Overview: Japanese Archaeological Research Trends 20091
Tanaka Yoshiyuki2

The 2009 Fiscal Year (FY) may be called the first year in the postwar era to see achange in the ruling party. As great transformations in the Japanese political scene
are thought to bring about social reform, the change in government was met by the
citizens with tremendous hope and anxiety. And with no definite points of change
indicated for educational and cultural policies, the situation held both hope andanxiety for the academic world of archaeology as well.
In the midst of these developments, the budgetary screening of government
projects to reduce waste emerged as a major policy point of the new administration.
Based on this, a variety of projects were reevaluated, extending also to culturalprojects and educational policies, so the Japanese Archaeological Association
issued a “Board of Directors’ Statement Calling for Fiscal Support for Advancing
Academic Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences” to relevant government
agencies, and linking up with related academic societies, took a clear stance as an
academic organization.
In the end, there was no great change for archaeology or cultural properties, andit appears the policies regarding them are being carried on within the same generalframework as before. Which is to say that as positive developments are also lacking,severe conditions for archaeology and cultural properties have continued under the
prolonged economic downturn, and the pressure of structural reforms for which it
serves as backdrop.
Under these conditions, the Japanese Archaeological Association changed fromthe legal status of limited liability intermediary corporation to general corporation.
While some Association members may have felt uneasy with this, since the switch tointermediary corporation itself was made only recently, it was a step made becauseof legal revisions which eliminated that status. Changes to the articles of[Trends in Japanese Archaeological Research, 2009 , is a partial translation of “Nihon kōkogaku
kenkyū no dōkō” 日本考古学研究の動向, in Nihon kōkogaku nenpō 62 (2009 nendoban) 日本考古学年報
62（2009 年度版) (Archaeologia Japonica 62 [2009 Fiscal Year Issue]) (Nihon Kōkogaku Kyōkai, 2011),
pp. 1-57. This essay appears on pp. 1-3, under the Japanese title “Sōsetsu” 総説. It was translated byWalter Edwards, and published by the Japanese Archaeological Association (Nihon Kōkogaku Kyōkai
日本考古学協会) online in 2011. To streamline the text, characters for Japanese names and terms, andbibliographic information have been placed in footnotes. When an English translation of the name ofan organization or publication (or symposium, etc.) is supplied by the party responsible, this is usedwith minimum changes in capitalization etc. to conform to the style followed by Trends in JapaneseArchaeological Research. Romanized names of individuals are given with the surname followed by the
personal name.]
2
田中良之
1

Trends in Japanese Archaeological Research, 2009
© 2011 The Japanese Archaeological Association
published online: November 2011

