Overview: Japanese Archaeological Research Trends 2023

Overview: Japanese Archaeological Research Trends 2023¹ 
Ishikawa Hideshi²

General Overview
　This overview takes a brief look at developments in Japanese archaeology, centered on fiscal year (FY) 2023, based on research trends across periods ranging from the Paleolithic to the early modern and modern eras. A cross-period perspective is necessary because, not only in archaeology but across academic research more generally, the remarkable deepening of inquiry in recent years has also led to increased specialization, making it progressively more difficult to grasp connections between subfields. Japanese archaeology has likewise become increasingly specialized and subdivided by period; apart from work focused on period boundaries or transitional phases, truly cross-period discussion appears to be weakening.
　One general point should be noted at the outset. Contributors consistently strive to introduce, as carefully as possible, the papers and presentations published during the fiscal year. That effort is important in itself, yet these surveys might also benefit from placing evaluative perspectives more clearly in view. In addition to this journal, similar overviews of research trends in Japanese archaeology appear in Shigaku Zasshi³ and Gekkan Kokogaku Journal⁴. What distinguishes the Annals of the Japanese Archaeological Association⁵ is not only its comprehensive scope, but its inclusion of review and critical appraisal. Even short articles or research notes warrant mention when they offer new perspectives, while conversely, even substantial volumes may on occasion be omitted.

1. COVID-19 Measures and Thereafter
　The first point that must be addressed in considering research trends for FY2023 is that the restrictions imposed since FY2020 in response to COVID-19 were finally lifted, allowing in-person research activities of all kinds to resume in earnest. The 89th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Archaeological Association⁶ was held on May 27–28, 2023, at Tokai University’s Shonan Campus⁷. From FY2019 through FY2022, the Association had been forced to adopt strict measures, such as holding its General Meeting only in print, canceling annual conferences, or limiting attendance. Beginning with the FY2023 meeting, however, these restrictions were removed and the event was held simultaneously in in-person and online formats. A period of constraint had lasted far longer than anyone originally anticipated.
　The online formats adopted during the pandemic proved highly effective in enabling members across Japan to participate more reliably despite their busy schedules. For reasons of convenience, the hybrid system combining in-person and online participation has been retained even after the resumption of face-to-face meetings. Having experienced both formats, it is useful to consider their respective characteristics. Online participation is well suited for accurately following and comprehending the content of research presentations. In contrast, in-person meetings allow participants to sense the expressions and reactions of those around them while listening, resulting in very different impressions. The exchange of opinions after presentations also remains a major advantage of in-person gatherings.

