Northern Studies in Japan(2)　　　Irimoto Takashi

Age of Academics

　The seventy-eight years from the establishment of the new Meiji government in 1868, through the Taisho era (1912–1926), to the end of Pacific War in 1945 was the age of the evolution of Japan into a modern nation. In academic fields, Western science was introduced to Japan’s existing traditional science, which resulted in the creation of a variety of new fields of study and organizations. In anthropological studies, on the other hand, issues concerning the origin of the Japanese people and culture became the major focus. TSUBOI Shogoro and his associates founded the “Friends of Anthropology” in 1884, the predecessor of the Anthropological Society of Nippon, the Japanese Society of Ethnology and other organizations. It was renamed the Anthropological Research Society, the Anthropological Society, then the Anthropological Society of Tokyo in 1886 and to the present name the Anthropological Society of Nippon in 1941. In 1886, the first issue of the society’s journal Jinruigaku Hokoku, Bulletin of the Anthropological Society (later known as Tokyo Jinruigaku Hokoku, Bulletin of the Tokyo Anthropological Society; Tokyo Jinruigaku Zasshi, Journal of the Anthropological Society of Tokyo, and then Jinruigaku Zasshi, the Journal of the Anthropological Society of Nippon in 1911) was published (TERADA 1975: 31–33), where the foundation of anthropology in Japan was laid.
　It is understandable that study was limited to setting up various hypotheses concerning the origins of the Japanese, since there was almost no accumulation of concrete data in those days. SHIRAI Mitsutaro (M.S. 1887:70-75) and KOGANEI Yoshikiyo (KOGANEI 1889a: 2–7; 1889b: 34−39; 1904) considered the Ainu to be Japan’s Stone Age people. TSUBOI Shogoro (1886:11-14; 1887a: 93–97; 1887b: 167–172; 1971–1972), on the other hand, believed the Stone Age people in Japan were the Korobokkuru, who were mentioned in Ainu folk tales and thought to have lived before the Ainu. Furthermore, explorer TORII Ryuzo (TORII 1975–1977; TERADA 1975: 83–84) conducted ethnological research over a broad area of northern Asia, including Liaodong, Manchuria, Mongolia, the northern Chishima (Kuril) Islands, Sakhalin and Siberia, since the latter half of the Meiji era until around 1940, and set up a unique “Theory of Japanese-proper,” a hypothesis that first the Ainu migrated to the Japanese islands, then the Mongolian-Yamato people came from the north over to Kyushu and lived mixed with locals, followed by Indonesians coming to coastal areas, and finally a Mongolian closely related to the Tungus came from the north and became an emperor by annexing and assimilating the various ethnic groups to form a dynasty, which became the Yamato, or Japanese race.
　The existence of Yayoi earthenware became known in 1896, and efforts were made to organize prehistoric data, including a chronological arrangement of Jomon-period history, during the Taisho era. KIYONO Kenji and KANAZEKI Takeo of Kyoto University and archaeologist HAMADA Seiryo believed that the culture during the Stone Age was neither the Ainu nor the present Japanese, but the proto-Japanese (KANAZEKI 1976; KIYONO 1925; 1982; KIYONO and KANAZEKI 1928; FUJIOKA 1979:47,139–140). During the same period, HASEBE Kotondo of Tohoku University, who later founded the Department of Anthropology at the University of Tokyo, reached the conclusion that the people during that time were ancestors of the modern Japanese people, and those who migrated from the continent played an elemental role (HASEBE 1949; 1975; TERADA 1975:150,163–164). The theory that the people during the Stone Age were the proto-Japanese was based on the new idea that anthropological characteristics could change enough during a period of approximately 10,000 years to be observed, which is relatively short in human evolution history, when compared with various theories previously proposed in which they presumed that the present-Japanese came later to the Japanese Islands. The theory supported by HASEBE and other researchers formed the foundation for further development of the view that the Jomon, the people from Japan’s Stone Age, might have acquired modern Japanese characteristics by micro-evolution through changes in lifestyles (SUZUKI 1963; 1971; 1992), as well as formed the basis to arrive at the results of present research on the origin and formation of the Japanese, which assert the Jomon were the proto-Japanese, although the genetic influences of the Yayoi were significant, and there was a genetic gradient for Yayoi characteristics; that is, they peaked at western Japan where the Yayoi arrived and spread toward the north and south of the Japanese islands (HANIHARA 1996; IKEDA 1987; OMOTO 1995; 1996; YAMAGUCHI 1990). Accordingly, it was concluded that in addition to the Japanese, the ancestors of the Ainu, who have continuously held an important position in regard to the origin of the Japanese, were the Jomon.
