A quantitative history of Japanese archaeology andnatural science
NAKAO Hisashi1
ABSTRACTThis study examines the relationship between Japanese archaeology and natural science througha quantitative analysis of the two most authoritative archaeological journals and two otherrelevant journals in Japan. First, although previous studies have emphasized the impact of the
Department of Anthropology at the University of Tokyo on the scientiﬁc aspects of Japanesearchaeology, results of the present study suggest that its impact has been more limited thanpreviously assumed. Second, while previous studies claimed that research funding by theJapanese government from the latter half of the 1970s was an important factor in developing thescientiﬁc aspects of Japanese archaeology, the present study shows a result inconsistent with theclaim. Finally, although I admit that the previous studies have properly captured some aspectsof the relationship between Japanese archaeology and science, I conclude that we should look at
the broader array of contributors to the relationship between Japanese archaeology and naturalscience.
KEYWORDS: history of archaeology, Japanese archaeology, philosophy of archaeology,interdisciplinarity, archaeology and science

1.

Introduction

Modern archaeology is interdisciplinary. It typically focuses on archaeological remains
through natural and/or social scientiﬁc methods. Chemistry, for example, is virtuallyindispensable for the analysis of archaeological remains and ethnographic studies canoften be useful. Thus, to describe the history of archaeology, we need to understand theprocess by which such interdisciplinary relationships were formed, i.e., how different
kinds of approaches were introduced and employed in archaeology. Processualism, which
had been advanced primarily by Lewis R. Binford (e.g., Binford 1962, 1965), offers one
good example. Processualism is a kind of scientiﬁc approach to archaeology focusing
on law-like explanations and scientiﬁc methodology. Many of historical descriptionsof American archaeology have actually referred to it and the controversies around it(O’Brien et al. 2005; Patterson 1995; Trigger 2006; Wiley & Sabloff 1993).
1 Departmentof Anthropology and Philosophy, Nanzan University, 18 Yamasato-cho, Showa Ward,
Nagoya City, Nagoya 466-0824, Japan (hisashinakao@gmail.com)
Category: Original Article Received: 4 October 2017; Accepted: 4 June 2018
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 6 (2018): 3–22

NAKAO Hisashi

In the history of Japanese archaeology, processualism has also been an important
topic, although not as a main promoter of such interdisciplinarity. As Anzai (1990)
argued, reactions to processualism have been actually mixed: Fujimoto (1976) had
examined processualism in detail as early as in 1976, and has been consistently
interested in it (e.g., Fujimoto 1985). Akoshima studied and earned his Ph.D. under thesupervision of Binford, and published articles positively describing processualism in the
1980s (e.g., Akoshima 1983, 1988). On the other hand, other scholars have long ignored
processualism although many Japanese archaeologists likely knew of processualism
before the 1970s. As an example, Tanaka mentioned processualism negatively as early
as in 1966 in a brief newspaper article (Tanaka 1966) although as far as I am aware,
additional academic articles referring to processualism, other than Fujimoto (1976), did
not appear before the 1980s. Moreover, by 1985, some have even begun to mention it
critically (e.g., Goto 1984; Yokoyama 1985). Thus, as Barnes & Okita (1999) pointed
out, interdisciplinarity in Japanese archaeology has been encouraged not through theintroduction of processualism but by other means.
Some previous studies have described the background behind the introduction ofnatural science into Japanese archaeology. First, Ikawa-Smith (1982, 2003) and Pearson(1992) have claimed that Japanese archaeology consists of two different traditions:archaeology as science and archaeology as history. They have emphasized the role of
the Department of Anthropology at the University of Tokyo in strongly inﬂuencing on
the tradition of archaeology as science. For instance, Ikawa-Smith (1982, p. 300) has
argued that “[t]he successive heads of the department [of Anthropology] since 1925 havebeen scholars whose research interests were in biological anthropology...Its strong naturalscience orientation sets the tone for one of the important trends in Japanese archaeology.”
She maintained this claim in 2003, arguing that “the Anthropology Department of Tokyo
University was particularly notable for contributions to prehistoric research throughapplications of various methods and techniques of natural sciences” (Ikawa-Smith
2003, p. 681). Pearson (1992, pp. 119–120) has agreed with her claims, stating that“[o]ne tradition, the study of prehistoric archaeology as part of human natural history,
stems from the Science Faculty of Tokyo University. It stresses scientiﬁc methods andtechnical analyses…Many contributors to the growing body of scientiﬁc analyses havebeen afﬁliated with the Anthropological Institute, Faculty of Science, of the Universityof Tokyo.”
One might be concerned with the deﬁnition of ‘natural’ science here. It is difﬁcult todeﬁne natural or social sciences and any previous studies did not actually do so (Barnes& Okita 1999; Ikawa-Smith 2003, Pearson 1992). However, for the sake of argument,
this paper regards studies using physical, chemical, and biological, and experimental and/or mathematical approaches as natural scientiﬁc research while social scientiﬁc studies© Japanese Archaeological Association

