Jomon Society, East and West: A Study of the Social
Structure of the Late Jomon Period
FUKUNAGA Masahiro1
ABSTRACTThis study undertakes concrete spatio-temporal and settlement analyses of pottery, but in neithercase did we ﬁnd any deﬁnite signs pointing to social stratiﬁcation. The results of this study do
not support an interpretation that Jomon pottery was as “luxurious” because of having distinct,
specialized types which were traded over long distances, with specially ﬁne pieces being ownedby the rich. While large dwellings, where specialized artifacts have been excavated, have been
considered evidence pointing to stratiﬁcation, it is diﬃcult to distinguish them from other dwellingsin terms of quality and quantity of specialized artifacts. The segmented and multilayered social
structure of the Late Jomon period, as seen in the results of the analysis of pottery and settlementsin this study and the model of Late Jomon period social structure (Figure 22) derived from thoseresults, shows no traces of the segmented groups being positioned according to rank or hierarchy,
or of any development of speciﬁc family or status distinctions. In addition, the essence of therituals and rites that developed in the late Jomon period was the construction of a wide-area social
network aimed at assuring livelihood stability and the reproduction of life, and intended to produce
and reproduce horizontal social relations by strengthening ties between groups. In this context, it
is reasonable to interpret that both eastern and western Jomon societies of the Late Jomon Period
were societies that can be described within the framework of a typical tribal society (Sahlins 1968,
1972; Service 1971).
KEYWORDS: Jomon period of prehistoric Japan, settlement, pottery, social organization

I.

Objectives

The transition from the Jomon period to the Yayoi period was an epochal event in thehistory of the people of the Japanese archipelago. Wet-rice agriculture was introduced toJapan from the Korean peninsula to northern Kyushu and from there extended across thearchipelago. As it spread from west to east, subsistence practices shifted from hunting andgathering to farming.
Interestingly, the way wet-rice farming was accepted was not the same in all parts of
the archipelago. In western Japan it spread quickly, and subsistence practices changed
rapidly, whereas in eastern Japan farming took a very long time to take root even although
it is conﬁrmed to have been introduced at an early stage in the northern part of Japan’s
1 The Kyushu University Museum, 6–10–1 Hakozaki, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka 812–8581, Japan (fukunaga@

museum.kyushu-u.ac.jp)
Category: Original Article Received and accepted: 20 March 2023
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 10 (2023): 151–203

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

northeast (Tohoku) region (Sasaki Kōmei 1991; Sahara 1992; Terasawa 2008).
In the Late and Final Jomon periods, eastern Japan’s cultural sphere features highly
decorative vessels such as the well-known Kamegaoka pottery. Western Japan’s pottery
culture, in contrast, lacked in decoration, as exempliﬁed by black-polished Jomon pottery.
The borderline that separates the pottery distribution area of eastern Japan from that ofwestern Japan is more or less identical with the cultural borderline between east and west
in their diﬀerent ways of accepting wet-rice agriculture. This is why regional diﬀerencesin pottery distribution and in the way rice farming was accepted are often discussed inrelation to each other (Sasaki Kōmei 1991; Tamada & Shōda 2013).
The two major pottery distribution areas of east and west in the Late and Final Jomon
periods are important in considering the spread and acceptance of wet-rice agriculture in
the Japanese archipelago. These two distinct distribution areas came into being in the latterpart of the Late Jomon period, but even before that, in the early part of the Late Jomon
period, east–west interaction had been robust, as seen in the appearance of the wide area
distribution of Nakatsu- and Shōmyōji-style pottery (Imamura 1977a, 1977b) and thephenomenon of the waves of westward spread of the cultural complex of eastern Japaneseorigin (Maekawa 1979; Watanabe Makoto 1968, 1975). What was the transition like fromthe time of lively interactions between eastern and western Japan, to the time when east–west diﬀerences in pottery culture began being accentuated? It is imperative that we clarify
the transition. The ﬁrst objective of this study is to shed light on archipelago-wide changes
in group and social relations during the Late Jomon, especially in the middle part of theLate Jomon period.
The cultural diﬀerences between eastern and western Japan are not conﬁned to the Lateand Final Jomon periods; the “east–west diﬀerences of Jomon culture” were seen even
before that. More than 80 percent of the Jomon sites on the archipelago are said to be
distributed in eastern Japan. In both quantitative and qualitative terms, eastern Japan is far
more abundant in Jomon sites, structural remains, and artifacts, hence the phrase “easthigh, west-low Jomon culture” (tōkō-seitei no Jōmon bunka).
An environment rich in natural resources and the resultant population size have been
cited as the factors most responsible for the east–west diﬀerences (Yamanouchi 1964;
Koyama 1984). It has also been pointed out that the subsistence strategies of groups ofpeople according to their resource environments diﬀered between the east and the west
(Izumi 1984, 1985; Seguchi 2018). Recent developments in botanical archaeology areshowing it is increasingly likely that the way people approached the natural environment
diﬀered between the east and the west (Sasaki Yuka 2014a, 2014b). Examination of
botanical remains recovered from Late Jomon wetland sites suggests that people in easternJapan modiﬁed the ecosystem surrounding their settlements for multifaceted utilization ofnatural resources, while such was not the case in western Japan.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

152

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

As described above, relations between a group of people and the natural environment inwhich they lived have been regarded as important in considering the east–west diﬀerencesof Jomon culture. Quantitative east–west diﬀerences in terms of Jomon sites, structural
remains, and artifacts can be explained by the diﬀerences in abundance of the naturalenvironment and the resultant disparity in the size of regional populations. Qualitative
diﬀerences in the tools used for subsistence activities may also be explained by diﬀerent
strategies for adaptation to the natural environment.
What about quantitative and qualitative diﬀerences in ritual-related structural remains
and artifacts? And the diﬀerences in pottery decoration? Well-known, elaborately
decorated artifacts such as ﬂame-shaped pottery and goggle-eyed clay ﬁgurines are notablefeatures of eastern Jomon culture—something not found in western Jomon culture. Is
it possible to explain these east–west diﬀerences only by focusing on diﬀerences in thenatural/resource environments and in the adaptability to the environment of the region’s
people?
In response to such queries, some scholars have pointed to disparity in population
size (Koyama 1984; Yamada 2015). According to them, in eastern Japan, where groupsof people were large in size, friction was likely to emerge among them, and resolving
friction required complex social apparatus, namely, development of rites and rituals. In
western Japan, on the other hand, groups of people were much smaller in size, and withfriction not likely to occur among them, there was little necessity for rites and rituals tosolve them. Issues left for future research include veriﬁcation of whether or not populationand group size calculated on the basis of numbers of excavated sites and dwellings truly
reﬂect reality. Another issue to verify is the logic behind the notion of “inter-group friction→ necessity to resolve it → development of rites and rituals.” It is necessary to examine
speciﬁc archaeological data to demonstrate whether east–west diﬀerences can be found in
the ways groups of people related to each other and how their relationships were formed.
Based on the foregoing, the second objective of this study is to clarify the mechanism
whereby the “east–west diﬀerence of Jomon culture” arose.
Jomon pottery is chosen as the subject of analysis for this paper in order to achieve
those two objectives—the ﬁrst being to shed light on archipelago-wide changes of groupand social relations in the Late Jomon and the second to clarify the mechanism whereby
the east–west diﬀerence of Jomon culture emerged. Exploring the spatio-temporal
dynamics of Jomon pottery makes it possible to reconstruct the group and social relationsof that time, as demonstrated by earlier scholars (Ōtsuka 2000; Taniguchi 1986; Tanaka
1982; Tanaka & Matsunaga 1984; Yano 2016). Group and social relations that would
be explained through analysis of magic items (clay ﬁgurines, stone rods, etc.) and stone
implements (arrowheads, chipped stone axes, etc.) are limited to those relations in speciﬁcsituations such as rites and rituals and subsistence practices. Jomon pottery was used not© Japanese Archaeological Association

153

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

just for daily food preparation and rites and rituals but also for many other purposes, andby analysing such a diversity of vessel types (vessel shape categories) we can achieve acomprehensive understanding of group and social relations on various occasions of thetime. It is also important that, of all Jomon archaeological data, it is its pottery that has
the greatest universality and the most quantitively and qualitatively stable analytical data.
Given these advantages, Jomon pottery was considered the most appropriate analytical
data for fulﬁlling the two objectives.

II.

Data and Methodology

1. Analytical data

This study analyses pottery artifacts recovered from 246 Jomon sites located from the
Kanto region westward. Based on geographical features such as plains, mountains, andrivers, it makes regional divisions as shown in Figures 1 and 2.
The period under study is the Late Middle Jomon period, and the number of artifacts
for analysis exceeds 16 500. Of them, 3 873 are used to classify pottery and establish
a chronology. This study also examines settlements in the Kanto and Kyushu regions.
Studied are 26 sites (465 dwellings) from the Kanto region and 30 sites (250 dwellings)
from the Kyushu region.

2. Analytical methodology(1) Timescale construction

It is ﬁrst necessary to construct an archaeological timescale (chronology) applicable to awide area from the Kanto to Kyushu regions. Using attribute analysis methods (Tanaka
1982; Tanaka & Matsunaga 1984), this study identiﬁes units of classiﬁcation and builds a
multi-region-wide chronology of the pottery of the Late Middle Jomon period.

(2) Spatio-temporal examination

Using the timescale built, it makes a spatio-temporal examination of pottery. As shownin (a), (b), and (c) below, the distribution of pottery for each period of time is understoodfrom micro and macro points of view.
(a) Classiﬁcation units: Distribution by unit of classiﬁcation is examined for each period oftime. A dot map is used to show the distribution.
(b) Attributes: The frequency of appearance of pottery attributes by region is examinedusing a seriation graph. For analytical method, I refer to studies by Tanaka Yoshiyuki andMatsunaga Yukio (Tanaka & Matsunaga 1984, 1991).
(c) Type composition: Pottery shape variations are identiﬁed (Figure 3), and their© Japanese Archaeological Association

154

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

Figure 1.

Sites subject to analysis and sub-area classiﬁcation (1).

© Japanese Archaeological Association

155

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

Figure 2.

Sites subject to analysis and sub-area classiﬁcation (2).

© Japanese Archaeological Association

156

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

Figure 3.

Variation of shape categories.

composition and the spatio-temporal dynamics of pottery types are examined
to understand pottery style structure in the Late Middle Jomon period and theirtransformation. The spatio-temporal comparative analysis of the type composition ismade from a wide area perspective, extending from Kanto to Kyushu.
The focus is then narrowed down to the Kanto and Kyushu regions alone to get a more
© Japanese Archaeological Association

157

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

detailed understanding of the spatial phenomena of pottery. The Kanto region is treatedas a case study of eastern Japan’s late Jomon society and the Kyushu region is taken as acase study of western Japan’s late Jomon society. The two regions are selected for theiraccessibility to quantitatively and qualitatively rich analytical data.
For each area in Kanto and Kyushu, the surface ﬁnishing of the pottery is studied toassess the level of ﬁneness or coarseness and grasp the pottery style structure (Tanaka
1982). Pottery style involves not only type and form but also the level of ﬁneness orcoarseness. Analysing Late Jomon pottery artifacts in Kyushu, Tanaka Yoshiyuki detectedsocio-cultural structural changes from the spatio-temporal changes of pottery style
structure. The present study aims to build on this analytical perspective in a developmental
way.
Pottery that underwent a careful surface ﬁnishing process have a high level of ﬁnenessand are considered to have been ranked highly in the pottery style structure, while pottery
rough in surface ﬁnishing have a low level of ﬁneness and are thought to have beenplaced low in pottery style structure. Surface ﬁnishing is also studied by shape category
to determine the placement of each shape category in the pottery style structure. Keeping
in mind diﬀerences in their placement, this study examines how pottery artifacts are
distributed by shape category, and compares the results between eastern Japan and Kyushu.

(3) Habitation and subsistence activities

For a more speciﬁc grasp of group and social relations of that time, this study examines
settlements to learn about the habitation and subsistence practices as well as social
activities of a human group. The Kanto and Kyushu regions are the subject of analysis.
The speciﬁc items analysed are: settlement components; length of settlement duration;
scale of dwelling remains; spatio-temporal aspects of settlement forms; and arrangementof dwelling remains within a settlement. The results are compared between Kanto andKyushu. The period of settlements and dwellings is determined on the basis of thetimescale constructed in (1) above.

(4) Clay analysis

For a better understanding of movements of pottery, clay is analysed. Pottery artifacts
studied are: a group dating from the Late Jomon period recovered from the Nakanehachiman site in Tochigi prefecture, as a case study of Late Jomon society in eastern Japan;
and another group dating from the Late Jomon period recovered from the Hōgaki site inŌita prefecture, as a case study of Late Jomon society in western Japan.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

158

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

III.
1.

Results and Discussion
Changes in inter-group relationships in the middle part of the Late Jomon
periodUsing attribute analysis, nine units of classiﬁcation were extracted from the typologicalexamination of pottery artifacts and phased as follows: Phase I (type A I, type J I, typeM) → Phase II (type A IIa, type D, type J IIa) → Phase III (type A IIb, type E, type J IIb).
Figure 4 shows a wide-area chronology of pottery during the Late Middle Jomon period.
The following summarizes the spatial aspects of pottery from Phases I, II, and III, and thenconsiders changes in inter-regional and inter-group relationships during the Late Middle
Jomon period.