　Anthropological studies in this period covered not only what we today call physical anthropology, but also folklore, ethnology and prehistory. For this reason, materials and data on culture, in addition to characteristics of people in Japan and its peripheral areas, were exhaustively collected. In 1913, YANAGITA Kunio et al. (YANAGITA 1989–1991) published Kyodo Kenkyu, Folk Studies (four volumes, ending in 1917) and Minzoku, Ethnos in 1925 (four volumes up to 1929). A meeting for Ainu studies was held in 1926 under the leadership of YANAGITA, in which KOGANEI Yoshikiyo, a physical anthropologist, and John BATCHELOR, a missionary and linguist as well as an ethnologist, participated (TERADA 1975: 190), and thus researchers exchanged their views on common subjects. In 1929, a society of ethnology was organized, and its journal, Minzokugaku, Folklore was published (publication ended in 1933). Then, a new society, the Japanese Society of Ethnology, was founded by some of the coteries in 1934, with the publication of its journal Minzokugaku Kenkyu, the Japanese Journal of Ethnology starting in 1935. During the same year, YANAGITA Kunio played a central role in the establishment of the Society of Folklore (renamed the Folklore Society of Japan after World War II), and the journal Minkan-densho, Folkore (renamed Nihon Minzokugaku, Folklore of Japan after World War II) was first published. Thus, ethnology, the comparative study of different ethnic groups, and folklore, the study of one’s own ethnic group, were separated (ITOH 2002:26–27; TERADA 1975:240). During the same period, anthropology and archaeology were divided, and special fields of study were established: physical anthropology, folklore, ethnology and archaeology. There was, of course, an approach to anthropology from a broad perspective, as that of HASEBE Kotondo, founder or the University of Tokyo’s Anthropology Course in 1938, which was succeeded by the Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Science, the University of Tokyo after World War II. This was also the start of ecological anthropology in Japan as described in the section below.
　The fields of folklore and ethnology were different; however, they used the same methodology, which is the traditional Japanese methodology to comprehensively describe the lives, cultures and traditions of humans. With the use of this methodology, the collection of the folklore and ethnological materials and data began. In 1869, the Hokkaido Development Commission was established, and the Sapporo Agricultural College in 1876, with W. S. Clark of the President of the Massachusetts Agricultural College serving as the Vice President, was founded. The college was then reorganized as Agricultural College, Tohoku Imperial University in 1907, and in accordance with the foundation of Hokkaido Imperial University, it was reorganized as Agricultural College of the university. The development of Hokkaido further increased after Japan gained the entire area of the Kuril Islands and the southern half Sakhalin in accordance with the terms of Treaty of St. Petersburg in 1875 and the Treaty of Portsmouth in 1905 after the Russo-Japanese War. Along with this development, anthropological, archaeological, and ethnological materials and data in Hokkaido, Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands (TORII 1975–1977; SUDA 1939; KONO Tsunekichi 1974–1975; KONO Hiromichi 1971-1972), in particular those related to Ainu culture, were accumulated by many researchers including KINDAICHI Kyosuke (KINDAICHI 1992) and CHIRI Mashiho (CHIRI 1973–1976) (IRIMOTO 1992; YAMADA 2003: 77-87).
