Kofun Period - Japanese Archaeological Association

Kofun Period: Research Trends 20111
Higashikage Yū2
Kofun period research in the 2011 Fiscal Year was conducted in wide-ranging
fashion. In particular, the publication of overviews and comprehensive treatments
was rich, and new perspectives were presented alongside syntheses of Kofun period
research to date. There was also active research on individual types of artifacts, and
based on various regional perspectives.
1. General treatments
Shiraishi Taiichirō’s Kofun to Kofun jidai no bunka (Tombs and the Culture of the
Kofun Period) is a compilation of previously published articles, which touches not
only on the political but also the cultural aspects of the tombs. 3 Tsude Hiroshi’s
Kodai kokka wa itsu seiritsu shita ka (When Did the Ancient State Emerge?) is a
new development of his previously stated arguments for the Kofun period and the
early state, and incorporates the results of research of recent years. 4 In a special
issue edited by Hirose Kazuo of Kikan kōgaku (Archaeological Quarterly) on the
theme of “Looking Systematically at the Kofun Period,” a wide range of
perspectives are presented for examining the Kofun period, including not only
views from within Japan but also those based in China and the Korean peninsula, as
[Trends in Japanese Archaeological Research, 2011 , is a partial translation of “Nihon kōkogaku
kenkyū no dōkō” 日本考古学研究の動向, in Nihon kōkogaku nenpō 64 (2011 nendoban) 日本考古学年報
64(2011 年度版) [Archaeologia Japonica 64 (2011 Fiscal Year Issue)] (Nihon Kōkogaku Kyōkai, 2013),
pp. 1-65. This essay appears on pp. 40-46, under the Japanese title “Kofun jidai kenkyū no dōkō” 古墳
時代研究の動向 . It was translated by Walter Edwards, and published by the Japanese Archaeological
Association (Nihon Kōkogaku Kyōkai 日 本 考 古 学 協 会 ) online in 2014. To streamline the text,
characters for Japanese names and terms, and bibliographic information for citations have been
placed in footnotes. When an English translation of the name of an organization or publication (or
symposium, etc.) is supplied by the party responsible, this is used with minimum changes in
capitalization etc. to conform to the style followed by Trends in Japanese Archaeological Research.
Romanized names of individuals are given with the surname followed by the personal name.]
Shiraishi Taichirō 白石太一郎, Kofun to Kofun jidai no bunka 古墳と古墳時代の文化 (Tombs and the
Culture of the Kofun Period) (Hanawashobō, 2011).
Tsude Hiroshi 都出比呂志, Kodai kokka wa itsu seiritsu shita ka 古代国家はいつ成立したか (When Did
the Ancient State Emerge?) (Iwanami Shinsho, 2011).
Trends in Japanese Archaeological Research, 2011
© 2014 The Japanese Archaeological Association
published online: April 2014
well as on ethnology.5 Shimogaki Hitoshi’s Kofun jidai no ōken kōzō (The Structure
of Monarchy in the Kofun Period) attempts a portrait of persons interred in Early
and Middle Kofun period tombs from an analysis of domestic mirrors and burial
facilities, and touches on the structure of the monarchical system these materials
comprised.6 Gina L. Barnes’s article “Kofun jidai zenki ni okeru tōji shihaiken
kasetsu (A Hypothesis for Early Kofun Rulership)” develops an experimental line of
thought regarding the political ideology of the Early Kofun period, and infers by
analogy the role played by the cult of the Queen Mother of the West. 7 A sequel
carries critiques by a number of Japanese researchers, and the differences in
opinion are of great interest. 8 In the above manner, efforts to gain a better image of
the Kofun period are as lively as ever in debates about the early state and
2. Chronology
With the publication of monograph series and general overviews one after another,
the chronological divisions of the Kofun period and views of its transition have been
sorted out, and many summaries have been seen for the chronologies,
periodization, and absolute dating of various regions. The first monograph on the
Kofun period in the series Kōza Nihon no kōkogaku (Japanese Archaeology
Series),9 edited by Hirose Kazuo and Wada Seigo, gives an overview of the
conditions of the construction of tombs in each region, and summarizes the basic
frameworks and chronology of Kofun period research. It also touches upon
Hokkaido and Okinawa of the Kofun period, which are not commonly treated,
making the conditions of the period in Japan clearer in the context of East Asia.
The monograph Kofun jidaishi no wakugumi (Historical Framework of the Kofun
Period), edited by Ichinose Kazuo, Fukunaga Shin’ya, and Hōjō Yoshitaka, gives
comprehensive treatment of the framework of the Kofun period through
examinations of periodization, perspectives on absolute dating, and typologies of
various artifacts.10 Kishimoto Naofumi’s article on periodization gives a synthesis
Hirose Kazuo 広 瀬 和 雄 , ed., “Kofun jidai o taikeiteki ni miru” 古 墳 時 代 を 体 系 的 に み る (Looking
Systematically at the Kofun Period), a collection of 13 articles in 季刊考古学 (Archaeology Quarterly),
no. 117 (2011): 13-89.
Shimogaki Hitoshi 下垣仁志, Kofun jidai no ōken kōzō 古墳時代の王権構造 (The Structure of Monarchy
in the Kofun Period) (Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 2011).
Gina L. Barnes ジーナ L. バーンズ, “Kofun jidai zenki ni okeru tōji shihaiken kasetsu (jō)” 古墳時代前期
における統治支配権仮説(上) (A Hypothesis for Early Kofun Rulership [Part 1]), trans. Shimogaki Hitoshi,
Kodaigaku kenkyū 古代学研究 (Research in Ancient Studies), no. 190 (2011): 1-14.
Gina L. Barnes, “Kofun jidai zenki ni okeru tōji shihaiken kasetsu (ge)” 古墳時代前期における統治支配
権 仮 説 ( 下 ) (A Hypothesis for Early Kofun Rulership [Part 2]), trans. Shimogaki Hitoshi, Kodaigaku
kenkyū, no. 191 (2011): 26-45. [Translator’s note: The sequel, Part 2, gives (a) commentary by Mori
Kōichi 森浩一, Shiraishi Taichirō, Mizoguchi Kōji 溝口孝司, and the translator Shimogaki, (b) a reply by
Barnes, (c) a rebuttal by Mizoguchi, and (d) a final comment by Barnes.]
