Structures and Dynamics of Settlementsin the First Half of Satsumon Culture
SAKAKIDA Tomohiro1
ABSTRACT

Enormous progress was made in the 1970s and 1980s in archaeological research on settlements of
the Satsumon culture (seventh to thirteenth centuries). That progress was facilitated by abundantsurvey data on pit dwelling sites—many of them remain not entirely buried even today—andaccumulated data from excavations conducted to discover which dwellings came earlier or lateror existed simultaneously; as well as established chronology of Satsumon pottery phases. [Thepottery is so named from its “scratched patterns” (satsumon).] Attempts were made to elucidate thecomposition of settlement clusters on the basis of classiﬁcation of settlements and subsistence andliving patterns. Considered from today’s vantage point, however, there were a number of problems.
The object of analysis, for example, tended to be settlement sites in the eastern and northern parts of
Hokkaido dating back to the second half of the Satsumon culture (early tenth to twelfth or thirteenth
centuries), and there was no attempt to factor in trade and other interactions with other regions in
explaining structures of settlement clusters.
This study uses the chronology of Satsumon pottery as the guideline to analyse settlements andsettlement clusters in central and northern Hokkaido that date from the ﬁrst half of the Satsumon
culture (late seventh century to the beginning of the tenth century). Collecting data on settlementsites from that period, I found those sites could be divided into two types: one type consisted ofa few pit dwellings in settlements that continued for one or two subperiods before disappearing;the other type consisted of many more pit dwellings, the largest settlements having more than
20 dwellings, and they continued to exist over four or ﬁve subperiods. I call the former TypeI settlements, and the latter Type II. Besides their size, Type II settlements have other sharedcharacteristics, notably their location on important traﬃc routes and having large quantities ofartifacts originating in Honshu, indicating the possibility that Type II might have served as hubs forinteraction with the ancient society of Honshu’s northeast region. This study hypothesises that thebasic structure of settlements in the ﬁrst half of the Satsumon culture consisted of Type I settlements
created expressly for everyday living, and nearby a core settlement (Type II) that served as a centre
for exchange and other activities in addition to being an everyday living space.
Based on that hypothesis, the study goes on to examine the temporal and spatial dynamics ofsettlements. The major ﬁndings are that during Phase I of the Satsumon pottery chronology (thelate seventh century to early eighth century) this settlement structure is found only in the southernpart of Ishikari lowland and that, during Phase II (the mid-eighth century to early tenth century),
the structure is also found in the northwestern part of Ishikari lowland and along the Sea of Japanside of central Hokkaido. The study interprets this spread to be due to an increase in opportunities
for trade and contact with the ancient society of Honshu’s north-eastern region that arose with theestablishment of regional trading systems centred on Akita Castle.
The foregoing understanding of settlements in the ﬁrst half of the Satsumon culture period will be
1 Sapporo Buried Cultural Properties Center, Minami 22-jo Nishi 13-chome, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, Japan

Category: Original Article Received: 17 June 2020; Accepted: 31 August 2022
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 10 (2023): 205–245

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro

useful for future research on settlements that underwent great changes in the second half of theperiod.
KEYWORDS: Satsumon culture, Hokkaido, settlements

The Satsumon culture is an archaeological culture that spread over Hokkaido througha time span that paralleled the Nara and Heian periods. The existence of pit dwellings
from that time—even today numerous remains are not entirely buried but are visible in arecessed state—has been known since the latter nineteenth century and many surveys andexcavations have been conducted. Interest in settlement sites grew as research progressed,and excellent studies began to appear in the 1970s. Among the pioneering achievementsin the ﬁeld are Fujimoto Tsuyoshi (1972) and Utagawa Hiroshi (1972). They developed
discourses on Satsumon settlements using data obtained from research and excavations
aimed at clarifying the chronological order of dwellings, which they did by comparing
dwellings located adjacent to each other, looking at their ﬂoor surfaces and the sedimentary
conditions of the excavation. Especially, Fujimoto’s exploration of the synchronicity or
sequential relations of pit dwellings, guided by Satsumon pottery chronology, represents
a huge leap forward. This was groundbreaking work; for the ﬁrst time Fujimoto built a
pottery chronology to use in the analysis of settlements that came to be incorporated into
research on the Satsumon culture. After further investigation and analysis of a number ofsites, his research came to fruition in 1982 with the publication of his Satsumon bunka(Satsumon Culture). There he classiﬁes settlements on the basis of size and geographicallocation and considers subsistence and living styles in order to posit relationships among
them (Fujimoto 1982).
Fujimoto’s series of settlement studies was later challenged by the minutely detailed
critical scrutiny of Ōi Haruo (1984). Ōi argued that there was no such thing as “pottery
types,” and, therefore, Fujimoto’s use of pottery types as the analytical tool to determine
the chronology of pit dwellings was problematic. Instead of proposing an alternative
method for period identiﬁcation, however, Ōi also used pottery chronology to propose
timelines in his own analysis, thus seriously contradicting his original argument. His
critique of Fujimoto’s approach was not suﬃciently convincing and did not lead toconstructive discussion.
In the 1990s and after, research on the Satsumon culture focusing on interregional
exchange and trade grew to become the mainstream of this ﬁeld due partly to progress incollaborative work with philological history and partly to abundant new research ﬁndings
and excavation results from Satsumon-period sites in north-eastern Honshu. Work on thelocation and distribution of Satsumon sites in connection with interregional exchange and© Japanese Archaeological Association

206

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURE

trade made great headway (Ushiro 1999; Tsukamoto 2003; Segawa 2005; Sawai 2007,2008, 2010). That development had major signiﬁcance: it made us realise that research on
settlements up to that time lacked the perspective of interregional exchange and trade, andit brought home how necessary that perspective was in studying Satsumon settlements.
Meanwhile, thorough analytical research highlighting temporal relationships amongindividual settlements and among groups of settlements petered out, and the researchissues dealt with in the 1980s and earlier have since remained on the back burner. Ōi(2004), for his part, tackled the subject with scrupulous care but maintained the former
pottery-based period identiﬁcation, leaving the abovementioned contradiction unresolved.
In recent years, archaeologists have been giving a second look at the sources andmethodology Ōi used to justify his rejection of the pottery types chronology. It is clearer
now where the problems were (Kumaki 2018), and Fujimoto’s method of analysing
settlements has been validated. This will be a turning point for research on Satsumonperiod settlements moving forward. However, even though some basic premises of Ōi’sargument remain problematic, many of his interpretations, such as his ideas on settlement
structure by region, are intriguing and worth our attention.
Thus, with the availability of more materials and data, key research ﬁndings on
Satsumon culture settlements that had been actively put forward by the 1980s are now
regarded as considerably important. It is high time they were brought to bear on current
mainstream research about interregional exchange and trade.
It should be noted, however, that settlement research in the 1980s and earlier was
targeted at settlements from the second half of the Satsumon culture. Data on settlementsites from the ﬁrst half of the culture were very limited in those days, and many of thedetails are obscure (Fujimoto 1982). Since the mid-1980s the number of excavations ofsettlement sites from the ﬁrst half of the culture in central Hokkaido has increased, andso the data imbalance is no longer an issue. When I myself began building a chronology
of Satsumon pottery, I was fully aware of the development of studies of Satsumon-period
settlements (Sakakida 2016); while some parts of my chronology are still rough, I believe
it nonetheless provides a suﬃcient base for analysis of the settlements. My purpose in thisstudy, therefore, is to describe the structure and dynamics of settlements in the ﬁrst half of
the Satsumon culture using pottery chronology as an analytic tool. In so doing I hope topave the way for the expansion and continuation of pre-mid-1980s settlement research.
The ﬁrst half of the Satsumon culture roughly corresponds to the period spanning theﬁrst half of Phase I through the second half of Phase II in my pottery chronology, or thelate seventh century to the beginning of the tenth century, before the deposition of the
Baitoushan-Tomakomai tephra (Sakakida 2016). This study deals primarily with settlementsites from that period, but it also looks at settlement sites from Phase III (the early to
mid-tenth century) so that we may look ahead and see connections between the two.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

207

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro

The settlements studied here are in regions where there are many investigated sites—thesouthern and north-western parts of Ishikari lowland, the Sea of Japan side of central andnorthern Hokkaido, the Kamikawa basin, and the Iburi-Hidaka area (Figure 1).1)

I. Overview by Phase of Settlements in First Half of Satsumon
PeriodPhase I (Late Seventh Century to Early Eighth Century)

In the southern part of Ishikari lowland, settlement sites are located on terraces along themain stream and tributaries of the Chitose river and the Yūbari river, and on the Maoi
hill, among other areas. There are settlements each composed of a few pit dwellings at the
Marukoyama site (Tamura 1994), the Kiusu 9 site (Miura et al. 2008), the Kiusu 5 site
(Suemitsu & Hirota 2011), the Osatsu 2 site (Miura et al. 1995; Toyota et al. 2002), theKashiwagigawa 11 site (Uwaya 1990), the Moizari 4 site (Matsutani 1997), and the Iwanaisite (Utagawa 1997; see Figure 2). There is also a large high-density settlement consistingof more than 20 pit dwellings at the Suehiro site (Chitose City Board of Education 1981;Ōtani and Tamura 1982; Tamura 1985; Takahashi 1996; see Figure 3, top).
In the north-western part of Ishikari lowland, settlement sites are found in the Toyohirariver alluvial fan, the Kotoni river alluvial fan, and the ﬂoodplains of Old Kotoni river, Old
Ishikari river, and Toyohira river. There are very few settlements in the downstream andmouth areas of rivers; instead, they tend to be found in much greater numbers in the middle

Figure 1.

Locations and names of the regions with sites mentioned in this paper.

1) Compared with the central and northern parts of Hokkaido, research on the southern part has problems including: 1) lessaccuracy of pottery chronology (Sakakida 2016, pp. 257–276) and 2) the whole picture of settlements is not clear yet. The
settlement sites of southern Hokkaido, therefore, are not included in this study; they are referred to when necessary.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

208

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURE

Figure 2.

Examples of settlement sites from the ﬁrst half of Satsumon culture.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

209

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro

Figure 3.

Settlement changes at Suehiro site, Chitose.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

210

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURE

and upstream reaches of rivers and the top of alluvial fans. In these areas, pit dwellings are
not densely clustered; rather, small settlement sites of a few dwellings each are scatteredover the terrain (Figure 4, top). At the K528 site, which is on the lower reaches of a river,

Figure 4. Settlement changes at K39 site (sixth and eighth surveys) and Sakushukotonigawa site.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

211

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro

ﬂat land house remains have been found (Nozuki 2008).
On the Sea of Japan side of central Hokkaido, there are settlement sites on the terraces
along the western coast of the Shakotan peninsula and on the terraces and sand dunes along
the western coast of the Ishikari bay. They include the Ōkawa site (Okada & Miya 2000;
Inui 2001b, 2002), Sawamachi site (Miya 1989), Chibutashinai site (Otaru City Board of
Education 1992), Herokaruusu site (Tabe 1997), and others. These settlements were smallin scale, each with a few dwellings, as is the case in the north-western part of Ishikari
lowland (Figure 2 and Figure 5, top). Settlements have not been found along the eastern
coast of Ishikari bay, but ﬁreplace remains from Phase I were uncovered at the Okajima
cave ruins (Ōba & Ishikawa 1961), indicating that the area was not unpopulated.

Figure 5.

Settlement changes at Ōkawa site.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

212

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURE

The area around Iburi and Hidaka has yielded no pit dwelling remains. But the discoveryof burnt clay and earthenware/gravels in concentrated amounts at the Ocharasenai site
(Amakata 2013) indicates that the land here was utilised.
In northern Hokkaido, no settlements have yet been found in the area along the Sea ofJapan. In the Kamikawa basin there are many remains of outdoor structures most likely
from the Phase I period, at the Chikabumichō 5 and 6 sites (Shin-Arai Joint Venture 2012)
and the Midorimachi 4 site (Asahikawa City Board of Education 1985). These sites yielded
fairly large quantities of Hokudai 3-type subtype-2. Although the pottery pieces can beconsidered to have been made sometime between the ﬁrst half of Phase I and the second
half of Phase II, it is hard to give them more speciﬁc dates. It is very possible, however,that further progress in research on pottery classiﬁcation may identify more precisely when
individual structures were built.
In southern Hokkaido, settlements of one to a few pit dwellings have been conﬁrmed
here and there on terraces facing the Tsugaru strait, Hakodate bay, and the western coast of
Funka bay (Uchiura bay).