　In 1910, as a result of the annexation of Korea, the Governor-General’s Office of Korea was established in Keijo (present-day Seoul), and Keijo Imperial University was opened in 1926. After the Manchurian Incident in 1931, the establishment of Manchukuo was declared in 1932 (Hokkaido ed. 1989: 387, 487, 489). Ethnological materials and data on the rituals, shamanism and family system of various northern people such as the Manchu and the Mongolian collected in these areas were published on Tokyo Jinruigaku Zasshi, Jinruigakkai Zasshi, Minzokugaku Kenkyu, Manmo and other journals by aforementioned TORII Ryuzo (TORII 1909a; 1909b), and other researchers (AKAMATSU 1936; KOBAYASHI 1932; KOBORI 1949; OYAMA 1941; TAKIZAWA 1937). In the end of this period, anthropological studies in northern areas from a socio-ecological perspective appeared; for example, socio-ecological studies on nomads in Da Hinggan Ling and Inner Mongolia by IMANISHI Kinji (IMANISHI 1974-1975; 1995; 1974–1975; IMANISHI and BAN 1948a; 1948b), UMESAO Tadao (UMESAO 1976; 1989–1994) and other researchers, studies on the social structure and livelihood domain of the Orochon in Da Hinggan Ling by IZUMI Seiichi (IZUMI 1937), and studies on the social structure of the Orok (Uilta) in Sakhalin by ISHIDA Eiichiro (ISHIDA 1941). In addition, institutions related to ethnological studies were established: the Institute of Ethnos in the second year of the Pacific War in 1943 and the Institute for the Study of Northwest (of China) in Zhangjiakou in 1944 (TERADA 1975; 257–259). However, in the following year, the war ended. UMESAO Tadao, who conducted research on dog sleds in Sakhalin as a student, as well as nomads in Da Hinggan Ling and Inner Mongolia, reported that research had been very difficult due to strict restrictions set by the Japanese military, so when the war ended, he thought that from now on he could carry out research freely (UMESAO 2003–2004: personal communication).
　As described above, it could be said that the issues surrounding the origin of the Japanese in the time of the creation of a modern nation in Japan were associated with the formation of an ethnic-national identity. Along with the movement of “One Nation’s Folklore,” folklore – the study of one’s own ethnic group – traced the identity of the Japanese inward through the country’s history. In contrast, ethnology – the comparative study of different ethnic groups – explored outwards to seek the identity of the Japanese. After the war, such explorers extended their studies as far as to Africa, Himalaya and Andes.

Age of the World

　The period of fifty-five years from 1945, when the Pacific War ended, to 2000, when the 20th century ended after the collapse of the post-war structure of bipolar confrontation, was the age of social and economic reconstruction for Japan under a new democratic system. In the field of anthropology, with the introduction of cultural anthropology from the United State, a universal issue of anthropology – “What are human beings” – became the central focus, rather than issues surrounding the origin of the Japanese, which was associated with the conventional ethnic-national identity. This period is the Age of the World, so to speak, in which the area of academic interests is expanded to the world.
　The broad view of HASEBE Kotondo – “Physical anthropology is the study of the natural history of man of all times and regions” (HASEBE 1927: 3) – was inherited by the Department of Anthropology in the University of Tokyo. It engaged in studies aiming to clarify the relationship between human physics and technology based on the idea of viewing anthropology as a comprehensive science focusing on the “works” of men (SUGIURA 1951: 2). After the War, the Department of Cultural Anthropology was separated from the Department of Anthropology, but maintaining its stance of viewing anthropology as “one comprehensive science,” as ISHIDA Eiichiro consistently emphasized (ISHIDA 1955/1967: 157; 1959: 4; 1970; 1970 -72; ISHIDA et al. 1958: 2).
