The Discovery of the Gold Seal in 1784
and the Waves of Historiography Ever Since＊

Joshua A. Fogel

Abstract
According to the Hou Han shu, in 57 B.C.E. an emissary from the land we
now call Japan arrived at the court of the Later Han dynasty in Luoyang.
Although we don’t know his name or who his sovereign was, he wasawarded a seal and ribbon. The seal promptly disappeared from history forthe next 1,727 years. It was unexpectedly discovered in an irrigation ditch
being repaired by a farmer in Kyushu. For the next 233 years（until now）,
every detail about this golden seal has been the topic of extensive debate withover 350 books and articles devoted to the topic. This essay discusses that
lengthy debate and tries to understand it on its own terms.
Key words: Gold seal, historiography, Confucianism, National Learning,
Kamei Nanmei, China, Later Han dynasty, Japan, science

According to the Hou Han shu 後漢書, in the year Jianwu zhongyuan 建
武中元 2（57 A.D.）an emissary from the statelet of Nu 奴 in the kingdom of
Wo 倭（J. Wa）arrived at the court of the Guangwu Emperor 光武帝. He wasseeking investiture within the Later Han’s ritual system of foreign states forhis homeland in the Wa federation, and the court awarded him with a seal anda ribbon. This would doubtless have remained just one among many unprovable items from the Chinese dynastic histories had not something utterly
extraordinary occurred over 1,700 years later. In 1784 a rice farmer inFukuoka domain（Kyushu）was repairing an irrigation ditch in his rice paddy
when he happened upon something shiny lodged between some rocks. He
pulled it out, washed off, and found that he had discovered some sort of
inscribed seal. Unaware of just what it was or what value it might possess, byvarious hypothesized routes it was brought to the local magistrate who
showed it to a local scholar, Kamei Nanmei 龜井南冥（1743–1814）, a famous
Confucian teacher in his day. Nanmei looked at its inscriptional face which* Canada Research Chair, Professor of History, York University, Canada.

16

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.2 2011

read 漢委奴國王, and he knew immediately that this was the same seal
mentioned in the Hou Han shu.

Before we launch into a discussion of the debate as it developed over the
next two centuries and more, let me say a few words based on what genuine
experts in seals and seal script have had to say in recent years. The inscription is cut in seal script（zhuanwen 撰文）and, despite considerable debate, isfully consistent with Han-era official and private seals, according to
Kobayashi Tsunehiro 小林庸浩（1916–2007）, an expert in this field; it is not,in his view, a subsequent forgery: “As a result of detailed investigations on
two or three occasions of the original seal, from a whole host of angles, I
have come to the conclusion that it is the very seal presented by the
Guangwu Emperor.” One curiosity about the inscription on the seal is the lackof the character yin 印（seal）or one of the other characters that appears as the
final element in the inscription on most seals and denotes “seal.” Over 700 or
more seals given by the Han, Wei, and Jin dynasties to its alien neighbors
have thus far been unearthed, but only a few are missing such a character.1
Ōta Kōtarō 太田孝太郎（1881–1967）goes this one further by claiming: “Theseal in question is not only, I believe, the finest of all those seals given toalien peoples, but it is a representative example of [all] Later Han seals.” Thefinal two characters of the inscription, guowang 國王（J. kokuō）, “areunmatched for the quality,” according to Sugimura Yūzō 杉村勇造 （1900–
78）. And, the calligraphy specialist Nishikawa Yasushi 西川寧 （1902–89）
rebuts all the non-specialists’ claims that there are strokes awry in theinscription by comparative analysis.2
1 Tsukushi Yutaka 筑紫豊, Kin’in no furusato: Shikanoshima monogatari 金印のふるさと：志賀島物語 （Home of the gold seal, the story of Shikanoshima）（Tokyo: Bunken shuppan, 1982）, pp. 86–87; Kobayashi Tsunehiro 小林庸浩,“Kandai kan’in shiken” 漢代官印私見（My views on official seals of the Handynasty）, Tōyō gakuhō 東洋学報 50.3（December 1967）, p. 143.
2 Ōta Kōtarō 太田孝太郎, “Kan no Wa no Na no kokuō inbun kō” 漢委奴国王印
文考（Study of the inscription on the seal [inscribed] to the ruler of the stateof Na in Wa under the Han）, Iwate shigaku 岩手史学 17（December 1954）, pp.
1–6. For more on the epigraphy of the seal and comparative analysis of theThe Discovery of the Gold Seal in 1784 and the Waves of Historiography Ever Since 17

Before more than a handful of people knew of its existence, Kamei Nanmei
penned a lengthy essay explaining the meaning and defending the authenticityof the seal—an utterly brilliant piece of writing—and in so doing launched adebate that continues till today, over two centuries later. Every aspect of thissmall piece of gold, roughly one inch to a side, with a small handle in the
shape of serpent or snake has been debated over the years—who received it,
the meaning of the inscription, what the snake-shaped handle signifies, how it
might have ended up where it did, and its overall importance or irrelevance in
Sino-Japanese relations—altogether roughly 350 books and articles. In what
follows I would like to outline the contours of that debate, looking at how it
has changed and why. It offers in microcosm a look at the changing nature ofJapanese commentary on its relationship with Mainland culture.
Whatever may have been the interactions between proto-Chinese andproto-Japanese in the centuries before the launching of diplomatic interactions, we now generally accept the fact that the year 57 C.E. marks the firststate-to-state meeting of the two（though it was certainly an unequal one）.3
This fact is attested in the Hou Han shu, and even those who may haveinscribed characters vis-à-vis other inscriptional material from the Qin-Han
era, see, among many such essays: Sugimura Yūzō 杉村勇造, “Kan no Wa no
Na no kokuō in shikan” 漢委奴国王印私観（My views on the inscription on theseal [inscribed] to the ruler of the state of Na in Wa under the Han）, Nihonrekishi 日本歴史 51（August 1952）, pp. 11–15; Nishikawa Yasushi 西川寧,
“Kin’in no kokuhō” 金印の刻法（How the gold seal was inscribed）, Shohin 書, p. 53. Much of this is summarized in Ōtani Mitsuo 大谷光
品 28（May 1952）
男, Kin’in no monogatari 金印のものがたり （The story of the gold seal）（Fukuoka: Nishi Nihon toshokan konsarutanto kyōkai, 1979）, pp. 43–44; seealso Ōtani Mitsuo 大谷光男, Kenkyū shi kin’in 研究史金印 （The history ofscholarship on the gold seal）（Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1974）, pp.
118–19; and Wang Xiaoqiu王晓秋. Zhong-Ri wenhua jiaoliu shihua 中日文化交流史话 （Historical tales from Sino-Japanese cultural interactions）（Jinan:
Shandong jiaoyu chubanshe, 1991）, pp. 16–20.
3 Writing shortly after the conclusion of World War II, Tsuda Sōkichi was hesitant about claiming this meeting as the “first time the king of Na had paid
tribute” to the Han court, but the weight of subsequent scholarship confirmsthat is surely was. See Tsuda Sōkichi 津田左右吉. Nihon koten no kenkyū 日本, in Tsuda Sōkichi zenshū 津田左古典の研究（Studies in the Japanese classics）（Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1963）,
右吉全集（Collected works of Tsuda Sōkichi）
vol. 1, p. 18; Itō Terufumi 伊藤皓文, “Nihonkoku to sono kokusai kankei no
kigen ni tsuite: Kan no Wa no Na no kokuō no seijishi kenkyū” 日本国とその国際関係の起源について：漢委奴国王の政治史的研究（On the origins of the stateof Japan and its international relations, a study in political history of the [goldseal inscribed] King of the state of Na in Wa under the Han）, Hokuriku
hōgaku 北陸法学 11.1–2（September 2003）, p. 11.