Phase II (Mid-Eighth Century to Beginning of Tenth Century)

In the southern part of Ishikari lowland more than ten pit dwellings have been conﬁrmed
at the Suehiro site (Figure 3, middle). The density is slightly lower, but there is a strong
possibility that there are more pit dwellings outside the area investigated. Their period
identiﬁcation is diﬃcult, but if all the likely candidates are counted, presumably more thantwenty pit dwellings existed as they did in Phase I. Settlements composed of a few pit
dwellings in Phase I remained the same at the Osatsu 2 site, the Kashiwagigawa 11 site,
and the Moizari 4 site (Figure 2). New settlements similar in size began appearing at theMamachi site (Ishikawa et al. 1971; Taneichi 1983; Naganuma 1987), the Yukanboshi C15
site (Miura & Suzuki 2000), and the Nishishimamatsu 5 site (Dohi 2006). The settlement at
the Iwanai site along the Yūbari river, on the other hand, had vanished; and it is not known
what became of it.
Some settlements in other regions underwent signiﬁcant structural changes. On the Sea
of Japan side of central Hokkaido, for example, the Ōkawa site settlement grew to nearly
20 pit dwellings, more densely placed than earlier and somewhat similar to the Suehirosite (Figure 5, middle). Meanwhile, in nearby sites such as Sawamachi, Chibutashinai,
and Ranshima Mochiyazawa (Otaru City Board of Education 1991), as well as at the
Herokaruusu site on the western coast of Shakotan peninsula, settlements consisting of one
to a few pit dwellings remained as they had been previously (Figure 2). New settlements
also appeared at the Higashiyama 1 site (Nobechi et al. 2004), the Shubutogawa-ugan
6 site (Uchiyama 1985), and other places. On the eastern coast of Ishikari bay, too, newsettlements appeared at the mouth of the Ishikari river, including the Wakkaoi C site
© Japanese Archaeological Association

213

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro(Yokoyama & Ishibashi 1975).
As if connected to that development on the Sea of Japan side of central Hokkaido,
an increasing number of pit dwellings were found in the north-western part of Ishikari
lowland as well. At several places along the Old Kotoni river, for example, the number ofpit dwellings grew to more than 20, placed more densely together. Those places are thearea investigated by the sixth survey at the K39 site (Fujii 2001), the area of the eighth
survey on the same site (Ishii 2000), the Sakushukotoni river site (Hokkaido University
Archaeological Research Centre 1986), and the adjacent area investigated by the thirdsurvey at the K435 site (Tanaka 2019; see Figure 4, middle; Figure 6; this cluster of places
is tentatively called “the K39 sixth survey settlement cluster”). A similar settlement has
been conﬁrmed at the H519 site along the Old Ishikari river, too (Ishii 2006). In the searchfor settlement sites, the lower reaches of rivers and sand dunes along sea coasts have begun
to be actively investigated. As a result, new settlements of a few pit dwellings have beenfound at the K460 site (Ueno 1980), K445 site (Kashiwagi 2004), K446 site (Ueno 1979;
Tanaka 2015), and the K528 site, all located at the lower reaches of the Old Kotoni river,as well as at the N156 site on the Momijiyama sand dunes (Figure 2).
In the Iburi-Hidaka region, the remains of one to a few pit dwellings were found at the

Figure 6.

K435 site settlement, the area investigated in the third survey.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

214

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURE

Kyōwa 2 site (Tomakomai City Archaeological Survey Center 1987) and the Onikishibe 2Site (Amakata 2011). The number of pit dwellings is very small in this region, but remainsof many outdoor structures have been found at the Onikishibe 2 site and the Kamihoronai
Moi site (Inui & Ono 2007; Ono 2009).
In northern Hokkaido, settlements of a few pit dwellings have been newly discovered(Figure 7, top) at the Takasago site (Mineyama & Miyazuka 1983; Miyazuka 1983) and
Kagawa Sansen site (Tomamae Town Board of Education 1987, 1988), both on the coastal
area of the Sea of Japan, and also at the Chikabumichō 6 site and the Nishikimachi 5 site
(Segawa 1984, 1985, 1988) on the Kamikawa basin (Figure 7, top). In southern Hokkaido,
the remains of pit dwellings on the coastal area of the Tsugaru strait and the western coastof Funka bay might possibly date from this Phase II, but with very few pottery shards
discovered from pit dwelling ﬂoors, it is diﬃcult to conﬁrm.

Figure 7.

Settlement changes at the Takasago site.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

215

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro

Phase III (Early to Mid-Tenth Century)

In the southern part of Ishikari lowland, more than 20 pit dwellings from Phase III are
conﬁrmed at the Suehiro site (Figure 3, bottom). It is very likely that pit dwellings spreadbeyond the investigated area, and if all of them, including those whose dates are hard to
conﬁrm, are counted in, the total number at the site would have exceeded 30. Settlementsof just a few pit dwellings remained about the same as in Phase II at the Osatsu 2 site, theNishishimamatsu 5 site, the Moizari 8 site (Mori 2004), and the Nakashimamatsu 6 and7 sites (Matsuya & Uwaya 1988). No pit dwellings or other structures from Phase III are
conﬁrmed along the Yūbari river or the Maoi hill; we lack detailed information on Phase
III settlements there.
On the Sea of Japan side of central Hokkaido, nearly 20 pit dwellings existed close
together at the Ōkawa site (Figure 5, bottom). Settlements of a few pit dwellings remained
about the same as in Phase II at the Chibutashinai site and the Shubutogawa-ugan 6 site. A
new settlement appeared at the Horikappu 1 site (Hokkaido Cultural Properties ResearchInstitute 1992; Murakami 2005). At the Ishikari river mouth on the eastern coast of Ishikaribay, a settlement was maintained from the previous period, and a new settlement came into
being at the Tsuchiue site (Utagawa 1965).
In the north-western part of Ishikari lowland, more than 20 pit dwellings were foundclose together at each of the settlements included in the “K39 sixth survey settlement
cluster” (Figure 4, bottom; Figure 6). While some settlements with only a few pit dwellings
remained as before at their original sites, some settlements appeared at the K36 site (Ueno& Haga 1987; Akiyama 1997), the K440 site (Ishii 2002), and the K441 site (Haga 1989;
Ueno 1989; Akiyama 2017).
In the Iburi-Hidaka region, the Ponma site has the remains of a pit dwelling that likely
dates from this Phase III (Aono & Nagaya 2014). As in the preceding phase, the number ofpit dwellings is extremely small in this region, but at the upper reaches of the Azuma river,at the Kamihoronai Moi site, for example, there are many remains of outdoor structures,
suggesting an increase in active utilization of land. In the coastal area of Funka bay, there
are shell middens at the Usu Oyakotsu site (Mineyama 1984) and the Usu 4 site (Aono &Mitani 2009).2)
In northern Hokkaido there were high-density settlements of nearly 30 pit dwellings
each on the coastal area of the Sea of Japan—the Takasago site, the Kagawa Sansensite (Tomamae Town Board of Education 1988), and the Kagawa 6 site across from the
Kagawa Sansen site on the other side of the Kotanbetsu river (Figure 7, bottom). Further
north along the Sea of Japan coast is the Teshio Kawaguchi site (Ōba &Yamazaki 1971;
2) Of the shell middens along the coast of Funka bay that are reported to belong to the Satsumon culture, no pottery has beenunearthed in most of them, making it impossible to tell precisely when these middens were formed. The oldest of the shell
middens whose period is identiﬁable is Phase III.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

216

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURE

Kaidō 1975; Kumaki et al. 1978)—located at the Teshio river mouth—where there are
the remains of a huge settlement of more than 100 pit dwellings. Pottery artifacts from
Phase III were recovered from partially investigated pit dwellings. The existence of a few
hundred pit dwellings in the Kamui Kotan 1 site in the vicinity of the Kamikawa basin
has been known since before World War II. While the whole picture of artifacts unearthedthere is not clear, some pottery artifacts illustrated in survey reports come from Phase III(Takabatake 1894; Saitō 1972). Opposite that site across the Ishikari river is the Higashi
Osamunai site with pit dwellings (Fukagawa City Board of Education 1997, 2011),
suggesting the possibility that a large-scale settlement arose in Phase III. Small settlementsof a few pit dwellings appear for the ﬁrst time in Phase III at Point 2 of the Takasago site
(Fukushi 1985); the Higashi Hirosato site (Oniyanagi et al. 1989); the Osamunai 6-chōmefukin site (Kasai 1999); the Asahimachi 1 site (Segawa 1995; Segawa & Tomoda 1996);
and the Teuri site No. 4 situated on a remote island (Ōba & Seki 1963; Seki & Kaidō 1968,1969), among others.
As for southern Hokkaido, a high-density settlement of more than 30 pit dwellings
seems possibly to have developed at the Satsumae site (Kubo et al. 1984). But it is diﬃcult
to use pottery to distinguish between that settlement and the structural remains that date to
the ﬁrst half of the following Phase IV (the late tenth century onwards) and later (Sakakida
2016). The scale of that settlement in Phase III remains unclear.

II.

Settlement Types in the First Half of Satsumon Culture

Classiﬁcation of Settlements

Settlement sites from the ﬁrst half of the Satsumon culture, as we have seen, can beclassiﬁed into two types based on number of pit dwellings, their density, and the length ofsite’s duration.
Type I Settlements
Settlements consisting of a few pit dwellings and lasting only for one or two subperiods
are referred to as Type I. Among sites representative of this type are Marukoyama, Kiusu 9,
and Kiusu 5 sites in the city of Chitose; Kashiwagigawa 11 and Moizari 4 sites in the cityof Eniwa; Iwanai site in the town of Yuni; N156 site in the city of Sapporo; Sawamachi site
in the town of Yoichi; and the Herokaruusu site in the village of Tomari (Figure 2).
Type II Settlements
Type II settlements lasted for four or ﬁve subperiods, and their pit dwellings have been
uncovered continuously. The number of pit dwellings per subperiod exceeded 20, at
the maximum, and some dwellings overlapped subperiods. The most representative© Japanese Archaeological Association

217

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro

settlements are the Suehiro site in Chitose, the “K39 sixth survey settlement cluster” in
Sapporo, and the Ōkawa site in Yoichi (Figures 3–6).
Of course, there were some settlements with only a small number of dwellings in agiven subperiod even if they lasted for a long time, while others had a low density despite
having a large number of dwellings. It is diﬃcult, therefore, to make a strict distinction
between Types I and II. Various factors were presumably involved, such as diﬀerencesin the size of the area excavated and in environments surrounding settlements. Further
research is needed to ensure a more accurate classiﬁcation of settlements. That being
acknowledged, this study regards Types I and II as the basic “bipolar” types of settlementsin the ﬁrst half of the Satsumon culture.

Examination of Type II Settlements

To ﬁnd clues that help elucidate settlement structures and their dynamics, this study pays
attention to features shared by Type II settlements apart from settlement size, focusing
especially on the following two:
Common Feature 1: Location as Key in Becoming Transport Junction
Type II settlements were conveniently located at points that connected Type I settlements,
Type I settlements and a neighbouring region, and neighbouring regions. The following aresome speciﬁc examples.
The Ōkawa site lies on a sand dune at the Yoichi river mouth on the southwestern coastof Ishikari bay (see map, Figure 8). Sailing northward from the Oshima peninsula along
the Sea of Japan coast, Ōkawa is the ﬁrst relatively open area of land after passing Cape
Kamui at the tip of the Shakotan peninsula. This is known to be a dangerous part of themaritime route. Ōkawa is the gateway to the Sea of Japan side of northern Hokkaido by
way of Ishikari bay, the Ishikari river mouth, and Cape Ofuyu.3) The Yoichi and Ishikaririvers aﬀord access to inland areas.
The alluvial fan spreading over the northern part of Sapporo once had many abundantpools of groundwater from the Toyohira river, which were the source of the many streams,
large and small, that ﬂowed northward, repeatedly diverging and converging in a meshpattern (Figure 9). Among them were the Sakushukotoni and Seronpetsu rivers originatingfrom the largest of the spring pools. They then met the Keneushipetsu river that ﬂowed
northward from the southwest. The three became one waterway, whose name became the
Shinoro river. The Shinoro ran northward and joined the Ishikari river (Haga 1975). The
majority of Satsumon period settlement sites that have been investigated in the city of3) It has been found that in the Kofun period and the medieval era, too, the Yoichi bay area, where the Ōkawa site is located,

ﬂourished as a centre of trade along the Sea of Japan (Yoshioka 2001; Hidaka 2003; Sekine 2014).