　As northern studies, the Department of Anthropology dealt with northern hunter-gatherers using evolutionary-ecological and functional approaches; for example, life of the Ainu during the last half of the 19th century was rebuilt and described by WATANEBE Hitoshi from ecological and structural-functional viewpoints (WATANABE 1964/1972), and he further argued that the Jomon society in Japan was a stratified one (WATANABE 1990). As part of the International Biological Program, research on the adaptability to northern climates and genetics of the Ainu were carried out (SEIBUTSUKEN 1970). In respect to northern studies at the Department of Cultural Anthropology, characteristics of Japanese culture with multi-ethnic origins were revealed based on the comparison of cultural elements, especially the myths, between the north and south, by OBAYASHI Taryo (OBAYASHI 1961; 1999). SUE (HARA) Hiroko, a student of cultural anthropology at a Bryn Mawr College, U.S.A., conducted research on the Hare, the northern Athapaskan people as a part of work on her doctoral dissertation (SUE 1965). Concerning studies on the Alaskan Eskimos, OKA Masao of Meiji University carried out three field surveys (WATANABE et al. ed. 1961; GAMO 1964). SOFUE Takao (SOFUE 1972) engaged in psychological anthropological research on Eskimos, and MIYAOKA Osahito developed linguistic anthropology, discussing not only linguistics, but also the relationship between culture and language of Yup’ik Eskimos, and encouraged the Project on the Endangered Languages by actually teaching the Eskimo language to Eskimos in cooperation with the University of Alaska (MIYAOKA 1979; 1987; 1994).
　The ecological anthropological studies focusing on human activities were developed in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Tokyo. Activities, also referred to as works, were considered as the subject of scientific research, which could be recorded and analyzed according to time and space through fieldwork (IRIMOTO 1973; 1977a; 1977b, 1977c; 1977d; WATANABE ed. 1977a; 1977b). Based on this methodology, I conducted an ecological anthropological research on the Athapaskan (Dene) in the Canadian subarctic (IRIMOTO 1979; 1981)². The relationship between the ecology and worldview of caribou-hunters was further discussed, and published along with the records showing the process of the fieldwork (IRIMOTO 1983/2002). These studies formed the foundation of the theory and methodology for shizenshi – anthropology of nature and culture (IRIMOTO 1996), which was presented in a later year.
　As the National Museum of Ethnology was established in 1974 and opened 1977, through the endorsement of IZUMI Seiichi and UMESAO Tadao, who had been involved in northern studies before World War II, I was employed to develop joint studies on comparative research of northern hunter-gatherers with support from Director-General UMESAO Tadao, Director of Research Department SOFUE Takao, a psychological anthropologist; Director of Research Department KATO Kyuzo, a researcher of documents in Siberia and Central Asia (KATO 1974); and KOTANI Yoshinobu, a researcher of the cultural history of Alaskan Eskimos (KOTANI ed. 1980). In Japan, northern culture was conventionally framed in a relatively narrow sense as culture in the peripheral areas of Japan, such as Ainu culture. Having lively conversations with such scholars as WATANABE Hitoshi and OBAYASHI Taryo, who have a broad anthropological view over several years in these joint studies, in which researchers of northern studies throughout Japan gathered, I came to believe that it was necessary to compare and verify cultures commonly seen in the broad area of Northern Eurasia and North America. This broad view toward northern culture was in accordance with the internationally-accepted view of circumpolar – the North Pole and its periphery, and formed the foundation of my idea to study Eurasia, Japan and North America as a continuous and unified northern region as I described in the beginning of this paper regarding the definition of northern culture.
　Meanwhile, the Institute for the Study of North Eurasian Cultures at Hokkaido University was considered as the unique Institute for northern cultural studies in Japan.³ Its predecessor was the Research Institute for Northern and Arctic Culture, established by the Hokkaido Imperial University in 1937 as a research institute within the university. It developed unique fields of study in anthropology, folklore, ethnology and archaeology of northern areas, particularly those concerning the Ainu, and its achievements resulted in a 20-volume Studies from the Research Institute for Northern and Arctic Culture (1939–1965). During this period, anthropological and ethnological materials and documents and data on Hokkaido history were gathered together. They are currently stored in Northern Studies Collection, Hokkaido University Library, School of Medicine, and Museum Faculty of Agriculture. In 1947, Hokkaido Imperial University was renamed Hokkaido University. In 1966, the Research Institute for Northern and Arctic Culture was merged with the Institute of Eurasian Cultural Studies, which was established in 1964 in the Faculty of Letters, and newly established as a government facility, the Institute for the Study of Northern Eurasian Cultures, Faculty of Letters, Hokkaido University. Taking over Studies from the Research Institute for Northern and Arctic Culture (1939–1965) and Bulletin of the Institute of Eurasian Cultural Studies (1965), the institute published its research results on cultural anthropology and archaeology of northern areas in Bulletin of the Institute for the Study of North Eurasian Cultures Hokkaido University, 21 volumes (vol. 2–22) (1967–1995). However, since the institute accomplished a certain level of success and fulfilled its immediate role, it was closed in accordance with the reorganization of Faculty of Letters in 1995. Then, the Institute for the Study of Northern Cultures was newly established in Faculty of Letters and Graduate School of Letters to engage in research and education with the purposes of promoting research of northern areas including Eurasia, Japan and North America (IRIMOTO 1993; 2003: 362-363).
