The political economy of Japanese archaeology:
reflective thoughts on current organisational
dynamics
Nicolas ZORZIN1
ABSTRACTThe aim of this paper is to present the author’s current research in Japan on the relationshipbetween the archaeological profession and the presently dominant neoliberal political economy. It
was intend to better understand the difficulties which may arise from these relations, and to explore
other avenues of reflection on the practice of archaeology in Japan in general and more specificallywith regards to the impact on the Japanese people. This research was designed not only to bebeneficial to Japanese archaeologists and heritage management, but also to support a more global
reflection on the best ways to manage archaeology. The study directly parallels Ikawa-Smith’spublication: “Practice of Archaeology in Contemporary Japan” (2011), but it was intended to
introduce a new qualitative dimension in considering the interviews that have been conducted,
which constitutes the key distinctive and innovative aspect of this research.
KEYWORDS: political economy, privatisation, governmental archaeology, public archaeology,
Japan

Development of the research project
Since 2008, the main focus of my research has been the political-economy of commercial
archaeology (also called ‘contract archaeology’). This topic is closely related to ‘rescuearchaeology’, which is itself deeply intrinsic to development across the ‘more developed
countries’ (USA, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia and New-Zealand). My
interest has mainly been directed at the expansion of this new form of archaeology thatappeared simultaneously with the ideological and economic changes of the 1970s and1980s, namely: neoliberalism or late capitalism. In the course of this period, neoliberalism
was often perceived as the sole viable means to guarantee growth and future prosperity tonations through a ‘free’ competitive market, such as for example in Britain with theimplementation of Thatcher’s neoliberal agenda in 1979 (Harvey 2005, pp. 21-22).
1

c/o Graduate School of Social &Cultural Studies, Kyushu University, 744 Moto’oka, Nishi Ward, Fukuoka
819-0385, Japan (zorzin.nicolas.196@m.kyushu-u.ac.jp)
Category: Original Article Received: 18 September 2013; Accepted: 6 December 2013
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 1 (2013): 5-21

Nicolas ZORZIN

However, it was also defined by certain sociologists, such as Bourdieu, as: “a program for
destroying collective structures which may impede the pure market logic [and a program
implemented through] reducing labour costs, reducing public expenditure and making work
more flexible”, leading eventually to a drastic rise in social inequality (Bourdieu 1998 - Seealternative definitions in: Bix 2013; Harvey 2005: 68; Chomsky & Schoeffel 2002, p. 58).
My previous research projects tested the compatibility of this economic system, which
has dominated the ideological agenda since the 1980s, with the practice of modern
archaeology. Furthermore, I also tested the practice against the definition and goals asgiven by archaeologists themselves. A critical analysis was supported by two maincase-studies conducted in Canada (Zorzin 2010, 2011, in press) and Australia (Zorzin2012), between 2008 and 2012, and based on 80 interviews with archaeologists. The
results of my investigations demonstrated a progressive disconnection of archaeologists
from their work. This occurred notably through their subordination to developers’ interests,
namely: the obligation to create economic growth, and also because of the absence ofappropriately coercive legal protection (Zorzin 2012, in press).
Consequently, in 2012 my interest was drawn to Japan because the country, despite
having engaged in a process of privatisation of most its institutions since the 1980s, had
not converted its archaeological organisational system, which remained predominantly
subject to governmental prerogatives. Japanese archaeology had been partially privatisedin certain areas of the country to variable degrees, becoming a rather unique case ofcultural heritage management in the world, positioned as it was ‘between’ two different
political-economic models. This atypical and non-standardized archaeological systemneeds to be further understood to be compared with other organisational models aroundthe globe.

Learning from an international comparative approach
Firstly, in Quebec (Canada), where about 75% of archaeological activities are conductedby private units (Zorzin 2010, p. 7), the results of my research demonstrated that manyarchaeologists, though passionately committed to the practice of the best archaeology
possible, proved to have become estranged from the outcomes of their work. In previous
publications (Zorzin 2011, 2012, in press) I argued that this ‘alienation’ (cf. Marx’s
definitions of ‘alienation’: Marx 1844, pp. 30-33) had essentially been caused by thetransformation of the purpose of the profession from a public duty to a business model,
creating a divergent shift that led archaeologists to mistrust their own activities, be
sceptical about their outcomes, and sometimes fall into apathy, disillusionment anddiscontentment. Archaeology, now commodified, appeared to be forced by economic
constraints to serve the interests of the clients/developers (Zorzin in press), disallowing the© Japanese Archaeological Association

