The Production of Haniwa and State Formation in
Japan
HIROSE Satoru1
ABSTRACTThis paper discusses the nature of and temporal change in the craft organization of haniwa ceramic
objects from the middle third to early sixth centuries AD in Japan. Haniwa production was a vital
aspect of elite mortuary rituals that played an important role in the state formation process. The
central polity developed a ﬁxed set of mortuary rituals that utilized haniwa, and various local
regions adopted this set of mortuary rituals. Production techniques evolved in the central polity
and local polities at the same time, suggesting that the central polity maintained direct relationshipwith local polities, and the author argues for the strength of the central polity. The author also reexamines the relative chronology of cylindrical haniwa that were placed on the mound surfaces ofgiant keyhole-shaped mounded tombs or kofun. Since these kofun are considered as the burials of
the highest-ranking elites who took turns to occupy the throne of the central polity, the author’s new
chronological framework suggests a continuity of the central polity from its location in the Narabasin in the fourth century to the Osaka plain in the ﬁfth century.
KEYWORDS: Technological organization, craft specialization, center-periphery relationship, state
formation, JapanI.

Research on Haniwa in the Context of State Formation in Japan

This paper discusses the structure of the central polity and relationships between the central
polity and local elites in Kofun-Period (middle third to sixth centuries AD) Japan from theperspective of haniwa production. Haniwa were ceramic objects that were placed in rows inlarge quantities on the surface of elite mounded tombs called kofun. They are classiﬁed intocylindrical haniwa (Figure 1) and representational haniwa modelled after various objects(for good synthesis in Japanese, see Jōkura 2012, Takahashi 2012).
It was during the Kofun Period when society in Japan evolved toward the state. The
Kofun Period is characterized by the construction of giant keyhole-shaped mounded tombs
and the sharing of the standardized keyhole shape for elite burials. Archaeological studies
on the state formation process have become especially active since 1991, following Tsude
Hiroshi’s (1991, in English 2006) proposition that Kofun Period society could be considered
1 NaraNational Research Institute for Cultural Properties, 2–9–1 Nijo-cho, Nara 630–8577, Japan(hirose@nabunken.go.jp)
Category: Original Article Received: 1 February 2020; Accepted: 14 September 2020
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8 (2020): 27–77

HIROSE Satoru

Figure 1.

Terminology of Cylindrical Haniwa

at the level of an “early state,” a concept adapted from Classen and Skalnik (1981, 1986).
At present, debate continues as to when Japanese society crossed the threshold of thestate during the 300 years of the Kofun Period. Disagreement stems from the fundamentallydiﬀerent positions of whether the strong central polity controlled local polities or whether
autonomous local polities were independent from the central polity. In recent years, thelatter position has been gaining support (e.g. Hōjō 1999; Hōjō, Mizoguchi and Murakami
2000; Ōkubo 2002). The author disagrees with the latter position because it does not fully
explain why various local regions of Japan adopted the ﬁxed set of mortuary practices,developed by the central polity. In other words, the latter position does not account for thecentral polity’s power to use the ﬁxed set of mortuary practices as a mean to gain control
over local regions (see Figures 2 and 3 for the locations of sites mentioned).
With this background in mind, the author focuses discussion on the production of haniwa,
as they were an important element of the construction of mounded tombs, where various
rituals, including royal succession, took place. The author draws attention to the spreadof haniwa to various regions throughout Japan far away from the central polity, temporalchange and spatial diﬀerences in haniwa production systems, the marshalling of craftsmen
for haniwa production, and the local adoption of haniwa for ritual activity. By examining
these aspects, the author considers the structure of the central polity and the relationships© Japanese Archaeological Association

28

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPAN

Figure 2. Regions and Sites outside the Central Polity Region
A. Core Area of the Central Polity Region; B. Peripheral Areas of the Central Polity Region; C Ise
Bay Coastal Region, D. Kamitsuke, E. Tango, F. San’in, G. Kibi, H. Eastern Shikoku
1. Ōta-Tenjin’yama, 2. Kai-Chōshizuka, 3. Shōrinzan, 4. Maeda-Machiya, 5. Amino-Chōshiyama, 6.
Goshikizuka, 7. Zōzan (Tsukuriyama), 8. Yatani burial mound, 9. Yanai-Chausuyama, 10. Sukisaki,
11. Mesahozuka
Numbers correspond to the list of site reports at the end of this paper.

between the central polity and local polities.

II.

Reexamination of Previous Research into the Origin of Haniwa

It is widely accepted that ritual pottery stands and accompanying large jars used for rituals
in the Late Yayoi Period in the Kibi region (G in Figure 2) evolved into cylindrical haniwa
and to jar-shaped haniwa (Kondō and Harunari 1967; Ugaki 1984, 1997). The surface of© Japanese Archaeological Association

29

HIROSE Satoru

these ritual pottery stands was intricately decorated and painted red. Similarly, the large jars
for rituals were painted red and heavily decorated with line incisions. These characteristic
forms of pottery are only uncovered from burial mounds presumably of the elite class,and they are considered to have been elite status symbols of the Kibi region at that time.
Kondō (Kondō and Harunari 1967) hypothesized that these sets of pottery were used in theritual oﬀering of food and drink to the dead, and that this ritual practice continued into thesubsequent Kofun Period. As a result, a considerable amount of cylindrical haniwa and jar-