© Japanese Archaeological Association

218

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURE

Sapporo are situated along those waterways. Moving southward along the Shinoro river,the conﬂuence of the Keneushipetsu and Sakushukotoni rivers joins the Sakushukotoni andmoves eastward a little before meeting the Seronpetsu. Near that conﬂuence lies the “K39sixth survey settlement cluster.” That is to say, the cluster is located at a point that connectswith the Shinoro river on the downstream side, and, on the upstream side, a group of rivers
branching into many tributaries. It is also notable that if going downstream on the Shirono
leads to the rivers of the Ishikari river system and from there all the way to the coastal areaof the Sea of Japan at the mouth of the Ishikari river (Figure 8).
The Suehiro site is on a terrace along the main channel of the Chitose river. This iswhere the Chitose river, after branching oﬀ from the main channel of the Ishikari river andﬂowing southward, begins changing course from southwest to west (Figure 8). The site liesat the southern edge of the Ishikari lowland. Several kilometers south-eastward from there
is a low-altitude watershed beyond which are the Bibi and Yūfutsu rivers that ﬂow out into
the Paciﬁc Ocean. The watershed functions as a connection point between the Chitose river
leading to the Sea of Japan and the Bibi river leading to the Paciﬁc Ocean. It is signiﬁcantthat the Suehiro site is located nearby.

Figure 8.

Type II settlements and related sites and places in central Hokkaido.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

219

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro

Figure 9.

Rivers in relation to “K39 sixth survey settlement cluster”

Common Feature 2: Abundance of Relics of Honshu Origin“Relics of Honshu origin” refers generally to both natural and manmade relics produced in
Honshu, such as Sue ware, wheel-thrown Haji ware, and rice. There is a strong possibility
that barley and wheat were also brought in from Honshu (Sakakida 2020), so this paper
includes them among relics originating in Honshu.
In Type I settlements, every few pit dwellings yielded less than ﬁve Sue and/or
wheel-thrown Haji pottery remains (Yamamoto 1997), or no such pottery artifacts werediscovered at all. Rice or barley/wheat was found in less than 10 per cent of dwellings;
when they were found, there were only several grains—at most 170 grains. As for TypeII settlements, on the other hand, for example, at the Ōkawa site, more than 250 remainsof wheel-thrown Haji and Sue ware vessels along with over 10 000 grains of rice wererecovered (Okada & Miya 2000; Inui 2000, 2001a, 2001b). The Suehiro site has yielded
more than 140 remains of wheel-thrown Haji and Sue ware pots (Chitose City Board of© Japanese Archaeological Association

220

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURE

Education 1981; Ōtani & Tamura 1982; Tamura 1985; Takahashi 1996). The excavatedarea of the Sakushukotonigawa site (Hokkaido University Archaeological Research Centre
1986; Yoshizaki & Tsubakizaka 1990), which is part of the “K39 sixth survey settlement
cluster,” was less than 6 000 square meters (Figure 4) and it yielded more than 60 artifactsof wheel-thrown Haji ware vessels—not including Sue ware—and more than 26 000
wheat/barley grains, which is an unusually high density (Yamamoto 1997; Sakakida &Takase 2019; Sakakida 2020).
Another feature of Type II settlements is that they contained artifacts that were not foundin Type I settlements, including Haji pottery inscribed with sumi ink at the Ōkawa site,and Haji pottery with engraved inscription at the Ōkawa and Sakushukotonigawa sites.
The Suehiro site did not produce such artifacts, but it should be noted that the Bibi 8 site,from which sumi-inscribed Haji pottery and over 100 wheel-thrown Haji and Sue pottery
artifacts were recovered (Yamamoto 1997), is located on the upper reaches of the Bibi
river, and is close to the Suehiro site by way of the important watershed mentioned in thepreceding section, Common Feature 1.
What is indicated by these features is the presence of trade activities with social groups
in the north-eastern region of Honshu carried on using river and ocean transport. It is
presumed, in other words, that Type II settlements were equipped to function as local trade
hubs. Suzuki Yasutami (1996) early on proposed that the Suehiro and Ōkawa sites eachhad functions of a “trading centre.” In this study, which also examined these and othersettlement sites, I come to the same conclusion. Suzuki had great foresight. I also consider
it necessary to note that the structure of pit dwellings at the Suehiro and Ōkawa sites andartifacts (especially Satsumon pottery)—other than those of Honshu origin—recoveredfrom these sites are basically the same as those at Type I settlements. This strongly
suggests that the primary role of Type II settlements was to be daily living spaces, just likeType I. Type II settlements basically functioned as places for everyday life, and, dependingon circumstances, had the ﬂexibility to also function as venues for trade and other social
activities.4)4) Here let me touch on iron implements, which are crucial to any discussion of trade relations with the northeastern areaof Honshu. According to data provided by Sasada Tomotaka (Sasada 2013, pp. 108–110), there is not much diﬀerence
between Type I and Type II settlements in the rate of recovery of iron implements from pit dwellings. Blacksmithing-related
items and structures were found at the settlement sites of both types (Figure 2; Sasada 2013, p. 28). These seem to undercut
my proposition that Type II settlements doubled as places of trade. But the quantities of iron implements recovered fromdwelling sites must be broadly assessed, taking into consideration the possibility that those implements were re-used or taken
away from abandoned dwellings (Tsude 1969; Amano 1983); the forms of ownership of iron implements in the society orgroup, blacksmiths’ moves and their place in society (Segawa 1989; Sasada 2013), and so forth. Amano Tetsuya’s discussion(1983) on the forms of ownership of iron implements in the Satsumon culture was outstanding, but he has not done any
follow-up study utilizing new, relevant data that have increased four- or ﬁve-fold since then (Sasada 2013). As a task forthe future, bearing those points in mind, I would like to study and appraise the relationship between the structures andinteractions of settlements and the quantities of iron implements recovered from them.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

221

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro

III. Settlement Structures and Dynamics in the First Half ofSatsumon Culture
Structures and Dynamics: An Interpretation

Given the characteristics of Type II settlements presented above, a hypothesis can beformulated regarding settlement structure in the ﬁrst half of the Satsumon culture. That is,a group of settlements consisted basically of settlements where people went about theireveryday lives, while close by there was a core settlement (Type II) that, besides being aplace of daily living, also served as a centre for trade and other activities. Starting fromthat proposition, I will attempt to elucidate the structures and dynamics of settlements byperiod, drawing also on propositions put forward by previous studies.
Phase I (Late Seventh Century to Early Eighth Century)
In the southern part of the Ishikari lowland, a group of Type I settlements took shapescattered around the (Type II) Suehiro settlement site (Figure 10). This group most
likely functioned as a unit, not only as a distribution network of goods acquired from thenorth-eastern society of Honshu but also as a space where all kinds of information about
livelihood were shared, and resources received from various places were exchanged. A
relevant hypothesis was formulated some time ago by Ōi Haruo (1984). Ōi pointed out,
ﬁrst, that most of the settlement sites along the Chitose river system were distributed
along its tributaries while the Suehiro site was located along the principal river and hada many pit dwellings. Thus, Ōi argued, the Suehiro site was “exceptional.” Second, hepostulated that the settlements along the Chitose river’s tributaries were mutually exclusive“local groups” (chiiki shūdan)—discrete socio-political units—with separate salmon/trout
spawning beds as their ﬁshing territories with the Suehiro site supervising the local groups.
This farsighted postulation advanced by Ōi in the early 1980s overlaps substantially withmy present study.5)
Such a structure in a group of settlements is not found in the north-western part of the
Ishikari lowland or the Sea of Japan side of central Hokkaido (Figures 11 and 12). The
question is whether or not Type I settlement sites scattered over these two regions werefunctionally part of the group of settlements centred around the Suehiro site in the southernpart of Ishikari lowland. It should be noted here that there is a regional diﬀerence between
the north-western and the southern parts of the Ishikari lowland seen in pottery type andlineage as well as in the functional diﬀerentiation of the ﬁreplace regarding cooking
minor grains (Sakakida 2016, 2020). These regional diﬀerences depended on the degree5) Further research on several fronts is needed to determine the speciﬁc details of how settlement clusters were held together,or the characteristics of “local groups” and their territorial space.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

222

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURE

Figure 10.
culture.

Dynamics of southern Ishikari lowland settlements in the ﬁrst half of Satsumon© Japanese Archaeological Association

223

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro

Figure 11.
culture.

Dynamics of north-western Ishikari lowland settlements in the ﬁrst half of Satsumon© Japanese Archaeological Association

224

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURE

Figure 12. Dynamics of settlements on the Sea of Japan side of central Hokkaido in the ﬁrst halfof Satsumon culture.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

225

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro

of inﬂuence from the culture of north-eastern Honshu, and the strength of local traditions
toward the end of Post-Jomon culture. They suggest that a society with a signiﬁcantdegree of independence existed in the two regions. In this Phase I period, therefore, agroup composed of Type I settlements alone was the norm in both the north-western partof the Ishikari lowland and the Sea of Japan side of central Hokkaido, and those groups
were most likely independent of the settlement groups in the southern part of the Ishikari
lowland. Yet their shared pottery type and lineage indicate that the two regions had close
ties (Sakakida 2016). That their pottery, an item of everyday life, had such common
features is suﬃcient evidence to presume daily interactions among the pottery makers anddenizens of the two regions.
In the eastern coast area of Ishikari bay on the Sea of Japan side of central Hokkaido,
as well as in the Iburi-Hidaka area in southern Hokkaido and the Kitakamigawa basin in
northern Hokkaido, there are some places that have no pit dwelling sites. In the Kamikawa
basin, as noted earlier, fairly large quantities of Hokudai 3-type 2 pottery, together withmany outdoor ﬁrepits, suggest the possibility that the people who occupied these places did
not use pit dwellings. This possibility should be kept in mind for future reference. I will not
go into this matter further since little progress has been made in the subdivision of Hokudai
3-type 2 pottery, which makes period identiﬁcation diﬃcult.
Phase II (Mid-Eighth Century to Beginning of Tenth Century)
In southern Ishikari lowland, an aggregated group of Type I settlement sites scattered over
the area around the Suehiro site (Type II) as their core continued to be evident in Phase
II (Figure 10). Meanwhile, two newly-emerged aggregated groups of Type I settlementsites came into being. One of them had sites distributed here and there in north-western
Ishikari lowland centred on the “K39 sixth survey settlement cluster” (Type II). The
other had scattered settlements in the Sea of Japan side of central Hokkaido, centred onthe Ōkawa site (Type II) (Figures 11 and 12). During this Phase II, a wide expanse ofcentral Hokkaido was home to many clusters of residential settlements, each with a coresettlement nearby that doubled as a hub of trade or other activity (Figure 8).
It might seem at ﬁrst glance that this type of settlement structure spread from southern
Ishikari lowland to north-western Ishikari lowland and Sea of Japan-side central Hokkaido,
but, actually the inﬂuence of individual cultural elements spread from north to south. To
take pottery type, for example, in Phase I pots (kame) in the style of Haji ware of northeastern Honshu were distributed plentifully in the north-western Ishikari lowland, and now
in Phase II, their numbers increased in the southern Ishikari lowland (Sakakida 2016, pp.
105–106, 303–304). The impact of the functional diﬀerentiation of ﬁreplace regarding
minor-grain cooking also spread from the north-western part to the southern part of the
Ishikari lowland (Sakakida 2020). From these and other examples, it can be concluded© Japanese Archaeological Association

