Knowledge of nature and craftof a single Scientific Revolution into question.^15 De- centering the Scientific Revolution from the
history of science has allowed, accordingly, for the investigation of medieval and early modern
fields of knowledge on their own terms. In such a way, “alchemy” and “chemistry” can be exam-
ined within the shifting boundaries of the time, instead of looked at as precursors to modern
chemistry.^16 The history of science in Japan in the archaic and classical periods does examine the
terms native to the ritsuryō system for the fields of mathematics, medicine, and astronomy: but it
has yet to build a picture of the shifting map of knowledge defined by historical Japanese terms.
The general scarcity of written sources for this earlier period is one more reason there has been
less activity in the study of the history of science and technology in premodern Japan, compared
to the history of science in modern or even early modern Japan. Although the field of the history
of science put generally has broadened its reach, turning toward a more externalist and
constructionist approach, the classic object of study among historians of science has long been the
specialist’s treatise. Unfortunately, few such works survive from premodern Japan. Indeed, apart
from essays on medicine, there are only three texts dedicated to subjects equivalent to our fields
of science or mathematics, and none on technology, known to have been composed before the
end of the fifteenth century.^17 Of the three works, furthermore, only the 1414 Rekirin mondōshū,
described by some authors as Japan’s first surviving work on astronomy, is extant. The number
of available treatises could be increased by adjusting the boundaries of what we consider “science”
to include works on divination (particularly mathematically and astrologically based techniques),
or by including works such as the 1346 Isei teikin ōrai (a collection of examples for correspondence),
which include technical or mathematical content (in the example above, mathematical games).^18
Even with such adjustments, however, the number of “scientist”-authored sources remains few.
For this reason, the history of scientific or technical knowledge in Japan before the late sixteenth
century must largely be based on mentions of individuals or techniques in other sources, visual
depictions, archeological evidence—or on imported texts.^19
Accordingly, much of the work done on the history of science before the Edo period
(1603–1868) has relied upon Chinese texts. Bibliographies and mentions of particular texts in
decrees or diaries provide a guide to works that can be plumbed for evidence on what knowledge
and concepts were at least available to individuals living in Japan.
While useful, this approach also has drawbacks about which the historian must be aware.
When done carelessly, without consideration of who had access to such texts, or how they might
have been received, it can be easy to overgeneralize from the content, or to assume that Japanese
readers took the material in such texts exactly as the Chinese authors intended.^20 Without
writings or comments by individual specialists, it is hard to even judge how Chinese scientific
texts were received, and the result is that even studies on the impact of Chinese science and
technical knowledge on Japan tend to focus on the Edo period, when the sources for such research
are much richer, thanks to a greater survival of texts with the advent of print culture.^21
The heavy emphasis among historians on early modern developments also reflects intellectual
and social changes that occurred during the period. Although one could argue that there was no
scientific revolution in Japan, it is certainly true that, in terms of developments and the individuals
and social groups involved (or at least our knowledge of them), the situation changed dramatically
in the transition to the early modern period. Much interesting work has been done on developments
that occurred after this transition.^22 What, however, can be said for the centuries before?
Sugimoto and Swain: waves of influence
Having discussed some of the difficulties of the field above, it is worth considering them alongside
the historical paradigm presented by Masayoshi Sugimoto and David L. Swain’s Science and