Hirose Kazuo 広瀬和雄 and Wada Seigo 和田晴吾, eds., Kofun jidai jō 古墳時代 上 (Kofun Period Part
1), vol. 7 of Kōza Nihon no kōkogaku 講座日本の考古学 (Japanese Archaeology Series) (Aoki Shoten,
Ichinose Kazuo 一瀬和夫 , Fukunaga Shin’ya 福永伸哉 , and Hōjō Yoshitaka 北條芳隆 , eds., Kofun
jidaishi no wakugumi 古墳時代史の枠組み (Historical Framework of the Kofun Period), vol. 1 of Kofun
for each division of the Kofun period, the Early, Middle, and Late. 11 It focuses on
typologies of grave goods, principally mirrors, and while it touches on transitions of
principal (kingly) graves based on documentary sources, it is not yet clear how
reasonable such comparisons are with historical materials. Morishita Shōji’s
treatment of the absolute chronology for the Early and Middle Kofun periods states
that the start of the Kofun period may possibly be put back earlier based on the
accumulation of new data and research.12 He moreover points out discrepancies in
chronological views based on comparisons with Korea. One feels a real need for
further minute comparative research regarding the position of the Kofun period
within East Asian history. With regard to this point, Shirai Katsuya’s study of the
current state of absolute dating for East Asia gives detailed discussion of various
methods for deriving absolute dates and their effectiveness. 13 Hishida Tetsuo’s
treatment of absolute dates for the Late and Final Kofun periods expresses a view in
terms of calendar dates centered on Sue 14 ware, which serves as a major
chronological index from the Middle Kofun period on. 15 While the debate on
absolute dates for the Late Kofun period appears to have largely become settled, it
is important to note that for the Final Kofun period in particular there remain some
differences among scholars. Also in the same volume are summaries of
chronologies for separate types of artifacts. In particular, for haniwa16 typologies
which have long been used as the standard for chronologies of tombs, treatments of
cylindrical haniwa by Hirose Satoru for western Japan 17 and Inuki Tsutomu for
eastern Japan18 are highly detailed, as is Yamada Kunikazu’s contribution on Sue
chronology for western Japan.19
3. Mounded tombs and mortuary rites
Clarification of the characteristics of the structures of tombs and of mortuary rites
that were conducted on them is indispensable for interpreting the picture of the
Kofun period. The third volume of the series edited by Ichinose et al., titled Funbo
kōzō to sōsō saishi (Mound Structure and Mortuary Ritual), is a compilation on
jidai no kōkogaku 古墳時代の考古学 (Archaeology of the Kofun Period) (Douseisha, 2011).
Kishimoto Naofumi 岸本直文 , “Kofun jidai to jiki kubun” 古墳時代と時期区分 (The Kofun Era and
Periodization), in Ichinose, Fukunaga, and Hōjō, Kofun jidaishi no wakugumi. 34-44.
Morishita Shōji 森下章司, “Zen/chūki no jitsunendai” 前・中期の実年代 (Absolute Dating of the Early
and Middle Periods), in Ichinose, Fukunaga, and Hōjō, Kofun jidaishi no wakugumi. 213-21.
Shirai Katsuya 白井克也, “Higashi Ajia jitsunendairon no genjō” 東アジア実年代論の現状 (Current
State of Debate on Absolute Dating in East Asia), in Ichinose, Fukunaga, and Hōjō, Kofun jidaishi no
wakugumi. 231-40.
Hishida Tetsuo 菱田哲郎, “Kōki/shūmatsuki no jitsunendai” 後期・終末期の実年代 (Absolute Dating of
the Late and Final Periods), in Ichinose, Fukunaga, and Hōjō, Kofun jidaishi no wakugumi. 222-30.
Hirose Satoru 廣 瀬 覚 , “Nishi Nihon no entō haniwa” 西 日 本 の 円 筒 埴 輪 (Cylindrical Haniwa of
Western Japan), in Ichinose, Fukunaga, and Hōjō, Kofun jidaishi no wakugumi. 173-186.
Inuki Tsutomu 犬木努, “Higashi Nihon no entō haniwa” 東日本の円筒埴輪 (Cylindrical Haniwa of
Eastern Japan), in Ichinose, Fukunaga, and Hōjō, Kofun jidaishi no wakugumi. 187-200.
Yamada Kunikazu 山 田 邦 和 , “Sueki no hennen: Nishi Nihon” 須 恵 器 の 編 年 : 西 日 本 (Sue Ware
Typology: Western Japan), in Ichinose, Fukunaga, and Hōjō, Kofun jidaishi no wakugumi. 146-59.
those topics.20 Kishimoto Michiaki’s study of keyhole tombs and Yayoi mound
burials, while discussing the differences between the two, clarifies the timing of the
emergence of the keyhole tombs and its meaning. 21 Also, Tanaka Yutaka’s
contribution on the historic nature of square keyhole tombs points to the political
roles of their occupants as background to these tombs’ construction. 22
Hōjō Yoshitaka’s treatment of the current state of debate over planning in the
building of mounds summaries the history of research and points out various issues
in this area.23 Niiro Izumi’s tentative interpretation of the construction design of
keyhole mounds can be said to advance further debate about this topic, through the
use of 3-D measurement, popular in recent years, in referring to construction
plans.24 The exact shape and scale of a tomb is often revised based on investigation
through excavation. In order to make debate about mound design more reliably
effective, it is surely necessary to analyze the various parts of tombs together in
comprehensive fashion, including clarifying the method of designing and the
technology for constructing the mounds. With regard to such various portions of the
mounds, Ichinose’s contribution on piled stones and mounded dirt, 25 Hirose’s piece
on surface cobbles and construction in tiers, 26 and Nakai Masayuki’s look at
facilities incidental to mounds,27 are very detailed.
Meanwhile, as items that dealt with the structure of burial facilities, there were
Okabayashi Kōsaku’s article on the various types of wooden coffins, 28 and a
contribution by Kitayama Mineo on split-log, boat-shaped, and chest-shaped
sarcophagi.29 Okabayashi’s MEXT grant-in-aid research report on wooden chamber
burials in northeast Asia takes a broad overview of its topic, clarifying the process of
transmission from the Chinese mainland to the Korean peninsula and Japanese
Ichinose Kazuo, Fukunaga Shin’ya, and Hōjō Yoshitaka, eds., Funbo kōzō to sōsō saishi 墳墓構造と葬
送祭祀 (Mound Structure and Mortuary Ritual), vol. 3 of Kofun jidai no kōkogaku (Douseisha, 2011).
Kishimoto Michiaki 岸本道昭 , “Yayoi funkyūbo to zenpōkōenfun” 弥生墳丘墓と前方後円墳 (Yayoi
Mound Burials and Keyhole Tombs), in Ichinose, Fukunaga, and Hōjō, Funbo kōzō to sōsō saishi. 7-17.
Tanaka Yutaka 田中裕, “Zenpōkōhōfun no rekishisei” 前方後方墳の歴史性 (The Historical Nature of
Square Keyhole Tombs), in Ichinose, Fukunaga, and Hōjō, Funbo kōzō to sōsō saishi. 18-33.
Hōjō Yoshitaka, “Funkyū chikuzō kikakuron no genjō” 墳 丘 築 造 企 画 論 の 現 状 (Current State of
Debate over Mound Construction Design), in Ichinose, Fukunaga, and Hōjō, Funbo kōzō to sōsō saishi.
Niiro Izumi 新 納 泉 , “Zenpōkōenfun no sekkei genri shiron” 前 方 後 円 墳 の 設 計 原 理 試 論 (A Trial
Approach to the Construction Design of Keyhole-shaped Burial Mounds), Kōkogaku kenkyū 考古学研究
(Quarterly of Archaeological Studies) 58, no. 1 (2011): 16-36.
Ichinose Kazuo, “Tsumiishi to moritsuchi” 積 石 と 盛 土 (Piled Stones and Mounded Earth), in
Ichinose, Fukunaga, and Hōjō, Funbo kōzō to sōsō saishi. 54-63.
Hirose Satoru, “Fukiishi to danchikusei” 葺石と段築成 (Cobblestones and Tiered Construction), in
Ichinose, Fukunaga, and Hōjō, Funbo kōzō to sōsō saishi. 64-73.
Nakai Masayuki 中 井 正 幸 , “Funkyū ni fuzui suru shisetsu” 墳 丘 に 付 随 す る 施 設 (Facilities
Accompanying the Mound), in Ichinose, Fukunaga, and Hōjō, Funbo kōzō to sōsō saishi. 74-83.
Okabayashi Kōsaku 岡 林 孝 作 , “Mokkan no shokeitai” 木 棺 の 諸 形 態 (Various Forms of Wooden
Coffins), in Ichinose, Fukunaga, and Hōjō, Funbo kōzō to sōsō saishi. 106-17.
