Archaeological
Archaeology

Administration

andJapanese

NAKANISHI Yumiko1
ABSTRACTThis paper aims to provide the audience with a brief introduction of Japanese archaeologicaladministration, focusing on distinctive features in Japan. Since archaeological administration isclosely connected to “archaeology” as academic discipline, by overlooking how archaeologicaladministration has contributed to archaeology, we would like to think how archaeology andarchaeologists can contribute to archaeological administration. The author approaches to thistheme from a viewpoint of an archaeologist working in a prefectural government.
KEYWORDS: administration, law, cultural properties, site protection

1.

Introduction

This talk aims to provide the audience brief introduction of Japanese archaeologicaladministration, focusing on distinctive features in Japan. Since archaeologicaladministration is closely connected to “archaeology” as academic discipline, byoverlooking how archaeological administration has contributed to archaeology, we
would like to think how archaeology and archaeologists can contribute to archaeologicaladministration. I am very happy to talk with this theme from a viewpoint of anarchaeologist actually working in a prefectural government.
I use the term ”Cultural properties” as the legal term in this talk, as well as “buried
cultural properties” for archaeological structures and artefacts buried underground, and to
be legally protected. The words may sound a little strange, but I will follow the ofﬁcial use.

2. Outline and brief history of Japanese cultural properties
administration
Firstly, I would like to brieﬂy introduce outline of Japanese cultural properties
administration. The basis for the protection of cultural properties in Japan is “the1 Cultural

Properties Protection Division, Osaka Prefectural Board of Education, Osaka
Prefectural Sakishima Building, 1–14–16 Nanko-kita, Suminoe Ward, Osaka 559–8555, Japan(NakanishiYum@mbox.pref.osaka.lg.jp)
Category: Review Article (solicited) Received: 25 October 2016
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 4 (2017): 171–184

NAKANISHI YumikoLaw for the Protection of Cultural Properties (“the Law” from now onwards.).” In thearticle three, it is said that making utmost efforts for cultural properties protection
is our responsibility, and we, those who work in the local and national governments,
must follow this. Moreover, the article four says that it is the citizen’s duty to cooperate
cultural properties administration.
The current Law was enacted in 1950 and has been amended many times. In thelaw, there is the system to protect “buried cultural properties,” that is archaeologicaladministration. It was legally set in 1975 when the Law was amended. Recently, what tobe protected, that is what to be valued as cultural properties, seems to be growing more
and more diverse. For instance, notion of cultural landscape was introduced in 2004 at
the most recent amendment.
Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of cultural properties to be protected by the Law inJapan. Historically and academically signiﬁcant sites are designated as “Historic Site.”

Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of Cultural Properties. (Taken from the pamphlet issued by
Agency of Cultural Affairs. “Cultural Properties for Future Generations—Outline of the Cultural
Administration in Japan.” Downloaded from Agency of Cultural Affairs Website, last accessed
08/06/2016.) (Agency of Cultural Affairs 2016a, p. 3)© Japanese Archaeological Association

172

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADMINISTRATION AND JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY

Among those, particularly important ones are designated as “Special Historic Site.” Oncesites are designated, they have to be generally, in theory, preserved as they are. Anychanges need the permission through legal procedure.
Buried Cultural Properties are the cultural properties underground, characteristics ofcultural properties are similar to Historic Sites, but not with so distinctive signiﬁcance asthem. That consists of archaeological sites and artefacts, such as shell mounds, ancient tombs,
palaces, forts and castles, etc. as well as pottery, stone tools, roof tiles and other ﬁndings
from archaeological structure (the Law). While notably signiﬁcant archaeological sites would
be designated as Historic Sites, as mentioned before, others are protected under the different
system of rescue archaeology as administrative action, which will be discussed in detail, later.
Just for your information, Figure 2 is the number of designated sites in Japan and in
Osaka. There are plenty of places to visit nearby.
I would like to introduce some examples of Historic Sites in Osaka. Figure 3 is one of
only two Special Historic Sites in Osaka, Osaka Castle Remain Site (Osakajo-ato), The
original castle is apparently not this current castle building, but stone walls, some otherFigure 2. Statistics of Designated Cultural Properties in Japan. (Taken from Agency of Cultural
Affairs Website, last accessed 08/06/2016. http://ww.)

Figure 3.

Special Historic Site Osaka Castle Remain Site (Osakajo-ato)© Japanese Archaeological Association

173

NAKANISHI YumikoFigure 4.

Historic Site Imashirozuka Kofun Site

Figure 5.