2. A Very Active Calendar of Research Gatherings
　Following the 89th Annual Meeting, the Japanese Archaeological Association held the Miyagi Conference on October 28–29 at Tohoku Gakuin University⁸. Under the common theme “Archaeology of Disasters and Boundaries,” four sub-sessions were organized: (1) “Regional Reconstruction Survey Results, Research on Natural Disasters,” (2) “Cross-boundary Movements and Exchange in Prehistoric Tohoku,” (3) “Boundaries in the Northeastern Periphery and the Formation of the Ritsuryō State, Up to the Completion of Tagajō”⁹, and (4) “Archaeology of Exchange with Asia and the World as Seen through Miyagi Prefecture.” These sessions were designed to examine, through archaeological research, issues such as the Great East Japan Earthquake and the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as conflicts arising from contemporary cultural and political divisions across the world.
Not only the Association but numerous other research societies and symposia also resumed in-person meetings, giving the sense that research activity had truly restarted in FY2023. Notable examples include:
　For the Paleolithic period: the International Obsidian Conference IOC Engaru 2023¹⁰; the 40th-anniversary conference of the Chugoku–Shikoku Paleolithic Culture Colloquium¹¹,“Regional Issues in the Late Paleolithic of Chugoku and Shikoku”; and the “70th Anniversary Microblade Symposium,” organized by the Meiji University Obsidian Research Center and the Yatsugatake Paleolithic Research Group¹².
　For the Yayoi and Kofun periods: “The Present State of the ‘Upland Settlements’ Debate—Findings and Issues of a Half-Century-on Research Project,” a synthesis of work continued since FY2020 under Morioka Hideto; the 22nd Harima Archaeology Research Meeting, Harima’s Middle Kofun¹³ ; and “Diverse Research Perspectives on Ancient Weapons,” hosted by the Ancient Weapons Research Society¹⁴.
　For the ancient period: the 27th Conference on Ancient Government Offices and Settlements, “The Structure and Transformation of Ancient Settlements IV”¹⁵; a symposium commemorating the 100th anniversary of the designation of the Tōtōmi Kokubun-ji site as a Historic Site¹⁶; and the 50th Conference on Ancient Forts and Government Offices, “Ancient Northeastern Forts and Government-office Sites”¹⁷.
　For the medieval and early modern periods: the 43rd Research Meeting of the Japan Trade Ceramics Research Society, Production and Consumption Locales of Export Ceramics—Reports on Recent Surveys¹⁸ ; the 5th Medieval Studies Symposium, The Medieval World of Ships—Wrecks, Cargoes, People¹⁹ ; the 41st Medieval Pottery Research Society meeting, “Medieval Sue Ware Production—Transformation and Development”²⁰; the 33rd Kansai Early Modern Archaeology Conference, “What Cemeteries Reveal in the Early Modern Period”²¹; and the 36th Edo-site Research Conference, “Burial in the Early Modern Metropolis of Edo”²². These examples make clear that cross-regional research activities have now resumed in earnest across all periods.
　Long-running efforts that have continued since the 1980s and 1990s, such as the Conferences on Ancient Government Offices and Settlements, the Japan Trade Ceramics Research Society, the Kansai Early Modern Archaeology Conference, and the Edo-site Research Conference, are particularly important as multi-generational undertakings, and the dedication of those involved deserves special recognition.
　Viewed across periods, however, collaboration that transcends projects and regions appears relatively sparse for the Jomon period. The Jomon Culture Research Association²³  continued its publication of The Jomon Period 34 (2023), organizing the previous year’s research trends and compiling a detailed bibliography. Although reports and meetings tied to KAKENHI-funded research and other projects were also held, the state of activity seems somewhat different from other periods. While the pronounced regionality of Jomon culture is undeniable, that alone cannot explain the difference. Intentional efforts to expand information networks among researchers will likely be needed moving forward.

3. Cross-Period Research Trends
Publication of Essay Collections
　Within the archaeological community, large commemorative volumes, marking retirements, seventieth birthdays, or memorializing deceased scholars, have long played a central role. FY2023 again saw many such publications, including What Moved History? (3 vols.), commemorating the eightieth birthday of Harunari Shuji²⁴; New Horizons in East Asian Archaeology (Retirement Commemorative Volume for Miyamoto Kazuo)²⁵; Exploring Jomon Society (Seventieth-Birthday Festschrift for Takahashi Ryuzaburo)²⁶; and Takahashi Ryuzaburo (ed.), Ethnography of Papua New Guinea and Jomon Society²⁷ . Memorial collections included Archaeology of the Japanese Archipelago III (In Memoriam Watanabe Makoto)²⁸  and Tobacco, Cord-Marking, and Archaeology (In Memoriam Dohi Takashi)²⁹. Although published in the previous fiscal year, Archaeology of the Sendanrin II (Seventieth-Birthday Festschrift for Otake Kenji)³⁰  and Kōzan Ryūsui (Retirement Commemorative Volume for Akazawa Noriaki)³¹  can in substance be treated as belonging to FY2023.
　Archaeological Studies of Fukuoka University 3 (Retirement Commemorative Volume for Takesue Jun’ichi)³²  originally appeared in March 2020, but its supplement containing Japanese translations of seven Korean-language papers previously unpublished in translation was issued in March 2023 at the time of the commemorative party, which had been postponed due to the pandemic. As with Saikodō Danrinroku³³, a compilation of Takesue’s shorter writings, the biographical and bibliographic records appended to such volumes form valuable testimonies to the intellectual foundations of present-day archaeological research.
　Such collections, with numerous contributors each writing on their own themes, are not always unified in composition. Even so, they often vividly reveal the honoree’s long-standing research orientation and the configuration of their academic network, providing a valuable guidepost for future scholarship. Their capacity to flexibly connect researchers and research topics should also not be underestimated.

