Here we would just like to take some space and thank all of the individuals who have volunteered their time with the Issei at Barneston Project!
A very special thanks to…
I realized that, while I will try to make this blog as accessible as possible, there are still some key terms that need to be defined. So, here they are! I will update this post as time goes on.
Archaeological Terminology
Artifact: Artifacts are generally defined as portable archaeological evidence, objects that were made, modified, or used by people. They include everything from projectile points to wire nails. Artifacts are often broadly grouped into categories, such as metals, ceramics (e.g. pot fragments), glass, lithics (stone), faunal remains (animal bones), floral remains (plant remains). Those latter two are sometimes referred to as ecofacts, but that’s not a term I commonly use.
Feature: Features are non-portable archaeological evidence, such as hearths or architectural remains. “Non-portable” here means that they cannot be removed from the archaeological record without fundamentally altering their form. A ceramic fragment removed from the record still retains its form as a ceramic; a hearth, when excavated, loses its shape and integrity by virtue of the excavation.
Site: How you define an archaeological site is something that is often contested in archaeology. Sites can be collections of artifacts and features, areas defined by oral or written histories, or simply ‘the area the archaeologist was able to survey’. When we refer to the Barneston site, we are referring to the town and its “immediate vicinity” (itself an ill-defined term). The Japanese American Community is a site within Barneston that is similarly defined, and similarly vague.
Provenance: The 3-dimensional location of any artifact, feature, or other object-of-interest on an archaeological site. Maintaining control of provenance is key to archaeological research, as the associations and contexts associated with material culture helps us determine its function.
Association: The spatial relationship between any two or more artifacts, features, or other objects-of-interest. Often we express this by saying that “X is associated with Y”, which means that X appears to have some spatial relationship with Y. X and Y might be in the same pit together, or in the same stratum, or household. “Scatters”, for example, are clusters of artifacts that are associated with one another by virtue of the fact that they are found grouped close together relative to other artifacts on the site.
Context: Oh boy, this is a complicated concept. It can refer to a lot of different things. Instead of giving one definition, I’m going to give a few that matter for this project:
Survey: An archaeological survey is, at its simplest, any attempt to geographically locate archaeological material. Archaeologically surveys are usually concerned with the amount, concentration, and extent of archaeological material, as well as their integrity. Integrity here refers to the extent to which archaeological material has been disturbed since it was originally deposited in the ground. Since we are often interested in what happened before and when the material was deposited, anything that modifies the material afterwards is potentially biasing. Archaeological surveys are usually low- or minimally-intensive, which means we try to minimize (even more so than normal) how much we disturb the archaeological record.
Excavation: Excavation involves more detailed sub-surface investigation of an archaeological feature, site, or area of interest. In excavations, we remove dirt in a systematic and careful manner and screen whatever we remove through shaker screens to collect artifacts or other archaeological material.
The following is based on the works of Daniels (1988), Geiger (2011), and Ross (2009). See Common References bibliographic details.
The major event driving Japanese emigrants to leave for America was a set of social and economic reforms enacted during the Meiji period of Japan (1868-1912). In point of fact, this period saw one of the most rapid and pervasive attempts at intentional modernization and industrialization in history. Spurred by a desire to avoid the kinds of exploitation suffered by other Asian countries at the hands of Western powers, the Japanese government instituted a wide variety of reforms designed to incorporate what they perceived to be the “civilized” and “modern” aspects of Europe and America.
Thus began a period of rapid industrialization, social change (including the formal abolition of the Tokugawa-era caste system), and adoption of a variety of Euro-American cultural practices that Japanese elites and authorities believed were associated with modernity. This process took on two forms: internal changes to Japanese society, and external actions, pressures, and “public relations” maneuvers to convince Western nations that Japan was their ally and equal. As one might imagine, not all such attempts were successful. For example, while beef consumption was adopted by some Meiji officials, it took time for the rest of Japanese society to overcome its negative perception of the practice. I should also note that these practices were often interpreted through the lens of the cultural and historical backgrounds of the various groups of Japanese that encountered them. In adopting these practices, Japanese citizens were doing some sort of whole-sale assimilation. Instead, they were combining old and new beliefs and practices in a variety of novel ways.
The changes brought about by Meiji officials helped create the economic impetus for migration. Perhaps the most powerful of these was the effect of industrialization on Japanese society. In promoting industrialization, the Meiji government provided their citizens with an increasing amount of cheap goods, negatively affecting artisans and farmers who relied on handicraft manufacture to supplement their income. Railroads designed to improve transportation and trade undermined the economic foundation of villages located along roads and rivers. They carried rural laborers away from the countryside and opened up said countryside to mass-produced goods. Furthermore, new tax laws designed to make taxation easier ended up pushing the burden of poor harvests onto workers. Instead of taxing a percentage of the annual rice harvest, the Meiji government chose to require fixed payments based on the value of the farmer’s land. This inevitably led to a shift in land ownership, as more land became owned by a smaller group of wealthier people. As a result of these changes, many farmers found themselves unable to afford to do farm work and in need of money.
Social factors are also relevant for understanding Meiji-era migration. Not all areas that had low wages or economic problems experienced high migration. Andrea Geiger has pointed out that areas that saw the greatest emigration where those in which economic changes were linked to social status. Those most likely to emigrate were those that whose family’s social position might suffer from the changing economic climate. Migration offered opportunities to enhance status in home villages, as migrants could and commonly did send money home to support their families. Migration also offered a chance to escape the restrictions of Tokugawa-period association between caste and status, which, despite the Meiji government’s efforts, remained a social reality in Japan. For these migrants, the United States looked like it offered abundant social and economic opportunities. Of course, once they arrived on American shores, Issei quickly realized the limitations they faced as a minority, subject to racial discrimination. However, even with this pervasive racism, many were still felt they were able to make a better living than in Japan.