18

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.2 2011

serious doubts about the gold seal do not as a rule question the testimony of
the Chinese historical record. The gold seal given by the Later Han emperor
to the emissary from Na（within the Wa confederation）stands as the firstmaterial object of significance exchanged, and the fact that it remains extant（despite seventeen centuries of being hidden in the ground）should not be
underestimated.
It also effectively marks Wa’s entrance into the world of “international”
affairs, a world defined by the Han empire. The five-character inscription on
the seal also marks the first instance in which Chinese characters functioned
in and of themselves in the “Japanese” archipelago. Objects with Chinesegraphs on them were certainly imported to the archipelago earlier, but they
were little more than impenetrable symbols or decorations with no intrinsic
significance. Kume Masao （b. 1948） 久米雅雄 has thus asserted that thisexchange denotes “Japan’s” first awareness of the universe of Chinese characters and hence its entrance into that world, where it remains, mutatis
mutandis, to this day.4 But, long before Kume’s recent work, Kamei Nanmei
noted in his defense of the seal’s authenticity: “The five characters of this seal
mark the first time writing from a foreign country were transmitted to ourland（honchō 本朝）.” The seal’s discovery in 1784 was, according to Nanmei,
a “good omen（shōzui 祥瑞）for civilization” itself.
Nanmei clearly understood the extraordinary significance of this find. It
is not that he believed the story in the Hou Han shu to be false or untrustworthy, but the seal’s actual discovery in his own domain in Fukuoka marked
an event of great auspiciousness as he was about to open the doors of one ofhis domain’s Confucian academies. Here was that early icon of Sino-Japanese
ties unearthed just as his own academy was taking off. Nanmei was a devout
Confucian. One might even think of him as a kind of Confucian fundamentalist. He believed that one could find most answers to questions of a philosophical or moral nature without looking further than the Lunyu 論語. He wasalso a medical doctor and thus a man of science. He argued in his philosophical writings that knowledge and practice had to inform one another or

4 Kume Masao 久米雅雄, “Kin’in Nakoku setsu e no hanron” 金印奴国説への反論（Response to the thesis of the gold seal [having been presented] to the stateof Na）, in Ko bunka ronsō: Fujisawa Kazuo sensei koki kinen 古文化論叢：藤澤一夫先生古稀記念 （Essays on ancient culture in commemoration of thesixtieth birthday of Professor Fujisawa Kazuo）（Osaka: Fujisawa Kazuo sensei
koki kinen ronshū kankōkai, 1983）, pp. 112–13. This point is strongly emphasized by the great Chinese Japanologist, Wang Xiangrong 汪向榮. Yemataiguo
邪马台国（The state of Yamatai）（Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe,
1982）, pp. 231–32.

The Discovery of the Gold Seal in 1784 and the Waves of Historiography Ever Since 19

