The Development of Kofun-period Iron-framed
ArmourSAKAGUCHI Hideki1
Editor’s note:

What follows is a part of SAKAGUCHI Hideki’s book, Kofun Jidai Kacchū no Gijutsu to Seisan『古墳時代甲冑の技術と生産』[Technology and Production of Armour in the Kofun Period] (2019),
for which the author posthumously received the 2021 Japanese Association Award. At the time of hisdeath on 16 December 2020, he was only 49 years old.
When an archaeologist receives the Japanese Association Award for his/her book, we ask the author
to write a summary of the book, which is then translated into English for publication in the JJA. For
the article below, the Chief-Editor slightly revised Sections 3 to 5 of Chapter 6 so that these sections
could be read as an independent article.
Sakaguchi studied and received professional training in archaeology at Kyoto University where theﬁrst archaeology department was founded in Japan in 1911. He completed his undergraduate study
in archaeology in 1995 and a revised version of his bachelor’s thesis was published as “Chōhōbankawatoji tankō to sankakuban kawatoji tankō: Hensen to sono tokushitsu [Rectangular-plate
and triangular-plate laced cuirasses: Development and signiﬁcance]” in the prestigious history
journal, Shirin, Vol. 81, No. 5. He completed master’s program in 1997, and the article below is thecore of his master’s thesis. He left a doctoral program in 1999 to assume the position of lecturer
in archaeology at Kyoto University, the position that he held until his death. He was granted adoctoral degree for his thesis entitled Kofun Jidai Kacchū Seiritsu, Tenkai-Ki no Kisoteki Kenkyū「古墳時代甲冑成立・展開期の基礎的研究」[Comprehensive study on the emergence anddevelopment of iron armour during the Kofun period]. He revised this doctoral thesis and added
a new chapter, which was published as the book for which the JAA award was given. Sakaguchi
was the foremost specialist in Kofun period iron armour of his generation. He still had much tocontribute to his ﬁeld and his loss is felt by all in the archaeology community.

ABSTRACTThis article traces the development of iron-framed armour, namely the emergence of the framed
horizontal-plate cuirass, from a perspective that emphasises its technical lineage inherited fromearlier generations of armour. When we focus on changes in plate shape and placement in thevertical-plate cuirass and the horizontally organised plate cuirass, we get a clearer idea of the waythat design principles and assembly processes continually shifted in the direction of the framed
horizontal-plate cuirass. At the same time the technical basis for the creation of the frame, thedeterminant factor in the development of iron-framed armour, is considered to have been realised
as a result of the establishment of intra-tier joints in the horizontally organised plate cuirass. Reexamining and reconﬁguring the frame of reference and attributes of interest in this paper froma diﬀerent perspective allows for a more systematic and concrete explanation of the process ofdevelopment of iron-framed armour than has hitherto been possible.
1 Deceased; correspondence should be addressed to Ken’ichi Sasaki, the Chief Editor

Category: Original Article Received and Accepted: 31 January 2023
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 10 (2023): 117–149

SAKAGUCHI Hideki

KEYWORDS: Kofun period of protohistoric Japan, technological history, iron armour“Iron-framed armour” (Furuya 1990: p. 117, 1996: pp. 64–65) designates a stylistic
category of Kofun-period iron armour constructed of belt-shaped iron strips known as“bands” (obigane) making up a frame, and iron plates ﬁlling the gaps between them. The
emergence of its earliest form, the framed horizontal-plate, leather-laced cuirass (chōhōbankawatoji tankō), has been regarded as the “standardisation of cuirass forms”1 since thebeginning of recorded research on Japanese armour, and is considered a major milestone(Kobayashi, Y. 1965: p. 34; Nogami 1968: p. 17; Kobayashi, K. 1974a: p. 52). The factthat Fujita’s concept of “Middle-period type armour” (Fujita 1984: p. 55) and Hashimoto’s“Middle-period armour” (Hashimoto, T. 1996: p. 255) both refer to virtually the same dataset as “iron-framed armour” clearly indicate that this was the leading form of armour usedin the Middle Kofun period. In recent years, evaluation of artefacts most representative of
the era have led some to propose a theory of periodic divisions demarcating the Middle
Kofun period according to the emergence and decline of iron-framed armour (Hashimoto,T. 2005: p. 552).
However, while the creation of iron-framed armour is hailed as an important innovation,
relatively few in-depth discussions have addressed the process of its emergence. A surveyof the history of research shows that material is nevertheless extremely limited, although
one can cite studies such as Takahashi Katsuhisa’s discussion of the technical lineage ofthe vertical-plate, leather-laced cuirass (tatehagiita kawatoji tankō) and the horizontallyorganised plate leather-laced cuirass (hōkeiban kawatoji tankō) in the Early Kofun period
and framed horizontal-plate cuirass (Takahashi, K. 1993), Kobayashi Ken’ichi’s researchsummarising the attributes of the horizontally organised plate cuirass and discussing
its relationship with the framed horizontal-plate cuirass (Kobayashi, K. 1995), andTatsuya Hashimoto’s multifaceted discussion of the initial phase of iron-framed armour(Hashimoto, T. 2005). This author also conducted studies of changes in the framed
horizontal-plate cuirass (Sakaguchi 1998) but was unable to discuss the process of its
emergence. Later, in a summary of the technical genealogy of armour in the Early andMiddle periods oﬀered an opportunity to touch on this topic, the limited space available
meant that no more than a brief outline was possible (Sakaguchi 2009: pp. 10–11).
1 The wording (‘keishiki - forms’ or ‘katashiki - types’) varies between these studies, for example Tankō no katashiki gatōitsu sareta ‘Cuirass types were standardised’ (Kobayashi, Y. 1965: p. 34), Keishiki ga tōitsuka saretekuru ‘Forms become
standardised’ (Nogami 1968: p. 17), Tankō keishiki no tōitsu ‘Uniﬁcation of the cuirass form’ (Kobayashi 1974a: p. 52). In thecurrent paper, data organised according to the shapes of the plates and the way of connecting them, for example the ‘framed
horizontal-plate cuirass’, are known as ‘forms’, and when these forms are further subdivided according to speciﬁc criteria, thesubdivisions are referred to as ‘types’. This paper therefore employs the phrase “standardisation of cuirass forms.”© Japanese Archaeological Association

118

THE DEVELOPMENT OF KOFUN-PERIOD IRON-FRAMED ARMOUR

Explaining the emergence of iron-framed armour not only sheds light on the speciﬁctechnological improvements that went into the most structurally complex hand-crafted
production of the period, but also clariﬁes the way that politically signiﬁcant artefacts,thought to confer the highest level of authority, were created and distributed by the centre
of authority in the Middle Kofun period. Moreover, studying the technical lineage of ironframed armour also impacts our understanding of the disputed issue of the geographicalregion where the vertical-plate cuirass and the horizontally organised plate cuirass were
produced (Sakaguchi 2009: p. 10). This paper focuses anew on iron-framed armour,building on the outline given in the previous paper (Sakaguchi 2009)2 and adding some
additional material, in order to give a clearer picture of its emergence.

I. A Summary of the Research History and Analytical Approaches(1) Research history
Standardisation of cuirass forms

Study of iron armour of the Kofun period began with Suenaga Masao’s research (Suenaga
1934) and by the mid-1970s the research framework and approach that we continue to
use today had largely been established (Nogami 1968; Kobayashi, K. 1974a, 1974b).
Scholars considered that by this Middle Kofun stage, with the emergence of the framed
horizontal-plate cuirass consisting of a front-chest panel, rear-shoulder panel, iron bands,
and base panels, cuirass forms had been more or less standardised (Kobayashi, Y. 1965:
p. 34; Nogami 1968: p. 17), and together with the creation of additional protective ironaccessories like neck and shoulder guards, this was recognised as a highly signiﬁcantlandmark (Kobayashi, K. 1974a: p. 52).3 While this achievement was explained in termsof domestic developments in forging technology, it was also pointed out that there werefactors that “could not be attributed to domestic development alone” and so assumed to be
the inﬂuence of “imported technology” from outside the Japanese archipelago (Kobayashi,
K. 1974b: p. 38). The sources of this imported technology were, however, not speciﬁed.
Kobayashi Yukio was probably the ﬁrst to point to the southern part of the Korean
Peninsula as the source of imported technology, stating that “it is correct to assume thateither technology was imported, or artisans came over from Korea” at the stage when the
2 In an earlier publication (Sakaguchi 2009), space limitations forced the author to signiﬁcantly abbreviate the explanations,and to leave out illustrations. The current paper aims to provide this missing material but will inevitably also duplicate someof the contents of the earlier paper.
3 However, it has recently been proposed that iron accessories developed through the same technological genealogy as thetriangular-plate leather-laced cuirass and triangular-plate leather-laced beaked helmet, at a slightly diﬀerent date from theappearance of the framed horizontal-plate cuirass (Hashimoto, T. 2005: p. 549), a view supported by this author.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

119

SAKAGUCHI Hideki

framed horizontal-plate cuirass emerged (Kobayashi, Y. 1982: p. 33).4

Genealogical relationships with preceding forms

While the standardisation of cuirass forms was recognised as an important milestone, theprocess leading to it remained largely unexamined for a lengthy period. This is thought
to be due to the scarcity of excavated examples of the preceding forms of the verticalplate cuirass and the horizontally organised plate cuirass, and the even more limited
availability of artefacts that could be reconstructed for research purposes. However, from1990 onwards, many more detailed reports of artefacts in a good state of preservation were
published, and research into both cuirass types advanced dramatically (Takizawa 1990;
Takahashi, K. 1993; Hashimoto, S. et al. 1994; Takahashi, T. 1993, 1995; Kobayashi, K.
1995, 2000, 2002; Hashimoto, T. 1996, 1998; Ishii & Arii ed. 1997; Nakaya ed. 2005;
Furuya 2005, 2006; Sakaguchi 2005 and others).
In particular, the view presented by Takahashi Katsuhisa, clearly pointing out thetechnical and morphological continuity of the vertical-plate cuirass, the horizontallyorganised plate cuirass, and the framed horizontal-plate cuirass based on the orientation offrame construction and manner of combining the placket plates (hikiawase-ita) (Takahashi,
K. 1993: pp. 123–124) provided a normative framework for further research into thedevelopment of iron-framed armour. In light of this, the development of forging techniques
was explained in greater detail (Takahashi, T. 1993: p. 18), and the methods of leather
lacing used in horizontally organised plate cuirasses, the overlaying of iron plates, aswell as the properties of the placket plates and other elements were more clearly deﬁned(Kobayashi, K. 1995). Moreover, this approach was further corroborated by the sharedaspects of leather lacing method 1 and bordering techniques, so providing a basis for moredetailed research into Early Kofun armour (Hashimoto, T. 1996, 1998).

The inﬂuence of armour made from organic materials

As the features of Kofun-period armour made from organic materials (wood, leather,etc.) have gradually become clearer, its morphology and structure have been postulated
as factors inﬂuencing the development of iron-framed armour, alongside the domesticallydeveloped forging techniques and imported iron-armour construction technology
mentioned earlier (Furuya 1990: p. 117, 1996: pp. 78–79; Kobayashi, K. 2002: p. 81;
Hashimoto, T. 2003: p. 195).

4 However, he proposed that even prior to this the ‘uniﬁcation of cuirass types’ was mediated by a “demand for large

quantities of armour during actual warfare [ …… ] most probably reﬂecting military action in Korea,” as interaction with the
Korean Peninsula provided this opportunity (Kobayashi, Y. 1965: p. 35).
© Japanese Archaeological Association

120

THE DEVELOPMENT OF KOFUN-PERIOD IRON-FRAMED ARMOUR

The initial period of iron-framed armour

The work of investigating the emergence of iron-framed armour was also taken forward,
not by examining changes in preceding forms, but by studying artefacts from the initialperiod of iron-framed armour. Hashimoto Tatsuya has conducted a multifaceted study
documenting previously unknown data on emergent iron-framed armour, placing thephenomenon of iron-framed armour emergence in the broader context of the Middle Kofun
period history (Hashimoto, T. 2005).