　At the former Institute for the Study of North Eurasian Cultures, I started research on northern cultures, focusing on that of the Ainu, in addition to the research of North America and Tibet that I had worked on at the National Museum of Ethnology. In respect to Ainu studies, as described in the Section of “Age of Exploration” in this paper, I started with a historical and cultural anthropological analysis of the Ainu in the Saru River region. Then, a bibliographical database on the Ainu was created, and a series of research on ecology, shamanism, ethnicity, identity, cultural revitalization, cultural creation and others were published during the 20 years up to the present day (YAMADA 2003: 87-88). Meanwhile, various northern cultures were comprehensively compared. With the goal of clarifying the characteristics of various northern cultures, Hoppo Gakkai, the Northern Studies Association (NSA), was established, and its journal Hoppo Gakkai Ho, Northern Studies Association Bulletin, 10-volume (no.1-10) (1992–2004) was published. In addition, international collaborative research was promoted. The first international symposium, the “International Conference on Religion and Ecology in Northern Eurasia and North America,” was held at Hokkaido University in 1991, in which, in addition to WATANABE Hitoshi, OBAYASHI Taryo and other researchers, internationally eminent pioneers in northern studies, including Frederica de LAGUNA from Bryn Mawr College, U.S.A. and Åke HULTKRANZ from the University of Stockholm, Sweden, presented papers (IRIMOTO and YAMADA eds. 1994).⁴ Subsequently, the second international symposium of the Northern Studies Association “Animism and Shamanism in the North” was held in 1995 (YAMADA and IRIMOTO eds. 1997) and the third international symposium of the Northern Studies Association “Ethnicity and Identity in the North” in 2000 (IRIMOTO and YAMADA eds. 2004), which culminated in three volumes of research results consisting of 77 anthropological and ethnological papers on northern cultures by researchers who participated in these symposiums from twelve countries: Japan, the United States, Canada, France, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Russia, Hungary, China, Mongol and the U.K.
　The first significance of the series of northern studies was that they were international collaborative studies. As a result, northern cultures, which had been approached with the focus on Japan, were able to be characterized from an international viewpoint. The second significance was that those who had been researched, such as the Ainu, indigenous American people, the Sami and the Mongols, participated in the symposiums on an equal footing with researchers, and presented papers on common subjects. The third significance was that the most recent anthropological issues were chosen and discussed, and thereby new paradigms for anthropology were acquired and distributed. Finally, the fourth significance was that a variety of unique studies were promoted and developed through the exchange of knowledge at the international symposiums.
　For example, YAMADA Takako discovered that the worldview of the Ainu was complimentary dualism (YAMADA 1994; 2001a). Based on this, she pioneered fieldwork in post-Soviet Siberia to research shamanism and the view of nature in Sakha (Yakut), and unveiled that the philosophy of symbiosis with nature worked as a message for the restoration of ethnicity and identity (YAMADA 1996; 1997; 1998; 1999; 2000; 2002b 2004). Additionally, she conducted studies on environmental conservation and religion in association with oil development in Siberia based on the fieldwork, targeting Khanty (YAMADA 2001b; YAMADA and GLAVATSKAYA 2002).