neither would be of much use.5
Roughly three weeks after first being shown and allowed to analyze thegold seal in the spring of 1784, Nanmei wrote his famous piece about it,
5 Yoshida Yōichi 吉田洋一, “Kamei Nanmei no igaku shisō” 亀井南冥の医学思想（Kamei Nanmei’s medical thought）, Yōgaku 洋学 8 （1999）, pp. 1–21;“Kameigaku koborebanashi” 亀井学こぼればなし （Tidbits of the Kamei
school ）. Kishi Noko hakubutsukan dayori 季誌能古博物館だより 31（September 1997）, pp. 7–9; Shōno Hisato 庄野寿人, “Kokuhō ‘kin’in’ shutsudo
ni tsuite” 国宝「金印」出土について（on the unearthing of the national treasure,the “gold seal”）. Kishi Noko hakubutsukan dayori 季誌能古博物館だより 30（October 1996）, pp. 10–12; Inoue Tadashi 井上忠, “Kamei Nanmei to Takeda
Sadayoshi, hankō seiritsu zengo ni okeru” 亀井南冥と竹田定良、藩校成立前後における（Kamei Nanmei and Takeda Sadayoshi, around the time of the establishment of the domainal schools）, in Fukuoka ken shi, kinsei kenkyū hen,Fukuoka han （yon） 福岡県史、近世研究編、福岡藩（四）（History of Fukuoka
Prefecture, section of early modern studies, Fukuoka domain, vol. 4）, ed. Nishi
Nihon bunka kyōkai 西日本文化協会 （Western Japan cultural association）（Fukuoka: Fukuoka Prefecture, 1989）.pp. 23–24; Takanoe Mototarō 高野江基
太郎, Jukyō Kamei Nanmei: Nanmei sensei hyakkaiki kinen shuppan 儒侠龜井
南冥:南冥先生百回忌紀念出版 （Confucian hero Kamei Namei, published tocommemorate the 100th anniversary of Nanmei’s death）（Fukuoka: self-publ.,
1914）; Tsujimoto Masashi 辻本雅史, “Kansei ki ichi igakusha no shisō: Kamei
Nanmei ni tsuite” 寛政期一異学者の思想：亀井南冥について （A heterodox
thinker in the Kansei period: Kamei Nanmei）, Kōka joshi daigaku Kōka joshitanki daigaku kenkyū kiyō 光華女子大学・光華女子短期大学研究紀要 17（December 1979）, p. 113; Tokuda Takeshi 徳田武, ed. and annot., Bunjin:
Kameda Bōsai, Tanomura Chikuden, Nishina Hakukoku, Kamei Nanmei 文人：
亀田鵬斎・田能村竹田・仁科白谷・亀井南冥 （Literati: Kameda Bōsai, Tanomura
Chikuden, Nishina Hakuboku, Kamei Nanmei）, in series Edo Kanshi sen 江戸漢詩選 （Selections from Edo-period poetry in Chinese）（Tokyo: Iwanami
shoten, 1996）, vol. 1, p. 333; Nakaizumi Tetsutoshi 中泉哲俊, Nihon kinsei
gakkō ron no kenkyū 日本近世学校論の研究（Studies of views on schools inearly modern Japan）（Tokyo: Kazama shobō, 1976）, pp. 310–16; Jin Peiyi 金培懿, “Guijing Nanming Lunyu yuyou zhi jiejing fa” 龜井南冥論語語由之解經法（Kamei Nanmei’s method of explicating the classics in his Rongo goyū）,
Hanxue luntan 漢學論壇 1（June 2006）, pp. 63–91; Terashi Bokusō 寺師睦宗,“Kamei Nanmei, sono hitotonari to gyōseki” 亀井南冥、その人となりと業績（Kamei Nanmei, his personality and accomplishments）, Nihon Tōyō igaku
zasshi 日本東洋医学雑誌 54.6（2003）, pp. 1023–33; Kasai Sukeharu 笠井助治,
Kinsei hankō no sōgōteki kenkyū 近世藩校の総合的研究（Comprehensive studyof early modern domainal schools）（Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1960）, p.
3; Tsujimoto Masashi 辻本雅史, “Kamei Nanmei no gakkō ron to Fukuoka
hangaku no setsuritsu” 亀井南冥の学校論と福岡藩学の設立（Kamei Nanmei’sviews on schools and the establishment of domainal learning in Fukuoka）,
Kōka joshi daigaku Kōka joshi tanki daigaku kenkyū kiyō 光華女子大学・光華, pp. 117–18.
女子短期大学研究紀要 18（December 1980）

20

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.2 2011

entitled Kin’in no ben 金印辨（On the gold seal）.6 This piece was preceded byan authentication that he was asked to make of the seal in which he merely
gave the dimensions and shape of the seal and included a drawing. Unlike theseal itself, this drawing and copies of it circulated among Japanese intellectuals who often made their comments on it based solely on his drawing. The
longer essay is primarily a series of hypothetical questions that might be（andlater definitely were）raised about the genuineness of the gold seal. One by
one Nanmei poses these points of doubt in as strong a way as he can, andone by one he demolishes them. For example: Is it possible that gold could
remain underground surrounded by rocks for nearly two millennia and comeup without a scratch? Yes, Nanmei replies to his own straw-man question, andhe proceeds to marshal scientific data to demonstrate that gold holds out
extremely well. Another example: Doesn’t the middle character of theinscription, 奴, with its meaning of “slave” or “servant” or simply “underling” imply a decidedly negative evaluation of the statelet receiving it andhence of early Japan? Indeed, Nanmei replies, one finds the character in suchtribal names as Xiongnu 匈奴, but that would not have applied here, and heheads into a lengthy exegesis of what this graph would have meant at thetime:
It being a time in which we did not have writing [in Japan], when ouremissary to the Han dynasty [in 57 C.E.] was asked there what the nameof our country was, he would have responded orally ‘Yamato no kuni.’
They attached the character 倭 to our national name. Through the end ofHan, they added the character 奴 to convey ‘Yamato no kuni’ with 倭奴國. In the Chinese language, [the second character] 奴 is pronounced no[actually nu, but used to render Japanese no]. In [such Ming-period textsas] Wubei zhi 武備志（Treatise on military preparedness）and Riben kao
日本考（Study of Japan）, [the place names] Mino 美濃 is transcribed with
the Chinese characters 米奴 and Kii 紀伊 rendered乞奴苦藝 [‘Ki no kuni’].
In the [Ming-period work] Yinyun zihai 音韻字海（Dictionary of sounds
and rhymes）, words from our land are translated, such as ushitsuno 牛角（ox horn）rendered as 吾失祖奴 and tsuru no kubi 鶴項（crane’s neck）as它立奴谷只. Given these [examples], the term Xiongnu represents aeuphonic change from Xianyun 玁狁 [an early Chinese name for the
Xiongnu]. These characters are there for their pronunciation, not for their
meaning…. There is [thus] no derogatory meaning to the character 奴 in

6 It has been reprinted a number of times. See Kamei Nanmei Shōyō zenshū 亀
井南冥・昭陽全集（Collected writings of Kamei Nanmei and [Kamei] Shōyō）,
1:360–68（Fukuoka: Ashi shobō, 1978）.

The Discovery of the Gold Seal in 1784 and the Waves of Historiography Ever Since 21