(2) Analytical approaches

As outlined in the previous section, the development of iron-framed armour, namely the
emergence of the framed horizontal-plate cuirass, is considered to have been inﬂuenced
by a number of factors including armour-making technology from the southern Korean
Peninsula, techniques derived from the preceding vertical-plate cuirass and horizontallyorganised plate cuirass, as well as the morphology and structure of armour made fromorganic materials. Which of these factors to prioritise also depends on problematic issues
such as the production areas of the vertical-plate cuirass and horizontally organised plate
cuirass, so a comprehensive understanding that deals with these interrelated issues in aconsistent manner is required.
This paper supports the view that the framed horizontal-plate cuirass is in a continuousline of development from the vertical-plate cuirass and horizontally organised plate cuirass(Sakaguchi 2009: p. 11), and sets out to elucidate the developmental process of ironframed armour by placing primary emphasis on the technical heritage of the previous era.
In other words, while discovering the seeds of the emergence of the framed horizontalplate cuirass in the transformations of the preceding vertical-plate cuirass and thehorizontally organised plate cuirass, the author would like to trace the emergence of theframed horizontal-plate cuirass by examining the background to the structural changes
which occurred as it emerged.

II. History Preceding the Development of Iron-framed Armour—
The Vertical-plate Cuirass and the Horizontally Organised Plate
Cuirass(1) Available artifacts and previous views of the changes

This section examines the changes in the vertical-plate cuirass and horizontally organised
plate cuirass which have already been largely conﬁrmed (Takahashi, K. 1993; Hashimoto, T.
1996, 1998) from the perspective of the design principles and assembly process of the framed
horizontal-plate cuirass, and point out the emergence of the incipient framed horizontalplate cuirass. The overview presented here also reaﬃrms the continuity of the technological© Japanese Archaeological Association

121

SAKAGUCHI Hideki

lineage of these three forms. Furthermore, as there is only one extant example of the collared,
horizontally organised plate cuirass, reference will be made to this when necessary.
Available artifacts. Excavations on the Japanese archipelago have uncovered threevertical-plate cuirasses and nineteen horizontally organised plate cuirasses (Table 1). Threehorizontally organised plate cuirasses have also been excavated on the Korean Peninsula,from Bukcheondong tomb no. 64 and Daeseongdong tomb no. 1 and tomb no. 88.
Previous views of transition. It is highly likely that both the vertical-plate cuirass and thehorizontally organised plate cuirass have the same technological lineage (Takahashi, K. 1993:
pp. 123–124; Hashimoto, T. 1996: pp. 264–265, 1998: p. 49). Takahashi Katsuhisa pointed
out a change from a three-tiered to a one-tiered conﬁguration of the rear-shoulder panel, anda change in the shape of the iron plates from longitudinal rectangles to inverted trapezoids
or parallelograms, proposing a transition “from the vertical-plate cuirass to the horizontallyorganised plate cuirass with two-tier rear-shoulder panel, to the horizontally organised plate
cuirass with single-tier rear-shoulder panel” (Figure 2). He interprets this transition in termsof “advances in iron-working technology” (Takahashi, K. 1993: pp. 121–124).
With the exception of two features, the use of lacing method 1 and long verticalplates, the items grouped together as “vertical-plate cuirasses” at Ōmaruyama Kofun in
Yamanashi prefecture and Shikinzan Kofun in Osaka prefecture have virtually nothing incommon (Takahashi, K. 1993: p. 121; Hashimoto, T. 1998: pp. 60–61). Even taking into
account the recently identiﬁed examples at Okunomae Kofun no. 1, the disparities are still
great, so it is appropriate to describe these in terms of “one piece–one type.” Nevertheless,considering that lacing method 1 is employed in the case of tomb 38 at Bukcheondong
in the southern Korean Peninsula, we cannot rule out the possibility that these do form amono-sequential series (Sakaguchi 2005: pp. 342–343).
Hashimoto Tatsuya developed Takahashi’s work on the horizontally organised plate
cuirass, focusing on six of its attributes: (1) rear-shoulder panel structure, (2) front torso
structure, (3) plate sequence, (4) number of plates, (5) height–width ratio of plates and (6)bordering. He placed particular emphasis on (1), (3), and (5) as key typological features ofthe basic structure which he used to categorise the horizontally organised plate cuirass into
ﬁve types, A to E, as follows:
A: Two-tier rear-shoulder panel/Overlapping middle tier/Plate length–width ratio 4/2–3(Wakahachimangū and Sonobekaichi examples)
B: Single-tier rear-shoulder panel/Overlapping middle tier/Plate length–width ratio 4/2(Azuchi-hyōtanyama example)
C: Single-tier rear-shoulder panel/All tiers overlap upwards/Plate length-width ratio 4/3(Inadō tomb no. 15, Kumamoto-yama Kofun, Nakayama tomb B-1, Niizawa Senzuka
tomb no. 500, Uedono Kofun [South end of coﬃn] and Kawaradani tomb no. 1 example).
D: Single-tier rear-shoulder panel/All tiers overlap upwards/Plate length–width ratio 4/4© Japanese Archaeological Association

122

123

Fukuoka (9)Saga (11)Inadō No.15

Kumamoto-yama

3 tiers
2 tiers
2 tiers
1 tier
1 tier
1 tier
1 tier
1 tier
1 tier
1 tier
1 tier
1 tier
1 tier〇Left and right 〇〇〇Left and right 〇
〇
〇
〇
〇
〇
〇

Left and right 〇

×

×

〇

×

Right?

Left?

—

〇

—

—

—

—

—

×

×

(3 tiers) —

〇

4/4

4/3

4/3

4/3

4/3

4/3

4/3

4/3

4/3

4/3

4/2

4/3

3/2

—

—

—

3/4

All tiers

All tiers

All tiers

All tiers

All tiers

All tiers

All tiers

All tiers

All tiers

All tiers

Middle tierMiddle tierMiddle tierMiddle tier

—

—

—

Connected Collar All tiers
typeattached

1 tier〇Left

1 tierLeft and right ×

×

×

Left

Right

Left

Left

Left

×

×

Left

Vertical/Leather or Horizontally- —organised/Leather

Horizontally-organised/Leather

Horizontally-organised/Leather

Horizontally-organised/Leather(collar)

Horizontally-organised/Leather

Horizontally-organised/Leather

Horizontally-organised/Leather

Horizontally-organised/Leather

Horizontally-organised/Leather

Horizontally-organised/Leather

Horizontally-organised/Leather

Horizontally-organised/Leather

Horizontally-organised/Leather

Horizontally-organised/Leather

Horizontally-organised/Leather

Horizontally-organised/Leather

Horizontally-organised/Leather

Horizontally-organised/Leather

Vertical/Leather

×

Left and right ××Placketplate/s

—

—

—

5

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

1

1

1

—

—

—

3・5

3

9

11

11

12

13

(9)

9≦

14

(17)

11

(17)

13

17

33

12 or 13

17

—

—

—

9・9

7

9

12

12 or 13

12

14

(9)

14

14

(13)

11

13

13

19

—

—

—

9

7

9

13

12 or 13

12

15

(9)

13 ≦

14

(13)

11

13

13

19

—

—

—

Group IIGroup IIGroup IIGroup IIGroup IIGroup IIGroup IIGroup IGroup IGroup IGroup IGroup IGroup IGroup IGroup I

—

—

—

—

—

—

E

D

C

C

[C]

C

[C]

C

C

C

[B]

B

A

A

—

—

—

Notes:
・The number in parentheses in the column of prefecture indicates the location of kofun in Figure 1, and it corresponds to a site report number.
・The data are based on Hashimoto’s Tables 1 and 2 (Hashimoto, T. 1998) with the addition of subsequently published material. Brackets [ ] in the TYPE column indicate material that was published subsequently.
・“Upward overlap of plates” and “Plate length/width ratio” classiﬁcation is taken from Hashimoto, T. 1998.
・The number of plates for the cuirass at Uedono Kofun (North end of coﬃn) has been summarised as, from the top downwards, levels 1 and 2 “Upper tier”; levels 3 and 4 “Middle tier” and level 5 “Lower tier.”

Osaka (15)Gifu (5)

Funakiyama No.98

Ibaraki Shōgunyama

Shimane (8)Nakayama B-1

Nara (25)Nara (23)Kamotsuba No.1

Ibaraki (1)Nara (22)

Niizawa No.500

Gojō Ōhaka

Nara (21)

Uedono (South end of
coﬃn)

Hitachi Kitsunezuka

Kyoto (17)Kawaradani No.1

Nara (21)Ishikawa (4)Ame-no-miya No.1

Uedono (North end of
coﬃn)

Shiga (18)Azuchi-hyōtanyama

Kyoto (16)

Kyoto (13)Sonobekaichi

Kuraokayama No. 3

Fukuoka (10)Wakahachimangū

Nara (24)

Osaka (14)Shikinzan

Taniguchi No.1

Okayama (7)Vertical/Leather

Yamanashi (2) Vertical/Leather

Okunomae No. 1-FormŌmaruyama

Location(prefecture)

PlatesTYPE
RearFront-chest
Number of plates(Hashimoto,shoulderLength/Upward overlap
panel
NumberShape,
T. 1998)
panel (plate edges overlap widthof tiers
organisation
ratio
those above)
Upper tier Middle tier Lower tier

Vertical-plate cuirasses and horizontally organised plate cuirasses excavated in the Japanese archipelago

Burial Mound (kofun)
excavated

Table 1.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF KOFUN-PERIOD IRON-FRAMED ARMOUR© Japanese Archaeological Association

SAKAGUCHI Hideki

Figure 1. Locations of the Kofun mentioned in the text; the number corresponds to a site report
number.
1. Hitachi Kitsunezuka; 2. Ōmaruyama; 3. Akuro No. 3; 4. Ame-no-miya No. 1; 5. Funakiyama
No. 98; 6. Kokōge No. 1; 7. Okunomae No. 1; 8. Nakayama B-1; 9. Inadō No. 15; 10.
Wakahachimangū; 11. Kumamoto-yama; 12. Ono-ōzuka; 13. Sonobekaichi; 14. Shikinzan; 15.
Ibaraki Shōgunyama; 16. Kuraokayama No. 3; 17. Kawaradani No. 1; 18. Azuchi-hyōtanyama; 19.
Ishiyama; 20. Tatezuka; 21. Uedono; 22. Niizawa No. 500; 23. Kamotsuba No. 1; 24. Taniguchi No.
1; 25. Gojō Ōhaka.

(Taniguchi tomb no. 1 example).
E: Curved rear-shoulder panel/All tiers overlap upwards/Plate length–width ratio 3/4(Uedono Kofun [North end of coﬃn] example).
His view of development was largely in line with Takahashi’s but his deﬁnition of TypeB, which combines the attributes of a single tier rear-shoulder panel, overlapping middle© Japanese Archaeological Association

124

THE DEVELOPMENT OF KOFUN-PERIOD IRON-FRAMED ARMOUR

Vertical-plateleather-laced cuirass

Horizontally organised plateleather-laced cuirass(with single-tier rearshoulder panel)

Horizontally organised plateleather-laced cuirass(with two-tier rearshoulder panel)

Framed horizontal-plateleather-laced cuirass

Figure 2. “Fourth-century Cuirasses” by Takahashi Katsuhisa.

tier, and plate length–width ratio of 4/2 (Azuchi-hyōtanyama Kofun, Shiga prefecture,
Figure 3-2), led Hashimoto to conclude that “It is diﬃcult to designate typological position
solely in terms of rear-shoulder panel morphology” (Hashimoto, T. 1996: p. 266). Also,
although not directly presenting a view of transition, Kobayashi Ken’ichi classiﬁed theleather lacing methods used in the horizontally organised plate cuirass into two techniques,of which he described “II: Lacing adjacent plates in each tier together on the left andright, and then attaching the plates above and below” as the primary method of lacing forthis cuirass, and also pointed out that this technique had links with the framed horizontalplate cuirass5 (Kobayashi, K. 1995: p. 60). This is an important observation that is closely
related to the view of horizontally organised plate cuirass transition based on plate shapes
and placement, as explained in the next section below.