–1–

–2–

TRENDS IN JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH, 2009

incorporation and the structure of the Board of Directors were necessitated by theswitch to a general corporation, but it goes without saying that the Association’s
goals stated therein of “promoting archaeology,” “holding and supporting researchmeetings, public lectures, and symposia,” and “protecting and utilizing culturalproperties” remain essentially as before.
With goals such as these, the Association addressed its tasks in 2009. One ofthese was dealing with the deteriorating social conditions surrounding archaeology.
Based on a report made in March 2008 by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, 3 impetus
was given to the commissioning of archaeological investigations to the private
sector, and with the establishment of a system for licensing investigators by theJapan Association for Preservation of Cultural Properties 4 and Waseda University,
plus the conversion of Buried Cultural Properties Centers which had been operated
by regional governments into Public Interest Corporations, and the weakening ofprovisions of the Museum Act, 5 the social environment for archaeology is greatly
worsening. Naturally, this is also a critical development for the university andgraduate school programs which train personnel to serve in the field. With regard to
this problem, the Association continued its considerations through its Research
Conditions Investigative Committee,6 and in the 2009 FY held a symposium in
Sendai focusing on the research environment as a whole, 7 plus a symposium on thelicensing system at its General Meeting and at another venue in Kansai, 8 with aposter session at its Autumn Meeting reporting on the two symposia and the resultsof a questionnaire.9 The problems taken up in these activities have emerged fromchanges in social conditions regarding archaeology and cultural properties, and wearchaeologists must surely find the proper approach through sincere discussion of
how to engage with archaeology and cultural properties in the future.
Intimately related to the research environment is the protection of culturalproperties. Ever since the Association established the Committee on Policy for the
Maizō Bunkazai Hakkutsu Chōsa Taiseitō no Seibi Jūjitsu ni Kansuru Chōsa Kenkyū Iinkai 埋蔵文化財
発 掘 調 査 体 制 等 の 整 備 充 実 に 関 す る 調 査 研 究 委 員 会 (Committee for Investigations Bearing on theProvision and Enrichment of Organizations for Excavating Buried Cultural Properties), Kongō nomaizō bunkazai hogo taisei no arikata ni tsuite 今後の埋蔵文化財保護体制のあり方について (On the Future
System for the Protection of Buried Cultural Properties) (Bunkachō, 2008).
4
Nihon Bunkazai Hogo Kyōkai 日本文化財保護協会
5
Hakubutsukanhō 博物館法6Kenkyū Kankyō Kentō Iinkai 研究環境検討委員会
7“Kibishisa o masu kenkyū kankyō o kangaeru” 厳しさを増す研究環境を考える (Examining the Increasingly Critical Research Environment), Tōhoku Shinpojiumu 東 北 シ ン ポ ジ ウ ム (Tōhoku Symposium)(Japanese Archaeological Association, Tōhoku Gakuin Daigaku, 3 March 2010).
8“Maizō bunkazai no shikaku seido o kangaeru” 埋蔵文化財の資格制度を考える (Examining the System
for Licensing Buried Cultural Properties Investigators), a symposium held in conjunction with the
Nihon Kōkogaku Kyōkai 2009 Nendo Sōkai 日本考古学協会 2009 年度総会 (Japanese Archaeological
Association 2009 General Meeting) (Waseda Daigaku, 31 May 2009), and as the Kansai Shinpojiumu
関西シンポジウム (Kansai Symposium) (Kansai Daigaku, 4 July 2009).
9“Maizō bunkazai no shikaku seido o kangaeru shinpojiumu no gaiyō to ankēto kekka” 埋蔵文化財の資格制度を考えるシンポジウムの概要とアンケート結果 (Synopsis of Symposia on Examining the System for
Licensing Buried Cultural Properties Investigators and Questionnaire Results), poster presented at the
Nihon Kōkogaku Kyōkai 2009 Shūki Taikai 日 本 考 古 学 協 会 2009 年 度 秋 季 大 会 (Japanese Archaeological Association 2009 Autumn Meeting) (Tōhoku Geijutsu Kōka Daigaku, 17 October 2009).
3

OVERVIEW–3–

Preservation of Buried Cultural Properties10 as its first standing committee, it hascontinued to act by issuing demands, requests, and declarations concerning culturalproperties protection to relevant agencies. In addition, during the current Fiscal
Year the Committee presented a poster on the issue of protection at the
Association’s Autumn Meeting.11 Also, with regard to the incident of improperly
discarding artifacts, which occurred in Kashiba city, Nara prefecture, theAssociation’s attitude was clearly indicated through the issuing of a “Board of
Directors’ Declaration Calling for Proper Management of Buried Cultural
Properties” addressed to the relevant agencies, beginning with the city of Kashiba
itself.
This year was the thirtieth anniversary of limited open exhibits of sites
designated as imperial tombs. As the lead organization among the sixteen
participating academic societies, the Association held research meetings in Kyoto
and in Tokyo on the subject,12 giving an overview of the movement to gain access toimperial tombs to date, and the prospects for the future. It may be said that accesshas greatly advanced in comparison with the past. These tombs are traditionallyregarded as ancestral shrines of the imperial household, and while considerationmust be given to their actually being treated in this manner from a certain point in
time, it is also true that they include the highest rank of kofun, ancient mounded
tombs. Though it may be said that progress has been made regarding access, thetombs nevertheless remain as an obstacle blocking research on the formative
process of our nation’s state. The movement will surely continue until the day whenaccess to the imperial tombs proceeds to the point where they can be utilized asarchaeological data.
Examination regarding the disposal of the Association’s library began in
December 2007, and at the 2009 General Meeting the Committee for Investigating
Measures for the Association Library submitted a proposal titled “Outline for
Recruiting Recipients for Donation of the Association Library,” which passed afterpartial revision. When a public advertisement based on this was made, only the
Sainsbury Institute of Japanese Arts came forward, and as it was judged a qualified
recipient after strict examination in light of the stipulations of the Outline, theselection was approved by the Board of Directors. That only a single response wasreceived, and moreover from overseas, reflects the straitened circumstances ofresearch institutes and libraries within Japan.
Maizō Bunkazai Hogo Taisaku Iinkai 埋蔵文化財保護対策委員会
Maizō Bunkazai Hogo Taisaku Iinkai, “Maizō bunkazai wa dare no sekinin de mamorareru ka” 埋蔵文化財は誰の責任で護られるか (Under Whose Responsibility Can Buried Cultural Properties Be Saved?),poster presented at the Nihon Kōkogaku Kyōkai 2009 Shūki Taikai (Tōhoku Geijutsu Kōka Daigaku,
18 October 2009).
12“Ryōbo kōkai undō no 30 nen: Saki Misasagiyama kofun/Fushimijō no hōkoku to tomo ni” 陵墓公開運動の 30 年: 佐紀陵山古墳・伏見城の報告とともに (The Thirty Years of the Movement to Open Imperial
Tombs: Together with Reports on the Saki Misasagiyama Tomb and Fushimi Castle) (Kyoto, 17 May
2009); “Ryōbo kōkai undō 30 nen no sōkatsu to tenbō” 陵墓公開運動 30 年の総括と展望 (Synopsis andOutlook from Thirty Years of the Movement to Open Imperial Tombs) (Komazawa Daigaku, 23
November 2009).
10
11