(1) Phase I

As shown in Figure 5, pottery of type A I (Kasori B1 type pottery) is found to be widelydistributed in eastern Japan, mainly in the Kanto region. At the same time, it can be seen tohave spread in western Japan. Figure 5 shows how type A I pottery is scattered throughout
western Japan, primarily in the Kinki region, but with its inﬂuence extending even to the

Figure 4.

Chronology of pottery in the Late Middle Jomon period.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

159

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

Figure 5.

Distribution of each classiﬁcation unit in Phase I.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

160

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

Chūgoku (western Honshu) and Shikoku Island regions. Study of the spread of Phase I
Kasori B1 type pottery artifacts shows that information on all types of vessels within thistype becomes scarcer as the distance from the source of the pottery type (that is, the Kanto
region) increases, and that some types spread quite far (e.g., Form E; Figure 6) whileothers did not (e.g., Form C-1; Figure 6).
It is possible to hypothesize the migration of human groups on the basis of the westward
spread of Kanto pottery artifacts. However, it is diﬃcult to hypothesize such movement
occurring on a large scale because, as described above, the pottery style structure of theKasori B1 type does not move as a uniﬁed set. Furthermore, it must be noted that thevessel type that spreads most widely and most stably is the spouted vessel (e.g., Form E;
Figure 6), which is thought to have a strong ritual signiﬁcance. Considering the particularcharacteristics of this vessel type, a possible hypothesis is that the transmission of goods
and information took place not only during the gradual migration of human groups, inwhich marriage played a part, but also during special ritual events that involved the use of
spouted vessels.
It is also important to note that, although there are quantitative and qualitative
diﬀerences, the inﬂuence of Kanto pottery spread westward even during the Horinouchi-

Figure 6.

Westward spread of Kanto-style vessels.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

161

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

type period of the previous phase. The origin of this phenomenon can be traced back to theemergence of robust interactions between eastern and western Japan, as symbolized by thewide-area distribution of Shōmyōji- and Nakatsu-style pottery at the beginning of the Late
Jomon period.
Moving on to type J1, it was found to be spread over a wide area (Figure 5) in westernJapan during Phase I. The spatial aspect of each attribute is particularly noteworthy when
considering the phenomenon of wide-area pottery distribution in western Japan during thisphase (Figures 7 and 8).
While information such as cross-sectional form of mouth rim I-1 is shared across theentire type J1 distribution area, speciﬁc regional characteristics are seen in cross-sectional
forms of mouth rim I-6 and II-5 and mouth rim decoration groups G and Q. Moving on tomouth rim decoration group A, the frequency of occurrence tends to decrease as it spreads
east and west from an area centred around the Kinki region. In addition, a closer look at thedecoration motifs shows that the Kyoto Basin (Ki-2) and other areas have complex irikumi
patterns (interlocked ornamental elements) such as A- ① and A- ② , while the Chugoku
and Kyushu areas located further west have somewhat simpliﬁed patterns such as A- ⑤
and A- ⑥ , indicating a gradual variation in the spatial spread of attribute information.
It is important to note that the same spatial variation in pottery attributes was also
observed in the phenomenon of the earlier phase’s wide area distribution of pottery
in western Japan (Tanaka & Matsunaga 1984, 1991), and when combined with thephenomenon described above of the spread of the Kanto pottery group to western Japan,
it is hypothesized that from at least the early part of the Late Jomon period to Phase Iof this study the same kind of inter-regional and inter-group relationships existed in the
background of the phenomenon of wide area pottery distribution.

(2) Phase II

In Phase II, type D pottery is found in the Kanto region (Figure 9). The morphologicaland decorative characteristics of these artifacts clearly indicate that type D has no lineal
relationship to artifacts of type A I that are distributed throughout the Kanto region in
Phase I.
Previously, the background of the emergence of type D had been assumed to be theinﬂuence of pottery artifacts from the Tohoku region (Abiko 1997; Sugaya 2019). Figure
10 shows the artifacts from the Hokkaido and Tohoku regions that roughly parallel Phases
I through III. The morphological characteristics of 1–8, 12–15, and 17–21 are similar to
those of type D (Figure 4), and it is reasonable to consider the emergence of type D as
being related to the Tohoku region. It should be noted, however, that although the potteryof the Tohoku region during the periods in question is morphologically similar to thatof type D, it diﬀers in decorative characteristics. It is evident that Kanto groups of those© Japanese Archaeological Association

162

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

Figure 7.

Type J1: Attribute variations.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

163

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

Figure 8.

Phase I type J1 frequency of attributes by region.

periods share information on morphological attributes with Tohoku groups, but do notshare—they may even have rejected—information on decorative attributes.
The trend in spouted vessels is also worthy of note. Figure 11 aﬃrms that the“Takaragamine type (Figure 11, Kanto-type C)” of Tohoku-style spouted vessels appears
in the Kanto region in Phase II. These spouted vessels are thought to rank in the higher
level (the most carefully produced and highly valued) of the pottery style structure of
the Kanto region, and in their morphological and decorative characteristics they bear agreat similarity to the spouted vessels of the Tohoku region. It is of much interest that incontrast to these shared morphological and decorative characteristics, patterned deep bowl
D (type D) lower down in the ranking (more crudely produced and relatively low-valued)
shares only morphological characteristics and there is no evidence of shared decorative
characteristics. Given the social function of spouted vessels as a mediator of relationships
between localities and regions (Akita 2015, 2016), it is possible that two groups in the© Japanese Archaeological Association

164

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

Figure 9.

Distribution of each classiﬁcation unit at phase II.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

165

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

Figure 10.

Pottery from Hokkaido and Tohoku regions in the Late Middle Jomon period.

Tohoku and Kanto regions attempted to establish a relationship in Phase II, and that theyshared a ritual or social “place” in which spouted vessels with identical morphological anddecorative features were used as mediators for the conﬁrmation and reinforcement of that
relationship.
The most signiﬁcant event in Phase II is the dilution of the inﬂuence of the Kantorelated pottery group in western Japan. The shrinkage of the distribution zone from type
A I to type A IIa is symbolic of this. As can be seen in Figure 9, types A IIa is almost
completely absent in western Japan. It is highly possible that the relationship between
eastern and western Japan, which had seen robust exchange since the beginning of the Late
Jomon period, changed drastically in Phase II. It seems likely that the direct impetus forthe establishment of the two major east–west pottery distribution zones whose formation isthought to have occurred from the Latter Late Jomon period on may be found in this phase.
In Phase II, changes in vessel type composition occur in western Japan. The number© Japanese Archaeological Association

166

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

Figure 11.

Distribution of Kanto-style spouted vessels.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

167

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

of vessel type variations decreases, and the types are reduced to three: decorated deepbowl (Form A-10), decorated shallow bowl (Form B-2), and spouted vessels (Form E). A
uniformity in vessel type composition can thus be seen throughout western Japan. (Figure 12).
It is not until the Late Jomon period that numerous vessel types begin to appear inwestern Japan. This happens with the establishment of the widely distributed Shōmyōjiand Nakatsu-style pottery zone, which encompasses an area from Kanto to part of Kyushu.
In eastern Japan, in contrast, vessel type variation increases from before that time, and it
should be noted that the inﬂuence of eastern Japan’s Jomon pottery culture can be assumed
to be a factor in the increase in vessel type variation in western Japan from the Late Jomon
period. Interestingly, the dilution of the inﬂuence of the Kanto pottery group and thedecrease in vessel type variation in western Japan occurred at the same time. It is thoughtthat the less active exchange between eastern and western Japan compared to the previous
phase brought about a change in the Late Jomon pottery culture of western Japan.

(3) Phase III

In Phase III, type E is distributed over a wide area in eastern Japan, centring on the Kanto
region (Figure 13). The most noteworthy aspect of type E is the inﬂuence of pottery
vessels vis-à-vis the Tohoku region. Figure 10 15–17.22 shows Tokoshinai IV pottery of
the Tohoku region, and illustrates its similarity to type E. In the case of type D of Phase II
there are common morphological attributes only and no common decorative attributes, butwith type E there are similarities not only in morphological attributes but also in pattern
motifs. It can therefore be hypothesized that the interaction between the two regions
became closer than it was in Phase II.
Also in Phase III, spouted vessels of the “Takaragamine type” are seen here and there,
which makes it likely that the development and reinforcement of relations between the
Kanto and Tohoku groups, which was mediated by spouted vessels and began in Phase II,continued in Phase III. As a result of the accumulation of such interaction, the relationshipbetween the two groups is considered to have become more stable.
In western Japan during Phase III, spouted vessels become a stable type of vessel
composition. The distribution of this type of pottery is centred in the Kinki region, andKinki-style spouted vessels are widely dispersed from the Kanto region in the east to the
Kyushu region in the west.
In an earlier paper, I analysed and discussed a group of Kinki-style vessels excavatedfrom the Kuginosengen site in Kyushu’s Oita prefecture (Fukunaga 2018). Figure 14
shows the Kinki-style spouted vessels excavated from the site at the same time as a groupof local pottery of Phase II and Phase III (type JIIa and type JIIb). This pottery uses thesame decoration techniques characteristic of the Kinki and Setouchi areas of Phases II–
III, such as continuous piercing within a sunken line (Figures 14.2 and 14.3) and shell-like© Japanese Archaeological Association

168

Figure 12.

Shape category composition for western Japan.

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

© Japanese Archaeological Association

169

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

Figure 13.

Distribution of each classiﬁcation unit at phase III.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

170

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

rope patterns (Figures 14.2 through 14.4). However, because the motifs diﬀer somewhat
from the Kyushu region pottery excavated at the same time and the clay is not signiﬁcantly
diﬀerent from that of the local pottery group (as observed by the naked eye), it is notpossible to positively identify them as artifacts brought in from the Kinki area. Therefore,
the following three patterns of movement of people, artifacts, and information related tothis pottery group are possible hypotheses:• Group B (a group that produces Kinki-style vessels) migrated to Group A (a groupresiding at the Kuginosengen site), and Group B people, having altered their own pottery
production traditions, produced the pottery in question.
• Group A people produced it by imitating Group B’s pottery down as closely as possible.
• Group A people produced it after being given detailed information on pottery production
by people of Group B.
I have proposed in the same article that, in light of the fact that almost all of the Kinkistyle vessels excavated at the Kuginosengen site are ritualistic-looking spouted vessels(10 pieces), neither the daily interaction between Group A and Group B nor the transfer ofpeople, artifacts, and information triggered by the transfer or migration of Group B people
to Group A is suﬃcient to explain the phenomenon, and that the use of spouted vessels
for some kind of ritualistic event which involved the exchange of people, artifacts, andinformation was also a reasonable hypothesis.
The “ritual event” hypothesized here is the rite of intensiﬁcation (Coon 1971), which
is often seen in ethnographic literature. Such rituals are said to function to reaﬃrm andreinforce group cohesion by bringing together for a few days or for an extended period

Figure 14.

Kinki-style spouted vessels excavated from the Kuginosenken site.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

171

FUKUNAGA Masahiroof time people who do not see each other on a daily basis. This is exactly what was
hypothesized in the background of the emergence of the “Takaragamine type” in the Kanto
region in Phase II: a ritual or social “place” that used spouted vessels as a medium for thedevelopment and reinforcement of inter-regional and inter-group relations.
In western Japan during Phase I, spouted vessels of the Kanto Kasori B1 style“Shiizuka-type” are found here and there (Form E; Figure 6), but none are any more thanfragments of the body, and it is doubtful whether the inherent social functions possessed byspouted vessels were fully understood. On the other hand, the stabilization of composition
and the wide distribution of spouted vessels in western Japan during Phase III is clearly
diﬀerent from the situation during Phase I. In Phase III, the ritual or rituals that used
spouted vessels as a medium for the development and reinforcement of inter-regional
and inter-group relations, or as a medium for the sharing of such a social “place,” ashypothesized from the trend of the “Takaragamine type,” are thought to have begun to bepracticed in western Japan as well. It is of interest that after this phase, pottery in westernJapan became undecorated, forming the “concave lineation horizon” (Okada 2000), a
wide area of pottery distribution throughout western Japan. It is also possible that thedevelopment and reinforcement of group relationships over a wide area during Phase III,
mediated by the Kinki group’s spouted vessels, triggered the formation of the “concave
lineation horizon.”(4) Other trends in material culture of the Late Middle Jomon period

Above we summarized the spatio-temporal aspects of pottery groups from Phases I to
III. As a result, we were able to conﬁrm that the nature of inter-regional and inter-grouprelationships within the Japanese archipelago diﬀered between Phase I and Phase II
onwards. The epoch lines seen between Phases I and Phase II can be seen in other kinds ofmaterial cultures, and we would like to review them here.
i) Settlement dynamics
It was found that there are settlement sites that ceased to exist or declined around Phase
II, and, conversely, others that began to operate around Phase II (Figures 15 and 16). In
addition, when examining the layout of dwellings within settlement sites that existed inboth phases, many cases were seen in which such layouts changed from Phase I to Phase
II. It is very possible that the location of settlement sites and the layout of dwellings reﬂect
the composition of social groups, and these changes in location and layout are considered
to be phenomena linked to the changes in inter-regional and inter-group relationships
observed in the pottery artifacts.
It is also from Phase II onwards that a segmented structure of dwelling layout begins
to be observed in Kyushu. As Mizunoe Kazutomo has previously noted, there was a© Japanese Archaeological Association

172

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

Figure 15.