(2) Views of the changes based on plate shapes and placement

Classiﬁcation according to plate shapes and placement. Takahashi and Hashimoto’s
assessments of the transition in vertical-plate cuirass and horizontally organised plate
cuirass attributes appear to be highly appropriate, with no changes in the basic frameworkneeded. However, the changes that took place in the horizontally organised plate cuirassbear reexamining. The present study shifts the emphasis to prioritise plate shapes andplacement (Takahashi, K. 1993: pp. 121–123; Nakaya ed. 2005: p. 156; Furuya 2005: pp.
272–273). Horizontally organised plate cuirasses are divided into two groups based onplate shape and placement as shown below6 (Table 1; Figure 3).
Group I: Cuirasses constructed of long, vertical rectangular plates, with the verticalalignment of the plates tending to be a straight line.
Group II: Cuirasses constructed with an inverted trapezoidal plate in the upper centre of
5 Another technique where “I: Rectangular plates were ﬁrst connected above and below, and then adjacent plates sewn

together left and right” was identiﬁed only in the front left torso of the example excavated at Kawaradani tomb no. 1.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

125

SAKAGUCHI Hideki

Figure 3. The vertical-plate cuirass, the horizontally-organised plate cuirass and the framed
horizontal-plate cuirass.
1. Vertical-plate cuirass (Shikinzan Kofun); 2. Horizontally organised plate cuirass Group I(Azuchihyōtan-yama Kofun); 3. Horizontally organised plate cuirass Group II (Inadō tomb no. 15) ;4. Framed horizontal-plate cuirass (Ono-ōzuka Kofun).
© Japanese Archaeological Association

126

THE DEVELOPMENT OF KOFUN-PERIOD IRON-FRAMED ARMOUR

the rear torso, ﬂanked by wide parallelogram-shaped plates on either side, where thevertical alignment of the plates tends not to form a straight line.
As we can see from the research history, scholars’ basic approach was to focus on thediﬀerence in plate size between Group I horizontally organised plate cuirasses and GroupII horizontally organised plate cuirasses, and to assume the shift from Group I horizontallyorganised plate cuirasses to Group II horizontally organised plate cuirasses based on
advances in forging techniques; but this analysis now also seeks to emphasise changes indesign principles and assembly processes. In other words, the author notes that the plate
design of the Group II horizontally organised plate cuirass presupposed intra-tier joints,
which were commonly found in iron-framed armour (Furuya 1996: p. 65).
In the vertical-plate cuirass, long vertical strips are connected left and right, and thenlaced together above and below to make up the entire piece. The plate structure of GroupII horizontally organised plate cuirasses, on the other hand, clearly shows that groups ofplates connected within each tier are ﬁrst joined to other tiers above and below (Furuya
1996: p. 65), and then the whole piece is made up by lacing these sections together left
and right (Kobayashi Ken’ichi, Leather lacing process II).7 Some Group I horizontallyorganised plate cuirasses, for example those at Kawaradani tomb no. 1 in Kyoto prefecture,
are reported to have passed through a process similar to the vertical-plate cuirass, in which
each row of plates was ﬁrst connected left to right, before being laced up above and below
to compete the piece (Kobayashi Ken’ichi, Leather lacing process I), (Hashimoto, S. et al.
1994: p. 49; Ishii & Arii eds. 1997: pp. 58, 130).8 On the other hand, looking at cuirasses
at Sonobekaichi Kofun in Kyoto prefecture and Wakahachimangū Kofun in Fukuoka
prefecture, we ﬁnd that although their plate structure ﬁts that of Group I horizontallyorganised plate cuirasses, the overlap of the plates makes it clear that these are connected
within their tier, so it is possible to see the attribute of “overlapping middle tier” in these6 When actually classifying the data, there were examples for which determining the allocation to Group I or Group II wasvery diﬃcult. Because it is not the purpose of this paper to allocate every individual piece to a group, but rather, as explainedlater, to point out the vital importance of the deﬁnitive establishment of intra-tier joints at a speciﬁc stage of horizontallyorganised plate cuirass development, items clearly constructed with an inverted trapezoidal shape in the upper centre of therear torso ﬂanked by parallelogram-shaped wide plates on both sides, and items in which the vertical alignment of the plates
is conﬁrmed not to be straight, have been assigned to Group II. Moreover, as discussed in this paper, even items in Group I
generally have a high probability of intra-tier joining.
7 Lee Hyeonju makes the same observations about plate armour excavated in the south of the Korean Peninsula (Lee 2008:
pp. 59–61, 83–84). In other words, Lee considers horizontally organised plate armour an intermediate morphology between
vertical plate armour based on vertical design principles, and iron-framed plate armour based on horizontal design principles,so maintains that horizontally organised plate armour was already in the process of changing to horizontal design principles.
As only plate morphology is selected, while types of joining technique and derivation are disregarded, and the forms are notorganised in chronological order, this suggestion is not convincing.
8 The general state of preservation of artefacts at Kawaradani tomb no. 1 is not good, and this process was noted in only an
extremely limited section of the left front torso. It is assumed to be a ‘special’ or ‘irregular’ procedure applied just in this area
(Kobayashi, K. 1995: p. 60; Hashimoto, T. 1998: p. 53).
© Japanese Archaeological Association

127

SAKAGUCHI Hideki

two examples as a reﬂection of intra-tier joining. This feature leads us to think that intratier joints were the norm in the horizontally organised plate cuirass regardless of the plate
shape and placement (Kobayashi, K. 1995: p. 60).
However, at the very least, the Group II horizontally organised plate cuirass, which
had a plate design clearly intended for intra-tier joining, can be conﬁrmed as postdating
the Group I horizontally organised plate cuirass, whose plate design is morphologicallyvery similar to the vertical-plate cuirass. If we evaluate these according to their assembly
process and design principles, we ﬁnd that Group I items were created at a stage whereplate design was clearly not predicated on intra-tier joining, and Group II at a stage whereintra-tier joining had been established and fed back into plate design.
It is thought that one factor leading to the establishment of intra-tier joining is that it
is easier to ﬁt the armour to the human body, especially where it narrows at the waist,by adopting a “ring-building” type of design principle and assembly process in whichhorizontal plates are joined one above the other, rather than tall vertical plates connected
in a horizontal direction. This assumption probably constitutes one of the factors behind
the introduction of the basic design of the horizontally organised plate cuirass, namely its
three-tier plate structure. In other words, the horizontally organised plate cuirass adopted aform oriented toward the use of intra-tier joints from its inception.

Correspondence with the rear-shoulder panel and placket plates

The following is a summary of what we can deduce about changes in the horizontallyorganised plate cuirass, based on correspondence between the views of the changes
presented above and the various attributes of the cuirass such as the rear-shoulder panel
and placket plates (Table 1).
Firstly, with regard to the rear-shoulder panel: because the two-tier structured examples
at Sonobekaichi Kofun and Wakahachimangū Kofun both belong to Group I horizontallyorganised plate cuirasses, they are considered, in essence, to each support this view of theother’s development. However, it is important to bear in mind that these two examplesof two-tier structure appear to employ intra-tier joining, as mentioned earlier. In view ofthis, as well as the fact that there exist examples of Group I horizontally organised plate
cuirasses, like that at Kawaradani tomb no. 1, with single-tier rear-shoulder panels andincomplete use of intra-tier joints, we should assume that the process of change from theGroup I horizontally organised plate cuirass to the Group II horizontally organised plate
cuirass did not feature a monophyletic transition from a two-tier to a one-tier rear-shoulder
panel. Furthermore, in the cuirass from Wakahachimangū Kofun there is a perforationin the central upper edge of rear-shoulder panel, and in that from Funakiyama Kofun
tomb no. 98 in Gifu prefecture, a perforation made in the central lower edge of the rearshoulder panel is used to lace in a semi-circular plate, signifying that rear-shoulder panel© Japanese Archaeological Association

128

THE DEVELOPMENT OF KOFUN-PERIOD IRON-FRAMED ARMOUR

morphology includes a number of variations that make it diﬃcult to attribute changes totechnical factors. This also suggests, from another angle, how diﬃcult it is to designate
typological position solely in terms of rear-shoulder panel morphology.
Secondly, with regard to placket plates, there is a view, based on the morphologicalsimilarity with the framed horizontal-plate cuirass, that placket plates ﬁtted at both the left
and right sides were a later development (Ishii & Arii eds. 1997: pp. 58, 130). However,while Group I does include examples like those at Sonobekaichi Kofun and Kawaradani
tomb no. 1 with placket plates ﬁtted on left and right, because there are examples ofGroup II horizontally organised plate cuirasses, such as Nakayama tomb B-1, with aplacket plate ﬁtted in the left front torso only, it is not possible to justify the hypothesis ofa monophyletic line of transition from items with no placket plate to those with placket
plates at left and right. This is also supported by the fact that although not numerous,
there are examples of framed horizontal-plate cuirasses, like those at Kokōge tomb no. 1
in Tottori prefecture and Akuro tomb no. 2 in Shizuoka prefecture, with no placket plates(Takahashi, K. 1993: p. 124).
Having examined the correlation with rear-shoulder panels and placket plates, nodiscrepancies were found with respect to other attributes either, so one can naturally
conclude that these results correspond well with the list of Types A–E established by
Hashimoto (Table 1). Furthermore, this also points to the possibility of subdividing Type
C.9 Speciﬁcally, it could be divided into examples from Kawaradani tomb no. 1, as well as
Uedono Kofun (South end of coﬃn), Niizawa Senzuka tomb no. 500 and Kamotsuba tomb
no. 1 in Nara prefecture, which belong to Group I; and Nakayama tomb B-1, Shimane
prefecture, Funakiyama tomb no. 98, Gifu prefecture, Inadō tomb no. 15 in Fukuoka
prefecture, and Kumamoto-yama Kofun in Saga prefecture, which belong to Group II.
Because the rear-shoulder panel, placket plates and other attributes of the horizontallyorganised plate cuirass each display variations, their distinctive and non-standard aspects
were often the ones to be emphasised. Although this certainly is one characteristic featureof the horizontally organised plate cuirass, by changing the perspective somewhat andtracing changes in plate shape and placement, the transition in design principles andproduction processes that link the vertical-plate cuirass with the framed horizontal-plate
cuirass will emerge more clearly.

Accompanying grave goods

Let us now examine the picture of transition in vertical-plate cuirasses and horizontallyorganised plate cuirasses obtained so far, from the perspective of other grave goods buried
alongside them.
9 Hashimoto Tatsuya also discusses the subdivision of Type C (Hashimoto, T. 1996: pp. 266–267, 1998: p. 62).

© Japanese Archaeological Association

129

SAKAGUCHI Hideki

If we look at Morishita Shōji’s study (Morishita 2005), although examples of GroupII horizontally organised plate cuirasses available for research are in short supply, thosestudied generally correspond well with the chronology of the mirrors and stone artefacts
that accompanied them. There are, however, some cases of cuirasses that are somewhat
at odds with the dating of other burial goods, such as those found at Kamotsuba tomb1 where excavations revealed a horizontally organised plate cuirass which although inGroup I, belonged to Type C, and at Shikinzan Kofun, where a vertical-plate cuirass was
excavated. It is necessary to study these with great care, bearing in mind factors likethe uncertainty about the time-lag between production and burial in the tomb, and thepossibility that some of the burial objects might have been long-time possessions before
they were interred. Judging by the evidence currently available, it appears that the verticalplate cuirass was produced for only a short period, and that its production and that of thehorizontally organised plate cuirass began at approximately the same time.

