home r1 r2 r4 r5 r6 The Izumi crane migration grounds cover a 245ha paddy field area of Izumi plain in the northwest of Kagoshima Prefecture known for the about ten-thousand cranes which pass the winter there from every year mid October to March.

Contents 1 Migration 2 History 3 References 4 External links

Migration Izumi crane migration grounds Hooded crane

The cranes come over with the north and northwest winds from mid October to mid November. Each year there are about 10,000 hooded cranes, 3,000 white-naped cranes and also small numbers of common cranes, demoiselle cranes, sandhill cranes and Siberian cranes. They pass the winter eating rice plants, cyperaceae weed, japonicus steud, eleocharis acicularis, eleocharis Kuroguwai Ohwi, potatoes, frogs, snails, viviparidae, grasshoppers and so on. People also feed them about 70 tonnes of wheat, chaff, brown rice, soybeans and so on. The cranes in Izumi are carefully protected. For example, the roosting grounds are set in are marshy areas so they cannot be attacked by Japanese raccoons and Japanese mink. On the other hand, farmers in the area have had to set up guard nets around their fields so the cranes cannot damage crops. Before they leave the area, the cranes are given about 8 tonnes of sardines before heading north. They go up in a circular pattern and fly away to the north with the convection currents, which comes up by west or northwest wind on a clear day from early February to late March.

The breeding sites for the hooded cranes flying to Izumi are the marshes from Lake Baikal to the mid and upper stream of the River Amur. The cranes also winter in the Yatsushiro basin in Yamaguchi, Daegu in Korea, the marshes of Goryeong and the Korean Demilitarized Zone, the Yangtze River in China and so on. There are many cranes which change their wintering places depending on the climate conditions of the year, so the number of the crane flying to Izumi plain changes from year to year. History

Originally, cranes passed the winter in marshes and paddies all over Japan, and were observed in many places throughout Satsuma (present-day Kagoshima) during the Edo period (1603-1868). Cranes were first observed in Izumi plain in 1694, when land was being drained near the coast. The Edo Shogunate appealed for cranes to be protected nationwide which Satsuma followed and allowing the cranes to keep coming. However after the Meiji Restoration (1869), cranes were once being hunted again and by around 1890 no cranes were coming to Izumi. In 1895 they started to come again with the establishment of the game act and the cranes became established as an attraction on the Izumi plain served by a horse-drawn cart running to see the cranes. Kagoshima Main Line railway opened in 1923 was planned to go through the center of Izumi plain at first, but the ornithologist, Uchida Seinosuke, appealed to the Japanese Government Railways to protect the cranes, and had the route changed to go around the migration grounds. The number of the crane increased, 150-160 in 1919, 275 in 1927, and 3908 in 1939, however the number dropped to 275 in 1947 because of the navy airfield and a reduction of the protection.

After the war, the plain was designated a natural monument on 29th March 1952. In 1955 the Defense Agency planned to reuse the old naval airport but was forced to give up because of a grassroots opposition campaign. By 1963 the number of cranes coming was over one-thousand. The numbers increased sharply from 1976, when military exercises between the United States and Korea in one of the other wintering areas in Korea started. By 1992 numbers had reached over ten-thousand.Since 1987 the ‘Crane Marathon in Izumi’ has been held. On 1st November 1989 the Crane Observation Center was opened followed by the Crane Museum on 21st April 1995 ‘, both are used as awareness campaigns as well as sightseeing attractions. Also on 1st November 1987, Izumi and neighbouring Takaono designated a wildlife protection area of 842ha, 54ha of which is a specially protected.

However, one problem that has arisen is that the cranes has begun to congregate only in Izumi, leading to research in how to get the cranes to winter in other parts of western Japan.

Direct historical approach and Izumi crane migration grounds

The direct historical approach to archaeology was a methodology developed in the United States of America during the 1920s-1930s by William Duncan Strong and others, which argued that knowledge relating to historical periods is extended back into earlier times. This methodology involves taking an archaeological site that has historical accounts relating to recent periods of occupation and then excavating it to establish continuity back into prehistoric times. The historical data then becomes the basis of analogy and homology for the study of the prehistoric communities at both the particular site and other sites in the region. The main issue with the approach is that in many parts of the world there is no direct continuity between historically documented communities and the prehistoric occupants of the region.

Contents 1 Background 2 The Direct Historical Approach as a Cultural Identifier 3 The Direct Historical Approach in Establishing Chronology 4 Issues with the Direct Historical Approach 5 References


In the nineteenth century, the archaeological record of the Americas was viewed as an extension into the past of the ethnographically documented record. Human behaviors of the archaeological past were seen as nearly identical to those described ethnographically and thus, they could be studied with minimal training in archaeology. The result of this particular view was the development and regular use of what came to be known as the direct historical approach.

Dixon was seen as an early proponent of this approach. In his presidential address to the American Anthropological Association he stated: “one would logically proceed to investigate a , and work back from these,” because it “is only through the known that we can comprehend the unknown, only from a study of the present that we can understand the past.” Strong, who later became attributed to this particular methodology, argued that Dixon set forth the procedure of the direct historical approach. Strong would later go on to say that “once the archeological criteria of culture had been determined, it then possible to advance from the known and historic into the unknown and prehistoric.”

Oddly, the direct historical approach rarely appears in histories of American anthropology. Similarly, very few texts point out that the direct historical approach was used for three distinct purposes. In American archaeology these were: (1) to identify the cultural association of an archaeological manifestation; (2) to construct relative chronologies of archaeological materials; and (3) to understand the human behaviors that were thought to have produced particular portions of the archaeological record. The Direct Historical Approach as a Cultural Identifier

After the peak of the direct historical approach, Willey wrote about its use as a means of assigning ethnic identity to archaeological phenomena. He explained: “through a series of successive periods prehistoric cultures were linked to proto-historic, historic, and modern descendants. This type of study, sometimes called the ‘direct historical approach,’ has a theoretical basis in cultural continuity. Starting with know, documented habitation sites, certain cultural assemblages were identified and associated with particular tribal groups. Earlier archaeological assemblages were then sought which were not too sharply divergent from the known historic ones, and the procedure was followed backwards in time…The establishment of prehistoric-to-historic continuity is of utmost importance as a springboard for further archaeological interpretation, and, along with general chronological and distributive studies, it is one of the primary historical problems for the American archaeologist.”

Most famously, Cyrus Thomas used the reasoning of the direct historical approach to demonstrate that various earthworks scattered across the eastern and midwestern portions of America (mounds) were produced by the direct genetic and cultural ancestors of historically documented ethnic groups (the indigenous peoples of the Americas). The Direct Historical Approach in Establishing Chronology

In much the same way that the direct historical approach was used to demonstrate ancestor-descendant relationships, it was also used to measure the passage of time (also called chronology). This process involves creating time-based sequences of artifacts by starting with a list of cultural traits related to specific artifact types and then working into the past by determining which traits/artifact types were held by archaeologically represented cultures. Through this theoretical sorting, one can study more than ethnic identification by establishing time-based sequences. After ethnic identification and chronology has been established, the direct historical approach becomes the basis of analogy. Issues with the Direct Historical Approach

There are large parts of the world that are without direct continuity between historically documented communities and the prehistoric occupants of the region. Without this connection, the direct historical approach lacks purpose and is unable to enhance archaeological study. If this is the case, archaeologists rely on other archaeological theories and methods.