the notes and explications of that land [i.e., China]. In our understandingof the character usage of that land, this should be something quite easy
for us to comprehend.
On the whole Nanmei’s defense is based on a range of disciplines: a little
science, a little philology, and a lot of Confucianism. In the immediate years
following the discovery and Nanmei’s essay, numerous pieces of varying
length would be written by many of Japan’s leading intellectuals of the lateeighteenth century. In fact, so many people over a wide geographic area
contributed essays that one has to frequently remind oneself that this was anage not only prior to modern communications, of course, but one in whicheven inter-domainal communications and transportation were anything but
smooth and travel sharply monitored or curtailed.7 Somehow ideas transcended those barriers, even as it was people who carried the information.
The debate that followed Nanmei’s seminal essay took up many of theissues he raised. Many were based only on news of the discovery or justNanmei’s authentication. In other instances, his longer essay was copied andcirculated. The contours of the debate, though, soon came down, on the one
hand, to Confucians who understood Japan’s cultural heritage as intricately
linked to that of the mainland and recognized that anything in which Japanmight excel culturally found its roots in China（or possibly Korea）. For thisgroup, as for Kamei Nanmei, their progenitor, the seal was a testament to theantiquity of Japan’s ties to the Mainland. Their defenses of it tended to
invoke the Confucian classics as the fount of truth and were less sanguine
about native Japanese sources. Opponents of this group were, on the whole,men based in the nativist（kokugaku 國學）tradition for whom the Confucianclassics were an alien body of literature with little importance in Japan. Thesemen tended to marshal evidence from the ancient Japanese classics, such as
Kojiki 古事記 （Record of ancient matters） and Nihon shoki 日本書紀（Chronicles of Japan）. They went out of their way either to downplay theimportance of the unearthing of the gold seal or to cast anything from mild toserious aspersions of the small state that received it from the Later Han court.
Interestingly, though, it would be another five decades before anyone—significantly, a nativist scholar—would actually claim that the gold seal was acomplete fake. That was to be Matsuura Michisuke 松浦道輔（1801–66）, adisciple of Hirata Atsutane 平田篤胤（1776–1843）, writing in 1836.8
7 For more on the topic of travel restrictions in the Edo period, see Constantine
N. Vaporis, Breaking Barriers: Travel and the State in Early Modern Japan（Cambridge, Mass.: Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University,1994）.
8 Yamada Yoshio 山田孝雄. Hirata Atsutane 平田篤胤（Tokyo: Hōbunkan, 1940）,

22

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.2 2011

Although Japanese Confucians did not completely ignore the Japaneseclassics any more than nativist Japanese ignored the Confucian classics, eachworked overtime to emphasize the importance of its own set of books as thesource of truth. Thus, at one significant level, the debate took on almost areligious quality making it all but impossible for either side to convince theother of anything. The starkest contrast in the main two opposing sides was
how each viewed the gold seal in connection with their own identity, or more
broadly how each saw side saw its identity in relation to China and Chinese
culture. The debate did have the positive effect（for later scholars）of bringing
to the surface numerous topics in the more general Confucian-nativist debate
which were otherwise submerged, and virtually all the traditional sources
extant were brought to the fore, even of modern scholars may approach themdifferently now.
Roughly, one hundred years later by the middle of the Meiji era, with
Confucianism on the wane and Central European academic benchmarks all
the rage in scholarly circles in Japan, the well known historian Miyake
Yonekichi 三宅米吉 （1860–1929） brought the latest standards of philology
and historical phonology to bear on a study of the gold seal, penning an
essay which has set the standard ever since in the area of a proper reading of
the seal’s five-character inscription.9 There have been dissenting voices since
his essay appeared, but they have been largely relegated to the sidelines as theminority opposition or as curiosities—a fact all the more fascinating whenviewed in the light of the numerous essays before his that closely debated thereading of the seal’s inscription. Once Miyake’s extraordinary essay appeared,that discussion—on the reading and meaning of the inscription—was, as it
were, over, even if some disagreed with it and, more recently, the debate has
been somewhat revived. Philology as the discipline of choice ruled the dayfrom mid-Meiji Japan, and with its universalist claims that the surest way of
p. 161. Matsuura’s essay would like have remained entirely obscure if not for
its republication by Miyake Yonekichi at the end of the nineteenth century. As
we shall soon see, Miyake completely disagreed with Matsuura’s thesis, but hethought it deserved the light of day. See Matsuura Michisuke 松浦道輔. “Kanno Wa no Na no kokuō kin’in gisaku ben” 漢倭奴國王金印偽作辨（On theforged gold seal [inscribed] to the king of Na in Wa under the Han）. Rpt. in
Miyake Yonekichi 三宅米吉. “Wa no Na no kokuō kin’in gisaku setsu nohihyō” 委奴國王金印偽作說の批評（A critique of the theory that the gold seal
[inscribed] to the king of the state of Na in Wa is a forgery）. Kōkogakukai
zasshi 考古學會雜誌 2.5（September 1898）, 10–13 [172–75]; and in “Kan no
Wa no Na no kokuō”, pp. 94–95.
9 Miyake Yonekichi, “Kan no Wa no Na no kokuō in kō” 漢委奴國王印考（Astudy of the seal [inscribed] to the King of the state of Na in Wa under theHan dynasty）, Shigaku zasshi 史學雜誌 3.37（December 1892）, 874–81.

The Discovery of the Gold Seal in 1784 and the Waves of Historiography Ever Since 23

searching for and reaching the origins of historical problems was by means oflanguage, it had the power to shift paradigms.
The central claim of Miyake’s essay was that the inscription on the faceof the gold seal（漢委奴國王）should be read（in Japanese）as “Kan no Wa no
Na no kokuō,” meaning that this seal was presented to “the sovereign of thestate of Na in Wa under the Han” empire. The implication that this Japanesestate of Na or the larger confederation of Wa were subservient to the Handynasty, anathema to nativists earlier, was no longer an issue, as it had been
until that time. Miyake was also solving two other problems with thisreading. First, the second character of the inscription 委, he claimed echoing
Kamei Nanmei himself, was merely a short form for Wa 倭, and thus not thefirst of a two-character approximation in Chinese for some other ancientJapanese state（many had read 委奴 as “Ito” or “Ido”）. Second, that troubling
middle character 奴 was not a Chinese stand-in for the genitive particle no の,as even Nanmei had believed; nor, of course, did he think it bore any patronizing or derogatory view of Japan from China. Instead, it was to be read na,
and it represented the Chinese approximation for the small state that had sent
the emissary to the court of the Later Han.
As Miyake makes clear, however—and this provides another indicationthat the Confucian-nativist debate was a thing of the past—before thediscovery was made, two scholars（one usually associated with Confucianism
and the other a major figure in the nativist school）had already identified thischaracter with the proper site in Kyushu at which the seal was later discovered. Writing in 1716, the celebrated historian Arai Hakuseki 新井白石
（1657–1725） identified the state of Na （as indicated in the Wei zhi 魏志[Chronicle of the kingdom of Wei]）as Naka-gun 那珂郡 in Chikuzen domain,
Fukuoka. In his Koshi tsū wakumon 古史通惑問（Questions about the full runof ancient history）, Hakuseki was not directly discussing the seal itself, ofcourse, but the state referred to in the Wei zhi as “Nuguo” 奴國 in Chinese,
which he noted “was Naka-gun in Chikuzen domain” in his own time. In theabsence of the seal itself, this association accrued no followers and as such
was not built upon in subsequent years.10
Six decades later, Motoori Norinaga 本居宣長（1730–1801）, writing in
1777, only a few years before the seal’s discovery, associated the same character with two different place names in the same region of Kyushu, and heassigned to both of them “Na” as the correct reading. Arguably the greatest of
10 Arai Hakuseki 新井白石, Koshi tsū wakumon 古史通惑問（Questions about thefull run of ancient history）, in Arai Hakuseiki zenshū 新井白石全集（Complete
works of Arai Hakuseki）, ed. Imaizumi Sadasuke 今泉定助（Tokyo: Kokushokankōkai, 1977）, vol. 3, p. 388.

