of summer (OBAYASHI 1994: 131,136). Based on such information, it can be presumed that the Emishi in Honshu were engaged in subsistence activities different from those of the Ainu in Hokkaido, were directly influenced by the continent concerning the use of horses, and were a culturally different group from the Ainu, although they had the same ancestors.
　Description of the Ainu in Hokkaido can be seen in documents dating back to approximately the same time as the pictorial biography of Prince Shotoku. While archaeologists believe that Ainu culture formed around the 12th century, the Suwa Daimyojin Ekotoba (SUWA DAISHINOBO 1356/1925: 53-54; HOKKAIDO ed. 1989: 9) states that Ezogashima Island was situated in the middle of the ocean in the northeast of Japan, and that three groups called the Hinomoto, Karako and Watarito lived on 333 islands. It also states that the Watarito shared one island with other groups and did trades on the coast outside of Oshu Tsugaru. KINDAICHI Kyosuke (KINDAICHI 1925: 54-55, 357-401) concluded that the Hinomoto were the group in the eastern province (East Ezo) that later came to be called the Chishima (Kuril) Ainu, the Karako were the Ainu influenced by Manchurian culture via the Tatar Straits who were later called the Karafuto (Sakhalin) Ainu, and the Watarito were the group that fled from Ou, or the Ainu enjoying Japanese culture at the gateway to Hokkaido.
　Suwa Daimyojin Ekotoba (SUWA DAISHINOBO 1356/1925: 55-56) also states that the territories of the Hinomoto and Karako were connected to foreign countries, and that they were engaged in hunting and fishing, they did not conduct farming (such as cultivating five grains as staple foods – including rice, wheat, foxtail millet, bean, millet or barnyard grass – although there are varied opinions) and had different languages. In contrast to this, the Watarito were similar to the Japanese and shared the same language. Some of them knew how to hide themselves by creating a smoky fog. On the battlefield, armored men advanced, armed with bows and arrows, and women remained at the back uttering incantations to the sky while grasping strips of wood. Both men and women moved freely without the aid of horses and used arrows with poisoned heads made from fish bones. Ainu in Edo period shared these characteristics. In the medieval period, Japan had already expanded its outlook to Ezo-ga-Chishima (now known as Hokkaido and neighboring areas), and people living there, and had recognition that there was foreign land beyond.
　It was, however, not until the Edo period in the modern times – 265 years from the opening of the shogunate in Edo (modern Tokyo) by TOKUGAWA Ieyasu in 1603 to the Restoration of the Imperial Rule by TOKUGAWA Yoshinobu in 1867 – that correct and detailed descriptions of the Ainu were reliably discovered. Looking at the general survey of the history of Hokkaido in the Shin Hokkaidoshi Nenpyo (New chronological table of the history of Hokkaido (HOKKAIDO ed. 1989: 688-696), which is a reproduction of the chronological table part of the Historical Record No. 3, Vol. 9 of the New History of Hokkaido (HOKKAIDO ed. 1980), the number of documents on the Edo period was approximately 440, while only 50 regarding the period from ancient to medieval times were quoted. Although these documents are only a part of ancient writings about the history of Hokkaido, it can be seen from the number of documents that interest in the northern regions, including Hokkaido and its adjoining areas, was very high during the Edo period. For example, ARAI Hakuseki wrote Ezoshi (ARAI, 1720/1979: 39-54), the first geography book of Hokkaido in 1720. Matsumaekoku Chuki (unknown author; c. 1720) was also written by an unknown author at roughly the same time. Also, KUDO Heisuke published Aka Ezo Husetsuko (KUDO 1783/1972: 209-245) in 1783, which described a district called Kamusasuka (present-day Kamchatka), also known as Aka Ezo (Red Ezo, or “Russianized” Ezo Country), along the northern island of the Chishima (Kuril) Islands, and that people living there brought dried salmon and salmon oil to trade for salt, rice, rolls of cloth and textiles. There was also mention that a large country called Oroshiya (now Russia), which had its capital in Musukobeya (modern Moscow), expanded its power gradually starting from the Kanbun era (1661 – 1672) and took control of Kamusasuka by the Shotoku era (1711-1715), indicating that the necessity of national defense was promoted in Japan.