Kanto: duration of settlement.

rapid increase in the number of pit buildings and also the emergence of two groups of pit
buildings ﬂanking a central empty space (Mizunoe 2001, 2012). Mizunoe explains that thebackground for the beginning of these settlements was the expansion of group sizes due topopulation growth as well as the organic emergence of a living space in which buildings
were placed on either side of a central empty zone so that the groups could be aware of andcontrol each other’s existence and thus maintain and sustain the group and its organization.
Certainly, there is no question that there was an increase in the number of settlements;
large-scale settlements began to appear from Phase II, so it is natural to hypothesize apopulation increase from that. However, it is important to note that from Phase II on, manyof the dwelling structures become more fragile, lacking postholes or sunken hearths, andthere is a decrease in scale as well. It can also be pointed out that the number of dwellingsites varies from settlement to settlement, and that an increase in the number of dwellingremains cannot be seen in every settlement, which casts doubt on the very existence ofthe population increase assumed to have occurred from Phase II onwards in the Kyushu
region.
Based on the aforementioned dwelling structure and dwelling scale, I think it is morereasonable to assume that the increase was the result of people repeatedly moving and© Japanese Archaeological Association

173

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

Figure 16.

Kyushu: duration of settlement.

returning to the same places, which resulted in settlements where dozens of dwellingremains have been found, rather than assuming an increase in population as the cause of
the increase in the number of dwelling remains during this period.
Furthermore, the clear distinction between settlements where a large number ofdwelling remains are found and those where not many are found may very likely be rooted
in the functional diﬀerentiation within the territory where groups of people lived andconducted their livelihood activities. In this regard, it is noteworthy that diﬀerences instone tool composition between sites begin to be observed from Phase II on (Figure 17).
At the Shimosakata-nishi and Amida settlement sites, where the remains of more than
20 dwellings have been excavated, there is a good balance between hunting and plant© Japanese Archaeological Association

174

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

Figure 17.

Kyushu: stone tool composition.

gathering/processing tools, while at the Kuginosengen, Katamidori, and Kuranoue sites,
where the remains of fewer dwellings have been detected, the proportion of hunting tools
is signiﬁcantly higher.
These diﬀerences between sites are likely to correspond to the diﬀerences between
residential base and ﬁeld camps (Binford 1980; Habu 1990) in Lewis R. Binford’s
collector model. Although it is quite possible that such functional diﬀerentiation within aterritory existed even before this period, the functional diﬀerences between sites begin to
become especially clear from Phase II on.
Why did the above-mentioned residential forms develop? One possible reason is theintroduction of plant cultivation. Recently, the results of multiple studies by Obata Hiroki
have conﬁrmed that soybeans and azuki beans were cultivated in the Kyushu region in thesecond half of the Late Jomon period (Obata 2011, 2016; Obata et al. 2007). It is quitepossible that the introduction of such plant cultivation activities increased the attachmentof groups to speciﬁc locations and changed their residential and subsistence activities.
ii) Trends in ritual objects and structural remains
An increase in the number of structural remains and artifacts related to rituals andceremonies from the second half of the Late Jomon period on has been noted in the Kanto© Japanese Archaeological Association

175

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

region (Taniguchi 2017b). One such type of structural remains is large dwellings, andthis study too found large dwellings beginning to appear from Phase II on. Although thecharacter of large dwellings is still for the most part unclear, the common view is that they
are places where some kind of ritualistic activity took place (Abe 2001, 2017; Takahashi
2001a, 2017b). As seen in Figure 18, the large dwellings are distributed in the area
designated as Kn-4–5 (Figure 1), and this area can be described as one where two diﬀerent
pottery lineages, type AIIa and type D, make contact and mingle in Phase II (Figure 9).
Considering the time of appearance and the conditions of the distribution, it is possible thatrituals and ceremonies to develop and reinforce the above relationships between diﬀerent
regions and groups were performed in the large dwellings.
It has also been pointed out that the number of ritual structural remains and artifacts also
increased in western Japan as well from Phase II on. These include the large-scale funerary
spaces established in the Kinki region (Okada 2005) and the ritual objects and accessories
that increased in the Kyushu region (Ōtsubo 2015; Tomita 1992; Mizunoe 2012; Miyauchi1980).

Figure 18.

Distribution of large dwellings.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

176

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

2. The actual mechanism by which the “East–West diﬀerence” of Jomon
culture emerged

We have conﬁrmed that the direct impetus for the formation of the two major east–west pottery distribution zones, which are thought to have formed in the Latter Late
Jomon period, can be traced to changes in interregional and group relations that occurred
throughout the archipelago during Phase II. How then, can we explain the oppositional
relationship—known as the “East–West diﬀerence in Jomon culture”—between thesocieties of eastern and western Jomon Japan that underlies the two major east–west
pottery distribution zones? In this section, building on results of our previous analysis,
we propose a model of the Late Jomon societies of east and west and consider the actual
mechanism by which the “East–West diﬀerence” emerges.

(1) The “East–West diﬀerence” as seen in pottery distribution Phenomena

Figures 19 and 20 summarize the relationship between the diﬀerences in upper and lower
ranks of pottery stylistic structure and the scale of the spatial extent of each type of vesselin the Kanto and Kyushu regions. The ﬁrst point in common between the two regions is themultilayered nature of the pottery distribution phenomenon. In both the Kanto and Kyushu

Figure 19. Kanto: diﬀerence between higher and lower levels in the pottery style structure andspatial extent of each shape category.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

177

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

Figure 20. Kyushu: diﬀerence between higher and lower levels in the pottery stylistic structureand spatial extent of each shape category.

regions, it is possible to grasp the multilayered structure of the three pottery distribution
areas which diﬀer in size—Area I through Area III.
On the other hand, the most notable diﬀerence between the two is the scale of Area I. In
this study, Area I is the smallest spatial cluster that could be extracted in the comparative
spatial examination of vessel composition, but its spatial scale is such that it can beextracted within a radius of approximately 20–25km in the Kanto region, while in the
Kyushu region it can be extracted within a radius of approximately 50km. In other words,
the scale of Area I in the Kanto region is smaller than the scale of Area 1 in the Kyushu
region.
In the Kanto region, spouted vessels (Form E), positioned as a high-level stylistic
structure, are the most widely distributed, with the distribution of the decorated bowl
(Form C-1 and Form C-4) being about the same as in the Kanto region (Figure 19, Area II
or III). The distribution of the decorated deep bowl (Form A-1 and Form A-4) and vessel
with notched clay band (Form F-1 and Form F-4), both representing a lower level instylistic structure, is about the same as in the subdivided areas (Figure 19, Area I) shownin Figure 1. Thus, the higher and lower levels of pottery style structure and the size of theirrespective distribution areas are roughly correlated (Figure 19). Based on the assumptionof the social function of spouted vessels (Form E) as a mediator of local/regional
relationships and the assumption that coarse vessels (Form F-1 and F-4) were chieﬂy used
for daily cooking, it is likely that the spouted pottery that is presumed to have functioned© Japanese Archaeological Association

178

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

as a mediator of development and reinforcement of group relationships over a wider area
was more carefully produced, while the everyday types of pottery had not achieved thatlevel of reﬁnement. We conclude that for society of the Late Jomon period in Kanto, thedevelopment and reinforcement of ties with other groups was necessary, and this need was
fulﬁlled through the mediation of material culture in the form of pottery.
In the Kyushu region, on the other hand, it is diﬃcult to ﬁnd a correlation between theranks of pottery style structure and the size of their distribution areas (Figure 20). It is
possible that in the Late Jomon society of Kyushu material culture played a lesser role inthe development and reinforcement of ties with other groups than it did in the Late Jomon
society of Kanto.

(2) The movement of people, things, and information in terms ofcommunication systems theory

Why did the above-mentioned diﬀerences in pottery distribution phenomena occur? Inorder to deepen our discussion on this point, it is necessary to clarify the historical issueof what a pottery distribution zone is. Tanaka Yoshiyuki’s theory of communication
systems (Tanaka 1982; Tanaka & Matsunaga 1984) deﬁned a pottery distribution zone
as “a communication systems zone within which information and ideas related to pottery
production are guaranteed to be both prevalent and accepted,” and tried to explain thevariations in the relation among diﬀerent styles by whether the system was closed or open.
However, the clariﬁcation of the actual situation of the system remains an issue.
In order to address this issue, we think it is crucial to concretize what has been describedas the phenomena of “a closed or open system,” that is, the process of communication/
acceptance/rejection of people, things, and information. In considering this problem,the style theory discussed from the 1980s, led by Ian Hodder, is also important (Hodder
1982; Hodder (Ed.) 1989; Wiessner 1983, 1984; Wobst 1977). A salient point made bythese theory is that commonality of style does not necessarily correlate with the frequency
or degree of exchange, intermarriage, or trade. Ian Hodder studied three tribal groups,
the Tugen, Njemps, and Pokot, in Baringo district, Kenya, and examined in detail thecommonalities and diﬀerences in material culture (Hodder 1982). As a result, it was foundthat diﬀerences in material culture can be observed even when interactions between groups
are frequent, and that there are clear diﬀerences in material culture even when ecosystems
and living conditions are similar. This suggests that commonality and diﬀerence inmaterial culture cannot be predicted by the frequency of interactions between groups or thesimilarity of ecosystems and living conditions. Also theorized is the active role of symbols
which mediate between material culture and social organization, the problem of group
identity, and the importance of each cultural context.
Figure 21 models the transmission/acceptance/rejection of people, goods, and© Japanese Archaeological Association

179

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

Figure 21.

Model of transmission/acceptance/rejection of people, goods, and information.

information based on the various points above. When a person, thing, or piece of
information is input from the external environment, four major regulators are thought
to be at work before a conclusion is reached about whether to accept it, partially accept
it, or completely reject it. The ﬁrst is the “frequency of communication,” the second is
the “communication situation,” the third is the “functionality” (practical functionality or
symbolic functionality), and the fourth is the “degree of emphasis on group identity.”
Regarding the ﬁrst, “frequency of communication,” it is expected that the transmission/
acceptance/rejection of people, goods, and information will be diﬀerent in the caseof frequent communication and communication that occurs only once a year or oncein several years. Regarding the second, “communication situation,” it is assumed that
diﬀerences will arise in acceptance/rejection depending on whether, for example, thecommunication takes place in the context of daily interactions or in the context of unusual
events. The third regulator, “functionality,” is at work when, for example, thing A, which
has a certain function, enters, but thing B, which has the same function, already exists.
In that case, thing A will be rejected. Even if accepted, it may be assumed that the wayof acceptance will diﬀer, depending on whether the function is practical or symbolic.
The fourth and ﬁnal regulator, the “degree of emphasis on group identity,” is based on
the various arguments in the previous discussion on style theory. For example, even if
the frequency of communication is high, if the degree of emphasis on group identity isalso high, then it is to be expected that people are more likely to reject people, goods, andinformation from other groups.
The above four regulators are thought to determine whether a person accepts, partiallyaccepts, or fully rejects people, things, or information input from the external environment.
It is not always the case that all four regulators act equally, and which of the four
regulators acts most strongly in a given situation needs to be determined for each cultural
phenomenon treated.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

180

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

(3) The mechanism of the emergence of the “East–West diﬀerence” and apresentation of a model of East–West Late Jomon Society

Based on Figure 21, Figure 22 models the layered structure of the pottery distribution
zones in Figures 19 and 20. Area I has a radius of approximately 50km in the Kyushu
region and 20–25km in the Kanto region. The usual size of the territory of hunter-gatherers
is said to be within a radius of about 10km (Akazawa 1983), which is clearly smaller than
the size of Area I. This leads us to assume that multiple territories are contained within
Area I.
Area I is the smallest area of spatial cohesion that could be extracted from thecomparative spatial study of vessel shape categories carried out in this study. Vessel
shape categories express the relationships of tool sets and the expectation is that theywould reﬂect the living conditions of the time (Kobayashi 1933, 1938; Suzuki Kimio
1964; Fujimura 1983). Spatial cohesion, which is characterized by uniform vessel shapecategories, is thought to indicate the extent to which information was shared through fairly
close group interaction.
The study of housing conﬁgurations indicates that each dwelling cluster site contains
multiple subunits within it. Referring to the results of previous studies (Tanaka 1998,
2008a, 2008b; Taniguchi 2005, 2018), it is highly likely that each segmental unit
represents a descent group. Given the aforementioned active group interaction within

Figure 22.