24

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.2 2011

the nativist scholars, Norinaga would later go to pains to note that mention ofthis state of Na in the Wei zhi bore no relation at all to the state named in the
middle three characters on the gold seal （委奴國）. This middle character,which he claimed was to be read to（and hence all three as “Ito no kuni”）and
nu in the context of the three-character expression in the Hou Han shu（倭奴, now acquired a third reading （na）. In this last incarnation, Norinaga
國）
associated it with the local place names, Na-no-agata 儺縣 and Nanotsu 那津,in the Kyushu region. Although he struck gold with this assertion, it seems tohave gotten lost in the mix of opinions flying fast and loose at the time andwould not be revived until revived by Miyake Yonekichi at the end of thefollowing century.11 Thus, despite some apparent confusion, Norinaga madean extremely important point which emerged from his undeniable talents as aphilologist. Like Arai Hakuseki before him, he associated the middle character of the seal’s inscription 奴（though not specifically in this instance of theseal itself, which had yet to be unearthed, but as it appears in the Wei zhi
where it should be, he claimed, pronounced na）with the character 儺（alsopronounced na and appearing as an ancient toponym from the very region inwhich the seal was discovered）and additionally with the character 那（again,
pronounced na and also linked with local place names）.12
Instead of sustaining this argument and anticipating Miyake Yonekichi’s
paradigm-shifting essay of 1892, Norinaga jumped to the conclusions that theexpression 倭奴國 from the Hou Han shu should be read “Wanukoku” and that
this state had nothing to do with the kingdom of Wa. Undoubtedly these
conclusions were influenced by the discovery of the gold seal and the need in
his own mind to disassociate it either from importance in genuine Japanese
history or at least disassociate it from the ancient Wa.
Miyake Yonekichi’s conclusions met with rebuttal in the 1890s, but interestingly those scholars who initially disagreed with him in print—Kume
Kunitake 久米邦武（1839–1931）, Kan Masatomo 菅政友（or Suga Masatomo,
1824–97）, and Hoshino Hisashi 星野恒 （1839–1917）—one by one all
switched their positions and came on board with Miyake’s conclusions. These
three men were considerably older and more established than Miyake, butthey nonetheless recognized that his arguments—especially, his resolution of
the proper understanding of the seal’s inscription—were correct. Hoshino and
11 Motoori Norinaga, 本居宣長, “Gyojū gaigen”（“Karaosame no uretamigoto”）（Words of lament to drive out the barbarians）, in Motoori Norinaga zenshū 本（Tokyo: Chikuma shobō,
居宣長全集（Collected works of Motoori Norinaga）
1972）, vol. 8, pp. 30–34.
12 This passage from Norinaga’s “Gyojū gaigen” is also excerpted in Mishina
Akihide 三品彰英, Yamataikoku kenkyū sōran 邪馬台国研究総覧（Overview of
research on the state of Yamatai）（Tokyo: Sōgensha, 1970）, p. 55.

The Discovery of the Gold Seal in 1784 and the Waves of Historiography Ever Since 25

Kume were professors at the recently founded Imperial University in Tokyo;
Kan, the oldest of the group, was the chief priest of Ise Shrine. What won the
day for them was Miyake’s use of historical philology. Although philology
has all but become a term of derogation in most academic disciplines inNorth America, it was the queen of disciplines in mid-Meiji Japan.
It should be noted that Miyake’s achievement was made not by obliterating
the entire model and all studies that preceded his own, but by building onthem and elevating the entire discussion to a new level with the introductionof modern philological methods. The advance here may, then, be understoodas a form of shifting paradigms on the model of Thomas Kuhn’s（1922–96）
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.13 The nature of the discord between
schools of thought from the time of Kamei Nanmei’s initial essay throughmost of the nineteenth century was simply spinning its wheels and no longer
producing anything new or innovative. It would take a change in approach torelaunch the discussion in a productive direction, and that was precisely
Miyake’s contribution.
The decades following Miyake’s essay mark the maturation of modern
Japanese historical scholarship. Overall there were fewer essays on the gold
seal in the Taishō and early Shōwa years, though the topic never disappeared
from research interests. One of the problems plaguing continued research,especially after Miyake had “solved” the enigma of the inscription’s meaning,
was the simple fact that the seal was not readily available for viewing, to say
nothing of actually examining it. Then came the run up to Japanese expansionism on the Mainland and full-fledged war.
There were efforts to assess the gold seal within the system of seals
awarded by the Former and Later Han courts to domestic and foreign entities,
and frequently the gold seal was considered an outlier. Few seals made ofgold and few with the snake-shaped handle had been discovered. These facts
led a number of scholars to question the authenticity of the gold seal, and a
few scholars were even prepared to judge it a fabrication.
The problem, of course, with Chinese artifacts is that there are countless
items underground but they are not so easily unearthed. The discipline ofarcheology needs to be developed and well funded, as it would be after thewar. The new regime in China following the Communists coming to power in1949 discovered promptly that there is no discipline so intimately tied tonationalism, national identity, and national unity as archeology, especially ina culture that for millennia has tended to revere the old and privilege theancient over the modern. Even the Communists, who had long made a business of destroying everything that smacked of traditional Chinese culture,
13 （Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962）and reprinted many times since.