© Japanese Archaeological Association

30

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPANshaped haniwa were produced.
While the author generally supports this hypothesis, he proposes that another type of
pottery also contributed to the appearance of jar-shaped haniwa in the middle third century.
During the transition from the Yayoi to the Kofun Period in the third century, regional
polities interacted with one another as evidenced by the active movement of pottery. In thiscontext of regional interaction, the author argues that cylindrical haniwa and jar-shaped
haniwa originated from ritual pottery stands and this second type of pottery.
The type of pottery in question are jars characterized by elaborately decorated rims andshoulders and very ﬁnely polished pottery surfaces. They were widely adopted from the latesecond to early third century, or toward the end of the Yayoi Period, from the Ise Bay coastal
region (C in Figure 2) in the east to the central Kinki region (A, B in Figure 2) in the west.
Japanese archaeologists suspect that this type of jar was used for rituals that took place atopof low burial mounds, in which food and drinks were oﬀered to the dead. This type of jar
was not associated with pottery stands.
This type of decorated jar is further classiﬁed into three sub-types, namely sub-type I, II,
and III, based on diﬀerences in rim morphology. Each sub-type represents a diﬀerent region,in which each ﬁrst appeared. Sub-type I is characterized by an upright neck (Figure 4-2),
sub-type II by a neck with the upper section wider than the lower section (Figure 4-3), andsub-type III by a rim extending downward (Figure 4-4). Sub-type II originated in the central
Kinki region during the Late Yayoi Period (second century AD), and sub-type III originatedin the coastal region of Ise Bay during the same period (Taguchi 1981). Decorated jars of
sub-type I suddenly appeared in the middle third century when the standardized keyholeshaped mounded tombs appeared and became dominant in the Early Kofun Period in the
Figure 3. Sites and Areas in the Central Polity Region
1. Hashihaka, 2. Shibutani-Mukaiyama, 3. Uenoyama, 4. Andon’yama, 5. Kushiyama, 6. NakayamaŌtsuka, 7. Nishi-Tonozuka, 8. Higashi-Tonozuka, 9. Nishiyam, 10. Mesuriyama, 11. SakuraiChausuyama, 12. Kuzumoto-Bentenzuka, 13. Ichio-Hakayama, 14. Wakigami-Kansuzuka, 15. Murono-Miyayama, 16. Shinjō-Yashikiyama, 17. Tsukiyama, 18. Shin’yama, 19. Samida-Takarazuka, 20.
Nikiyama, 21. Suyama, 22. Nagareyama, 23. Nagareyama-Kita No. 3, 24. Bessho-Shita, 25. KawaiŌtsukayama, 26. Shimanoyama, 27. Sasakizuka, 28. Suishōzuka, 29. Gosashi, 30. Misasagi-chō, 31.
Saki-Ishizukayama, 32. Saki-Misasagiyama, 33. Maezuka, 34. Ichiniwa, 35. Shimeno, 36. Konabe,
37. Tōin Compound of the Nara Imperial Palace, 38. Hishiage, 39. Uwanabe, 40. Sugawara-Higashi,
41. Hōraisan, 42. Shibagahara, 43. Kutsukawa Kurumazuka, 44. Kawaradani, 45. Terado-Ōtsuka,
46. Baba, 47. Imashirozuka, 48. Shin’ike, 49. Daisen, 50. Mozu-Gobyōyama, 51. Chino’oka, 52.
Kami’ishizu-Misanzai, 53. Haji-Nisanzai, 54. Tsudō-Shiroyama, 55. Oka-Misanzai, 56. Goteji,
57. Minegazuka, 58. Banjōyama, 59. Hazamiyama, 60. Hakayama, 61. Karusato, 62. Maenoyama,
63. Konda-Gobyōyama, 64. Nakatsuyama, 65. Ichinoyama, 66. Akagozuka, 67. Chō’onji-Kita, 68.
Tamateyama, 69. Tsukanomoto, 70. Kyūhōji, 71. Kayafuri No. 1
Numbers correspond to the list of site reports at the end of this paper.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

31

HIROSE Satoru

Figure 4.

Process of the Emergence of Haniwa© Japanese Archaeological Association

32

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPAN

southeastern Nara basin and Osaka plain (see Figure 3). This sub-type may have been the
result of mixed adaptations between sub-types II and III. The widespread adoption of these
sub-types of decorated jar seems to indicate that an aspect of regional mortuary rituals cameto be uniﬁed through regional interaction.
Furthermore, this type of decorated jars and the set originating in the Kibi region
comprising ritual pottery stands and jars were “combined” in the core area of the central
polity (the southeastern Nara basin) as a result of elite regional interaction toward the endof the Yayoi Period. Important changes were also introduced, such as the abandonmentof the practical function of the jars and the arrangement of a signiﬁcant number of theseearthenware sets in rows. It was the combination of all of these elements that gave rise to
the cylindrical haniwa and jar-shaped haniwa that characterize the Kofun period (Figure4). Throughout this paper, the author intends to demonstrate that, by analyzing the processof the temporal change in and the regional adoption of haniwa, we can clarify the various
relationships between the central polity and local elites based on rituals conducted atop elite
mounded tombs.

III.

Haniwa in the Core Area of the Central Polity

In this chapter, the author reexamines the process of the evolution of cylindrical haniwa
in the Nara basin and Osaka plain where the central polity was located during the Kofun
Period. Although Kawanishi’s (1978) proposal of the basic framework of the cylindricalhaniwa chronology has been widely accepted, the basis of his research was limited at thattime to fragments due to the lack of excavated complete examples. It, therefore, remained
diﬃcult for some time to understand the mechanism by which haniwa evolved over time.
Since then, numerous examples of complete cylindrical haniwa have been excavated.
Drawing from these data, the author explains the process of temporal change in cylindricalhaniwa from their appearance to the end of their production, taking into consideration theoverall morphology, detailed attributes, and production techniques.
The production techniques newly adopted as ritual pottery stands evolved into cylindricalhaniwa include the following: 1) A single, thick clay belt attached to the basal portion inorder to sustain the weight of the whole cylindrical haniwa; 2) a line, broken line or a seriesof dots in a line marked on the surface to indicate where belts should be aﬃxed so that they
could be placed at regular intervals; and 3) the addition of thin bands to reinforce the aﬃxed
belts. These three characteristic techniques were all already adopted at the Nishi-Tonozuka
mounded tomb (7 in Figure 3) in Tenri City, southeastern Nara basin, where a signiﬁcantamount of cylindrical haniwa was placed in rows atop the mound surface for the ﬁrst time.
The author’s analysis reveals that a single tradition of haniwa production techniques,
including the three techniques discussed above, was passed down generation to generation© Japanese Archaeological Association