226

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURE

that the newly-emerged aggregated groups in the north-western Ishikari lowland and Sea
of Japan side of central Hokkaido each took shape from the previous period’s settlement
groups, which consisted only of Type I settlements, and along with them, because of
peculiar social factors, a central Type II settlement emerged, as in the case of southern
Ishikari lowland.
One of the most likely factors inﬂuencing these developments is that a trade systemcentring around the fortiﬁed settlement of Akita Castle was established in the northernpart of north-eastern Honshu in this Phase II period (Minoshima 2001). As if in response,
human activities grew much more vigorous in the Sea of Japan coastal area of Honshu,
attested by the rise of new settlements in the Tsugaru and Aomori plains areas (Ube 2010).
Sue ware vessels produced at kilns in the vicinity of Akita Castle were brought in large
quantities to central Hokkaido (Ube 2011; Suzuki 2016). People living in north-eastern
Ishikari lowland and the Sea of Japan side of central Hokkaido undoubtedly felt the needfor Type II settlements that acted as trade centres, channels through which Honshu-madeproducts could be brought in.
The invigoration of trade is also thought to have led to the rapid increase in use of lowlying areas, such as the lower reaches and mouths of rivers and coastal sand dunes, fordwellings. Perhaps that was natural. If trading at Type II settlements was dependent ontransport by river and sea, the location of those settlements in low-lying areas ensured aroute through which to safely and smoothly deliver goods and people from communities innorth-eastern Honshu to Type II settlements in various parts of Hokkaido. Meanwhile, lowlying riverside areas were subject to the danger of ﬂooding caused by heavy rain or melting
snow. Developing a living style that could cope with that danger—by such measures asseasonal, short-term migration—became necessary when building and maintaining TypeII settlements (Fujimoto 1982). It can be said, in other words, that the new aggregatedgroups of settlements in the north-western Ishikari lowland and Sea of Japan side of central
Hokkaido appeared in low-lying areas—despite the need to incorporate ﬂood-avoidance
measures into their lifestyle—in order to ensure the safe and smooth conduct of trade with
the north-eastern region of Honshu.6)
Even in the southern Ishikari lowland, where the settlement group centring on theSuehiro site was maintained from the previous period, Sue ware vessels made in Dewa
province on the Sea of Japan coast side of northern Honshu were shipped in (Ube 2011;
Suzuki 2016), indicating that more people were now living in low-lying areas where trade
was a social requirement. In addition, as noted earlier, the inﬂuence of unconventional6) Occupying low-lying areas was probably linked to the emergence of more land suitable for living as a result of changed

river activities. At the H519 site, a thick layer of river ﬂood sediments lies immediately below the layer containing relics
from the Satsumon culture period, and pit dwellings and other structures were built on the natural embankments thatdeveloped after the river activity subsided.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

227

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro

pottery types and the use of hearths for minor-grain cooking spread from the north-westernpart to the southern part of Ishikari lowland. Such inter-regional interactions in daily life
took place not only among Type I settlements scattered over a large area but also, very
likely, through the mediation of Type II settlements. Also in the southern Ishikari lowland,
Type I settlements tended to be either reduced in size or abandoned altogether, in the caseof the Maoi hill to the east and along the Yūbari river even farther to the east (Figure 10).
To explain this phenomenon, we can say that with more lively trade activity than before,
the tributaries of the Chitose river system became even more important as pipelines
connecting Type II and Type I settlements, and that areas too far removed from exchange
locales were no longer suitable as settlement locations.
In areas without pit dwellings in the previous period, Type I settlements were now
established (Figure 7, top). Where did occupants of these settlements come from?
There are several possibilities, including, ﬁrst, that groups of people who did not use
pit dwellings, which had been in existence since Phase I, began living in pit dwellings;
second, that groups of people in the southern and north-western parts of Ishikari lowland
and the Sea of Japan side of central Hokkaido moved in and settled in heretofore
uninhabited places, camp sites, and elsewhere and began living in pit dwellings. As of now,the data are too limited to draw conclusions, but be that as it may, the establishment inPhase II of such Type I settlements must have been related to the abundance of structural
remains dating from the following Phase III.
What about the situation in southern Hokkaido? In Phase I, settlement sites that can be
identiﬁed as Type I are scattered in the southern and eastern parts of the Oshima peninsula.
Their distribution is skewed toward the Paciﬁc Ocean side, indicating interactions—via the
Paciﬁc coast route—between the southern part of Ishikari lowland and the northern part of
the Paciﬁc coast region of north-eastern Honshu (Yagi 2010). For Phase II, the situation is
unclear: Paciﬁc-side settlements decreased in number while settlement sites have not beenfound on the Sea of Japan side of the peninsula. Type II settlements were not formed in either
Phase I or II, showing a diﬀerent development trajectory from that seen in central Hokkaido.

Structures of Settlement Groups in Phase III (Early to Mid-Tenth Century)

Focusing mainly on the characteristics of Type II settlements, we have discussed thestructures and dynamics of settlements in the ﬁrst half of the Satsumon culture period.
Were these structures maintained and carried into the second half of the period? Let us
look at that question by examining the settlement structures in Phase III.
The settlement structures were maintained from the previous period in the southernand north-western parts of the Ishikari lowland and the Sea of Japan side of central
Hokkaido (Figures 10, 11, and 12). Meanwhile, the northern part of north-eastern Honshu
saw epochal changes in various kinds of manual industry, characterised by vigorous© Japanese Archaeological Association

228

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURE

growth in production activity and an impressive expansion of settlements (Saitō 2019).
Presumably the trade centre function of a Type II settlement became even more important
than before—which undoubtedly explains why the previous settlement structure wasmaintained. But, the southern part of the Ishikari lowland also showed a new change: many
Type I settlements that had been scattered over a wide area were abandoned, or gathered
together at speciﬁc places (Figure 10).
In the Sea of Japan coastal area of northern Hokkaido and the area around the
Kamikawa basin there appeared newly created settlements made up of dozens to a few
hundred pit dwellings (Figure 7, lower; Figure 13). Segawa Takurō (2005) advanced an
intriguing hypothesis about settlement structures in northern Hokkaido. He postulated,ﬁrst, that Kamikawa basin settlements located near streams where salmon would swim
up and spawn, caught salmon and traded them for iron, a necessity for life there, andsecond, that settlements on the Sea of Japan coast of northern Hokkaido were “distribution
villages” that functioned as “river-mouth ports” to ship out the salmon caught by people
in Kamikawa basin settlements. Indeed, as he pointed out, pottery items in settlementsof the Sea of Japan coast of northern Hokkaido and the Kamikawa basin are very similar
to each other in form, shape, and pattern. The two regions must have had a relatively
close relationship. If, therefore, one sees the Sea of Japan coastal settlements as Type II
settlements that doubled as trade centres and the Kamikawa basin settlements as Type I,
clearly this view overlaps signiﬁcantly with my own hypothesis discussed above.
Regarding the Takasago site and the Kagawa Sansen and Kagawa 6 sites, all of themon the Sea of Japan coast (Figure 8), Segawa (2005) conﬁrmed from a document written
toward the end of the Edo period (1603–1867) that neither the Obirashibe river running
close to the Takasago site nor the Kotanbetsu river close to the Kagawa sites were salmon
spawning streams. He asserted that those settlement sites were not formed for salmon
ﬁshing. His description of Sea of Japan coastal settlements as “distribution villages” wasmade on the basis of the low ﬁshing productivity of the Obirashibe river. However, his

Figure 13.

Settlement at Kamui Kotan 1 site (excerpt from Segawa 2005).
© Japanese Archaeological Association

229

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro

source, Tōyama Muragaki nishi-Ezo nikki (Diary of West Ezo by Tōyama Kagemichi and
Muragaki Sadayuki), records that in the areas around the Obirashibe and the Kotanbetsu
rivers there were two ﬁshing grounds for salmon, Ushiya and Uenbetsu, and four
for trout, Ushiya, Oonishika, Memotomari, and Shaumentomari (Takakura 1982, pp.
405–407). Another late-nineteenth-century document mentions salmon ﬁshing at Uibira(Nakayama 1944, p. 96). Of course, some may argue against an attempt to assume theﬁshing environment of the Satsumon culture directly from late nineteenth-century records.
And yet, it is hard to imagine that the areas around the Takasago and Kagawa sites had
low ﬁshing productivity in the Satsumon period. At the Takasago site and the Kagawa
Sansen and Kagawa 6 sites, remains of ﬁsh and animals probably caught in nearby rivers
and seas have been discovered. Faunal remains including those of herring, salmon, dace,and marine mammals have been recovered from the sites of hearths inside pit dwellingsat the Takasago site, and those such as of unidentiﬁed ﬁsh and marine mammals havebeen recovered from the sites of pit-dwelling ﬂoors and hearths at the Kagawa Sansen
and Kagawa 6 sites (Mineyama et al. 1982; Nishimoto 1987, 1988). We can therefore
consider both these settlement sites to have been primarily a dwelling space that supported
subsistence. As discussed earlier in connection with the Ōkawa site, I assume that the
primary function of Type II settlements was as a dwelling place, adaptable when needed
to trading and other functions depending on demand and opportunity. If the Takasago andKagawa sites are categorised as Type II as in the ﬁrst half of the Satsumon culture period,
we can say that their location in both cases was the result of being well suited to thecoexistence of daily living and trade activities.
It should be noted, meanwhile, that major changes occurred in the structure ofsettlements of this period. In northern Hokkaido there appeared settlements that were farlarger in scale than the preceding ones of Type II. They include the Kamui Kotan 1 site,
the Higashi Osamunai site, and the Teshio Kawaguchi site (Figure 13). Relics indicating
active trade activities have not been discovered at these sites, however, so the factors
behind the settlement enlargement were most likely related to subsistence and lifestyle.7)
That is to say, there is the possibility that at some time during Phase III in the northernpart of Hokkaido a new settlement structure developed which was not an adaptation of themodel from the ﬁrst half of the Satsumon culture period. If that supposition is valid, theinterpretation noted earlier of the settlement structure at the Kamikawa basin and the Sea
of Japan coast may need to be reconsidered. The sceptical view (Sasada 2013) doubting the7) Segawa (2005), for example, postulates that the intensive hunting of salmon moving upstream in the main course of the

Ishikari river in large schools and the securing of suﬃcient numbers of hunters were key factors behind the emergence oflarge-scale settlements such as at the Kamui Kotan 1 site. Ōi (1984, 2004), who believes it is diﬃcult to assume large catchesof salmon on the main Ishikari river in the period in question, suggested mass-migration from the Ishikari lowland due tochanges in subsistence modes.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

230

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURE

presence of vigorous trade activities (mainly in iron) in northern Hokkaido, also, raises thequestion of whether the settlement structure and dynamics in the region can be explainedin the same way as for the ﬁrst half of the Satsumon period.
Another important change is the emergence of sites and regions that seem to havespecialised in some form of manufacturing. The Satsumae site in southern Hokkaido,
which is considered to have been a settlement engaged in manufacturing iron andsupplying it to other regions in Hokkaido, possibly came into being during this period(Amano 2007; Sasada 2013). In the Iburi-Hidaka region, more numerous traces were foundof hunting and ﬁshing activities. For example, there are concentrations of deer and otheranimal bones at sites in the upper reaches of the Azuma river, and shell middens wereformed along the coastal area of Funka bay. Minoshima (2011) sees those developments as
early signs that what Segawa (2005) refers to as “lifestyle suited for trade” was emerging.
But it was along the Paciﬁc coastal route connecting with the central and eastern partsof Hokkaido that the trade in iron implements is assumed to have become active (Sasada2013). So, in the end, it is diﬃcult to use iron manufacturing and trade to explain thesettlement enlargement in northern Hokkaido. Inasmuch as even the date when theSatsumae site was established is not clear and the accuracy of the period identiﬁcationof structural remains is still very questionable (Sakakida 2016), I will not, at this time,
attempt to discuss the iron trade in southern Hokkaido for this period.
We have seen that changes in Phase III (the early to mid-tenth century) show a clearly
diﬀerent development from the ﬁrst half of the Satsumon period (late seventh century
to the beginning of the tenth century). In fact, the Tobinitai culture, too, which spread ineastern Hokkaido parallel to the Satsumon in the same period, grew in number of sites andits cultural sphere expanded (Figure 14; Muramoto & Sakakida 2018), indicating morevigorous community activities taking place there. And, when we consider the relationships
among pottery types, it is diﬃcult to suppose that the Tobinitai developments had nothing
to do with the Satsumon culture (Sakakida 2016, pp. 247–253, 306–309). Settlements
made up of more than 100 pit dwellings each, as discussed here, correspond to Fujimoto
Tsuyoshi (1982)’s daishūraku (“large settlements”) and Ōi Haruo (1984)’s daikibo-shūraku
(“large-scale settlements”). They have been found widely dispersed in the succeeding ﬁrst
half of Phase IV (the late tenth century onwards) at the Sea of Okhotsk coast of northernand eastern Hokkaido and the Paciﬁc coast of eastern Hokkaido.8) There is an extremely8) Ōi (1984) contends that the Suehiro site of more than 100 pit dwellings can be compared to “large settlements” in thenorthern and eastern parts of Hokkaido. But the Suehiro site is the remains of a settlement that continued to be used from the
beginning of the Satsumon culture, and “more than 100 pit dwellings” is the result of pit dwellings accumulated over a long
period of time. Further research is needed to see if it is possible to treat a settlement (the Suehiro site) whose size was formed
over several hundred years the same way as we treat “large settlements” of a few hundred dwellings built over comparatively
short periods starting in the ﬁrst half of Phase IV in northern and eastern Hokkaido.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

231

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro

Figure 14.