6

POLITICAL ECONOMY OF JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY

direct relations archaeologists could have had with modern living communities. As such,archaeology’s outcomes had no socio-political and educational significance and wereinstead transformed into neutral and commercial products, seen purely as technical devices
dedicated to rescuing or preserving the remains of the past, which were ultimately
collected for the hypothetical use of material and data in an indeterminable future.
Secondly, in Victoria (Australia), a similar change happened to governmental structures(Zorzin 2012, p. 76) in the 1980s, with questionable results, as demonstrated by one of myinterviewees:
Karl [in his 30s – Senior Archaeologist in a Private Archaeology Unit]:“Archaeologists are not happy! Look at it… We did it to ourselves!
Really! What happened to the idealistic days of rescue archaeology, andeven later, I suppose, public archaeology? How that has become
corrupted into a situation where we archaeologists have no say in theprocess at all? On the surface, it looks like we are being paid a lot as
professionals, and it looks like: ‘why complain?’ They [Victoria State
Government] have got these wonderful laws that say we must do theseinvestigations. But, in actual fact, it is kind of a ‘white elephant’ [anendeavour that proves to be a conspicuous failure], I suppose.”
The change in Victorian archaeological organisation started in the 1980s and consisted
mostly of restructuring the costly, unproductive, and uncompetitive sector by:1) downsizing existing structures, notably by removing government archaeologicalservices (Victoria Archaeological Survey), at the beginning of the 1990s.
2) externalising most archaeological activities towards the private sector since the 1990s,
by repositioning archaeology as a service-provider for various clients (developers,
extractive industries, private land owners, and the government itself, notably for theconstructions of infrastructures), thus repositioning archaeology as a commodified
product within the construction industry.
3) neutralizing or depoliticizing the archaeological ‘product’, limiting most relations tocorporate ones. This was first practised between archaeologists and developers when
dealing with aboriginal remains of the past; and secondly (especially since the newlegislation was introduced in 2006) between the two previous corporate actors, butmore directly with the Aboriginal groups themselves.
Finally, and by comparison, the present research into the organisation of Japanesearchaeology should form the basis for a self-reflexive process, aiming to understand andgrasp:
1) What are the unique characteristics of Japanese archaeology?
© Japanese Archaeological Association

7

Nicolas ZORZIN

2) What are the strengths and weakness of the governmental system compared tocountries where privatisation or semi-privatisation of the industry was chosen as themost efficient model of development?
The political-economic model for Japanese archaeology is indeed not perfect, but despite
the presence of issues and legitimate criticism of current practices, this was a quality
system. Through the oral testimonies I have collected, I will attempt in future publications
to present the current situation from different points of views, experiences, andcomprehension of the archaeological network, with all their contradictions, paradoxes andtensions. Finally, comparison with the two previous cases will allow an evaluation of thedegree of transformation that occurred in Japan as governmental archaeology became
more privatised, and will permit us to draw some conclusions on the future tendencies ofthe development of archaeological activities.

Aim of the research in JapanThe economic transformation incurred by the neoliberal agenda did not necessarily affectJapan in the same way and at the same pace as it did North-America or Europe. Someeconomists like Richard Katz (1998) suggested that the Japanese economy of the 1980s
was not really ‘mature’ (in a neoliberal sense of the term) because the government still“protected the losers instead of promoting the winners” (Vogel 2006, p. 30). From acapitalist point of view, such behaviour undermined the competitive system. Yet, it isprecisely in the 1980s that the American pressure on the reorganisation of the economy
based on the neoliberal model was finally successful in Japan, when a wave ofprivatisation was completed for transport: railways, airlines, and most bus services, and in
telecommunications (as for example Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Public Corporation(Kagami 1999, pp.6-9)). Surprisingly enough, from a foreign perspective, thearchaeological activities in Japan appeared not to be structurally affected by these changes,
this having occurred only very recently (Ikawa-Smith 2011, p. 694). Governmental
structure was in fact functionally maintained within a three level organisation: 1) National(Bunka-chō 文 化 庁 : Agency of Cultural Affairs), 2) prefectural and 3) municipal
institutions. Despite the apparent stability of the Japanese archaeological network, a seriesof general questions should be now formulated. In articulating these questions it is also myintention to stimulate debate among archaeologists and let them speak openly about theseimportant current topics and issues:1) How long can the current resistance of governmental archaeology to market forces besustained throughout an enduring period of economic stagnation and bleak future
prospects? Can the archaeological governmental structure be maintained as it is today?
It has already lost 17% of its active population since 2000 (Bunka-chō 2013, p. 1), and© Japanese Archaeological Association

