If archaeologists are to discern social facts from the material remains of extinct societies, they must develop explicit methodologies for relating material culture to social behavior. Ethnoarchaeological research is one means of generating and testing such analytic principles. The Syrian village of Darnaj in the context of comparative materials from elsewhere in Western Asia is used as a case study for examining the relationships between domestic architecture and three socioeconomic household attributes: household size, number of coresiding conjugal family units, and household wealth. To allow an assessment of the relative effectiveness of architecture for predicting socioeconomic variability, data on some household belongings were collected and analyzed as well. In all cases, domestic architecture proves at least as accurate as movable possessions for predicting the socioeconomic attributes tested. In Darnaj the total area of rooms designed for people is the best indicator of household size. The number of sitting and goods storage rooms and the presence of redundant dowry sets are the most accurate predictors of the number of co-residing conjugal family units, and wealth is most highly correlated with total compound area. These and other compound features are discussed and probable reasons for the association or lack of association of each attribute with the socioeconomic characteristics are presented. In conclusion, some statements about (1) the nature of the rules relating domestic architecture to household socioeconomic characteristics, (2) ways that domestic architecture can be used to discern socioeconomic variability in the archaeological record, and (3) means of excavating, recording, and publishing architectural data to maximize its utility as a socioeconomic indicator are offered.

by Chung Him. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1994. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 160-175). / ABSTRACT --- p.i -ii / ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS --- p.iii / ABBREVIATIONS --- p.iv / TABLE OF CONTENTS --- p.v -vii / LIST OF FIGURES --- p.viii -ix / LIST OF TABLES --- p.x -xi / LIST OF MAPS --- p.xii / CHAPTER / Chapter 1 --- INTRODUCTION / Chapter 1.1 --- Setting the Scene --- p.1 / Chapter 1.2 --- The Research Problem --- p.3 / Chapter 1.3 --- Research Objective --- p.7 / Chapter 1.4 --- Research Methodology --- p.8 / Chapter 1.5 --- Significance of this Research --- p.9 / Chapter 1.6 --- Organization of the Thesis --- p.10 / Chapter 2 --- UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE URBAN AND THE RURAL: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE / Chapter 2.1 --- Introduction --- p.12 / Chapter 2.2 --- The Literature on Urban-Rural Inequality in China --- p.12 / Chapter 2.3 --- Urban-Rural Inequality: A Discussion of Western Concepts --- p.20 / Chapter 2.3.1 --- Urban-Rural Inequality and Neo-classical Economic Theories --- p.20 / Chapter 2.3.2 --- Theories of Unequal Exchange --- p.24 / Chapter 2.3.3 --- "The Concept of ""Urban Bias""" --- p.29 / Chapter 2.4 --- "Summary," --- p.34 / Chapter 3 --- GEOGRAPHIC TRANSFER OF RESOURCES: THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK / Chapter 3.1 --- Introduction --- p.37 / Chapter 3.2 --- The Concept of GTR --- p.38 / Chapter 3.3 --- The Operation of GTR in China --- p.44 / Chapter 3.4 --- The GTR Mechanism in the Context of the Regional Administrative System --- p.51 / Chapter 3.4.1 --- The Traditional Regional Administrative System and GTR --- p.52 / Chapter 3.4.2 --- Institutional Reform of City-Leading-Counties and GTR --- p.55 / Chapter 3.5 --- Variety Forms of Vertical and Horizontal Resource Transfer --- p.61 / Chapter 3.6 --- Summary --- p.66 / Chapter 4 --- OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE CONCEPT OF GTR / Chapter 4.1 --- Introduction --- p.68 / Chapter 4.2 --- On Methodology --- p.68 / Chapter 4.3 --- The Measurement of Resource Transfer --- p.72 / Chapter 4.3.1 --- Resource Transfer Via the Price Mechanism (GTR1) --- p.74 / Chapter 4.3.2 --- Resource transfer Via Taxes and Payments (GTR2) --- p.80 / Chapter 4.4 --- Sketching the Picture of Resources Localization --- p.83 / Chapter 4.5 --- The Technical Problems of Operationalization --- p.86 / Chapter 4.6 --- Summary --- p.86 / Chapter 5 --- THE SUNAN AREA: A DESCRIPTION OF THE SETTING / Chapter 5.1 --- Defination --- p.88 / Chapter 5.2 --- Basic Socio-Economic Characteristics --- p.89 / Chapter 5.3 --- Summary: Implications For the Operation of the GTR --- p.97 / Chapter 6 --- ESTIMATION OF THE RESOURCE TRANSFER & LOCALIZATION IN THE SUNAN AREA / Chapter 6.1 --- Introduction --- p.100 / Chapter 6.2 --- The Estimation of GTR1 --- p.100 / Chapter 6.2.1 --- The Rural Commodity Accounts of GTR1 --- p.100 / Chapter 6.2.2 --- Adjust the Rural Commodity Accounts by the Base-Year Method --- p.109 / Chapter 6.3 --- Sketching the Picture of Resource Localization --- p.111 / Chapter 6.4 --- Concluding Remarks --- p.118 / Chapter 7 --- GTR IN THE SUNAN AREA / Chapter 7.1 --- Introduction --- p.120 / Chapter 7.2 --- Administrative System Reform in Sunan and Its Effects on GTR: A Discussion of the Estimations --- p.120 / Chapter 7.2.1 --- GTR Under the Traditional Administrative System --- p.122 / Chapter 7.2.2 --- Institutional Reform & the GTRin the Sunan Area --- p.125 / Chapter 7.3 --- GTR in the Sunan Rural Ecocomy: A Discussion of the Mechanism --- p.142 / Chapter 7.3.1 --- GTR in the Agricultural Sector --- p.142 / Chapter 7.3.2 --- GTR in the Rural Non-Agricultural Activities --- p.149 / Chapter 7.4 --- Conclusion --- p.151 / Chapter 8 --- SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS / Chapter 8.1 --- Summary --- p.153 / Chapter 8.2 --- Implications --- p.156 / Chapter 8.3 --- Directions for Further Study --- p.158 / BILBLIOGRAPHY --- p.160 / Cited Statistical Yearbooks --- p.173

