1. Transitions of the Leading Region of Civilization

Tracing back the history of human civilization, we can see that with each evolutionary stage the leading region of human civilization has undergone a geographical shift.
We know that 4,000 to 6,000 years ago, four big civilizations located in four regions of the Eurasian continent: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus and China accomplished their Urban Revolution. Furthermore, we know that the Spiritual Revolution that took place some 2,400 to 2,800 years ago was lead by the four regions of Israel, Greece, India and China.
The Scientific Revolution of the 17th Century, which is connected with modern civilization, was lead by Western Europe, and it was both Western Europe and North America that were responsible for the expansion of the Scientific Revolution up until the 20th Century.
From looking at these occurrences it can be said that human civilization has had different geographical leaders in innovation, and that human civilization has been able to evolve while alternating these leaders. There have been cases of new evolutions in civilization occurring within one region alone, however these cases are likely the exception. As one specific example, China can be said to have occupied the position of exception.
When the history of human civilization is viewed from such a perspective, what position can the ‘Asia Pacific civilization’ be seen to occupy?

In order to address this issue I will firstly examine several theories that have viewed civilization history from a geographical perspective. This field is of course represented by Tadao Umesao’s Bunmei no Seitai-shikan (An Ecological View of Civilization), while more recently Heita Kawakatsu’s Bunmei no Kaiyō-shikan (A Maritime View of Civilization) has become a topic of discussion as a new modification of Umesao’s theory.

2. Tadao Umesao: ‘An Ecological View of Civilization’

Umesao’s article, ‘An Ecological View of Civilization’ was released in 1957 (Chūōkōron, Feb, 1957). Immediately following its release the work aroused great interest and even today it is a celebrated theory that undoubtedly comes up in related research and studies. For this reason it is unnecessary for me to introduce the work here, however the resulting developments are important to relate so I will give a very simple account of the essence of the work.

‘An Ecological View of Civilization’
(1) In order to illustrate the historical characteristics of mankind from ancient times until the modern age, ‘An Ecological View of Civilization’ divides the Eurasian continent, which is the mainland of civilizational history, into 2 broad areas: the savannah area centering on the large arid belt that runs northeast to southwest across the continent, and the fringe zones to the east and west of the savannah. Area 1 encompasses the fringe zones including Western Europe and Japan, which is the region of modern day advanced civilization; while Area 2 is the backbone region centering on the large arid belt.
(2) The community lifestyle and the general structure of society in each of these areas is diametrically opposed.
(3) Japan and Western Europe are both classified as Area 1, yet despite their opposing locations in the east and west respectively, both have followed a very similar pattern of history. Japanese post-Meiji Restoration modern civilization and Western European modern civilization can be viewed as a kind of parallel social development.
(4) Contrastingly, in Area 2, the rise of the original ancient civilizations was accompanied by a repeated history of destruction and conquest. There was no development of feudalism and with the modern age this area became colonies of the Area 1 nations. It wasn’t until the 20th Century that Area 2 began to embrace modern civilization.
(5) Just as a parallel development between Japan and Western Europe existed in Area 1, four large communities, or civilization blocs, in Area 2 also exhibited a parallel development: (I) the Chinese bloc, (II) the Indian bloc, (III) the Russian bloc and (IV) the Mediterranean/Islamic bloc.
Figure A shows the famous chart illustrating the above points.
Later on, in his article published in 1958 (Chūōkōron, Aug, 1958) entitled Tōnan Ajia no Tabi kara (From a Southeast Asian Journey), Umesao addresses the issue of placing Southeast Asian regions on his chart by partially modifying and enriching the chart. As shown in Figure B, through the introduction of two parallel lines partitioning the region immediately surrounding the central arid belt as well as the forest/wet zones in the eastern and western peripheries, Umesao clearly defines the location of Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe.
There have already been vast critiques of Umesao’s ‘An Ecological View of Civilization’ and it is not my purpose to address those here. Rather, I will remark on a number of points that relate to my arguments to follow.