III. The Emergence of Iron-framed Armour
As we saw from the research history, it has been posited that the framed horizontal-plate
cuirass was the initial form of iron-framed armour, as part of the technical heritage of thehorizontally organised plate cuirass. In the previous section that view was augmented froma diﬀerent perspective, based on the fact that the phenomenon of intra-tier lacing, using thesame assembly process as the framed horizontal-plate cuirass, was identiﬁed at the stage
when production of horizontally organised plate cuirasses had advanced to a certain extent.
This section focuses on the new structure of this framed horizontal-plate cuirass, namely
the emergence of the frame itself, consisting of front-chest panel, rear-shoulder panel, ironbands and base panels.
The emergence of the frame was considered a momentous change, which may havebeen explained in terms of overseas contact involving “imported technology,” possibly
because of the large diﬀerence in external appearance from the horizontally organised
plate cuirass (Kobayashi, K. 1974b: p. 38; Kobayashi, Y. 1982: p. 33). Certainly, factors
like the shift from the semi-circular front-chest panel and rear-shoulder panel of thehorizontally organised plate cuirass to the front-chest- and rear-shoulder panels of theframed horizontal-plate cuirass, whose edges drop down at the sides, and the emergenceof the iron bands and base panels, constituted a major change involving fundamental
alterations in design. However, as we can see from the existence of examples like thehorizontally organised plate cuirass with collar excavated from Uedono Kofun (North endof coﬃn; Figure 4) with the latter type of front-chest panel shape but no iron bands or basepanels, there is a high likelihood that these changes occurred in stages.10 Moreover, thehorizontally organised plate cuirass excavated in 2010 from Kuraokayama tomb no. 3 in
© Japanese Archaeological Association

130THE DEVELOPMENT OF KOFUN-PERIOD IRON-FRAMED ARMOUR

Kyoto prefecture (Figure 5) featured the latter type of rear-shoulder panel shape as wellas base panels, but no iron bands. These examples make the hypothesis described above
even more likely (Ōtsubo 2011: p. 103; Sakaguchi 2013: Note 4; Hashimoto, T. 2014: 94;
Kawahata 2015: Note 13).
Although a detailed report has yet to be published, we shall now look at ﬁndings on thehorizontally organised plate cuirass excavated from Kuraokayama tomb no. 3 revealed ina measured drawing (Ōtsubo 2011: Figure 5), and then go on to examine the emergence

Schematic diagram of development

Figure 4.

Horizontally organised plate cuirass with collar, excavated from Uedono Kofun.

Figure 5.

Horizontally organised plate cuirass excavated from Kuraokayama tomb no. 3

10 Takahashi Katsuhisa stated that “the collared version originally developed separately from the horizontally organised plate

cuirass, evolving a frame sooner through the use of iron bands, and, along with the use of long horizontal plate, must be
regarded as having a diﬀerent derivation” (Takahashi, K. 1993: p. 124), but because coloured examples share features likeleather-lacing method 1 and their method of bordering, they can be considered to have the same lineage as other horizontallyorganised plate cuirasses (Hashimoto, T. 1996: p. 267, 1998: pp. 62–63). This author would like to consider that among
Group II horizontally organised plate cuirasses they are the closest to the framed horizontal-plate cuirass.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

131

SAKAGUCHI Hidekiof the iron-framed cuirass, that is, the emergence of the frame, examining separately thefront-chest panel, rear-shoulder panel, base panels and iron bands.

Cuirass excavated at Kuraokayama tomb no. 3

At the time of writing the previous paper (Sakaguchi 2010), the collared, horizontallyorganised plate cuirass excavated from Uedono Kofun (Figure 4) was the only example
we knew of that clearly demonstrated transitional morphology towards the cuirass. The
horizontally organised plate cuirass excavated from Kuraokayama tomb no. 3 in 2010displays a morphology transitional towards the framed horizontal-plate cuirass, although
its characteristics diﬀer from the Uedono Kofun example. The oﬃcial report is yet to be
published, but the survey drawings of the most important artefacts have been made public(Ōtsubo 2011: Figure 5). Here, its characteristics are discussed within the range of thissection, based on the measured drawing of the cuirass (Figure 5).

The overall structureThis horizontally organised plate cuirass has a four-tier front torso and ﬁve-tier rear torso
structure. It is constructed from a total of 29 iron plates. Horizontal joining is organisedwith the lowest plate at the centre of the rear torso, and each new plate overlapping theprevious one, around to the front torso. Vertical joining is organised with upper tiers
overlapping the ones below on both the front and rear torso as a general rule, with only thebase panel of the lowest tier contravening this rule and overlapping the layer above.

The front torso

The front torso structure consists of one upper tier and three lower tiers on the left andright sides, with a placket plate at the left front only. There are perforations at the edge ofthe right front torso beside the placket plate, and the structure allows for a series of placket
plates; it appears that a leather strap was wound through these perforations in a spiral.
Although not tight enough in structure to be called bordering, it is assumed that this wasapplied with the same intended eﬀect as bordering.
The left front torso is constructed of nine iron plates including the packet plate. The
ﬁrst tier of the upper cuirass consists of three front-chest panels. All three have leatherbordering on the upper edge. One plate nearest the placket is shaped as though it hadoriginally been created by joining together the upper half of the front-chest panel and aplate of the second upper tier of a framed horizontal-plate cuirass. The middle plate and theplate nearest the back torso are shaped as though created by splitting the lower half of thefront-chest panel of a framed horizontal-plate cuirass into two. The ﬁrst tier of the lower
torso is composed of two plates. Both of these are pierced with perforations at their upperedge that ﬁt the shape of the front-chest panel. The second tier of the lower torso also
© Japanese Archaeological Association

132

THE DEVELOPMENT OF KOFUN-PERIOD IRON-FRAMED ARMOUR

consists of two metal plates, both of which are horizontal rectangles. The third tier of thelower torso is a single base panel. Leather-bordering has been adopted to the lower edge.
The right front torso is composed of nine iron plates. The ﬁrst tier of the upper torso
consists of four iron plates. All have leather bordering along the upper edge. The two plates
on the placket side look as though the plate nearest the placket was split into two. From theﬁrst lower tier downwards, all plates are exactly as on the left front torso.

The rear torso

The rear torso is composed of two upper tiers and three lower tiers. The ﬁrst upper tieris a single-plate rear-shoulder panel. The edges extend down to the sides, just as in theframed horizontal-plate cuirass. The second upper tier consists of three plates. The upperedge is shaped to ﬁt the rear-shoulder panel, and is similar in shape to the second upper
tier of the framed horizontal-plate cuirass. The ﬁrst lower tier consists of three plates.
All three are basically horizontal rectangles, although the central plate has a very slightinverted trapezium form, and the plates on either side tend slightly towards parallelogram
forms. The second lower tier also consists of three plates. All three are vertical rectangles,
although the central plate has a very slight inverted trapezium form. The third lower tier isa single base panel. Leather-bordering was adopted to its lower edge.

Distinctive features

The following features of this piece can be classiﬁed as transitional characteristics,
changing towards the framed horizontal-plate cuirass:
A. The shape of the rear-shoulder panel, whose edges drop to the sides.
B. It has a base panel consisting of two plates for the front torso and one plate for the backtorso.
C. The front-chest panel does not adopt the same shape as that of the framed horizontalplate cuirass, but it does share with the framed horizontal-plate cuirass the fact that thispanel descends at the sides and is connected to the rear-shoulder panel, making it clearly
distinct from the front-chest panels found in other horizontally organised plate cuirasses.
D. Plates are vertically aligned only in the central column of the back torso, and haveclearly been joined within their tier.
A and B are elements of the frame shared with the framed horizontal-plate cuirass, and if
C is taken into account, the outer frame can be considered virtually complete. However, it
is signiﬁcant that there are no iron bands, so it cannot be classiﬁed as iron-framed armour.
Until now this piece has been treated as a horizontally organised plate cuirass without any
particular explanation; it is this point that provides the basis for this decision.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

133

SAKAGUCHI HidekiComparison with the framed horizontal-plate cuirass

The characteristics that lie within the scope of this paper are detailed above, but there areother important points to mention when this piece is compared with the framed horizontalplate cuirass.
The back torso plates are structured in three tiers, matching those of the framed
horizontal-plate cuirass. In other words, if a metal band were inserted between each tier ofplates, the structure of the components would be the same as the framed horizontal-plate
cuirass. Because the iron bands are absent, the height of each tier of plates is greater thanthose of the framed horizontal-plate cuirass; this is particularly noticeable in the vertical
rectangles forming the second lower tier.
When it comes to the front, too, although the structure of the upper torso is diﬀerent; thelower torso is constructed such that if an iron band were interposed between two tiers ofiron plates, it would result in a stable structure like the framed horizontal-plate cuirass. Just
as in the rear torso, the absence of iron bands means that all plates are taller than those of
the framed horizontal-plate cuirass.
Because of these points, along with features A and B described above, this example
was considered a framed horizontal-plate cuirass without the iron bands, but the factthat it varies considerably from the framed horizontal-plate cuirass—its front-chest
panel is divided into three plates—and especially because one plate attached to the rearshoulder panel is small and irregularly shaped, it appears to belong to a phase before
standardisation, so this hypothesis does not hold up.
Furthermore, it is important to note that tiers one and two of the lower torso in this piece
are each composed of seven plates, as compared with the earliest type—Type I—of framed
horizontal-plate cuirass, where we have an example of the ﬁrst and third tiers of the lower
torso each consisting of nine plates (see Chapter 7). This means that not only the height
but also the horizontal width of each of these plates exceeded those of the Type I framed
horizontal-plate cuirass. This fact is at odds with the direction of typological change that
we envisage in the framed horizontal-plate cuirass, namely the reduction in plates numbersthat accompanied the expansion of large iron-plate forging technology.
When it comes to this example, one might presume that immediately prior to theestablishment of iron-framed armour, namely at the exploratory stage just before thestandardisation of armour, large plates were used on a trial-and-error basis. Since large
rear-shoulder panels were already in use at this stage, production techniques had certainly
reached a level where it was possible to forge large plates. However, even though it may
have been possible to produce certain components using the latest technology available
at that point, if the costs required to exploit the technology were disproportionate toproduction costs, it is quite conceivable that an artefact did not take hold and was not
mass-produced. We can envisage this example as having been produced under such
© Japanese Archaeological Association

134

THE DEVELOPMENT OF KOFUN-PERIOD IRON-FRAMED ARMOUR

circumstances.
Based on the excavation of this example, let us take a fresh look at the creation of thefront-chest panel, the rear-shoulder panel, base panels and iron bands in turn below.

The front-chest panel and the rear-shoulder panel

As outlined above, these panels changed from a “semi-circular” shape to one where their“edges drop down to the sides.” The greatest diﬀerence between these is that the formercase only deﬁnes the shape and size of the front torso and rear torso separately, whereas thelatter case deﬁnes the shape and size of the entire cuirass because the front-chest panel andrear-shoulder panel connect at the sides. According to this characteristic, the former are
known as “Independent front-chest and rear-shoulder panels” and the latter as the “Linked
front-chest and rear-shoulder panels.”
From a morphological point of view, the shift from “Independent front-chest andrear-shoulder panels” to “Linked front-chest and rear-shoulder panels” certainly gives
the impression of an abrupt change, but if we consider the diﬀerences between the twoformats described above, it is perfectly possible that this shift occurred autonomously inthe context of improvements in cuirass production to create proportions better ﬁtting thehuman body, as well as moves to improve functionality through greater strength and otheradaptations. At this stage, the oldest known example of a cuirass ﬁtted with a linked frontchest panel like that of the framed horizontal-plate cuirass is the collared horizontallyorganised plate cuirass excavated from Uedono Kofun. Taking full account of this, andbearing in mind the theory that the morphology of the collared cuirass emerged through achange of media, when wooden armour switched to iron (Suzuki 1999: p. 494; Hashimoto,T. 2003: p. 195), one can suppose that the eﬀort to achieve this complex form triggered thecreation of the linked front-chest panel.
On the other hand, at this stage the oldest known example of a linked rear-shoulder
panel is that of the horizontally organised plate cuirass excavated at Kuraokayama tomb
no. 3. Its front-chest panel does ﬁt the criteria of the linked front-chest panel in that itconnects to the rear-shoulder panel, but it consists of a complex set of connected ironplates, so diﬀers in structure and shape from that of the framed horizontal-plate cuirass,whose front-chest panel consists of a single plate. In other words, we do not, at this point,know of any horizontally organised plate cuirasses ﬁtted with linked front-chest and rearshoulder panels that fully match the framed horizontal-plate cuirass. Nevertheless, its
production was technically entirely feasible, so if we postulate that it was produced at
the exploratory stage immediately prior to standardisation, it is quite possible that suchan artefact existed. When we survey armour and artefacts from the Chinese continent
and Korean Peninsula, we currently do not ﬁnd any contemporaneous data considered
to be genealogically related to the connected front-chest panel and rear-shoulder panel.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

135

SAKAGUCHI Hideki

Considering that fact, we can rule out the need to prioritise external triggers for its
emergence.

