Introduction

Processes of acculturation and assimilation in contact situations have been the subject of considerable interest to North American and Japanese prehistorians alike. In the latter case, research has emphasized the transition, beginning about 1000 BC, to the wet-rice-focussed Yayoi (Akazawa 1981, 1986) (see TABLE1 for plant nomenclature used in this paper). The spread of agriculture to northeastern Japan is usually viewed as a northeastward progression of a frmtier that reached northern Tohoku by the Middle Yayoi (FIGURES 1 & 2). However, the situation is more complex than this, in our view, and involves a spatial and cultural dichotomy between Hokkaido and northern Tohoku on the one hand and southern Tohokusouthwestern Japan on the other. Furthermore, we interpret Ainu culture (as distinct from the Ainu biological population) of Hokkaido and Sakhalin to be an outcome of a long period of social interaction along this boundary.

Maritime archaeology has recently started to make a contribution to the understanding of the history and archaeology of Southeast and East Asia. The first maritime archaeological excavations in this area started in the mid 1970s; a growing body of information is now providing new evidence on the history of ship-building and the mechanisms of trade relations in the region. This paper describes the sites that have been studied in an archaeological manner (FIGURE 1), and draws the reader’s attention to tentative conclusions that can be reached. Each region will be discussed briefly and the general nature of the research outlined.

Introduction

During the Yayoi Period of Japan (approximately 300 BC to 300 AD) tropical shell bracelets appear in elite burials in Kyushu (FIGURE 1) .In this paper I discuss recent investigations which indicate that these shells were produced in Okinawa, some 500 km. to the southwest of Kyushu, and were exchanged for Yayoi pottery vessels and possibly other artefacts. The context of this exchange system and the implications for Japanese prehistory are also considered.

Since 1984, underwater archaeological excavations have studied the Amsterdam, a ship of the Dutch East India Company (VOC). Three annual reports (Gawronski 1985; 1986; 1987) have been published by the VOC Schip Amsterdam Foundation covering excavations and research in 1984, 1985 and 1986. Rooij – Gawronski (1989) presents a detailed account of the history, methods and results of the Amsterdam project and background information about the ship and the VOC.

The Amsterdam, built in 1748 in Amsterdam, was lost during her maiden voyage, outwardbound for Batavia, the modern Djakarta, in January 1749 near the little town of Hastings on the south coast of England (FIGURE 1). The excavations form part of an integrated historical and archaeological programme to create relevant historical models for understanding the ship and its contents. This project aims to contribute to a more detailed and realistic view of the shipping and trade of the VOC in the 18th century.

Mounded tomb burial for the elite is the hallmark of Japan’s Kofun period (AD 280-700) This is also known to be the period of state formation, and the burials of the paramount chiefs or early kings are concentrated in the present-day prefectures of Nara and Osaka. This centre of power will be referred to in this article as the ‘central court’, in contrast to the surrounding regions of western Honshu such as Kyoto, Hyogo, and Okayama prefectures, which also have many mounded tomb burials. The central court in the 4th century is often called the Miwa Court and in the 5th century the Kawachi Court. The extent of influence or control of the central court over the regions in these centuries is an issue addressed in the following discussion.

Introduction

If maritime archaeology, ‘the scientific study of the material remains of man and his activities on the sea’ (Muckelroy 1978: 4), is to be regarded usefully as a subdiscipline, then a major unifying factor must be the existence of common methodologies applicable to the study of shipwrecks irrespective of their date and location. The special conditions of work underwater are by themselves inadequate grounds for distinction, as has now long been recognized (Bass 1966). Instead it is in aspects of analysis and explanation of wreck data that the subject may be set apart.

Consideration of the nature of ships and shipwrecks suggests the groundwork for a unitary methodology. Ships as structures, or as ‘self-regulating machines’ (Muckelroy 1978: 216–19), present universal features of construction and design; common environmental and technological parameters explain the closely similar development of nautical technologies in disparate societies and seas. The usual reasons for seafaring, for trade, travel, warfare, and fishing, can be seen to create standardized assemblages of shipboard material, of comparrable forms and lading arrangement. And fundamental regularities occur in the event of shipwreck and the underwater process of site formation. As the basis for analytical tools, the models allowed by these characteristics should clearly be open to more refinement as one concentrates on the data of particular maritime activities and regions.

Thirty years after Glyn Daniel's perceptive publication on the ‘idea of prehistory’ (Daniel 1962), the topic is enjoying a return engagement in the archaeological literature. Not only have the sources of the words for ‘prehistory’ been traced in various languages (Chippindale 1988; Clermont & Smith 1990). but a new nuance has been added to the word ‘idea’. In the new chapters added to the re-issue of Daniel’s book, Renfrew uses the phrase ‘idea of prehistory’ to mean ‘a picture of the past’ or a ‘reconstruction of the past’ (Daniel & Renfrew 1988: 198, 203). In other words, Renfrew has subtly shifted the meaning of ‘idea’ from the concept of a time of human existence before the advent of written history, as I perceive Daniel originally used it, to an interpretation of what went on in that time period.

The protection of archaeological sites on land and underwater

Archaeological sites underwater in the UK are in urgent need of better protection. The present legislation protects only a handful of sites, and serves unintentionally to encourage the dispersal and sale of historic artefacts from underwater sites. The principle underlying the proposals set out in this paper is that archaeological sites of national importance underwater should receive no less protection than those on land.

Current practice for the care of archaeological sites on land has evolved over a hundred years, since the Ancient Monuments Act of 1882. The situation underwater is very different. Special protective legislation, which goes back only to the 1973 Protection of Wrecks Act, is hampered by the absence of a system for the identification, characterization, and charting of historic wreck sites of national importance, and for securing their preservation. Moreover, underwater sites other than wrecks are not covered by the Act. Although, under the provisions of the Act, the Secretary of State for Transport is advised by an Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites, there is no executive archaeological agency comparable to those which exist on land to identify sites, to provide advice, and to channel resources for the preservation, management, and recording of underwater sites which are threatened by destruction. An Archaeological Diving Unit (ADU), created in 1986, advises the Department of Transport on a contractual basis; however, its terms of activity are severely limited, and it consists of just one full-time individual and two seasonal staff. Even the means to effect physical protection of sites, other than some marker buoying of wrecks designated under the 1973 Act, do not exist.