　Because of this, the shogunate sent an investigating party to Ezo in 1785 and 1786, and they traveled to Karafuto (Sakhalin) in the north and Kunashiri Island of Southern Chishima (Kuril) Archipelago in the east. At that time, MOGAMI Tokunai went not only to Etorofu Island of the southern Kurils, but also to Urup Island of the northern Kurils. SATO Genrokuro, a participant in this party, compiled the results of the survey of Ezo into Ezo Shui (SATO, 1786/1972: 248-309) in 1786. Mogami also published Ezo Soshi (MOGAMI, 1790/1972: 310-410) in 1790, with descriptions of geography, products, Ainu society, rituals, songs and dances. Karafuto and the Kurils in those days served as the northern border of Japan with Russia. For example, the Ainu of Etorofu Island went to Urup Island of the northern Kurils to find work and presented sea otter skin and eagle feathers to the shogunate. Because some of them were plundered of their cargoes and shot to death by Russians in 1770, they took revenge (HOKKIDOCHO, 1901: 36-37; IRIMOTO 1995a: 128). After that, a mission to Japan led by Adam Laksman came to Nemuro and Hakodate on the Ekaterina in 1792, with a request for amity from the Governor-General of Siberia under the pretext of extradition of DAIKOKUYA Kodayu of Ise Province among other drifters. Their proposal for trade was, however, rejected according to the closed-door policy of the shogunate. The Providence, a British expedition ship led by Broughton, also came to Abuta and Etomo in 1796 and 1797, and demanded of the shogunate the opening of the country. The shogunate sent another investigating party to eastern and western Ezo immediately after, in 1798. At that time, another party including KONDO Juzo and MAMIYA Rinzo went to Etorofu Island of the southern Kurils, and MURAKAMI Shimanojo (a.k.a. HATA Awakimaru) published Ezoshima Kikan in 1799 (MURAKAMI 1799/1953: 27,29; 1799/1973: No. 41-77), which contained pictures and text depicting the lives of the Ainu. Also, INO Tadataka conducted a survey of Ezo in 1800 by permission of the shogunate, and MAMIYA Rinzo made inspections of northern Sakhalin in 1808 and 1809, and confirmed that Sakhalin was an island through exploration of the Mamiya (Tatar) Strait (HOKKAIDO ed. 1989: 89, 91-92; YAMADA, 2002: 362-363).
　There is mention of Sakhalin in those days in Hokuidan (MATSUDA, 1822/1972: 117-276), a record on Ezo written by MATSUDA Denjuro between 1799 and 1822. For example, it says that the Orotsuko-jin (Uilta) raised animals called tonakai (reindeer) to ride and carry loads, and the Sumeren-guru (Nivkh) kept dogs to pull boats from the sea onto the shore in summer and sleighs on the snow in winter. It also states that the Santan-jin (Tungus-speaking people in the coastal area) visited this island every year to trade with the Ainu in Karafuto and Soya in Hokkaido, the Ainu in Karafuto and visiting Santan-jin who hunted in the mountain went by boat to Deree (Deren) by the Amur River, where the Manchurian temporary government was situated, to trade otter, fox and sea otter furs for foxtail millet, rice, sake and tobacco. They also took pieces of brocades, blue glass balls for neck ornaments, bowls of tobacco pipes and other goods to Soya to trade them for otter, fox and raccoon dog furs (MATSUDA 1882/1972: 171-172, 175-178; MAMIYA 1855/1972: 286). These descriptions revealed not only the status of fur trading in the coastal area of the Asian continent and Karafuto with the Qing Dynasty in the background, but also the fact that the Santan-jin and Ainu in Karafuto played the roles of middlemen by trading with the Ainu in Hokkaido. Furthermore, MAMIYA Rinzo went to the continent by sea from Karafuto in 1809, crossed a mountain pass carrying the boat and reached Deren via Lake Kizhi, observed the state of trading by Manchurian public servants, and traveled down the main stream of the Amur River on his journey home. It is said that Mamiya made a fair copy of the record of this trip called the Todatsu Chiho Kiko (MAMIYA, 1811a/1969: 180-199), and presented it to the shogunate in 1811 (HOKKAIDO ed. 1989: 101-102; TAKAKURA 1969: 178). In this report, Mamiya mentioned the state of trading at the Manchurian temporary government by the Amur River, and the recorded the