- Email: [email protected]
Ainu culture in transition
Futures 35 (2003) 951–959 www.elsevier.com/locate/futures
Ainu culture in transition S.C.H. Cheung ∗ Department of Anthropology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China
Abstract While indigenous rights are being widely discussed and cultures of indigenous peoples are becoming more known to the world, the current status of the indigenous Ainu people and their culture in contemporary Japanese society has not been fully explored. According to a 1999 Hokkaido local government survey, there are approximately 23,767 Ainu people living in Hokkaido and about 5000 in the Kanto area. However, very few of these individuals speak any Ainu language or practice the traditional way of life. This paper discusses the history and culture of the Ainu, and examines the social transformations that have taken place within this society since the enactment of the Ainu New Law in 1997, and the intervention of some innovative institutions aimed at supporting and revitalizing Ainu culture. It also presents material from ethnographic fieldwork interviews that reveal how some Ainu consider their cultural traditions and identity in Japan. 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Ainu culture in transition In 1941 Kindaiti Kyosuke, a renowned Japanese folklorist wrote the following about the Ainu: The Ainu are a specific race that lives only in some parts of the Japanese territory and is not found in any other part of the world. Its whole population is approximately 16,000 and it is generally divided into three kinds. Most of these people are the Ezo Ainu who live in the Hokkaido¯ or Ezo Island and constitute 90 per cent of the total number. Next come the Saghalien Ainu who inhabit the southern half of Karahuto or Saghalien. They constitute only a little less than 10 percent ∗
Tel.: +86-852-2609-7662. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.C.H. Cheung).
0016-3287/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(03)00051-X
952
S.C.H. Cheung / Futures 35 (2003) 951–959
of the total number. The rest are the Kurile Ainu who once lived in Tisima or the Kurile Islands. In the 17th year of Meizi (1884) they are transferred at the Government’s order to Sikotan, an island off the coast of the Hokkaido¯ . Since then they have also been called Sikotan Ainu. (pp.9–10) [3]. Although already 60 years have passed, our understanding of Ainu culture is still minimal. The effects on the Ainu of the rapid changes taking place in Japanese society have not been well researched to date.
2. The Ainu Ainu, which originally means ‘human’ in their language, is also the word currently used by Japanese to signify the indigenous people who settled in the land from northern Honshu to southern Kamchatka, including the southern Sakhalin Island, Kurile Islands and the lower reaches of the Amur River. The definition of Ainu has always been contested, and even the number of Ainu people in existence has been unknown until recently: 23,767 in the Hokkaido prefecture, and 5000 in the Kanto area. There are no official figures for Ainu living in Tokyo. However, it is likely that these population figures are low since there are many Ainu who choose to conceal their identity, reflecting the fact that some Ainu descendants try to conceal their ethnic backgrounds in order to avoid discrimination and social stigma. According to the 1999 population survey, the percentage of Ainu students who attended high school was 95.2%, that rose up from 69.3% in 1979, and the percentage that went on to college was 16.1%, from 8.8% in 1979. These figures are lower than the 1999 national average figures of 97.0 and 34.5%, respectively [2]. Despite some improvement during the last three decades, further reduction of the education gap will be necessary for the improvement of the Ainu’s social status. The status of the Ainu has varied throughout Japanese history. During the Tokugawa period (1603–1868), there were approximately 20,000–30,000 Ainu inhabitants under the suzerainty of the Matsumae domain, located in the southern part of the present Hokkaido. With the formation of the Japanese state under the Tokugawa shogunate, the Ainu identity, as distinguished from Japanese, was used to enhance the prestige of those rulers of the Matsumae domain through their control over the ‘primitive’ Ainu people. After the Meiji Restoration in 1868, the northern island, Ezo-chi, was renamed Hokkaido, and became the largest piece of land used by the modern Meiji nation-state for experimentation with imported western technologies. At that time, western technologies included the production of dairy products, salmon aquaculture, and canned product processing. These imported modern technologies enabled the supply of food to mainland Japan, justifying the colonization of Hokkaido during the early Meiji period (1868–1912). With the 1899 Law for the Protection of Native Hokkaido Aborigines, a policy of assimilation was forced upon the Ainu. As a consequence, their social structure and living environment went through a number of drastic changes as restrictions were put on their customs, language, and means of livelihood. The 1899 law con-
S.C.H. Cheung / Futures 35 (2003) 951–959
953
tained new land policies that violated the Ainu’s territorial integrity. It banned traditional subsistence strategies such as deer hunting and salmon fishing, and also forced the Ainu to cultivate rice for the Japanese mainland. The law also prohibited the practice of ancient Ainu customs and Ainu languages; with no writing system of their own, these prohibitions furthered the cultural destruction of Ainu society. There has also been a high rate of marriage between Ainu and Japanese that has contributed further to the erosion of the Ainu language and culture. It is not surprising, then, that traditional Ainu society had been largely destroyed by the beginning of the 20th century. In the last 100 years, Ainu traditional lifestyles have largely disappeared, and their rights have been overlooked within Japanese society. The traditional Ainu settlement—kotan—can no longer be seen, and the traditional grassthatch Ainu huts—chise—are almost non-existent, the exceptions being tourist areas where music and dance performances or handicraft souvenirs are offered. Later, in the 1950s and 1960s, interest in ethnic tourism and in the Ainu people began to grow. This raised questions about the substance and meaning of Ainu cultural identity in relationship to the culture and identity of the more numerous Japanese. The image of Ainu with their traditional costumes and exotic facial features became increasingly prevalent through the development of tourism. Group photographs taken with Ainu chiefs in traditional costumes reflected the fascination with difference within the Japanese population. Many touristic souvenirs comprised Ainu bear woodcrafts and ‘couple dolls’. Thus, the increase in post-war tourism, and its focus on the Ainu as commodity and symbols of indigenous Japan, contributed in a positive way to some modest revitalization within the Ainu community, but also raised question about their position in the social and political hierarchy of Japan.