Collaboration with Related Fields
　Although, as noted above, cross-researcher collaboration remains limited within Jomon studies, cooperative and interdisciplinary research with related fields continues to be highly active. As Takano Sanae, author of this issue’s Jomon-period section, observes, among the 482 Jomon-related papers collected in The Jomon Period 35 (2024)³⁴, seventy-four address resource use, subsistence, or diet; twenty-two, chronological dating; twenty-one, DNA analysis of human remains; twenty, physico-chemical analysis; and fifteen, paleoenvironmental or paleoclimatic reconstruction, making 152 papers, or about thirty percent of the total, that incorporate physico-chemical approaches. This reflects the high proportion of botanical and zoological materials handled in lowland or shell-midden sites compared to other periods, and the methodological diversity encouraged by the study of foraging-based societies. A representative example is Abe Yoshiro (ed.), Urushi and Society in the Jomon³⁵ , in which nineteen specialists in archaeology, botany, and analytical science synthesize physico-chemical analysis of lacquer, techniques of lacquerware production, and resource use in Jomon society.
　A special feature titled “Archaeology and DNA,” edited by Fujio Shin’ichiro in Kikan Kokogaku 166³⁶, also provides an excellent overview of recent progress in interdisciplinary research applying the rapidly developing techniques of DNA analysis to archaeology. This summarizes key outcomes of the Yaponesia Genome Project led by Saito Naruya at the National Institute of Genetics³⁷. The diversity of issues raised is striking. For example, while broadly supporting Hanihara Kazuro’s “dual structure” model of Japanese population history, the special issue also calls for substantial revisions to the longstanding practice of explaining Yayoi-period populations in a simple dichotomy of “Jomon-derived” versus “migrant-derived” (Shinoda Ken-ichi, “DNA Analysis and the Dual Structure Model”). Shinoda argues that the premise of a homogeneous “Jomon people” should be discarded, and points out cases in Korea where individuals with Jomon-like genetic signatures persist even in periods contemporaneous with Japan’s Kofun era, suggesting that the realities of population mixing after the Yayoi period are now coming into view.

Environmental Change and Archaeology
　Research on environmental change and human history, brought into sharper focus by experiences of major earthquakes, torrential rainfall, and the pandemic, has drawn wide attention as a field with relevance beyond archaeology. A prime example is the study by Uchida Junzo and colleagues, “Disaster, Survival and Recovery: The Settlement of Tanegashima Island Following the Kikai-Akahoya ‘Super-Eruption,’ 7.3ka cal BP,” Antiquity 98(393)³⁸, which analyzed the impact of the massive Kikai-Akahoya eruption about 7,300 years ago on Jomon-period settlements on Tanegashima Island³⁹. The paper received the Ben Cullen Award for outstanding contributions to world archaeology.
　Recent advances in oxygen-isotope dendrochronology and efforts to correlate climatic fluctuation data with archaeological information are also accumulating. The special exhibition “Social Transformation in the 1st Century CE” at the Osaka Museum of Yayoi Culture⁴⁰  sought to interpret transformations in Kinai society in relation to evidence of cooling trends from the late Middle to Late Yayoi periods. The exhibition’s detailed visualizations and contextual integration of archaeological remains and artifacts were striking. Going forward, however, care should be taken to avoid extrapolating interpretations of lowland sites, such as those on the Kawachi Plain, to regions with different geomorphological settings.