names of various ethnic groups living in the area extending from northern Karafuto to the lower reaches of the Amur River, including Orotsuko (Tungus-speaking Orok, or Uilta), Sumeren-guru (Nivkh), Shirun-aino (Ainu in the hinterland of Karafuto), Kimun-aino (mountain Ainu), Santan (probably the Tungus-speaking Ulchi in the lower reaches of the Amur River), Korutetsuke (likely the Tungus-speaking Goldy in the lower reaches of Ussurii River), Kyatsukara (probably Tungus-speaking Negidal in the lower reaches of the Amur River), Ida (Tungus-speaking Udegey east of the Sikhote Alin mountains) and Kiren (a group of Goldy called Samagir) (comparison with the current names of ethnic groups is by TAKAKURA (1969: 199), who wrote explanatory and supplementary notes for Todatsu Chiho Kiko). Also, Hokui Bunkai Yowa (MAMIYA 1811b/1973: 76-80; 1811c/1973: no. 78-143) that was written together with Todatsu Chiho Kiko was published in wood-block print as Kita Ezo Zusetsu (MAMIYA, 1855/1972: 283-380) in 1855. The book contains detailed descriptions and ethnography of the Ainu in Karafuto, Orotsuko (Uilta) and Sumeren-guru (Nivkh), including food, housing, skills, livelihood, trading and ceremonies.
　Records on the Ainu are characterized by many genre pictures, in addition to written descriptions. Those pictures shown in the form of picture scrolls or figures inserted in old chronicles present valuable information that cannot be expressed with words alone, just like photos in ethnography. Ezoshi Fuzu (ARAI 1720/1945: 9; TAKAKURA 1959: 9; 1720/1973: 14) of ARAI Hakuseki attached to the above-mentioned Ezoshi is known as the first realistic genre picture of the Ainu. It is a simple picture of Ainu men and women wearing characteristic costumes and accessories, accompanied by the description of sizes, materials and usage, as well as pictures related to material culture of the Ainu, including those of bows and arrows, containers and clubs (ARAI, 1720/1953: 5; TAKAKURA, 1953: 4-7). Also, Ezokoku Fue (KODAMA 1756/1945: no. 4; 1756/1953: 10; 1756/1973: no. 27-40), which is said to be the work of painter KODAMA Sadayoshi of Matsumae, created in 1756, also includes vivid pictures of the Bear Festival, kelp gathering, shut (corporal punishment), audiences with the baron of Matsumae and other scenes of the Ainu’s lives and festivals.
　Furthermore, portraits of twelve imposing men from the Kunashiri and Menashi areas wearing Ezo brocade from Santan with decorated swords or spears under their arms were painted by KAKIZAKI Hakyo in Ishu Retsuzo in 1790 (KAKIZAKI, 1790/1953: 17; 1790/1968: no. 1-4; 1790/1973: 1-14). As mentioned before, the 18th century was the time when the shogunate sent an investigating party to Ezo to deal with Russians expanding southward, and was when the first era of direct control of Ezo by the shogunate began. Many books and genre pictures of the Ainu were produced in those days. TANI Gentan’s Ezo Kiko Zufu (TANI, 1799/1953: 21; 1799/1973: no. 170-191) contains realistic pictures of the lives of the Ainu, including a woman weaving atsushi (bank-cloth), a hunting scene, children at play, a drinking scene, corporal punishment, sailing, kindling of fire, praying and passing around a pipe. The abovementioned Ezoshima Kikan (MURAKAMI 1799/1953: 27,29; 1799/1973: no. 41-77), which was developed based on the shogunate’s second survey of Ezo, contains detailed description and pictures of Ainu myths, ceremonial occasions and daily activities, including the earth-creating deity (Goddess in the Cave), Ainu men and women, an audience with Baron Matsumae, sitting in attendance, greetings and salutations, taking care of a the sick, funerals, saimon (trial by boiling water), machikoru (wedding), the burning of the houses of the deceased, ukari (beating with a club), dances at a feast, drinking, exorcism of evil spirits, niyoen (homecoming ritual), dogs pulling a boat, the harvesting of kelp, the castration of dogs, the harpooning of salmon, the stripping of tree bark, the gathering medical plants and the trapping of an eagle, as well as bows and arrows, quivers, women’s tattoos, shitoki (necklaces), and dwellings and their interior. It contains many records on modern Ainu culture that had been lost since the Meiji