Typescript (photocopy). / Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

Typescript. / Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

Taking up a discourse of agrarian literature (nōmin bungaku) from its roots in the first decade of the twentieth century through the late 1930s, this dissertation presents the struggle of outsiders to participate in a powerful system of meaning production amidst the consolidation of the power of state, institutional, and media apparatuses to arbitrate rural working class expression. Relentlessly contested and confused even in retrospect, the very notion of an “agrarian literature” has long called for the deliberate and rigorous review that this study provides. Through investigation of the roles of individual actors and close readings of specific texts, it identifies the kinds of stories that could be told about rural places and the kinds of stories that rural places could tell about themselves, outlining in the process a regime of cultural production with implications for the postwar period and beyond. Studies of Japanese literature between the 1910s and 1930s have long posited twin juggernauts: one a cosmopolitan, bourgeois literature of and for the urban elite, and the other a vibrant new proletarian movement of and for the urban masses. Scholars have accordingly concentrated on these urban-centric categories individually or, occasionally, dealt in the subtleties of their overlap and opposition. This dissertation examines instead the richness and diversity of thought and experience beyond the cities to challenge such readings of Japanese literature during this period. Writing against prevailing scholarly interpretations of agrarian works as alternately romantic figments of an Arcadian idyll or products of festering reactionary backwaters, it sketches the contours of a society and a lineage of literary writing which, for all its geographical separation from the capital, proves no less integral to Japanese modernity. In 1933 the critic Kobayashi Hideo declared modern Japanese literature a “literature of the lost home.” Critical approaches to writing on rural Japan have subsequently centered the feelings of nostalgia and guilt harbored by the literati who abandoned their rural roots for the booming cities. Nearly all have ignored the reality that for many the “home” was never lost at all. For a century the dominant narrative has excluded those who physically remained in the countryside or actively sought its radical social and political reform by means of cultural practice. Their erasure from history has not only produced an incomplete picture of lived experience in rural Japan during this period, but also severed important threads that link prewar authors and texts with postwar and present day cultural production in the countryside. Chapter one surveys the career of author Nagatsuka Takashi (1879-1915), focusing on his novel of rural Japan The Soil (Tsuchi, 1910). Members of the contemporary Tōkyō literary establishment, notably Masaoka Shiki (1867-1902) and Natsume Sōseki (1867-1916), had courted this son of Ibaraki landowners as their emissary to the Japanese countryside, but despite The Soil’s bold, experimental style, literary elites would greet the novel with indifference ranging into outright hostility. This chapter reads Nagatsuka’s career and The Soil itself—something the novel’s critics often failed to do—to reckon with its rejection by the period’s foremost individuals and institutions. It examines the literary networks that would sanction, or refuse to sanction, cultural production in and on the Japanese countryside for decades to come. Challenging the later scholarly consensus that has approached The Soil as a kind of ethnography, this chapter also situates Nagatsuka’s writing within the high literary world of the late-Meiji period, arguing for its importance to generations of writers and critics who will promote an “agrarian literature” steeped in both radical politics and a self-consciously literary tradition. Chapter two spans the decade following Nagatsuka’s death in 1915, a period of transforming elite attitudes at the intersection of literary practice and the lived reality of rural Japanese society. With the broadening ideological battleground of the Taishō period (1912-1926) increasingly admitting new materialist conceptions of a rural underclass, artists and