How sites of Tobinitai culture spread. (Note: Based on Sakakida 2016).

strong possibility that the explosion in the number of archaeological sites (Sawai 2007,
etc.) and the emergence of numerous “large settlements” (Fujimoto) occurred as a result ofvarious changes that took place across Hokkaido during Phase III. In the interest of further
expanding the discourse on settlements from the 1980s and earlier, I want to stress once
more the importance of exploring the settlement structure, the relations among settlement
groups, and the utilization of land in the Phase III period.

IV.

Future Issues—Summary

The basic structure of a settlement cluster in the ﬁrst half of the Satsumon culture period(late seventh century to the beginning of the tenth century) consisted of small and mediumsize settlements that functioned as everyday living spaces with a larger settlement in
the vicinity that served as a centre of trade or other activity in addition to being a placefor everyday life. This settlement structure is found only in the southern part of Ishikari
lowland during Phase I of pottery chronology (late seventh to early eighth centuries). In
Phase II (mid-eighth century to beginning of tenth century), however, responding to an
intensiﬁcation of various activities and increase in trade and interaction opportunities
in the north-eastern region of Honshu, a similar settlement structure emerged in thenorth-western part of the Ishikari lowland and also in the Sea of Japan side of central
Hokkaido. As trading and other activities continued expanding in that part of Honshu, thissettlement structure was maintained in central Hokkaido even in Phase III (early to midtenth century). Meanwhile, some regions of Hokkaido saw greatly enlarged settlements
and diversiﬁed use of land, suggesting the possibility that a settlement structure and intersettlement community relations took shape that diﬀered from those in the ﬁrst half of the© Japanese Archaeological Association

232

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURE

Satsumon culture period.
Finally, I wish to point out two issues for future consideration. First, it is necessary todeﬁne the extent of individual settlement sites more exactly and bring greater precision
to the classiﬁcation of settlements. For example, we can conﬁrm separately registeredsettlement sites situated successively along the Kashiwagi river and the Old Kotoni
river, in the southern part and the north-western part of the Ishikari lowland, respectively(Figures 10 and 11). This paper counted the number of pit dwellings by considering
one site as one settlement for the sake of convenience. But this approach might risk
underestimating the number of dwellings thought to have been dispersed among several
settlements, when those dwellings might actually have belonged to one single settlement.
Thus, there is room for improvement in clarifying the distinction between Types I and II.
The second issue for future consideration is settlement sites that have yet to bediscovered. In the southern part of Ishikari lowland, especially, where excavation areas formost sites are small, it is possible that settlements comparable to the Suehiro site exist andremain undiscovered. One of them could be the Osatsu 2 site, given its high density of pit
dwellings, its continuous existence, and its location.
Further research is needed to fully assess settlements, groups of settlements, and theirterritorial extent for each period. Much remains unknown in this regard, which is why thispaper does not go into the characteristics of individual settlement constituents, such as“local groups” (Ōi 1984).
I am aware that the results of my analysis in this paper shed light on only some aspectsof settlements that date from the ﬁrst half of the Satsumon culture. Trading activities
could not have been the only factor that determined the location and size of settlements.
The perspective of subsistence and living style must also be taken into account, and thatmakes it necessary to understand relations between the natural environment and humanhabitation; relations between settlements of diﬀerent types and how their relative positions
eﬃciently facilitated obtaining and producing food and other livelihood resources; andhow social distance and relations between neighbouring regions aﬀected the extent ofsettlements. Discussions on settlements from that perspective were promoted in the 1980s
and earlier. From the perspective of socio-economic activities—other than trading—
it is also necessary to consider division of labour and interactions within and among
settlements (Segawa 1989); the group composition and social organization that enabledsuch division of labour and settlement interactions; and, in addition, political and economic
relations with surrounding East Asian states. Understanding the structure and dynamics ofsettlements in the broader context of the relationship between the settlement system andits determinant, or socio-ecological system, will integrate, in the true sense, research on
settlements conducted until the 1980s and research done since the 1990s. This approach isalso essential to research on the settlements of the Satsumon culture.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

233

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro

This study is only the starting point of forging new directions in research on Satsumon
culture settlements, and the path ahead is long and challenging. But I hope my work willplay a useful role in bringing together the research approaches to Satsumon settlement sitesthat were disconnected before and after the 1990s, and suggesting directions for future
study.

References
AMANO Tetsuya 1983. Satsumon shakai ni okeru kinzokuki no fukyūryō to shoyū keitai[Diﬀusion and ownership forms of metal objects in the Satsumon society] Kōkogaku
Kenkyū 30(1): 82–111. 天野哲也 1983「擦文社会における金属器の普及量と所有形
態」『考古学研究』第 30 巻第 1 号、pp. 82–111.
AMANO Tetsuya 2007. Kodai Tōhoku hokubu chiiki, Hokkaidō ni okeru tekkōseihin no
seisan to ryūtsū [Production and distribution of iron and steel products in ancient
northeastern region and Hokkaido], in AMANO Tetsuya & ONO Hiroko (ed.) Kodai
Ezo kara Ainu e [From ancient Ezo to Ainu]: 308–323. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan.
天野哲也 2007 「古代東北北部地域・北海道における鉄鋼製品の生産と流通」天野哲也・小野裕子（編）『古代蝦夷からアイヌへ』pp. 308–323. 東京：吉川弘文館．
FUJIMOTO Tsuyoshi 1972. Dai-3-shō Gifu-Dai-2-iseki Dai-1-setsu Chōsa no keii tomondai-ten no tekishutsu [Chapter 3: The Gifu No. 2 Site-Section 1: Extraction of
the progress and problems in the investigation], in Tokoro: 51–61. Tokyo: Faculty of
Literature, University of Tokyo. 藤本 強 1972「第三章 岐阜第二遺跡 第一節 調
査の経過と問題点の摘出」『常呂』pp. 51–61. 東京大学文学部．
FUJIMOTO Tsuyoshi 1982. Satsumon bunka [Satsumon culture]. Tokyo: Kyōiku-sha. 藤本
強 1982『擦文文化』東京：教育社
HAGA Kenji 1975. Sapporo-shi, Kotoni-gawa ryūiki ni atta tateana-jūkyoshi-gun [Pitdwelling sites in the Kotoni River basin, Sapporo City] Hokkaido Kōkogaku 11:『北海道考古学』
91–98. 羽賀憲二 1975「札幌市・琴似川流域にあった竪穴住居址群」
第 11 巻、pp. 91–98.
HIDAKA Shin 2003. Hokkaido Ōkawa iseki shutsudo shiryō no sai-kentō[Reconsideration of the excavated materials from the Ōkawa Site, Hokkaido],in Kōkogaku ni manabu, II [Learning from Archaeology (Volume II)]: 721–730.
Doshisha University Archaeology Series Publication Committee. 日高 慎 2003「北海道大川遺跡出土資料の再検討」『考古学に学ぶ (II) 』pp. 721–730. 同志社大学考古学シリーズ刊行会．

KUMAKI Toshiaki 2018. Okhotsk kai nangan chiiki kodai doki no kenkyū [Research on
ancient pottery in the southern coast of the Okhotsk Sea region]. Sapporo: Hokkaido
Publishing Planning Center. 熊木俊朗 2018『オホーツク海南岸地域古代土器の研究』
北海道出版企画センター

MINOSHIMA Hideki 2001. Kodai kokka to hoppō shakai [Ancient states and northern© Japanese Archaeological Association

234

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURE

societies]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan. 蓑島栄紀 2001『古代国家と北方社会』吉川弘文館

MINOSHIMA Hideki 2011. Hokkaido Taiheiyō nairiku-bu niokeru shika-gawa, washibane no seisan to ryūtsū to seitai-kei [Production, distribution, and ecosystem of deerhide and eagle feathers in the inland areas of the Paciﬁc side of Hokkaido], in Ainushi wo toinaosu [Revisiting Ainu History]: 148–160. Bensei Shuppan. 蓑島栄紀 2011
『アイヌ史を「北海道太平洋側内陸部におけるシカ皮・ワシ羽の生産・流通と生態系」
問い直す』pp. 148–160. 勉誠出版．
MURAMOTO Shūzō & SAKAKIDA Tomohiro 2018. Tobinitai bunka-ki no ikō, ibutsu
shutsudo iseki ni tsuite [Excavated sites and artifacts from the Tobinitai culture
period] Settlement Kenkyū, 9: 41–55. 村本周三・榊田朋広 2018「トビニタイ文化期の遺構・遺物出土遺跡について」『セツルメント研究』第 9 巻、pp. 41–55.
NAKAYAMA Toshikuni (ed.) 1944. Nishi Ezochi nikki [Diary on western Ezo region].
Tokyo: Ishihara Kyūryūdō. 中山利國（編）1944『西蝦夷地日記』東京：石原求龍堂
NISHIMOTO Toyohiro 1987. Kagawa 3, Sansen iseki shutsudo koppen no dōtei[Identiﬁcation of bone fragments excavated from the Kagawa 3 and Sansen Sites],in Tomamae Town Board of Education (ed.) Kagawa Sansen Iseki [Kagawa Sansen
Site]: 224–225. Tomamae Town Board of Education. 西本豊弘 1987「香川 3・三線遺跡出土骨片の同定」『香川三線遺跡』pp. 224–225. 苫前町教育委員会．
NISHIMOTO Toyohiro 1988. Kagawa 6, Kagawa Sansen iseki shutsudo koppen no dōtei[Identiﬁcation of bone fragments excavated from the Kagawa 6 and Kagawa Sansen
Sites], in Tomamae Town Board of Education (ed.) Kagawa 6, Kagawa Sansen
iseki [Kagawa 6 Site and Kagawa Sansen Site]: 193–194. Tomamae Town Board of『香川 6 遺跡・香Education. 西本豊弘 1988「香川 6・香川三線遺跡出土骨片の同定」
川三線遺跡』pp. 193–194. 苫前町教育委員会．
ŌI Haruo 1984. Satsumon bunka to iwayuru Ainu bunka tono kankei ni tsuite[Relationship between the Satsumon culture and the so-called ‘Ainu culture’] Hoppō
Bunka Kenkyū [Northern Cultural Studies] 15: 1–201. 大井晴男 1984「擦文文化といわゆる「アイヌ文化」との関係について」『北方文化研究』第 15 巻、pp. 1–201.
ŌI Haruo 2004. Ainu zenshi no kenkyū [Studies on Ainu prehistory]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa
Kōbunkan. 大井晴男 2004『アイヌ前史の研究』東京：吉川弘文館
SAITŌ Jun 2019. Shūraku, tateana tatemono dōtai kara mita Hokuō kodai-shi [Ancienthistory of northern Tohoku seen through settlements and pit structures], in
Kita-Tōhoku Kodai Shūraku Iseki Kenkyū Kai (ed.) Kita-Ōu no Kodai Shakai[Ancient Society in Northern Tohoku]: 97–142. Tokyo: Koshi Shoin. 齋藤 淳 2019
『北奥羽
「集落・竪穴建物動態から見た北奥古代史」北東北古代集落遺跡研究会（編）の古代社会』pp. 97–142. 高志書院．
SAKAKIDA Tomohiro 2016. Satsumon doki no kenkyū [Research on Satsumon pottery].
Sapporo: Hokkaido Publishing Planning Center. 榊田朋広 2016『擦文土器の研究』札
幌：北海道出版企画センター

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro 2020. Satsumon bunka no zakkoku riyō no tenkai to chiikikan© Japanese Archaeological Association