Features of ‘An Ecological View of Civilization’
Firstly, Umesao’s ‘ecological view’ was not necessarily an attempt to explain the dynamics of the history of human civilization. Rather, it identified the regional characteristics, particularly ecological, that can be thought to determine the features of each different civilization and which form the basis of these dynamics. Each civilization changes. This is particularly so with the start of the modern era, when those civilizations of Area 2 came under the influence of the bearer of modern civilization, Area 1. Yet while its form may change, the intrinsic elements of a civilization do not.
To digress briefly, Umesao has another important historical view independent of ‘An Ecological View of Civilization’, that of Bunmei no Jōhō-shikan (An Information View of Civilization) (Refer to Umesao, Tadao. Jōhō no Bunmei-gaku (Civilizational Studies of Information), Chūōkōron Sha, 1988). In this work Umesao talks about the advent of the ‘Information Age’, which arose following the ‘Agrarian Age’ and the ‘Industrial Age’, as a common progression of civilization. This progression affects both Area 1 and Area 2, with the result that the differences between remaining ecological characteristics of the two areas are rapidly diminishing.
I believe that this progression has been seen before. Up until the 1970s, the modernization of Asia was viewed pessimistically by Europe, the United States and Japan, and the common assumption was of a ‘sluggish Asia’. Yet with the start of the 1980s and the commencement of informatization, the development of the Asian economies suddenly took off and the modernization of society began to move forward at a rapid pace.
I believe that an important discussion point for civilizational theory is the relationship between the universalization process of both civilization itself and the ecological characteristics that are at the foundation of civilization. In that sense, there is an important
intensity that exists between Umesao’s ‘An Ecological View of Civilization’ and ‘An Information View of Civilization’.
Secondly, as Kawakatsu has argued more recently, Umesao’s theory is a land-based view and does not factor in the role that the oceans have played in the history of civilization. This is a point that Umesao has acknowledged in discussions with Kawakatsu (Bunmei no Seitai-shikan wa Iima (An Ecological View of Civilization - Today), Umesao ed. Chūōkōron Sha, 2001). As I will discuss later, it was Kawakatsu who developed this point and introduced new issues in Bunmei no Kaiyō-shikan (A Maritime View of Civilization) (Waseda seijikeizaigaku zasshi, no. 323, 1995, and after in his book Bunmei no Kaiyō-shikan (A Maritime View of Civilization), Chūōkōron Sha, 1999).
Thirdly, Umesao’s theoretic model is based on the Eurasian continent and does not include the American continent in its perspective. We can assume that from Umesao’s point of view, he could only look at those elements present during the continuation of Western Europe as contained in his model, despite that fact that the scale of the American continent is very large. I think, however, that the way the position of the American continent is viewed within the history of civilization will be of great importance.

3. Heita Kawakatsu: ‘A Maritime View of Civilization’

‘A Maritime View of Civilization’
For Kawakatsu, the fact that Umesao’s model is a land-based view is a problem. To rectify the lack of inclusion of ‘the oceans’ in Umesao’s chart of civilization, Kawakatsu attempts a correction of Umesao’s second chart.
(1) Firstly, Kawakatsu revises Umesao’s Figure 2 to include the North Sea and the Baltic Sea in the area classified as ‘Eastern Europe’, and to include the East China Sea and SouthChina Sea in the area classified as ‘Southeast Asia’. What Kawakatsu produces is Modified Figure 1, with the result that both Japan and Western Europe are shown to be floating in ‘the oceans’ in their respective eastern and western peripheries.
(2) By extending to the south the line that runs north to south across the arid belt, the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea are specifically shown as the southern oceans of the Eurasian continent. In Umesao’s Figure 3 Southeast Asia is presented as belonging entirely to Area 2, however when the Indian Ocean is defined we see that this region is located in a place under far greater influence from ‘the oceans’ than the continent. In other words, it is more appropriate to distinguish Southeast Asia from Area 2. (Modified Figure 2)
(3) With the introduction of ‘the oceans’ into the figure, the two perpendicular lines in the east and west of Umesao’s figure take on yet another new meaning. The western perpendicular separates the North Sea from the Baltic Sea and the West Mediterranean Sea from the East Mediterranean Sea, while the eastern perpendicular separates the East China Sea from the South China Sea and demarcates the Pacific Ocean. (Modified Figure 3)
Based on the figures that were revised as I have outlined above, Kawakatsu stresses the role that the oceans have played in the rise into power of modern civilization and thus develops his ‘maritime view’.
As we know, the formation of ancient civilization took place on the Eurasian continent. Looking at later developments however, we see that the scene of civilizational history shifts to the oceans.
The first scene of civilizational history concerns the Mediterranean Sea. In the 5th Century BC the East Mediterranean Sea was the stage for the flourishing of Greek civilization as well as the expansion of Roman civilization that followed. In ancient times the Mediterranean Sea was the ‘Roman Sea’.