–4–

TRENDS IN JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH, 2009This Fiscal Year also saw positive movement to create awards from the JapaneseArchaeological Association. After examining already existing awards and methodsof citation for merit as reference, it was decided to create three awards, a “GrandAward,” “Monetary Award,” and “Special Award.” The rules were presented inissue No. 168 of the Association’s Bulletin 13 and opinions solicited, and after
subsequent finalization by the Board of Directors, the measure was to be proposedat the 2010 General Meeting. Afterward, the Association’s awards are scheduled tostart with the 2011 General Meeting, based on achievements from the 2009
calendar year.
Among the issues the Association has been grappling with is the problem ofhistory and social studies textbooks. At the 2009 General Meeting the Committee toInvestigate Social Studies and History Texts organized a special panel withproposals for reform of grade school textbooks, 14 and at the Autumn Meeting
presented a poster on the same topic.15 The contents did not stop with questions
such as simply whether or not to include the Jōmon period, but maderecommendations on the urgent problem of textbook reform by pointing out
concrete problems in the descriptions.
Textbooks are not the only problem concerning elementary and middle school
education. In recent years, a decreasing trend in the numbers of students majoringin archaeology has been pointed out. While there may be differences depending on
the university, it is surely evident that the momentum of former days is lacking.
Uncertainty about the prospects of employment after graduation is understandable
as one of the causes. But is that really all? How is archaeology being talked about in
middle and high schools to begin with? Are the recognition and understanding ofarchaeology held by teachers, who greatly influence the students’ future careers, asfavorable as in the past?
As a matter of fact, at the author’s home institution, Kyushu University, aseminar is held every year for high school teachers and faculty in history andrelated fields. At a post-seminar get-together it was related that “Some teachers
advise students who want to major in archaeology that it appears to be a sloppy
discipline so they should give up on it.”Clearly archaeology is viewed withsuspicion, which was surely triggered by the Paleolithic Hoax. At that time, theAssociation conducted the most thorough investigation possible. 16 But the process
Nihon Kōkogaku Kyōkai kaihō 日本考古学協会会報 (Bulletin of the Japanese Archaeological Association)
14
Shakaika/Rekishi Kyōkashotō Kentō Iinkai 社会科・歴史教科書等検討委員会 Committee to Investigate
Social Studies and History Texts, “Shōgakkō 6 gakunen shakaika (rekishi) kyōkasho o kangaeru:
Kyōkasho kaitei e no teigen” 小学校６学年社会科(歴史)教科書を考える: 教科書改訂への提言 (Considering
Sixth Year Grade School Social Studies [History] Texts: Proposals for Textbook Reform), panelorganized at the Nihon Kōkogaku Kyōkai 2009 Nendo Sōkai (Waseda Daigaku, 31 May 2009).
15
Shakaika/Rekishi Kyōkashotō Kentō Iinkai, “Shōgakkō 6 gakunen shakaika (rekishi) kyōkasho okangaeru: Kyōkasho kaitei e no teigen,” pospter presentation at the Nihon Kōkogaku Kyōkai 2009
Shūki Taikai (Tōhoku Geijutsu Kōka Daigaku, 17 October 2009).
16[Translator’s note: The Paleolithic Hoax (Kyūsekki Netsuzō Jiken 旧 石 器 捏 造 事 件 ) was publicly
exposed in November 2000, and the investigation report, Zenki/chūki kyūsekki mondai no kenshō
13

