institutional location in a biology department, however, meant that none of
his students pursued a career in archaeology (Bleed 1986: 64–5; Ikawa-Smith
1982: 299–300). Despite this, he is always mentioned in histories of Japanese
prehistoric archaeology as the founding father of Japanese archaeology
(Mizoguchi 2006: 60). To conclude this discussion about Morse, it is inter-
esting to note that his visit to Japan had not been supported by an academic
institution, but paid by himself.
A separate programme in Japan that combined archaeology and anthro-
pology began in 1893 and this would open the door for the institutionaliza-
tion of prehistoric archaeology. TheWrst anthropological association, the
Tokyo Jinruigakkai, had been set up in 1886 by a medical student at Tokyo
University, Tsuboi Shogoro (1863–1913). He completed his studies in Eng-
land in 1889 and became theWrst Professor of Anthropology at Tokyo
University in 1893. In an action which reXected contemporary developments
in Europe, Shogoro separated himself from evolutionism and adopted a more
ethnic emphasis for the interpretation of data—he also explicitly denied
having received any inXuence from Morse (Mizoguchi 2006: 60). His publi-
cations followed the rational style developed in the West, supplying an
apparently dry typological study of artefacts. However, this Western inXuence
was mediated by the special care which he took to avoid direct confrontation
with the traditional historical interpretations that legitimized the sanctity of
the imperial lineage (Habu & Fawcett 1999: 589). As Mizoguchi (2002: 29–42,
see also 2006: 64–5) indicates, archaeological periods were divided into those
safer and those more dangerous to study. TheWrst was the Jomon period of
hunter-gatherers and early agriculturalists who, however, did not know about
the cultivation of rice. The dangerous period included the Yayoi and Kofun
periods. The key issue that characterized both was the practice of rice paddy
Weld agriculture, the dominant way of life of the Japanese since then, which
had supposedly been introduced by the Yayoi migration that had also brought
the imperial family to Japan.
Regarding the development of prehistoric archaeology in China, Western
inXuence can be seen most clearly a few years into the twentieth century with
the establishment of the Republic of China in 1911. The key protagonist is
Ding Wenjiang (1887–1936), a Chinese scientist, intellectual, and politician
who had studied geology and zoology at Glasgow University. Charlotte Furth
(1970) paints him as someone caught between East and West. She connects
Ding’s classical Chinese education in Confucian ethics to his sincere commit-
ment to public service. He believed that science could transcend cultural
diVerence because it embodied moral truth. Furth referred to Ding as the
Chinese Huxley (referring to Thomas Henry Huxley, see Chapter 13) as he
advocated a positivistic attitude similar to the British scholar, in which
Latin America, China, and Japan 199