235

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro

kōryū [Development of grain utilization and interregional exchange in Satsumon
culture], in Higashi Nihon ni-okeru shokuryō seisan no kaishi to tenkai [Initiation anddevelopment of food production in eastern Japan]. Tokyo: Yūzankaku, page numbers『東日本におnot speciﬁed. 榊田朋広 2020「擦文文化の雑穀利用の展開と地域間交流」
ける食糧生産の開始と展開』pp. 81–99. 雄山閣．
SAKAKIDA Tomohiro & TAKASE Katsunori 2019. Ishikari teichi-tai hokubu niokeru
senshi, kodai no shokubutsu riyō [Prehistoric and ancient plant utilization in thenorthern part of Ishikari lowland] Nihon Kōkogaku 48: 1–19. 榊田朋広・高瀬克範『日本考古学』第 48 巻、pp.
2019「石狩低地帯北部における先史・古代の植物利用」
1–19.
SASADA Tomotaka 2013. Hokkaido ni-okeru tetsu bunka no kōkogakuteki kenkyū[Archaeological study of iron culture in Hokkaido]. Sapporo: Hokkaido Publishing
Planning Center. 笹田朋孝 2013『北海道における鉄文化の考古学的研究』札幌：北海道出版企画センター

SAWAI Gen 2007. Doki to tateana no bunpu kara yomitoru Satsumon bunka no dōtai[Dynamic aspects of Satsumon culture inferred from the distribution of pottery andpit structure], in AMANO Tetsuya & ONO Hiroko (ed.) Kodai Ezo kara Ainu e [Fromancient Ezo to Ainu]: 324–351. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan. 澤井 玄 2007「土器と竪穴の分布から読み取る擦文文化の動態」天野哲也・小野裕子（編）『古代蝦夷からア
イヌへ』pp. 324–351. 東京：吉川弘文館．
SAWAI Gen 2008. 11–12 seiki no Satsumon jin ha naniwo mezashita noka [What did
Satsumon people Aim for in the 11th to 12th Century?], in ENOMORI Susumu,
OGUCHI Masashi & SAWATO Hirosato (ed.) Emishi, Ezo, Ainu [Emishi, Ezo, Ainu]:
217–246. Tokyo: Iwata Shoin. 澤井 玄 2008「十一〜十二世紀の擦文人は何をめざしたか」榎森進・小口雅史・沢登寛聡（編）『エミシ・エゾ・アイヌ』pp. 217–246. 東
京：岩田書院．

SAWAI Gen 2010. Kunashiri-Tō no daikibo tateana-gun to Satsumon bunka [Large-scale
pit clusters and Satsumon culture in Kunashiri Island], in KIKUCHI Toshihiko (ed.)
Hokutō Asia no rekishi to bunka [History and culture of Northeast Asia]: 315–334.
Hokkaido University Press. 澤井 玄 2010「国後島の大規模竪穴群と擦文文化」菊池俊彦（編）『北東アジアの歴史と文化』pp. 315–334. 北海道大学出版会．
SEGAWA Takurō 1989. Satsumon jidai ni-okeru shokuryō seisan, bungyō, kōkan [Foodproduction, division of labor, and exchange in the Satsumon period] Kōkogaku『考Kenkyū 36(2): 72–97. 瀬川拓郎 1989「擦文時代における食料生産・分業・交換」
古学研究』第 36 巻第 2 号、pp. 72–97.
SEGAWA Takurō 2005. Ainu ecosystem no kōkogaku [Archaeology of Ainu ecosystem].
Sapporo: Hokkaido Publishing Planning Center. 瀬川拓郎 2005『アイヌ・エコシステ
ムの考古学』札幌：北海道出版企画センター
SEKINE Tatsuhito 2014. Chū-kinsei no Ezo-Chi to hoppō kōeki [Ezo land and northern
trade in the early modern and modern periods]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan. 関根達
人 2014『中近世の蝦夷地と北方交易』東京：吉川弘文館© Japanese Archaeological Association

236

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURESUZUKI Takuya 2016. Satsumon bunka no seiritsu katei to Akitanoki kōeki [Formation
process of Satsumon culture and trade at Akita Fort] Hokkaido Hakubutsukan Kenkyū
Kiyō [Bulletin of the Hokkaido Museum] 1: 1–18. 鈴木琢也 2016「擦文文化の成立過程と秋田城交易」『北海道博物館研究紀要』第 1 巻、pp. 1–18.
SUZUKI Yasutami 1996. Kodai Ezo no sekai to kōryū [The world and interactions ofancient Ezo], in SUZUKI Yasutami (ed.) Kodai Ezo no sekai to kōryū [The world andinteractions of ancient Ezo] (Vol. 1 of Kodai ōken to kōryū [Ancient kingship andinteraction]): 13–72. Tokyo: Meicho Publishing. 鈴木靖民 1996「古代蝦夷の世界と交流」『古代蝦夷の世界と交流 古代王権と交流 1』pp. 13–72. 東京：名著出版．
TAKAKURA Shin’ichirō (ed.) 1982. Tōyama, Muragaki Nishi-Ezo Nisshi[Tōyama-Muragaki Nishi Ezo Diary]. Saisen-kai Shiryō [Saisen-kai Sources]:356–422. Sapporo: Hokkaido Publishing Planning Center. 髙倉新一郎（編）1982「遠山・村垣西蝦夷日誌」『犀川会資料』pp. 356–422. 北海道出版企画センター．
TSUDE Hiroshi 1969. HARASHIMA Reiji cho Nihon kodai shakai no kiso kōzō [BookReview of HARASHIMA Reiji's The Basic Structure of Ancient Japanese Society]Nihon-Shi Kenkyū [Journal of Japanese History] 107: 66–71. 都出比呂志 1969「原島礼二著『日本古代社会の基礎構造』の書評」『日本史研究』第 107 巻、pp. 66–71.
TSUKAMOTO Hiroshi 2003. Satsumon jidai no iseki bunpu no hensen ni tsuite [Changes
in the spatial distribution of Satsumon period sites] Tokyo Daigaku Kōkogaku
Kenkyūshitsu Kenkyū Kiyō [Bulletin of the Archaeological Laboratory, the University『東京大学
of Tokyo] 18: 1–34. 塚本浩司 2003「擦文時代の遺跡分布の変遷について」
考古学研究室研究紀要』第 18 巻、pp. 1–34.
UBE Noriyasu 2010. 9–10 seiki ni-okeru Aomori-Ken shūhen no chiikisei [Regional
characteristics in the surrounding areas of Aomori Prefecture in the 9th and10th
Centuries], in J. Kreiner, YOSHINARI Naoki & OGUCHI Masashi (ed.) Kodai
makki, Nihon no kyōkai [Late ancient Japan's borders]: 311–345. Tokyo: Shinwasha.
宇部則保 2010「九・一〇世紀における青森県周辺の地域性」ヨーゼフ・クライナー，
吉成直樹，小口雅史（編）『古代末期・日本の境界』pp. 311–345. 東京：森話社．
UBE Noriyasu 2011. Ezo shakai no sueki juyō to chiikisei [Adoption of Sue stoneware inEzo society and regional characteristics], in OGUCHI Masashi (ed.) Kaikyō to kodai
Ezo [The Straits and Ancient Ezo]: 187–214. Tokyo: Koshi Shoin. 宇部則保 2011「蝦夷社会の須恵器受容と地域性」小口雅史（編）『海峡と古代蝦夷』pp. 187–214. 東京：
高志書院．

USHIRO Hiroshi 1999. Satsumon bunka no kakusan to chiiki senryaku [Diﬀusion of theSatsumon culture and regional strategies] Hokkaido Kaitaku Kinen-kan Kenkyū Kiyō
[Bulletin of the Hokkaido Historical Museum] 27: 23–43. 右代啓視 1999「擦文文化の拡散と地域戦略」『北海道開拓記念館研究紀要』第 27 巻、pp. 23–43.
UTAGAWA Hiroshi 1972. Satsumon shūraku no ichi bunseki rei [Analysis of a Satsumon『物質
settlement] Busshitsu Bunka 19: 42–52. 宇田川洋 1972「擦文集落の一分析例」
文化』第 19 巻，pp. 42–52.
YAGI Mitsunori 2010. Kodai Ezo shakai no seiritsu [Formation of Ancient Ezo Society].
© Japanese Archaeological Association

237

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro

Dōseisha Publishers. 八木光則 2010『古代蝦夷社会の成立』同成社
YAMAMOTO Tetsuya 1997. Rokuro hajiki to Hokkaidō [Hokkaido and pottery madeusing potter’s wheel] Kokugakuin Daigaku Kōkogaku Shiryōkan Kiyō [Bulletin of
the Research Institute of Archaeology, Kokugakuin University] 13: 78–104. 山本哲也
『國學院大學考古学資料館紀要』第 13 巻、pp. 78–104.
1997「ロクロ土師器と北海道」
YOSHIOKA Yasunobu 2001. Hoppō Chūsei-shi to Ōkawa iseki [Medieval history of thenorthern region and the Ōkawa site], in Yoichi Town Board of Education (ed.) Ōkawa
iseki ni-okeru kōkogakuteki chōsa IV (Sōkatsu-hen) [Archaeological investigations atthe Ōkawa Site IV (General Summary Volume)]: 401–448. Hokkaido: Yoichi Town
『大川遺跡における考古
Board of Education. 吉岡康暢 2001「北方中世史と大川遺跡」
学的調査 IV（総括篇）』pp. 401–448. 余市町教育委員会．
YOSHIZAKI Masakazu & TSUBAKIZAKA Yasuyo 1990. Sakushukotonikawa Iseki ni
mirareru shokuryō kakutoku senryaku [Food acquisition strategies observed at the
Sakushkotoni River site], in Hokudai Kōnai no Iseki [Excavations at the Hokkaido
University Campus] 8: 23–35. Hokkaido University Archaeological ResearchOﬃce. 吉崎昌一・椿坂恭代 1990 「サクシュコトニ川遺跡にみられる食料獲得戦略」『北大構内の遺跡 8』pp. 23–35. 北海道大学埋蔵文化財調査室．
Site Reports (All of them are published in Hokkaido Prefecture)
1:
TAMURA Toshiyuki (ed.) 1994. Marukoyama iseki ni okeru kōkogakuteki chōsa[Archaeological Investigations at Maruko-yama Site]. Chitose City Board of
Education. 田村俊之（編）1994『丸子山遺跡における考古学的調査』千歳市教育
2:

3:
4a:

4b:

4c:

委員会

MIURA Masato, KIKUCHI Yasuhito, MINAGAWA Yōichi, et al. (ed.)
2008. Chitose-Shi Kiusu 9 iseki [Kiusu 9 site in Chitose City]. Hokkaido
Cultural Resources Center. 三 浦 正 人・ 菊 池 慈 人・ 皆 川 洋 一 他（ 編 ）2008『千歳市キウス 9 遺跡』北海道埋蔵文化財センター
SUEMITSU Masataka & HIROTA Yoshinari (ed.) 2011. Chitose-Shi Kiusu 5 iseki[Kiusu 5 site in Chitose City] (9). Hokkaido Cultural Resources Center. 末光正
卓・広田良成（編）2011『千歳市キウス 5 遺跡 (9) 』北海道埋蔵文化財センター
ŌTANI Toshizō & TAMURA Toshiyuki (ed.) 1982. Suehiro iseki ni okeru
kōkogakuteki chōsa [Archaeological investigations at Suehiro site] (Part 2).
Chitose City Board of Education. 大谷敏三・田村俊之（編）1982『末広遺跡における考古学的調査（下）』千歳市教育委員会
TAMURA Toshiyuki (ed.) 1985. Suehiro iseki ni okeru kōkogakuteki chōsa[Archaeological investigations at Suehiro Site] (Continued). Chitose City Boardof Education. 田村俊之（編）1985『末広遺跡における考古学的調査（続）』千歳市
教育委員会

Chitose City Board of Education (ed.) 1981. Suehiro iseki ni okeru kōkogakutekichōsa [Archaeological investigations at Suehiro Site] (Part 1). Chitose City Board』of Education. 千歳市教育委員会（編）1981『末広遺跡における考古学的調査（上）© Japanese Archaeological Association

238

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURE

千歳市教育委員会

4d:

TAKAHASHI Satoshi (ed.) 1996. Suehiro iseki ni okeru kōkogakuteki chōsa[Archaeological investigations at Suehiro Site] (Part 4). Chitose City Board of
Education. 高橋 理（編）1996『末広遺跡における考古学的調査 (IV) 』千歳市教5a:

TOYOTA Hiroyoshi, MATSUDA Junko, and KUHARA Naoshi (ed.) 2002.
Yukanboshi C2 iseki, Osatsu 2 iseki niokeru kōkogakuteki chōsa [Archaeologicalinvestigations at Yukanboshi C2 site and Osatsu 2 site]. Chitose City Board of
Education. 豊田宏良・松田淳子・久原直利（編）2002 『ユカンボシ C2 遺跡・オサツ 2 遺跡における考古学的調査』千歳市教育委員会
MIURA Masato, KAMATA Nozomu & SUZUKI Shin (ed.) 1995. Chitose-Shi
Osatsu 2 iseki (1), Osatsu 14 iseki [Osatsu No. 2 site (Part 1) and Osatsu No. 14
site in Chitose City]. Hokkaido Cultural Resources Center. 三浦正人・鎌田 望・
鈴木 信（編）1995『千歳市オサツ 2 遺跡 (1) ・オサツ 14 遺跡』北海道埋蔵文化

5b:

6a:

6b:
6c:
7:

8–9:
10:
11:

育委員会

財センター

ISHIKAWA Tōru, SATŌ Kazuo & KANAYAMA Tetsuo 1971. Mamachi iseki[Mamachi Site]. Chitose Archaeological Research Society & Chitose City Boardof Education. 石川 徹・佐藤一夫・金山哲夫 1971『ママチ遺跡』千歳考古学研究会・千歳市教育委員会

TANEICHI Yukio (ed.) 1983. Mamachi iseki [Mamachi Site]. Hokkaido Cultural
Resources Center. 種市幸生（編）1983『ママチ遺跡』北海道埋蔵文化財センター
NAGANUMA Takashi (ed.) 1987. Chitose-Shi Mamachi iseki [Mamachi Site in
Chitose City] Vol. III. Hokkaido Cultural Resources Center. 長沼 孝（編）1987『千歳市ママチ遺跡 III』北海道埋蔵文化財センター
MIURA Masato & SUZUKI Shin (ed.) 2000. Chitose-shi Yukanboshi C15 iseki[Yukanboshi C15 site in Chitose City] (3). Hokkaido Cultural Resources Center.
三浦正人・鈴木 信（編）2000『千歳市ユカンボシ C15 遺跡 (3) 』北海道埋蔵文
化財センター

MATSUTANI Jun’ichi & UWAYA Shin’ichi (ed.) 1988. Nakajimamatsu 6, 7 iseki[Nakajima Matsu 6 and 7 sites]. Eniwa City Board of Education. 松谷純一・上屋真一（編）1988『中島松 6・7 遺跡』恵庭市教育委員会
UWAYA Shin’ichi (ed.) 1990. Kashiwagikawa 11 iseki [Kashiwagi River 11 site].
Eniwa City Board of Education. 上屋真一（編）1990『柏木川 11 遺跡』恵庭市教育委員会

DOHI Akihiro (ed.) 2006. Eniwa-Shi Nishijima Matsu 5 iseki [Nishijima Matsu 5Site in Eniwa City] (4). Hokkaido Cultural Resources Center. 土肥研晶（編）2006『恵庭市西島松 5 遺跡 (4) 』北海道埋蔵文化財センター
12:
MATSUTANI Jun’ichi (ed.) 1997. Mogyo 4 iseki [Mogyo 4 site]. Eniwa City
Board of Education. 松谷純一（編）1997『茂漁 4 遺跡』恵庭市教育委員会
13–14: MORI Hideyuki (ed.) 2004. Mogyo 7 iseki, Mogyo 8 iseki [Mogyo 7 site
and Mogyo 8 site]. Eniwa City Board of Education. 森 秀之（編）2004© Japanese Archaeological Association

239

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro

15:
16:
17:

18:
19:
20:

21:
22a:

22b:
23:
24a:
24b:
25:
26a:

『茂漁 7 遺跡・茂漁 8 遺跡』恵庭市教育委員会
NOTSUKI Toshihiko (ed.) 2008. K528 iseki [K528 site]. Sapporo City Board of
Education. 野月寿彦（編）2008『K528 遺跡』札幌市教育委員会
FUJII Seiji (ed.) 2001. K39 iseki dai-6-ji chōsa [6th Excavation at the K39 Site].
Sapporo City Board of Education. 藤井誠二（編）2001『K39 遺跡第 6 次調査』札幌市教育委員会

Hokkaido University Archaeological Research Oﬃce (ed.) 1986. Sakushukotoni
Gawa iseki [Sakushukotoni River Site]. Hokkaido Institutional Newspaper
Printing Oﬃce Publishing Planning Department. 北海道大学埋蔵文化財調査室（編）1986『サクシュコトニ川遺跡』北海道機関紙印刷所出版企画室
ISHII Jun (ed.) 2000. K39 iseki dai-8-ji chōsa [8th Excavation at the K39 Site].
Sapporo City Board of Education. 石井 淳（編）2000『K39 遺跡第 8 次調査』札幌市教育委員会

TANAKA Ryō (ed.) 2019. K435 iseki dai-3-ji chōsa [3rd Excavation at theK435 site]. Sapporo City Board of Education. 田中 亮（編）2019 『K435遺跡第 3 次調査』札幌市教育委員会
UENO Shūichi (ed.) 1980. Sappro-Shi bunkazai chōsa hōkoku-sho XXII: K460
iseki [Sapporo City Cultural Heritage Investigation Report XXII: K460 Site].
Sapporo City Board of Education. 上野秀一（編）1980『札幌市文化財調査報告書
XXII K460 遺跡』札幌市教育委員会
KASHIWAGI Dainen (ed.) 2004. K445 iseki [K445 Site]. Sapporo City Board of
Education. 柏木大延（編）2004『K445 遺跡』札幌市教育委員会
UENO Shūichi (ed.) 1979. Sapporo-Shi bunkazai chōsa hōkoku-sho XX: K446
iseki [Sapporo City Cultural Heritage Investigation Report XX K446 Site].
Sapporo City Board of Education. 上野秀一（編）1979『札幌市文化財調査報告書
XX K446 遺跡』札幌市教育委員会
TANAKA Ryō (ed.) 2015. K446 iseki dai-2-ji chōsa [2nd Excavation at theK446 Site]. Sapporo City Board of Education. 田中 亮（編）2015 『K446遺跡第 2 次調査』札幌市教育委員会
ISHII Jun (ed.). 2006. H519 iseki [H519 site]. Sapporo City Board of Education.
石井 淳（編）2006『H519 遺跡』札幌市教育委員会
AKIYAMA Yōji (ed.) 1997. K36 iseki Takano chiten [Takano locality at the K36
site]. Sapporo City Board of Education. 秋山洋司（編）1997『K36 遺跡タカノ地点』札幌市教育委員会
UENO Shūichi & HAGA Kenji (ed.) 1987. K36 iseki [K36 site]. Sapporo City
Board of Education. 上野秀一・羽賀憲二（編）1987『K36 遺跡』札幌市教育委員
会

ISHII Jun (ed.) 2002. K440 iseki [K440 site]. Sapporo City Board of Education.
石井 淳（編）2002『K440 遺跡』札幌市教育委員会
AKIYAMA Yōji (ed.) 2017. K441 iseki dai-3-ji chōsa [3rd Excavation at theK441 Site]. Sapporo City Board of Education. 秋山洋司（編）2017 『K441© Japanese Archaeological Association

240

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURE

26b:
26c:
27:
28a:

遺跡第 3 次調査』札幌市教育委員会
UENO Shūichi (ed.) 1989. K441 iseki Kita-34-Jō chiten [North 34th Street
locality at the K441 site]. Sapporo City Board of Education. 上野秀一（編）1989『K441 遺跡北 34 条地点』札幌市教育委員会
HAGA Kenji (ed.) 1989. K441 iseki Kita-33-Jō chiten, N12 iseki [North 33rd
Street locality at the K441 site and N12 site]. Sapporo City Board of Education.
羽賀憲二（編）1989『K441 遺跡北 33 条地点・N12 遺跡』札幌市教育委員会
Otaru City Board of Education (ed.) 1992. Chibutashinai iseki [Chibutashinai
Site]. Otaru City Board of Education. 小樽市教育委員会（編）1992『チブタシナ
イ遺跡』小樽市教育委員会
INUI Yoshihiro (ed.) 2000. Ōkawa iseki ni-okeru kōkogakuteki chōsa[Archaeological investigations at the Ōkawa site] II. Yoichi Town Board of
Education. 乾 芳宏（編）2000『大川遺跡における考古学的調査 II』余市町教育
委員会

28b:

INUI Yoshihiro (ed.) 2001a. Ōkawa iseki ni-okeru kōkogakuteki chōsa[Archaeological investigations at the Ōkawa site] IV. Yoichi Town Board of
Education. 乾 芳宏（編）2001a『大川遺跡における考古学的調査 IV』余市町教28c:

INUI Yoshihiro (ed.) 2001b. Ōkawa iseki hakkutsu chōsa hōkokusho [Excavation
report of the Ōkawa site] (Fiscal Year 1999). Yoichi Town Board of Education. 乾
芳宏（編）2001b『大川遺跡発掘調査報告書 (1999 年度) 』余市町教育委員会
INUI Yoshihiro (ed.) 2002. Ōkawa iseki hakkutsu chōsa hōkokusho [Excavation
Report of the Ōkawa Site] (Fiscal Years 2000–2001). Yoichi Town Board of
Education. 乾 芳宏（編）2002 『大川遺跡発掘調査報告書（2000・2001 年度）』

28d:

28e:

29:
30:
31:
32:

育委員会

余市町教育委員会

OKADA Atsuko & MIYA Hiroaki (ed.) 2000. Ōkawa iseki ni-okeru kōkogakutekichōsa [Archaeological investigations at the Ōkawa site] I. Yoichi Town Board of
Education. 岡田淳子・宮 宏明（編）2000『大川遺跡における考古学的調査 I』余市町教育委員会

MIYA Hiroaki (ed.) 1989. Sawamachi iseki [Sawamachi site]. Yoichi Town Boardof Education. 宮 宏明（編）1989『沢町遺跡』余市町教育委員会
TABE Jun (ed.) 1997. Herocalus iseki E to G chiten [E through G localities at the
Herocalus site]. Tomari Village Board of Education. 田部 淳（編）1997『ヘロカルウス遺跡 E 〜 G 地点』泊村教育委員会
Otaru City Board of Education (ed.) 1991. Rando Moche Yawata iseki [Rando
Moche Yawata site]. Otaru City Board of Education. 小樽市教育委員会（編）1991『蘭島餅屋沢遺跡』小樽市教育委員会
NOBECHI Hatsuo, NOBECHI Shōta & TAKAHASHI Noboru (ed.) 2004.
Iwanai Chō Higashiyama 1 iseki [Higashiyama 1 site in Iwanai Town]. Iwanai
Town Board of Education. 野辺地初雄・野辺地章太・高橋 昇（編）2004『岩内町東山 1 遺跡』岩内町教育委員会© Japanese Archaeological Association

241

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro

33:

34:
35:

36a:
36b:
37:
38:

UCHIYAMA Masumi (ed.). 1985. Suttsu-Machi bunkazai chōsa hōkokusho III
Shutakawa ugan 6 iseki, Shutakawa ugan 1 iseki [Suttsu Town Cultural Properties
Investigation Report III: Shutakawa Right Bank 6 site, Shutakawa Right Bank 1
site. Suttsu Town Board of Education. 内山真澄（編）1985『寿都町文化財調査報
告書 III 朱太川右岸 6 遺跡・朱太川右岸 1 遺跡』寿都町教育委員会
YOKOYAMA Eisuke and ISHIBASHI Takao (ed.) 1975. Wakkaoi [Wakkaoi].
Ishikari Town Board of Education. 横山英介・石橋孝夫（編）1975『Wakkaoi』石
狩町教育委員会

UTAGAWA Hiroshi 1965. Atsuta-Mura Juftop iseki hakkutsu chōsa gaihō [Reporton excavation at the Juftop site in Atsuta Village], in Ainu Mosiri, 10: 17–21. 宇田
川洋 1965「厚田村聚富土上遺跡発掘調査概報」『アイヌ・モシリ』第 10 巻、pp.
17–21.
Hokkaido Cultural Properties Research Institute (ed.) 1992. Horikabu 1, 2 iseki[Horikabu 1 and 2 sites]. Hokkaido Cultural Properties Research Institute. 北海道
文化財研究所（編）1992『堀株 1・2 遺跡』北海道文化財研究所
MURAKAMI Akihisa (ed.) 2005. Horikabu 1 iseki [Horikabu 1 site] (2). Tomari
Village Board of Education. 村上章久（編）2005『堀株 1 遺跡 (2) 』泊村教育委員
会