Kitayama Mineo 北山峰生, “Waritakegata sekkan/funagata sekkan to nagamochigata sekkan” 割竹形
石 棺 ・ 舟 形 石 棺 と 長 持 形 石 棺 (Split-log/Boat-shaped Sarcophagi and Chest-shaped Sarcophagi), in
Ichinose, Fukunaga, and Hōjō, Funbo kōzō to sōsō saishi. 118-27.
archipelago, and the regional transformations involved. 30
Research taking up horizontal stone chambers was plentiful. Ōta Hiroaki’s Kinai
seiken to yokoanashiki sekishitsu (The Kinai Polity and Horizontal Stone Chambers)
analyzes the Kinai-type horizontal stone chamber, pointing out the relation between
the “Kinai” region of the Kofun period and the sphere of influence of the polity, and
also touching upon the lineages of leading families of the region. 31 An article by
Tomiyama Naoto examines the characteristics of stone chambers and the method of
utilization of their interior space, and regards the influence of both the continent
and Kyushu to have been complexly intertwined in the emergence of the Kinai-type
horizontal stone chamber.32 He also discusses the contrast which can be posited
between the Yodo33 and Yamato34 river basin areas in this regard. Fukaya Jun’s
study of Haji ware in horizontal chambers points out that the mortuary practice of
placing these vessels at the corners of the back wall comes from immigrant
groups.35 As background it is further mentioned that the establishment of miyake36
is possibly related. A contribution by Kishimoto Naofumi points to the possibility of
the date of construction of a tomb not matching the time of the occupant’s death,
and discusses the practice of building tombs within the lifetime of the interred
person.37 This indicates the need for more detailed examination of tomb
construction and the timing of mortuary rites.
A special collection of articles focusing on the actual conditions of the Saki tomb
group appeared in Kōkogaku jānaru (The Archaeological Journal).38 Kanekata
Masaki’s39 contribution on the manufacture of stone objects and Hirose Satoru’s 40
Okabayashi Kōsaku, Hokutō Ajia ni okeru mokkakubo no tenkai ni kansuru sōgōteki kenkyū 北東アジ
ア に お け る 木 槨 墓 の 展 開 に 関 す る 総 合 的 研 究 (A General Study about the Expansion of the Wooden
Chamber Burial in Northeast Asia), MEXT Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research report (project number
21320153) (Kashihara Kōkogaku Kenkyūjo, 2012).
Ōta Hiroaki 太田宏明, Kinai seiken to yokoanashiki sekishitsu 畿内政権と横穴式石室 (The Kinai Polity
and Horizontal Stone Chambers) (Gakuseisha, 2011).
Tomiyama Naoto 富山直人, “Yokoanashiki sekishitsu naibu no riyō jittai to sono henka katei: Harima
to Kawachi o chūshin to shite” 横穴式石室内部の利用実態とその変化過程: 播磨と河内を中心として (The
Actual State of Utilization of the Interiors of Horizontal Stone Chambers and Its Transformation:
Focusing on the Harima and Kawachi Regions), Kodaigaku kenkyū, no. 191 (2011): 11-25.
Fukaya Jun 深谷淳, “Yokoanashiki sekishitsu no okuheki sumi ni Hajiki o sueru kōi” 横穴式石室の奥
壁隅に土師器を据える行為 (The Act of Placing Haji Ware Vessels in the Corners of the Back Walls of
Horizontal Stone Chambers), Kodaigaku kenkyū, no. 189 (2011): 38-57.
[Translantor’s note: Sometimes written as 屯 倉 but in this case given in katakana, miyake were
estates held directly by the Yamato court in the pre-ritsuryō era.].
Kishimoto Naofumi, “Yokoanashiki sekishitsu no keishiki wa hisōsha no katsuyakuki o shimesu” 横
穴式石室の型式は被葬者の活躍期を示す (Reconsidering the Chronology of Horizontal Stone Chambers,
Assuming Construction Prior to the Occupant’s Death), Kōkogaku kenkyū 58, no. 1 (2011): 78-89.
“Saki kofungun” 佐紀古墳群 (The Saki Tomb Group), a collection of four articles in Kōkogaku jānaru
考古学ジャーナル (The Archaeological Journal), no. 624 (2012): 5-23.
Kanekata Masaki 鐘方正樹, “Kofun jidai zenki ni okeru sekiseihin no seisaku” 古墳時代前期における石
製品の製作 (The Manufacture of Stone-maid Objects in the Early Kofun Period), Kōkogaku jānaru 考古
学ジャーナル, no. 624, 5-9.
Hirose Satoru, “Saki kofungun no keisei to haniwa yōshiki” 佐 紀 古 墳 群 の 形 成 と 埴 輪 様 式 (The
Formation of Saki Kofun Group as Seen from Haniwa Style), Kōkogaku jānaru 考古学ジ ャー ナ ル , no.
study of haniwa styles both analyze these materials and explain their transitions,
accompanying the formation of the Saki tomb group, as gradual continuations from
the previous era when large-scale tombs were built in the southeast portion of the
Nara basin. Meanwhile, Tanaka Shinsaku’s article on the appearance and
development of soft-stone imitative articles in the shapes of agricultural tools makes
the supposition, based on relations of co-occurrence with other items such as armor
and mirrors, that the forces associated with the tomb groups of Saki, the southeast
Nara basin, and Mozu41 and Furuichi42 were in competition with one another. 43
Also, as examinations of tombs regarded as those of great kings, a special
collection relating to the Kawachi Ōtsukayama tomb (Osaka prefecture), appearing
in Historia (Journal of the Osaka Historical Association), can be cited. 44 Kishimoto
Naofumi’s45 article on basic research regarding this tomb hypothesizes a sequence
of construction based on mound design from Imashirozuka, 46 to Kawachi
Ōtsukayama, to Gojōno Maruyama,47 while Sogō Yoshikazu’s48 detailed examination
of haniwa from the Hikishō-Nishimachi kilns supposes they were meant to be
supplied to the Kawachi Ōtsukayama mound, and also points out the possibility that
this tomb was an unfinished mausoleum intended for Emperor Ankan. Mizutani
Chiaki’s examination of this tomb from the perspective of the native chronicles
takes a somewhat cautious view, based on written sources, of the theory shared by
the two previous authors that Kawachi Ōtsukayama was intended as the tomb of
Emperor Ankan.49 This demonstrates clearly the difficulties of establishing the name
624, 15-18. Tanaka Shinsaku 田中晋作, “Nōkōgugata sekisei mozōhin no shutsugen to sono tenkai” 農
工具形石製模造品の出現とその展開 (Appearance and Deployment of Stone Replicas), Kōkogaku jānaru
考古学ジャーナル, no. 624, 19-23.
百舌鳥 (Osaka prefecture)
古市 (Osaka prefecture)
Tanaka Shinsaku 田中晋作, “Nōkōgugata sekisei mozōhin no shutsugen to sono tenkai” 農工具形石製
模造品の出現とその展開 (Appearance and Deployment of Stone Replicas), Kōkogaku jānaru 考古学ジャー
ナル, no. 624, 19-23.
“Kawachi Ōtsukayama kofun to ‘Shingai no hen’” 河 内 大 塚 山 古 墳 と 「 辛 亥 の 変 」 (The Kawachi
Ōtsukayama Tomb and the “Shingai no hen”), a collection of three articles in Historia ヒ ス ト リ ア
(Journal of the Osaka Historical Association), no. 228 (2011): 2-71.