8

POLITICAL ECONOMY OF JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY

seems to lack means, time, and clear, shared general objectives (apart from digging) toaccomplish its mission fully and satisfactorily (Ikawa-Smith 2011, pp. 692-3; Okamura
2000, pp. 58-62; Pearson 1992, p. 118; Sahara 2008, p.293; Tsude 1995, p. 293).
Ultimately, what are the present strengths of the governmental services and what are
the main challenges faced by governmental archaeology?
2) Is privatisation a valid alternative and what is the evolution of the situation in Japan
regarding this matter? Is this economical/managerial switch desirable and can thistransformation take place without harming archaeological goals and methods? Is the
position, often shared today by Japanese archaeologists, of an ‘in between’, or‘cross-roads’ (Ikawa-Smith 2011, p. 694) between privatised, governmental and publicarchaeology, sustainable and appropriate in the long term (Ikawa-Smith 2011, p. 697)?
To what extent can compromises towards the market be made by archaeologists
without alienation from their work? How is the privatisation of archaeology perceived
by Japanese archaeologists today according to their individual experiences andpositions within the archaeological network?
3) Finally, can another model emerge from the current system, based on a closer
collaboration with, and a stronger involvement of populations in direct contact with theremains of ‘their’ past? Is it time for the advent of a new wave of Japanese ‘publicarchaeology’, as defined by Okamura & Matsuda (2011, pp. 1-4) as: “a subject thatexamines the relationship between archaeology and the public, and then seeks to
improve it. […] Public archaeology is conceived here as a dynamic endeavour, which
consists of an ever evolving two-stage cycle comprising both research and action”(2011, p. 4). Could this approach echo the 1950s ‘people’s history or democratic
movement’ (Fawcett: 1995, p. 235; Okamura 2000, p. 56) illustrated by the Okayama
project of Kondo Yoshiro (Tsukinowa Tumulus), which involved up to 10 000
individuals in the archaeological process, and an involvement not only based on aworking/financial relationship, but one that is cultural, collaborative and mutually
beneficial (Almansa Sánchez 2001, pp. 87-88)? In the current economic stagnation, andafter the devastating tsunami followed by the Fukushima Power Plant nuclear disaster,
could archaeology play a positive role in the process of reconstruction from a social
perspective, and not necessarily only from an economic one?

Methodology and methodological issues
To obtain an understandable portrait of the current organisation and dynamics ofarchaeology in Japan, I collected an original set of data based on the interviews of 38
individuals. This corpus was based on a qualitative data collection using the common toolsof ‘semi-directed’ interviews defined as: “a guide for determining interview topics without© Japanese Archaeological Association

9

Nicolas ZORZIN

the use of rigid questions” (Patton 1990). The interviews were conducted between Marchand July 2013, with 45% in Japanese and 55% in English. The language barrier could haveconstituted a problem for the completion of this research, but this difficulty was managed
using the assistance of competent interpreters and translators, and made easier by theefforts of many archaeologists to answer in English. The interviews were digitally
recorded, accumulating about 80 hours of discussions, and transcribed both in English andJapanese for extended analyses.

Size of the sample and representativeness

Given that the Japanese archaeological community is one of the most dynamic in theworld (Ikawa-Smith 2011, pp. 691-2) – numbering, in 2012, 5868 individuals ingovernment branches (Bunka-chō 2013, p. 1) and about 1000 more in academia, research
institutes and museums (Ikawa-Smith 2011, p. 693), totalling about 6900 individuals – it isindeed a difficult task to assemble a perfectly representative sample of this significant
community. I do not pretend to have assembled such a sample, but I have strived to do soto the best of my ability given the limitations of time and means. For optimal efficiency I
actively consulted various scholars and professional Japanese archaeologists to target themost representative individuals across the country, while also selecting some individuals
myself, and attempted to balance the sample appropriately in terms of gender, age, type ofactivities and geographical locations (Figures 1 and 2; Table 1).
A visual synthesis of my research in Japan is illustrated in Figure 1. It locates where myinterviewees were active at the beginning of 2013, and defines in which type of
professional framework/background they were embedded in the last years. Interlocutors
were predominantly located in Kansai (50 %), but efforts were made to gather interviews
from many different regions of Japan, including Kantō (15.5%), Tōhoku (10.5%),
Hokkaidō (10.5%), Kyūshū (10.5%) and Chūbu (3%).
In terms of age and gender (Tab.1), almost one quarter of practising archaeologists in mysample are male and in their forties. This seems representative of the present situation ofmale domination and of individuals born between 1945 and 1965, (also referred to as‘boomers'), aged between 40 and 60 years old. However, to have a more accurate
representation of the profession in 2013, I decided to include in the illustration of the
population (Figure 2) the post-graduate student population of one specific archaeologicaldepartment in a Japanese university. I believe that this conveyed the future face of thearchaeological Japanese community, which was not accounted for in my limited sample ofinterviewees. Through this modified sample, the general patterns observed in the UK andQuebec (Zorzin in press, Figure 2 and 3) seem also to be visible in Japan, and arecharacterised by a major switch from male domination of the discipline towards afeminisation for the generations born in the 1980s and onwards. This assessment will have
© Japanese Archaeological Association