Who deals with archaeological administration in Japan?

buildings and archaeological remains are designated as Special Historic Site.
Another designated Historic Site nearby is Imashirozuka Kofun located in Takatsuki
City, which is about a half an hour away from Kyoto by train. The details of the sites areon the poster of archaeological fair, but it is a 6th century massive keyhole-shape tomb.
The site is reconstructed and decorated with cute replica of clay horse ﬁgures, haniwa,
where you can even sit on to take pictures.
Now, I would like to summarise the structure of Japanese archaeologicaladministration, that is who deals with archaeological administration in Japan. Different
levels of governments respectively have different roles. In Japan, basically, thegovernment can be leveled into three levels: The national, prefectural, and municipal
governments. In the national government, cultural properties administration in general,
including archaeological administration is under the Agency of Cultural Affairs set up in© Japanese Archaeological Association

174

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADMINISTRATION AND JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY

1968, which is the special body of the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (MEXT). In the prefectural and municipal governments, withsome exceptions, local boards of education are responsible for those.
The national, prefectural and most municipal governments have their advisorycommittee for cultural properties consists of specialist and academics, for advice andinstruction on designation and policies related to cultural properties administration. Whatis very distinctive in Japan, is that local governments have lots of authorities and play thegreat role. There are almost 6,000 archaeologists employed in the government, mostly
prefectural and municipal levels.

3.

Current state of archaeological administration

Next part of the talk focuses on archaeological administration, related to “buried culturalproperties.” I would like to start with deﬁnition of what are “buried cultural properties.”
It is about cultural properties buried underground (the Law, Article 92) that include
archaeological sites and artefacts, as I have mentioned. The site ofﬁcially recognised aswith cultural properties are constrained with some legal restrictions as follows:
1) Obligation of notiﬁcations for any excavations and construction works disturbing the
ground, with possibility to inﬂuence underground structure. (Nevertheless, it is notasking for permission, but merely submitting notiﬁcation. (The Law, Articles 93, 94.)2) When necessary, prefectural governments can instruct to undertake rescue excavation
before the developments.
3) The expense for rescue excavations has to be covered by the initiator of thedevelopment, with some exceptions, those who beneﬁt from the developments possibly
disturbing cultural properties that are the public properties.
It is the best for the sites to be preserved in situ. Therefore, the area to be destroyed
have to be minimised though mitigation, as we, archaeological administration side
believe that they are the public properties for public good. However, buried culturalproperties inevitable to be destroyed are preserved by records through excavations.
Buried cultural properties” can only be acknowledged through the excavation as Japanesetraditional buildings are wooden, and thus the upper building structures do not remain.
Excavations require the highly specialised skill. The local governments who directly deal
with administrative actions on buried cultural properties have to be facilitated with thepersonnel with appropriate abilities and skills. While notably signiﬁcant sites would bedesignated as Historic Sites, as mentioned before, others are protected under the different
system of rescue archaeology as administrative action. It is an administrative action, andthus unavoidable. Moreover, the excavation is irreversible.
There are four steps for archaeological administration; 1) “comprehension and© Japanese Archaeological Association

175

NAKANISHI Yumiko

dissemination,” 2) “mitigation,” 3) “preservation (in situ/by record),” and 4) “utilisation,”
which includes both preventive and reactive measures against threats of the development.

Comprehension and dissemination

We can “comprehend” characteristics and value of archaeological structures in certain
area, through distributional survey, test excavations, etc. and other researches. We must
comprehend to acknowledge what we have to protect. Moreover, we have to disseminate
what we comprehend by providing information about value of the sites to the publicwith various means to raise their notion of protection. By sharing information, and thus
sharing the value, negative impact on archaeological structures caused by ignorance canbe avoidable. More signiﬁcantly, we can raise the supporters.
In Osaka prefecture, as well as many other prefectural and municipal governments, we
provide the distribution map of ofﬁcially recognised archaeological sites on the internet.
The areas surrounded by the green lines (in Figure 6.) are the archaeological sites, where
you must submit legal notiﬁcation for the development. If you click one of those, itturned to pink, and show information on the site in the small window below.

Mitigation

According to Article 93 and 94 of the Law, it is Legal obligation to report any work
disturbing underground in the area of ready-known archaeological sites. The sites should
be disseminated to the wide public by “comprehension and dissemination” process. If
mitigation is necessary, we negotiate with the developers to change the plan, to minimise
the loss as we believe destruction of archaeological sites are the loss of the public.