Model of multilayered social structure in the Late Jomon period.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

181

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

Area I, it is highly likely that the local community was organized as “Type 4” (Keesing1975) in Keesing’s model of the relationship between community and descent group.
That is, a single settlement contains several diﬀerent descent groups, each of which hasa relationship with a segmental descent group in the other community (Figure 23). It is
assumed that through kinship relationships based on descent, the people established social
networks with neighbouring settlements and communities, and communicated with eachother on a frequent and daily basis.
The above-mentioned social entities are one segment, and while related to other similar
segments, Area II is integrated on a higher dimension, and Area III is integrated on aneven higher dimension. As the spatial scale naturally increases in Area II and Area III,
communication in each area is considered to have taken place between groups of people
who do not see each other on a daily basis, and the frequency of communication in eacharea is considered to have decreased compared to that in Area I. One of the possible
occasions for such communication is in rituals and ceremonies outside of daily life. Thus,
the shape category (vessel type) that shows a certain uniformity on the spatial scale ofArea III is spouted vessels (Form E) with strong ritual signiﬁcance. It is thought that theexistence of ritual and rites aimed at the development and reinforcement of relationships
between broad areas and groups and that the act of sharing the same material culture madevisible the ties between these areas and groups.
What kind of social group units can be contrasted with such broad-area social entities
as Area II and Area III? Considering that the relationship entities of Area II and Area III
are the fusion of multiple descent groups as seen in Area I into a family ideology throughrituals and rites, the most reasonable interpretation is to assume the existence of socialgroups such as “moiety” and “phratry” (Keesing 1975; Service 1971) in the background.

Figure 23.

Keesing’s model “Type 4.”© Japanese Archaeological Association

182

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

In terms of the above model of social structure, it is only on the spatial scale ofArea I that we ﬁnd the above-discussed diﬀerence between the Late Jomon societies ofeastern Japan and western Japan. Dyson-Hudson and Smith’s work (Dyson-Hudson &Smith 1978) is relevant here because they focused on two variables, “resource density”
and “resource predictability,” in considering the territoriality of human groups. Basedon the correlation between these two variables, they model four types of economic
defensibility of groups (Figure 24). Although it is undeniable that there is an environmental
deterministic aspect to this model, we believe that the research results of Dyson-Hudson
and Smith are extremely valuable in that they oﬀer an integrated model of the diversity of
the natural environment and the adaptation strategies of human groups to it, as well as thenature of relationships among human groups in each environment. Based on this model,
how can we evaluate the Late Jomon societies of eastern Japan and western Japan?
First, we would like to focus on the diﬀerences in the duration of settlements and thefrequency of overlapping dwellings. In the Kanto region, which was used as a case study
for the Late Jomon society of eastern Japan, some dwellings continued to occupy the same
location for nearly 1 000 years, conﬁrming a high degree of attachment to a particularlocation (Figure 15). The act of constructing a dwelling in the same location over a long
period of time, even if mimetic, is likely to have been done by a group with a sense ofkinship.

Figure 24.

Dyson-Hudson’s economic defensibility model.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

183

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

What made such long-term and recurrent residential and subsistence activities possible
was probably the subsistence strategies of the eastern Japan Jomon groups, as pointed out
in previous studies. In eastern Japan, it is believed that the ecosystems around settlements
were modiﬁed for multifaceted use of plant resources (Noshiro & Sasaki 2014; Noshiro
2014; Sasaki Y. 2014a). Thus, by actively modifying the areas surrounding settlements tomake a more hospitable environment for themselves, it is thought that eastern Japanese
populations were able to engage in long-term and recurrent residential and subsistence
activities.
From this, it can be inferred that the groups of eastern Japan modiﬁed the ecosystem
around their settlements to make it more hospitable, which in turn made it easier for themto predict the plant and animal resources they would acquire there, and that the resource
density within their territories would have been high. In the Dyson-Hudson/Smith model
described earlier, the groups of eastern Japan would very likely fall into Type C, and theireconomic defensibility would be relatively high.
It is easy to imagine that long-term and recurrent residence in the same location as well
as a stable territorial system would lead to economic defensibility, which in turn would
foster group cohesion and genealogical awareness. As group cohesion and genealogicalawareness grows, the degree of emphasis on group identity would naturally be expected
to increase. Because of this, the groups might be more rigid in their acceptance of people,
things, and information that diﬀer from their own. As a result, the spatial scale of Area I
may come to appear smaller.
However, in order to ensure the acquisition of things not available in one’s own territoryor the acquisition of a marriage partner, it is necessary to establish social relationships
with other groups outside the group’s own territory. It can be inferred that it was necessary
to transcend the tendency of group relations to be relatively exclusive and strict intheir acceptance of other people, goods, and information and to create social devices
to produce and reproduce relationships over a wide area. The existence of monuments
such as stone circles and an abundance of ritual and ceremonial items, as well as thepreviously discussed phenomenon of the development of pottery culture as a mediatorof the development and reinforcement of group relationships, can be seen as such social
devices. It is also possible that these sorts of social devices played an important rolein strengthening group cohesion and genealogical awareness within their own territory(Figure 25).
On the other hand, in the Kyushu region, which was used as a case study of Late
Jomon society in western Japan, the duration of settlement tends to be shorter than in the
Kanto region (Figure 16). In addition, unlike in the Kanto region, the act of repeatedly
constructing duplicate dwellings at the same location is much less common. This suggeststhat when the people returned to an area, they either constructed dwellings at diﬀerent© Japanese Archaeological Association

184

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

Figure 25.

Basic model of regional society in the late Jomon period in eastern Japan.

points in the settlement area or moved to diﬀerent territories. The movement and migration
within and between territories appears to have been more ﬂuid and ﬂexible than in the
Late Jomon society of eastern Japan. This ﬂuidity and ﬂexibility can be attributed tothe subsistence strategies and labor organization of western Japan Jomon groups (Izumi
1984, 1985; Seguchi 2003, 2005, 2009, 2018), which engaged in decentralized gathering
activities of many diﬀerent kinds of nuts and the like in small groups.
Naturally, the western Japan Jomon groups are also thought to have lived with athorough knowledge of the surrounding ecosystem, but it is postulated that compared toeastern Japan Jomon groups, which modiﬁed the ecosystem around their settlements tomake it more habitable for themselves, there was less predictability of resources for thewestern groups.
In light of the above, it is highly likely that the Late Jomon society of western Japan
falls into Type A in the Dyson-Hudson/Smith model. Its members must have shared
information about the acquisition of resources with groups inside and outside theirterritories, and engaged in residential and subsistence activities with ﬂuidity and ﬂexibility.
Although it is possible that a certain degree of territorial formation may have taken place,the economic defensibility of the area was probably lower than in eastern Japan.
Given this type of residential and subsistence activities, it can be imagined that groups
in western Japan were relatively ﬂexible in interacting with groups outside their own
territories, and that this made the development of group cohesion and genealogicalawareness less pronounced than in eastern Japan and the degree of emphasis on group
identity lower. This aligns with the facts that not only are there no clear traces of ancestralrituals in the Kyushu region, but it is unclear whether or not there was any grave site
formation. As a result, they may have been more open to accepting people, goods, and© Japanese Archaeological Association

185

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

information diﬀerent from those of their own group (Figure 21), and the spatial scale ofArea I may have appeared relatively large.
Because of the intrinsically ﬂuid and ﬂexible group and social relationships, thedevelopment and reinforcement of broad-area relationships to ensure living stability
and the reproduction of life were easier to carry out than they were in eastern Japan.
There must have been less necessity to set up social devices like those of eastern Japanin the Late Jomon period, devices that gave birth to places for the development andreinforcement of relationships. This is also suggested by the scarcity of monuments andritual and ceremonial items in western Japan (Figure 26).
It should be noted, however, that the number of ritual and ceremonial remains andartifacts begins to increase in western Japan from Phase II on. In considering this point,
the pattern of the Kyushu region from Phase II on is worthy of attention. We have pointed
out the possibility that the introduction of plant cultivation activities triggered a return toresidential activities, changing the way in which territories were used and in which thecomposition and relationships between groups within and without their territories were
established. The residential and subsistence activities and formation of group relationships
hypothesized here are similar to the already-discussed ones of the Late Jomon society ofeastern Japan (Figure 25). It is possible that the Late Jomon society of western Japan isapproaching the eastern Japan style of society, and it is conceivable that the increase in thenumber of ritual and ceremonial remains and artifacts from Phase II onward may be due tosuch social changes.

Figure 26.

Basic model of regional society in the late Jomon period in western Japan.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

186

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

3.

Social change in the Late Jomon Period(1) The beginning of the Late Jomon Period—Phase I

In interpreting the Late Jomon period, an important event is the global climatic coolingthat occurred from the end of Middle Jomon to the beginning of the Late Jomon period(Kudō 2012). This global climatic change is thought to have caused deterioration in the
resource environment throughout the archipelago, forcing changes in the Middle Jomonstyle residential and subsistence systems and social systems. This is perhaps best illustrated
by the dismantling of ring settlements in the Chubu and Kanto regions and the shift tomore dispersed, smaller-scale, and short-term settlements (Ishii 2009; Kanō 2000, 2002;
Taniguchi 2005, 2008; Tamada & Shōda 2013; Yamamoto 1977, 2013).
Changing residence, livelihood, and social systems was a high-risk decision for a groupat that time, and one can imagine that measures were taken to reduce the risk as much as
possible. One such measure may well have been the construction of a wide-area networkof social relationships in order to ﬁnd someone they could rely on in times of emergency.
It can be hypothesized that they constructed such a wide-area network by building
relationships between remote areas or by creating a bead-like chain of relationships
between adjacent areas. The groundbreaking phenomenon of the establishment of the
Nakatsu-style and Shōmyōji-style wide-area pottery distribution zone at the beginningof the Late Jomon period may well have occurred against this social background. It isalso possible to see here signs of the existence of a practice in which groups share similar
pottery vessels with each other, producing and reproducing relationships of mutual
bonding.
These social conditions are thought to have continued even after the warming of theclimate in the early part of the Late Jomon period. In eastern Japan, spouted vessels
became established as a medium for the development and reinforcement of inter-regional
and inter-group relations, and multi-burial and stone arrangement remains, which arethought to be traces of ancestral rituals and group consolidation rituals, became prominent(Kosugi 1995; Taniguchi 2017b; Yamada 1995, 2018), along with other inter-group social
devices that had the function of producing and reproducing close relationships between
groups.
On the other hand, in western Japan, a pan-western Japanese pottery group called the
Entaimon Pottery Group, which has a high degree of uniformity, begins to be distributedand developed during this period (Izumi 1981a, 1981b, 1989; Tanaka & Matsunaga 1984),
and the transmission and reception of various cultural elements originating from easternJapan can also be observed (Watanabe Makoto 1968, 1975).
Important to touch on here is the direction of wide-area movement of cultural elementsin the diﬀusion process. The movement of cultural elements during the period in question© Japanese Archaeological Association

187

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

has been described as “a phenomenon of wave-like diﬀusion of cultural complexes
originating in eastern Japan” and explained in terms of an east-to-west vector (Ishikawa
2010; Otomasu & Maekawa 1969; Kimura & Shimazu 1972; Koike 1993, 1998; Sawashita
1983, 1994; Tanaka 1982; Maekawa 1979; Matsumoto 2002). Why is the vector of
movement of many cultural elements from east to west?
The ﬁrst thing that must be kept in mind is that at present no traces of large-scalemigration of people from east to west can be conﬁrmed (Tanaka 1982; Fukunaga 2017).
Therefore, it can be said that, even if there were small-scale movements of people fromeast to west, this diﬀusion of cultural elements was basically a phenomenon that occurredin the context of bi-directional interactions between groups. What is important here is themodel of transmission/acceptance/rejection of people, goods, and information shown in
Figure 21, and the model of east–west Late Jomon period society shown in Figures 25
and 26. Based on these models, when people, goods, and information were exchanged
in bi-directional interactions between groups, eastern groups emphasized their owngroup identity more strongly and were more rigid in accepting diﬀerent people, goods,
and information from other groups, while western groups emphasized their own group
identity less strongly. As a result of the lesser emphasis on group identify of the westernJapan group, it was more open to accepting diﬀerent people, goods, and informationfrom other groups. As a result of the eastern Japan group rejecting people, goods, andinformation from western Japan while the western Japanese group accepted people, goods,
and information from eastern Japan to a certain extent, the cultural elements “appear” tohave diﬀused from east to west. Thus, by considering the regulator termed “the degree ofemphasis on group identity” in the model shown in Figure 21, it becomes possible to oﬀer
some explanations and interpretations for the historical question of why many culturalelements in the Late Jomon Period diﬀused from east to west.