The base panel

It is clear from the excavation at Kuraokayama tomb no. 3 that examples of armour ﬁtted
with base panels existed since the stage of the horizontally organised plate cuirass. Thebase panel in this example consists of two plates in the front torso and one for the backtorso, displaying the same base-panel structure as the framed horizontal-plate cuirass.
It is clear that there was a transition from a base panel made up of a connected group ofiron plates, commonly found in horizontally organised plate cuirasses, to a base made upof three plates, and also that base panels emerged before iron bands; these two points areimportant new, mutually inﬂuential ﬁndings.
There is a view that the emergence of base panels in the Japanese archipelago isrelated to base panels found in vertical plate riveted armour in the south of the Korean
Peninsula (Takahashi K. 1993: p. 125; Hashimoto, T. 2013: p. 339), and there certainly
is a high level of morphological similarity between them. However, when we look atother parts of the cuirass, we ﬁnd that the structure of the framed horizontal-plate cuirass
and vertical plate riveted armour are totally diﬀerent, so it is hard to imagine a directtechnical inﬂuence applying only to the base panel. Nevertheless, if armour makers in theJapanese archipelago did have the occasion to come into direct contact with vertical plate
riveted armour, it is absolutely feasible that they would see the base panel as a positive
advancement which they could employ in the horizontally organised plate cuirass, andactually make copies of it. As a side note, the shape of the widening base panel has been
identiﬁed since the stage of the vertical-plate cuirass (Takahashi, K. 1993: pp. 121–122).
On the other hand, if one considers the establishment of intra-tier joining in thehorizontally organised plate cuirass, seen in the last section, to have occurred at thepreceding stage, it is easy to see the creation of the base panels as an autonomous
improvement. In other words, once a production process was established where groups ofplates were joined within tiers, and the tiers connected above and below, the groundwork
was laid for the creation of long horizontally aligned members such as the base panel.
The author would like to consider the background to the creation of this kind of long,horizontal member as an improvement in productivity. Because connecting components
using leather lacing method 1 required all parts to be made using an advanced production
system (Tsukamoto 1993: p. 23), rather than joining large groups of plates to form each tierand then further connecting these tiers together, it is conceivable that replacing one of thesewith a long transversal member would improve working eﬃciency. Moreover, it can also
be assumed that avoiding the overlaps where the iron plates were joined together would
improve robustness. Furthermore, switching the group of plates in the lowest tier, the base
© Japanese Archaeological Association

136

THE DEVELOPMENT OF KOFUN-PERIOD IRON-FRAMED ARMOUR

panel, to a long transverse member, may well have triggered the idea that this could also
serve as a frame.

The iron bands

When it comes to iron bands, their creation, seen from the same perspective as base panels,
can also be considered an autonomous improvement. Just as the base panel, there areusually three plates surrounding the entire torso that form the iron band in the second lower
tier, and these are joined in the same relative positions as base panels, so one can imagine
that the origins of these components were very closely related.
Just as in the basal section, where a group of connected plates switched to a three-platebase panel, it is thought that instead of further connecting large groups of joined plates intiers, the working process was rationalised by interposing an iron band. Moreover, one canagain assume that makers increased resilience by avoiding overlapping iron-plate joints.
There are a certain number of framed horizontal-plate cuirasses without an iron band in thethird upper tier of the front torso, and this can be seen as a reﬂection of the fact that an ironband in the third upper tier of the front torso does not really make a structural contribution
to improving operational eﬃciency and resilience.
Moreover, reconstructions have identiﬁed the iron band in the second lower tier as animportant member deﬁning the overall proportions of cuirasses (Aoki & Ozawa 1974: p.
13). This points to the signiﬁcant role that iron bands played in the movement towards
shaping the cuirass to better ﬁt the proportions of the human body.

Summary

The creation of the frame in the development of iron-framed armour can in large part be
explained in terms of advances in forging technology and accompanying autonomous
improvements as described above. Moreover, one can assume that the establishment of
intra-tier joints, a transitional development in the horizontally organised plate cuirass,provided the technical foundation for the creation of the frame.
In contrast, Hashimoto says of the creation of the front-chest panel, rear-shoulder
panel and base panel, that “it is possible to follow the process of trial and error in verticalplate armour, and see their creation as a related phenomenon inﬂuenced by this process”(Hashimoto, T. 2013: Note (4)). This author concurs in not completely negating any
inﬂuence from vertical plate armour. However, although it is true that vertical plate armour
as a whole changed towards the use of linked front-chest and rear-shoulder panels, thereis tremendous variation between individual artefacts. When we look at changes in verticalplate armour according to Song Jeong-Shik we ﬁnd examples without a front-chest panel
even at Stage II and others still bearing independent front-chest and rear-shoulder panels
at Stage III (Song 2003, 2012). Moreover, Song draws attention to that fact that base
© Japanese Archaeological Association

137

SAKAGUCHI Hideki

panels, ﬁtted to vertical plate armour since its inception in the Korean Peninsula, were notused on iron cuirasses in the Japanese archipelago in the initial period. Contrasting thesepoints with the arguments presented in this chapter lead one to think that the frame wascreated via a diﬀerent route in the Korean Peninsula from that of the Japanese archipelago.
Although it may be possible to see these as “linked phenomena” in the bigger picture, thispublication is keen to emphasise the role of autonomous improvement.
Furthermore, the collared horizontally organised plate cuirass excavated from Uedono
Kofun is ﬁtted with a linked front-chest panel like the framed horizontal-plate cuirass but
has no base panel, whereas the horizontally organised plate cuirass from Kuraokayama
Kofun tomb no. 3, with linked rear-shoulder panel like the framed horizontal-plate cuirass,does have a base panel. In other words, the standardised usage of linked front-chestand rear-shoulder panels and base panels paints a complex picture, and it is diﬃcult toaccurately assess the order of their appearance. This situation is likely also indicative of the
exploratory, trial-and-error phase of production, immediately before the standardisation ofarmour (Table 2).
The study above, when combined with the legacy of techniques like lacing method 1 andbordering techniques, can be considered to reconﬁrm that the three forms—the verticalplate cuirass, horizontally organised plate cuirass, and framed horizontal-plate cuirass—are connected in a single technical lineage. The process leading to the emergence of theframed horizontal-plate cuirass is shown schematically (Figure 6) by combining the viewof the transition of the vertical-plate cuirass previously published (Sakaguchi 2005) and thetransition in the horizontally organised plate cuirass described in this paper.

Conclusion

This article has traced the development of iron-framed armour, namely the emergence ofthe framed horizontal-plate cuirass, from a perspective that emphasises its technical lineage
inherited from earlier generations of armour. When we focus on changes in plate shape andplacement in the vertical-plate cuirass and the horizontally organised plate cuirass, we get aclearer idea of the way that design principles and assembly processes continually shifted in
the direction of the framed horizontal-plate cuirass. At the same time the technical basis forthe creation of the frame, the determinant factor in the development of iron-framed armour,is considered to have been realised as a result of the establishment of intra-tier joints in thehorizontally organised plate cuirass. The frame of reference and attributes of interest in
this paper are, in the main, subjects of earlier research, but re-examining and reconﬁguring
them from a diﬀerent perspective allows for a more systematic and concrete explanation of
the process of development of iron-framed armour than has hitherto been possible.
Moreover, by doing this it is possible to conﬁrm that, while being inﬂuenced in thisprocess of emergence and change by organic armour and armour from the southern Korean© Japanese Archaeological Association138

horizontally-organised/ Group TYPE C
leather laced
II

Inadō 15139——

framed horizontal-plate/ Ia
Leather lacedframed horizontal-plate/ Ib
Leather laced

TatezukaIshiyama

LinkedLinkedLinkedLinkedLinkedWith collar

Linked

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

×
〇
〇
〇

〇
〇
〇

×

〇
×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

Base Iron
panel/s bands

3

3

3

5

3

3

3

3

3

3

Number of
tiers

5

5

5

3・5

3

9

11

11

12

13

(9)

(9)

9

9・9

7

9

12

12 ∼
13

12

14

7

(9)

9

9

7

9

13

12 ∼
13

12

15

Upper Middle Lower
tiers
tiers
tiers

Number of plates

Plates・Shaded cells indicate the latest phase of the “Frame” and “Plate” attributes.
・The number of plates given for the exhibit at Uedono Kofun (Small north entrance has been summarised as, from the top: levels 1 and 2, “Upper Tier”; levels 3
and 4, “Middle tier” and level 5, “Lower Tier.”

Left and Linked
right

Left and Linked
right

×

framed horizontal-plate/ Ia
Leather laced

Kokōge 1—(Left )

Uedono (northhorizontally-organised’ Group TYPE E
end of coﬃn) Collared/Leather laced II(Linked)horizontally-organised/ Group —leather laced
II

Kuraokayama 3

Left

Left and ×
righthorizontally-organised/ Group TYPE D
leather laced
II

Taniguchi 1

Independent

Left and Independent Independentright

Independent Independent

Independent Independent

Independent Independent

Numberof tiers

Rear shoulder panel

Classiﬁcation Classiﬁcation

Front chest
panel

Kumamotoyama horizontally-organised/ Group TYPE C
leather laced
II×horizontally-organised/ Group〈TYPE C〉 ×
leather laced
II

Funakiyama 98

Left

Placketplate/shorizontally-organised/ Group TYPE C
leather lacedII

Hashimoto,T. 1998

Classiﬁcation

Nakayama B-1

Form

Frame

Changes in the frame and number of plates during the development of the iron-framed cuirass

Kofun excavated

Table 2.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF KOFUN-PERIOD IRON-FRAMED ARMOUR© Japanese Archaeological Association

SAKAGUCHI Hideki

Figure 6.

The emergence of iron-framed armour

Peninsula, Early Kofun period production of vertical-plate cuirasses and horizontallyorganised plate cuirasses in the Japanese archipelago was based on an uninterrupted
technical lineage which can be considered to presage the beginnings of iron-framedarmour production that ﬂourished in the Middle Kofun era to follow (Sakaguchi 2009:p. 11). Iron-framed armour, a politically signiﬁcant artefact which appears to have been
© Japanese Archaeological Association

140

THE DEVELOPMENT OF KOFUN-PERIOD IRON-FRAMED ARMOUR

distributed along with the granting of the highest level of authority by central government
in the Middle Kofun period, can be thought to have been created autonomously in the
midst of a search for improvements in productivity and functionality, in the context ofdevelopments in forging techniques built upon the technical legacy of earlier generations.