10

POLITICAL ECONOMY OF JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY

to be confirmed in the coming years by a quantification of the gender of all post-graduate
students in Japan, but it seems to correspond to changes lately observed around the globe.
Table 1: Sample of archaeologists in Japan, by generation and gender

Born in(years)Age (y/o)MaleFemaleTotal inSampleSample - March-July 2013
1993-1983 1983-1973 1973-1963 1963-1953 before
1953
20s
30s
40s
50s
60s &+
1
7
9
7
4
2
4
2
1
1
3
11
11
8
5

TOTAL

28
10
38

As such, even if my sample only represents 0.5% of the total population of active
archaeologists, the range of individuals selected seems to adequately cover the diversity ofage, gender, location and professions within the archaeological community. Nevertheless,
it is crucial that this interview process be extended to obtain a more precise image. Such a
study will gain in significance by being based on a diachronic vision instead of the present
synchronic one. A total of 100 interviews (adding 62 more interviews to the actual corpus),
focusing on regions that have not been sufficiently investigated such as: Kantō (withfurther investigations with private archaeological companies around Tokyo and
Yokohama), Chūgoku, Shikoku and Okinawa, and focusing also on archaeologists
involved in municipal archaeology, should provide a complete and highly detailed portraitof the profession in Japan, through the voices of the members it constitutes.

Preliminary analysis
During my first encounter with the Japanese archaeological community, I noticed an
important contrast with my previous experiences in Canada and Australia. Somefrustrations were similarly noted in archaeologists' discourses, but no extended disillusion
and nor cynical attitudes were perceptible with my interlocutors. Passion and enjoyment
were still noticeable within the members of the community I had the chance to encounter(despite a generally spread exhaustion due to the volume of work, especially in the last
decade). Yet, general enthusiasm was tainted by doubts and fears for the perenniality ofarchaeology as it exists today.

© Japanese Archaeological Association11

Nicolas ZORZIN–Japanese archaeology ispresently evolving, and theorganisational shape it will
adopt in the coming decade isstill not clearly defined: will it
remaindominantly
governmental, be entirely
privatised, remain ‘in between’(semi-governmental:
decisional/regulation,andsemi-private: executional), or
will it become NPO based? At
a political level, according tosome of my interviewees, thecurrent Abe neo-nationalist
government’s general policies,even
if
fundamentally
neoliberal (Bix 2013), does notseem to threaten the existenceof the archaeological public
services, but rather the
opposite. The reason for notconverting archaeology might
be that archaeology has always
been closely connected to Figure 1 Location, number and main activities of interviewees inJapanese history, as it is to the March to July 2013
Japanese identity (Fawcett 1995; Habu and Fawcett 1999, p. 589), which still renders it
popular among the people (Ikawa-Smith 2011, pp. 678-680).
Since the 1990s, though the privatisation of archaeology has been avoided, it has not
stopped an internal reform in act which continuously pressurises the public archaeology
services to adjust to the corporate construction industry, and most importantly, to adopt
business model behaviour. Archaeologists in the field explained that tough realities
currently require them to focus on cutting costs and time, at the risk of losing the fruitfulcomponents of an expected archaeological process (literature review, theoretical rooting,methodological adjustment, research questions, analyses, interpretations, publications,dissemination of knowledge and debating results) in order to reduce quality andminimalize operations: surveys, excavations and the archiving of data and artefacts(reports and physical storage). As such, governmental archaeology already seems to have
© Japanese Archaeological Association

12

POLITICAL ECONOMY OF JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY

Figure 2. Samples of 44 individuals involved in Japanese archaeology 2013

taken an ‘in between’ stance to the political-economy, which is not necessarily
comfortable for archaeologists.
As an overview, I would like to present the main themes that emerged from the recorded
discussions. In the present state of the research, these ideas do not constitute any
conclusions but only observe tendencies based on the testimonies collected during the lastmonths of fieldwork.