4

A QUANTITATIVE HISTORY OF JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATURAL SCIENCE

include ones using approaches employed in ethnography, cultural or social anthropology,
and sociology (see also the next section for more speciﬁc criterion used in this study).
Note that although we can easily ﬁnd many crossover studies like sociological researchusing statistics, such cases do not affect the argument in this paper.
Second, Barnes & Okita (1999, p. 353) argue that social change led by Japanese
government from the latter half of the 1970s greatly inﬂuenced the relationship between
archaeology and natural science, rather than attributing this development to the roleof any particular university: “many Japanese scholars…turned to scientiﬁc technology
for their version of a more rigorous approach to archaeology. This trend was supportedby the Japanese government, which had long neglected humanities research funding”(Barnes & Okita 1999, p. 352). Indeed, the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture
in Japan began conducting a special funding program for ancient cultural properties,‘Research on Archaeological Sites and Ancient Cultural Properties by Natural Scientiﬁc
Method’ from 1976 to 1978 and ‘Conservation Science, Humanities, and Natural Science
on Ancient Cultural Properties’ from 1980 to 1982, from which two signiﬁcant reports
were published (Committee for Conservation of Ancient Cultural Properties 1980, 1984).
Many agree that these two research funding programs were responsible for bringing
together a large number of researchers from the humanities and natural sciences, andthat Naotsune Watanabe (1919–1999), professor of the Department of Anthropology at
the University of Tokyo, had made an important contribution to managing the researchfunding (e.g., Iguchi 2005; Ikawa-Smith 2003; Sahara 1981).
While these claims properly capture some aspects of the relationship between
Japanese archaeology and science, it is probable that they have not looked at a numberof other signiﬁcant factors. For instance, even though the University of Tokyo has had arelatively strong impact on the relationship between archaeology and science, it seems
reasonable to ask just how strong the impact has been and how much other universities
have contributed to the scientiﬁc aspects of archaeology. And if research funding has
supported this movement since 1976, what was the situation prior to 1976? Moreover,the previous studies have largely depended on qualitative analyses of notable ﬁgures inJapanese archaeology rather than pursuing a more quantitative investigation.
The present study aims to explore scientiﬁc aspects of Japanese archaeology that
previous studies have overlooked in an effort to answer the above-mentioned questions.
Especially, a quantitative approach—bibliometric method—is used to investigate thesequestions and test the qualitatively-based claims of previous studies. Important journals
of Japanese archaeology are examined and the universities from which the authors of
relevant articles graduated are analyzed over an extensive time period. Based on theanalyses, I show a more diverse picture of the situation surrounding the development of
the relationship between science and archaeology in Japan than previous studies have
© Japanese Archaeological Association

5

NAKAO Hisashi

shown.
The structure of the paper is as follows: Section 2 explains the materials and methods
the present study uses; Section 3 summarizes the results of the study; Section 4 replies topossible objections.

2.

Materials and methods

2.1

Materials

The present study focuses on papers published in two major archaeological journals
in Japan, the Journal of the Archaeological Society of Nippon (Kokogaku Zasshi inJapanese, and hereafter abbreviated as the Journal) and the Quarterly of ArchaeologicalStudies (Kokogaku Kenkyu in Japanese, and hereafter abbreviated as the Quarterly). The
former was launched in 1910 and the latter in 1954 (but published as Our Archaeology,
or Watashitachi no Kokogaku in Japanese, before 1959); the two publications are themost well-known and authoritative journals specializing in archaeology in Japan andreﬂect the mainstream of Japanese archaeology.
Two other relevant journals are also examined: Journal of the AnthropologicalSociety of Nippon (Jinruigaku Zasshi in Japanese, and hereafter abbreviated as the
Anthropology) and Archaeology and Natural Science (Kokogaku to Shizen Kagaku inJapanese, hereafter abbreviated as the Arch. Nat.). The Anthropology was originallylaunched by the Tokyo Anthropological Society and researchers from the University ofTokyo including Shogoro Tsuboi (1863–1913) and Ryuzo Torii (1870–1953). It is one of
the main journals for biological anthropology or anatomy in Japan. The Arch. Nat. is aninterdisciplinary journal started in 1968; as its journal title indicates, its aim and scopefocus on interdisciplinary studies involving archaeology and science. These journals are
examined in order to more fully assess the scientiﬁc process of Japanese archaeology
and the role of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Tokyo (hereafter
abbreviated as the DAUT).
I examine papers in the Journal published from 1950 to 1984, and in the Quarterly
from 1960 to 1984. This is because (1) the situation before the World War II was strongly
inﬂuenced by nationalism and thus writings and research during that period need to beanalyzed from a different perspective (e.g., Fawcett 1995), (2) the Quarterly changed its
journal title and became more academic after 1959, and (3) one of the main aims of thispaper is to examine the claims in previous research, which refers mainly to the situation
before the 1990s. Papers in the Anthropology from 1950 to 1984, and in the Arch. Nat.
from 1968 (when the journal has been started) to 1984 were likewise included.
The Journal and the Quarterly contain original papers, research notes, reports
and others items; the Anthropology contains original papers, brief reports, and© Japanese Archaeological Association

6

A QUANTITATIVE HISTORY OF JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATURAL SCIENCE

communications; the Arch. Nat. contains original papers, research notes, and perspectives
as publication categories. For this study, I examine only original papers and research
notes as they are the main categories in the four journals. The total number of the
published original papers and research notes is 361 in the Journal from 1950 to 1984,
369 in the Quarterly from 1960 to 1984, 649 in the Anthropology from 1950 to 1984, and
146 in the Arch. Nat. from 1968 to 1984.