References
AOKI Shigeo & OZAWA Masami 1974. Nagatoro-Nishi Kofun shutsudo tankō no hozon
shūri to fukugen mozō nitsuite [Preservation, restoration, and construction of a replicaof iron cuirass excavated at the Nagatoro-Nishi Mounded Tomb, Gunma Prefecture].
MUSEUM No. 285: 10–18. 青木繁夫・小沢正実 1974「長瀞西古墳出土短甲の保存修
理と復原模造について」『MUSEUM 東京国立博物館美術誌』No. 285、pp. 10–18.
FUJITA Kazutaka 1984. Keikō hennen to sono igi [Chronology of Kofun-period irongorget]. Kansai Daigaku Kōkogaku Kenkyū Kiyō 4: 55–72. 藤田和尊 1984「頚甲編年とその意義」『関西大学考古学研究紀要』4、pp. 55–72.
FURUYA Takeshi 1990. Kofun jidai katchū kenkyū no hōhō to kadai [Methods and issues
in research on Kofun-period armor]. Kōkogaku Zasshi 76(1): 117–118. 古谷毅 1990
『考古学雑誌』第 76 巻第 1 号、pp. 117–118.
「古墳時代甲胄研究の方法と課題」
FURUYA Takeshi 1996. Kofun jidai katchū kenkyū no hōhō to kadai [Methods and issues
in research on Kofun-period armor]. Kōkogaku Zasshi 81(4): 58–85. 古谷毅 1996「古墳時代甲胄研究の方法と課題」『考古学雑誌』第 81 巻第 4 号、pp. 58–85.
FURUYA Takeshi 2005. 15-gō-fun shutsudo no hōkeiban kawatoji tankō no kōzō totokuchō [Structure and features of a horizontally organized plate leather-laced cuirass
excavated in the Tomb No. 15], in YAMANAKA Hidehiko (ed.) Inadō Kofun-Gun[Inadō Mounded Tomb Group]: 268–275. Reports of Investigations into Cultural
Heritages of Yukuhashi City, No. 32. Yukuhashi, Fukuoka Prefecture: Yukuhashi
Municipal Board of Education. 古谷毅 2005「15 号墳出土の方形板革綴短甲の構造と特徴」『稲童古墳群』行橋市文化財調査報告書第 32 集、pp. 268–275. 福岡県行橋市：
行橋市教育委員会．

FURUYA Takeshi 2006. Hōkeiban kawatoji tankō no kisoteki kenkyū [Comprehensive
study of a horizontally organized plate leather-laced cuirasses] (1). Tokyo Kokuritsu
Hakubutsukan Kiyō No. 41: 101–171. 古谷毅 2006「方形板革綴短甲の基礎的研究(1)」『東京国立博物館紀要』第 41 号、pp. 101–171.
HASHIMOTO Seiichi, KOBAYASHI Ken’ichi & IGA Takahiro 1994. Kofun jidai zenki
no tetsusei katchū no fukugen: Kyoto-Fu Kizu Chō Kawaradani Kofun shutsudo
no kozane kawatoji kabuto, hōkeiban kawatoji tankō [Reconstruction of iron armorof the Early Kofun period: Iron leather-laced lamellar helmet and rectangular-plateleather-laced cuirass excavated at the Kawaradani Mounded Tomb, Kyoto Prefecture].
Kōkogaku to Shizen Kagaku 27: 35–58. 橋本清一・小林謙一・伊賀高弘 1994「古墳時代前期の鉄製甲胄の復原—京都府木津町瓦谷古墳出土の小札革綴胄・方形板革綴短© Japanese Archaeological Association

141

SAKAGUCHI Hideki

甲—」『考古学と自然科学』第 27 号、pp. 35–58.
HASHIMOTO Tatsuya 1996. Kofun jidai zenki katchū no gijutsu to keifu [Technology
and evolution of iron armor of the Early Kofun period], in FUKUNAGA Shin’ya& SUGII Takeshi (eds.) Yukinoyama Kofun no kenkyū, Kōsatsu-hen [Study on the
Yukinoyama Mounded Tomb: Discussion]: 255–292. Yōkaichi City, Shiga Prefecture:
Yōkaichi Municipal Board of Education. 橋本達也 1996「古墳時代前期甲胄の技術と系譜」『雪野山古墳の研究』考察篇、pp. 255–292. 滋賀県八日市市：八日市市教育委
員会．

HASHIMOTO Tatsuya 1998. Tatehagi-ita, hōkeiban kawatoji tankō no gijutsu to keifu[Technology and evolution of vertical plate cuirasses and rectangular-plate leatherlaced cuirass]. Seikyū Gakujutsu Ronshū 12: 47–76. 橋本達也 1998「竪矧板・方形板
革綴短甲の技術と系譜」『青丘学術論集』第 12 集、pp. 47–76.
HASHIMOTO Tatsuya 2003. Yūkishitsu-sei katchū, tate, yugi, koroku, yumi [Armor,shields, quivers, and bows made from organic materials], in CHIGA Hisashi &MURAKAMI Yasuyuki (eds.) Kōko Shiryō Taikan [Archaeological data: Illustrated
survey], Vol. 7: 194–199. Tokyo: Shōgakukan. 橋本達也 2003「有機質製甲胄・盾・靫・胡簶・弓」千賀久・村上恭通（編）『考古資料大観』第 7 巻、pp. 194–199. 東京：
小学館．

HASHIMOTO Tatsuya 2005. Kofun jidai chūki katchū no shutsugen to chūki kaishi ron:
Shōrinzan Kofun to Tsudō-Shiroyama Kofun kara [Appearance of Middle-Kofunperiod type armor and consideration of the beginning of the Middle Kofun
period: Approach from the Shōrinzan and Tsudō-Shiroyama Mounded Tombs].
Machikaneyama Kōkogaku Ronshū [Collected Papers in Celebration of Professor
TSUDE Hiroshi’s Retirement]: 539–556. Toyonaka City, Osaka Prefecture: Dept. ofArchaeology, Osaka University. 橋本達也 2005「古墳時代中期甲胄の出現と中期開始論—松林山古墳と津堂城山古墳から—」『待兼山考古学論集—都出比呂志先生退任記
念—』pp. 539–556. 大阪大学考古学研究室．
HASHIMOTO Tatsuya 2013 Kofun Sangoku jidai no bankō no keifu [Genealogy of plate
cuirasses in the Kofun period of Japan and the Three Kingdom period of Korea]. In
OKAUCHI Mitsuzane (ed.) Gijutsu to kōryū no kōkogaku [Archaeology of techniques
and interactions]: 336–347. Tokyo: Dōseisha. 橋本達也 2013「古墳・三国時代の板甲の系譜」岡内三眞（編）『技術と交流の考古学』pp. 336–347. 東京：同成社．
HASHIMOTO Tatsuya 2014 Kofun jidai zenki kacchū no keishiki, keifu, nendairon[Forms, genealogy, and chronology of iron armour in the Early Kofun period].
Zenki kofun hen’nen wo saikō suru: Kōiki hen’nen sai-kōchiku no kokoromi[Reconsideration of chronological framework of the Early Kofun period: an attempt
to reconstruct cross-regional framework of chronology]: 91–99. Matsue, Shimane
Prefecture: Chūgoku, Shikoku Zempō-kōen-fun Kenkyū-Kai Dai-17-kai Kenkyū『前期古墳編年を
Shūkai. 橋本達也 2014「古墳時代前期甲胄の形式・系譜・年代論」
再考する— 広域編年再構築の試み—』中国四国前方後円墳研究会第 17 回研究集会、
pp. 91–99.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

142

THE DEVELOPMENT OF KOFUN-PERIOD IRON-FRAMED ARMOURISHI Kiyoshi & ARII Hiroyuki (ed.) 1997. Kawaradani Kofun [Kawaradani MoundedTomb]. Kyoto-Fu Iseki Chōsa Hōkoku-Sho [Reports of Archaeological Excavations in
Kyoto Prefecture]. Kyoto: Kyoto Prefectural Center for Archaeological Excavations
and Research. 石井清司・有井広幸（編）1997『瓦谷古墳群』京都府遺跡調査報告書第23 冊 京都府向日市：京都府埋蔵文化財調査研究センター．
KAWAHATA Jun 2015 Bugu ga kataru kodai-Shi: Kofun jidai shakai no kōzō
tenkan [Ancient Japanese history from the perspective of iron armour: structuraltransformation of the Kofun period society]. Kyoto: Kyoto University Press. 川畑純『武具が語る古代史 古墳時代社会の構造転換』京都大学学術出版会．
KOBAYASHI Ken’ichi 1974a. Katchū seisaku gijutsu no hensen to Kōjin no keitō[Evolution of armor production technology and schools of craftsmanship], Pt. 1.
Kōkogaku Kenkyū 20(4): 48–68. 小林謙一 1974a「甲胄製作技術の変遷と工人の系統『考古学研究』第 20 巻第 4 号、pp. 48–68.
（上）」KOBAYASHI Ken’ichi 1974b. Katchū seisaku gijutsu no hensen to Kōjin no keitō[Evolution of armor production technology and schools of draftsmanship], Pt. 2.
Kōkogaku Kenkyū 21(2): 37–49. 小林謙一 1974b「甲胄製作技術の変遷と工人の系統『考古学研究』第 21 巻第 2 号、pp. 37–49.
（下）」
KOBAYASHI Ken’ichi 1995. Kofun jidai ni-okeru shoki no katchū [Early types of armor
in the Kofun period], in Nara National Cultural Properties Research Institute staﬀ
(eds.) Bunkazai Ronsō [Advances in the study of cultural properties], Vol. 2: 57–63.
『文化財論叢』II、Kyoto: Dōhōsha. 小林謙一 1995「古墳時代における初期の甲胄」
pp. 57–63. 京都：同朋舎出版．
KOBAYASHI Ken’ichi 2000. Kofun jidai katchū no genryū wo saguru [In search for the
prototype of Kofun period armor], in KOBAYASHI Ken’ichi (ed.) Nikkan kodai niokeru maisō-hō no hikaku kenkyū [Comparative studies of mortuary practices inancient Korea and Japan]: 22–28. Report of Grant-in-Aid for Scientiﬁc Research(Category A[2]) for Fiscal Years from 1997 to 1999. Nara: Nara National Cultural
Properties Research Institute. 小林謙一 2000「古墳時代甲胄の源流を探る—日本と伽耶—」『日韓古代における埋葬法の比較研究』平成 9 年度〜 11 年度科学研究費補助金（基盤研究 (A)(2)）研究成果報告書、pp. 22–28. 奈良：奈良国立文化財研究所．
KOBAYASHI Ken’ichi 2002. Kofun jidai katchū no keifu to mokkō [Yayoi period wooden
cuirasses and the origins of Kofun period armor], in Nara National Cultural Properties
Research Institute staﬀ (eds.) Bunkazai Ronsō [Advances in the study of culturalproperties], Vol. 3: 77–84. Nara: Nara National Cultural Properties Research Institute.
小林謙一 2002「古墳時代甲胄の系譜と木甲」『文化財論叢』III 、pp. 77–84. 奈良文化財研究所学報第 65 冊 奈良：奈良文化財研究所．
KOBAYASHI Yukio 1965. “Jingū-Ōjin Ki” no jidai [Era of Empress Jingū and reign ofEmperor Ōjin as described in the Chronicles of Japan (720)]. Chōsen Gakuhō No. 36:『朝鮮学報』第 36 輯、pp. 25–47.
25–47. 小林行雄 1965「神功・応神紀の時代」
KOBAYASHI Yukio 1982. Kofun jidai no tankō no genryū [Origins of Kofun period
cuirasses], in Tezukayama Institute of Archaeology staﬀ (eds.) Nikkan kodai bunka no© Japanese Archaeological Association

143

SAKAGUCHI Hideki

nagare [Evolution of cultures in ancient Korea and Japan]: 21–33. Nara: Tezukayama『日・韓古代文化のInstitute of Archaeology. 小林行雄 1982「古墳時代の短甲の源流」
流れ』、pp. 21–33. 奈良：帝塚山考古学研究所．
LEE Hyeonju 2008. Samgukshidae eui Gapchu. Nikkan no Bugu: 56–90. Miyazaki:
Miyazaki Prefectural Museum of Archaeology at Saitobaru. 李賢珠 2008「三国時代甲胄」『日韓の武具』宮崎県立西都原考古博物館、pp. 56–90.
MORISHITA Shōji 2005. Zenki kofun fukusōhin no kumiawase [Assemblage of goods
deposited with the dead in the Early Kofun period]. Kōkogaku Zasshi 89(1): 1–31. 森
下章司 2005「前期古墳副葬品の組合せ」『考古学雑誌』第 89 巻第 1 号、pp. 1–31.
NAKAYA Katsuhiko (ed.) 2005. Shiseki Amenomiya Kofun-Gun [Amenomiya Mounded
Tomb Group, A nationally designated historic site]. Nakanoto Town, Ishikawa
Prefecture: Rokusei Township Board of Education. 中屋克彦（編）2005『史跡雨の宮古墳群』石川県中能登町：鹿西町教育委員会．
NOGAMI Jōsuke 1968. Kofun jidai ni-okeru katchū no hensen to sono gijutsu-shi tekiigi [Evolution of armor in the Kofun period and its technological and historicalsigniﬁcance]. Kōkogaku Kenkyū 14(4): 12–43. 野上丈助 1968「古墳時代における甲胄の変遷とその技術史的意義」『考古学研究』第 14 巻第 4 号、pp. 12–43.
SAKAGUCHI Hideki 1998. Chōhōban kawatoji tankō to sankakuban kawatoji tankō:
hensen to sono tokushitsu [Rectangular-plate and triangular-plate laced cuirasses:
Development and signiﬁcance]. Shirin 81(5): 607–645. 阪口英毅 1998「長方板革綴短甲と三角板革綴短甲—変遷とその特質—」『史林』第 81 巻第 5 号、pp. 607–645.
SAKAGUCHI Hideki 2005. Shikinzan kofun shutsudo bugu no sai-kentō [Re-examinationof armor excavated at the Shikinzan Mounded Tomb], in SAKAGUCHI Hideki (ed.)
Shikinzan Kofun no Kenkyū: Kofun jidai zenki ni-okeru taigai kōshō no kōkogakuteki kenkyū [Study on the Shikinzan Mounded Tomb: Archaeological approach toforeign interactions in the Early Kofun period]: 339–346. Report of Grant-in-Aid
for Scientiﬁc Research (Category B[2]) for Fiscal Years from 2002 to 2004. Kyoto:
Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University. 阪口英毅 2005「紫金山古墳出土武具の再検討」『紫金山古墳の研究—古墳時代前期における対外交渉の考古学的研究—』平成 14 〜 16 年度科学研究費補助金（基盤研究 (B)(2)）研究成果報告書、pp. 339–346.
京都大学大学院文学研究科．