era. It was because MURAKAMI Shimanojo had clear intentions of producing a picture scroll to record the Ainu customs (TAKAKURA 1953: 26), as can be seen in his remark, “I hope to avoid losing the past descriptions of the Ainu and show them to those who have never seen them.” The illustrations of Murakami were later sorted by his adopted son Teisuke and MAMIYA Rinzo, and have been kept as Ezo Seikei Zusetsu contained in the Department of anthropology class of the University of Tokyo and Ezoshima Zusetsu contained in Hakodate Library (the original is Ezo Gacho contained in the Cabinet Library) (TAKAKURA 1953: 31; 1968: 157; 1973: 26). Ezo Seikei Zusetsu or Ezo Gacho (MURAKAMI 1804-1823/1945: no. 20; 1804-1823/1953: 27; 1804-1823/1968: no. 44-46, 50, 53-56, 64-69, 72, 76, 78, 85, 87, 90, 149) includes pictures of various activities related to subsistence of the Ainu and material aspects related their food, clothing and shelter. They include pictures of the cultivation process of miscellaneous grains from seed to harvest, bleaching of tree bark to make clothing, twisting of tree-bark fibers, clothes made of fur, feathers, grass and various other materials, construction of houses, houses covered with miscanthus, birch bark and bamboo leaves, the eating meals, inau (wooden sticks) state of inau-making, and boats on the sea with sails made of straw mats.
　After the Golovnin incident in 1811, Perry’s fleet came to Uraga in 1853 and the shogunate opened the ports of Shimoda and Hakodate the following year. In the same year, Putyatin’s fleet visited Nagasaki and Hakodate and signed a memorandum setting the national boundary between Japan and Russia at the Etorofu Channel in the northern part of Etorofu Island of the Kurils, and designating Karafuto as a mixed-residence area. The instruments of ratification were then exchanged in 1856 (HOKKAIDO ed. 1989: 103,131-133). With the dramatic changes of the domestic and international situations in the transition from the closed-door policy to opening of the country, Ezo entered the second period of direct control by the shogunate (1855 -1867) (Irimoto, 1987: 3). Genre pictures of the Ainu were created in addition to many reports in those days. Among them were the masterpieces of HIRASAWA Byozan – Ezo-jin Shuto-no-zu (Hirasawa, 1857/1945: no. 32; 1857/1968: no. 109) that depicted a scene of smallpox vaccination for the Ainu at the Hakodate Magistrate’s Office under the instruction of the shogunate in 1857 and 1858 and Ezo Fuzoku 12-kagetsu Byobu (folding screen of 12 months of the Ainu customs) (HIRASAWA, late 1800s /1945: no. 38-43; late 1800s/1973: no. 15-26). The folding screen contains pictures of visiting a shrine on New Year’s day (January), hunting deer (February), gathering seaweed (March), twisting atsushi bark (April), drying fish-oil cakes (May), harvesting kelp (June), catching trout (July), catching salmon (August), harpooning salmon using marek (September), departing for a hunting trip (October) and the Bear Festival (December). Pictures 130 cm in height and 52 cm in width are on a pair of six-panel screens. It is not only highly artistic, but also accurately depicts the yearly cycle of the Ainu. Ainu Fuzoku Emaki (scroll painting of Ainu customs produced by NISHIKAWA Hokuyo (NISHIKAWA, end of 1800s/1973: no. 149-169) also contains realistic and detailed pictures of condolence, the playing of mouth harps, subsistence activities of hunting, fishing and gathering, the rearing of bear cubs, the Bear Festival, plays, the reciting of shakorobe epics and a trial.
　These genre pictures of the Ainu also have titles in the Ainu language and serve as valuable records of the language. In fact, the Ezo Hogen Moshiogusa, a bilingual dictionary of the Ainu language and Japanese, was written by interpreter UEHARA Kumajiro and Governor ABE Chozaburo in 1792, and published by MOGAMI Tokunai in 1804 (UEHARA and ABE, 1792,1804/1972; Hokkaido ed. 1989: 84). Many more publications were issued in the late Edo period. KANSENDO-YUKI then published a map called Ezokoku Chiri-no-zu from the Edo Asakusa Gyokuryuken Kyokuhogata in 1853, which included a supplemental booklet that introduced the Ainu language called Ezo Hin’i Yakugen (KANSENDO-YUKI, 1853/1872; TAKAKURA 1973: 31).