26

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.2 2011

found “Chinese” heritage too tempting to ignore as it built its own claims tobeing the legitimate heirs of its numerous predecessors.
Thus, archeology was supported and got off the ground in China soonafter the new regime consolidated its power. And, sure enough, artifacts
underground were more than accommodating. In 1956 another gold seal witha snake design at its top was discovered in a Former Han tomb in
Shizhaishan 石寨山, Yunnan Province, and this Yunnan find more or less shutthe door on claims that the gold seal found in Japan was bogus. The Yunnanseal was inscribed “Dian wang zhi yin” 滇王之印（seal of the sovereign of [thestate of] Dian [Yunnan]）, and its face is a square measuring 2.4 centimeters
to a side; it is thought to date to the end of the Former Han dynasty, and its
coiled snake is much more easily recognizable as such than that of the gold
seal discovered in Japan.14
14 The Yunnan seal was unearthed in Tomb No. 6 and dates to a time when “Dian”
滇（which has now come to be the single-character, short-form for Yunnan
Province） connoted a non-Han ethnicity living in this southern region;
Emperor Wu of the Han conquered the area in 109 B.C.E., and when the kingof Dian surrendered, he was given a royal seal（undoubtedly the very one
discovered in 1956）. Li Kunsheng 李昆声, “‘Dian wang zhi yin’ yu ‘Han Wei
Nu guowang’ yin zhi bijiao yanjiu”「滇王之印」与「汉委奴国王」印之比较研究（Acomparative study of the “Seal of the king of Dian” and “Han Wei Nuguowang” seal）, Sixiang zhanxian 思想战线 3（1986）, pp. 78–81; Nishitani
Tadashi 西谷正, “Shikai ni atatte: Nit-Chū ryōkoku nisen nenrai no bunkakōryū to ‘Ten ō no in’ kin’in” 司会にあたって：中日両国二千年来の文化交流と「滇王之印」
金印（Chair’s remarks: Cultural relations between China and Japanover the past 2,000 years and the gold seal to the king of Dian [Yunnan]）, in
Chū-Nichi ryōkoku nisen nenrai no bunka kōryū to “Ten ō no in” kin’in,kōkai shinpojiumu 中日両国二千年来の文化交流と「滇王之印」金印、公開シンポジ
ウム（Public symposium on cultural relations between China and Japan overthe past 2,000 years and the gold seal to the king of Dian [Yunnan]）（Nagasaki: Nagasaki Kōshibyō Chūgoku rekidai hakubutsukan, 1993）, p. 6;
Yoshikai Masato 吉開将人, “Sekisaisan bunka shūdanbo bunseki shiron” 石寨
山文化集団墓分析試論（A tentative analysis of the cemeteries of Shizhaishan
culture）, Tōnan Ajia kōkogakkai kaihō 東南アジア考古学会会報 10（1990）, pp.
90–91; Wang Rencong 王人聰 and Ye Qifeng 葉其峯, Qin Han Wei Jin Nanbei
chao guanyin yanjiu 秦漢魏晉南北朝官印研究（Studies of official seals in the
Qin, Han, Wei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties）（Hong Kong:
Zhongwen daxue wenwuguan, 1990）; Okamura Hidenori 岡村秀典, “Zen Kan
kyō no hennen to yōshiki” 前漢鏡の編年と様式 （The dating and form ofFormer Han mirrors）, Shirin 史林 67.5（September 1984）, pp. 1–41; Ōtani
Mitsuo 大谷光男, “Samazama naru inju” さまざまなる印綬（Various and sundry
seals and ribbons）, in Ōtani Mitsuo 大谷光男, ed., Kin’in kenkyū ronbun shūsei
金印研究論文集成（Collection of research essays on the gold seal）（Tokyo:Shin jinbutsu ōraisha, 1994）, p. 83; Ōtani Mitsuo 大谷光男, “Kodai Chūgoku

The Discovery of the Gold Seal in 1784 and the Waves of Historiography Ever Since 27

Then, in 1983 another gold seal—this one with a dragon-shaped handle—
was discovered in the excavated tomb of the king of the early “Vietnamese”
state of Nam Viêt 南越 in what is now Xianggangshan 象崗山, Guangdong
Province. It is a bit larger, measuring 3.1 centimeters on each side, and bears
the inscription “Wendi xingxi” 文帝行璽（seal of Văn Đế）, namely the seal of
the second ruler of Nam Viêt, whose personal name was Triệu Mạt 趙眜（C.
Zhao Mo, r. 137–122 B.C.E.）, grandson of the dynastic founder, Triệu Đà 趙
. It is widely believed to have been
佗（C. Zhao Tuo, c. 230–137 B.C.E.）
privately produced, not imperially bestowed on the ruler of Nam Viêt.15
kara sakuhō sareta kan’in ni tsuite” 古代中国から冊封された官印について（Onofficial seals used for infeudation from ancient China）, Chōsen gakuhō 朝鮮学, pp. 42–45.
報 119–120（July 1986）
15 Mai Yinghao 麦英豪 and Li Jin 黎金, “Guangzhou Xianggang Nan Yue wangmu
muzhu kao” 广州象岗南越王墓墓主考（Analysis of the main figure buried in theroyal tomb of Nam Viêt at Elephant Ridge, Guangzhou）, Kaogu yu wenwu 考, pp. 83–87; Diana Lary, “The Tomb of the King of
古与文物 6 （1986）
Nanyue—The Contemporary Agenda of History, Scholarship and Identity,”
Modern China 22.1（January 1996）, pp. 3–27. For a brief but interesting
comparison of Dian and Yamatai, see Imamura Keiji 今村啓爾, “Ten ōkoku ni
okeru dansei kenryokusha to josei kenryokusha: Yamataikoku to hikaku shite”
滇王国における男性権力者と女性権力者：邪馬台国と比較して（Male and female
powerholders in the Dian kingdom, as compared with the state of Yamatai）,
Yūsei kōko kiyō 郵政考古紀要 18（1992）, pp. 113–29. Kajiyama Masaru梶山勝
argues for a number of reasons that the Nam Viêt gold seal may have been
produced in Nam Viêt（and not in or near the Han capital）; see his “Zen Kan
Nan Etsu ōbo shutsudo no kin’in ‘Buntei gyōji’ ni kansuru ichi kōsatsu” 前漢
南越王墓出土の金印「文帝行璽」
に関する一考察 （A study of the gold seal
[inscribed] “Wendi xingxi” unearthed at a royal Nam Viêt tomb from theFormer Han era）, Kodai bunka 古代文化 36.10（October 1984）, pp. 23–30.
Around 183 B.C.E., under the influence of Empress Lü 呂（d. 180 B.C.E.）,
the Han dynasty began restricting trade with outlying areas. Zhao Tuo
protested and she had his relatives all murdered and his ancestral tomb demolished. Soon thereafter, according to the treatise on the kingdom of Nam Viêtin the Shi ji 史記（j. 113）, Zhao Tuo began calling himself di（emperor）
without informing the Han court, and Emperor Wen 文（r. 180–157 B.C.E.）
sent a high official, Lu Jia 陸賈 （240–170 B.C.E.） to investigate. Zhao
responded apologetically in the form of a letter which he signed “Manyi