3. Ainu as the observed other Looking at the anthropological approaches to studying Ainu culture over several decades maps the changing history of Ainu–Japanese relations. This also enables us to explore the meaning of ‘Japaneseness’ over time, and then examine how political forces have influenced this issue. One can see how the Ainu have occupied not only the position of the ‘other’ in Japanese society, but have also collectively become an agent (as a counter-self) in the construction of mainstream Japanese identity (in terms of difference). To understand the Ainu, then, is to understand the self-construction Japaneseness. Studies of Ainu culture and tradition were prevalent until the 1960s in Japan but have become less popular since then. I believe the decline in Japanese interest in the study of the Ainu is due in part to economic prosperity allowing field research in other areas of the world. Another reason is the increasing commercialization of Ainu culture through tourism. This has made ‘pure’ Ainu culture and traditions more difficult to discern, and there has been little interest in the study of the transformation and impoverishment of culture through touristic secularization (although this is both theoretically and ethnographically interesting). Also, largely ignored is the underlying conflict between Ainu and Japanese in the context of tourism, and the discourse
954
S.C.H. Cheung / Futures 35 (2003) 951–959
on the ‘authentic traditions’ of a strongly assimilated ethnic minority such as the Ainu [1]. An example of the latter issue is the debate over the meaning of the traditional festival of Marimo Sai (Marimo is a spherical alga found in Lake Akan, and sai means festival in Japanese). This example highlights the discrepancy between the definitions of traditional culture given by the mass public, and those by Ainu people. In the early 1920s, marimo was recognized as important natural heritage by the Japanese government; however, this spherical alga was continually being taken from Lake Akan, and even sold as souvenirs outside the area. In the 1940s, the marimo was declared endangered—not only through theft—but also because of naturally occurring environmental changes to the Lake itself. In order to help prevent the marimo from vanishing, local Ainu people established the Marimo Sai which was celebrated as ‘ritual of return’ as well as acknowledging the importance of harmony between humans and nature. (In traditional Ainu cosmology, there were two worlds—the human world and the supernatural world. They existed mutually, and living beings could transport from one to another easily. In particular, from the Ainu’s point of view, an animal was a spiritual visitor, symbolizing the gain of natural resources, and serving as a messenger who bridged human society and the supernatural world; therefore, their visit in the form of animals to the Ainu’s world actually denoted the gift giving between man and the supernatural in the Ainu cosmos. Similar explanation was used in the marimo sai as a form of return; with the emphasis upon the marimo’s return to nature, marimo sai was well accepted as the representation of Ainu cosmology.) The festival has been held continuously for over 50 years. The conflict surrounding the festival is regarding the authenticity of the meaning of the festival. The local Ainu assert that the festival reflects their own cosmological worldview that emphasizes the importance of reciprocity, symbolizing the harmony between human beings and nature. Outsiders argue that the Ainu simply invented the symbolism behind the festival for their own ends [4]. Since the 1970s, grassroots indigenous movements organized by Ainu people were growing in strength. They were demanding a national, rather than a regional policy that addressed their indigenous status and gave them special rights. The movement was not always peaceful, for example, there were protests against the Japanese Society of Ethnology in the late 1960s, a sculpture was bombed in Asahikawa in 1972, and a law suit for portrait rights in 1985 all revealed the hostility of the struggle [6]. Doubtlessly, what has changed most since the 1970s is the awareness among the Ainu that they need to preserve their cultural traditions for their descendants. However, as stated above, there remain so few Ainu who are able to speak Ainu as their mother tongue, and most are no longer practicing their traditional ways. Thus, the question to ask is whether or not it is desirable, or even possible, to revitalize this assimilating culture, and reconstruct from its remaining vestiges, a living Ainu culture?