With the rise of Islamic civilization in the Middle East however, the Mediterranean Sea
became the ‘Islamic Sea’. Moreover, as Islamic civilization extended its influence to the east, an immense civilization bloc of ‘Maritime Islam’ formed in the Indian Ocean area.
Meanwhile, the China Sea and Yellow Sea region of the northeast part of Asia was forming ‘Maritime China’, a world with Chinese civilization as a great power bloc. This oceanic area, extending from the Indian Ocean across Southeast Asia to the China Sea and Yellow Sea, engaged in trade of the bountiful produce of the area. Through this trade the various civilizations of Asia: Chinese civilization, Indian civilization, Islamic civilization etc. actively engaged with each other and as a result the region was responsible for inspiring the fusion of civilizations.
Kawakatsu asserts that this Southeast Asia oceanic area was the launching point for the emergence of modern civilization.
According to Kawakatsu, civilization ‘waves’ originated in the Southeast Asia oceanic area and spread out in both an easterly and westerly direction. The first such wave rolled from Southeast Asia through Maritime China to the southern part of China, and then farther on to Korea and Japan, the result of which lead to the modernization of Japan following its period of isolation.
Another such wave extended from Southeast Asia across the Indian Ocean to Western Europe and the Atlantic Ocean. This gave rise to the emergence of Western European civilization, which began in the 16th Century and became the backdrop for the Scientific Revolution.
As a consequence, some major compositional changes in the world came about. The Mediterranean Sea changed from the ‘Islamic Sea’ to the ‘European Sea’. Its power bloc expanded into the Atlantic Ocean and enveloped both the American continent and the African continent, forming an Atlantic rim civilizational bloc. Meanwhile, the oceanic areas of the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia came under the influence of Western Europe.
Based on this understanding and contrary to popular theory, Kawakatsu emphasizes the simultaneous, parallel development of modern civilizations in the two regions located at opposite ends of the Eurasian continent, Japan and Western Europe.

Kawakatsu’s ‘Pacific Civilization’ Theory
From such a maritime view, how does Kawakatsu envision the 21st Century civilization?
Kawakatsu asserts the possibility of a new civilization in the Asia Pacific, that is to say, the possibility of a new civilization that is neither oriental nor occidental. He also views the growth of APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) as connected with this vision.
However, Kawakatsu argues that the term ‘Asia Pacific’ does not sit well in this situation and that in the future the concept of ‘Asia’ as a region will disappear and the concept of ‘Pacific’ will remain. Subsequently, the civilization that will form in this region is not the ‘Asia Pacific civilization’ but the ‘Pacific civilization’.
I think that in this case Kawakatsu perceives the concept of the ‘Asia Pacific’ as purely an area concept, or more precisely that he envisions that concept as the world of the Western Pacific islands extending the region of Southeast Asia. In actual fact, he states that “Asia’s NIES (Newly Industrializing Economies), centering on Japan, and ASEAN are chiefly responsible for Pacific civilization, and they are located in the Western Pacific.”
I am also of the opinion that there is the possibility of a new civilization in the Asia Pacific in the 21st Century and I believe that this is a matter of great importance. However I think it is impossible to view, as Kawakatsu does, the evolution of a new civilization as merely forming out of an extension of his maritime view that “Southeast Asia is the birthplace of modern civilization”. I think that such understanding leads to treating the Asia Pacific as purely an area concept and to viewing the concept of ‘Asia’ as unnecessary for the new civilization.
The ‘Asia Pacific’ concept is not simply an area concept, but a new civilizational phenomenon. In fact, I believe it is a concept that depicts a fusion of modern Western civilization and the long accumulated civilizations of Asia, in other words a concept that depicts a new ‘east-west fusion’ of civilizations. In light of this, we see that the concepts of ‘Asia’ and ‘Pacific’ are inseparable entities.