(2) Phase II and beyond

The fact that there is a breakthrough between Phases I and II is a point that has beenemphasized throughout this study. We have conﬁrmed that the relationship between
eastern and western Japan, which had involved active relations since the beginning of theLate Jomon period, changed signiﬁcantly in Phase II, and that Phase II can be considered
the trigger or direct impetus for the establishment of the two major east–west pottery
distribution zones that were thought to have been formed from the Latter Late Jomon
period onward.
The two phenomena that are considered particularly important in evaluating the
breakthrough in Phase II are the “expansion of the inﬂuence of Tohoku derived culturalelements” and the “transformation of western Japan Jomon society into eastern Japan
Jomon society.” From Phase II on, the inﬂuence of Tohoku cultural elements moved© Japanese Archaeological Association

188

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

southward, and type E of this study, which was established as a result of the inﬂuence
spillover of Tohoku cultural elements, became widely distributed throughout easternJapan. The Middle Late Jomon period seems to be groundbreaking in the Tohoku region
as well. It has been pointed out that in the Early Late Jomon period, three major pottery
culture areas were formed—the Tokoshinai culture area in the northern part of the Tohoku
region, the Monzen culture area in the central part of the Tohoku region, and the Tsunatori/
Minamizakai culture area in the southern part of the Tohoku region—and that theseconverged in the middle to late part of the Jomon period into the Takaragamine culturearea and the Kobutsuki pottery culture area, which in turn became part of the Kamegaoka
culture area (Suzuki Katsuhiko, 2013; Sekine 2013).
Furthermore, in this regard, Nishimura Hirotsune has recently shown, through ananalytical re-examination of Tokoshinai-2 pottery (Phase I and Phase II of this study), thatthe entire Tohoku region was suddenly integrated into a uniform pottery type sphere in the
Middle Late Jomon Period (Nishimura 2018).
These changes in interregional and group relations in eastern Japan are thought tohave led to a dilution of exchanges between eastern and western Japan. Such a dilutionof exchange between the two regions was also indicated by the trends in vessel categorycomposition in western Japan.
However, at the Tenpaku site in Mie Prefecture, a wealth of pottery of diﬀerent lineages
from Phase II on, including Tohoku, Kanto, and Tokai lineages, was excavated, andcinnabar, the raw material for vermillion, was also unearthed, suggesting that people
gathered from distant places in search of vermillion and conducted trade through it(Morikawa 1995; Oku 2007). In addition, Kinki-style spouted vessels and other potteryof Phase III has been found scattered in the Kanto region (Akita 2015, 2016) (Figure 11,
Kanto-type E). In light of these ﬁndings, we must assume that exchange between eastern
and western Japan continued to a certain extent even during Phase II, although it is thoughtcertain that the frequency was lower than in the previous phase. The establishment of thetwo major east–west pottery distribution zones in Phase II cannot be fully understoodsolely in terms of the dilution of exchange between eastern and western Japan.
What is of interest here is the transformation of the Jomon society of western Japan into
a society like that of the Jomon society of eastern Japan. In western Japan after Phase II,
three things indicate that the Late Jomon society of western Japan was becoming more
and more like that of eastern Japan: the increase in the number of structures and artefacts
related to rituals and ceremonies (Okada 2005; Mizunoe 2012; Yagiura 2017), the fact that
residential and subsistence activities were conducted in such a way that people returnedto the same place despite frequent migrations, and the fact that rituals and rites began thatused spouted vessel pottery as a medium for the development and reinforcement of interregional and inter-group relations. This transformation of western Jomon society into
© Japanese Archaeological Association

189

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

one like eastern Jomon society may well have occurred as a result, in this phase, of thedigestion and absorption into the society’s own culture of the information accumulated
through exchanges with eastern Japan since the beginning of the Late Jomon period. It is
assumed that through these changes in the Late Jomon society of western Japan, the way
people, goods, and information were accepted or rejected also began to resemble aspects of
the Late Jomon society of eastern Japan. The degree of emphasis on group identity became
stronger than in the previous phase, and tolerance for acceptance of diﬀerent people,
goods, and information from other groups decreased. As a result, it seems likely that even
if they interacted with groups from eastern Japan, they may be considered to have become
more rigid in their acceptance of people, goods, and information from eastern Japan, unlikein Phase I and earlier.
Triggered by the global cooling seen from the end of the Middle to the beginning of
the Late Jomon period, the “construction of a wide-area network of social relations” andthe “development of a social device capable of producing and reproducing close intergroup ties” progressed through the ﬁrst half of the Late Jomon period. The result was thatwhen a certain threshold was reached, the changes described above occurred in eastern
and western Japan. The complex intertwining of these changes in the two regions and theirmutual inﬂuence on each other can be considered to have resulted in the establishment of
the two major east–west pottery distribution zones in Phase II. Furthermore, the regionalframework that was formed there, dividing the Japanese archipelago into two large areas,
undoubtedly continued to have an impact until the beginning of the Yayoi period.
The diﬀerences in the acceptance of rice farming culture between western and easternJapan can also be explained in light of the transmission/acceptance/rejection model ofpeople, goods, and information presented in Figure 21 and the east–west Late Jomon
society model presented in Figures 25 and 26. Although in Phase II the society of western
Jomon Japan was becoming more like that of eastern Jomon Japan, at the same time its
ﬂuid, ﬂexible, and open nature was basically open to the acceptance of people, goods,
and information diﬀerent from its own, and it accepted the new culture from the continent
relatively smoothly. On the other hand, this was not the case in the society of eastern
Jomon Japan, which tended to be more closed and conservative in its acceptance of
diﬀerent people, goods, and information. Eastern Jomon Japan took a considerable amountof time to truly integrate rice paddy agriculture into its own society and culture, although
it was aware of its existence. At ﬁrst glance, the society of eastern Jomon Japan, with its
complex material culture, appears to have been a more developed and evolved society
than that of western Jomon Japan, but the social and cultural conditions that necessitatedsuch a complex material culture ironically led people to reject the more advanced culturalelements that came from the continent.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

190

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

IV.

Conclusions: Situating Late Jomon Society in Human History

The stratiﬁcation of Jomon society has dominated theoretical discussions in recent years.
(Takahashi 2001b, 2017a; Taniguchi 2005, 2017b; Nakamura 1999; Watanabe H. 1990).
This study undertook concrete spatio-temporal and settlement analyses of pottery, but inneither case did we ﬁnd any deﬁnite signs pointing to social stratiﬁcation.
Watanabe Hitoshi has described Jomon pottery as “luxurious” because of having
distinct, specialized types which were traded over long distances, with specially ﬁne pieces
being owned by the rich (Watanabe H. 1990). However, in the results from the spatiotemporal analyses of pottery in this study we were unable to conﬁrm phenomena such as
distinct, specialized types and limitations on ownership.
As for large dwellings, which have been considered evidence pointing to stratiﬁcation,
it is certainly true that, as earlier research has pointed out, specialized artifacts havebeen excavated, but it is hard to say that in terms of quality and quantity they are very
diﬀerent from the specialized artifacts found in other dwellings. Rather, if we focus on
the distribution of the large dwellings and the timing of their appearance, it might bemore productive to interpret these large dwellings in the context of the development andreinforcement of horizontal social relationships that strengthened the bonds between
Tohoku and Kanto groups.
It is interesting to consider, as Taniguchi Yasuhiro (Taniguchi 2017a, 2017b) and
Takahashi Ryūzaburō (Takahashi 2001a, 2001b, 2014, 2016, 2017a, 2017b) do, that theincreased activity and sophistication of rituals and ceremonies in the Late Jomon period
promoted social stratiﬁcation. Certainly, the development of rituals and rites for thedevelopment and reinforcement of inter-regional and inter-group relations is a deﬁning
characteristic of Late Jomon society. It is also easy to imagine that there were leaders incharge of such rituals and rites.
However, the segmented and multilayered social structure of the Late Jomon period, as
seen in the results of the analysis of pottery and settlements in this study and the modelof Late Jomon period social structure (Figure 22) derived from those results, shows notraces of the segmented groups being positioned according to rank or hierarchy, or of any
development of speciﬁc family or status distinctions. In addition, the essence of the rituals
and rites that developed in the late Jomon period was the construction of a wide-area social
network aimed at assuring livelihood stability and the reproduction of life, and intended to
produce and reproduce horizontal social relations by strengthening ties between groups.
In light of the above, the most reasonable interpretation at present is that both eastern
and western Jomon societies of the Late Jomon period were societies that can be describedwithin the framework of a typical tribal society (Sahlins 1968, 1972; Service 1971).
How then can we evaluate the diﬀerences between the Late Jomon societies of eastern© Japanese Archaeological Association

191

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

Japan and western Japan as modelled in Figures 25 and 26? In terms of the degree ofsocio-cultural integration, the Late Jomon society of eastern Japan has a more advanced
system of social integration than the Late Jomon society of western Japan, and in thatsense they can be evaluated in terms of a vertical relationship of high and low. However,
we must not lose sight of the fact that the diﬀerences are only within the frameworkof tribal society. The diﬀerences between the two societies are of a nature that should
be discussed in terms of what Service calls “speciﬁc evolution” (Service 1971). The
construction of societies that deployed the settlement and subsistence strategies best
adapted to the geographic and resource environments of each region resulted in thedevelopment of superﬁcially diﬀerent hunter-gatherer and tribal societies in the east andwest of the Japanese archipelago. Future research should compare the characteristics of theLate Jomon societies of eastern and western Japan with the characteristics of the societiesof the Initial, Early, and Middle Jomon periods, which are considered to be at diﬀerent
stages of social evolution, as well as with the characteristics of the societies of otherpeoples from around the world who are thought to belong to the same social evolutionary
stage.

References
ABE Yoshirō 2001. Jomon jidai kōbanki ni-okeru ōgata tateana tatemono-ato no kinō toiseki-gun [Site cluster and the function of large pit structures in the Late and Final
Jomon period]. Kaizuka Hakubutsukan Kiyō 28: 11–29. 阿部芳郎 2001「縄文時代後晩期における大形竪穴建物址の機能と遺跡群」『貝塚博物館紀要』28、pp. 11–29.
ABE Yoshirō 2017. Jomon shakai wo dō-kangaeru bekika [How should we consider
the Jomon society?], in YAMADA Yasuhiro and Staﬀ of the National Museum ofJapanese History (ed.) Jomon jidai, sono wakugumi, bunka, shakai wo dō-toraeruka?:
188–213. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan. 阿部芳郎 2017「縄文社会をどう考えるべきか」山田康弘・国立歴史民俗博物館（編）『歴博フォーラム 縄文時代 その枠組・文化・社会をどう捉えるか？』pp. 188–213. 東京：吉川弘文館
ABIKO Shōji 1997. Kantō chihō Jomon kōki no dōtai [Dynamics in the Late Jomon Kantō
Region]. Dogū to Sono Jōhō Kenkyūkai (ed.) Dogū kenkyū no chihei: dogū to sono
jōhō kenkyū ronshū [Horizon of studies on dogū ceramic ﬁgurines: collected research
papers on information derived from dogū ceramic ﬁgurines] (1): 55–72. Tokyo:「土偶とその情報」研究会
Benseisha. 安孫子昭二 1997「関東地方縄文後期の動態」（編）『土偶研究の地平「土偶とその情報」研究論集 (1) 』pp. 55–72. 東京：勉誠社
AKAZAWA Takeru 1983. Shuryō saishū min no kōkogaku: sono seitaigaku teki approach[Archaeology of hunter-gatherers: ecological approach]. Tokyo: Kaimeisha. 赤澤威
1983『狩猟採集民の考古学：その生態学的アプローチ』東京：海鳴社
AKITA Kanako 2015. Minami-Kantō ni-okeru kōki chūkō doki no yōsō [Aspects of Late
© Japanese Archaeological Association

192

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

Jomon pottery with a spout in southern Kantō]. Dai 28 kai Jomon seminar: Jomon
Kōki chūkō doki no sho-yōsō, pp. 175–218. 秋田かな子 2015「南関東における後期注口土器の様相」『第 28 回 縄文セミナー 縄文後期注口土器の諸様相』pp. 175–218.
AKITA Kanako 2016. Jomon jidai kōki chūkōdoki no henka to kakki—Mimami-Kantōchihō ni-okeru shosō kara—. Tōkai Shigaku 50: 77–90. 秋田かな子 2016「縄文時代
後期注口土器の変化と画期— 南関東地方における諸相から—」『 東海史学 』50、pp.
77–90.
Binford, L.R. 1980. Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: hunter-gatherer settlement system andarchaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45: 4–20.
Coon, C. 1971. The hunting peoples. Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press.（平野温美・鳴島史之訳 2008『世界の狩猟民 その豊饒な生活文化』法政大学出版局）
Dyson-Hudson, R. and E. Smith. 1978. Human territoriality: an ecological reassessment.
American Anthropologist 80: 21–41.
FUJIMURA Haruo 1983. Jomon doki sosei-ron [Assemblage of Jomon pottery], in KATŌShinpei, KOBAYASHI Tatsuo, and FUJIMOTO Tsuyoshi (ed.) Jomon bunka no
kenkyū, Vol. 4 (Jomon pottery, Pt. 2): 238–249. Tokyo: Yūzankaku. 藤村東男 1983
『 縄文文化の研究 4 縄文土器
「 縄文土器組成論 」加藤晋平・小林達雄・藤本強（ 編）II』、pp. 238–249. 東京：雄山閣出版
FUKUNAGA Masahiro 2017. Jomon jidai kōki kōikidoki-bunpuken no hensen to sono
tokushitsu [Temporal change in the spatial extent of Late Jomon pottery and its
nature]. Kōkogaku Kenkyū 63(4): 37–59. 福永将大 2017「縄文時代後期広域土器分布
圏の変遷とその特質」『考古学研究』63 巻 4 号、pp. 37–59.
FUKUNAGA Masahiro 2018. Kugino-Sengen iseki shutsudo no Kinki-kei doki-gun[Jomon pottery of the Kinki-regional tradition discovered at the Kugino^Sengen site].
Kōkogaku Kenkyū 65(1): 77–86. 福永将大 2018「釘野千軒遺跡出土の近畿系土器群」『考古学研究』65 巻 1 号、pp. 77–86.
HABU Junko 1990. Jomon jidai no shūraku kenkyū to shuryō, saishūmin kenkyū tono
setten [Study of Jomon settlements and its relevance to hunter-gatherer studies].
Busshitsu Bunka 53: 1–14. 羽生淳子 1990「縄文時代の集落研究と狩猟・採集民研究との接点」『物質文化』53、pp. 1–14.
Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in actions: ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture.
Cambridge University Press.
Hodder, I. (ed.) 1989. The meanings of things: material culture and symbolic expression.
Harper Collins Academic.
IMAMURA Keiji 1977a. Shōmyōji-shiki doki no kenkyū (jō) [Study of the Shōmyōji typepottery, Pt. 1]. Kōkogaku Zasshi 63(1): 1–29. 今村啓爾 1977a「称名寺式土器の研究（上）」『考古学雑誌』63 巻 1 号、pp. 1–29.
IMAMURA Keiji 1977b. Shōmyoji-shiki doki no kenkyū (ge) [Study of the Shōmyoji typepottery, Pt. 2]. Kōkogaku Zasshi 63(2): 22–60. 今村啓爾 1977b「称名寺式土器の研究（下）」『考古学雑誌』63 巻 2 号、pp. 22–60.
ISHII Hiroshi 2009. Sōron: Jomon kōki shūraku no hensen to tokushitsu [Temporal change© Japanese Archaeological Association