2.2

Methods

To examine the scientiﬁc aspects of Japanese archaeology, relevant articles using‘scientiﬁc methods’ were identiﬁed for the Journal and the Quarterly. A set of speciﬁccriteria was applied to produce the list of appropriate papers. In order to be considered
for inclusion in this study, the paper must do one of the following at least:(1) Use a physical method to explore the ages of material remains including radiocarbon
age estimation (Age Estimation).
(2) Focus on physical aspects of human skeletal remains (Biological Anthropology).
(3) Analyze chemical properties of material remains (Chemical Analysis).
(4) Explain how to conserve material remains effectively in terms of biology, chemistry,or physics (Conservation).
(5) Apply experimental replication of material remains (Experiment).
(6) Consider social change in terms of entropy (Information Science).
(7) Explore botanical conditions in the past (Palaeobotany).
(8) Examine past geological situations (Palaeogeology).
(9) Analyze biological environments in the past (Palaeontology).
(10) Use mathematical models to explore the ages of material remains (Population
Estimation).
(11) Analyze forms of material remains statistically (Statistics).
Using these criteria, a total of 51 articles were selected from the Journal and the
Quarterly. Papers in the Anthropology were chosen according to the same criteria andninety-two such papers were identiﬁed. It should be noted that although the Anthropology
includes biological anthropology articles referring to modern humans and non-humananimal skeletons, and a few papers describing the typology of stone tools or pottery,these papers were excluded from the study since the focus of the present study is on therelationship between archaeology and science. Finally, all of the papers in the Arch. Nat.
(146 papers in all) were included since they are all relevant to the purpose of the present
study.
Following selection of the relevant articles, the university from which the author
graduated (author’s ‘graduated university’), citation relationship and afﬁliations, as wellas historical changes in the number of the relevant papers, were examined. If the impact© Japanese Archaeological Association

7

NAKAO Hisashiof the DAUT on the scientiﬁc aspects of Japanese archaeology has actually been strong,
we should expect to ﬁnd a large number of papers written by researchers from and at
the DAUT, as well as numerous papers by the DAUT researchers being cited in the fourjournals. In addition, if the research funding beginning in 1976 was an important factor
in fostering the scientiﬁc aspects of Japanese archaeology, we should ﬁnd a historicalincrease in relevant papers following the funding. Moreover, if the DAUT has had astrong impact on the scientiﬁc aspects of Japanese archaeology, it should be found that
this historical increase was supported extensively by researchers from the DAUT.

3.

Results

3.1

How inﬂuential was the DAUT?

3.1.1 The impact of the DAUT (1): Author’s graduated university anddepartment

How strong has been the impact of the DAUT on the scientiﬁc aspects of Japanesearchaeology? To answer this question, authors of the relevant 51 papers in the Journal
and the Quarterly, 92 papers in the Anthropology, and 146 papers in the Arch. Nat.
were identiﬁed, and each author’s graduated university (i.e., where the author’s Ph.D.
was earned or, if the author did not hold a Ph.D., where the author completed his/herstudies) was determined. If the impact of the DAUT has been strong, we should expect
to ﬁnd more authors of these articles graduating from the DAUT rather than from otheruniversities1.
Table 1 shows the graduated universities and the number of the relevant papers
published in the four journals. It suggests that researchers graduating from the Universityof Tokyo have had a strong impact in the four journals, accounting for 32.9% of all theexamined papers.
Table 2 shows the speciﬁc graduated departments for the University of Tokyo authors.
The result suggests that the impact of the DAUT (55.8% of the total) has been stronger
than any of the other University of Tokyo departments.
However, despite appearances, the DAUT’s impact on the general trend in thescientiﬁc aspects of Japanese archaeology has been only partial; researchers from otheruniversities have also published numerous papers. Indeed, not only have researchers
from Kyoto University worked as actively as the DAUT in this area, but almost all of thepapers by researchers from the DAUT have been published in the Anthropology.
Table 3 summarizes the authors’ graduated universities and departments for the
1 When examining co-authored papers, I focused on the ﬁrst author.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

8

A QUANTITATIVE HISTORY OF JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATURAL SCIENCE

Table 1. Top-5 Graduated Universities of the researchers writing
relevant papers
Graduated Universities

Number of Papers

U. Tokyo

95

Kyoto U.

73

Unknown

17

Tohoku U.

16

Osaka U.

12

Others

76

Total

289

*U: University

Table 2. Top-5 Graduated Departments of the researchers at the
University of Tokyo writing relevant papers
Graduated Departments

Number of papers

Anthropology

53

Chemistry

20

Geology

9

Medicine

7

Archaeology

2

Others

4

Total

95

Table 3. Top-5 Graduated universities and departments of the researchers writing relevant
papers in the Anthropology (departments names are not described if they are unclear)
Graduated University(Department)

1950–1954 1955–1960 1960–1964 1965–1969 1970–1974 1975–1979 1980–1984 Total

U. Tokyo(Anthropology)

7

4

Keijo Imperial
U. (Medicine)33

U. Tokyo (Medicine)

7

4

5

4

13

1

7

1

Sapporo Medical U.