Questioning the basic concept of ‘Rescue Archaeology’

Since the post-war period, and in a context of fast development, Japanese archaeology has
been progressively professionalized within a governmental structure (Barnes 1999, pp.
35-36; Edwards 2005, p. 46; Mizoguchi 2006, p. 137) while deepening its dependency on
the construction industry (Fawcett 1995, p.237; Tsude 1995, p. 293). Salvage archaeology
became dominant in the mid-1970s (Kobayashi 1986; Tsuboi 1987) and today represents
about 97% of excavations conducted in Japan every year (Ikawa-Smith 2011, p. 690). Thistransformation of an academic-based archaeology has resulted in the application of new
methodological concepts to comply with the exigencies of the developers, be they
governmental or corporate. These concepts have been notably characterised by the term:‘Rescue archaeology’. Importantly, even if it seems today generally accepted as anirrefutable component of modern archaeology, many Japanese archaeologists among myinterviewees are aware of the numerous problems generated by imposing a framework on
an archaeology based mostly on economic efficiency, and such problems have alreadybeen highlighted by some scholars in the last two decades (Fawcett 1995, p.244-246; Habu
1989, pp. 39-41; Ikawa-Smith 2011, pp. 689-699; Pearson 1992, p. 118; Sahara 2008, p.
13; Tsude 1995, p. 293).
In fact, the relevance of ‘Rescue Archaeology’ had been heavily criticized by the vast
majority of Japanese archaeological community at its initial implementation in the 1970s(Fawcett 1995, pp. 237-8). It was feared at that time that ‘Rescue Archaeology’ would be© Japanese Archaeological Association

13

Nicolas ZORZIN

too much of a compromising collaboration with capitalism, thus making it sociallymeaningless, and that it might put the profession at risk of developing perenniallyunethical and destructive practices. A little over thirty years later, the status-quo reached inJapan needs to be questioned, because its systematic application may not be as logical as it
had appeared to be in the 1970s. As suggested by many interviewees, the very purpose of‘Rescue archaeology’ should be re-thought urgently, and the following question needs tobe reconsidered: what is archaeology’s fundamental purpose?
Furthermore, following the logic linked to the development industry, the concepts of‘preservation by record’ as well as ‘total excavation of sites’ are often perceived asproblematic. Frustrations were often expressed about the systematic excavations whenarchaeologists would have favoured preservation (through negotiation with developers for
re-location or through modifications of the construction plans). However, as described byarchaeologists in Japan, some late tendencies were perceived as leaning toward anincreasing collaboration and better understanding with developers, avoiding systematic
destruction through a more standard use of ‘preservation in situ’.

The governmental archaeological model: current challenges

From the 1970s to 2000, the conduction of excavations by the state (by prefectural andmunicipal archaeological units) guaranteed excavations of high quality in a growing andprosperous community (Fawcett 1995, p. 239-240; Ikawa-Smith 2011, p. 692). Prefecture
and town archaeology have the major advantages of offering a real continuity and a strong
network, with staff that acquires a depth of knowledge of their region and of specificperiods of Japanese history. Since its emergence in 1970, governmental archaeology has
not only been the guarantor of quality of practice with highly qualified and experienced
specialists in the field, but has moreover ensured archaeologists’ independence, allowing
them autonomous evaluation as to whether the work accomplished had been ethicallyachieved and to determine what else should be done without being subjected to external
economic pressures.
In today’s national economic struggle, the situation may have changed. The immense
majority of what Ikawa-Smith (2011, pp. 692-3) calls: ‘the administrative archaeologists’are now directly involved in what is termed around the world as: ‘Cultural Heritage
Management’. Through these managerial devices, archaeologists have had to adapt tomore and more demanding restrictions on time and access to financial resources, with theaim of reducing costs and to avoid restraining development. In doing so, archaeologists
have had to adjust to these obligations and, as a consequence of this, adopt the culture of
the developer/corporate sector.
By applying extremely high and demanding standards of excavations and reports, theoutcome of this type of archaeology was and still is one of the most impressive in the© Japanese Archaeological Association

