TRENDS IN ARCHAEOLOGY IN JAPANKofun Period
HIGASHIKAGE Yu
Fiscal 2011 Kofun period studies were quite diverse. Publication of books on the Kofun
period was especially abundant, summarizing Kofun period study in the past andindicating new viewpoints.
TSUDE Hiroshi, Kodai Kokka wa Itsu Seiritsu Shitaka (Establishment of the AncientNation) (Tokyo: Iwanami) incorporated a newly developed interpretation of the Kofun
period and early nation theory including recent research results. In HIROSE Kazuo (ed.),“Kofun Jidai wo Taikeiteki ni Miru (Systematical View of the Kofun Period)”(Archaeology Quarterly, 117 (themed issue)) diverse viewpoints of the Kofun period wereindicated including not only domestic viewpoints but also ones from China and the Korean
Peninsula, as well as folklore. SHIMOGAKI Hitoshi, Kofun Jidai no Oken Kozo
(Sovereignty Structure of the Kofun Period) (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan) discussed
figures buried in mounded tombs in Early and Middle Kofun, and the structure ofsovereignty they constitute. Gina L. Barnes, “Kofun Jidai Zenki ni Okeru Touchi
Sihaiken Kasetsu (Jyo)・(Ge) (Hypothesis on Sovereignty in Early Kofun Part 1 & 2)”(Kodaigaku Kenkyu, 190: 1-16, 191: 26-45) developed a hypothetical experiment onpolitical ideology of Early Kofun. The second part of the article contained reactions
from a few Japanese researchers and the difference in each view was interesting.
There were many publications to organize division of the Kofun period and transitional
viewpoint, as well as to contain chronology and dating in various places. HIROSE
Kazuo and WADA Seigo (eds.), Koza Nihon no Kokogaku 7: Kofun Jidai Jo (Lecture onJapanese Archaeology 7: Kofun Period Part 1) (Tokyo: Aoki Shoten), and ICHINOSEKazuo, FUKUNAGA Shinya, and HOJO Yoshitaka (eds.), Kofun Jidai no Kokogaku(Kofun Period Archaeology) Volume 1: Kofun Jidaishi no Wakugumi (Frameworks of theKofun Period History). (Tokyo: Doseisha) regarded frameworks of the Kofun period on
the whole through time division, actual dating, and chronology of each artifact. To
clarify structures and characteristics of burial mounds and funeral rituals conducted, it isinevitable to interpret the Kofun period, and Kofun Jidai no Kokogaku (Kofun Period
1Archaeological institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture, 1 Unebi, Kashihara City, Nara 634-0065, Japan

JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 1 (2013): 67-69© Japanese Archaeological Association67

ARCHAEOLOGIA JAPONICA

Archaeology), Vol. 3: Kofun Kozo to Soso Saishi (Structure of Burial Mound and FuneralRites (Tokyo: Doseisha) discussed such issues.
KISHIMOTO Naofumi, “Yokoanashiki Sekishitsu no Keishiki wa Hisosha noKatsuyakuki wo Shimesu (Horizontal Stone Chamber Type as Indication of Active Timefor the Buried)”, Kokogaku Kenkyu, 58(1): 78-89 referred to a possibility that mounded
tombs were constructed before the death of the buried. On the other hand, HOZUMIHiromasa, “Kofun Jidai ‘Soso Iseki’ Toiu Wakugumi (Framework Called ‘Moso Iseki’ inthe Kofun Period)” In Biwako to Chiiki Bunka: HAYASHI Hiromichi Sensei Tainin Kinen
Ronshu (Lake Biwa and Local Culture: Memorial Publication of Professor HAYASHI
Hiromichi’s Retirement), pp. 54-59. Hikone: Sunrise Shuppan] is important as it indicatedfuneral rituals other than burial mounds called mogari.
Journal Historia, No. 228 had a special featured article on Kawachi-otsukayama burial
mound with a high possibility of it being a king’s tomb. The burial mound was discussed
from both viewpoints of archaeology and document history. Although being a king-class
tomb, it is hard to specify who was buried in it, and interpretation of researchers was quitedifferent.
Research and study on palaces and villages are showing progress in recent years.
Outlines of archaeological excavation results were published on Makimuku site in Sakurai
City, Nara Prefecture and demonstrated the existence of a large building assumed to be apalace of early Kofun period. Excavation research is also being conducted on Wakimoto
site, which is supposed to be related to the palace. On analysis of villages, Journal
Historia, No. 229 had a detailed discussion on the relationship between production ofmanual industry and immigrants.
There were quite contrasting studies. One regarded the relationship between central
sovereignty and each region as “center” and “region,” and assumed an orderly relationshipbetween them, valuing common qualities of keyhole-shaped mounded tombs, and theother valued differing qualities of each local society from diversity of grave systems.
TANAKA Yoshiyuki, FUNAHASHI Kyoko, and YOSHIMURA Kazuaki, “Miyazaki KenNairikubu Chikashiki Yokoanabo Shisosha no Shinzoku Kankei (Kinship of People Buriedin Subterranean Horizontal Graves in Inland Miyazaki Prefecture). Kyushu Daigaku SogoKenkyu Hakubutsukan Kenkyu Hokoku, 10: 127-143 clarified characteristics of regionsthat did not turn into patrilineality that was common in Japanese Islands in the fifth
century CE.
Trends to summarize the Kofun period study in the past and to indicate new studyviewpoints are getting active. However the framework used for such standards is often
following chronological study conducted 20 years ago, which tried to create a universal
chronology for the whole archipelago. It is clear that it is not easy to regard the wholearchipelago equally, as grave systems of communities holding the same objects are not© Japanese Archaeological Association68

TRENDS IN ARCHAEOLOGY IN JAPANnecessary equal in quality. Study that values not only burial mounds but palace andvillages is becoming active. There are many issues to be discussed such as how burialmounds are related to palaces and villages.

© Japanese Archaeological Association69