Kishimoto Naofumi, “Kawachi Ōtsukayama kofun no kisoteki kentō” 河内大塚 山古墳の基礎 的検討
(Fundamental Research on Kawauchi Otsukayama Tomb), Historia, no. 228 (2011): 2-26.
今城塚 (Osaka prefecture)
五 条 野 丸 山 [Translator’s note: This tomb, a 300+ m keyhole mound lying in the three districts of
Mise 見 瀬 , Ōgaru 大 軽 , and Gojōno 五 条 野 in the city of Kashihara 橿 原 , Nara prefecture, has
traditionally been called Mise Maruyama, but in recent years Japanese archaeologists have come to
use the name Gojōno Maruyama because it lies largely in that district. Regarded by many scholars as
the actual tomb of Emperor Kinmei, the round portion of the mound is maintained by the Imperial
Household Agency as a tomb possibly related to the imperial line.]
Sogō Yoshikazu 十 河良 和 , “Hikishō-Nishimachi yōkei entō haniwa to Kawachi Ōtsukayama kofun:
Ankan mikanryōsetsu o megutte” 日置荘西町窯系円筒埴輪と河内大塚山古墳 : 安閑未完陵説をめぐって
(Cylindrical Haniwa Made at Hikisho-Nishimachi Kiln and Kawachi Otsukayama Tomb: On the Theory
of Incomplete Tomb of Emperor Ankan), Historia, no. 228 (2011): 27-51.
Mizutani Chiaki 水谷千秋, “‘Ki/Ki’ kara mita daiōryō to sono kaisō: Kawachi Ōtsukayama kofun to
Ankan tennō o megutte” 『記・紀』からみた大王陵とその改葬: 河内大塚山古墳と安閑天皇をめぐって (Tombs of
Great Kings and Reinterments Viewed from Kojiki and Nihonshoki: On Kawachi Otsukayama Tomb
and Emperor Ankan), Historia, no. 228 (2011): 52-71.
of the interred even for tombs that are very likely those of great kings, and how
opinions may differ among researchers. Additionally, as an item taking up tombs of
great kings, Shirakami Noriyuki’s consideration of the triple moat surrounding the
tomb attributed as the mausoleum of Emperor Nintoku affirms the possibility that
the third moat was part of the initial design.50
Clarifying what kinds of scenes were depicted by the placement of haniwa, and
particularly representational ones, is a vital problem for grasping the views of life
and death of the Kofun period played out at tombs as the stage for mortuary rites.
As a basic task for grappling with this issue, a special collection in Kōkogaku jānaru
edited by Wakamatsu Ryōichi gives an overview of the placements and
compositions of representational haniwa on keyhole tombs in every region.51
Hozumi Hiromasa’s article on facilities regarded as mortuary sites furthers his
analysis of waterways utilizing culverts as being mogari52 huts (temporary structures
for housing the deceased before interment), and points out the possibility that other
facilities besides water works can be recognized as having been used as spaces for
the same function.53 This is an important perspective which points out the need to
consider the nature of mortuary rites conducted at places other tombs.
4. Royal palaces and settlements
Excavations and research on royal palaces and settlements are showing
advancement in recent years. The results of investigations at the Makimuku 54 site in
the city of Sakurai, of a large building regarded as a royal palace from the initial
portion of the Kofun period, have been made public by publications such as Yamato
no ō to kyokan (Kings and Elite Residences of Yamato) by the Sakurai Municipal
Buried Cultural Properties Center.55 In addition, investigations are being advanced
Shirakami Noriyuki 白神典之, “Nintoku tennōryō kofun no sanjūgō ni tsuite” 仁徳天皇陵古墳の三重濠
に つ い て (On the Triple Moat of the Mausoleum Attributed to Emperor Nintoku), in Horita Keiichi
sensei kiju kinen kentei ronbunshū 堀 田 啓 一 先 生 喜 寿 記 念 献 呈 論 文 集 (Anthology Dedicated to
Commemorate Professor Horita Keiichi’s Seventy-seventh Birthday), ed. Horita Keiichi Sensei Kiju
Kinen Kentei Ronbunshū Sakusei Iinkai 堀田啓一先生喜寿記念獻呈論文集作成委員会 (Committee for
Preparing the Anthology Dedicated to Commemorate Professor Horita Keiichi’s Seventy-seventh
Birthday) (2011). 181-200.
Wakamatsu Ryōichi 若松良一, ed., “Kōki zenpōkōenfun no haniwa taikei” 後期前方後円墳の埴輪体系
(The System of Late Keyhole Tomb Haniwa), a collection of six articles in Kōkogaku jānaru, no. 617
(2011): 3-32.
Hozumi Hiromasa 穂積裕昌, “Kofun jidai ‘sōsō iseki’ to iu wakugumi” 古墳時代「喪葬遺跡」という枠組
み (The Framework of So-called “Mortuary Sites” of the Kofun Period), in Biwako to chiiki bunka:
Hayashi Hiromichi sensei tainin kinen ronshū 琵琶湖と地域文化: 林博通先生退任記念論集 (Lake Biwa
and Regional Culture: Professor Hayashi Hiromichi's Retirement Commemorative Anthology), ed.
Hayashi Hiromichi Sensei Tainin Kinen Ronshū Kankō Iinkai 林 博 通 先 生 退 任 記 念 論 集 刊 行 会 編
(Committee for the Publication of Professor Hayashi Hiromichi's Retirement Commemorative
Anthology) (Hikone, Shiga prefecture: Sanraizu Shuppan, 2011). 54-59.
Sakurai Shiritsu Maizō Bunkazai Sentā 桜 井 市 立 埋 蔵 文 化 財 セ ン タ ー (Sakurai Municipal Buried
Cultural Properties Center), Yamato no ō to kyokan: Heisei 23 nendo tokubetsuten ヤマトの王と居館: 平
成 23 年度春季特別展 (Kings and Elite Residences of Yamato: 2011 Fiscal Year Special Exhibit) (catalog
of exhibit held from 5 October – 4 December 2011).
at the Wakimoto site and elsewhere in the same city of facilities regarded as related
to the royal palace, and it is very significant that the contents of these sites are
being clarified. Furuichi Akira’s contribution on royal palaces of the fifth and sixth
centuries, while being written from documentary sources, clarifies the
characteristics of royal palaces as they can be seen in documents, and touches
upon the structure of royal palaces of the Kofun period. 56 It is a task for the future as
to how the results of archaeology and documentary history are to be integrated.
Analysis is also advancing with regard to settlements. In particular, as items
taking up craft production within settlements and its relation with immigrants, there
was Fujita Michiko’s article on immigrants of the Shitomiya Kita site and
pasturing,57 and Miyoshi Gen’s treatment of Kofun period craft production in
northern Izumi based on the investigation of the Terada site. 58 Fujita shows that
Shitomiya Kita was a core site of northern Kawachi that functioned as the pasture of
a horse-breeding group under the leadership of immigrants from the mid-portion of
the Middle to the Late Kofun periods, and that there were multiple waves of arrival
of immigrants. Meanwhile, Miyoshi analyzes the Terada site and other settlements
of the northern Izumi region, and points out that circumstances of the involvement
of immigrants in the manner of craft production and its development show a
complexity that varies with individual sites. Aoyagi Taisuke examines how this
regional development by immigrants in the Kofun period was linked with the
locations of government headquarters in the Ancient period. 59 As an analysis of the
structure of regional settlements, there was Kondō Hiromu’s study based on
ceramics at an example from the Yayoi to the Early Kofun periods in the Ōmi
5. Grave goods
Much research has been done on weapons and armor in recent years. Kawahata
Jun’s contribution on visorless keeled helmets puts together a typological
arrangement based on analyses of the detailed characteristics of each portion of a
Furuichi Akira 古市晃, “Go/roku seiki ni okeru ōkyū no sonzai keitai: Ōmei to hangyaku denshō” 五・
六世紀における王宮の存在形態: 王名と叛逆伝承 (Actual Conditions of the Royal Courts in the 5th and 6th
Centuries), Nihonshi kenkyū 日本史研究 (Journal of Japanese History), no. 587 (2011): 1-28.