33

HIROSE Satoru

Figure 5. Chronology of Haniwa in the Core Area of the Central Polity (Phases I–III)(Numbers in parentheses correspond to those in Figure 3 and the list of site reports at the end of thispaper)© Japanese Archaeological Association

34

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPAN

Figure 6. Chronology of Haniwa in the Core Area of the Central Polity (Phases IV–V)(Numbers in parentheses correspond to those in Figure 3 and the list of site reports at the end of thispaper)© Japanese Archaeological Association

35

HIROSE Satoru

throughout the Kofun Period in the Nara basin and Osaka plain (Figures 5 and 6). It is highly
likely that groups of haniwa craftsmen who were involved in the continued production ofcylindrical haniwa from the beginning of the Kofun Period. In response to an increased
demand for the production and distribution, it is clear that the scale of the haniwa production
system became larger, and the craftsmen became more and more specialized.
The results of the author’s analysis contradict the common assumption that “royallineages” ﬂuctuated in the Nara basin and Osaka plain during the Kofun Period1. This
argument is based on the observation that the location of the largest keyhole-shaped
mounded tomb shifted from one tomb group to another among the ﬁve spatially distinctive
tomb groups in the Nara basin and Osaka plain (e.g. Tsude 1988; Fukunaga 1999a). The
results of the author’s analysis reveal that the temporal change seen in the haniwa productionof the central polity was so systematic that it is highly likely that the foundation of thehaniwa production system remained more or less unchanged, regardless of which royallineage within the central polity, represented in the mounded tomb groups of the core area,
haniwa were produced from.

IV. The Adoption and Development of Haniwa in Areas
Surrounding the Central Polity
In this chapter, the author examines the process of the temporal change in cylindricalhaniwa in regions surrounding the Nara basin and Osaka plain (Figure 3), namely, the area
to the immediate west of the Katsura river (present southwestern Kyoto Prefecture; Tsude
1981), the southern part of the ancient province of Yamashiro (southern corner of the present
Kyoto Prefecture; Wada 1988, 1994), the ancient county of Mishima (northern corner ofthe present Osaka Prefecture), the Ina river tributary (northwestern corner of the present
Osaka Prefecture and southeastern corner of the present Hyōgo Prefecture; Seike 2001,
Hirose 2003b, 2011, Tanaka 2010), and the southern part of the ancient province of Kawachi(southern half of the present central Osaka Prefecture). The results of the author’s analysis
indicate that haniwa production techniques originating in the central polity region wereconstantly introduced to these areas directly. This suggests that from the very start of the
Kofun Period elites of the central polity and local elites in these areas shared various rituals
through haniwa production.
It is important to note that the local haniwa production in these areas did not continue
from the Early to Middle Kofun Period, or from the fourth to ﬁfth centuries. It is evident
1 [Editor’s note] Japanese archaeologists tend to assume that mounded tombs built over some time in a single mounded tombgroup represents a cemetery of elites of a single lineage (e.g. Tsude 1988, 1990). Because bone preservation in Japan is very
poor, this hypothesis largely remains untested but widely accepted.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

36

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPANthat information about haniwa production was adopted intermittently, attending eachconstruction of a mounded tomb by local elites. In the Mukō Mounded Tomb Group (45,46 in Figure 3) in the area to the immediate west of the Katsura river and the Tamateyama
Mounded Tomb Group (68 in Figure 3) in the southern part of the ancient province of
Kawachi, the construction of elite mounded tombs continued from the beginning of the
Kofun Period. Even in these mounded tomb groups, characteristic aspects of haniwa
changed every time a new mounded tomb was built. To put it in other words, haniwa in these
local areas did not change smoothly over time. This suggests that a relationship between thecentral polity and local elites was “renewed” every time a local elite died.
In the ﬁrst half of the Early Kofun Period (the late third and early fourth centuries),
haniwa were not standardized within the central polity but were rather diverse in terms
of production techniques and detailed morphology (Figure 5, Nos. 1–6, 9–12). Local
elites of surrounding areas selectively adopted aspects of the haniwa of the central polity.
Consequently, the haniwa adopted by mounded tombs in surrounding areas were distinctivefrom one mounded tomb to another (Figure 5, Nos. 7–8, 13–15).
From the second half of the Early Kofun Period (the middle and late fourth century),
the production techniques and morphology of haniwa became standardized and evolved
over time without any discontinuities (Figure 5, Nos. 16–18, 27–30). Although the author
suspects that local elites in areas surrounding the central polity adopted information about
and the production techniques of haniwa every time a mounded tomb was built, temporalchange in their morphology and production techniques was nevertheless very smooth.
Based on the above, the author supports the chronological framework proposed by
Kawanishi (1978). His framework was principally based on data from the areas to theimmediate west of the Katsura river and the southern part of the ancient province of
Yamashiro. The reason why his framework has been applicable to numerous regions ofJapan is that local elites, especially those in areas surrounding the central polity, adopted
information about and production techniques of the central polity, owing to their direct
relationship with the elites therein.

