Introductionhistory. For this reason, it has become common practice to subdivide it into at least two parts: an
early medieval period, during which the institutions of the classical age remained prominent, and a
late medieval period, during which they very nearly faded into insignificance.
The term genshi, and the question of where to distinguish it from the kodai era (and why),
presents thornier issues. The literal meaning of genshi (written with characters meaning “origin”
and “begin”) corresponds fairly closely to the English terms “primordial,” “primeval,” “inaugu-
ral,” or “initiatory”; but all of these seem ludicrous in application to an epoch that extends into
the first four or five centuries of the ce/ad era. Some authors have used “prehistoric” or “proto-
historic” as labels for the era.^8 But in addition to being teleological (as is, in fact, genshi itself ),
these terms are essentially meaningless, now that the historical profession has long since aban-
doned the time- worn distinction between the pre- and post- documentary past.^9 “Ancient” offers
another possibility, but this term has become problematically ambiguous because of its history of
usage—a point to which I will return in a moment. The best solution may be the term “archaic,”
which has also gained some currency among historians.^10
Kodai represents a similarly difficult construct. To begin with, its standard application is far
too broad, spanning at least the sixth to the twelfth centuries, and sometimes stretching back-
ward to include the fifth, or forward to include the thirteenth centuries. As such, “kodai” sub-
sumes both the early state- formation era and the first five or six centuries following the
establishment of the sinified imperial (ritsuryō) state. It seems conceptually appropriate—indeed,
I would argue essential—to distinguish the socio- political structure(s) of the late seventh to
twelfth centuries from those of earlier times, as most historians writing in recent decades have, in
fact, done.
Anglophone historians usually label this later epoch as either “ancient” or “classical.” The
latter, however, has much to recommend it over the former. In addition to being (as noted above)
ambiguously applied to both the fifth to early seventh centuries and the seventh to twelfth cen-
turies, “ancient” also carries negative connotations. It is primarily a chronological term; but
outside the Japanese context it is usually applied to the extremely remote past, and to raise
impressions of eras long- dead and worthy only of antiquarian interest. “Classical,” on the other
hand, is role- attributive, and far more positive in nuance—one need only compare the images
brought forth by the phrases “Classical Greece” and “Ancient Rome” to verify this. More spe-
cifically, “classical” identifies the foundational nature of the seventh to twelfth centuries in
Japan’s developmental history, the era during which the quintessential, enduring elements of
subsequent Japanese civilization—the Chinese- style monarchy, the ritsuryō legal structure, the
court- centered hierarchy of status and authority, the network of provinces and districts, the
religious system, and numerous other features—were put into place.^11
This volume, then, employs both the capital- appellative periodization schema (Nara, Heian,
Kamakura, etc.) and a somewhat refined version of the broad theme- denominative terminology
discussed in the foregoing paragraphs: an Archaic era lasting until the mid- seventh century; a
Classical epoch from the mid- seventh to the late twelfth century; an Early Medieval period
during the thirteenth to early fifteenth centuries; and a Late Medieval period of the late fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries—followed by an Early Modern period from the end of the sixteenth to
the late nineteenth century.
In one sense, the study of premodern Japan is as old as the subject itself. The first historical chron-
icles, the Kojiki (“Record of Ancient Matters”) and the Nihon shoki (“Chronicle of Japan”), were
produced in the late seventh century, followed by a sequence of court- sponsored histories in the
tradition of Chinese dynastic chronicles—Shoku Nihongi (“Continued Chronicle of Japan”),
Nihon kōki (“Later Chronicle of Japan”), Shoku Nihon kōki (“Continued Later Chronicle of Japan”),