Figure 6. Archaeological site distribution map in Osaka. (Osaka Prefecture Information Map
System. Last accessed https://www11.cals.pref.osaka.jp/ajaxspatial/ajax/)© Japanese Archaeological Association

176

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADMINISTRATION AND JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY

According to the article 57 of the law, the government can give the developers
necessary instructions regarding their notiﬁcations. For instance, the government can
instruct to undertake excavations prior to the construction work when necessary.
Generally, in Osaka, the answers for notiﬁcations are sent to the developers in threelevels: I) Archaeological excavation (Preservation by records); II) Partial surveillance
during construction works; and III) Commence the development carefully (Report whenfound something)Those are administrative guidance, but no ﬁnes and penal even when the developers
offend.

Preservation

As a result of excavations to comprehend the site and the following mitigation, somesites acknowledged with particular signiﬁcance are “preserved in situ.” Some cases arelead to designation of Historic Sites, and then utilised to a certain extent. The picture
above is an example. Hinenosho site is a Historic Site located close to Kansai airport
where many people must have passed. Archaeological structures are preserved in situ,
underneath, and the area is to be utilised as archaeological park. In some other cases, thesites are preserved, but buried under the building or the like, without being utilised ordisseminated much.
As a result of excavations to comprehend the site and the following mitigation, some

Figure 7. Site preserved in situ: The site explanation board is standing where archaeologicalstructures preserved and buried underneath. Historic Site Hinenosho Site, Chofuku-ji Temple
Remain Site (Izumisano City)© Japanese Archaeological Association

177

NAKANISHI YumikoFigure 8. Reconstructing and recording of the artifacts. (Osaka Prefecture Cultural Properties
Research Ofﬁce)

Figure 9. Excavation reports are published basically after every rescue excavation. (Osaka
Prefecture Cultural Properties Research Ofﬁce)

sites unavoidable to be destroyed are “preserved by record.” Archaeological structures on
the ground were recorded by drawings and photos. Artefacts are washed, reconstructed,
recorded, and then stored in the storage. Excavation reports are published basically after
every rescue excavation, and so, the sites are regarded as “preserved by record” although
they are no longer on nor under the ground.

Utilisation

After preservation in situ or by records, archaeological sites are to be utilised andvalorised. Recorded information on the sites are shared in a form of publication. The
artefacts are also stored by the local boards of education, and often available forobservation and study by application, as well as for exhibitions and loan.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

178

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADMINISTRATION AND JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY

Figure 10.
Ofﬁce)

Exhibition of the excavated objects. (Osaka Prefecture Cultural Properties Research

The development has started to increase since the late 1960s, and came to its peakin the mid 1990s. In whole Japan, it reached 132,100,000,000 JPY, which is about
1,000,000,000 GPB (Agency of Cultural Affairs 2016b, pp. 23–24). As this increased,
the local governments started to hire the archaeologists to be ready to undertake rescue
excavations. It decreased to less than a half in 2012. The statistics on Figure 13. shows
the transition in Osaka Prefecture. Three labels are crucial large-scale developments in
Osaka.

4.

Distinctive features in Japanese archaeological administration

I believe distinctive features in Japanese archaeological administration can besummarised as such.
1) “Buried cultural properties” are protected in the different system from designation,
also from protection of upper building structure.
2) There are great responsibilities, authorities and contributions of the local governments.
Almost 6,000 archaeologists are employed in local governments (in 2015) (Agencyof Cultural Affairs 2016b, pp. 3–5). High level of archaeological data have been
accumulated by local rescue excavations. Literally, archaeologists working for rescuearchaeology are holding Japanese archaeology.

5. Correlations between
Japanese archaeology

archaeologicaladministration

andPlease see the statistics on Figure 12. Again. I would like to point out how much such
© Japanese Archaeological Association

179

NAKANISHI YumikoFigure 11. Storage of the excavated objects available for the study by researchers, students, etc.
by application. (Osaka Prefecture Cultural Properties Research Ofﬁce)© Japanese Archaeological Association

180

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADMINISTRATION AND JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY

Figure 12.

Four steps of archaeological administration

Figure 13.

Transition of expenses on rescue excavation in Osaka Prefecture

large-scale developments contribute to accumulation of archaeological information assources of academic archaeological studies, including some eye-opening discoveries.
Here, I want to introduce some crucial examples.