28

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.2 2011

One further gold seal deserves mention in this comparative context. It was
unearthed in 1981 from the second tomb at Ganquan 甘泉, a village about
twenty kilometers to the northwest of the city of Yangzhou. At its base it
forms a square 2.3 centimeters to a side, bears a tortoise handle, and carries
the inscription “Guangling wang xi” 廣陵王璽 （seal of the prince ofGuangling [a fiefdom awarded by Emperor Ming 明 to his younger brother,
Liu Jing 劉荊, 37–67].16 Because it was forged in the year 58 C.E., only one
dazhang laofu chen Tuo” 蠻夷大長老夫臣佗（your aged subject [Zhao] Tuo, abarbarian chieftain）, by which he effectively demoted himself from putativeemperor to “barbarian” and, like other Han officials, dropped his surname. His
grandson took the further step of issuing himself an imperial seal, ironicallywith the same imperial name of Wendi. See Tsuruma Kazuyuki 鶴間和幸.
Faasuto enperaa no isan, Shin Kan teikoku ファーストエンペラーの遺産、秦漢（Tokyo: Kōdansha,
帝国（Bequest of the first emperor, the Qin-Han empire）
2004）, pp. 172, 235.
16 Kajiyama Masaru 梶山勝, “‘Kōryō ōji’ kin’in to ‘Kan no Wa no Na no kokuō’kin’in, kin’in to Higashi Ajia sekai”「広陵王璽」金印と「漢委奴国王」金印：金印と東アジア（The gold seal [inscribed] “Guangling wang xi” and the gold seal
[inscribed] “Han Wei Nu guowang, gold seals and East Asia）, in Chūka jinminkyōwakoku Nankin hakubutsuin meihōten 中華人民共和国南京博物院名宝展（Exhibition of treatures from the Nanjing Museum of the People’s Republic ofChina）（Nagoya: Nagoya City Museum and Chūnichi shinbun, 1989）, pp.
16–22. Liu Jing was the ninth son of Emperor Guangwu, founder of the Later
Han; he was enfeoffed at age two（in 39 C.E.）as “duke” or “prince”（gong公） of Shanyang and elevated two years later to wang （king, prince） of
Shanyang. When Guangwu died in 57, he was succeeded by his fourth son
Liu Zhuang 劉 莊（28–75）as Emperor Ming, and the next year Liu Jing waspromoted to “prince of Guangling.” He committed suicide in 67 after being
exposed in a treasonous incident; his seal was buried with him. See also Ji
Zhongqing 纪仲庆, “Guangling wang xi he Zhong-Ri jiaowang” 广陵王玺和中
, Dongnan
日交往（The Guangling wang seal and Sino-Japanese interactions）
wenhua 东南文化 1（1985）, pp. 233–34, wherein Ji also recounts the great
excitement the discovery of the seal elicited in Japan; and Ōtani Mitsuo 大谷
光男, “Go Kan to Gi no shokōō no shinshaku” 後漢と魏の諸侯王の進爵（Therise in nobility for feudatory princes of the Later Han and Wei）, in Ōtani
Mitsuo, ed., Kin’in kenkyū ronbun shūsei 金印研究論文集成 （Collection of

The Discovery of the Gold Seal in 1784 and the Waves of Historiography Ever Since 29

year after the Han seal was presented to the ruler of the state of Na, Okazaki
Takashi（1923–90）has argued（and Kajiyama Masaru concurs）that, given
their uncanny resemblance—such as the presence of scales on the animal
figures of their respective handles, the similarities in the calligraphy of theinscriptions, and the similar way in which the inscriptions were cut—they
may have been fashioned in the same workshop in Luoyang. Although bothare made of gold, there are some important differences. The Guangling seal
was designated a xi 璽, while the Na seal does not even bear such a designating Chinese graph. Second, the Guangling seal has a tortoise handle, while
the Na seal has a coiled snake. And, the color of the ribbon originallyaccompanying the seals differed as well, with the Guangling’s green ribbon
assigned to imperial princes（zhuhou 諸侯）and the Na’s purple one reserved
for adjunct marquises（liehou 列侯）, one notch down. The prefixing of thecharacter Han to the Na seal, as noted by Okazaki Takashi （in the essay
discussed below）was deemed necessary only for an external subject state（waichen 外臣） such as Na, but unnecessary for Guangling, an internal
subject（neichen 內臣）of the Han throne. Both recipients enjoyed the position of wang 王 or prince, but they were nonetheless at different levels
because of the external vs. internal nature of their respective places within the
Sinosphere.17

research essays on the gold seal）（Tokyo: Shin jinbutsu ōraisha, 1994）, p. 77.
17 Okazaki Takashi 岡崎敬, “Arata ni hakken sareta ‘Kōryō ōji’ ni tsuite: Kōso
shō Kankō ken Kansen nigōbo” 新たに発見された「広陵王璽」について：江蘇省邗
江県甘泉二号墓 （On the recently discovered “Seal of the Prince ofGuangling”: Tomb Number Two, Ganquan, Hanjiang County, Jiangsu
Province）, in Ine fune matsuri: Matsumoto Nobuhiro sensei tsuitō ronbunshū
稲・舟・祭:松本信廣先生追悼論文集（Rice, boats, festivals: Essays marking thedeath of Professor Matsumoto Nobuhiro）（Tokyo: Rokkō shuppan, 1982）, pp.
625–30; Kajiyama Masaru, “‘Kōryō ōji’ kin’in to ‘Kan no Wa no Na nokokuō’ kin’in, kin’in to Higashi Ajia sekai,” in Chūka jinmin kyōwakoku
Nankin hakubutsuin meihōten, pp. 17–18; Okamura Hidenori 岡村秀典,“Kōkogaku kara mita Kan to Wa” 考古学からみた漢と倭（Han and Wa as seenfrom archeology）, in Wakoku tanjō 倭国誕生（The birth of the state of Wa）,
ed. Shiraishi Taiichirō 白石太一郎（Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 2002）, pp.
225–26; Shiraishi Taichirō 白石太一郎. “Wakoku tanjō” 倭国誕生（The birth of
the state of Wa）, in Wakoku tanjō 倭国誕生（The birth of the state of Wa）, ed.
Shiraishi Taiichirō （Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 2002）, pp. 64–66; Keiji
Imamura, “Jomon and Yayoi: the transition to agriculture in Japanese history,”in The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, ed.
David R. Harris（Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1996）, pp.
460–61.