S.C.H. Cheung / Futures 35 (2003) 951–959
955
4. Building the indigenous future: Ainu Shinpo 1997 As indigenous rights are becoming more widely discussed and cultures of indigenous peoples are becoming recognized throughout the world, the Ainu indigenous movement has also been raised to the international level, urging constitutional reforms to expand their leverage, recognition and rights at home. In 1993, the year before the International Year of the World’s Indigenous People, Nomura Giiti, the President of the Ainu Association of Hokkaido, was invited to participate in an international meeting organized by the United Nations. In his speech, Nomura shared Ainu concerns with other indigenous groups, including the experience of the Ainu under the Japanese government’s policy of assimilation after the late 19th century. He called for the United Nations to set international standards against discrimination and support the Ainu people in negotiating with the Japanese government [5]. The Ainu Shinpo (meaning ‘new law’) was drafted and proposed in 1984, and finally passed on 8 May 1997. It states that: The law aims to realize the society in which the ethnic pride of the Ainu people is respected and to contribute to the development of diverse cultures in our country, by the implementation of the measures for the promotion of Ainu culture, referring to the situation of Ainu traditions and culture from which the Ainu people find their ethnic pride… ‘Ainu Culture’ in this law means the Ainu language; music, dance, crafts and other cultural properties that have been inherited by the Ainu people; as well as other cultural properties developed from these [2]. Thus, the Japanese government had finally given limited formal recognition to the Ainu as the indigenous minority within Japanese territory, at least in Hokkaido. The general reaction from the Ainu at the time of the endorsement of the new law was that it was ‘late in coming and did not include enough concrete change’. Yet with this initial step, both Ainu and Japanese people assumed and expected more cultural preservation of language and traditions, as well as legal protection for traditional land use, anti-discrimination policies, and a general improvement in Ainu social status. After the Ainu Shinpo was enacted in 1997, there were some positive changes seen by Ainu people in Hokkaido. They saw an increase in financial support for various kinds of cultural activities; and conference, exhibition, and cultural exchanges with other indigenous groups in other countries increased. This provided the Ainu with opportunities to enhance their ‘indigenous’ status in Japan, and to build contacts and share information with indigenous people around the world. At the institutional level, the Foundation for Research and Promotion of Ainu Culture (FRPAC, http://www.frpac.or.jp) was established in 1997, almost at the same time as the enactment of the Ainu Shinpo. The FRPAC started with an endowment of JPY100 million (of which JPY 90 million is from the Hokkaido government and JPY 10 million is from 62 municipalities in Hokkaido that include Ainu residents) allocated to support diverse activities. With their two offices in Hokkaido and Tokyo,
956
S.C.H. Cheung / Futures 35 (2003) 951–959
FRPAC operates under the four basic policies in promoting Ainu cultural traditions in Japan and the rest of the world as shown in Table 1. During the past few years, FRPAC’s work has included providing different kinds of publications such as textbooks for primary and junior high schools, a handbook on place names (terminology) in Ainu language with relevant elaboration. Also, exhibition catalogues, monographs on Ainu history and culture (in different languages) for Japanese and foreigners, as well as other related materials, have been published with the support of FRPAC. A number of comprehensive exhibitions were co-sponsored by overseas institutes for the enhancement of public interest in Ainu culture in Japan. For example: 앫 The exhibition of German collections from museums in Berlin, Ko¨ ln, and Leipzig held in Shiraoi Ainu Museum in 1999. 앫 Ainu–Northern People and their World: Baba and Kodama Collections held in Hiroshima and Nagoya in 2000. 앫 The exhibition of Gordon Neil Munro’s collection will be held in Edinburgh, Scotland from August 2001 and in Sapporo in 2002. In addition to the beneficial legal and institutional changes that benefit the Ainu, it is equally if not more important to find out on the individual and societal level how the relations between Ainu and Japanese were affected. In the following Section 5, Table 1 FRPAC’s four basic policies and relevant major activities in promoting Ainu culture Policies
Major activities
1. Promotion of comprehensive and practical research Provide research subsidies and publication on the Ainu subsidies for outstanding projects 2. Promotion of the Ainu language Training language instructors Language classes Radio courses, and Speech contests 3. Promotion of Ainu culture Training storytellers to pass down oral Ainu literature A manual for Ainu lifestyles and culture Dispatching advisors on Ainu cultural activities Contest and exhibition for Ainu traditional craftwork Ainu cultural festival, cultural award, and International exchange 4. Dissemination of knowledge on Ainu traditions Distributing textbook for elementary and junior high school students Home page Seminars, lectures Establishing Ainu Culture Society and Ainu Culture Center
S.C.H. Cheung / Futures 35 (2003) 951–959
957
I would like to draw the attention on Ainu–Japanese relations through a brief review of ethnographic fieldwork interviews that I conducted among some Ainu residents during my visit to Hokkaido in the summer of 2001.
5. Interviews The purpose of the interviews was to understand the relationship that individuals had with their own history, culture, and traditional ways: how did they value it? Was it even relevant to their everyday lives; was it a positive or negative influence on their lives? Were they benefiting from the new status as a unique and salient culture? I will present parts of three interviews: ‘K’ an employee of an Ainu museum; ‘S’ a souvenir shop owner who started learning Ainu language in her early 30s and taught on a radio program; and finally, ‘B’ a president of a local Ainu association in a well-known tourist destination, and a promoter of Ainu culture in the interest of community development. K was born in Piraoi in the 1950s. She works in a local Ainu museum founded in the mid-1980s. Ainus have lived in Piraoi since the 15th century. During the Tokugawa period, Japanese were sent from the Sendai domain, to live in Piraoi. Interaction between the two groups increased from that time. Both K’s grandfather and grandmother are descendants of intermarriage between Ainu and Japanese, or kongetsu (mixed blood). K’s grandfather died when she was eight years old. She remembers that the funeral combined a small part of Ainu ritual for the fire god, but otherwise consisted mainly of Buddhist rituals. There was no specific moment that K became aware of herself as Ainu. But she remembers a fight with another child when some classmates referred to her as ‘Ainu’. Apart from that, K was not aware of her Ainu side until the second year of junior high school. K lived by herself in Tokyo until the first year of high school. An agent scouting for an Ainu girl hired her as a singer. (In the 1970s, the image of Ainu was used for some pop music.) K recorded two single albums with songs which included Ainu words, but she was still not yet interested in learning more about Ainu culture. After finishing high school, K worked for a paper company for three years, and then at a gasoline stand for another five years. Next, she worked in the ticket office of the Ainu museum, and later joined the museum’s Ainu dance performance. She appeared both in the Tsukuba Exposition and in Okinawa. The turning point in K’s life came in her late 20s when she began work as a junior researcher at the museum. She became intensely interested in the study of Ainu culture. She became involved in documenting a ‘representative’ ritual called Iyomante and wrote her first research paper about how food was prepared for the ritual. She enjoyed investigating the meanings of Ainu culture and participating in cultural exchange activities with Finland and England. The second interviewee ‘S’, owns a souvenir store that sells Ainu related artifacts. Born in Piraoi in 1940, S is of Ainu and Japanese parentage. Between the Taisho and early Showa period, there were about 70 Ainu households with 350–400 individuals living in a traditional Ainu settlement (or kotan). S’s Ainu father worked as a