V. Signiﬁcance of the Widespread Distribution of Jar-shaped
HaniwaAs discussed in Chapter II, jar-shaped haniwa evolved from decorated jars, which were used
for mortuary rituals conducted on the top of low burial mounds in the early third century
in areas from the Ise Bay coastal region in the east to the central Kinki region in the west.
These decorated jars evolved into jar-shaped haniwa, having come to be used in the central
polity in the middle third century together with the ritual pottery stands and jars originatingin the Kibi region.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

37

HIROSE Satoru

Although diﬀerent types of decorated jars had been used together at a single burial
mound in the early third century, their transformation into jar-shaped haniwa witnessed
their placement in large quantities on a single mounded tomb or even within in a single area
therein.
In this chapter, the author examines the production techniques of ﬁve diﬀerent typesof jar-shaped haniwa and considers the historical background behind their widespread
distribution. The ﬁve types are the Chausuyama, Kibi, Eastern-Shikoku (Ōkubo 2002,
2006; H in Figure 2), Ise (Taguchi 1981; C in Figure 2), and San’in (Nonoguchi 1996; F in
Figure 2) types, which are distributed in the central polity and its surrounding regions.
The author’s analysis conﬁrms that the ﬁve types are indeed distinguishable in terms
of production techniques and minor morphological diﬀerences. This indicates that,rather than haniwa craftsmen from the central polity traveling to other regions, the local
haniwa craftsmen behind their production were diﬀerent. Despite these technological andmorphological diﬀerences, two practices were shared between the central polity and local
polities. First, circular holes were drilled into the bottoms of all jar-shaped haniwa, thereby“killing” their original function as containers. Second, the jar-shaped haniwa were placedin rows on the top of mounded tombs as if to enclose or demarcate the area where the burial
chamber or coﬃn was located underground. This suggests to the author that the widespread
distribution of the jar-shaped haniwa was not the result of the elites of the central polity
giving direct guidance to local elites, but rather, it was local elites who actively adopted therituals utilizing jar-shaped haniwa.
In addition, patterns of and temporal change in the spatial distribution of jar-shaped
haniwa suggest that local elites politically interacted and sometimes allied with one another,somewhat independently from the elites in the central polity in the Early Kofun Period.
Furthermore, the spatial extent of the regional interaction sphere expanded.
From the middle phase of the Early Kofun Period (the early to middle fourth century),
the size of jar-shaped haniwa drastically increased. Along with this increase in size, theycame to be placed more frequently in line with cylindrical haniwa atop mounded tombs. The
author suspects that the drastic increase in the size of the jar-shaped haniwa was inﬂuenced
by the height of the cylindrical haniwa and from the elites’ intension to place both jarshaped and cylindrical haniwa in the same row atop their mounded tombs. If the author’s
suspicion is correct, the jar-shaped haniwa were produced in the same ideological context
as cylindrical haniwa.

VI. Adoption and Development of Haniwa in Other Regions of
Japan
In this chapter, the author examines the various processes by which haniwa came to be© Japanese Archaeological Association

38

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPANspatially distributed in diﬀerent regions far away from the central polity region. To achieve
this goal, the author proposes the three diﬀerent models to explain the various patterns of
the spatial distributions (Figure 7): The transmission model (Figure 7-1); local production
model (Figure 7-2); and the model of coexistence of distinctive haniwa traditions on a single

Figure 7. Models Explaining How Haniwa Production Techniques Were Adopted by andTransmitted to Local Elites© Japanese Archaeological Association

39

HIROSE Satoru

mounded tomb (Figure 7-3).
The transmission model distinguishes between direct and indirect transmission(Tsujikawa 1999). In the case of direct transmission, haniwa craftsmen were dispatched fromthe central polity to a local region where the production technology and other information
concerning haniwa were adopted in the local region. In the case of indirect transmission,
only information about haniwa production and how they should be placed on the surface ofa mounded tomb was transmitted to a local region.
The local production model distinguishes between four cases (Todoroki 1973, Fujisawa
2002, 2003): 1) Haniwa production techniques directly transmitted from the central polity
were locally replicated precisely each time a new mounded tomb was built; 2) haniwa
production techniques directly transmitted from the central polity were adopted attending
the construction of a single mounded tomb only once and were subsequently not adopted
in the same region; 3) although the local production of haniwa was intermittent, some
information about haniwa production was carried over into the subsequent constructions ofmounded tombs in the same region; and 4) similar to the third case, but some information
about haniwa production was carried over into subsequent constructions of mounded tombs
in neighboring regions.
The coexistence model of distinctive haniwa traditions on a single mounded tomb isself-explanatory. It is sometimes the case that haniwa made with distinctively diﬀerent
production techniques were placed together on the surface of a single mounded tomb. While
one tradition used technology directly transmitted from the central polity, the other usedtechnology carried over from the construction of an earlier mounded tomb in the same orneighboring region. Referring to these models, the author discusses regional diﬀerences
and commonalities in the adoption of haniwa production, with particular focus on thediﬀerences between western and eastern Japan.
In the Early Kofun Period, the transmission of jar-shaped haniwa to western and easternJapan was in most cases indirect; in other words, there is little evidence for haniwa craftsmen
being dispatched to local regions. In the early and middle phases of the Early Kofun Period(late third and early fourth centuries), the distribution of cylindrical haniwa was limited.
From the middle phase of the Early Kofun Period (early to middle fourth century), however,they came to be widely distributed in western Japan and in many cases the production
techniques were directly adopted from the central polity. While cylindrical haniwa can also
be found in eastern Japan during the Early Kofun Period, in most cases this was the resultof indirect transmission.
In other regions during this time period in both western and eastern Japan, local haniwa
production in most cases involved production techniques directly adopted from the central
polity attending the construction of a single mounded tomb and subsequently not continuingin the same region. In eastern Japan from the middle to late phase of the Early Kofun Period© Japanese Archaeological Association