OVERVIEW–5–of that enormous task and its result have be not been conveyed in detail to society
at large, and we have consequently reached the present day unable to wipe away
the feeling of distrust. In order to eradicate these publicly held misgivings, the true
nature of archaeology must be recognized especially by teachers participating
directly in elementary and middle school education. For this reason, it is essentialthat we conduct our day-to-day investigations and research with sincerity, andsecure a bounty of results.
The 2009 General Meeting was held at the Nishiwaseda campus of Waseda
University. The public lectures by Manome Jun’ichi and Inada Takashi were a great
success,17 and research reports were made at five separate meeting rooms where
earnest presentations and discussion were held. The Autumn Meeting, held at
Tohoku University of Art and Design, saw great activitiy as well, with public lectures
by Taguchi Hiromi and Jacques Pelegrin, 18 and research reports given in threemeeting rooms plus a poster session. The results contained in these research
reports are likely to be published in various journals in the field, beginning with the
Association’s own Nihon kōkogaku (Journal of the Japanese Archaeological
Association).19
Trends for 2009 in every period and region are given in detail in the sections of
this volume that follow,20 and I ask the reader to examine these while noting that interms of variety and quantity, Japanese archaeological research is regarded as
outstanding on a worldwide basis. Unfortunately, however, there are hardly any
English language journals for the Association or anywhere else in the field.
Accordingly, even with the numbers of investigation reports and research articles
that are published, internationally the genre of “Japanese archaeology” has yet tobe established. The choice of whether Japanese archaeology will remain buried ininternational academics within the category “East Asian archaeology,” centered on
China, or be established as its own genre, is a question which the Association may
have to address in the near future.
The year 2009 also saw the publication of the report on “Promoting the
Humanities and Social Sciences” from the Council for Science and Technology. 21 It
前 ・ 中 期 旧 石 器 問 題 の 検 証 (Inspection of the Early and Middle Paleolithic Problem in Japan), waspublished by the Association in May 2003.]
17
Manome Jun"ichi 馬目順一 , “Shokuri no sekai” 飾履の世界 (The World of Gilt-Bronze Shoes), andInada Takashi 稲田孝司, “Kyūsekki jidai kenkyū no kadai” 旧石器時代研究の課題 (Tasks for Paleolithic
Research), public lectures held in conjunction with the Nihon Kōkogaku Kyōkai 2009 Nendo Sōkai(Waseda Daigaku, 30 May 2009).
18
Taguchi Hiromi 田口洋美, “Gijutsu kōdōkei kenkyū to minzoku kōkogaku” 技術行動系研究と民族考古学 (Technological Behavior Research and Ethnoarchaeology), and Jacques Pelegrin, “Yōroppa ni
okeru sekijin hakuri” ヨーロッパにおける石刃剥離 (Microblade Flaking in Europe), public lectures held inconjunction with the Nihon Kōkogaku Kyōkai 2009 Shūki Taikai (Tōhoku Geijutsu Kōka Daigaku, 17
October 2009).
19
Nihon kōkogaku 日本考古学 (Journal of the Japanese Archaeological Association)
20[Translator’s note: The reference here is to summaries, by period and region, of research trends
contained in Nihon kōkogaku nenpō, the same volume as this introductory overview.]
21
Kagaku Gijutsu/Gakujutsu Shingikai 科 学 技 術 ・ 学 術 審 議 会 (Council for Science and Technology),
Jinbungaku oyobi shakai kagaku no shikō ni tsuite (hōkoku) 人文学及び社会科学の振興について (報告)(Promoting the Humanities and Social Sciences [Report]) (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,

–6–

TRENDS IN JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH, 2009

seems that similar statements are put out repeatedly every few years, holding incommon the point that contemporary fields of scholarship have become fiercely
subdivided, with calls for the necessity of reintegration. Archaeology can hardly be
regarded as an exception, and it most likely must deal with keywords such as“international,” “interdisciplinary,” and “integrated sciences.” In that regard, as
will be detailed later in this volume, academic exchanges with foreign countries
beginning with Asia are becoming more and more active each year, and advances
are being made in joint research with related fields, and the development of newareas. With these things in mind, the 2009 Fiscal Year maybe regarded as one offulfillment even in the midst of severity.

Science and Technology, 2009).