2

U. Tokyo (Geology)

2

44

6

7

3

5

2

4

Others

1

1

3

4

4

3

9

25

Total

11

8

11

10

12

9

31

92

© Japanese Archaeological Association

9

NAKAO Hisashi

relevant 92 papers in the Anthropology. As indicated, 44 out of the 53 (83%) papers
published the DAUT graduates in the four journals have been published in the
Anthropology, strongly suggesting that the large number of publications by the DAUT
graduates is explained by their dominance in that particular journal, which was launchedby researchers from the University of Tokyo.
We can contrast this with the analysis of other journals. Table 4 shows the authors’
graduated universities and departments for articles in the Journal and the Quarterly.
Unlike in the Anthropology, the contributions to these journals by authors who graduatedfrom the DAUT are not especially outstanding when compared to those from otheruniversities and departments. These results suggest that, with respect to the scientiﬁc
aspects of Japanese archaeology in general, the DAUT has not had as much impact aspreviously thoughtThis interpretation is further supported by the analysis of the Arch. Nat., which
Table 4. Top-10 Graduated universities and departments of the researchers writing relevant
papers in the Journal and the Quarterly (departments names are not described if they are unclear)
Graduating U. (Dept)

1950–1954 1955–1959 1960–1964 1965–1969 1970–1974 1975–1979 1980–1984 Total

Tohoku U.
(Archaeology)

1

3

4

Kyushu U.
(Archaeology)

2

1

3

Kyoto U. (Agriculture)

1

Kyoto U. (Geolology)

1

Tohoku U.
(Geolology)

1

3
2

1

Tohoku U.
(Geography)
U. Tokyo (Geology)

2

2
2

1

U. Tokyo(Archaeology)

1

Kyoto U.
(Archaeology)

1

U. Tokyo(Anthropology)

3

2
1

2

1

2

1

2

2

2

Others

1

2

1

7

8

7

26

Total

2

3

3

15

13

15

51

© Japanese Archaeological Association

10

A QUANTITATIVE HISTORY OF JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATURAL SCIENCE

Table 5. Top-10 Graduated universities and departments of the researchers writing relevant
papers in the Arch. Nat. (departments names are not described if they are unclear)
Graduated U (Departments)

1968–19691970–1974

1975–1979

1980–1984

Total

Kyoto U. (Geology)

3

10

4

3

20

U. Tokyo (Chemistry)

3

7

4

4

18

Kyoto U. (Chemistry)

3

3

4

10

Unknown

2

5

3

10

Kyoto U. (Archaeology)

2

3

4

9

Kyoto U. (Engineering)

1

3

3

7

U. Tokyo (Anthropology)

1

1

4

Kyoto U. (Physics)

1

Kyoto U. (Agriculture)
Osaka Electro Communication U.

1

7

3

2

1

7

1

3

2

6

2

3

Others

2

13

11

21

47

5

Total

13

48

46

39

146

*Comm: Communicationaccounts for 50.5% of all the examined publications (as compared to the Anthropology’s
31.8%). Table 5 shows the authors’ graduated universities and departments for the
relevant papers in the Arch. Nat.
Here, the contributions of the DAUT graduates account for only 4.8% of the
publications, while scholars from the Geology department of Kyoto University accountfor 13.7%.
These results show that the apparent dominance by the DAUT graduates was, forthe most part, limited to the Anthropology, which suggest that we should look at morediverse contributions to understand the historical development of the scientiﬁc aspects ofJapanese archaeology.

3.1.2

The impact of the University of Tokyo (2): Citation relationship

What, then, was the inﬂuence of the papers by the DAUT graduates on the works ofother scholars? This section analyzes citation relationships among relevant papers andexamines the number of papers in the four journals that cite scientiﬁc papers written
by researchers graduating from the DAUT. In the following, I examine 51 scientiﬁcpapers in the Journal and the Quarterly, and 146 papers in the Arch. Nat. Papers in
the Anthropology were excluded since nearly all the papers therein cited papers by
researchers from the DAUT.
The results are summarized in Table 6. If the impact of the DAUT has been strong
with respect to the scientiﬁc aspect of Japanese archaeology, we should expect to ﬁnd that
© Japanese Archaeological Association

11

NAKAO Hisashi

Table 6.

Citation relationship
1950–1954

1955–1959

1960–1964

1965–19691970–1974

1975–1979

1980–1984

Total

1

1

3

4

5

4

17

1

6

8

11

34

Journal
a.
b.

1
2

2

Quarterly
a.
b.

1

1

4

3

11
5

6

4

15

13

48

46

39

146

Arch. Nat.
a.
b.
Total
a.
b.
a/b in total

2
0.00%

0.00%

1

1

9

7

6

24

2

16

63

59

54

197

50.00%

6.25%

14.29%

11.86%

11.11%

12.18%*a: The number of the papers citing scientiﬁc papers written by researchers graduating from the DAUT. b: The numberof the papers using ‘scientiﬁc methods’

the relevant papers extensively cite papers written by the researchers graduating from the
DAUT. As shown, the results do not indicate high citation rates for papers by researchers
graduating from the DAUT (12.18% among all examined papers). Thus, once again, theevidence suggests that the academic impact of the work of the DAUT researchers has notbeen strong enough to claim that the DAUT has been the single promoter of the scientiﬁc
aspects of Japanese archaeology.