intellectuals began to conceptualize art as something of utility for the farmer, a means of solving the “problem” of the countryside within a modernizing nation. The hyper-elite critiques forwarded by Shirakaba group luminaries Arishima Takeo (1878-1923) and Mushanokōji Saneatsu (1885-1976) in the late 1910s would directly inform the activities of smaller coteries including the proto-proletarian journal The Sower (Tanemakuhito, 1921-1923) and the influential Waseda bungaku in the early 1920s, by which time a notion of agrarian literature had gained currency within mainstream literary discourse. Its advocates, who ranged from hard-bitten autodidacts to university professors who could cite Virgil, Theocritus, and Leon Trotsky in the same breath, would promote total societal renewal through a cosmopolitan and forward-looking “literature of the soil.” Chapter three examines the organizing, criticism, and literary work of Inuta Shigeru (1891-1957), a poor farmer’s son who would become the architect of an oppositional agrarian cultural movement, from the mid-1920s through the late 1930s. A fierce admirer and defender of Nagatsuka—whose birthplace stood barely twenty miles from his own—Inuta’s writings nevertheless illustrate the critical distance of a different generation and social class. Inuta’s career has received scant attention from scholars, and during a time when the stench of fascism has clung to anything associated with so-called “agrarianism” (nōhonshugi) the absence of a full account of his activities has left Inuta and his allies to twist in the winds of accusation. In fact his work was heavily suppressed throughout the 1920s and 30s, and his refusal to collaborate with rightwing cultural organizations during the late-1930s met with condemnation from the highest strata of government. In Inuta’s novels and in his journal The Farmer (Nōmin, 1927-1933), he attacked a proletarian movement he could not recognize, a bourgeois literature he called conservative and mired in feudal mechanisms of oppression, and a state ideology that offered little to the poor farmers of communities such as his own.

Typescript (photocopy). / Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

A field survey was conducted in eight villages in Northeastern Thailand to examine the impact of non-farm employment on rice production during the 1994-95 crop year. This study uses the human ecology approach based on the conceptual framework of Duncan's (1959) ecological complex. This study found that participation in non-farm employment directly affects whether the household will produce rice, but its impacts vary according to the extent of participation. Full-time employment, particularly with the yearlong absence of the male head of household, appears to inhibit rice production because it has the potential to cause a critical farm labor shortage. Part-time employment creates opportunities for farmers to integrate both farm and non-farm production to sustain their households. Women and elders have become the principal labor source for their own farms and waged labor for others. The traditional pattern of exchange labor can hardly be practiced when the demand for hired labor exceeds the supply. Waged laborers receive the same pay regardless of age and gender, and employers have no control over the wage rate. The use of machines is increasing. The supply of threshers exceeds demand, but there is a shortage of power-tillers. / However, non-farm employment does not lead to increased levels of farm investment as hypothesized, because a large proportion of waged income was used for other purposes, including daily consumption and debt repayment. Consequently, there is no significant difference in farm productivity (kg. of paddy/unit area) between households with and without participation in non-farm employment. Out-migration to participate in non-farm employment seems inevitable in the face of population growth and land scarcity, but its impacts on rice production vary according to how farmers adapt to the changing resource base and use of modern farm technology. If possible, farmers tend to continue farm and non-farm employment to distribute their risks. However, it is crucial to retain a balance between the types of employment so that the loss of labor does not lead to poor farm productivity nor to production costs that exceed the farm household's means.