　Based on fieldwork on the Canadian Inuit, not only in villages, but also in urban areas, KISHIGAMI Nobuhiro pointed out that the Canadian Inuit reproduced human relations through the distribution of food and exchange of presents despite of changes in the society (KISHIGAMI 1994; 1997; 1998; 2004). Having researched Matagi, hunters in northern Japan, IKEYA Kazunobu further developed his research and discussed the cultural transformation and identity of Chukchi in post-Soviet Chukotka Peninsula (IKEYA 2002; 2004). On the basis of the studies of Soviet ethnology on a historical basis, SASAKI Shiro clarified the history of various ethnic groups in the Primorsky region from bibliographical materials (SASAKI 1994; 2002). KONAGAYA Yuki discussed the Mongolians’ view on animals through animal sacrifice (KONAGAYA 1997), and KUREBITO Megumi presented the cultural transformation and linguistic identity of the Koryak from a perspective of linguistic anthropology based on the fieldwork data (KUREBITO 2002; 2004). OHMAGARI Kayo discussed the identity of the Cree in Canada and the role of traditional food (OHMAGARI 2004), while INOUE Toshiaki analyzed oil-resource development and traditions in modern life in Gwich’in, Alaska (INOUE 2004). Concerning changes in subsistence activities and the issue of the identity in Inner Mongolia, China, ALTA (ALTA 1998; 2000; 2002; 2004) discussed using an ecological anthropological approach, and YUN Xiaomei discussed the identity of Tumed Mongols not only from a historical perspective but also based on the analysis of current social conditions (YUN 2000; 2003; 2004). Furthermore, ALTANBULAG conducted cultural anthropological analysis of the Mongol people’s sense of aesthetics based on their poetry, folk songs, and designs and patterns (ALTANBULAG 2001; 2002; 2003).
　Then, as an area study of northeast Asia including northern regions, SEGAWA Masahisa at the Center for Northeast Asian Studies, Tohoku University, conducted the cultural anthropological researches on the ethnicity of Han in South China (SEGAWA 1993; TSUKADA et al. ed. 2001), and TAKAKURA Hiroki analyzed socio-economic aspect of contemporary reindeer herders of east Siberia (TAKAKURA 2000). SUGA Yutaka at the Institute of Oriental Culture, Univ. of Tokyo, analyzed the subsistence strategies of Sho in China from the viewpoint of folklore and ecological anthropology (SUGA 2002), WATANABE Hibi, discussed the politics and culture of the post-Soviet Buryat (WATANABE 2003). STUART Henry at Hoso University and OMURA Keiichi at Osaka University discussed the cultural change and reproduction among the contemporary Inuit (STUART 1996; OMURA 1998).
　Meanwhile, I clarified characteristics of northern cultures, including the “original oneness” and the recognition of reciprocity between human and deities, based on the comparison between the Ainu in Japan and the Athapaskan in North America (IRIMOTO 1983/2002; 1994; 1996). Furthermore, I started new fieldwork for the first time as a foreigner in the post-Soviet Kamchatka region in 1993, 1995 and 1997 to conduct anthropological research on the ecology, worldview and rituals of reindeer-herding Koryak, and clarified the origin of and changes in nomadism and their idea of cosmic cycles based on the comparison between hunting and herding (IRIMOTO 2004b). In addition, I analyzed the worldview of and changes in shamanism in Inner Mongolia, China and Mongolia (IRIMOTO 2002), thus developing my research on the cultural dynamics of various ethnic groups, primarily in Northeast Asia (IRIMOTO ed. 2002).
　In northern areas, including Eurasia, Japan and North America, socio-economic changes, restoration of ethnicity and identity, and cultural dynamics after the collapse of the bipolar post-war confrontation have become common anthropological issues. Thus, northern studies have developed into the studies on the Age of the World.

Conclusion

Northern studies in Japan have gone through unique changes and developments during the long history before modern times. Research subjects have changed from Ainu culture to a variety of cultures in broad northern circumpolar areas including Northern Eurasia, Japan and North America. Study methodology also has changed from folklore and ethnology to shizenshi – anthropology of nature and culture, and study objectives have shifted from the clarification of the origin of the Japanese and their culture to the clarification of universal issues in anthropological studies – i.e., “What are human beings?”