4. Beyond Kawakatsu’s ‘Maritime View of Civilization’
- ‘An Historical View of the Transitions of the Leading Region of Civilization’

Transitions of the Leading Region of Civilization
My thoughts on this point are based on new developments of the geographical view of civilization as a background. I shall examine this further here.
It can be said that the role of Kawakatsu’s ‘Maritime View of Civilization’ was important in so far as it brought about a transformation of the land-based view. However, I believe that this transformation is still constrained by the fact that it is an expansion of Umesao’s model.
Here I will present a geographical view of civilization that goes beyond Kawakatsu’s maritime view.
To begin with, I will affirm the fundamental viewpoints of this geographical view of civilization. The first point is that its maritime view is developed from a global perspective and is not limited to the oceans that surround Southeast Asia. When one thinks this way, the large-scale Indian Ocean, Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean and the smaller-scale China Sea, Yellow Sea and Mediterranean Sea enter one’s field of vision. The problem that remains is how to develop a global maritime view of civilization, the scope of which encompasses all of the earth’s main oceans and seas.
The second point, as I mentioned at the beginning of this paper, is that human civilization has geographically altered between leaders of civilizational innovation, and while doing so has been able to evolve. In other words, human civilization has achieved evolution while relocating its leading region.
Herein lies the problem that was evident earlier. What role did the earth’s oceans and seas play in the transitions of the leading region of civilization?
Human civilization can be seen to have undergone three major stages of leading region transition. They are:
Stage 1: The Eurasian continent and the Indian Ocean and China Sea/Yellow Sea
Stage 2: Central East Asia and the Mediterranean Sea
Stage 3: Western Europe (the western portion of the Eurasian continent), the North American continent and the Atlantic Ocean
Though the majority of facts are common knowledge, I will explain each of these stages in slightly more detail.

The Eurasian Continent and the Indian Ocean and China Sea/Yellow Sea
As we know, around 4,000 to 6,000 years ago (2,000 to 4,000 BC), four unique civilizations were born and the Urban Revolution of mankind became a reality. These four unique civilizations were born in three regions of the Eurasian continent, namely Mesopotamia (Tigris/Euphrates River basin), India (Indus River basin) and China (Yellow River basin), and in the Northern Africa region connected to the Eurasian continent, namely Egypt (Nile River basin). More recently, the existence of a civilization that predates that of the Yellow River is coming to light in the Yangtze River basin in China, a large river on par with the Yellow River.
Following on from the success of these ancient civilizations, during a period spanning the 8th to 4th Centuries BC, mankind brought about a major change in thinking and achieved the ‘Spiritual Revolution’ in the four regions of Greece, Israel, India and China, for the first time in history.
It is becoming clear that while these ancient civilizations each possessed their own unique origins, they also interacted on various levels in both a geographical and time sense and shared mutual processes. It can also be said that at that time the oceans surrounding these regions played an extremely important role.
For example, we can find facts showing that mutual exchange took place between the oldest civilization of Mesopotamia and the Indus civilization. It is therefore certain that the role of the Indian Ocean, which connects these two civilizations, was very significant indeed.
Additionally, the Greek civilization that was responsible for a great part of the Spiritual Revolution, as well as the Roman civilization that continued on from the Greek tradition, evolved on the basis of the Mediterranean Sea, or more specifically the East Mediterranean Sea.
To return to an earlier time however, the Indian Ocean, the China Sea, the Yellow Sea and the other oceanic bodies of Eastern Asia all played a profound role in spreading the effects of the Spiritual Revolution that were seen in India and China on to all parts of Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia.
Whichever way we look at human civilization, we can assert that from 4,000 BC to around the 6th Century AD, in other words from the Urban Revolution to the first half of the Spiritual Revolution, the Eurasian continent and its surrounding oceans were the main stage for the evolution and accumulation of civilizations.