Development of Senboku New Town and excavation on Sue-mura Kiln Group
Site (1960s)

Due to the development of New Town in Sakai city, south of Osaka, the hills over 1,500
hectare were excavated. The hills were found out with great concentration of sue-ki(stoneware) kilns, mainly of the 5–9th centuries. A large number of kilns were completely
excavated to be preserved by record. Such tremendous amount of information andfollowing high standard of typological investigation provided the detailed chronology inJapanese archaeology, which is still the basic and constantly in use until now.

Hazamiyama Palaeolithic Site of Nashida Point (1986)

Remain of Palaeolithic dwelling was discovered in the rescue excavation at a famous
baseball players’ house in 1986. Palaeolithic dwelling in Japan is very rare discovery. He
modiﬁed the structural plan and the sites are preserved in situ under the building.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

181

NAKANISHI YumikoFigure 14.

Excavated kiln at Sue-mura Kiln Group Site (TK 66-II). Sakai City Government

Figure 15.

Palaeolithic dwelling of Hazamiyama Site. Osaka Prefectural Board of Education

Kinki Expressway Construction and discovery of incipient form of burial
mounds (1980s)

Many incipient form of burial mounds dated back to the mid Yayoi Period werediscovered in good state during the rescue excavations for Kinki Expressway of 1980s.
Great number of burials were found and some with human remains.

6.

Towards our future

As archaeologists working in the public sector, we always think what archaeology can doto the public, in a way, how archaeological administration can contribute to our society© Japanese Archaeological Association

182

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADMINISTRATION AND JAPANESE ARCHAEOLOGY

Figure 16. Exhibition related to Palaeolithic dwelling of Hazamiyama site. Fujiidera City Boardof Education

including initiator of the development who pays for the rescue archaeology, as well as the
taxpayers. At the same time, as the person who executes destruction of archaeologicalsites for mitigation and preservation by record, we feel responsibility and seek for how
the best to contribute to archaeology. Now, in the time of decreasing rescue archaeology,
as archaeologists, we should think about what archaeology, as an academic discipline cando and contribute to archaeological administration.
While overlooking recent tendency in archaeological administration, I picked up andwould like to point out 3 keywords, here: X) Diversity; Y) Integration; and Z) Evaluation.
In recent years, as seen in the amendments of the Law, more and more “diverse” kindsof cultural properties are involved and came to be valued. At the same time, wider variety
of methods for protection are to be invented. On the contrary, “integration” are getting
more and more required among the different kinds of cultural properties, I mean so far
having been protected separately, cultural properties, as well as among the methods andthe sections responsible for protection, are integrated to enhance and increase the valueof cultural properties. As the third keyword, I believe that “evaluation” process increases
its signiﬁcance. The more “diverse” and “integrated” at the same time cultural properties
become, more careful and convincing evaluation comes to be required. That is, I believe,
where archaeology can contribute to archaeological administration, and also the reason
why we, archaeologists, are employed in the government is here. We need to know
precisely about what we want to or have to protect. Therefore, archaeologists ourselves
have to make utmost effort to improve our speciality.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

183

NAKANISHI Yumiko

How do we do so? It would depends on various aspects, like ﬁelds, situations, people,
setting, etc., but this conference, which includes many sessions related to cultural heritage
issues, with great number of archaeologists participating, would be a great opportunity
for every archaeologist to think about it.

References (including general references for what is described)
Agency of Cultural Affairs 2016a. Cultural Properties for Future Generations—Outlineof the Cultural Administration in Japan. (http://www.bunka.go.jp/tokei_hakusho_
shuppan/shuppanbutsu/bunkazai_ pamphlet/pdf/pamphlet_en_03_ver04.pdf lastaccessed 8 June 2016)
Agency of Cultural Affairs 2016b. Maizobunkazai kankei toutei shiryo, heisei 27 nendo.
Tokyo: Bunkacho, Bunkazaibu, kinenbutsuka.
Osaka Center for Cultural Heritage (ed.) 1981. Koma, Uryudo. Osaka: Osaka Center for
Cultural Heritage. (in Japanese)
Osaka Center for Cultural Heritage (ed.) 1986. Shiroyama, vol.1. Osaka: Osaka Center for
Cultural Heritage. (in Japanese)
Osaka Prefectural Board of Education (ed.) 1990. Minamigawachi ni okeru iseki nochousa
1 (The excavations in the Minamikawachi area). Osaka: Osaka Prefectural Board of
Education. (in Japanese)
Osaka Prefectural Board of Education (ed.) 2005. Suemura, kama, sue-ki (Suemura, Kilns,
and Sue stoneware). Osaka: Osaka Prefectural Board of Education. (in Japanese)
The Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties. 1975 (2004)© Japanese Archaeological Association

184