Fujita Michiko 藤田道子, “Shitomiya Kita iseki no toraijin to maki” 蔀屋北遺跡の渡来人と牧 (People
from the Korean Peninsula in the Shitomiya-Kita Site and Horse Farms), Historia, no. 229 (2011): 1-27.
Miyoshi Gen 三好玄, “Izumi hokubu ni okeru Kofun jidai no shukōgyō seisan: Izumi-shi Terada iseki
no chōsa seika kara” 和泉北部における古墳時代の手工業生産: 和泉市寺田遺跡の調査成果から (Handicraft
Industries in the Kofun Period of the Northern Izumi Region), Historia, no. 229 (2011): 28-42.
Aoyagi Taisuke 青柳泰介 , “Kodai kanga to toraijin: Kodai kanga shozaichi ni okeru Kofun jidai no
toraijin no chiiki kaihatsu o kangaeru” 古代官衙と渡来人: 古代官衙所在地における古墳時代の渡来人の地域
開発を考える (Ancient Government Offices and Immigrants: Considering the Regional Development by
Immigrants in the Kofun Period at Locations of Ancient Government Offices), in Horita Keiichi sensei
kiju kinen kentei ronbunshū. 91-96.
Kondō Hiromu 近藤広, “Doki yōsō kara mita shūraku no kōsei: Ōmi ni okeru Yayoi kara Kofun jidai
zenki no jirei” 土 器 様 相 か ら み た 集 落 の 構 成 : 近 江 に お け る 弥 生 か ら 古 墳 時 代 前 期 の 事 例 (Settlement
Composition Seen from Ceramic Conditions: Examples in the Ōmi Region from the Yayoi to the Early
Kofun Periods), in Biwako to chiiki bunka. 13-19.
helmet, clarifying the transition over time. 61 Tsuchiya Takafumi’s study of metal
fittings for quivers of the Kofun period analyzes the various characteristics of these
items, and conducts a classification on the basis of clusters of such characteristics. 62
He then analyzes their process of transformation through a comparison of these
materials from Japan and the Korean peninsula. Hatsumura Takehiro’s treatment of
changes in lamellar cuirasses of the Middle Kofun period conducts a classification
focusing on the techniques and standards of production for lamellae of different
parts of the cuirass, and discusses the introduction of this type of armor into Japan
and its subsequent development.63
While it is an example from the Korean peninsula, Kim Woo-Dae’s study of
decorated ring-pommeled swords analyzes these items and posits groups based
among other things on their techniques of manufacture. 64 Then, making an
examination of their periods of transition and distribution, he clarifies the actual
state of the diffusion of this technology. In addition, there was a special collection in
Kōkogaku jānaru edited by Anazawa Wakō on weapons recovered from Late and
Final Kofun period tombs, with articles by Takise Yoshiyuki on various sword
fittings, by Mochida Daisuke giving an overview of decorated ring-pommeled
swords in the Late and Final Kofun periods, by Ōya Hiroshi on changes in swords
with ring-pommels and bulbous pommels having inlaid decorations, by Uchiyama
Toshiyuki on iron arrowheads buried in tombs of the sixth and seventh centuries in
eastern Japan, and by Tsuno Jin on the origin of battle formations comprised of
lined shields in the Kofun period.65 In this manner, detailed examinations of the
Kawahata Jun 川畑純, “Shōkakutsuki kabuto no keishikigakuteki hairetsu” 衝角付冑の型式学的配列
(Typological Arrangement of Beaked Helmets), Nihon kōkogaku 日本考古学 (Journal of the Japanese
Archaeological Association), no. 32 (2011): 1-31.
Tsuchiya Takafumi 土 屋隆史, “Kofun jidai ni okeru yanagui kanagu no hensen to sono tokushitsu:
Chōsen hantō nanbu/Nihon rettō shutsudo shiryō o chūshin ni” 古墳時代における胡籙金具の変遷とその
特質: 朝鮮半島南部・日本列島出土資料を中心に (The Transformation of Nomadic Quivers in the Kofun
Period: Mainly with the Artifacts Enearthened from the Southern Part of the Korean Peninsula and
Japanese Island), Kobunka dansō 古文化談叢 (Journal of the Society of Kyushu Prehistoric and Ancient
Cultural Studies), no. 66 (2011): 29-60.
Hatsumura Takehiro 初村武寛, “Kofun jidai chūki ni okeru kozane yoroi no hensen” 古墳時代中期にお
ける小札甲の変遷 (The Transformation in Lamellar Cuirasses in the Middle Kofun Period), Kodaigaku
kenkyū, no. 192 (2011): 1-19.
Kim Woo-Dae 金宇大, “Sōshokutsuki kantō no tachi no gijutsu keifu to denpa: Chōsen hantō tōnanbu
shutsudo shiryō o chūshin ni” 装 飾 付 環 頭 大 刀 の 技 術 系 譜 と 伝 播 : 朝 鮮 半 島 東 南 部 出 土 資 料 を 中 心 に
(Genealogy and Diffusion of the Ring-pommeled Sword with Decorations: From the South-eastern Area
in the Korean Peninsula), Kobunka dansō, no. 66 (2011): 87-127.
Anazawa Wakō 穴沢咊光, ed., “Kō/shūmatsuki kofun shutsudo no buki” 後・終末期古墳出土の武器
(Weapons Recovered from Late and Final Period Tombs), a collection of five articles in Kōkogaku
jānaru, no. 616 (2011): 3-29. The five articles are: Takise Yoshiyuki 瀧 瀬 芳 之 , “Kofun jidai
kō/shūmatsuki ni okeru tachi koshirae no yōsō” 古墳時代後・終末期における大刀拵の様相 (A Study of
Sword Fittings in Late and Last Kofun Period), 3-6; Mochida Daisuke 持 田 大 輔 , “Kofun jidai
kōki/shūmatsuki no sōshokutsuki kantō no tachi” 古墳時代後期・終末期の装飾付環頭大刀 (Outline of the
Decorated Sword with Ring Pommel in the Late and Terminal Kofun Period), 7-12; Ōya Hiroshi 大谷宏
治 , “Zōgansō tachi no hensen” 象嵌装 大刀の変遷 (Changes in Inlaid Sword: Considering the Sword
with Rounded Pommel, Bulbous and Projecting Hilt), 13-18; Uchiyama Toshiyuki 内 山 敏 行 ,
“Kōki/shūmatsuki kofun shutsudo no tetsuzoku” 後期・終末期古墳出土の鉄鏃 (Iron Arrowheads Buried
on 6-7th Century Tumuli in Eastern Japan), 19-22; Tsuno Jin 津野仁, “Tateretsu to jinpō no genryū” 楯
– 10 –
manufacturing technology of weapons and armor were conducted, and the
presentation of their chronological assessments is of great significance.