3.1.3 The impact of the University of Tokyo (3): Afﬁliations and the numberof the papers

One might argue that it is not the graduated universities or departments that should be
examined, but rather the afﬁliation of the authors at the time their papers were published.
If the impact of the DAUT was strong, we should expect to ﬁnd a large number of papers
published by researchers belonging to the DAUT at the time of publication.
Tables 7–9 show the relationship between the afﬁliations of the authors and thenumber of papers published in the Journal and the Quarterly, the Arch. Nat., and the
Anthropology, respectively. Again, the DAUT scholars are the top contributors to the
Anthropology. However, the expectation of the DAUT dominance is not conﬁrmed
when one considers the other journals. As indicated, Tokyo National Institute and Nara
National Institute for Cultural Properties, Nara University of Education, and somedepartments of Kyoto University have published more papers than the DAUT. Even
© Japanese Archaeological Association

12

A QUANTITATIVE HISTORY OF JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATURAL SCIENCE

Table 7. Top-10 Afﬁliations and the number of the papers in the Journal and the Quarterly(departments names are not described if they are unclear)Afﬁliations

1950–1954 1955–1959 1960–1964 1965–1969 1970–1974 1975–1979 1980–1984 Total

Tokyo Nat. Institute of CP

4

Nara Nat. Institute of CP

1

Unknown

1

Kanazawa U. (Geology)

1

Kanazawa U. (Archaeology)
U. Tokyo (Geology)

1

1

1

1

6

2

3
3

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

U. Tokyo (Anthropology)

2

Okayama U. (Archaeology)

2

Hiroshima U.
(Integrated Arts and Sciences)

2
2
2

2

2

Tohoku U. (Archaeology)

2

2

Others

1

2

1

3

8

10

25

Total

2

3

3

15

13

15

51

*Nat: National, CP: Cultural Properties

Table 8. Top-10 Afﬁliations and the number of the papers in the Arch. Nat. (departments names
are not described if they are unclear)Afﬁliations

1968–19691970–1974

1975–1979

1980–1984

Total

Nara U. Education (CP)

1

8

6

5

20

Kyoto U. (Reactor Institute)

1

5

5

1

12

Nara Nat Institute of CP

1

7

3

Nagoya U. (Chemistry)

1

1

3

U. Tokyo (Anthropology)

1

1

4

2

2

1

5

3

2

5

Tokyo Nat. InstituteMiyazaki U. (Agriculture)
Kyoto U. (Liberal Arts)

2

U. Tokyo (Others)

11
2

7
6

2

4

2

2

4

Kanazawa U. (Chemistry)

1

2

Others

7

20

16

26

69

3

Total

13

48

46

39

146

in the Anthropology, we ﬁnd substantial contributions from other universities such as
Sapporo Medical University.
Thus, analyses based on the relationship between the afﬁliations of the authors and thenumber of relevant papers also suggest that more diverse contributions could be found in
the historical development of the relationship between Japanese archaeology and natural© Japanese Archaeological Association

13

NAKAO Hisashi

Table 9. Top-10 Afﬁliations and the number of the papers in the Anthropology (departments
names are not described if they are unclear)Afﬁliations
U. Tokyo (Anthropology)

1950–1954 1955–1960 1960–1964 1965–1969 1970–1974 1975–1979 1980–1984 Total
7

3

Sapporo Medical U.

1

2

3

4

2

2

U. Tokyo (Medicine)Kagoshima U. (Agriculture)1

Nat Museum Nature &Science
Hiroshima Medical U.

1
1

2

6

25

5

10

6

6

2

4

1

4

3

3

Niigata U. (Medicine)1

2

Kyoto U. (Anthropology)

3

1

Kyoto U.
(Primate Research Center)
Hyogo College of Medicine

1

2

1

1

2

1

3

Others

1

5

5

6

3

3

8

31

Total

11

8

11

10

12

9

31

92

science.

3.1.4

Summary and discussions

To sum up, the number of papers written by researchers from and at the DAUT does
not exceed the number of papers from other universities except in the Anthropology.
Furthermore, the number of citations of papers by the researchers from the DAUT israther limited. Putting these results together, we can conclude that the DAUT impact on
the scientiﬁc aspects of Japanese archaeology in general has been limited and that weshould look at broader contributions to understand the historical development of scientiﬁc
aspects in Japanese archaeology.
In fact, the introduction of the scientiﬁc method to Japanese archaeology was
the result of a variety of trends. Table 10 summarizes the top-10 universities anddepartments publishing papers in the Journal, the Quarterly, and the Arch. Nat. It showsthat researchers graduating from the Departments of Geology, Archaeology, Chemistry,
Physics, and Agriculture at Kyoto University and the Department of Chemistry at the
University of Tokyo have published more papers in the three journals than researchers
from the DAUT in the journals.
Indeed, we can ﬁnd many historical instances of collaboration between scientists andarchaeologists from the above departments. First, as Kobayashi (1976) showed, since
the time of Chikashige Masumi (1870–1941, the Department of Chemistry) and Kosaku
Hamada (1881–1938, the Department of Archaeology), the Department of Chemistry at© Japanese Archaeological Association

14

A QUANTITATIVE HISTORY OF JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATURAL SCIENCE

Table 10. Top-10 Graduated departments and afﬁliations of the researchers writing relevant
papers in the Journal, the Quarterly, and the Arch. Nat
Graduating U. (Dept)

1950–1954 1955–1959 1960–1964 1965–1969 1970–1974 1975–1979 1980–1984 Total

Kyoto U. (Geology)

3

10

5

5

23

U. Tokyo (Chemistry)

3

8

4

5

20

Kyoto U.
(Archaeology)

3

4

4

3

3

5

11

1

4

2

3

10

Kyoto U. (Chemistry)
Kyoto U. (Physics)

11

Unknown

2

5

3

10

Kyoto U.
(Agriculture)

2

5

2

9

1

9

U. Tokyo(Anthropology)

1

3

4

Kyoto U.
(Engineering)

1

3

3

7

2

3

5

Osaka Electro
Comm U.
Afﬁliations

1950–1954 1955–1959 1960–1964 1965–1969 1970–1974 1975–1979 1980–1984 Total

Nara U. Education
(CP)