193

FUKUNAGA Masahiroin Late Jomon settlements and its nature: a synthesis]. Kōkogaku Journal 584: 3–4．
縄文後期集落の変遷と特質」『月刊考古学ジャーナル』584、pp.
3–4.
ISHIKAWA Takeshi 2010. Kyūshū hokuhanbu chiiki ni-okeru Jomon jidai kōki no bunka
henyō ni-tsuiteno seisatsu [Reﬂection on the cultural change in Late Jomon Northern
Kyushu]. Kokusai Jomon-gaku Kyōkai Kiyō, 3: 40–49. 石川健 2010「九州北半部地域における縄文時代後期の文化変容についての省察」『国際縄文学協会紀要』第 3 号、pp. 40–49.
IZUMI Takura 1981a. Kinki, Chūgoku, Shikoku chihō [Kinki, Chūgoku, Shikoku
regions of western Japan], in NOMAGUCHI Yoshimaro (ed.) Jomon doki taisei[Compendium of Jomon pottery], Vol. 3 (Late Phase): 153–155. Tokyo: Kodansha.
泉拓良 1981a「近畿・中国・四国地方」野口義麿（編）『縄文土器大成』3（後期）pp.
153–155. 東京：講談社
IZUMI Takura 1981b. Kinki chihō no doki [Pottery in the Kinki region], in KATŌ Shinpei,
KOBAYASHI Tatsuo and FUJIMOTO Tsuyoshi (ed.) Jomon bunka no kenkyū, Vol. 4(Jomon pottery, Pt. 2): 166–175. Tokyo: Yūzankaku. 泉拓良 1981b「近畿地方の土器」
加藤晋平・小林達雄・藤本強（編）『縄文文化の研究』4（縄文土器 II）pp. 166–175. 東
石井寛 2009「総論京：雄山閣出版IZUMI Takura 1984. Jomon jidai no mura: Kinki chihō [Jomon settlements: Kinki
region]. Jomon kara Yayoi e [From the Jomon to the Yayoi periods]: 107–119. Nara:『縄
Tezukayama Kōkogaku Kenkyū-Jo. 泉拓良 1984「縄文時代のムラ—近畿地方—」
文から弥生へ』帝塚山考古学研究所、pp. 107–119.
IZUMI Takura 1985. Kinki chihō no jirei kenkyū [Investigations into sites in the Kinki
region]. FUJIOKA Kenjirō (ed.) Kōza kōko chirigaku [Geographical archaeology:
a survey], Vol. 4 (settlements and development): 45–64. Tokyo: Gakuseisha. 泉拓良『 講座考古地理学 』第 4 巻（ 村落と開1985「 近畿地方の事例研究 」藤岡謙二郎（ 編）発），pp. 45–64. 東京：学生社
IZUMI Takura 1989. Entaimon-doki yōshiki [Assemblage of the Entaimon-type Late
Jomon pottery of western Japan], in KOBAYASHI Tatsuo and OGAWA Tadahiro (ed.)
Jomon doki taikan [Compendium of Jomon pottery], Vol. 4 (Late and Final Phases
and Epi- Jomon): 273–275. Tokyo: Shōgakukan. 泉拓良 1989「縁帯文土器様式」小林
達雄・小川忠博（編）『縄文土器大観 4 後期・晩期・続縄文』pp. 273–275. 東京：小学館

KANŌ Minoru 2000. Shūgō-teki kyojū no hōkai to saihensei: Jomon chū, kōki shūraku
eno sekkin hōhō [Collapse and re-organization of clustered residential units: approachto Middle and Late Jomon settlements]. Senshi Kōkogaku Ronshū 9: 63–104. 加納実『先史考古学2000「集合的居住の崩壊と再編成—縄文中・後期集落への接近方法—」論集』9、pp. 63–104.
KANŌ Minoru 2002. Hi-kyojūiki heno bunsan kyojū ga shimesu shakai: chūki shūmatsu
no Shimousa Daichi [Society as evidenced by dispersed pattern of settlement
extending into previously unsettled areas: case of the Shimousa height toward the end© Japanese Archaeological Association

194

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

of Middle Jomon period]. ANZAI Masato (ed.) Jomon shakai-ron, Vol. 1: 235–258.
Tokyo: Dōseisha. 加納実 2002「非居住域への分散居住が示す社会—中期終末の下総台地—」安斎正人（編）『縄文社会論（上）』pp. 235–258. 東京：同成社
Keesing, R. 1975. Kin groups and social structure. Holt: Rinehart and Winston.（小川正恭・笠原政治・河合利光訳『親族集団と社会構造』未來社）
KIMURA Kitarō and SHIMAZU Yoshiaki 1972. Kyushu kōkogaku no shomondai: Jomon
jidai kō, banki [Various issues of the archaeology of Kyushu: Late and Final Jomon
period]. Kōkogaku Kenkyū 19(1): 19–31. 木村幾多郎・島津義昭 1972「九州考古学の諸問題 縄文時代後・晩期」『考古学研究』19 巻 1 号、pp. 19–31.
KOBAYASHI Yukio 1933. Senshi Kōkogaku ni-okeru yōshiki mondai [Issues on types andassemblages in prehistoric archaeology]. Kōkogaku 4(8): 223–238. 小林行雄 1933「先史考古学に於ける様式問題」『考古学』4 巻 8 号、pp. 223–238.
KOBAYASHI Yukio 1938. Yōshiki [Concept of type and assemblage]. Yayoi shiki dokishūsei zuroku: kaisetsu (Tokyo Archaeological Society Memoir, No. 1), pp. 7–12. 小林行雄 1938「様式」『弥生式土器聚成図録解説 東京考古学会学報 1 冊』、pp. 7–12.
KOIKE Fumihito 1993. Buzen chiiki no Jomon kōki no jūkyo-ato [Late Jomon residential
features in eastern Fukuoka Prefecture]. Kobunka Dansō 30 (pt. 3): 1029–1044. 小池
史哲 1993「豊前地域の縄文後期の住居跡」『古文化談叢』30（下）、pp. 1029–1044.
KOIKE Fumihito 1998. Suōnada engan chiiki no Jomon kōki jūkyo-ato [Late Jomon
residential features in the coastal region of southern Yamaguchi Prefecture]. Rettō nokōkogaku: collected papers in celebration of Professor WATANABE Makoto’s sixtieth『列島の考
birthday, pp. 629–646. 小池史哲 1998「周防灘沿岸地域の縄文後期住居跡」
古学—渡辺誠先生還暦記念論文集—』、pp. 629–646.
KOSUGI Yasushi 1995. Jomon jidai kōhanki ni-okeru daikibo haiseki kinenbutsu no
seiritsu: “sōbosaisei” no kōzō to kinō [Emergence of monumental structures utilizing
cobbles placed on the ground in the later half of the Jomon period: structure andfunction of mortuary and burial rituals]. Sundai Shigaku, No. 93: 101–149. 小杉康1995「 縄文時代後半期における大規模配石記念物の成立—「 葬墓祭制 」の構造と機能—」『駿台史学』93、pp. 101–149.
KOYAMA Shūzō 1984. Jomon jidai: computer kōkogaku ni-yoru fukugen [Jomon period:a reconstruction by computer application to archaeology]. Tokyo: Chūkō Shinsho. 小
山修三 1984『縄文時代 コンピュータ考古学による復元』東京：中公新書
KUDŌ Yūichirō 2012. Kyūsekki, Jomon jidai no kankyō bunkashi: kōseido hōshasei tanso
nendai sokutei to Kōkogaku [Environmental and cultural history of the Paleolithic andJomon periods: archaeology based on high-precision radio-carbon dating]. Tokyo:
Shinsensha. 工藤雄一郎 2012『旧石器・縄文時代の環境文化史 高精度放射性炭素年
代測定と考古学』東京：新泉社．
MAEKAWA Takehiro 1979. Kyushu kōki Jomon doki no shomondai: Surikeshi Jomon
doki no tenkai [Issues on Late Jomon pottery in Kyushu: development of the
Surikeshi-type Jomon pottery]. Kyushu Jomon bunka no Kenkyū: 41–107. Fukuoka:
Private Publication. 前川威洋 1979「九州後期縄文土器の諸問題—磨消縄文土器の展© Japanese Archaeological Association

195

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

開—」『九州縄文文化の研究』、pp. 41–107. 前川威洋遺稿刊行会
MATSUMOTO Naoko 2002. Dentō to henkaku ni-yureru shakai: Kō, banki no Kyushu[Society trapped between tradition and innovation: Late and Final Jomon period in
Kyushu]. ANZAI Masato (ed.) Jomon shakai-ron, Pt. 2: 103–138. Tokyo: Dōseisha.
松本直子 2002「伝統と変革に揺れる社会—後・晩期の九州—」安斎正人（編）『縄文社会論』下、pp. 103–138. 東京：同成社
MIYAUCHI Katsumi 1980. Kyushu Jomon jidai dogū no kenkyū [Study on Jomon dogū
ceramic ﬁgurines in Kyushu]. Kyushu Kōkogaku 55: 23–35. 宮内克己 1980「九州縄文時代土偶の研究」『九州考古学』55、pp. 23–35.
MIZUNOE Kazutomo 2001. Kyushu chihō hokubu ni-okeru Jomon jidai shūraku noshoyōsō [Various aspects of Jomon settlements in northern Kyushu]. Rettō ni-okeru
Jomon jidai shūraku no shoyōsō: 589–604. Saitama: Jomon Jidai Bunka Kenkyū Kai.
水ノ江和同 2001「九州地方北部における縄文時代集落の諸様相」『列島における縄文時代集落の諸様相』pp. 589–604. 埼玉：縄文時代文化研究会
MIZUNOE Kazutomo 2012. Kyushu Jomon bunka no kenkyū: Kyushu karamita Jomon
bunka no wakugumi [Studies on the Jomon culture of Kyushu: framework of Jomon
culture from the Kyushu perspective]. Tokyo: Yūzankaku. 水ノ江和同 2012『九州縄文文化の研究—九州からみた縄文文化の枠組み—』東京：雄山閣
MORIKAWA Yukio (ed.) 1995. Tenpaku iseki [Tenpaku site]. Mie Prefecture: Mie
Prefectural Centre for Archaeological Operations. 森川幸雄（編）1995『天白遺跡』三重県：三重県埋蔵文化財センター

NAKAMURA Ōki 1999. Bosei kara-yomu Jomon shakai no kaisōka [Social ranking
during the Jomon period, approached from burial practices]. KOBAYASHI Tatsuo(ed.) Saishin Jomon-gaku no sekai [Current scope of the Jomon studies]: 48–60.
Tokyo: Asahi-Shinbunsha. 中村大 1999「墓制から読む縄文社会の階層化」小林達雄（編）『最新縄文学の世界』pp. 48–60. 東京：朝日新聞社
NISHIMURA Hirotsune 2018. Tokoshinai-2-shiki doki no sai-kentō [Re-examination of
the Tokoshinai-2 type pottery]. Tokyo Daigaku Kōkogaku Kenkyūshitsu Kenkyū kiyō
『東京大学考古学研究室研究紀
31: 17–46. 西村広経 2018「十腰内 2 式土器の再検討」
要』31、pp. 17–46.
NOSHIRO Shūichi 2014. Jomon-jin ha mori wo donoyōni riyō shitanoka [How did Jomon
people utilize forest?]. KUDŌ Yūichirō and Staﬀ of the National Museum of Japanese
History (ed.) Kokomade wakatta Jomon-jin no shokubutsu riyō. Tokyo: Shinsensha.
能城修一 2014「縄文人は森をどのように利用したのか」工藤雄一郎・国立歴史民俗博物館（編）『歴博フォーラム ここまでわかった！縄文人の植物利用』pp. 50–69. 東
京：新泉社