SAKAGUCHI Hideki (ed.) 2006. Ono-ōzuka kofun shutsudo ibutsu hozon shori hōkokusho [Report of conservation treatment of artifacts excavated at the Ono-ōzuka
Mounded Tomb]. Ono City, Hyogo Prefecture: Ono Municipal Board of Education. 阪
口英毅（編）2006 『小野王塚古墳出土遺物保存処理報告書』小野市文化財調査報告第17 集 小野市教育委員会．
SAKAGUCHI Hideki 2009. Zenki, chūki-gata katchū no gijutsu keifu [Technical lineageof Early Kofun and Middle Kofun types of iron armour]. Kōkogaku Journal No. 581:
『月刊考古学ジャーナル』 No.
7–11. 阪口英毅 2009「前期・中期型甲胄の技術系譜」
581、pp. 7–11.
SAKAGUCHI Hideki 2010 Obigane-shiki kacchū no seiritsu [Appearance of iron-framed© Japanese Archaeological Association

144

THE DEVELOPMENT OF KOFUN-PERIOD IRON-FRAMED ARMOUR

armour]. Enko Tōhan [Collected papers in memory of Mr. Tōyama Akito] (Private『遠古publication): 305–320. Kyoto: Shin’yōsha. 阪口英毅 2010「帯金式甲冑の成立」
登攀』pp. 305–320. 遠山昭登君追悼論文集刊行会（京都：眞陽社）．
SAKAGUCHI Hideki 2013 Kacchū [Iron armour]. In HŌJŌ Yoshitaka (ed.) Kofun jidaino kōkogaku [Kofun period archaeology] Volume 4: Fukusōhin no keishiki to hen’nen[Typology and chronological frameworks of goods deposited with the dead]: 111–124.
『古墳時代の考古学』第 4 巻
Tokyo: Dōseisha. 阪口英毅 2013「甲冑」北條芳隆（編）『副葬品の型式と編年』東京：同成社、pp. 111–124.
SUENAGA Masao 1934. Nihon jōdai no katchū [Armor in early Japan]. Tokyo: Oka
Shoin. 末永雅雄 1934『日本上代の甲胄』東京：岡書院．
SUZUKI Kazunao 1999. Chōsō no bujin [Soldier in a bird costume]. Kokka Keisei-ki
no kōkogaku [Archaeology of state formation: Collected Papers in Celebration of
the Tenth Anniversary of the Dept. of Archaeology, Osaka University]: 487–502.
Toyonaka City, Osaka Prefecture: Dept. of Archaeology, Osaka University. 鈴木一
有 1999「鳥装の武人」『国家形成期の考古学—大阪大学考古学研究室 10 周年記念論集—』、pp. 487–502. 大阪府豊中市：大阪大学考古学研究室．
SONG Jeongsik 2003. Gaya Silla Jongjangpangap eui Jongjangpangap Yeongu, Gujo
Bokwon eul Jungshimeuro. Master’s thesis submitted to the Dept. of Archaeology,
Graduate School of National Busan University. 宋禎植 2003「加耶・新羅縦長板甲研
究—構造復元舎号令」幺呈—」釜山大学校大学院考古学科文学碩士学位論文．
SONG Jeongsik 2021. Gaya Jongjangpangap eui Jangshikjeok Yoso wa Sangjingjeok
Euieui. Yangdong-ri, Gaya reul Boda. National Gimhae Museum. 宋禎植 2021「加耶
縦長板甲の装飾的要素と象徴的意義」『良洞里、加耶を見る』国立金海博物館
TAKAHASHI Katsuhisa 1993. 4-seiki ni-okeru tankō no henka [Evolution of cuirasses
in the fourth century]. Shikinzan Kofun to Ishiyama Kofun [Shikinzan and Ishiyama
Mounded Tombs: Exhibition Catalogue]: 120–125. Kyoto: Kyoto University『紫金山古墳と石山古墳』pp.
Museum. 高橋克壽 1993「4 世紀における短甲の変化」
120–125. 京都大学文学部博物館図録第 6 冊 京都：京都大学文学部博物館．
TAKAHASHI Takumi 1993. Kawatoji kacchū no gijutsu [Techniques adopted to leather『月laced armor]. Kōkogaku Journal No. 366: 17–21. 高橋工 1993「革綴甲胄の技術」
刊考古学ジャーナル』No. 366、pp. 17–21.
TAKAHASHI Takumi 1995. Higashi-Asia ni-okeru katchū no keitō to Nihon [The armour of
East Asia and Japan: With particular emphasis on manufacturing styles and techniques
during and before the ﬁfth century]. Nihon Kōkogaku No. 2: 139–160. 高橋工 1995「東アジアにおける甲胄の系統と日本—特に 5 世紀までの甲胄製作技術と設計思想を中心に—」『日本考古学』第 2 号、pp. 139–160.
TAKIZAWA Makoto 1990. Kitsunezuka Kofun shutsudo no tankō [Cuirass excavated at
the Kitsunezuka Mounded Tomb]. Ibaraki-Ken Shi Kenkyū No. 64: 45–56. 滝沢誠『茨城県史研究』第 64 号、pp. 45–56.
1990「狐塚古墳出土の短甲」
TSUKAMOTO Toshio 1993. Byōdome katchū no gijutsu [Techniques adopted to rivetted『月刊考
armor]. Kōkogaku Journal No. 366: 22–26. 塚本敏夫 1993「鋲留甲胄の技術」© Japanese Archaeological Association

145

SAKAGUCHI Hideki

古学ジャーナル』No. 366、pp. 22–26.
YAMANAKA Hidehiko (ed.) Inadō Kofun-Gun Fukuoka-ken Yukuhashi-shi Inadō shozai
no Inadō Kofun-Gun hakkutsu chōsa hōkoku [Inadō Mounded Tomb Group]. Reportsof Investigations into Cultural Heritages of Yukuhashi City, No. 32. Yukuhashi,
Fukuoka Prefecture: Yukuhashi Municipal Board of Education. 山中英彦（編）2005『稲童古墳群—福岡県行橋市稲童所在の稲童古墳群調査報告—』行橋市文化財調査報
告書第 32 集 行橋市教育委員会
Site Reports
1. NISIMIYA Kazuo 1969. Hitachi Kitsunezuka Ibaraki Prefecture: Iwase Township
Board of Education. 西宮一男 1969『常陸狐塚』岩瀬町教育委員会；Takizawa 1990;
Hashimoto 1998
2. NISINA Yoshio 1931. Ōmaruyama kofun, in Yamanashi-Ken shiseki meishō tennen『山梨縣史蹟名勝天然記念物調査
kinenbutsu chōsa hōkoku 仁科義男 1931「大丸山古墳」
報告』第 5 輯 山梨縣 pp. 52–77; HOSAKA Kazuhiro 1999. Bugu, in Yamanashi Kenshi (Data, Pt. 2 [Prehistoric and Ancient period]: Archaeology): pp. 266–274. Yamanashi:『山梨県史』資料編 2 原始・Yamanashi Prefectural Government. 保坂和博 1999「武具」
古代 2 考古 （遺構・遺物） 山梨県 pp. 266–274; MOGI Masahiro (ed.) 2007. Kai
Ōmaruyama kofun: Maisō shisetsu no chōsa [Ōmaruyama Mounded Tomb in Yamanashi
Prefecture: Investigations into burial facilities]. Ibaraki: Hakuko Kenkyūkai. 茂木雅博
（編）2007『甲斐大丸山古墳—埋葬施設の調査—』茨城県水戸市：博古研究会
3. Iwata Municipal Center for Archaeological Operations Staﬀ 1989. Akuro 2, 3-Gōfun
no shashinshū [Photographs of the Akuro No. 2 and 3 Tombs]. Shizuoka Prefecture:
Iwata Municipal Center for Archaeological Operations. 磐田市埋蔵文化財センター
1989『安久路 2・3 号墳の写真集』静岡県：磐田市埋蔵文化財センター
4. NAKAYA Katsuhiko (ed.) 2005. Shiseki Amenomiya Kofun-Gun [Amenomiya
Mounded Tomb Group, A nationally designated historic site]. Nakanoto Town,
Ishikawa Prefecture: Rokusei Township Board of Education. 中屋克彦（編）2005『史跡雨の宮古墳群』石川県中能登町：鹿西町教育委員会
5. YOSHIDA Hidetoshi (ed.) 1999. Funakiyama Kofun-Gun [Funakiyama MoundedGroup]. Gifu Prefectute: Inonuki Township Board of Education and Motosu Township
Board of Education. 吉田英敏（編）1999『船来山古墳群』糸貫町教育委員会・本巣町
教育委員会（船来山古墳群発掘調査団）
6. TAKATA Ken’ichi (ed.) 2013. Kokōge 1-Gōfun, Rokubuyama 3-Gōfun no
kenkyū: Shutsudohin saiseiri hōkokusho [Studies on the Kokōge No. 1 Tomb
and Rokubuyama No. 3 Tomb: Report of re-analysis of the excavated artifacts].
Tottori: Tottori Prefectural Government. 高田健一（ 編 ）2013『 古郡家 1 号墳・
六部山 3 号墳の研究—出土品再整理報告書—』鳥取県
7. KURABAYASHI Masato, YAMADA Shunsuke & SAWADA Hidemi 2000. Okunomae
1-Gōfun (Yuki Takatsuka kofun). In Mimasaka no shuchō-fun: Funkyū sokuryō chōsa
hōkoku [Elite mounded tombs in the Mimasaka Region, Northern Okayama Prefecture:
Report of mapping mounded tombs]: 78–88. Okayama: Kibito Shuppan. 倉林眞砂斗・© Japanese Archaeological Association