1

8

6

6

Others1

4

3

9Nara Nat Institute
of CP

2

9

3

Kyoto U.
(Reactor Institute)

1

5

5

1

12

6

3

2

11

Tokyo Nat Institute
of CP

21
17
14

U. Tokyo(Anthropology)

1

3

4

Nagoya U.
(Chemistry)

1

1

3

2

7

4

2

6

1

4

5

1

1

4

Miyazaki U.
(Agriculture)
Tohoku U.
(Archaeology)
Kanazawa U.
(Geology)

28

Kyoto University has collaborated with the Department of Archaeology. They had beeninterested in analyzing chemical components of archaeological remains for their dating,especially the copper used in old coins.
Second, the Department of Geology at Kyoto University has focused on© Japanese Archaeological Association

15

NAKAO Hisashi

Palaeomagnetism since the time of Motonori Matsuyama (1884–1958). Jinichiro Hatsuda(1906–2001, the Department of Geology), a student of Motonori Matsuyama, was alsointerested in paleomagnetism, and worked together with Kyoichi Arimitsu (1907–2011,
the Department of Archaeology) and others in a co-project, “Dating of pottery bythermoluminescence” in 1965 (Nishimura & Nishida 2011; Yabuuchi 1968). This dating
method depends on the physical properties of heated archaeological remains: Whenarchaeological remains have been heated to a certain temperature, the remains retain theearth’s magnetic ﬁeld at the time of heating. Thus if we know the historical pattern ofpalaemagnetism, we can infer when the remains were heated (e.g., Butler 1991).
Third, the Department of Chemistry at the University of Tokyo has long beeninterested in a chemical approach to the conservation of ancient cultural properties. Yuji
Shibata (1882–1980), Kenjiro Kimura (1896–1988), and their students, including Kazuo
Yamasaki (1911–2010) and Yoshimichi Emoto (1925–1992), actively contributed to thisarea, and ﬁnally founded a society specializing in conservation science in 1951 (e.g.,
Editorial committee for 100-year history of the University of Tokyo 1990; Yamasaki
1987).
Fourth, Table 10 also indicates that researchers at Nara University of Education,
the Tokyo National Institute, and the Nara National Institute for Cultural Properties,
and the Kyoto University Reactor Research Institute have published more papers
than the Department of Anthropology at the University of Tokyo. These universities
and departments have attracted researchers specializing in the scientiﬁc approach toarchaeological sites and remains (especially from the Departments of Geology andChemistry at Kyoto University and the Department of Chemistry at the University ofTokyo). Researchers at the Kyoto University Reactor Research Institute belonging to theabove-mentioned tradition of collaboration between the Departments of Chemistry andArchaeology at Kyoto University have also conducted chemical or physical analysis ofmaterial remains (e.g., Shigematsu 1970).
Taken together, both the results of the present study and the above historicalobservations suggest that previous studies have not looked at the diverse way in which
the relationship between science and archaeology developed in Japan.

3.2

Was the funding responsible for an increase in relevant papers?

To determine whether research funding by the Japanese government begun in 1976 was
an important contributing factor to the development of the scientiﬁc aspects of Japanesearchaeology, historical changes in the number of relevant papers and their ratio to thetotal number of the papers published in the Journal and the Quarterly were examined.
Papers in the Anthropology were excluded since nearly all the papers examined fromthe journal were related to biological anthropology and the increased research funding© Japanese Archaeological Association

16

A QUANTITATIVE HISTORY OF JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATURAL SCIENCE

Table 11. Historical changes of the number of the papers related to natural science in the twoarchaeological journals
1950–1954 1955–1959 1960–1964 1965–1969 1970–1974 1975–1979 1980–1984
Total in the Journal

54

44

43

57

48

53

62

Total in the Quarterly

—

—

55

73

84

74

83

Natural science in the Journal

2

0

2

0

4

5

4

Natural science in the Quarterly

—

—

1

3

11

8

11

Natural science in total

2

0

3

3

15

13

15

Ratio in the total

3.70%

0.00%

3.06%

2.31%

11.36%

10.24%

10.34%

Ratio in the Journal

3.70%

0.00%

4.65%

0.00%

8.33%

9.43%

6.45%

Ratio in the Quarterly

—

—

1.82%

4.11%

13.10%

10.81%

13.25%

Figure 1. Historical changes of the number of the papers related to natural science in the twoarchaeological journals(‘Research on Archaeological Sites and Ancient Cultural Properties by Natural Scientiﬁc
Method’ from 1976 to 1978 and ‘Conservation Science, Humanities, and Natural Science
on Ancient Cultural Properties’ from 1980 to 1982) did not include topics related tobiological anthropology (Committee for Conservation of Ancient Cultural Properties
1980, 1984).
The results are summarized in Table 11 and Figure 1. If the research funding by
the Japanese government that began in 1976 was important to the development of thescientiﬁc aspects of Japanese archaeology, we should expect to ﬁnd an increase in thenumber of scientiﬁc papers in the Journal and the Quarterly after 1976.
As shown, however, the number of the papers did not increase from the latter half ofthe 1970s to the 1980s; rather, we ﬁnd a much greater increase from the 1960s to the© Japanese Archaeological Association

17

NAKAO Hisashi

ﬁrst half of the 1970s, preceding the initiation of government funding. In addition, thenumber of papers in the Arch. Nat. did not materially change: There were 48 papers in
1970–1974, 46 in 1975–1979, and 39 in 1980–1984. These results suggest that researchfunding did not directly inﬂuence the scientiﬁc aspects of Japanese archaeology.
Note that, as Table 4 suggests, papers by researchers from the DAUT had a weakerinﬂuence on the historical increase from the 1970s. This result further supports thepresent study’s ﬁnding that we could ﬁnd more diverse contributions to the historicaldevelopment in scientiﬁc aspects of Japanese archaeology than previous studies haveclaimed.