958
S.C.H. Cheung / Futures 35 (2003) 951–959
photographer for several years, but in order to pay for his education, he hunted wild animals including weasels, sables, foxes, and badgers for their fur. Many years later, in Piraoi, S’s father played the role of an Ainu chief at the tourist site for 16 years. After S’s father died in 1988, she began learning the Ainu language and later taught Ainu on a radio program (now Ainu is taught in at least 10 regions). It is widely believed that broadcast programs can reach people who might not have the facilities to learn the language any other way. The third interviewee ‘B’, is the president of the Akan Branch of the Ainu Association of Hokkaido. He was brought up in an environment which displays Ainu culture to tourists. In Akan, there are at least four institutes involved in either preserving or promoting Ainu culture. Moreover, cultural exchange in the forms of traditional dances and folk music performances between Akan Ainu and other countries is very popular. Starting from the 1980s, members of the Akan Yukar Theater, a group of performing artists in Akan area, have been traveling to Hong Kong, Taiwan, Australia, North America (Alaska, Canada), and Europe (France, Italy), to participate in major international cultural events. One of the biggest projects after the enactment of the Ainu New Law is the iwor or cultural park establishment. In Ainu language, iwor refers to a deep (remote) mountain, and also signifies the hunting ground of one village or joint hunting territory shared by several villages. It means, therefore, one’s living area and provides a boundary, symbolizing the sense of belonging. The idea of cultural park came from the ‘eco-museum’ model in France. With the emphasis upon a traditional ‘living’ environment, applicants were invited to submit project proposals to institutes such as the Alaska Native Heritage Center and Maori museums in New Zealand, and local cultural theme parks all over Japan; proposal should include facilities such as museums, research and learning center, traditional dwellings, village houses, and other facilities. Of the six proposals submitted, one targeted the Akan area. Some controversy surrounded the Akan iwor project since it appeared to represent the totality of Ainu culture. There have been several organizational disputes among regional groups during the last few years, due to the fact that Ainu culture is not one culture, but expresses regional cultural distinctions.
6. Discussion of interviews Although the persons interviewed were raised with some Ainu background, their understanding of, and affinity for, Ainu culture differed in certain aspects. There were similarities in the following areas: none expressed a desire for their children to learn more about their cultural heritage; none exhibited any obsession about Ainu traditional culture or felt there was a need to educate the coming generation about Ainu culture. They did not seem particularly interested in investigating their own Ainu ancestry, even though some were involved in the preservation of Ainu culture. Curiously, they were reluctant to explain the motivations behind their involvement. On the issue of Ainu heritage, there were differences: ‘K’ showed more interest in Ainu material culture, which she valued for its role in concretizing Ainu history
S.C.H. Cheung / Futures 35 (2003) 951–959
959
and lifestyles for outsiders. ‘S’ was interested in the Ainu language as a reflection of people’s mind and thoughts. And ‘B’ believed that the Ainu should adapt to modern ways since it is not easy or feasible to live in the old ways. However, to see traditional Ainu music and folk dance gives some pride in Ainu heritage. As the interviews progressed, the informants became more relaxed and began to talk more freely and show more emotion about their heritage. As in the case of other ethnic minority groups around the world, the Ainu in Japan require an environment in society in which they can express how they think and ask for what they expect; this environment did not develop until the 1970s. Since that time, much effort has gone in to the preservation and promotion of Ainu culture that was looking more robust by the end of the 1990s. Exhibitions in Ainu museums, broadcast programs for Ainu language and cultural exchanges in the form of performing arts, have all successfully made Ainu culture more visible and have given people the impetus to think about what it means to be Ainu. 7. In the future Since the changes that occurred after the 1970s, Ainu culture is now facing another critical period. The survival of Ainu culture, whatever form it will take, depends on how the indigenous rights of Ainu are interpreted at both individual and national levels; on how seriously the Japanese government implements the laws protecting indigenous and minority rights and cultural heritage; and on whether Ainu as ‘other’ remain important to the Japanese in the articulation of their identity. The Ainu Shinpo and institutions such as the Foundation for Research and Promotion of Ainu Culture, already represent a step in a new direction in Ainu–Japanese relations. The cultural park establishment as well as the reterritorialization of the iwor of the Ainu (in Hokkaido at least), represents another concrete and progressive measure allowing the Ainu private control of their natural resources, reaffirmation of their identity, and legitimization of their lifestyle and customs. Despite continuing challenges, we are sure to see new cultural forms generated from the interaction between Ainu selfdetermination and the larger Japanese society. References [1] S.C.H. Cheung, Japanese anthropology and depictions of the Ainu, in: J. Bosco, J.S. Eades, S. Yamashita (Eds.), The Making of Anthropology in East and Southeast Asia, Berghahn Books, Oxford, in press. [2] Foundation for Research and Promotion of Ainu Culture (FRPAC), To Understand the Ainu, Foundation for Research and Promotion of Ainu Culture, Sapporo, 2000. [3] K. Kindaiti, Ainu Life and Legends, Japan, Board of Tourist Industry, Japanese Government Railways, Japan, 1941. [4] Lake Akan Ainu Association (LAAA), Retrospect of Marimo Festival in 50th year Anniversary, Lake Akan Ainu Association, Akan, 2000. [5] G. Nomura, Live as an Aynu, Saifukan, Tokyo, 1996 (in Japanese). [6] A. Shimizu, Cooperation, not domination: a rejoinder to Niessen on the Ainu exhibition at Minpaku, Museum Anthropology 20 (3) (1996) 120–131.