4. Noteworthy Studies
Finally, several research developments from FY2023 merit particular attention.
　The first concerns debates over the beginnings of human activity in the Japanese archipelago. This topic, which required deep reflection following the early–middle Paleolithic fabrication scandal, gained renewed attention through excavations at the Kosakayama site in Saku City, Nagano Prefecture⁴¹, conducted in 2020. Investigations and discussion continue across Japan. One example involves the question of whether the earliest lithic assemblages of the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese archipelago are related to the Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) industries of Eurasia. This issue is discussed by Nagai Kenji, “Early Blade Industries in Korea and Their Chronology,” Nihon Kokogaku 57⁴², and Morisaki Kazutaka, “Chronology, Technology, and Behavior of the Lithic Assemblage from Area 8 of the Ishinomoto Site Group,” Kyushu Kyusekki 27⁴³. Among field investigations, particular attention should be given to the conclusion of Keio University’s long-term excavations at the Shitsukari-Abe Cave site in Aomori Prefecture⁴⁴  . Although no human remains were found, the recovery of small mammal remains at a non-Okinawan Paleolithic site represents a significant discovery.
　Next, in his review of Yayoi-period research, Shibata Masaki discusses works such as Fujio Shin’ichiro’s Where Did the Yayoi People Come From?⁴⁵ , arguing that it is now necessary to reconsider the very framework through which the Yayoi period has been understood, one that has grown increasingly ambiguous. Such a reconsideration, however, must begin with a careful reexamination of the history of Yayoi studies to date. Advancing simplified arguments without adequate review of the accumulated excavation data from each region risks causing confusion rather than clarity. This connects with the “dual structure” model of Japanese population formation discussed above and with recent debates based on DNA analysis of concrete archaeological materials. In broad terms, the former corresponds to a statistical mode of argument, while those built up from individual finds and regional datasets are of a different order, namely historical interpretations grounded in specific times and places. The distinction between these approaches should be clearly recognized, and their interrelations considered in a multilayered manner.
　In Kofun-period studies, the comprehensive publication of research on the Sakurai Chausuyama Kofun in Nara Prefecture deserves special mention (Okabayashi Kosaku, A Study of the Sakurai Chausuyama Kofun⁴⁶ ). Sixty years after the emergency excavations of 1949–50, the burial chamber was reexamined, and this new volume records both small artifacts previously uncurated and detailed studies of the chamber structure. Among its major findings, Later Han mirrors predominate, differing from the composition of mirrors usually found in early keyhole-shaped tumuli. The information concerning the core of the early Yamato polity has thus been dramatically renewed. The results will undoubtedly serve as a stimulus for deeper discussions on the formation of the Yamato state, as researchers continue to interpret the still-unexcavated tumuli of the Oyamato group⁴⁷.
　The studies by Aoki Hiroshi, Construction Technology and Tomb-Building Groups of Lateral-Entrance Stone Chambers⁴⁸ , and Honma Takehito, Archaeology of Stone Monuments and Photogrammetry⁴⁹ , which apply 3D measurement to Kofun-period and medieval stone monuments respectively, also provide important starting points for considering how such data might be used in the future as 3D techniques continue to advance. In Paleolithic research, peakit imaging of stone tools has rapidly spread thanks to its precision and the speed with which drawings can be produced. The use of 3D imaging for bronze mirrors has transformed previous understandings, with its effectiveness clearly demonstrated in A Study of the Sakurai Chausuyama Kofun⁵⁰ . Applications to pottery have also begun to appear. However, while front–back distinctions are clear for mirrors and stone tools, complete restoration of pottery prior to illustration is more difficult, leading to cases in which drawings are made while assessments remain uncertain. Questions such as how images should be cited further reveal ongoing challenges for 3D measurement. At the same time, it will be essential to prevent overreliance on such methods from diminishing researchers’ ability to derive information directly from the objects themselves.
　Among other significant works in ancient studies, Shirokura Masayoshi’s Taikyokuden, Kangenden, Meidō, and Daigokuden⁵¹   and Ami Nobuya (ed.), East Asian Capitals and Religious Space⁵² , exemplify capital-city research conducted from a pan-East Asian perspective. Another outstanding contribution is the study by Nakano Saki, Ura Yoko, Fukuda Sayoko, and colleagues, “A Basic Study of Ancient Timber Production, Distribution, and Consumption as Seen through the Classification of Wood Shavings,” Kenkyu Kiyo 27, Yura Yamato Ancient Culture Research Association⁵³. Through species identification of large quantities of wood shavings, this work reconstructs woodworking activities in Heijo-kyo⁵⁴. Despite the immense amount of foundational labor involved, the study represents an excellent example of research with promising prospects for future development.