40

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPAN(middle to late fourth century), haniwa production techniques transmitted from the central
polity were acquired locally and then further adapted by elites of neighboring region insome cases.
The eastern Japanese case is exempliﬁed by the cylindrical haniwa uncovered from the
Shōrinzan keyhole-shaped mounded tomb of 107 meters in Shizuoka Prefecture (on the
Paciﬁc coastal region of central Japan; 3 in Figure 2) whose production techniques were
further transmitted to other mounded tombs in central and eastern Japan (Hashimoto 1976,1980). The author refers to those cylindrical haniwa made based on the Shōrinzan examples
as belonging to the “Shōrinzan tradition.” The expansion of the spatial distribution of thehaniwa in the Shōrinzan tradition coincides with the expansion of the spatial distribution oflarge keyhole-shaped mounded tombs in eastern Japan, which had previously been highly
sporadic. It is likely that the Shōrinzan case reﬂected a political relationship with the central
polity.
Meanwhile, in various regions of western Japan from the middle phase of the Early Kofun
Period to the beginning of the Middle Kofun Period (the beginning of the ﬁfth century), thehaniwa production techniques of the central polity were directly adopted by local polities
for the construction of a single mounded tomb and did not take hold within the local polity(Figure 8, top). This suggests that the relationship with the central polity was renewed every
time a local elite died, and that the relationship was with individual local elite rather than a
network of regional elites. This stands in sharp contrast to the cases in eastern Japan where
the relationship with the central polity was indirect and the haniwa production techniques
were acquired from polities in a neighboring region. Production techniques transmitted
from one region to another without direct adoption from the central polity.
In western Japan, there are a few similar examples of production techniques indirectlytransmitted from the central polity or adopted from nearby polities. In such cases, however,these haniwa were arranged together with examples displaying production techniques
directly adopted from the central polity. This suggests that, even if some haniwa were very
regionally distinctive and seem unrelated to those of the central polity, the rituals utilizingthese haniwa and the ideology behind them were fundamentally the same as those of thecentral polity.
In the early phase of the Middle Kofun Period (early ﬁfth century) in limited areas ofwestern Japan, mounded tomb groups consisting of giant keyhole-shaped mounded tombs
at their apex, scallop-shaped keyhole-shaped mounded tombs with disproportionately
small frontal portions, circular mounded tombs, and square mounded tombs appeared.
Diﬀerences in the shape and size of mounded tombs were hierarchical in nature, andJapanese archaeologists commonly assert that these diﬀerences had social and politicalconnotations (e.g. Tsude 1991, Wada 1994). Cylindrical haniwa made with technology
directly adopted from the central polity were without exceptions placed atop the mounded© Japanese Archaeological Association

41

HIROSE Satoru

Figure 8. Models Explaining How Haniwa Production Techniques Were Adopted by Local Elites
in Western Japan

tombs of these hierarchically structured mounded tomb groups, which were rather unusual
in regions outside of the central polity (Figure 8, bottom). This clearly indicates that theformation of this hierarchical structure was a creation of the central polity.
It is also important to note that the scale of production and some aspect of the production
system diﬀered somewhat from region to region. In western Japan, haniwa craftsmen weregenerally dispatched from the central polity to assist local haniwa production and strictly
controlled the quality of the ﬁnal products. In the case of the Ōta-Tenjin’yama keyhole© Japanese Archaeological Association

42

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPAN

Figure 9. Models Explaining How Haniwa Production Techniques Were Adopted by andTransmitted to Local Elites in Eastern Japan

shaped mounded tomb in Gunma Prefecture in eastern Japan (1 in Figure 2), cylindricalhaniwa produced with technology locally adopted in the preceding chronological phasewere placed together with those produced with technology newly adopted from the central
polity, as well as those produced with technology that mixed both (Figure 9). This suggeststhat some degree of local autonomy in the haniwa production was allowed by the central© Japanese Archaeological Association

43

HIROSE Satoru

polity.
To reiterate, there are many cases of the indirect transmission of haniwa production
techniques from neighboring polities rather than direct adoption from the central polity
in eastern Japan in the Early Kofun Period. This suggests that the central polity was moreconcerned with maintaining political relationships with local polities in western Japan thanwith those in eastern Japan from the beginning of the Kofun Period until the early phase of
the Middle Kofun Period.

VII.

Aspects of Haniwa Craft Organization and their Background

This chapter discusses various aspects of the organization of haniwa craftsmen. By
analyzing the direction of “brush marks” and tool marks left on the surface of haniwa, it has
recently become possible to identify individual craftsman, by their habits or mannerisms,
and individual tools used (Yoshida 1973; Inuki 1995, 2002, 2005). This allows us to consider
the relationships among craftsmen and groups of craftsmen, and ultimately, the nature of
their organization.
The author ﬁrst compares the scale and structure of the organization of haniwa craftsmen
attached to 200 meter-class keyhole-shaped mounded tombs and those less than 100 meters
during the Early Kofun Period. In the former case, it is likely that haniwa craftsmen
working for a single, large mounded tomb were organized into many groups, each of which
consisted of four or ﬁve craftsmen. A single group produced cylindrical haniwa with“windows” (openwork) of the same design and the same marks engraved into the rim. The
craftsmen of all the groups working at the same mounded tomb were apparently required
to produced haniwa with the same space (distance) between parallel belts around the body.
This indicates that, while craftsmen were organized into small groups, all the groups were
under the strong control of a high-ranking elite who commissioned the construction of his/her mounded tomb (Figure 10).
Turning to the production of cylindrical haniwa for relatively small mounded tombs, onlya group of four to ﬁve craftsmen was employed. Indeed, the scale of organization diﬀered
greatly between large keyhole-shaped mounded tombs and relatively small mounded tombs.
The interpretation for the large keyhole-shaped mounded tomb presented above wasderived from the author’s analysis of the signiﬁcant amount of cylindrical haniwa excavatedat the 194-meter-long Goshikizuka keyhole-shaped mounded tomb (6 in Figure 2), dated to
the fourth quarter of the fourth century and located in Kobe City, southern Hyōgo Prefecture(Hirose 2007). Since giant keyhole-shaped mounded tombs measuring over 200 meters longcan be seen from the beginning of the Kofun Period (middle third century) in the core areaof the central polity region, it is highly probable that the haniwa production system had
become more or less established in the early phase of the Kofun Period, or by the beginning© Japanese Archaeological Association

44

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPAN

Figure 10.

