A plethora of theories from contemporary museum studies have suggested that museums have been used as political tools of the state or the elite ruling class who control the majority – a perspective which inexorably links the museum to the instrument of power. However, this overt reductionism or instrumentalism denies reality museums reflect in relation to contemporary society. What are missing from this particular view are the interactive relationships intertwined between institution’s internal organization and external social networks. In our understanding in this postmodern age, when singularism is yielding to pluralism and democracy prevailing, powers in our society operate not only from top to bottom, but also the other way around. In light of this, I have chosen two ‘state corners’ (those having nothing to do with development operated by the state) as my subjects of comparative studies. One is National Museum of Prehistory (NMP) in Taitung, Taiwan. The other is Okinawa Prefectural Museum & Art Museum (OPMAM) in Okinawa, Japan. Drawing upon the notion of ‘contact zones’ developed by James Clifford (1999), this research regards the museum as an arena in which reciprocity, exploitations and contestations are found between people’s interactions. These two organizations have all that museums should have, and both function as significant cultural spaces in their own societies. In the ‘displayscape’ to embody the interweaving tradition and modernity as well as global and local, and with its tourist, cultural, academic, political and economic activities, the museum has become a meeting point for various groups to express divergent views, identities, attitudes and to exchange and compete for benefits. This multi-contextualization needs further study and comprehensive explanations. In chapter 2 and 5, I give an ethnographic description and analysis of the natural, social and cultural environments in Taiwan’s Taitung and Japan’s Okinawa, finding that 1980 for the former and 1972 for the later are their respective turning points of development. Before moving forward to the points, the two places had been non-developed societies ignored by the states and disqualified to join in the governments’ projects for development. They have since been included in the projects initiated by the authorities under an ambiance of official ‘apologies’. Employing economic, social and cultural channels, the administrations have attempted to offer the development opportunities to these non-developed societies located in the corners of the countries, in order to shorten the rural-urban differences. Both state corners are not capable for developing industry, but are rich in natural and cultural resources. In response to the trend of reflexive development, the states and local elites have thought in terms of and decided on developing tourism and leisure industries. With their particular historical resources, both Taitung and Okinawa lay sound foundations for museums to prosper. The museums have thus turned out to be a constructive national policy to respond to and reciprocate the local. Further examination of NMP and OPMAM and their relationships with other local museums have shown that the museums are historically and sociologically shaped under the competition and cooperation among local resources, aspirations, interest groups, ethnicity, tourist markets, and national goals, which reflects distinctive cultural administration and landscape. Based on local identity, OPMAM reflects a ‘local museum’ with different layers of divisions. Representing Taitung’s multiethnic society, NMP equals to an ‘ethnic museum’ as cultural landscape. Influenced by centralization and administration by ethnicity in Taiwan, the management of NMP suggests a vertical link between central authorities and their local subordinates, while there is a widening gap between horizontal coordination at local level. I maintain this phenomenon ‘ethnicity in the realm of rift valleys’.