　Later, MATSUURA Takeshiro, who went on four exploratory trips in Ezo starting in 1845, and who was employed by the shogunate in 1856 to investigate the geography of Ezo mountains and rivers, introduced Ezo to a wide range of people through wood-printed books featuring genre pictures of the Ainu. He also collected and disseminated past genre pictures of the Ainu (MATSUURA, 1859/1945: no. 49(1); 1859/1968: no. 125; TAKAKURA 1973: 31-32). Matsuura explored extensive areas of Hokkaido and Karafuto in the late Edo period. He not only kept valuable investigation records on geography, place names in the Ainu language and censuses of the Ainu population, but also earned the trust of the Ainu with his universal and objective outlook (YAMADA 2002a: 361,368-369; 2003: 77). Based mainly on the journals and geographical survey maps of MATSUURA Takeshiro (MATSUURA, 1856/1978; 1858/1985; 1859/1983; 1863/1962), a series of pioneering studies of Irimoto were later conducted (IRIMOTO 1987; 1988; 1992b), which included anthropological and historic – ecological analyses of the Ainu in the Saru River basin.
　This anthropological study of historical materials on the Ainu in the Saru River basin was the analysis on the Ainu society and culture in this area from around 1300 to 1867. ¹ The significance of this study were described as follows: The first point is the extremely steady collection and analysis of data using literature and archeological materials systematically while referring to ethnographical reports of the modern period. The second point is the division into three major periods – the first from around 1300 to 1603, the second from 1604 to 1669 and the third from 1670 to 1867 – and the establishment of three sub-periods during the third period. The third point is that the study revealed the transition of weight on activities to gather food in the wild, such as hunting animals, gathering plants and fishing, to trade, plant-cultivation and employment activities throughout these periods. The fourth point is that analysis was conducted based on full understanding of the standard of studies in modern-day cultural anthropology. While the ecological point of view was especially characteristic to this study, a balanced interpretation was made by also taking the importance of political history factors into account. It also revealed that the social and political system of the Ainu was formed through a political and economic relationship with the Matsumae clan and shogunate, including trade and employment activities, while it was supported by the ecological basis and subsistence activities, population and Settlement patterns of the area.
　As mentioned above, it could be said that northern studies in Japan began in the Age of Exploration. It is possible to clarify the mode of life, society and culture in the northern regions in modern times based especially on the records created in the Edo period for the following reasons: First, interest in the northern regions, including Hokkaido and its adjoining areas, was high, and many materials were left from the era. This was probably because the Matsumae Clan under the Tokugawa shogunate obtained the management rights to Ezochi (present-day Hokkaido and Chishima [Kuril] Archipelago) and Karafuto (Sakhalin) from TOKUGAWA Ieyasu in 1604 and executed them, and the shogunate positioned the northern regions of Japan as Hokumon no Mamori (guardian of the northern gate) and the front line of the nation against Russia. There was also the fact that people’s curiosity was extended to external things during the prosperity of culture in the Kyoto and Osaka area and popular culture of Edo.
　Second, an objective and comprehensive description method was established based on natural observation, which is a traditional culture of Japan. It is entirely the result of establishment of scientific method based on the natural view unique to Japanese culture. Such method was established in the history of Japan through experience of compilation of Fudoki (geographical description of the origin of the name, topography, products, legends and other conditions of a certain area) that began in the 8th century, and tradition of painters who worked as artisans to produce paintings under direct control of the Court or shogunate after introduction of the laws and ordinance system in the 7th century. This tradition has been handed down to folklore and ethnology of Japan in the Age of Academics, while introducing Western science in the modern period, as mentioned below, and has now evolved into shizenshi (anthropology of nature and culture) by integrating Western anthropology (physical anthropology and cultural anthropology) in the Age of the World.
▲ページトップ
 Northern Studies in Japan(2)へ

Index＞研究課題＞1.北方文化研究の集大成＞Northern Studies in Japan(1)