Conclusion
This overview has presented observations drawn from a cross-period examination of recent research trends.
　Across every period, meaningful discussion becomes possible only through the exhaustive analysis of the individual materials and datasets continually uncovered at archaeological sites. A site is the setting of the lives and activities of the people who left it, and it is those people whose realities archaeology seeks to clarify. Because a site represents an accumulation of diverse forms of information, depicting only part of that whole is insufficient. It is essential to return analytical and interpretive results to the context of the site itself, to reconsider them there, and to integrate them into a comprehensive understanding.

Translation Acknowledgement:
This document was translated from the original Japanese text, 『2023 年度の日本考古学会 (日本考古学研究の動向)』by: Dr. James Frances Loftus (Associate Professor, Institute of Science Tokyo) ロフタス・ジェームズ・フランシス（東京科学大学 准教授）

1 『2023 年度の日本考古学会 (日本考古学研究の動向)』
2 石川日出志
3 史学雑誌
4 月刊考古学ジャーナル
5 日本考古学年報
6 日本考古学協会
7 東海大学湘南キャンパス
8 東北学院大学
9 多賀城
10 国際黒曜石会議
11 中・四国地方旧石器文化談話会
12 明治大学黒耀石研究センター・八ヶ岳旧石器研究グループ
13 播磨考古学研究集会『播磨の中期古墳』
14 古代武器研究会
15 古代官衙・集落研究集会
16 遠江国分寺史跡
17 古代城柵官衙研究会
18 日本貿易陶磁研究会『輸出陶磁器の生産地と消費地の様相―近年の調査成果の紹介―』
19 中世学シンポジウム『船の中世―沈没船・積荷・人―』
20 中世土器研究会「須恵器生産の中世―変容と展開」
21 関西近世考古学研究会第33回大会「近世墓地からわかること」
22 江戸遺跡研究会第36回大会「近世都市江戸の墓」
23 縄文時代文化研究会『縄文時代』
24 春成秀爾『何が歴史を動かしたのか』
25 宮本一夫編『東アジア考古学の新たなる地平』
26 高橋龍三郎編『縄文社会の探求』
27 高橋龍三郎編『パプアニューギニア民族誌と縄文社会』
28 渡辺誠追悼論集『列島の考古学Ⅲ』
29 土肥孝追悼論集『煙草と縄紋と考古学』
30 大竹憲治編『旃檀林の考古学Ⅱ』
31 赤澤徳明編『高山流水』
32 福岡大学考古学論集３（武末純一退職記念）
33 武末純一『西虎洞談林録』
34 縄文時代文化研究会『縄文時代』35（2024年）
35 阿部芳郎編『縄文の漆と社会』
36 藤尾慎一郎編『季刊考古学』166「考古学とDNA」
37 国立遺伝学研究所（ヤポネシアゲノムプロジェクト）
38 内田純蔵ほか “Disaster, Survival and Recovery: The Settlement of Tanegashima Island Following the Kikai-Akahoya ‘Super-Eruption,’ 7.3ka cal BP,” 『Antiquity』98（393）
39 種子島
40 大阪府立弥生文化博物館「紀元１世紀の社会変革」
41 長野県佐久市香坂山遺跡
42 長井謙治「韓国の初期石刃石器群とその年代」『日本考古学』57
43 森先一貴「石の本遺跡群８区石器群の年代・技術・行動」『九州旧石器』27
44 青森県尻労安部洞窟遺跡（慶應義塾大学）
45 藤尾慎一郎『弥生人はどこから来たのか』
46 岡林孝作『桜井茶臼山古墳の研究』
47 オオヤマト古墳群
48 青木弘『横穴式石室の築造技術と造墓集団』
49 本間岳人『石造物の考古学とフォトグラメトリ』
50 岡林孝作『桜井茶臼山古墳の研究』
51 城倉正祥『太極殿・含元殿・明堂と大極殿』
52 網伸也編『東アジア都城と宗教空間』
53 中野咲・浦蓉子・福田さよ子ほか「木屑の分類からみた古代の木材生産と流通・消費に関する基礎的研究」『研究紀要』27、由良大和古文化研究協会
54 平城京