Central East Asia and the Mediterranean Sea
The Spiritual Revolution came about in the latter half of this era, after the emergence of Islam in Central East Asia from the 7th Century onwards, and the advent of the second half of the era of Spiritual Revolution heralded the emergence of Islamic civilization as a new civilization.
The Islamic civilization that emerged in Central East Asia in the 7th Century later quickly spread to both the east and the west. From North Africa to the Iberia Peninsula and Spain in the west, to Southeast Asia and Indonesia in the east, it became a widespread civilization bloc. The Islamic civilization carried out extensive exchange and underwent extensive fusion with the previously established Greek and Roman civilizations in the west and the Indian and Chinese civilizations in the east. In these activities it was ultimately the eastern and western oceans, the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean, that played the major role. More specifically, the Mediterranean Sea, previously known as the Roman Sea, changed to the Islamic Sea during this era, while in the Indian Ocean in the east, the great civilization bloc of Maritime Islam was formed.

Western Europe, the North American Continent and the Atlantic Ocean
After the Italian Renaissance of the 15th Century and the Scientific Revolution, the leading region of civilizational development greatly expanded into Western Europe. With Western Europe as its hub, the Scientific Revolution of the 17th Century evolved into the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th Centuries.
The Industrial Revolution then extended west across the Atlantic to the North American continent and formed the industrial Euro-American civilization as an industrial civilization. It was this Euro-American civilization that dominated in the 20th Century.
The existence of the Atlantic Ocean, nestled between these two continents of Eurasia and North America, was of paramount importance in causing these industrial civilizations straddling two different continents to emerge as one. The existence of this ocean ensured rich exchange amongst the two continents as well as the evolution of a single, great civilization. From this perspective this new civilization can rightly be called the ‘Euro-American Atlantic civilization’.
By examining the above major currents of human civilization, we see that civilization has evolved by shifting its leading region ‘westward’, from (1) the Eurasian continent → (2) Central East Asia → (3) Western Europe and the North American continent and that in each of these movements the oceans, namely (1) the Indian Ocean, China Sea and Yellow Sea surrounding the Eurasian continent, (2) the Mediterranean Sea and (3) the Atlantic Ocean, have played a pivotal role.
Figure by Sakamoto depicts how these leading region transitions appear on the globe.
This is not to say that the evolution of a civilization stopped when its leading region role ended. There were occasions when this did occur, and there were occasions when civilizations experienced a period of prosperity and then completely collapsed. However in the majority of cases, even if those civilizations no longer played an advanced role in evolution, they managed an independent evolution in order to arrive at the stage where they are today. And while the future can not easily be predicted, by looking at recent movements in economic development it is most definitely possible that those regions that once receded from a position of leadership will once again take a leading role in human history. I think that such an understanding is particularly important in Asia’s Indian and Chinese civilizations.
Whatever the case may be, human civilization has continued to evolve while shifting its leading region in a mainly westerly direction across the globe, and as such the global oceans have played an immense role in the evolution of human civilization.