14

POLITICAL ECONOMY OF JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY

world (Barnes & Okita 1999, p. 378). Yet, even with the publications and spread of about3000 high-quality reports per year, archaeology in Japan remains predominantly empirical,
descriptive and politically neutral (Habu 1989, p. 38; Fawcett 1995, pp. 234-6; Habu &Fawcett 1999, p.589).
Nowadays, according to Ikawa-Smith (2011, p. 693), synthetic and reflexive works
should be made using these reports in order for Japanese archaeology to avoid becoming,
as Fawcett warned us in the mid-1990s, a very technical and bureaucratic activity (Fawcett
1995, p. 246). The absence of time and lack of funding for the analysis and interpretationof data collected during excavations has contributed greatly to this situation, increasing thenumber of unpublished sites and aggravating the absence of syntheses (Okamura 2000, p.
61). Yet, some reflexive and innovative reports have been produced in Japan, such as forexample, the one made by the Board of Education Secretariat City of Kobe in 2006 (神戸市教育委員会 2006) which offers detailed information about how Goshikizuka Kofun
was interpreted in the Edo period (神戸市教育委員会 2006, pp. 13-32), what processarchaeologists went through in deciding to reconstruct the original appearance of theGoshikizuka Kofun in 1965-1975 (神戸市教育委員会 2006, pp. 301-332), and what
lessons they learned from that drawn-out and somehow frustrating process (神戸市教育委
員会 2006, pp. 333-353). From my point of view, this last section of the report is the mostinnovative and enriching one, presenting a transcribed discussion between two
archaeologists about the processes involved during the site restoration. This type of reportadds a precious and straightforward insight into the archaeological work conducted.
However, the process could have gone even further by including a dialogue with local
populations, aiming, for example, to preserve the memories and beliefs attributed to the
Kofun mount before its restoration, thus bringing us closer to ‘Public archaeology’.
Furthermore, and according to my interviewees, governmental archaeology is now facing
many other challenges: one of the main corresponding downsides of governmentalarchaeology’s strength is that it also suffers from localism, which means that too great anemphasis has been placed on local matters while regional or even global archaeologicalproblematic and comparative approaches have been overlooked, lending to what has
sometimes been referred to as a ‘narrow-sighted’ form of archaeology. The reports areindeed numerous and detailed documents, but despite their large diffusion within theprefectural network, they have remained technical. This accumulation of raw data
therefore implies that someday, someone will have to process them to produce valid
contributions. Otherwise, this production fails to accomplish anything but the recording ofprocesses that lead to site obliterations. After approximately forty years of intense
accumulation, it seems urgent that a clear strategy of how to use this data significantly inthe future be defined. Coordination, inter-prefectural communication, digitalisation andstandardisation of data-bases are generally seen as ways to deal with this major issue.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

15

Nicolas ZORZIN

However, concomitantly to the reconstruction process following the Tsunami of 2011, it
seems that this process has been largely initiated, Tohoku being an example, and may beable to offer promising results.
Another phenomenon that occurred in archaeology, more so following the latenteconomic downturn of 2000, is the fragmentation of archaeological activities. Thisphenomenon is typical of a neoliberal managerial strategy which entails thedisempowering of individuals from their work by fragmenting the practice andredistributing micro-tasks to diverse actors, making global understanding of thearchaeological process (including socio-political outcomes) impossible to grasp (Shanks &McGuire 1996, p. 77). In doing so, a process of neutralisation or self-censorship isachieved successfully without archaeologists having even the possibility to perceive it assuch due to the gradual pace of its implementation.
Finally, it was repeatedly mentioned during my interviews that the professionalizationthat featured in the post-1960s period has privileged archaeologists and others specialists
to take control of the past. It has had the effect of side-lining ‘normal’ people, marking an
end to an enduring tradition of amateur and school teachers’ practising and teaching ofarchaeology all around Japan.

The trend of ‘outsourcing’ or the rampant privatisation of Japanesearchaeology

So far, no obvious measures have been taken to disband archaeological governmental
services. However, private units have appeared around the country, in the Kanto region(Tokyo & Yokohama cities) in particular. Important regional distinctions have appeared inJapan with regards to this, and this key aspect of the evolution of the profession will befully developed in further publications.
Nowadays, according to some of my interviewees, the advantages of this shift towardprivatisation is that archaeologists are able to conduct more advanced specialised andcostly analyses (dating, palynology, dendrochronology, zoo-archaeology, chemical
analyses, etc.) while prefectural or municipal archaeologists fundamentally lack the time
and the means to conduct such operations, or sometimes simply lack the motivation fordeveloping new methodologies other than those already in use.
In contrast, my interviewees expressed a largely shared fear of a full conversion to
privatization because of the following expected consequences: 1) a decrease in financial
investment by developers due to the shift from a government/developer relationshiptowards that of a service provider/developer; 2) the withdrawal of state control fromarchaeological operations, putting archaeologists at risk by placing them in positions ofpotential conflicts of interest, supporting corrupt and unethical behaviours to fulfil client
requirements: more pressure on archaeological practice without the protection of an© Japanese Archaeological Association

16

POLITICAL ECONOMY OF JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY

external and neutral body; 3) that archaeology would no longer be routed locally, thus
discontinuing the accumulation of knowledge in a specific area.