Iwamoto Takashi’s study of a triangular-rimmed mirror recovered from the
Yotsuzukayama tomb group in Masuda, Shimane prefecture, indicates it is a
duplicate produced from the same mold as mirrors known from the Chōhōji
Minamibara66 tomb in Kyoto.67 Tokuda Masashi’s report on an inspection of
materials held by the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, the majority of which have been
regarded as coming from the mausoleum attributed to Emperor Nintoku, indicates
they cannot be determined as having come from that tomb with certainty. 68 From an
examination of the transformation of leaf-shaped harness pendants, Takamatsu Yū
discusses the establishment and change of new technology introduced in the
seventh century69
6. Regional society and foreign interaction
Taking the relationship between the core area of the monarchy and various regions
as “center” versus “periphery,” in contrast to Hirose Kazuo’s position of
emphasizing the common element of keyhole tombs to envision a system of
regulation between center and periphery,70 treatments such as Kurafuji Hiroshi and
Hashimoto Tatsuya’s of Kyushu,71 and Tsuji Hideto’s of southern Tōhoku72 and
others stress the non-homogenous nature of regional society based on factors such
as the variation of each area’s mortuary system. Fujisawa Atsushi’s study of borders
列と陣法の源流 (The Origin of Lined Shield and Style of Battle: Layout and Combination of Shield in the
Kofun Age), 23-29.
長法寺南原 [Translator’s note: The two same-mold items from the Chōhōji Minamibara tomb are part
of a set of duplicates that with the addition of the Yotsuzukayama tomb group example is now known
to include a total of 10 items.]
Iwamoto Takashi 岩 本 崇 , “Shimane-ken Masuda-shi Yotsuzukayama kofungun shutsudo no
sankakubuchi shinjūkyō to ‘dōhankyō’” 島 根 県 益 田 市 四 塚 山 古 墳 群 出 土 の 三 角 縁 神 獣 鏡 と 「 同 笵 鏡 」
(Triangular-rimmed Mirrors Displaying Animals and Divinity Motifs from Yotsuzuka Tumuli at Masuda
in Shimane and “Mirrors Produced from the Same Mold”), Shakai bunka ronshū: Shimane Daigaku
Hōbun Gakubu kiyō shakai bunka gakkahen 社 会 文 化 論 集 : 島 根 大 学 法 文 学 部 紀 要 社 会 文 化 学 科 編
(Journal of Socio-Cultural Studies: Memoirs of Faculty of Law and Literature, Shimane University) 7
(2011): 11-26.
Tokuda Masashi 徳 田 誠 志 , “Beikoku Bosuton Bijutsukan shozō iwayuru ‘den Nintokuryō
shutsudohin’ no chōsa” 米国ボストン美術館所蔵所謂「伝仁徳陵出土品」の調査 (Report on the Investigation
of So Called “the Artifacts from the Mausoleum of Emperor Nintoku” Owned by the Museum of Fine
Arts, Boston), Shoryōbu kiyō [Ryōbo hen] 書陵部紀要[陵墓篇] (Bulletin [the Mausolea and Tombs] Study
on the Japanese Culture in relation to the Imperial Family and Court), no. 62 (2010): 1-17.
Takamatsu Yū 高 松 由 , “Togetsuki kabenkei gyōyō no hensen to chōkin gijutsu: 7 seiki ni okeru
shinrai gijutsu no dōnyū to teichaku” 棘付花弁形杏葉の変遷と彫金技術: 7 世紀における新来技術の導入と定
着 (Transformations of Thorn-tipped Leaf-shaped Harness Pendants and Engraving Technology: The
Introduction and Establishment of Newly Arrived Technology in the Seventh Century),
Machikaneyama ronsō [Shigakuhen] 待 兼 山 論 叢 [ 史 学 篇 ] (Machikaneyama Ronso [History]), no. 45
(2011): 53-79.
Hirose Kazuo, “Zenpōkōenfun to wa nani ka” (What are Keyhole Tombs?), in Hirose and Wada,
Kofun jidai jō. 3-53.
Kurafuji Hiroshi 藏冨士寛 and Hashimoto Tatsuya 橋本達也,“Kyūshū” 九州 (Kyushu), in Hirose and
Wada, Kofun jidai jō. 103-46.
Tsuji Hideto 辻秀人, “Tōhoku nanbu” 東北南部 (Southern Tōhoku), in Hirose and Wada, Kofun jidai
jō. 479-517.
– 11 –
and ethnic groups of the Kofun period also emphasizes that cultural differences
recognized from archaeological materials do not divide along clearly marked
boundaries, but show mixture and gradual variation. 73 From the nature of such
borders, he argues that in the Kofun period there was no sense of identity
integrating the archipelago as a whole. Hashimoto Tatsuya’s examination of the
southern limit of tomb construction similarly makes inquiry into social movements
in peripheral regions, and points out a situation of flux in which disintegration and
reorganization of groups occurred at the periphery due the to the centrifugal force
of separation from the core.74 The creation of an awareness of boundaries (a sense
of the state) was the result of political contact with the East Asian realm, which he
regards as becoming prominent from the latter half of the Late Kofun period.
Yoshimura Kazuaki’s study of subterranean horizontal chamber tomb groups in
western Miyazaki prefecture examines a model of kin relations of the occupants of
those tombs from the conditions of their skeletal remains and grave goods, and
points out that interment based on bilateral principles of consanguinity was
conducted throughout the fifth century. 75 Further, Tanaka Yoshiyuki, Funahashi
Kyoko, and Yoshimura Kazuaki’s study of kin relations based on skeletal remains
from the interior of Miyazaki prefecture similarly makes clear the characteristic of
this region as one to which the transition to patrilineal relations seen in most of the
archipelago in the latter half of the fifth century did not extend. 76
In a study of the distributional boundaries of types of horizontal stone burial
chambers, Ōta Hiroaki constructs a typology based on differences in character of
the distributional regions.77 He then cites differences in social relations as a factor
giving rise to such differences, and asserts the possibility that the chamber styles
Fujisawa Atsushi 藤 沢 敦 , “Kofun jidai no ‘kyōkai’ to ‘minzoku’” 古 墳 時 代 の 「 境 界 」 と 「 民 族 」
(“Borders” and “Peoples” in the Kofun Period), Kikan kōkogaku, no. 117 (2011): 54-59, 6.
Hashimoto Tatsuya, “Kofun chikuzō shūen’iki ni okeru kyōkai keisei: Nangen shakai to kokka
keisei” 古墳築造周縁域における境界形成: 南限社会と国家形成 (Boundary Formation at the Periphery of
the Distribution of Kofun Burial Mounds: Society at the Southern Limit and State Formation),
Kōkogaku kenkyū 58, no. 4 (2012): 17-31.
Yoshimura Kazuaki 吉村和昭, “Miyazaki-ken nishi shoken chiiki ni okeru chikashiki yokoanabo no
bogun keisei to maisō genri: Tachigiri chikashiki yokoanabogun o taishō to shite” 宮崎県西諸県地域にお
ける 地下 式横穴墓の墓 群形 成と埋葬原理 : 立切地 下式横穴 墓群を対象として (The Formation Process of
Subterranean Rock-cut Tomb Cemeteries and the Reconstruction of Kin-organisation of the Middle
Kofun Period in the Southeastern Kyushu Region: The Study of the Tachigiri Cemetery as a Case),
Kyūshū kōkogaku 九州考古学 (The Journal of the Archaeological Society of Kyushu), no. 86 (2011): 4164.
Tanaka Yoshiyuki 田 中 良 之 , Funahashi Kyoko 舟 橋 京 子 , and Yoshimura Kazuaki, “Miyazaki-ken
nairikubu chikashiki yokoanabo hisōsha no shinzoku kankei” 宮崎県内陸部地下式横穴墓被葬者の親族関
係 (Reconstruction of Kin-relations of the Skeletal Remains from Under-ground Tunnel Tombs Located
in Inner Area of Miyazaki), Kyūshū Daigaku Sōgō Kenkyū Hakubutsukan kenkyū hōkoku 九州大学総合
研究博物館研究報告 (Bulletin of the Kyushu University Museum), no. 10 (2012): 127-43.