KUBO Yasushi, ISHIMOTO Shōzō & MATSUTANI Futoshi (ed.) 1984. Sappu[Sappu]. Matsumae Town Board of Education. 久保 泰・石本省三・松谷 太（編）1984『札前』松前町教育委員会
AONO Tomoya & NAGAYA Yukito (ed.) 2014. Ponma iseki hakkutsu chōsa
hōkokusho [Ponma site Excavation Report]. Date City Funka Bay Cultural
Research Institute. 青野友哉・永谷幸人（編）2014『ポンマ遺跡発掘調査報告書』
伊達市噴火湾文化研究所

39:

AONO Tomoya & MITANI Tomohiro (ed.) 2009. Usu 4 iseki hakkutsu chōsa
hōkokusho [Usu 4 site excavation report]. Date City Funka Bay Cultural ResearchInstitute. 青野友哉・三谷智広（編）2009『有珠 4 遺跡発掘調査報告書』伊達市噴40:

MINEYAMA Iwao (ed.) 1984. Date-Shi Minami Usu 7 iseki hakkutsu chōsa
hōkoku [Excavation report of the Minami-Usu 7 site in Date City]. Date City
Board of Education. 峰山 巌（編）1984『伊達市南有珠 7 遺跡発掘調査報告』伊41:

Tomakomai City Archaeological Survey Center (ed.) 1987. Tomakomai Tōbu
Kōgyō-Chitai no iseki-gun [Site Group in Tomakomai Eastern Industrial Zone]
II. Tomakomai City Board of Education & Tomakomai City ArchaeologicalConservation Center. 苫小牧市埋蔵文化財調査調査センター（編）1987『苫小牧東部工業地帯の遺跡群 II』苫小牧市教育委員会・苫小牧市埋蔵文化財センター
AMAKATA Hiroaki (ed.) 2011. Onikishe 2 iseki [Onikishe 2 site]. Atsuma Town
Board of Education. 天方博章（編）2011『オニキシベ 2 遺跡』厚真町教育委員会
AMAKATA Hiroaki (ed.) 2013. Wotcharasenaicha iseki, Wotcharasenai

42:
43:

火湾文化研究所

達市教育委員会© Japanese Archaeological Association

242

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURE

44:
45:
46:

47:
48:

49:
50a:

50b:

51a:
51b:

52:

iseki [Wotcharasenaicha site and Wotcharasenai site]. Atsuma Town Board of
Education. 天方博章（編）2013 『ヲチャラセナイチャシ遺跡・ヲチャラセナイ遺跡』厚真町教育委員会
INUI Tetsuya & ONO Tetsuya (ed.) 2007. Kamihoronai Moi iseki [Kamihoronai
Moi site] (2). Atsuma Town Board of Education. 乾 哲也・小野哲也（編）2007『上幌内モイ遺跡 (2) 』厚真町教育委員会
ONO Tetsuya (ed.) 2009. Kamihoronai Moi iseki [Kamihoronai Moi site] (3).
Atsuma Town Board of Education. 小野哲也（編）2009『上幌内モイ遺跡 (3) 』厚真町教育委員会

UTAGAWA Hiroshi 1997. Yuni-Chō Iwanai iseki [Iwanai site in Yuni Town], in
Hokkaido Yuni-Chō no senshi iseki [Prehistoric sites in Yuni Town, Hokkaido](Reprint Edition): 6–26. Yuni Town Board of Education. 宇田川洋 1997「由仁町
岩内遺跡」『北海道由仁町の先史遺跡〔復刻版〕』pp. 6–26. 由仁町教育委員会．
ŌBA Toshio & ISHIKAWA Tōru 1961. Hamamasu iseki [Hamamasu site].
Hamamasu Village Board of Education. 大場利夫・石川 徹 1961『濱益遺跡』浜
益村教育委員会

ONIYANAGI Akira, MORI Hideyuki & NAKATA Yuka (ed.) 1989.
Fukagawa-Shi Higashi-Hirosato iseki [Higashi-Hirosato site in Fukagawa City].
Hokkaido Cultural Resources Center. 鬼柳 彰・森 秀之・中田裕香（編）1989『深川市東広里遺跡』北海道埋蔵文化財センター
KASAI Tomoyoshi (ed.) 1999. Sakai-Gawa sagan iseki, Kita-ku 1 iseki [Sakai
River Left Bank site, Kita-District 1 site]. Fukagawa City Board of Education. 葛西智義（編）1999『堺川左岸遺跡・北区 1 遺跡』深川市教育委員会
SAITŌ Suguru 1972. Asahikawa-Shi Kamuikotan no Satsumon-shiki doki[Satsumon Pottery from Kamui Kotan, Asahikawa City] Asahikawa Municipal
Folk Museum Newsletter 8: 3．斉藤 傑 1972「旭川市神居古潭の擦文式土器」『市立旭川郷土博物館だより』8、p. 3.
TAKABATAKE Kiichi 1894. Ishikari-Gawa engan kekkyo jinshu iseki [Stone age
sites along the Ishikari River. Tokyo Jinrui Gakkai Zasshi [Journal of the Tokyo
Anthropological Society] 10 (103): 2–17. 高畑宜一 1894「石狩川沿岸穴居人種遺跡」『東京人類学会雑誌』第 10 巻第 103 号、pp. 2–17.
Fukagawa City Board of Education (ed.) 1997. Higashinanao iseki [HigashinanaoSite]. Fukagawa City Board of Education. 深川市教育委員会（編）1997『東納内遺跡』深川市教育委員会
Fukagawa City Board of Education (ed.) 2011. Higashinanao iseki seiri hōkoku
[Laboratory report of artifacts excavated at the Higashinanao site]. Fukagawa City
Cultural Heritage Investigation Report 22. CD-ROM. 深川市教育委員会（編）『深川市文化財調査報告 22』CD-ROM
2011「東納内遺跡整理報告」
Asahikawa City Board of Education 1985. Midorimachi 4 iseki [Midorimachi 4site]. Asahikawa City Board of Education. 旭川市教育委員会 1985『緑町 4 遺跡』
旭川市教育委員会© Japanese Archaeological Association

243

SAKAKIDA Tomohiro

53:
54a:

54b:

55a:
55b:

Shin-Arai Joint Venture (ed.) 2012. Kinbunchō 5 iseki, Kinbunchō 6 iseki[Kinbunchō 5 site, Kinbunchō 6 site]. Asahikawa City. シン・荒井共同企業体（編）2012『近文町 5 遺跡・近文町 6 遺跡』旭川市
SEGAWA Takurō 1995. Asahikawa-Shi Asahimachi 1 iseki hakkutsu chōsa
hōkoku [Excavation report of Asahimachi 1 site in Asahikawa City] I.
Asahikawa-Shi Hakubutsukan Kenkyū Hōkoku [Asahikawa City Museum
Research Report] 1: 35–66. 瀬川拓郎 1995「旭川市旭町 1 遺跡発掘調査報告 I」『旭川市博物館研究報告』第 1 巻、pp. 35–66.
SEGAWA Takurō & TOMODA Tetsuhiro 1996. Asahikawa-Shi Asahimachi
1 iseki hakkutsu chōsa hōkoku [Excavation report of Asahimachi 1 Site in
Asahikawa City] II. Asahikawa-Shi Hakubutsukan Kenkyū Hōkoku [Asahikawa
City Museum Research Report] 2: 45–60. 瀬川拓郎・友田哲弘 1996
『旭川市博物館研究報告』第 2 巻、pp. 45–60.
「旭川市旭町 1 遺跡発掘調査報告 II」
SEGAWA Takurō (ed.) 1984. Nishikimachi 5 iseki [Nishikimachi 5 site].
Asahikawa City Board of Education. 瀬川拓郎（編）1984『錦町 5 遺跡』旭川市教育委員会

SEGAWA Takurō (ed.) 1985. Nishikimachi 5 iseki [Nishikimachi 5 site] II.
Asahikawa City Board of Education. 瀬川拓郎（編）1985『錦町 5 遺跡 II』旭川市
教育委員会

55c:

SEGAWA Takurō (ed.) 1988. Nishikimachi 5 iseki [Nishikimachi 5 site] III.
Asahikawa City Board of Education. 瀬川拓郎（編）1988『錦町 5 遺跡 III』旭川市

56a:

MINEYAMA Iwao, YAMADA Gorō, MIYAZUKA Yoshito, and others 1982.
Opilaushpetsu iseki (Takasago iseki) [Opilaushpetsu site (Takasago site)]. Kodaira
Town Board of Education. 峰山 巌・山田悟郎・宮塚義人他 1982『オピラウシュ
ペツ遺跡（高砂遺跡）』小平町教育委員会
MINEYAMA Iwao & MIYAZUKA Yoshito (ed.) 1983. Obiratakasago[Obiratakasago]. Obira Town Board of Education. 峰山 巌・宮塚義人（編）1983『おびらたかさご』小平町教育委員会
MIYAZUKA Yoshito (ed.) 1983. Obiratakasago [Obiratakasago] II. Obira Town
Board of Education. 宮塚義人（編）1983『おびらたかさご II』小平町教育委員会
FUKUSHI Hiroshi (ed.) 1985. Takasago iseki dai-2-chiten hakkutsu chōsa hōkoku
[Excavation report of Locality No. 2 at the Takasago site]. Kodaira Town Board of
Education. 福士廣士（編）1985『高砂遺跡第 2 地点発掘調査報告』小平町教育委

56b:
56c:
57:

58a:

教育委員会

員会

Tomamae Town Board of Education (ed.) 1987. Kagawa Sansen iseki [Kagawa
Sansen site]. Tomamae Town Board of Education. 苫前町教育委員会（編）1987『香川三線遺跡』苫前町教育委員会
58b–59: Tomamae Town Board of Education (ed.) 1988. Kagawa 6 iseki, Kagawa Sansen
iseki [Kagawa 6 site, Kagawa Sansen site]. Tomamae Town Board of Education.
苫前町教育委員会（編）1988『香川 6 遺跡・香川三線遺跡』苫前町教育委員会© Japanese Archaeological Association

244

STRUCTURES AND DYNAMICS OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF SATSUMON CULTURE

60a:

60b:

60c:

61a:
61b:
61c:

ŌBA Toshio & SEKI Hideshi 1963. Haboro-Chō Teuri iseki hakkutsu chōsa gaihō[Preliminary report of excavations at the Teuri site in Haboro Town] Hokkaido no
Bunka (Special Issue): 24–26. 大場利夫・関 秀志 1963「羽幌町天売遺跡調査概報」『北海道の文化』特集号、pp. 24–26.
SEKI Hideshi & KAIDŌ Shigeaki. 1968. Haboro-Chō Teuri iseki hakkutsu
chōsa gaihō [Preliminary report of excavations at the Teuri site in Haboro Town]
Hokkaido Kōkogaku 4: 128–131. 関 秀志・街道重昭 1968「羽幌町天売遺跡発掘
調査概報」『北海道考古学』第 4 巻、pp. 128–131.
SEKI Hideshi & KAIDŌ Shigeaki 1969. Shōwa 43-nendo Haboro-Chō Teuri
iseki hakkutsu chōsa gaihō [Preliminary report of excavations at the Teuri site in
Haboro Town in 1968] Hokkaido Kōkogaku 5: 59–65. 関 秀志・街道重昭 1969
『北海道考古学』第 5 巻、pp. 59–65.
「昭和 43 年度羽幌町天売遺跡発掘調査概報」
ŌBA Toshio & YAMAZAKI Hironobu 1971. Teshio Kawaguchi iseki [Teshio
Kawaguchi site]. Teshio Town Board of Education. 大場利夫・山崎博信 1971『天塩川口遺跡』天塩町教育委員会
KAIDŌ Shigeaki 1975. Teshio Kawaguchi iseki chōsa hōkoku-sho[Archaeological report of the Teshio Kawaguchi site]. Teshio Town Board of
Education. 街道重昭 1975『天塩川口遺跡調査報告書』天塩町教育委員会
KUMAKI Kōichi, KATŌ Shinpei & MAEDA Ushio (ed.) 1978. Teshio
Kawaguchi iseki chōsa hōkoku-sho [Archaeological report of the Teshio
Kawaguchi site]. Teshio Town Board of Education. 熊木庫一・加藤晋平・前田潮（編）1978『「天塩川口遺跡」調査報告書』天塩町教育委員会© Japanese Archaeological Association

245