New orientations and hopes for the future in Japanese archaeology

Since 2000, archaeological economic security has eroded. This is perhaps best
demonstrated in Japan (Bunka-chō 2013, p. 1), but is also evident in other nationalarchaeological systems such as that of Ireland (Eogan 2010, pp. 19-23), and is related to
the fact that it became closely index-linked to building industry activities. In Ireland’s case,this relationship has demonstrated that if building activities decreased and the economy
was in some state of recession, archaeology was hit hard. As mentioned before, one
thousand prefectural archaeologist positions were lost in the last decade in Japan and some
private archaeological units have been bankrupted in recent years. However, while thesituation in Japan could be judged as stable and not as dramatic as that of Ireland, it may
well continue to appear that, should the profession wish to maintain its activities andproduce the best possible outcomes as suggested by my interviewees, that a certain
number of general orientations might be explored. As such, Japanese archaeology has, as
demonstrated in a non-exhaustive list, been expressedly desired to be:a) more global in terms of research, therefore less nationally-centred and even less so
regionally, with concerns and perspectives incorporating broader East-Asian
historical dynamics and even further studies of human behaviours at large.
b) more local/social in archaeological scope (though not in a manner contradictory to
the previous statement), i.e. based on a more immediate and engaged inclusion of
local people and cultures, and the development of both a deeper knowledge of local
history and improved relations with the relevant local communities.
c) more anthropological, i.e. involving more interpretational risks by using
multi-disciplinary approaches, opening up to new ideas deriving most notably fromenvironmental sciences, and ethnology, and allowing better connections with thepresent.
d) a more advanced focus on education instead of excavation.
e) a need to make archaeology relevant to society through ‘public archaeology’ andpossibly through the return of a form of amateurism based on the local initiatives of
non-professionals.
f) a re-introduction of the idea of love and respect for the past as much as a respect for
current cultures as the core of archaeological endeavours.
g) a complex but increased awareness of the difficulty of many archaeologists' goals,
particularly of the juxtapositioning of multivocality, cultural relativism and theglobal spread of knowledge, with the neo-nationalistic aspirations of some Japanesepeople.
© Japanese Archaeological Association17

Nicolas ZORZIN

The questions that remain now are: How can we implement such measures? In what typeof structure could such measures be realised? By what type of financial means would thesebe sustained? Could local communities take a definitive lead in the matter by creating theirown NPO dedicated to heritage, or is the public system condemned to slowly decay so as
to let the private sector take the lead in Japanese archaeology?

Prospects
This paper is an outline of my research project and does not therefore present any
definitive results, but focuses instead on presenting the framework of the project’s
construction and some of the main subjects that will be developed in future publications.
Most importantly, my wish is that this research will inspire other scholars among theJapanese archaeological community to further this research project, and to continue theinvaluable process of interviews in the coming years.

Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Mizoguchi Koji most sincerely for his full support during this research
project. I am also grateful to the JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowship for its financial support andto Kyushu University for its technical support, as well as its great research team and staff.
I wish to thank all the interviewees who participated in this research, and the individuals
who assisted me critically in this task, namely: Aki Sahoko, Yoshiguchi Tomoe and
McWilliams Ritsuko Fri.

References
Almansa Sánchez, J. 2001. Arqueología para todos los públicos. Hacia une definición de laarqueología publica “a la española”. ArqueoWeb 13: 87-107.
Barnes, G.L. 1999. The rise of Civilization in East Asia. London: Thames & Hudson.
Barnes, G.L. & M. Okita 1999. Japanese archaeology in the 1990s. Journal ofArchaeological Research 7(4): 349-395.
Bix, H. P. 2013. Japan Under Neo-nationalist, Neoliberal Rule: Moving Toward an Abyss(ネオナショナリズム、ネオリベ政策のもとで深淵に近づく日本)? The Asia-Pacific
2013:
Journal11(15-2).
Consulted
online
on
July
25th,
http://japanfocus.org/-Herbert_P_-Bix/3927?rand=1375417057&type=print&print=
1© Japanese Archaeological Association