Ōta Hiroaki, “Kōko shiryō ni mirareru bunpu kyōkai ryōiki no yōsō: Yokoanashiki sekishitsu o shiryō
to shite” 考古資料にみられる分布境界領域の様相 : 横穴式石室を資料として (Archaeological Evidence of the
Distribution Boundary of Stone Burial Chambers), Kōkogaku kenkyū 57, no. 4 (2011): 71-89.
[Translator’s note: This statement requires further explication to be understood. Ōta looks at select
examples of the distributions of regionally defined types of horizontal stone chambers, classifying their
boundaries as “exclusive,” “permeable,” or “mixed,” and then tries to link these types with social
characteristics such as stratification, reciprocal relations, etc.]
– 12 –
functioned as social and political symbols. Monographs by Irie Fumitoshi
(Wakasa/Etsu Kofun jidai no kenkyū [Research on the Kofun Period of the Wakasa
and Etsu Regions])78 and Miki Hiroshi ( Kofun shakai to chiiki keiei [Kofun Society
and Regional Management])79 both take up reconstructions of regional portraits of
the Kofun period as their theme.
As something dealing with foreign interaction, there was Inoue Chikara’s study
of the occupants of tombs on the Korean peninsula having items originating from
Japan as grave goods.80 From an examination of the portraits of persons seen buried
with Japan-related articles in tombs of the Gaya 81 confederacy, he points out from
these items’ characteristic as prestige goods that the interred are not necessarily
ethnically Wa.
7. Economic production and technology
The Buried Cultural Properties Research Society held its 60th meeting at which
discussion was held on the topic of the procurement and circulation of stone
materials in the Yayoi and Kofun periods. 82 As items discussing the Kofun period,
there were presentations by Nara Takaya dealing with the stone materials of Early
period vertical-style stone compartment tombs, by Kitayama Mineo on the
circulation of Early period sarcophagi, by Takahashi Kōji on armband-shaped stone
objects, by Nakamura Hiroshi on Tatsuyama stone and the stone materials for
sarcophagi, and by Imanishi Yasuhiro on the stone materials at the Imashirozuka
tomb,83 with the conditions of procurement and circulation of stone used as material
for each type of feature and artifact becoming evident. If debate deepens regarding
Irie Fumitoshi 入江文敏, Wakasa/Etsu Kofun jidai no kenkyū 若狭・越古墳時代の研究 (Research on the
Kofun Period of the Wakasa and Etsu Regions) (Gakuseisha, 2011).
Miki Hiroshi 三木弘, Kofun shakai to chiiki keiei 古墳社会と地域経営 (Kofun Society and Regional
Management) (Gakuseisha, 2012).
Inoue Chikara 井上主税, Chōsen Hantō Sangoku jidai no Wakei ibutsu o fukusō suru kofun hisōsha
ni kan suru kenkyū 朝鮮半島三国時代の倭系遺物を副葬する古墳被葬者に関する研究 (A Study on the
Deceased Person in the Tumuli that was Buried along with the Japan-originated Artifacts in the Three
Dynastic Period of Korea), MEXT Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research report (project number
21720291) (Kashihara Kōkogaku Kenkyūjo, 2012).
Sekizai no ryūtsū to sono haikei: Yayoi-Kofun jidai o chūshin ni 石材の流通とその背景: 弥生~古墳時代
を 中 心 に (The Circulation of Stone Materials and Its Background: Focusing on the Yayoi to Kofun
Periods), abstracts and materials from the Dai 60-kai Maizō Bunkazai Kenkyū Shūkai 第 60 回埋蔵文化
財研究集会 (60th Meeting of the Buried Cultural Properties Research Society), held at Takatsuki, Osaka
prefecture, 3-4 September 2011 (place of publication unknown, 2011).
All in Sekizai no ryūtsū to sono haikei: Nara Takuya 奈良拓弥, “Zenki kofun (tateanashiki sekkaku) ni
okeru sekizai no sentaku to ryūtsū” 前期古墳( 竪 穴式 石槨) における 石 材 の選択 と流通 (Selection and
Circulation of Stone Materials in Early Period [Vertical-style Stone Compartment] Tombs), 45-56;
Kitayama Mineo, “Kofun jidai zenki ni okeru sekkan no idō” 古 墳 時 代 前 期 に お け る 石 棺 の 移 動
(Movement of Sarcophagi in the Early Kofun Period), 57-63; Takahashi Kōji 高 橋 幸 治 , “Udewagata
sekiseihin no sekizai to ryūtsū” 腕輪形 石製品の石材 と流通 (The Stone Materials of Armband-shaped
Stone Objects and Their Circulation), 65-75; Nakamura Hiroshi 中 村 弘 , “Tatsuyamaishi to sekkan
sekizai” 竜 山 石 と 石 棺 石 材 (Tatsuyama Stone and Sarcophagi Stone Material), 89-100; Imanishi
Yasuhiro 今西康宏, “Imashirozuka kofun ni miru sekizai no ryūtsū to sono haikei” 今城塚古墳にみる石材
の流通とその背景 (The Circulation and Background of Stone Material Seen at the Imashirozuka Tomb),
– 13 –
the groups of technicians who obtained the stone, the artisans who worked it, and
those involved in its circulation, the situation regarding the production and
circulation of stone materials in the Kofun period will become even clearer.
The Chūgoku Shikoku Keyhole Tomb Research Society held a meeting on tombs
of the Middle Kofun period as seen from haniwa, in which the development and
points of transition of haniwa in each region were examined, with it becoming clear
that these did not necessarily match up. 84 From two contributions by Tsujikawa
Tetsurō, on materials from the Ōmi Toba Kamezuka85 and Yasu-shi Koshimaezuka86
tombs, the situation regarding haniwa materials in the Ōmi region has become
clearer. A study by Kitahara Rie and Fukunaga Shin’ya on Tango-style cylindrical
haniwa points out two separate lines of development of these items, and as
background for this, that a change in local leadership can be discerned. 87 Kirihara
Takeshi assesses a boat-shaped haniwa recovered from the Tonomura 88 site in Iida89
as a vessel for transporting the souls of the dead, and points out the possibility that
such objects were supplied to tombs where figures such as kuni-no-miyatsuko90
were interred.91 Furuya Takeshi’s study of the structure and transition of houseshaped haniwa compares them with the remains of buildings and points out these
items’ realistic and abstract aspects. 92
Hosokawa Shintarō’s study of the production and distribution of lidded
container-shaped stone objects makes a classification based on form and points out
three lines of development.93 From an examination of their distribution, and of the
Haniwa kara mita chūki kofun no tenkai 埴輪から見た中期古墳の展開 (Development of Middle Period
Tombs Seen from Haniwa), abstracts and materials from the Dai 14-kai Chūgoku Shikoku Zenpō
Kōenfun Kenkyūkai 第 14 回中国四国前方後円墳研究会 (14th Meeting of the Chūgoku Shikoku Keyhole
Tomb Research Society), held at Yurihama, Tottori prefecture, 26-27 November 2011 (place of
publication unknown, 2011).
Tsujikawa Tetsurō 辻川哲朗, “Ōmi Toba Kamezuka kofun shutsudo haniwa no saikentō” 近江・冨波亀
塚 古 墳 出 土 埴 輪 の 再 検 討 (Reexamination of the Haniwa Recovered from the Ōmi Toba Kamezuka
Tomb), in Biwako to chiiki bunka. 93-98.