146

THE DEVELOPMENT OF KOFUN-PERIOD IRON-FRAMED ARMOUR

山田俊輔・深田秀実 2000「奥の前 1 号墳〈油木高塚古墳〉」『美作の首長墳—墳丘測量調査報告—』、pp. 78–88. 吉備（美作地方における前方後円墳秩序の構造的研究 I）
人出版；KURABAYASHI Masato (ed.) Zempō-kōen-fun jidai no shuchō network ni-

kansuru takakuteki kenkyū [Multi-faceted studies on the elite network during the Kofun
period]. Report of Grant-in-Aid for Scientiﬁc Research (Category C) for Fiscal Yearsfrom 2000 to 2003. Chiba Prefecture: Josai International University. 倉林眞砂斗（編）2004『前方後円墳時代の首長ネットワークに関する多角的研究』平成 12 年度〜平成
15 年度科学研究費補助金（基盤研究 C 一般）研究成果報告書
8. MIYAKE Hiroshi, MATSUMOTO Iwao & MAEJIMA Miki 1977. Nakayama
Kofun-Gun hakkutsuchōsa gaihō [Preliminary report of excavations at the Nakayama
Mounded Tomb Group]. Shimane Prefecture: Iwami Township Board of Education.
三宅博士・松本岩雄・前島己基 1977『中山古墳群発掘調査概報』石見町教育委員会；
HASHIMOTO 1998
9. YAMANAKA Hidehiko (ed.) Inadō Kofun-Gun [Inadō Mounded Tomb Group].
Reports of Investigations into Cultural Heritages of Yukuhashi City, No. 32.
Yukuhashi, Fukuoka Prefecture: Yukuhashi Municipal Board of Education. 山中英彦
（編） 2005『稲童古墳群—福岡県行橋市稲童所在の稲童古墳群調査報告—』行橋市文化財調査報告書第 32 集 行橋市教育委員会；FURUYA 2006.
10. YANAGIDA Yasuo & SOEJIIMA Kunihiro 1971. Wakahachimangū Kofun[Wakahachimangū Mounded Tomb], in Imajuku Bypass kankei maizō bunkazaihōkoku [Report of excavations conducted prior to the construction of the Imajuku
Bypass], No. 2: 7–43. Fukuoka: Fukuoka Prefectural Board of Education. 柳田康雄・
副島邦弘 1971「若八幡宮古墳」『今宿バイパス関係埋蔵文化財調査報告』第 2 集、pp.
7–43. 福岡県教育委員会
11. KINOSHITA Yukiharu & ODA Fujio 1967. Kumamotoyama funagata sekkan bo[Boat-shaped stone coﬃn at Kumamotoyama]. Saga-Ken bunkazai Chōsa hōkoku-sho
No. 16: 27–47. Saga: Saga Prefectural Government. 木下之治・小田富士雄 1967「熊本山船型石棺墓」『佐賀県文化財調査報告書』第 16 集、pp. 27–47. 佐賀県教育委員
会；HASHIMOTO 1998.
12. SAKAGUCHI Hideki (ed.) 2006. Ono-ōzuka kofun shutsudo ibutsu hozon shorihōkoku-sho [Report of conservation treatment of artifacts excavated at the Ono-ōzuka
Mounded Tomb]. Ono City, Hyogo Prefecture: Ono Municipal Board of Education. 阪
口英毅（編）2006『小野王塚古墳出土遺物保存処理報告書』小野市文化財調査報告第17 集 小野市教育委員会
13. MORI Kōichi & TERASAWA Tomoko (eds.) 1990. Sonobe Kaichi Kofun[Sonobe Kaichi Mounded Tomb]. Kyoto: Dept. of Cultural Studies, Faculty of
Letters, Doshisha University. 森 浩 一・ 寺 沢 知 子（ 編 ）1990『 園 部 垣 内 古 墳 』（同志社大学文学部考古学調査報告第 6 冊）同志社大学文学部文化学科
14. Kyoto University Dept. of Archaeology staﬀ (eds.) 1993. Shikinzan Kofun to
Ishiyama Kofun [Shikinzan and Ishiyama Mounded Tombs: Exhibition Catalogue].
Kyoto: Kyoto University Museum. 京都大学文学部考古学研究室 1993『紫金山古© Japanese Archaeological Association

147

SAKAGUCHI Hideki

墳と石山古墳 』京都大学文学部博物館図録第 6 冊

京都：京都大学文学部博物館；

SAKAGUCHI Hideki (ed.) 2005 Shikinzan Kofun no Kenkyū: Kofun jidai zenki niokeru taigai kōshō no kōkogaku-teki kenkyū [Study on the Shikinzan Mounded Tomb:
Archaeological approach to foreign interactions in the Early Kofun period]: 339–346.
Report of Grant-in-Aid for Scientiﬁc Research (Category B[2]) for Fiscal Years from2002 to 2004. Kyoto: Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University. 阪口英毅 2005
『紫金山古墳の研究—古墳時代前期における対外交渉「紫金山古墳出土武具の再検討」の考古学的研究—』平成 14 〜 16 年度科学研究費補助金（基盤研究 (B) (2)）研究成果報告書．京都大学大学院文学研究科

15. KOBAYASHI Yukio 1956. Ibaraki-Shi Shōgun’yama Kofun chōsa gaihō [Preliminary
report of archaeological excavations at the Shōgun’yama Mounded Tombs in Ibaraki City,
Osaka Prefecture]. Nihon Kōkogaku Kyōkai ihō [News of the Japanese Archaeological
Association], Appendix 6: 13–14. Tokyo: Japanese Archaeological Association. 小林行雄
『日本考古学協会彙報』別篇 6、pp. 13–14 日本考古学
1956「茨木市将軍山古墳調査概報」
協会；KATADA Tadashi 1968. Ibaraki-Shi Shōgun’yama Kofun sekishitsu ichiku hōkoku
[Report of the project of moving the burial chamber of the Shōgun’yama Mounded Tombs
in Ibaraki City]. Nara: Tezukayama University Dept. of Archaeology. 堅田直 1968『茨木市
将軍山古墳石室移築報告』考古学シリーズ 3 帝塚山大学考古学研究室；HIROSE Satoru(ed.) 2005. Shōgun’yama Kofun-Gun [Shōgun’yama Mounded Tomb Group], I. Osaka
Prefecture: Ibaraki Municipal Government. 廣瀬覚（編）2005『将軍山古墳群 I—考古学資料調査報告集—』（新修茨木市史史料集 8）茨木市；WAKASUGI Tomohiro (ed.) 2008.
Shōgun’yama Kofun-Gun [Shōgun’yama Mounded Tomb Group], II. Osaka Prefecture:
Ibaraki Municipal Government. 若杉智宏（編）2008『将軍山古墳群 II—考古学資料調査
報告集—』新修茨木市史史料集 12 茨木市
16. ŌTSUBO Shūichirō 2011. Kyoto-Fu Seika-Chō Kuraokayama 3-Gōfun no chōsa[Excavation at the Kuraokayama No. 3 Tomb in Seika Town, Kyoto Prefecture]. Kōkogaku『考古学
Kenkyū 58(1): 100–102. 大坪州一郎 2011「京都府精華町鞍岡山 3 号墳の調査」
研究』第 58 巻第 1 号、pp. 100–102; ŌE Katsumi, UEMURA Akio, ISHIYAMA Yōichi &MURAKAWA Toshiaki 2012. Kyoto-Fu Seika-Chō Kuraokayama 3-Gōfun shutsudo tankō
no kōzō fukugen [Reconstruction of cuirass excavated at the Kuraokayama No. 3 Tomb in
Seika Town, Kyoto Prefecture], in Nihon Bunkazai Kagaku-Kai dai-29-kai taikai kenkyū
happyō yōshishū [Abstracts of Papers Presented at the 29th JSSSCP Meeting]: 226–227.
Nara: Japan Society for Scientiﬁc Studies on Cultural Properties. 大江克己・植村昭男・石山要一・村川俊明 2012「京都府精華町鞍岡山 3 号墳出土短甲の構造復元」『日本文化財科学会第 29 回大会研究発表要旨集』日本文化財科学会第 29 回大会実行委員会事務局、
pp. 226–227.
17. HASHIMOTO Seiichi, KOBAYASHI Ken’ichi, & IGA Takahiro 1994. Kofun jidai
zenki no tetsusei katchū no fukugen: Kiyoto-Fu Kizu-Chō Kawaradani Kofun shutsudo
no kozane kawatoji Kabuto, Hōkeiban kawatoji tankō [Reconstruction of leather lacediron armor of the Early Kofun period: Leather laced iron helmet and cuirass excavatedat the Kawaradani Mounded Tomb, Kizu Town, Kyoto Prefecture]. Kōkogaku to© Japanese Archaeological Association

148

THE DEVELOPMENT OF KOFUN-PERIOD IRON-FRAMED ARMOUR

Shizenkagaku 27: 35–58. 橋本清一・小林謙一・伊賀高弘 1994「古墳時代前期の鉄製甲胄の復原—京都府木津町瓦谷古墳出土の小札革綴胄一方形板革綴短甲—」『考古学と自然科学』第 27 号、pp. 35–58.; ISHII Seiji & ARII Hiroyuki (ed.) 1997. Kawaradani

18.

19.

20.

21.
22.

Kofun-Gun [Kawaradani Mounded Tomb Group]. Kyoto: Kyoto Prefectural Centre forArchaeological Excavations and Research. 石井清司・有井広幸（編）1997『瓦谷古墳群』（京都府遺跡調査報告書第 23 冊）京都府埋蔵文化財調査研究センター
UMEHARA Sueji 1938. Azuchi Hyōtanyama Kofun [Azuchi Hyōtanyama MoundedTomb]. Shiga-Ken Shiseki Chōsa hōkoku [Reports of Historic Sites in Shiga
Prefecture], No. 7: 1–45, Pls. 1–29. Shiga: Shiga Prefectural Government. 梅原末治
『滋賀縣史蹟調査報告 』第 7 冊、pp. 1–45，図版 1–29．滋賀
1938「安土瓢箪山古墳 」
縣；TAKAHASHI 1993.
Kyoto University Dept. of Archaeology staﬀ (eds.) 1993. Shikinzan Kofun to Ishiyama
Kofun [Shikinzan and Ishiyama Mounded Tombs: Exhibition Catalogue]. Kyoto:
Kyoto University Museum 京都大学文学部考古学研究室 1993『紫金山古墳と石山古墳』（京都大学文学部博物館図録第 6 冊）京都大学文学部博物館；TSUTSUI Masa’aki(ed.) 2005. Ishiyama Kofun [Ishiyama Mounded Tomb]. Mie: Mie Prefectural Centre（第 24 回三重県埋蔵for Archaeological Operations. 筒井正明（編）2005『石山古墳』
文化財展）三重県埋蔵文化財センター
SUENAGA Masao (ed.) 1991. Tatezuka, Kutazuka, Shukinzuka Kofun [Tatezuka,
Kutazuka, and Shukinzuka Mounded Tombs in Osaka Prefecture]. Nara: Yura
Research Association for the Ancient Yamato. 末永雅雄（編）1991『盾塚 鞍塚 珠
金塚古墳』由良大和古代文化研究協会
DATE Muneyasu 1966. Wani Uedono Kofun [Uedono Mounded Tomb]. Nara: Nara
（奈良県史跡名勝天然Prefectural Board of Education. 伊達宗泰 1966『和爾上殿古墳』
記念物調査報告第 23 冊）奈良県教育委員会；HASHIMOTO 1998
ABOSHI Yoshinori, DATE Muneyasu, MORI Kōichi, YAMADA Ryōzō, INOKUMA
Kanekatu, HOTTA Keiichi, TERASAWA Tomoko & SUGAYA Fuminori 1981. 500gō fun (Chausuyama kofun) [Tomb No. 500 (Chausuyama Mounded Tomb)], inNiizawa Senzawa Kofun-Gun: 23–78. Nara: Nara Prefectural Board of Education. 網
干善教・伊達宗泰・森浩一・山田良三・猪熊兼勝・堀田啓一・寺沢知子・菅谷文則『新沢千塚古墳群』奈良県史跡名勝天然記念物調査報1981「500 号墳（茶臼山古墳）」
告第 39 冊 奈良県教育委員会、pp. 23–78.
23. Gose Municipal Board of Education 2001. Kamotsuba 1-gōfun chōsa gaihō. Tokyo:
Gakuseisha. 御所市教育委員会 2001『鴨都波 1 号墳調査概報』東京：学生社
24. KAWAKAMI Kunihiko & SAITŌ Kiyohide (ed.) 1996. Taniguchi Kofun-gun (fuTaniguchi Funbo-Gun) hakkutsuchōsa hōkoku [Report of archaeological excavations
at the Taniguchi Mounded Tomb Group (with appendix on the Taniguchi Burial
Mound Group)]. Nara Prefecture: Takatori Township Board of Education. 河上邦彦・
西藤清秀（編 ）1996『タニグチ古墳群（付タニグチ墳墓群 ）発掘調査報告 』高取町文化財調査報告第 17 冊 高取町教育委員会
25. Suenaga 1934; Furuya 2006
© Japanese Archaeological Association

149