Model of Haniwa Craft Organization under the Highest-Ranking Eliteof the fourth century. Accordingly, by the time when the Goshikizuka mounded tomb was
built at the latest by the late phase of the Early Kofun Period, it is highly likely that haniwa
craftsmen were specialized and the haniwa craft organization was systematic.
In the subsequent Middle Kofun Period (ﬁfth century), the size of large keyhole-shaped
mounded tombs further increased, which also led to an increased demand for haniwa
production. In the ﬁfth century, the practice of standardizing the shape of windows among
members of the same craftsmen group discontinued, making it diﬃcult to grasp the whole
picture of the haniwa production system at that time. Nevertheless, as small groupings ofcylindrical haniwa shared the same incised mark on their inner surface, the author suspects
that haniwa craftsmen working for the construction of a single, large mounded tombwere organized into small units, all of which were under the strict control of the elite who
commissioned construction of the mounded tomb.
In the ﬁfth century, the distance between parallel belts around the body of cylindricalhaniwa became the same and the shape of the windows came to be standardized as circles.
In other words, the overall design of the cylindrical haniwa of the ﬁfth century became
simpliﬁed in comparison with those of the fourth century, when the designs of the windows
diﬀered by craftsmen group. The simpliﬁcation in the overall design resulted from control
over the haniwa production system by the central polity (Figure 10). The author speculates
that the central polity desired to simplify and standardize the overall design of cylindrical© Japanese Archaeological Association

45

HIROSE Satoru

haniwa in order to cope with the drastic increase in the demand for haniwa production, theneed to train a large number of haniwa craftsmen, and the need to facilitate quality control.
The haniwa production system changed again at the beginning of the Late Kofun Period
or the late third quarter of the ﬁfth century2. In the core area of the central polity, major
production centers from which cylindrical haniwa were distributed to a wide variety ofmounded tombs were established. A representative example is the Sugawara-Higashi
haniwa kiln (40 in Figure 3) in Nara City, whose products were widely distributed in thenorthern and central Nara basin (Kanekata and Nakajima 1992, Takahashi 1994).
At the workshop attached to this kiln, the same mark was incised onto the inner surface ofthe haniwa produced by several diﬀerent craftsmen groups. In other words, these markings
were adopted according to distribution allotments. Indeed, while more than ten diﬀerent
markings were used at the Sugawara-Higashi haniwa kiln, cylindrical haniwa with only one
type of marking were supplied to the 50-meter-long Suishōzuka scallop-shaped mounded
tomb (Tanaka 2013; 28 in Figure 3). This suggests that a designated allotment of cylindricalhaniwa was supplied to a speciﬁc mounded tomb.
These examples of the production and distribution of haniwa during the Early, Middle,
and Late Kofun Period vividly illustrate the evolution of the haniwa production systems in
the core area of the central polity region. As the demand for cylindrical haniwa increased
over time, the production systems became more and more specialized and permanent, andthe nature of haniwa increasingly commodity-like.

VIII.
A.

State Formation and the Haniwa Ceramic Production

Structure of the central polity from the perspective of haniwa

As mentioned earlier, there are ﬁve mounded tomb groups where giant keyhole-shaped
mounded tombs of more 200 meters in length were built. These groups are located insoutheastern, northern, and southwestern Nara basin and east-central and south-central
Osaka plain.
Japanese archaeologists interpret spatial and temporal diﬀerences in the distributionsof giant mounded tombs among these tomb groups as the result of either shifts in theroyal lineage that occupied the highest-rank (e.g. Tanaka 2001, Fujita 2006) or simply aschanges in the location of elite cemeteries (e.g. Kondō 1983, Mizuno 1985). In recent years,
the former position has gained support from archaeologists specializing in Kofun Periodarchaeology (e.g. Fukunaga 1999a).
2 [Editor’s note] Hirose adopts Wada Seigo’s (1987) chronological framework in which he deﬁnes that the Late Kofun Period

started in the late third quarter of the ﬁfth century. The majority of Kofun Period specialists consider that the Late Kofun Period
started at the end of the ﬁfth or beginning of the sixth century. In English, Barnes (2007) introduces Wada’s (1987) framework,
somehow ignoring the framework adopted by the majority.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