18

POLITICAL ECONOMY OF JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY

Bourdieu, P. 1998. The Essence of Neoliberalism. Le Monde Diplomatique (English
version), December 1998.
Bunka-chō (文化庁 - Agency for Cultural Affairs) 2013. 埋蔵文化財関係統計資 (平成2013:
25 年 3 月 ).
Consulted
online
on
July
10th,
http://www.bunka.go.jp/bunkazai/shoukai/pdf/maizou_toukei.pdf
Chomsky, N. & J. Schoeffel (eds.) 2002. Understanding Power: The Indispensable
Chomsky. New York: New Press.
Edwards, W. 2005. Japanese archaeology and Cultural Properties Management, in J.
Robertson (ed.) A Companion to the Anthropology of Japan: 36-49. Malden,
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Eogan, J. 2010. The Impact of the recession on archaeology in the Republic of Ireland, in
N. Shlanger & K. Aitchison (eds.) Archaeology and the Global Economic Crisis:19-23. Culture Lab Editions: Tervuren.
Fawcett, C. 1995. Nationalism and Post war Japanese archaeology, in P.L. Kohl & C.
Fawcett (eds.) Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology: 232-246.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Habu, J. 1989. Contemporary Japanese Archaeology and Society. Archaeological Review
from Cambridge 8: 37-45.
Habu, J. & C. Fawcett, 1999. Jōmon archaeology and the representation of Japaneseorigins, Antiquity 73(281): 587-593.
Habu, J., C. Fawcett & J. M. Matsunaga, 2007. Evaluating Multiple Narratives: beyond
Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist Archaeologies. New-York: Springer.
Harvey, D. 2005. A brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford, New York: Oxford University
Press.
Ikawa-Smith, F. 2010. Co-Traditions in Japanese Archaeology. World Archaeology 13(3):296-309.
- 2011. 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.
Kagami, M. 1999. Privatization and Deregulation: The Case of Japan, in M. Kagami & M.
Tsuji (eds.) Privatization, Deregulation and Institutional Framework: 1-21.
International Joint Research Project Series 3.Tokyo: Institute of Developing
Economies, Japan External Trade Organization.
Katz, R. 1998. Japan – The System that Soured: The Rise and Fall of the Japanese
Economic Miracle. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe Inc.
Kobayashi, T. 1986. Trends in administrative salvage archaeology, in R.J. Pearson, G.L.
Barnes & K.L. Hutterer (eds.) Windows in the Japanese Past: studies inarchaeology and prehistory: 491-496. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

19

Nicolas ZORZIN

Kobe City Board of Education 2006. Shiseki Goshikizuka Kofun Kotsubo Kofun Hakkutsu
Chōsa Fukugen Seibi Hōkokusho (Excavation and Restoration Report on
Goshikizuka Kofun and Kotsubo Kofun), Kobe City Board of Education: Kobe.
Marx, K. 1844 (1959). Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Progress
Publishers: Moscow.
Mizoguchi, K. 2006. Archaeology, Society and Identity in Modern Japan. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Okamura, K. 2000. Conflict between preservation and development in Japan: thechallenges for rescue archaeologists, in F.P. McManamon & A. Hatton (eds.)
Cultural Resource Management in Contemporary Society – Perspectives on
Managing and Presenting the Past: 55-65. London: Routledge.
Okamura, K & A. Matsuda, 2010. Archaeological Management in Japan, in P. Mauch
Messenger & G.S. Smith (eds.) Cultural Management – A Global Perspective:
99-110. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Okamura, K & A. Matsuda (eds.), 2011. New Perspectives in Global Public Archaeology.
New-York, London: Springer.
Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications (2nd edition).
Pearson, R. 1992. The Nature of Japanese Archaeology. Asian Perspectives 31(2):115-127.
Sahara, M. 2008. Problématiques générales de l’archéologie préhistorique et de lapréservation des sites du Japon, in J.-P. Demoule & P.-F. Souyri (eds.) Archéologie
et Patrimoine au Japon: 7-14. Paris : Éditions de la Maison des sciences del’homme.
Shanks, M. & McGuire, R.H. 1996. The craft of archaeology. American Antiquity 61(1):75-88.
Tanaka, M. 1984. Rescue Excavation in Japan, in H. Cleere (ed.) Approaches to theArchaeological Heritage – New Directions in Archaeology: 82-88. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tsuboi, K. 1987. The protection of archaeological sites in Japan, in K. Tsuboi (ed.) Recent
Archaeological Discoveries in Japan: 92-100. Tokyo: Centre for East Asian Cultural
Studies.
Tsude, H. 1995. Archaeological theory in Japan, in P. J. Ucko (ed.) Theory in Archaeology– A world perspective: 292-304. London, New-York: Routledge.
Vogel, S. K. 2006. Japan Remodelled – How Government and Industry are Reforming
Japanese Capitalism. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press.
Zorzin, N. 2012. The Political-economy of Victoria archaeology: an introduction andcritical analysis, in I. Berelov, M. Eccleston, & D. Frankel (eds.) Excavations,© Japanese Archaeological Association

20

POLITICAL ECONOMY OF JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY

Surveys and Heritage Management in Victoria 1: 75-79. Melbourne, Victoria.
- 2011. Contextualising Contract Archaeology in Quebec - Political-Economy andEconomic Dependencies. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 26(1): 119-135.
- 2010. Archéologie au Québec – Portrait d’une profession. Revue de l’association desarchéologues du Québec. Archéologiques 23: 1-15.
- In press. Archaeology and Capitalism – Successful Relationship or Economic and Ethical
Alienation?, in C. Gnecco & D. Lippert (eds.) Ethics and Archaeological Praxis:
Multivocality, Politics, Intellectual Property. New York: Springer.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

21