Abstract
The "controversies " in Japanese geological community that lasted for 20 years after World War II are widely recognized as "historicity controversies " between "physicochemicalism " (denying "historicity " in geological objects) and "historicism " (against employing physicochemical methods). Mitsuo HUNAHASHI, professor of petrology at Hokkaido University, has been considered to be a "historicist. " However, reexamination of his "historicity controversies " reveals that he was not a man of "historicism. " The true point of the "controversies " was whether historical or physicochemical methods should have priority in geological studies. To Hunahashi, it was on historical methods; however, he never denied the other methods. That is, he was not a man of "historicism. " He thought that "historicity " was found within such micro structures as the irregularity of mineral crystals. The more details could he observe, the more precise his understanding of "historicity " would be. Therefore, employing physicochemical methods for more detailed observations was matter of course to him. Some of his researches even suggest that he tried to unify both of the approaches. The reason he was seen as a "historicist " is that Hunahashi thought his opponents were "physicochemicalists. " Actually, they (S. BANNO, K. ITO, and A. MIYASHIRO) were well aware of "historicity " and never "physico- chemicalists. " Consequently, Hunahashi's claims became as if he had been criticizing all physicochemical methods as "physicochemicalism. " Criticized as if they had been "physicochemicalists, " Miyashiro, et. al. had to argue back that Hunahashi's claim was a sort of "historicist " arguments. The "controversies " also have political and ideological contexts. These will be discussed in later papers.