4. Discussion
The above sections have examined the prevailing views on the history ofinterdisciplinarity in Japanese archaeology, especially with respect to the introduction of
the scientiﬁc method to archaeology, and pointed out the limited inﬂuence of the DAUT
on the process. Some possible objections to these conclusions can now be addressed.
First, one might argue that the present study fails to look at ethnoarchaeology, anapproach led mainly by Hitoshi Watanabe in Japan (e.g., Watanabe 1968, 1972). I agree
that Watanabe has had an important inﬂuence on the trend of archaeology as a kindof science, and that he had graduated from the DAUT. For instance, as Ikawa-Smith(2003) suggests, Takeru Akawaza has been strongly inﬂuenced by Watanabe (Akazawa
1969, 1983). However, note that ethnoarchaeological perspective is mainly related tosocial science rather than to natural science. Since the present study focuses on thenatural scientiﬁc aspect of Japanese archaeology, ethnoarcheology and Material Culture(Busshitsu Bunka in Japanese), a related Japanese journal, have been excluded.
Second, one might point out the possibility that the effect of the research funding
begun in 1976 can be found in later periods, after 1985. Though this possibility is
undeniable and requires further examination, it does not undermine the claim of thepresent study that the steep increase in the number of archaeological research that
employed scientiﬁc method before 1976 was not due to the funding.
Third, the question of why we ﬁnd a greater increase in the number of the relevant
papers from the 1960s to the ﬁrst half of the 1970s in the two archaeological journals
still needs to be answered. As shown in Tables 4, 7, and 12, which summarize thehistorical change of the themes in the Journal and the Quarterly, there appears not to bea single reason for the change. Rather, it seems that various universities, departments,
and topics came together during this period. One of the reasons why the special researchfunding from 1976 to 1978 and 1980 to 1982 was possible may have been due to suchhistorical convergence.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

18

A QUANTITATIVE HISTORY OF JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATURAL SCIENCE

Table 12.

Historical changes of themes in relevant papers except before 1960

Themes1960–1964

1965–1969

Palaeogeology
Palaeobotany2

Chemical Analysis

1970–1974

1975–1979

1980–1984

Total

3

4

3

10

4

1

1

2

4

7

3

3

6

Experiment
Biological Anthropology
Statistics

1

3

1

Conservation
Age Estimation

1

1

1

2

1

1

Population Estimation

7

1

5

2

5
3

1
1

Information Science

1

Palaeontology

1

Total

3

3
1
1
1

3

15

13

15

49

Fourth, it might be argued that since archaeological activities cannot be boiled down
to published papers, we should examine more diverse aspects of such activities. I agreewith the objection. However, for the sake of space, I could not examine all of the aspects
in the paper. For instance, we could examine scientiﬁc aspects of Japanese archaeology
by focusing on published site reports. Actually, I have searched site reports publishedfrom 1950 to 1984 in the database of the Nara National Cultural Properties ResearchInstitute, and found 2408 published reports during the periods. Next, as a pilot study,
I have randomly picked up 50 reports and analyzed them, and the result shows that noreports include any scientiﬁc analyses. Although it is probable we can ﬁnd some reports
including scientiﬁc analyses if we examine all of the 2408 repots, their analyses warrant
future research.
Finally, my arguments do not intend to claim that previous studies should be rejected.
Rather, they have properly evaluated the DAUT’s contributions to scientiﬁc aspects ofJapanese archaeology, especially contributions to biological-anthropology analyses ofarchaeological remains. I have argued that to fully understand the historical developmentof interdisciplinarity of Japanese archaeology, we should look at more diverse
contributions.

5.

Conclusion

The present study examined the relationship between Japanese archaeology and sciencefrom 1950 to 1984, and assessed previous claims regarding the development of therelationship. The results indicate a more varied picture than previous studies have
© Japanese Archaeological Association

19

NAKAO Hisashi

assumed. The DAUT has had a relatively strong impact on the scientiﬁc aspects ofJapanese archaeology, but its impact has been limited largely to biological anthropology.
We should not ignore the important and varied contributions of other universities anddepartments. Moreover, it remains unclear as to how much the research funding from1976 to 1978, and from 1980 to 1982 has affected the scientiﬁc aspects of Japanesearchaeology.

Acknowledgements
This work is supported by JSPS aid for ‘Topic-Setting Program to Advance
Cutting-Edge Humanities and Social Sciences Research: Area Cultivation,’ “Synthesizing
historical sciences: New perspective to cultural evolution” and JSPS Grant-in-Aid for
Encouragement of Young Scientists (B) (No.16K16685) “Philosophical and historicalinvestigation of archaeological theory and practice: Toward a philosophy of humanities.”
I also appreciate useful comments by Kohei Tamura, Yukinori Onishi, Kei Yoshida, andtwo anonymous reviewers, and useful materials given by Yoshiyuki Kikuchi.