Ainu culture in transition S.C.H. Cheung ∗ Department of Anthropology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China
Abstract While indigenous rights are being widely discussed and cultures of indigenous peoples are becoming more known to the world, the current status of the indigenous Ainu people and their culture in contemporary Japanese society has not been fully explored. According to a 1999 Hokkaido local government survey, there are approximately 23,767 Ainu people living in Hokkaido and about 5000 in the Kanto area. However, very few of these individuals speak any Ainu language or practice the traditional way of life. This paper discusses the history and culture of the Ainu, and examines the social transformations that have taken place within this society since the enactment of the Ainu New Law in 1997, and the intervention of some innovative institutions aimed at supporting and revitalizing Ainu culture. It also presents material from ethnographic fieldwork interviews that reveal how some Ainu consider their cultural traditions and identity in Japan. 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Ainu culture in transition In 1941 Kindaiti Kyosuke, a renowned Japanese folklorist wrote the following about the Ainu: The Ainu are a specific race that lives only in some parts of the Japanese territory and is not found in any other part of the world. Its whole population is approximately 16,000 and it is generally divided into three kinds. Most of these people are the Ezo Ainu who live in the Hokkaido¯ or Ezo Island and constitute 90 per cent of the total number. Next come the Saghalien Ainu who inhabit the southern half of Karahuto or Saghalien. They constitute only a little less than 10 percent ∗
Tel.: +86-852-2609-7662. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.C.H. Cheung).
0016-3287/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(03)00051-X
952
S.C.H. Cheung / Futures 35 (2003) 951–959
of the total number. The rest are the Kurile Ainu who once lived in Tisima or the Kurile Islands. In the 17th year of Meizi (1884) they are transferred at the Government’s order to Sikotan, an island off the coast of the Hokkaido¯ . Since then they have also been called Sikotan Ainu. (pp.9–10) [3]. Although already 60 years have passed, our understanding of Ainu culture is still minimal. The effects on the Ainu of the rapid changes taking place in Japanese society have not been well researched to date.
2. The Ainu Ainu, which originally means ‘human’ in their language, is also the word currently used by Japanese to signify the indigenous people who settled in the land from northern Honshu to southern Kamchatka, including the southern Sakhalin Island, Kurile Islands and the lower reaches of the Amur River. The definition of Ainu has always been contested, and even the number of Ainu people in existence has been unknown until recently: 23,767 in the Hokkaido prefecture, and 5000 in the Kanto area. There are no official figures for Ainu living in Tokyo. However, it is likely that these population figures are low since there are many Ainu who choose to conceal their identity, reflecting the fact that some Ainu descendants try to conceal their ethnic backgrounds in order to avoid discrimination and social stigma. According to the 1999 population survey, the percentage of Ainu students who attended high school was 95.2%, that rose up from 69.3% in 1979, and the percentage that went on to college was 16.1%, from 8.8% in 1979. These figures are lower than the 1999 national average figures of 97.0 and 34.5%, respectively [2]. Despite some improvement during the last three decades, further reduction of the education gap will be necessary for the improvement of the Ainu’s social status. The status of the Ainu has varied throughout Japanese history. During the Tokugawa period (1603–1868), there were approximately 20,000–30,000 Ainu inhabitants under the suzerainty of the Matsumae domain, located in the southern part of the present Hokkaido. With the formation of the Japanese state under the Tokugawa shogunate, the Ainu identity, as distinguished from Japanese, was used to enhance the prestige of those rulers of the Matsumae domain through their control over the ‘primitive’ Ainu people. After the Meiji Restoration in 1868, the northern island, Ezo-chi, was renamed Hokkaido, and became the largest piece of land used by the modern Meiji nation-state for experimentation with imported western technologies. At that time, western technologies included the production of dairy products, salmon aquaculture, and canned product processing. These imported modern technologies enabled the supply of food to mainland Japan, justifying the colonization of Hokkaido during the early Meiji period (1868–1912). With the 1899 Law for the Protection of Native Hokkaido Aborigines, a policy of assimilation was forced upon the Ainu. As a consequence, their social structure and living environment went through a number of drastic changes as restrictions were put on their customs, language, and means of livelihood. The 1899 law con-
S.C.H. Cheung / Futures 35 (2003) 951–959
953
tained new land policies that violated the Ainu’s territorial integrity. It banned traditional subsistence strategies such as deer hunting and salmon fishing, and also forced the Ainu to cultivate rice for the Japanese mainland. The law also prohibited the practice of ancient Ainu customs and Ainu languages; with no writing system of their own, these prohibitions furthered the cultural destruction of Ainu society. There has also been a high rate of marriage between Ainu and Japanese that has contributed further to the erosion of the Ainu language and culture. It is not surprising, then, that traditional Ainu society had been largely destroyed by the beginning of the 20th century. In the last 100 years, Ainu traditional lifestyles have largely disappeared, and their rights have been overlooked within Japanese society. The traditional Ainu settlement—kotan—can no longer be seen, and the traditional grassthatch Ainu huts—chise—are almost non-existent, the exceptions being tourist areas where music and dance performances or handicraft souvenirs are offered. Later, in the 1950s and 1960s, interest in ethnic tourism and in the Ainu people began to grow. This raised questions about the substance and meaning of Ainu cultural identity in relationship to the culture and identity of the more numerous Japanese. The image of Ainu with their traditional costumes and exotic facial features became increasingly prevalent through the development of tourism. Group photographs taken with Ainu chiefs in traditional costumes reflected the fascination with difference within the Japanese population. Many touristic souvenirs comprised Ainu bear woodcrafts and ‘couple dolls’. Thus, the increase in post-war tourism, and its focus on the Ainu as commodity and symbols of indigenous Japan, contributed in a positive way to some modest revitalization within the Ainu community, but also raised question about their position in the social and political hierarchy of Japan.