NOSHIRO Shūichi and SASAKI Yuka 2014. Ibutsu shutsudo shokubutsu-itai karamita
Jomon jidai no shinrin-shigen riyō [Utilization of forests during the Jomon period
from the standpoint of plant remains included in artifacts]. Bulletin of the National
Museum of Japanese History 187: 15–48. 能城修一・佐々木由香 2014「遺物出土植
物遺体からみた縄文時代の森林資源利用」『国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告』187、pp.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

196

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

15–48.
OBATA Hiroki 2011. Tōhoku-Asia kominzoku shokubutsugaku to Jomon nōkō [Northeast
Asian paeoethnobotany and Jomon agriculture]. Tokyo: Dōseisha. 小畑弘己 2011『東北アジア古民族植物学と縄文農耕』東京：同成社
OBATA Hiroki 2016. Tane wo maku Jomon-jin: saishin kagaku ga kutsugaesu nōkō nokigen [Seeding Jomon people: new scientiﬁc methods revolutionizing research into
the origins of agriculture]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa-Kōbunkan. 小畑弘己 2016『タネをまく
縄文人—最新科学が覆す農耕の起源』東京：吉川弘文館
OBATA Hiroki, SASAKI Yuka, & SENBA Yasuko 2007. Doki akkon karamita Jomon jidai
kō-banki ni-okeru Kyushu no daizu saibai [Cultivation of soybeans in Late and Final
Jomon period Kyushu from the perspective of seed impressions on pottery surface].
Shokusei-shi Kenkyū 15(2): 97–114. 小畑弘己・佐々木由香・仙波靖子 2007「土器圧痕からみた縄文時代後・晩期における九州のダイズ栽培 」『 植生史研究 』15 巻 2 号、pp. 97–114.
OKADA Ken’ichi 2000. Nishi-Nihon Jomon kōki-kōyō doki hennen joron: Mukaide iseki
shutsudo doki no kenkyū [Pottery chronology of the late phase of Late Jomon period
in western Japan: study on pottery excavated at the Mukaide site]. Mukaide iseki:
317–351. Osaka Prefecture: Osaka Center for Cultural Heritage Management. 岡田憲
一 2000「西日本縄文後期後葉土器編年序論—向出遺跡出土土器の研究—」『向出遺跡』pp. 317–351. 大阪府：大阪府文化財調査センター
OKADA Ken’ichi 2005. Daikibo sōsai kūkan no keisei: Kinki chihō ni-okeru Jomon jidai
kō-banki shūraku no arikata [Formation of large-scale space for mortuary rituals:
nature of Late and Final Jomon settlements in the Kinki region]. Kansai Society
for Studies of Jomon Culture (ed.) Kansai Jomon jidai ni-okeru sekki, shūraku noshoyōsō (Kansai Jomon ronshū 2): 69–84. Tokyo: Rokuichi Shobō. 岡田憲一 2005
「大規模葬祭空間の形成—近畿地方における縄文時代後晩期集落のあり方—」関西縄
文文化研究会（編）『関西縄文時代における石器・集落の諸様相 関西縄文論集 2』pp.
69–84. 東京：六一書房
OKU Yoshitsugu 2007. Shu no seisan to kyōkyū: Chūō kōzōsen tōbu shūhen no kanren
shiryō wo megutte [Production and distribution of cinnabar: relevant data from areas
to the east of Fossa Magna]. KOSUGI Yasushi, TANIGUCHI Yasuhiro, NISHIDA
Yasutami, MIZUNOE Kazutomo & YANO Ken’ichi (ed.) Jomon jidai no kōkogaku,Vol. 6 (Production: Technology and Organization): 240–245. Tokyo: Dōseisha. 奥義次
2007「朱の生産と供給—中央構造線東部周辺の関連資料をめぐって—」小杉康・谷口
康浩・西田泰民・水ノ江和同・矢野健一（編）『縄文時代の考古学』6 (ものづくり—道
具製作の技術と組織—) pp. 240–245. 東京：同成社
OTOMASU Shigetaka & MAEKAWA Takehiro 1969. Jomon kōki bunka: Kyushu [LateJomon culture: Kyushu], in ŌBA Iwao, NAITŌ Masatune & YAWATA Ichirō (ed.)
Shinban kōkogaku kōza, Vol. 3 (Prehistoric cultures): 269–289. Tokyo: Yūzankaku. 乙
益重隆・前川威洋 1969「縄文後期文化 九州」大場磐雄・内藤政恒・八幡一郎（編）『新版考古学講座』第 3 巻（先史文化）pp. 269–289. 東京：雄山閣© Japanese Archaeological Association

197

FUKUNAGA MasahiroŌTSUBO Yukiko 2015. Jomon tama bunka no kenkyū: Kyushu brand kara Jomon bunka
no tayōsei wo saguru [Study on beads culture during the Jomon period: in searchof diversity of Jomon culture from the perspective of the “Kyushu brand”]. Tokyo:
Yūzankaku. 大坪志子 2015『縄文玉文化の研究—九州ブランドから縄文文化の多様性を探る—』東京：雄山閣
ŌTSUKA Tatsurō 2000. Jomon doki kenkyū no shintenkai [New development of research
into Jomon pottery]. Tokyo: Dōseisha. 大塚達朗 2000『縄紋土器研究の新展開』東京：
同成社

SAHARA Makoto 1992. Nihon-jin no tanjō (Taikei Nippon no rekishi 1)[Emergence ofJapanese people (Vol. 1 of the history of Japan: an outline)]. Tokyo: Shōgakkan. 佐原
真 1992『大系日本の歴史① 日本人の誕生』東京：小学館
Sahlins, M. 1968. Tribesmen. Boston: Prentice-Hall, Inc.（青木保訳 1972『現代文化人類学
5 部族民』鹿島出版会）
Sahlins, M. 1972. Stone Age economics. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.（山内昶訳 1984
『石器時代の経済学』）
SASAKI Kōmei 1991. Nihon-shi tanjō (Nippon no rekishi 1)[Beginning of the Japanese
history (Vol. 1 of the History of Japan)]. Tokyo: Shūeisha. 佐々木高明 1991『日本の歴史① 日本史誕生』東京：集英社
SASAKI Yuka 2014a. Jomon-jin no shokubutsu riyō: atarashii kenkyūhō kara mietekita
koto [Plant utilization of Jomon people: what are being clariﬁed owing to new
methodologies]. KUDŌ Yūichirō and staﬀ of the National Museum of Japanese
History (ed.) Kokomade wakatta Jomon jin no shokubutsu riyō: 26–45. Tokyo:
Shinsensha. 佐々木由香 2014a「縄文人の植物利用—新しい研究法からみえてきたこと—」工藤雄一郎・国立歴史民俗博物館（編）『歴博フォーラム ここまでわかった！
縄文人の植物利用』pp. 26–45. 東京：新泉社
SASAKI Yuka 2014b. Shokusei to shokubutsu shigen riyō no chiikisei [Regionalvariations of vegetation and plant utilization]. ABE Yoshirō (ed.) Kikan Kōkogaku
Bessatsu, 21 (Resource Utilization and Society during the Jomon Period): 107–114.
Tokyo: Yūzankaku. 佐々木由香 2014b「植生と植物資源利用の地域性」阿部芳郎（編）『季刊考古学・別冊 21 縄文の資源利用と社会』東京：雄山閣、pp. 107–114.
SAWASHITA Takanobu 1983. Fukuoka-ken Kuroyama iseki ni-tsuite: Mimanda-shiki
doki no sai-kentō [On the Kuroyama site, Fukuoka Prefecture: a re-examination ofMimanda-type pottery]. Kobunka Dansō 11: 185–231. 澤下孝信 1983「福岡県黒山遺跡について—三万田式土器の再検討—」『古文化談叢』11、pp. 185–231.
SAWASHITA Takanobu 1994. Bunka dōtai-ron: Sekki sosei oyobi doki yōshiki tono
kanren de [Cultural dynamics: from the perspectives of the assemblages of lithics andpottery]. Kyushu Bunkashi Kenkyū-Jo kiyō 39: 35–64. 澤下孝信 1994「文化動態論—
石器組成および土器様式との関連で—」『九州文化史研究所紀要』39、pp. 35–64.
SEGUCHI Shinji 2003. Kansai Jomon shakai ni-okeru shūdan kibo no suii: jinkō to kyojū
shūdan no sūryō-teki henka wo meguru kentō [Temporal change in the size of humangroups in the Jomon society of the Kansai region: examination of quantitative change© Japanese Archaeological Association

198

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

in population and residential groups]. Kansai Society for Studies of Jomon Culture(ed.) Kansai Jomon jidai no shūraku, bochi to seigyō (Kansai Jomon ronshū 1): 1–10.
Tokyo: Rokuichi Shobō. 瀬口眞司 2003「関西縄文社会における集団規模の推移：人口と居住集団の数量的変化をめぐる検討」関西縄文文化研究会（編）『関西縄文時代の集落・墓地と生業 関西縄文論集 1』pp. 1–10. 東京：六一書房
SEGUCHI Shinji 2005. Shokubutsu-shitsu shokuryō no riyō-kyōka to chiiki-teki hen’i:
Kansai chihō to Tōkai, Hokuriku chihō seibu no dasei sekifu to chozō-ketsu[Strengthening plant foods and regional variation: chipped stone axes and storage pits
in the Kansai, Tōkai, and western Hokuriku regions]. Kansai Society for Studies ofJomon Culture (ed.) Kansai Jomon jidai ni-okeru sekki, shūraku no shoyōsō (Kansai
Jomon ronshū 2): 1–10. Tokyo: Rokuichi Shobō. 瀬口眞司 2005「植物質食料の利用強化と地域的変異：関西地方と東海・北陸地方西部の打製石斧と貯蔵穴」関西縄文文化研究会（編）『関西縄文時代における石器・集落の諸様相 関西縄文論集 2』pp. 1–10.
東京：六一書房

SEGUCHI Shinji 2009. Jomon shūraku no kōkogaku: Nishi-Nihon ni-okeru teijū shūraku
no seiritsu to tenkai [Archaeology of Jomon settlements: formation and growth ofsedentary settlements in western Japan]. Kyoto: Shōwadō. 瀬口眞司 2009『縄文集落の考古学：西日本における定住集落の成立と展開』京都：昭和堂
SEGUCHI Shinji 2018. Kansai Jomon shakai no chiiki-teki tokushoku to sono haikei[Regional characteristics of the Jomon society in the Kansai region and theirbackground]. Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History, 208: 191–213. 瀬
口眞司 2018「関西縄文社会の地域的特色とその背景」『国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告』
208、pp. 191–213.
SEKINE Tatsuto 2013. Doki no hennen [Pottery chronology]. Members of the archaeology
section of the History of Aomori Prefecture Editorial Committee (ed.) Aomori-Kenshi
shiryō-hen (Archaeology, Pt. 2: Late and Final Jomon period): 8–21. 関根達人 2013『青森県史 資料編 考古 2 縄文後期・「土器の編年」青森県史編さん考古部会（編）晩期』、pp. 8–21.
Service, E.R. 1971. Primitive social organization: an evolutionary perspective. New York:
Random House.（松尾万亀雄訳 1979『未開の社会組織 進化論的考察』弘文堂）
SUGAYA Michiyasu 2019. Kasori B-shiki no oboegaki [Note on the Kasori-B typepottery]. Kaizuka Hakubutsukan kiyō 45: 17–36. 菅谷通保 2019「『加曽利 B 式』の覚書」
『貝塚博物館紀要』第 45 号、pp. 17–36.
SUZUKI Katsuhiko 2013. Bunpu-ken to bunka-ken [Spheres of material distribution
and cultural spheres]. Members of the archaeology section of the History of Aomori
Prefecture Editorial Committee (ed.) Aomori-Kenshi shiryō-hen (Archaeology, Pt. 2:
Late and Final Jomon period): 2–7．鈴木克彦 2013「分布圏と文化圏」青森県史編さん考古部会（編）『青森県史 資料編 考古 2 縄文後期・晩期』pp. 2–7.
SUZUKI Kimio 1964. Doki keishiki no nintei hōhō toshiteno set no igi [Importance of a“set” as a method to distinguish a pottery type]. Kōkogaku techō 21: 1–5．鈴木公雄『考古学手帖』21、pp. 1–5.
1964「土器型式の認定方法としてのセットの意義」© Japanese Archaeological Association