5. The Advent of the ‘Asia Pacific Civilization’

The ‘Asia Pacific Civilization’ as a Fusion of Eastern and Western Civilizations
By examining the above situations from the ‘historical view of the transitions of the leading region of civilization’, it can be expected that the leading region of human civilization will move further west and that the Asia Pacific region will emerge as the next major scene for the development of human civilization. Specifically, it is possible that the Euro-American Atlantic civilization, which built up from the 15th Century in Europe, the North American continent and across the Atlantic, will merge with the Asian civilizations, which have accumulated since the time of ancient civilizations, and in the setting of the Asia Pacific region will create a new aspect of civilization. In other words, the possibility of the ‘Asia Pacific civilization’.
When we actually examine the recent movements of global society, we see that there are indications that this ‘Asia Pacific civilization’ may become a reality. I think it is fair to say that the biggest indicator of this is the rapid economic development that has taken place in Asia since the 1980s.
From the 19th Century, Asia was under the influence of European and American powers. It was released from its colonial status following the end of the Second World War, yet despite this and up until the 1970s the Asian economies failed to get on board the development track. With the exception of Japan, ‘stagnant Asia’ was the long-held general image of the region.
However the 1980s heralded economic growth in Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, almost so that these countries seemed to be taking after Japan. Moreover, the start of a chain reaction development of economies in today’s ASEAN member countries took a huge step forward. From amidst these conditions at the start of the 1990s, Asia became known as the world’s ‘center of growth’ and the 21st Century was labeled the ‘Asia Pacific Age’.
Yet as we know, with the currency-value collapse in Thailand in 1997, the whole of Asia was plunged into a currency crisis and hit by economic hardship. Not only the economies of Asia, but society as a whole was plunged into chaos. This was as Paul Krugman predicted in 1994 and it caused us all to think: ‘Was the Asian economic growth an illusion after all?’ Even from among those analysts who had been loudly advocating the advent of the Asia Pacific Age, there were those who emerged pronouncing: ‘The growth of Asia is already over’.
Yet as we welcome the 21st Century, the Asian economies are showing signs of a rapid recovery and foreshadow the emergence of a new phase of Asia. While Japan has not yet emerged from its economic stagnation, the ASEAN member nations are, by and large, embracing a new phase of economic development. In particular, the growth of China has been astounding.
Particularly evident now is that Asia is becoming the world’s ‘manufacturing’ center, the ‘world’s factory’. Much of the world’s ‘manufacturing’ capital is centered on Asia. The biggest ‘manufacturing’ center of all is China and this is greatly raising the Asian economy.
Such economic growth in Asia is the most basic indication we have of the possibility of the advent of the ‘Asia Pacific Age’ and the ‘Asia Pacific civilization’ in the 21st Century.
Thus history shows us that not only is ‘manufacturing’ the main basis for economic development, but that it is also the driving basis for civilizational development through the ages. In that sense then, it is necessary to evaluate the current progressive conditions in Asia from the context of a civilizational theory perspective.
The Asian economic development described above can be seen as being connected with an even more profound aspect of human society’s evolution. That is, the evolution of a new fusion of Eastern and Western civilizations. It is possible that the Western civilizations, namely the Euro-American civilization of the 15th Century onwards with its western transit path, and the Asian civilizations of the east, built up since ancient times, will merge in the Asia Pacific region to create a new civilization, or more precisely, the advent of the ‘Asia Pacific civilization’.
This phenomenon of the fusion of Eastern and Western civilizations has occurred on a number of occasions throughout mankind’s history. Firstly there was the east-west civilizational fusion via the Silk Road, and additionally same civilizational fusion via the Indian Ocean. However the fusion that is expected to take place this time is of a level never before seen in the history of mankind. It is fair to say that it will be an overall integration of the accumulation of human civilizational history up until the present day. Subsequently, while this fusion will create what is called the ‘Asia Pacific civilization’, it should also be recognized as the creation of a ‘global civilization’.