3. Ainu as the observed other Looking at the anthropological approaches to studying Ainu culture over several decades maps the changing history of Ainu–Japanese relations. This also enables us to explore the meaning of ‘Japaneseness’ over time, and then examine how political forces have influenced this issue. One can see how the Ainu have occupied not only the position of the ‘other’ in Japanese society, but have also collectively become an agent (as a counter-self) in the construction of mainstream Japanese identity (in terms of difference). To understand the Ainu, then, is to understand the self-construction Japaneseness. Studies of Ainu culture and tradition were prevalent until the 1960s in Japan but have become less popular since then. I believe the decline in Japanese interest in the study of the Ainu is due in part to economic prosperity allowing field research in other areas of the world. Another reason is the increasing commercialization of Ainu culture through tourism. This has made ‘pure’ Ainu culture and traditions more difficult to discern, and there has been little interest in the study of the transformation and impoverishment of culture through touristic secularization (although this is both theoretically and ethnographically interesting). Also, largely ignored is the underlying conflict between Ainu and Japanese in the context of tourism, and the discourse
954
S.C.H. Cheung / Futures 35 (2003) 951–959
on the ‘authentic traditions’ of a strongly assimilated ethnic minority such as the Ainu [1]. An example of the latter issue is the debate over the meaning of the traditional festival of Marimo Sai (Marimo is a spherical alga found in Lake Akan, and sai means festival in Japanese). This example highlights the discrepancy between the definitions of traditional culture given by the mass public, and those by Ainu people. In the early 1920s, marimo was recognized as important natural heritage by the Japanese government; however, this spherical alga was continually being taken from Lake Akan, and even sold as souvenirs outside the area. In the 1940s, the marimo was declared endangered—not only through theft—but also because of naturally occurring environmental changes to the Lake itself. In order to help prevent the marimo from vanishing, local Ainu people established the Marimo Sai which was celebrated as ‘ritual of return’ as well as acknowledging the importance of harmony between humans and nature. (In traditional Ainu cosmology, there were two worlds—the human world and the supernatural world. They existed mutually, and living beings could transport from one to another easily. In particular, from the Ainu’s point of view, an animal was a spiritual visitor, symbolizing the gain of natural resources, and serving as a messenger who bridged human society and the supernatural world; therefore, their visit in the form of animals to the Ainu’s world actually denoted the gift giving between man and the supernatural in the Ainu cosmos. Similar explanation was used in the marimo sai as a form of return; with the emphasis upon the marimo’s return to nature, marimo sai was well accepted as the representation of Ainu cosmology.) The festival has been held continuously for over 50 years. The conflict surrounding the festival is regarding the authenticity of the meaning of the festival. The local Ainu assert that the festival reflects their own cosmological worldview that emphasizes the importance of reciprocity, symbolizing the harmony between human beings and nature. Outsiders argue that the Ainu simply invented the symbolism behind the festival for their own ends [4]. Since the 1970s, grassroots indigenous movements organized by Ainu people were growing in strength. They were demanding a national, rather than a regional policy that addressed their indigenous status and gave them special rights. The movement was not always peaceful, for example, there were protests against the Japanese Society of Ethnology in the late 1960s, a sculpture was bombed in Asahikawa in 1972, and a law suit for portrait rights in 1985 all revealed the hostility of the struggle [6]. Doubtlessly, what has changed most since the 1970s is the awareness among the Ainu that they need to preserve their cultural traditions for their descendants. However, as stated above, there remain so few Ainu who are able to speak Ainu as their mother tongue, and most are no longer practicing their traditional ways. Thus, the question to ask is whether or not it is desirable, or even possible, to revitalize this assimilating culture, and reconstruct from its remaining vestiges, a living Ainu culture?