46

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPAN

Recent studies of haniwa have tended to favor the former position (Takahashi 1994,
Kanekata 1997). For example, the standardization of the haniwa production system beganwith the start of giant mounded-tomb construction in the northern Nara basin in the middle
fourth century (late phase of the Early Kofun Period). Additionally, the assemblage of
haniwa typical of the Middle Kofun Period (ﬁfth century) emerged at the same time as theconstruction of giant keyhole-shaped mounded tombs on the Osaka plain.
However, the author challenges the position that suggests shifts in royal lineages as
the reason for spatial and temporal diﬀerences in the giant keyhole-shaped mounded
tombs. In Chapter II above, the author has reexamined the chronology of haniwa based on
temporal change in their production techniques and the assemblages. Figure 11 presents arevised chronology of major mounded tombs in the ﬁve groups based on the author’s own
chronological framework of haniwa. A signiﬁcant revision is that the Shibutani-Mukaiyama
keyhole-shaped mounded tomb (2 in Figure 3) of 300 meters in length in the southeastern
Nara basin and the Gosashi keyhole-shaped mounded tomb (29 in Figure 3) of 267 meters inlength in the northern Nara basin are considered newer than previously argued.
The author’s revision necessitates a reinterpretation of the temporal change in mounded
tomb groups in the Nara basin and Osaka plain. First, the Shibutani-Mukaiyama keyholeshaped mounded tomb in the southeastern Nara basin was constructed after a large
keyhole-shaped mounded tomb located in the mounded tomb group in the northern Narabasin. Second, the Gosashi keyhole-shaped mounded tomb in the northern Nara basin wasconstructed at the same time as or slightly after the construction of the Tsudō-Shiroyama
keyhole-shaped mounded tomb (54 in Figure 3) of 208 meters in length on the Osaka plain,
which marked the beginning of the Furuichi Mounded Tomb Group.
These two new interpretations strongly suggest that two major mounded tombs existed
concurrently in the southeastern and northern Nara basin in the middle or third quarter ofthe fourth century. This was also the case in the fourth quarter of the fourth century in thenorthern Nara basin and east-central Osaka plain. In other words, the location of mounded
tombs group did not shift from the southeastern Nara basin to the northern Nara basin orfrom the Nara basin to the east-central Osaka plain. The data rather suggest the existence ofautonomous polities or lineages represented by concurrent mounded tomb groups.
Based on a detailed analysis of the relationship between mounded tomb groups of the
Nara basin and Osaka plain, the author presents the following hypotheses. First, toward
the end of the fourth century, the high-ranking elites buried in the Saki Mounded Tomb
Group were more powerful than those buried in the Furuichi Group, based on the fact that
the Gosashi mounded tomb was larger than the Tsudō-Shiroyama mounded tomb. As other
Kofun Period specialists have previously pointed out (e.g. Shiraishi 1989), there are keyholeshaped mounded tombs over 200 meters in length built toward the end of the fourth century
in the Umami Mounded Tomb Group in the southwestern Nara basin, such as the Suyama© Japanese Archaeological Association

47

HIROSE Satoru

Figure 11. Epochs in Haniwa Production and Temporal Changes in the Large Keyhole-shaped
Mounded Tombs in the Core Area of the Central Polity (The number in parenthesis indicates thelocation in Figure 3)© Japanese Archaeological Association

48

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPAN

keyhole-shaped mounded tomb (21 in Figure 3) of 220 meters, Shimanoyama keyholeshaped mounded tomb (26 in Figure 3) of 200 meters, and Tsukiyama keyhole-shaped
mounded tomb (15 in Figure 3) of 210 meters. This indicates that, when the construction oflarge keyhole-shaped mounded tombs began in the Furuichi Group, the high-ranking elites
buried in the Saki, Umami, and Furuichi Mounded Tomb Groups were equally matched instrength.
Second, according to the author’s new chronological framework, it is highly likely that theconstruction of large keyhole-shaped mounded tombs started in the Osaka plain soon after
their construction ended in the southeastern Nara basin. This leads the author to present thebold hypothesis that the lineage of high-ranking elites who had built their mounded tombs
in the southeastern Nara basin moved their graveyard to the Osaka plain toward the end of
the fourth century.
As discussed in detail above, a single tradition of haniwa production techniques was
carried down generation to generation through the Kofun Period in the Nara basin and Osakaplain. The author posits that a more or less single system of haniwa production was adopted
at the ﬁve mounded tomb groups in the central polity because the assemblage of haniwa
and the haniwa production techniques were shared among them. Behind this phenomenon
was frequent interaction of haniwa craftsmen who participated in the production of haniwa
for diﬀerent mounded tomb groups, or the participation of haniwa craftsmen at diﬀerent
mounded tomb groups. The author’s interpretation is supported by the observation that
epochs in haniwa production do not correspond to the beginning and end of the constructionof large keyhole-shaped mounded tombs in these mounded tomb groups (Figure 11).
These interpretations strongly suggest that changes in haniwa production were triggeredby “shifts” in the paramount chieftainship represented by the diﬀerent mounded tombgroups. Furthermore, frequent interactions among groups of haniwa craftsmen working
at the mounded tomb groups in the southeastern, northern, and southwestern Nara basinsuggests that, while polities or elite lineages represented by these mounded tomb groups
were autonomous, their relationship was not hostile but cooperative. While the author
supports the previous hypothesis that diﬀerent royal lineages took turns occupying theposition of the paramount chieftainship (Shiraishi 2000, 2008), changes in the rulershipwere not associated with military confrontation or aggression.
Let us turn our attention to the relationship between the mounded tomb groups in thesoutheastern Nara basin and Osaka plain. The author ﬁnds it highly unlikely that the end of
the construction of large mounded tombs in the southeastern Nara basin was unrelated tothe start of the construction of the mounded tombs on the Osaka plain. Geographically, these
two areas were connected by the Yamato River. Archaeologically, the relationship between
these two areas was very close in terms of the ceramic production techniques of the highly
characteristic Shōnai-type pottery of the early third century (e.g. Tanaka 2005).
© Japanese Archaeological Association