30

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.2 2011

As these new finds and many more like them indicate, a whole new
approach was required in the postwar years to make sense of the field of seals
into which the gold seal discovered in Kyushu in 1784 would be placed. The
normative texts about seals dating from centuries past were no longer seen as
the best guide and certain not the only guide to understanding where the gold
seal fit. The new model discipline supplanting the philological paradigm
established at the end of the nineteenth century would be science. Archeology
was only part of this shift, though certainly an important part. The representative essay that marks this paradigmatic change was written in 1968 by
Okazaki Takashi, the noted historian of early China and Japan. In many ways,
the shift into a world governed by science when studying the gold seal is thesame world we inhabit today. The power of science is all around us—
upending human judgments and past misdeeds all the time. One of the rarescholars allowed to actually examine the seal, Okazaki（and his assistants）
applied a host of scientific tests to it in an effort to allay the least doubt about
the seal’s authenticity. Cold, hard science recognizes no human frailty or
prejudice; it is its own universe of verifiability which we ignore at our peril.
This was a universe in which “science,” because of its putative claims touniversal applicability and pure objectivity, had become the final arbiter of“truth.” The intent of Okazaki’s fine essay was to put an end to any and all
allegations of fabrication. And, inasmuch as the seal is not at all easily available for scientific investigation, his study loomed all the larger.18
18 Okazaki Tadashi 岡崎敬, “‘Kan no Wa no Na no kokuō’ kin’in no sokutei” 「 漢委 奴 国 王 」金 印 の 測 定 （Measuring the gold seal [inscribed] to the“King of the state of Na in Wa under the Han”）, Shien 史淵 100（March
1968）, pp. 265–80; rpt. in Shikanoshima: “Kan no Wa no Na no kokuō” kin’in
to Shikanoshima no kōkogakuteki kenkyū 志賀島：
「漢委奴国王」金印と志賀島の考古学的研究 （Shikanoshima: The gold seal [inscribed] “Han Wei Nuguowang” and archeological research at Shikanoshima）, ed. Kyūshū daigaku
Bungakubu Kōkogaku kenkyūshitsu 九州大学文学部考古学研究室（Department

The Discovery of the Gold Seal in 1784 and the Waves of Historiography Ever Since 31

Both hard science and archeology have advanced beyond the stage they
were a generation ago, but the status of “science” remains exalted. It hascome under attack by postmodernists from one side and religiously inspired
men and women from another; its putative sanctity has been criticized fromother realms as well, but it still enjoys enormous veneration.
As of this writing, we may be seeing a fourth phase in the study of thegold seal, what might be called constructivism. This view, heavily indebted topostmodernism, effectively sees much of reality and certainly the historicalpast as a construction of the individual perceiver. Few would disagree with theidea that everyone’s sense of reality is different, though most would find it
difficult to accept the idea that such differences（with the exception perhapsof schizophrenics）amount to anything fundamental. In 2006 a scholars ofancient Japanese literature by the name of Miura Sukeyuki（b. 1946）from
Chiba University published a volume aimed at toppling all supports underpinning the authenticity of the gold seal.19 That meant debunking every aspectof the received story and coming up with an elaborate conspiracy theory for
how it was forged in the months or years prior to its unearthing in 1784. Thishe does with a fair degree of expertise, though, to be sure, there are holes in
his argument. Riding the wave set in motion by Miura’s book and the newspaper articles and debate that followed as well as a series of his own essays,in 2010 Suzuki Tsutomu（b. 1949）published a volume which approached thegold seal from the heretofore unexplored realm of the history of metallurgicalmethods.20 Although his ultimate position remains a bit vague, in no smallpart because of the hyperscientific nature of his specialty, Suzuki effectively
cast great doubt—not from the perspective of constructivism but from that ofbetter science—on the capacity of Han Chinese to cast such a seal. It is stillmuch too early to tell is constructivism or better（newer and more sharply
penetrating）science will constitute the discipline of a new paradigm, or ifneither will force us to shift gears.
Where does that leave us now? The likelihood of finding new documentsof Archeology, Faculty of Letters, Kyushu University）（Fukuoka: Kin’in isekichōsadan, 1975）, pp. 84–92.
19 Miura Sukeyuki 三浦佑之, Kin’in gizō jiken: Kan no Wa no Na no kokuō nomaboroshi 金印偽造事件「漢委奴國王」のまぼろし（The incident of the forged
golden seal: The illusion of “King of Na in Wa, under the Han）（Tokyo:
Gentōsha, 2006）.
20 Suzuki Tsutomu 鈴木勉, “Kan no Wa no Na no kokuō” kin’in tanjō jikūron:Kinseki bungaku nyūmon I, kinzoku inshō hen「漢委奴国王」金印誕生時空論：金石文学入門Ｉ，
金属印章篇（The time and place of the birth of the gold seal
[inscribed to] “the king of the state of Na in Wa under the Han”: Introductionof epigraphic literature, vol. 1, metallic seals）（Tokyo: Yūzankaku, 2010）.

32

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol.2 2011is extremely small. Ōtani Mitsuo 大谷光男（b. 1927）, the scholar who has done
more research on and unearthed more materials concerning the gold seal thananyone, is unlikely to have an heir. Whether the fourth wave of historiography on the gold seal will be able to sustain itself—and whether that wave
will be predominantly social constructivism or better science—remain to be
seen.
The first three waves, though, have fully made themselves felt. While each
was transcended by the next, it is hard to imagine the present state of scholarship on the gold seal, or much of anything else, without the preceding
stages. Thus, Kamei Nanmei’s world of Confucianism in Fukuoka or Miyake
Yonekichi’s world of philology in the straitlaced world of Tokyo at the turnof the last century may be far from our own, they nonetheless produced
indispensable scholarship which we ignore at our intellectual peril.