S.C.H. Cheung / Futures 35 (2003) 951–959
955
4. Building the indigenous future: Ainu Shinpo 1997 As indigenous rights are becoming more widely discussed and cultures of indigenous peoples are becoming recognized throughout the world, the Ainu indigenous movement has also been raised to the international level, urging constitutional reforms to expand their leverage, recognition and rights at home. In 1993, the year before the International Year of the World’s Indigenous People, Nomura Giiti, the President of the Ainu Association of Hokkaido, was invited to participate in an international meeting organized by the United Nations. In his speech, Nomura shared Ainu concerns with other indigenous groups, including the experience of the Ainu under the Japanese government’s policy of assimilation after the late 19th century. He called for the United Nations to set international standards against discrimination and support the Ainu people in negotiating with the Japanese government [5]. The Ainu Shinpo (meaning ‘new law’) was drafted and proposed in 1984, and finally passed on 8 May 1997. It states that: The law aims to realize the society in which the ethnic pride of the Ainu people is respected and to contribute to the development of diverse cultures in our country, by the implementation of the measures for the promotion of Ainu culture, referring to the situation of Ainu traditions and culture from which the Ainu people find their ethnic pride… ‘Ainu Culture’ in this law means the Ainu language; music, dance, crafts and other cultural properties that have been inherited by the Ainu people; as well as other cultural properties developed from these [2]. Thus, the Japanese government had finally given limited formal recognition to the Ainu as the indigenous minority within Japanese territory, at least in Hokkaido. The general reaction from the Ainu at the time of the endorsement of the new law was that it was ‘late in coming and did not include enough concrete change’. Yet with this initial step, both Ainu and Japanese people assumed and expected more cultural preservation of language and traditions, as well as legal protection for traditional land use, anti-discrimination policies, and a general improvement in Ainu social status. After the Ainu Shinpo was enacted in 1997, there were some positive changes seen by Ainu people in Hokkaido. They saw an increase in financial support for various kinds of cultural activities; and conference, exhibition, and cultural exchanges with other indigenous groups in other countries increased. This provided the Ainu with opportunities to enhance their ‘indigenous’ status in Japan, and to build contacts and share information with indigenous people around the world. At the institutional level, the Foundation for Research and Promotion of Ainu Culture (FRPAC, http://www.frpac.or.jp) was established in 1997, almost at the same time as the enactment of the Ainu Shinpo. The FRPAC started with an endowment of JPY100 million (of which JPY 90 million is from the Hokkaido government and JPY 10 million is from 62 municipalities in Hokkaido that include Ainu residents) allocated to support diverse activities. With their two offices in Hokkaido and Tokyo,
956
S.C.H. Cheung / Futures 35 (2003) 951–959
FRPAC operates under the four basic policies in promoting Ainu cultural traditions in Japan and the rest of the world as shown in Table 1. During the past few years, FRPAC’s work has included providing different kinds of publications such as textbooks for primary and junior high schools, a handbook on place names (terminology) in Ainu language with relevant elaboration. Also, exhibition catalogues, monographs on Ainu history and culture (in different languages) for Japanese and foreigners, as well as other related materials, have been published with the support of FRPAC. A number of comprehensive exhibitions were co-sponsored by overseas institutes for the enhancement of public interest in Ainu culture in Japan. For example: 앫 The exhibition of German collections from museums in Berlin, Ko¨ ln, and Leipzig held in Shiraoi Ainu Museum in 1999. 앫 Ainu–Northern People and their World: Baba and Kodama Collections held in Hiroshima and Nagoya in 2000. 앫 The exhibition of Gordon Neil Munro’s collection will be held in Edinburgh, Scotland from August 2001 and in Sapporo in 2002. In addition to the beneficial legal and institutional changes that benefit the Ainu, it is equally if not more important to find out on the individual and societal level how the relations between Ainu and Japanese were affected. In the following Section 5, Table 1 FRPAC’s four basic policies and relevant major activities in promoting Ainu culture Policies
Major activities
1. Promotion of comprehensive and practical research Provide research subsidies and publication on the Ainu subsidies for outstanding projects 2. Promotion of the Ainu language Training language instructors Language classes Radio courses, and Speech contests 3. Promotion of Ainu culture Training storytellers to pass down oral Ainu literature A manual for Ainu lifestyles and culture Dispatching advisors on Ainu cultural activities Contest and exhibition for Ainu traditional craftwork Ainu cultural festival, cultural award, and International exchange 4. Dissemination of knowledge on Ainu traditions Distributing textbook for elementary and junior high school students Home page Seminars, lectures Establishing Ainu Culture Society and Ainu Culture Center
S.C.H. Cheung / Futures 35 (2003) 951–959
957
I would like to draw the attention on Ainu–Japanese relations through a brief review of ethnographic fieldwork interviews that I conducted among some Ainu residents during my visit to Hokkaido in the summer of 2001.
5. Interviews The purpose of the interviews was to understand the relationship that individuals had with their own history, culture, and traditional ways: how did they value it? Was it even relevant to their everyday lives; was it a positive or negative influence on their lives? Were they benefiting from the new status as a unique and salient culture? I will present parts of three interviews: ‘K’ an employee of an Ainu museum; ‘S’ a souvenir shop owner who started learning Ainu language in her early 30s and taught on a radio program; and finally, ‘B’ a president of a local Ainu association in a well-known tourist destination, and a promoter of Ainu culture in the interest of community development. K was born in Piraoi in the 1950s. She works in a local Ainu museum founded in the mid-1980s. Ainus have lived in Piraoi since the 15th century. During the Tokugawa period, Japanese were sent from the Sendai domain, to live in Piraoi. Interaction between the two groups increased from that time. Both K’s grandfather and grandmother are descendants of intermarriage between Ainu and Japanese, or kongetsu (mixed blood). K’s grandfather died when she was eight years old. She remembers that the funeral combined a small part of Ainu ritual for the fire god, but otherwise consisted mainly of Buddhist rituals. There was no specific moment that K became aware of herself as Ainu. But she remembers a fight with another child when some classmates referred to her as ‘Ainu’. Apart from that, K was not aware of her Ainu side until the second year of junior high school. K lived by herself in Tokyo until the first year of high school. An agent scouting for an Ainu girl hired her as a singer. (In the 1970s, the image of Ainu was used for some pop music.) K recorded two single albums with songs which included Ainu words, but she was still not yet interested in learning more about Ainu culture. After finishing high school, K worked for a paper company for three years, and then at a gasoline stand for another five years. Next, she worked in the ticket office of the Ainu museum, and later joined the museum’s Ainu dance performance. She appeared both in the Tsukuba Exposition and in Okinawa. The turning point in K’s life came in her late 20s when she began work as a junior researcher at the museum. She became intensely interested in the study of Ainu culture. She became involved in documenting a ‘representative’ ritual called Iyomante and wrote her first research paper about how food was prepared for the ritual. She enjoyed investigating the meanings of Ainu culture and participating in cultural exchange activities with Finland and England. The second interviewee ‘S’, owns a souvenir store that sells Ainu related artifacts. Born in Piraoi in 1940, S is of Ainu and Japanese parentage. Between the Taisho and early Showa period, there were about 70 Ainu households with 350–400 individuals living in a traditional Ainu settlement (or kotan). S’s Ainu father worked as a