‘Asia Pacific Civilization’ Issues and ‘Asia Pacific Studies’
The creation of this new civilization as an integration of human histories carries with it the burden of immense tasks.
More than anything else, that means the conservation of the global environment as an absolute requirement for the existence of mankind, and the creation of better living conditions for people. In other words, the task of balancing economic development between these two interests.
Furthermore, when we look at the history of mankind, we see that the term ‘century of war’ can be successively applied to the particular centuries that comprise the modern era. Thus another major task to be achieved for the 21st Century is to convert this term to the ‘century of peace’.
The remarkable developments in science and technology as well as industry that have embellished this so-called modern era have created, out of the imbalance in economic development, both affluence and severe poverty. Moreover, the biggest amplifier of poverty is war. Overcoming poverty that is born out of such conditions is another task for the 21st Century.
As we enter the 21st Century, there are renewed calls about the importance of ‘sustainable development’ and ‘human security’. As illustrated previously, these two issues jointly reflect the problems that the new ‘Asia Pacific civilization’ will have to shoulder.
However, it is self-evident that the arrival of the ‘Asia Pacific civilization’, that is to shoulder responsibility for resolving these global problems, will not occur of its own accord while those of us in the 21st Century sit idly by. It will take the conscious efforts of 21st Century people to make it happen. We can not wait for the ‘Asia Pacific civilization’ to ‘arrive’; we must consciously ‘create’ it.
I am proposing the establishment of a new ‘Asia Pacific Studies’ as an academic pursuit to achieve this. The new ‘Asia Pacific Studies’ is not merely ‘area studies’ of the Asia Pacific, rather it goes beyond that to ‘policy studies’; that is, ‘policy studies’ used to create the ‘Asia Pacific civilization’ as a global civilization.
It is my belief that such policy studies are essential for the creation of the ‘Asia Pacific civilization’ that is to come.


※ Transitions in the leading region of civilization as described in this paper and the associated advent of the Asia Pacific civilization first caught my attention in Arifin Bey’s book Ajiataiheiyō no Jidai (The Asia Pacific Age) (Chūōkōron-sha, 1998). Refer to Chapter 1, Ajiataiheiyōjidai to Nihon no Yakuwari (The Asia Pacific Age and the Role for Japan) of the same book.
In the above-mentioned book, Bey talks about the establishment of an Asia Pacific university in preparation for the advent of the ‘Asia Pacific Age’, to function as a center for cultivating human resources necessary for this new age. The year 2000 was proposed as the year in which to actualize such a proposal. These developments took place in the latter half of the 1980s.
With this in mind, the opening of our Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University in April of 2000 becomes a realization of Bey’s earlier proposal.

※ Article published in Ritsumeikan Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, Vol.13, 2004.

References
Bey, Arifin. Ajiataiheiyō no Jidai (The Asia Pacific Age). Chūōkōron-sha, 1997.
Funabashi, Yōichi. Ajiataiheiyō Fusion (The Asia Pacific Fusion). Chūōkōron-sha, 1995.
Itō, Shuntarō ed. Hikakubunmeigaku o Manabuhito no Tameni (For Students of Comparative Civilization Studies). Sekaishiso-sha, 1997, Chapter 1.
Itō, Shuntarō. Bunmei no Tanjō (The Birth of Civilization). Kodansha-gakujutsubunko, 1998.
Kawakatsu, Heita. Bunmei no Kaiyō-shikan (A Maritime View of Civilization). Chūōkōron- sha, 1997.
Kawakatsu, Heita. Nihonbunmei to Kindaiseiyō - ‘Sakoku’ Saikō (Rethinking Japan and the Modern West - ‘National Seclusion’). Japan Broadcast Publishing Co. Ltd., 2001
Krugman, Paul. “The Myth of the Asia’s Miracle”, Foreign Affairs. Nov - Dec, 1994.
Mabubani, Kishore. “Tōzaibunka wa Taiheiyō de yūgōsuru” (Eastern and Western Cultures will Merge in the Pacific), Chūōkōron. March. 1995.
Umesao, Tadao. Bunmei no Seitai-shikan (An Ecological View of Civilization). Chūōkōron- sha, 1967.
Umesao, Tadao. Jōhō no Bunmeigaku (Civilization Studies of Information). Chūōkōron-sha, 1988.
Umesao, Tadao. Bunmei no Seitai-shikan wa Ima (An Ecological View of Civilization - Today). Chūōkōron-shinsha, 2001