199

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

TAKAHASHI Ryūzaburō 2001a. Jomon kō, banki shakai no fukugōka to kaisōka-katei wodō-toraeruka: kyojū kōzō to bosei yorimita Chiba-Ken iseki rei [How can we grasp
the process toward the social complexity and ranking in the Late and Final Jomon
period: cases of residential and burial sites in Chiba Prefecture]. Waseda Daigaku
Daigakuin Bungaku Kenkyūka Kiyō 47: 61–75. 高橋龍三郎 2001a「縄文後・晩期社
会の複合化と階層化過程をどう捉えるか—居住構造と墓制よりみた千葉県遺跡例—」『早稲田大学大学院文学研究科紀要』47、pp. 61–75.
TAKAHASHI Ryūzaburō 2001b. Sōron: sonraku to shakai no kōkogaku [Archaeologyof settlement and society: an overview]. TAKAHASHI Ryūzaburō (ed.) Gendaino kōkogaku, Vol. 6 (Archaeology of settlement and society): 1–91. Tokyo:
Asakura Shoten. 高橋龍三郎 2001b「総論：村落と社会の考古学」高橋龍三郎（編）『現代の考古学 6 村落と社会の考古学』pp. 1–91. 東京：朝倉書店
TAKAHASHI Ryūzaburō 2014. Jomon shakai no fukuzatsuka [Emergence of social
complexity in the Jomon period]. IMAMURA Keiji & IZUMI Takura (ed.)
Kōza Nippon no Kōkogaku, Vol. 3 (Jomon period, Pt. 2): 616–651. Tokyo:
Aoki Shoten. 高橋龍三郎 2014「 縄文社会の複雑化 」今村啓爾・泉拓良（ 編 ）『講座日本の考古学 3 縄文時代（下）』pp. 616–651. 東京：青木書店
TAKAHASHI Ryūzaburō 2016. Jomon kō, banki ni-okeru totemism no kanōsei nitsuite[Possibility of totemism in the Late and Final Jomon period]. Kodai 174: 75–141. 高橋龍三郎 2016「縄文後・晩期におけるトーテミズムの可能性について」『古代』174、pp. 75–141.
TAKAHASHI Ryūzaburō 2017a. Jomon shakai no fukuzatsuka to minzokushi[Ethnography and the emergence of social complexity in the Jomon period].
YAMADA Yasuhiro and staﬀ of the National Museum of Japanese History (ed.)
Jomon jidai sono wakugumi, bunka, shakai wo dō-toraeruka?: 162–187. Tokyo:
Yoshikawa Kōbunkan. 高橋龍三郎 2017a「縄文社会の複雑化と民族誌」山田康弘・国立歴史民俗博物館（編）『歴博フォーラム 縄文時代 その枠組・文化・社会をどう捉えるか？』pp. 162–187. 東京：吉川弘文館
TAKAHASHI Ryūzaburō 2017b. Jomon jidai no himitsu kessha [Secret society in the
Jomon period]. YAMAMOTO Teruhisa (ed.) Nijū-isseiki kōkogaku no genzai(Collected papers in celebration of Professor YAMAMOTO Teruhisa’s seventiethbirthday): 45–55. Tokyo: Rokuichi Shobō. 高橋龍三郎 2017b「縄文時代の秘密結社」
山本暉久（編）『山本暉久先生古稀記念論集 二十一世紀考古学の現在』pp. 45–55. 東
京：六一書房TAMADA Yoshihide & SHŌDA Shin’ya 2013. Jomon bunka no teitai to henshitsu[Stagnation and deterioration of the Jomon culture]. IMAMURA Keiji & IZUMITakura (ed.) Kōza Nippon no kōkogaku, Vol. 3 (Jomon period, Pt. 1): 174–204.
Tokyo: Aoki Shoten. 玉田芳英・庄田慎矢 2013「縄文文化の停滞と変質」今村啓爾・
泉拓良（編）『講座日本の考古学 3 縄文時代（上）』pp. 174–204. 東京：青木書店
TANAKA Yoshiyuki 1982. Surikeshi-Jomon-doki denpa no process: Chūbu-Kyushu
wo chūshin toshite [Process of diﬀusion of the Surikeshi-type Jomon pottery: with© Japanese Archaeological Association

200

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST

focus on the central Kyushu region]. Mori Teijirō Sensei koki kinen kobunka ronshū[Collected papers on ancient culture in celebrations of Professor Mori Teijirō’s
seventieth birthday], Pt. 1: 59–96. Fukuoka: Private Publication. 田中良之 1982「磨消縄文土器伝播のプロセス—中部九州を中心として—」森貞次郎博士古稀記念論文集刊
行会（編）『森貞次郎先生古稀記念古文化論集 上巻』、pp. 59–96.
TANAKA Yoshiyuki 1998. Shutsuji hyōji-ron hihan [Critique of hypotheses of family
descent symbolized by materials]. Nihon Kōkogaku 5: 1–18. 田中良之 1998「出自表示論批判」『日本考古学』5 巻、pp. 1–18.
TANAKA Yoshiyuki 2008a. Yamaga kaizuka bochi no sai-kentō [Re-examination of
burial features at the Yamaga Shell Midden site, Fukuoka Prefecture]. Staﬀ of
the Archaeology Dept. of the Ehime University (ed.) Chiiki, bunka no kōkogaku:
collected theses in celebration of Professor SHIMOJŌ Nobuyuki: 47–60. Ehime:
Private Publication. 田中良之 2008a「山鹿貝塚墓地の再検討」愛媛大学法文学部考古学研究室（編）『地域・文化の考古学：下條信行先生退任記念論文集』pp. 47–60. 愛媛：下條信行先生退任記念事業会

TANAKA Yoshiyuki 2008b. Hone ga kataru kodai no kazoku: shinzoku to shakai[Ancient families as evidenced by skeletons: kinship and society]. Tokyo:
Yoshikawa-Kōbunkan. 田中良之 2008b『骨が語る古代の家族 親族と社会』東京：
吉川弘文館

TANAKA Yoshiyuki & MATSUNAGA Yukio 1984. Kōiki-doki-bunpuken no shosō:
Jomon jidai kōki Nishi-Nihon ni-okeru ruiji-yōshiki no heiritsu [Aspects of sphereof very wide distribution of pottery: co-occurrence of similar types of pottery in Late
Jomon western Japan]. Kobunka Dansō 14: 81–117. 田中良之・松永幸男 1984「広域土器分布圏の諸相—縄文時代後期西日本における類似様式の並立—」『古文化談叢』
14、pp. 81–117.
TANAKA Yoshiyuki & MATSUNAGA Yukio 1991. Doki mon’yō no denpa to isōsa[Diﬀusion of pottery decorative patterns and diﬀerences in phases]. Museum Kyushu『Museum Kyushu』
39: 33–42. 田中良之・松永幸男 1991「土器文様の伝播と位相差」
39、pp. 33–42.
TANIGUCHI Yasuhiro 1986. Jomon jidai no shinzoku soshiki to shūdan hyōshō toshiteno
doki keishiki [Pottery types as material indicator of kinship and group in the Jomon
period]. Kōkogaku Zasshi 72(2): 1–21. 谷口康浩 1986「縄文時代の親族組織と集団表象としての土器型式」『考古学雑誌』72 巻 2 号、pp. 1–21.
TANIGUCHI Yasuhiro 2005. Kanjō shūraku to Jomon shakai-kōzō [Settlements ofdoughnut shape in plan and the structure of Jomon society]. Tokyo: Gakuseisha. 谷口
康浩 2005『環状集落と縄文社会構造』東京：学生社
TANIGUCHI Yasuhiro 2017a. Kanjō shūraku ni-miru shakai fukuzatsuka [Social
complexity as evidenced by settlements of doughnut shape in plan]. YAMADA
Yasuhiro and Staﬀ of the National Museum of Japanese History (ed.) Jomon jidai
sono wakugumi, bunka, shakai wo dō-toraeruka?: 138–161. Tokyo: Yoshikawa
Kōbunkan. 谷口康浩 2017a「環状集落にみる社会複雑化」山田康弘・国立歴史民俗博© Japanese Archaeological Association

201

FUKUNAGA Masahiro

物館（ 編）『 歴博フォーラム 縄文時代 その枠組・文化・社会をどう捉えるか？』pp. 138–161. 東京：吉川弘文館
TANIGUCHI Yasuhiro 2017b. Jomon jidai no shakai fukuzatsuka to saishi girei[Emergence of social complexity and rituals during the Jomon period]. Tokyo:
Dōseisha. 谷口康浩 2017b『縄文時代の社会複雑化と祭祀儀礼』東京：同成社
TANIGUCHI Yasuhiro 2018. Kanjō shūraku no bunsetsu-kōzō to ikeitō-kaoku [Segmented
structure and houses of distinctive traditions in settlements of doughnut shape inplan]. Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History, 208: 113–141. 谷口康浩
『国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告』208、pp.
2018「環状集落の分節構造と異系統家屋」
113–141.
TERASAWA Kaoru 2008. Ōken tanjō (Nippon no rekishi, Vol. 2) [Birth of kingship(History of Japan, Vol. 2)]. Tokyo: Kōdansha. 寺沢薫 2008『日本の歴史 02 王権誕生』
東京：講談社TOMITA Kōichi 1992. Kyushu no dogū [Dogū ceramic ﬁgurines in Kyushu]. Bulletin of
the National Museum of Japanese History 37: 426–448. 富田紘一 1992「九州の土偶」『国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告』37、pp. 426–448.
WATANABE Hitoshi 1990. Jomon-shiki kaisōka shakai [Social ranking system of the
Jomon period]. Tokyo: Rokkō Shuppan. 渡辺仁 1990『縄文式階層化社会』東京：六興
出版

WATANABE Makoto 1968. Kyushu chihō ni-okeru basshi-fūshū [Practice of tooth
extraction Kyushu]. Tezukayama Kōkogaku 1: 1–7．渡辺誠 1968「九州地方における抜歯風習」『帝塚山考古学』1、pp. 1–7.
WATANABE Makoto 1975. Sōkatsu [Summary], in Kyoto-fu Maizuru-shi Kuwagaishimo
Iseki hakkutsu chōsa hōkokusho: 309–320. Maizuru, Kyoto Prefecture: Maizuru『京都府舞鶴市桑飼下遺跡発掘調
Municipal Board of Education. 渡辺誠 1975「総括」
査報告書』pp. 309–320. 京都府舞鶴：舞鶴市教育委員会
Wiessner, P. 1983. Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American
Antiquity 48: 253–276.
Wiessner, P. 1984. Reconsidering the behavioral basis for style: a case study among theKalahari San. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3: 190–234.
Wobst, H.M. 1977. Stylistic behavior and information exchange, in C.E. Cleland (ed.) For
the director: research essays in honor of James B. Griﬃn: 317–342. University ofMichigan Museum of Anthropology.
YAGIURA Shun’ichi 2017. Sanin chihō ni-okeru Jomon bunka no kenkyū [Study on the
Jomon culture in the San’in region (Sea of Japan coastal region of western mainland
Japan)]. Tokyo: Yūzankaku. 柳浦俊一 2017『山陰地方における縄文文化の研究』東京：雄山閣

YAMADA Yasuhiro 1995. Tasū-gassō-rei no igi: Jomon jidai no Kantō Chihō wo chūshin
ni [Signiﬁcance of a joint burial (practice of burying more than one person in a single
burial facility): with focus on the Kantō region of eastern Japan]. Kōkogaku Kenkyū『考42(2): 52–67. 山田康弘 1995「多数合葬例の意義：縄文時代の関東地方を中心に」© Japanese Archaeological Association

202

JOMON SOCIETY, EAST AND WEST古学研究』42 巻 2 号、pp. 52–67.
YAMADA Yasuhiro 2015. Tsukurareta Jomon jidai: Nippon bunka no genzō wo saguru[Imagined Jomon: in search of the origins of Japanese culture]. Tokyo: Shinchōsha. 山
田康弘 2015『つくられた縄文時代 日本文化の原像を探る』東京：新潮選書
YAMADA Yasuhiro 2018. Monument toshiteno tasū-gassō-fukusō-rei saikō: Shimōdakaizuka ni-okeru tasū-igai-shūseki-dokō no kentō wo chūshin ni [Re-examinationof joint burials as a monument: with special reference to numerous skeletal remains
in a pit at the Shimo-ōda Shell Midden, Chiba Prefecture]. Bulletin of the National
Museum of Japanese History, 208: 143–164. 山田康弘 2018「「モニュメント」としての多数合葬・複葬例再考：下太田貝塚における多数遺骸集積土坑の検討を中心に」『国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告』208、pp. 143–164.
YAMAMOTO Teruhisa 1977. Jomon jidai chūki-matsu, kōki-shotō no okugai-umegame
nitsuite [Buried jars outside residential structures at the end of Middle and beginningof Late Jomon period], Pt. 1. Shinano 29(11): 33–56. 山本暉久 1977「縄文時代中期末・後期初頭の屋外埋甕について（一）
」『信濃』29 巻 11 号、pp. 33–56.
YAMAMOTO Teruhisa 2013. Higashi-nihon ni-okeru Jomon jidai chūki daikibo-kanjō
shūraku no hōkai-yōin wo megutte [Primary factors for the collapse of large-scale
settlement of doughnut-shape in plan in eastern Japan during the Middle Jomon
period]. Jomon Jidai 24: 117–132. 山本暉久 2013「東日本における縄文時代中期大規
模環状集落の崩壊要因をめぐって」『縄文時代』24 巻、pp. 117–132.
YAMANOUCHI Sugao 1964. Jomon doki: Sōron [Jomon pottery: an overview]. Jomonshiki doki (Vol. 1 of Nihon genshi bijutsu): 148–158. Tokyo: Kōdansha. 山内清男
『日本原始美術 1 縄文式土器』pp. 148–158. 東京：講談社
1964「縄文式土器・総論」
YANO Ken’ichi 2016. Doki hennen ni-miru Nishi-Nihon no Jomon shakai [Jomon societyof western Japan, as seen from the pottery chronology]. Tokyo: Dōseisha. 矢野健一
2016『土器編年にみる西日本の縄文社会』東京：同成社© Japanese Archaeological Association

203