References
Akazawa, T. 1969. Body size composition of the ﬁsh from the Jomon shellmounds in Japanand its implications in studies on the ﬁshing activities of the Jomon shellmound people.
Anthropological Science 77(4): 154–178 (in Japanese).
Akazawa, T. 1983. Archaeology of hunter-gatherers: an ecological approach. Tokyo:
Kaimeisha. (in Japanese)
Akoshima, K. 1983. Middle-range theory, in The publication committee (ed.) Collected
papers in honor of Chosuke Serizawa’s sixtieth birthday: 171–197. (in Japanese)
Akoshima, K. 1988. Processual archaeology and its social background. Archaeology
Journal 296: 2–6 (in Japanese).
Anzai, M. 1990. Archaeology of preliterate society. Tokyo: Rokko Publications. (inJapanese)
Barnes, G. & M. Okita. 1999. Japanese archaeology in the 1990s. Journal of ArchaeologicalResearch 7(4): 349–395.
Binford, L.R. 1962. Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2): 217–225.
Binford, L.R. 1965. Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process. American
Antiquity 31(2): 203–210.
Butler, R.F. 1991. Paleomagneticm: magnetic domains to geological terranes. New York:Blackwell.
Committee for Conservation of Ancient Cultural Properties (ed.). 1980. Natural scientiﬁc© Japanese Archaeological Association

20

A QUANTITATIVE HISTORY OF JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATURAL SCIENCE

research on archaeology and history of arts. Kyoto: Dohosha. (in Japanese).
Committee for Conservation of Ancient Cultural Properties (ed.). 1984. Natural scientiﬁc
research on ancient cultural properties. Kyoto: Dohosha. (in Japanese).
Editorial Committee for 100-Year History of the University of Tokyo (ed.) 1990. 100-year
history of the University of Tokyo: department history vol. 2. Tokyo: University ofTokyo.
Fawcett, C. 1995. Nationalism and postwar Japanese archaeology. in P.L. Kohl & C. Fawcett(eds.) Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology: 232–246. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Fujimoto, T. (ed.). 1976. Research method for Paleolithic culture: Japanese Paleolithic
culture vol. 5. Tokyo: Yuzankaku Publications. (in Japanese)
Fujimoto, T. 1985. Thinking about archaeology: perspective for research method andproblems. Tokyo: Yuzankaku Publications. (in Japanese)
Goto, A. 1984. Trends in western archaeology: Reexamination of theory and method.
Journal of the Archaeological Society of Nippon 69(4): 87–137 (in Japanese).
Iguchi, H. 2005. Interview with Forerunners vol.1: Interview with Kazuo Yamasaki. Tokyo:
Gakushikai. (in Japanese)
Ikawa-Smith, F. 1982. Co-traditions in Japanese Archaeology. World Archaeology 13(3):296–309.
Ikawa-Smith, F. 2003. Practice of archaeology in contemporary Japan. in L.R. Lozny (ed.)
Comparative archaeologies: a sociological view of the science of the past: 675–705.
New York: Springer.
Kobayashi, Y. 1976. A history of natural scientiﬁc archaeology: Masumi Chikashige andKosaku Hamada. Archaeology and Natural Science 9: 1–5 (in Japanese).
Nishimura, S. & J. Nishida. 2011. Physical-geological research at the Department of Geology(Mineralogy) at Kyoto University since Motonori Matsuyama. 100-Year History of
Earth Physics of Kyoto University 3: 82–88. (in Japanese).
O’Brien, M.J., R.L. Lyman, & M.B. Schiffer. 2005. Archaeology as a process: Processualism
and its progeny. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Patterson, C.T. 1995. Toward a social history of archaeology in the United States. New York:
Harcourt Brace & Company.
Pearson, R. 1992. The nature of Japanese archaeology. Asian Perspective 31(2): 115–127.
Sahara, M. 1981. Natural scientists from an archaeologist’s viewpoint. in H. Mabuchi &H. Tominaga (eds.) Ten chapters of chemistry for archaeology: 1–24. Tokyo: The
University of Tokyo Press. (in Japanese).
Shigematsu, T. 1970. Archaeology and analytical chemistry. Archaeology and Natural
Science 3: 29–36 (in Japanese).
Tanaka, T. 1966. A perspective to American archaeology. The Asahi Shimbun 1966/09/07.
(in Japanese)
Trigger, B.G. 2006. A history of archaeological thought (2nd edition). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

21

NAKAO Hisashi

Watanabe, H. 1968. Subsistence and ecology of northern food gatherers with specialreference to the Ainu. in R.B. Lee & I. DeVore (eds.) Man the hunter: 69–77. New
Jersey: Aldine Transaction.
Watanabe, H. 1972. The origin of the Ainu culture. Journal of the Archaeological Society of
Nippon 60(1): 72–82 (in Japanese).
Wiley, G.R. & J.A. Sabloff. 1993. A History of American archaeology (3rd edition). New
York: W. H. Freeman & Co.
Yabuuchi, K. 1968. Remarks on the ﬁrst issue. Archaeology and Natural Science 1: i (inJapanese).
Yamasaki, K. 1987. Science of ancient cultural properties. Kyoto: Shibunkaku Publications.
(in Japanese)
Yokoyama, K. 1985. Overview: The nature of Japanese archaeology. in Y. Kondo,
Yokoyama, K., Amakasu, S., Kato, M., Sahara, T., Tanaka, M., & M. Tozawa (eds.)
Japanese archaeology (1): research method: 1–15. Tokyo: Iwanami Publications. (inJapanese).

© Japanese Archaeological Association

22