958
S.C.H. Cheung / Futures 35 (2003) 951–959
photographer for several years, but in order to pay for his education, he hunted wild animals including weasels, sables, foxes, and badgers for their fur. Many years later, in Piraoi, S’s father played the role of an Ainu chief at the tourist site for 16 years. After S’s father died in 1988, she began learning the Ainu language and later taught Ainu on a radio program (now Ainu is taught in at least 10 regions). It is widely believed that broadcast programs can reach people who might not have the facilities to learn the language any other way. The third interviewee ‘B’, is the president of the Akan Branch of the Ainu Association of Hokkaido. He was brought up in an environment which displays Ainu culture to tourists. In Akan, there are at least four institutes involved in either preserving or promoting Ainu culture. Moreover, cultural exchange in the forms of traditional dances and folk music performances between Akan Ainu and other countries is very popular. Starting from the 1980s, members of the Akan Yukar Theater, a group of performing artists in Akan area, have been traveling to Hong Kong, Taiwan, Australia, North America (Alaska, Canada), and Europe (France, Italy), to participate in major international cultural events. One of the biggest projects after the enactment of the Ainu New Law is the iwor or cultural park establishment. In Ainu language, iwor refers to a deep (remote) mountain, and also signifies the hunting ground of one village or joint hunting territory shared by several villages. It means, therefore, one’s living area and provides a boundary, symbolizing the sense of belonging. The idea of cultural park came from the ‘eco-museum’ model in France. With the emphasis upon a traditional ‘living’ environment, applicants were invited to submit project proposals to institutes such as the Alaska Native Heritage Center and Maori museums in New Zealand, and local cultural theme parks all over Japan; proposal should include facilities such as museums, research and learning center, traditional dwellings, village houses, and other facilities. Of the six proposals submitted, one targeted the Akan area. Some controversy surrounded the Akan iwor project since it appeared to represent the totality of Ainu culture. There have been several organizational disputes among regional groups during the last few years, due to the fact that Ainu culture is not one culture, but expresses regional cultural distinctions.
6. Discussion of interviews Although the persons interviewed were raised with some Ainu background, their understanding of, and affinity for, Ainu culture differed in certain aspects. There were similarities in the following areas: none expressed a desire for their children to learn more about their cultural heritage; none exhibited any obsession about Ainu traditional culture or felt there was a need to educate the coming generation about Ainu culture. They did not seem particularly interested in investigating their own Ainu ancestry, even though some were involved in the preservation of Ainu culture. Curiously, they were reluctant to explain the motivations behind their involvement. On the issue of Ainu heritage, there were differences: ‘K’ showed more interest in Ainu material culture, which she valued for its role in concretizing Ainu history
S.C.H. Cheung / Futures 35 (2003) 951–959
959
and lifestyles for outsiders. ‘S’ was interested in the Ainu language as a reflection of people’s mind and thoughts. And ‘B’ believed that the Ainu should adapt to modern ways since it is not easy or feasible to live in the old ways. However, to see traditional Ainu music and folk dance gives some pride in Ainu heritage. As the interviews progressed, the informants became more relaxed and began to talk more freely and show more emotion about their heritage. As in the case of other ethnic minority groups around the world, the Ainu in Japan require an environment in society in which they can express how they think and ask for what they expect; this environment did not develop until the 1970s. Since that time, much effort has gone in to the preservation and promotion of Ainu culture that was looking more robust by the end of the 1990s. Exhibitions in Ainu museums, broadcast programs for Ainu language and cultural exchanges in the form of performing arts, have all successfully made Ainu culture more visible and have given people the impetus to think about what it means to be Ainu. 7. In the future Since the changes that occurred after the 1970s, Ainu culture is now facing another critical period. The survival of Ainu culture, whatever form it will take, depends on how the indigenous rights of Ainu are interpreted at both individual and national levels; on how seriously the Japanese government implements the laws protecting indigenous and minority rights and cultural heritage; and on whether Ainu as ‘other’ remain important to the Japanese in the articulation of their identity. The Ainu Shinpo and institutions such as the Foundation for Research and Promotion of Ainu Culture, already represent a step in a new direction in Ainu–Japanese relations. The cultural park establishment as well as the reterritorialization of the iwor of the Ainu (in Hokkaido at least), represents another concrete and progressive measure allowing the Ainu private control of their natural resources, reaffirmation of their identity, and legitimization of their lifestyle and customs. Despite continuing challenges, we are sure to see new cultural forms generated from the interaction between Ainu selfdetermination and the larger Japanese society. References [1] S.C.H. Cheung, Japanese anthropology and depictions of the Ainu, in: J. Bosco, J.S. Eades, S. Yamashita (Eds.), The Making of Anthropology in East and Southeast Asia, Berghahn Books, Oxford, in press. [2] Foundation for Research and Promotion of Ainu Culture (FRPAC), To Understand the Ainu, Foundation for Research and Promotion of Ainu Culture, Sapporo, 2000. [3] K. Kindaiti, Ainu Life and Legends, Japan, Board of Tourist Industry, Japanese Government Railways, Japan, 1941. [4] Lake Akan Ainu Association (LAAA), Retrospect of Marimo Festival in 50th year Anniversary, Lake Akan Ainu Association, Akan, 2000. [5] G. Nomura, Live as an Aynu, Saifukan, Tokyo, 1996 (in Japanese). [6] A. Shimizu, Cooperation, not domination: a rejoinder to Niessen on the Ainu exhibition at Minpaku, Museum Anthropology 20 (3) (1996) 120–131.