　Shizenshi (spontaneous/natural record) referred here is a new anthropological theory and methodology, which could be called anthropology of nature and culture. The literal interpretation of shizen is “nature” in English; however, it also includes meanings “as it is, or whole truth” in Japanese, and -shi means “record.” Here, human beings are considered as nature as well as culture, and human lives, which is the common field for both physical anthropology and cultural anthropology, becomes to be a study subject. Also, human lives are considered as systems of activities. Shizenshi is accordingly the systemic description of human activities, in which culture and nature overlap each other. Empirical observational method is methodology that observers identify themselves with subjects and experience their world from inside (IRIMOTO 1996:9-21; IRIMOTO 2004b: 291).
　I characterize shizenshi as the integration of Japanese and Western science. Its framework as a whole is consisted of objective descriptions based on the traditional Japanese view of nature, and Western analytic thinking – “how” and “why” – are part of it. Traditional Japanese thinking – in which nature and culture are not regarded as two conflicting concepts, but considered essentially the same – can be recognized in Ainu pictures and archives depicting human surrounded by nature. Furthermore, it has been descended to the tradition of anthropology by HASEBE Kotondo, SUGIURA Kenichi and WATANABE Hitoshi, members of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Tokyo, all consistently placing greater importance on the “works” and “activities” of human beings, while adapting Western scientific anthropology since the Meiji era; Japanese folklore tradition by YANAGITA Kunio, whose academic goal and methodology was comprehensive description avoiding analysis; and anthropology tradition in Japan by ISHIDA Eiichiro of Department of Cultural Anthropology at the University of Tokyo, who stressed that anthropology was “one comprehensive science,” even when cultural anthropology was introduced after World War II, and focused on the understanding of human beings in general. While I succeeded to these traditions, I have also added a bit of the liberal spirit for human studies in socio-cultural anthropology I learned in Canada to them. I believe that if we can broadly present Japanese thought through shizenshi, a new perspective in the field of anthropology, it may beneficially contribute to the field of anthropology in the world.
　Through shizenshi, “original oneness” based on the idea that humans and animals are essentially the same, the recognition of the relationship between human and the supernatural has reciprocity, and the recognition of nature as a whole, including human from a perspective of cycle and symbiosis, were extracted as characteristics of northern cultures. It was then unveiled that these ideas were closely connected with ecology, society and worldview in hunting-based northern areas. However, I believe these characteristics might be some universal ideas of mankind not limited to northern cultures alone. To clarify why such ideas were born and how they now function in the framework of human evolution history is to understand the human mind and also to answer the anthropological thesis, “What are human beings?” Northern studies developed from the exploration of northern cultures to the search for the universality of human beings.
　Studies on the ethnicity and identity in northern cultures have revealed that the idea of symbiosis played the role of resolving ethnical conflicts. The importance of the functions of the symbiotic idea and agency in the creation and restoration of Ainu culture was accordingly pointed out (IRIMOTO 1995b; 2001; 2004c). The first half of the 21st century is said to be the age of ethnic conflicts. As seen in the collapse of socialistic states and other events, this is because the relationship between states and ethnic groups and that among ethnic groups have changed, and ethnic groups who had been oppressed started to assert themselves. A number of people were killed or became refugees during large conflicts involving such violations. It is therefore thought that various mechanisms for conflict resolution, once integrated into culture, must be illuminated using an anthropological approach.
　If northern studies are able to contribute to the resolution of these problems, answers to not only the question “What are human beings?” but also the thesis “How should human beings live?” will be surely provided. Through northern studies, we encounter issues common to human beings in addition to those unique to northern cultures. To talk about northern cultures is no longer to talk about issues of the limited areas. It is to discuss current anthropological issues, which can be seen beyond such limits, such as ecology, religion, nations, language, states, ethnicity, identity, society, activities, the mind, evolution, conflicts and conflict resolutions, and roles of studies. If this is the case, as an outlook for the future, we may be able to call the 21st century the “Age of the Humanity” for anthropology.
▲ページトップ
 Northern Studies in Japan(1)へ

Index＞研究課題＞1.北方文化研究の集大成＞Northern Studies in Japan(2)