Tsujikawa Tetsurō, “Yasu-shi Koshimaezuka kofun saishū haniwa ni tsuite” 野洲市・越前塚古墳採集埴
輪について (On Haniwa Gathered at the Yasu-shi Koshimaezuka Tomb), Ōmi bunkazai ronsō 淡海文化財
論叢 (Ōmi Cultural Properties Essays), no. 3 (2011): 48-53.
Kitahara Rie 北 原 梨 江 and Fukunaga Shin’ya, “Tangogata entō haniwa no 2 keitō to sono tenkai
katei” 丹後型円筒埴輪の2系統とその展開過程 (Two Lines of Tango-style Cylindrical Haniwa and Their
Process of Development), Taniwa kōko 太 邇 波 考 古 (Taniwa Archaeology), no. 33 (2011): 1-11.
[Translator’s note: The Tango-style cylindrical haniwa ends with a distinctive rounded constriction at
the top, rather than as a straight cylinder or with the rounded constriction continuing into an outward
飯田 (Nagano prefecture)
国 造 [Translator’s note: A title conferred in the pre-ritsuryō era on regional administrators by the
Yamato court.]
Kirihara Takeshi 桐原健, “Haniwabune gensō” 埴輪船幻想 (Haniwa Boat Illusions), Ina 伊那 (Ina),
(2011.4): 25-34.
Furuya Takeshi 古谷毅, “Iegata haniwa no kōzō/hensen to bunseki shikaku” 家形埴輪の構造・変遷と分
析 視 角 (Structure and Transition of House-shaped Haniwa and the Analytic Angle), Haniwa
Kenkyūkaishi 埴輪研究会誌 (Haniwa-Archaeology), no. 15 (2011): 129-45.
Hosokawa Shintarō 細川晋太郎, “Gōsugata sekiseihin no seisan to ryūtsū haikei” 合子形石製品の生産
と 流 通 背 景 (Production of Lidded Container-shaped Stone-made Objects and the Distributional
Background), Kodaigaku kenkyū, no. 190 (2011): 15-37.
– 14 –
characteristics of the tombs where they were interred and of their accompanying
materials, it is supposed that their distribution and receipt took place within the
framework of the monarchy. In his examination of soft stone imitative goods,
Sakuma Masaaki analyses examples recovered from the Kantō region, and asserts
that individual makers can be recognized for sets of items based on shared
properties of form, manufacturing technique, and material. 94 He further touches
upon differences in the manufacture and structure of sets from tombs in Kōzuke 95
and Shimosa,96 supposing this reflects the designs of the chiefly classes who
conducted the mortuary rites. Sakurai Tomoharu’s study of Sue ware focuses on the
conditions of its production in the Tōhoku region, which traditionally has not
received much treatment, and analyzes the process of development from the Final
Kofun into the Ancient periods.97
Not only archaeological classifications and typological analyses, but also
approaches to the Kofun period utilizing scientific techniques were in great favor.
The volume Rinsetsu kagaku to kofun jidai kenkyū (Related Sciences and Kofun
Period Research), edited by Ichinose Kazuo, Fukunaga Shin’ya, and Hōjō Yoshitaka,
brings together this type of research. 98 Mizuno Toshinori’s study of bronze mirror
manufacturing techniques utilizes the three-dimensional measurement of these
items which has become popular in recent years, and discusses the scientific
evaluation of mirrors which based on archaeological analysis have been regarded as
produced from the same mold. 99 With regard to bronze mirrors, there is Murakami
Ryū’s analysis utilizing techniques of the physical sciences and microscopic
examinations of the triangular-rimmed mirrors recovered from the Tsubai
Ōtsukayama tomb, which discusses the importance of these items’ composition and
metallographic structure.100 Hagiwara Kyōichi asserts the utility of X-ray
fluorescence analysis of the clay body of haniwa for a perspective to study the
Sakuma Masaaki 佐久間正明, “Kantō chihō ni okeru kofun shutsudo sekisei mozōhin no seisaku kōzō
ni tsuite” 関東地方における古墳出土石製模造品の製作構造について (Manufacturing Systems of Soft Stone
Imitative Goods from Tombs in the Kantō Region: With Special Attention to Chiefly Burials in Kōzuke),
Kōkogaku kenkyū 58, no. 2 (2011): 54-73.
上野 (modern Gunma prefecture)
下総 (part of modern Chiba prefecture)
Sakurai Tomoharu 櫻 井 友梓 , “Kofun jidai shūmatsuki kara tagajō sōken zengo no sueki seisan no
tenkai” 古墳時代終末期から多賀城創建前後の須恵器生産の展開 (Developments of Sue Ware Production
from the Final Kofun Period to Around the Tagajo Fort Site Construction), Miyagi kōkogaku 宮城考古学
(The Miyagi Archaeology), no. 13 (2011): 93-110.
Ichinose Kazuo, Fukunaga Shin’ya, and Hōjō Yoshitaka, eds., Rinsetsu kagaku to kofun jidai kenkyū
隣 接 科 学 と 古 墳 時 代 研 究 (Related Sciences and Kofun Period Research), vol. 8 of Kofun jidai no
kōkogaku (Douseisha, 2012).
Mizuno Toshinori 水野 敏 典 , “Sanjigen keisoku to dōkyō seisaku gihō” 三 次元 計 測と銅鏡 製作 技法
(Three-dimensional Measurement and Bronze Mirror Manufacturing Techniques), in Ichinose,
Fukunaga, and Hōjō, Rinsetsu kagaku to kofun jidai kenkyū. 82-89.
Murakami Ryū 村上隆 , “Sankakubuchi shinjūkyō no sosei to kinzoku soshiki: Tsubai Ōtsukayama
kofun shutsudo no sankakubuchi shinjūkyō o chūshin ni” 三角縁神獣鏡の組成と金属組織: 椿井大塚山古
墳出土の三角縁神獣鏡を中心に (The Composition and Metallographic Structure of Triangular-rimmed
Mirrors with Deity and Animal Figures: Focusing on the Mirrors Excavated from the Tsubaiotsukayama
Tumulus), Kyōto Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan Gakusō 京都国立博物館学叢 (The Kyoto National Museum
Bulletin), no. 33 (2011): 41-47, 4-6.
– 15 –
production and supply of these materials.101
Efforts to sum up conventional Kofun period research in comprehensive fashion
and suggest new perspectives for study are now very common. However, with
regard to the chronologies and periodization which have served as the basis of
traditional frameworks, most of these new attempts accord with conventional
research. It has now been 20 years since an archipelago-wide chronology was
constructed. Advances in the research of particular artifacts, and readjustments of
frameworks on the basis of regional perspectives have been accumulating. The
difficulties of assessing the entire archipelago in a uniform manner are clear from
the variety seen for burial systems, utensils, and regional society.
Research giving weight not just to tombs but also to palaces and settlements has
been actively conducted. There are many topics needing examination with regard to
how tombs, palaces, and settlements are related. We hope that comprehensive
treatment of these, coming out of research conducted in a variety of fields, will
produce more vivid portraits of Kofun period society in the future.
Hagiwara Kyōichi 萩原恭一, “Haniwa no seisan to kyōkyū o taido bunseki kara kangaeru” 埴輪の生
産 と 供 給 を 胎 土 分 析 か ら 考 え る (Considering the Production and Supply of Haniwa from Clay Body
Analysis), Haniwa Kenkyūkaishi, no. 15 (2011): 103-14.