49

HIROSE Satoru

More importantly, haniwa from the Shibutani-Mukaiyama mounded tomb (2 in Figure 3)
and the nearby Uenoyama keyhole-shaped mounded tomb (3 in Figure 3; 125 m in length),both built at the same time in the late fourth century, are nearly identical to those excavatedfrom the Kayafuri no. 1 square mounded tomb (71 in Figure 3; 27 meters per side) locatedon the east-central Osaka plain. This clearly indicates that the two areas maintained a close
relationship in terms of haniwa production and mounded tomb construction.
Based on these new interpretations, the structure of the central polity can be reconstructed
as follows: The central polity was always based in the Nara basin. In the Early Kofun Period,
the paramount chief was chosen from several royal lineages. In the Middle Kofun Period,
members of the royal lineage that had built mounded tombs in the southeastern Nara basin
moved their graveyard to the Osaka plain, which was home to groups of people with whomthey had maintained close relationships since the beginning of the Kofun Period.
The existence of diﬀerent royal lineages, taking turns as paramount chieftain, indicatesthat the central polity was not stable. Nevertheless, members of these royal lineages werecooperative from the standpoint of the haniwa production. There was no “seizure” ofrulership nor “replacement” of the central polity.
Let us take a closer look at the relationships between the central polity and local elites
in regions surrounding the core area. In the Otokuni area (present southwestern Kyoto
Prefecture; 48–55 in Figure 3), for example, while the location of keyhole-shaped mounded
tombs with a circular rear section shifted within the area, haniwa production continued underan unchanging relationship with the central polity. Although Tsude (1988, 1990) argues thatshifts in the location of keyhole-shaped mounded tombs resulted from “replacement” ofroyal lineages occupying the paramount chieftainship of the central polity, an analysis of
haniwa production suggests that these shifts were not a reﬂection of political turmoil within
the central polity, but rather a reﬂection of strategies carried out by the central polity in an
attempt to gain further control over local areas.

B. Center-periphery relationships and the transmission of rituals from thestandpoint of haniwa

In order to consider the center-periphery relationships during the Kofun Period, the author
has paid attention not only to cylindrical haniwa and representational haniwa in the central
polity region but also to local jar-shaped haniwa and locally adapted cylindrical haniwa. It
is important to understand these objects in a broader context (Figure 12).
It is well known that jar-shaped haniwa were more prevalent than cylindrical haniwa in
local regions outside the central polity region in the Early Kofun Period. Indeed, production
techniques of these local jar-shaped haniwa were distinctive, which suggests a considerable
degree of autonomy of local polities. Some Japanese archaeologists have suggested that the
adoption of cylindrical haniwa was restricted to the central polity region, allowing local© Japanese Archaeological Association

50

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPAN

Figure 12. Models Explaining How Haniwa Production Techniques Were Adopted by andTransmitted to Local Elites from Phase I to Phase III© Japanese Archaeological Association

51

HIROSE Satoru

polities to adopt only jar-shaped haniwa (Shioya 1992). The author, however, argues that it
was actually the local polities that preferred jar-shaped haniwa.
The author’s argument is based on the following observations: 1) Jar-shaped haniwa
were also adopted by some large keyhole-shaped mounded tombs in the central polity, suchas 278-meter-long Hashihaka (1 in Figure 3) in the southeastern Nara basin, the earliest
keyhole-shaped mounded tomb in Japan; 2) the morphology of jar-shaped haniwa, such as aspherical body, stepped rim in cross-section, and hole drilled through the base before ﬁring,
was widely shared among regions in western and eastern Japan; and 3) by the middle fourth
century, both jar-shaped and cylindrical haniwa came to be adopted together at numerous
mounded tombs. These suggest that both the practice of arranging jar-shaped haniwa andthe practice of arranging cylindrical haniwa along the mound surface were initiated by thecentral polity. Indeed, the widespread adoption of jar-shaped haniwa should be considered
as evidence for local polities willingness to adopt a set of mortuary rituals created by thecentral polity.
The author’s explanation for the local adoption of jar-shaped haniwa is applicable to thefollowing cases: 1) The indirect transmission of the cylindrical haniwa production where
the information about cylindrical haniwa, rather than their production techniques weretransmitted to a local region; and 2) the locally independent development of cylindricalhaniwa production techniques. The process of the adoption of both jar-shaped andcylindrical haniwa were more or less identical because their ideological background wasessentially the same; both jar-shaped haniwa and cylindrical haniwa evolved from pottery
stands symbolized the ritual of oﬀering foods to the dead ancestors. Despite their similar
ideological background, the adoption of cylindrical haniwa, regardless of the use of locallydeveloped production techniques, suggests a local polity’s relatively stronger intension to
be close to the central polity. Cylindrical haniwa originally symbolized a pottery stand on
which a jar was placed and were more intricately produced than jar-shaped haniwa. This
was the reason why cylindrical haniwa were preferred to jar-shaped haniwa.
A representative example of the local adoption of cylindrical haniwa can be found at
the Yanai-Chausuyama keyhole-shaped mounded tombs (9 in Figure 2) in Yamaguchi
Prefecture, where cylindrical haniwa made with locally developed techniques were placed
together with cylindrical haniwa and representational haniwa models of houses and of
decorated parasols (kinugasa) made with techniques of the central polity (Hirose 2003a).
This clearly indicates that the ideological context in which cylindrical haniwa producedwith locally developed techniques were placed on the mound was the same as that of haniwa
made with the techniques of the central polity.
The closeness to the central polity is also evidenced by the spatial distribution ofcylindrical haniwa in the Shōrinzan tradition. While the haniwa production techniques wereﬁrst directly adopted at the Shōrinzan mounded tomb (3 in Figure 2), the Shōrinzan tradition© Japanese Archaeological Association

52

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPAN

subsequently became localized in eastern Japan. Nevertheless, mounded tombs bearing
cylindrical haniwa in the Shōrinzan tradition were either large keyhole-shaped mounded
tombs with circular rear sections or large circular mounded tombs, which are rather unusualin eastern Japan, where keyhole-shaped mounded tombs with square rear sections were
dominant.
Another case in which regionally characteristic cylindrical haniwa may in fact be evidence
for closeness to the central polity is that of the Tango-type cylindrical haniwa (Takahashi
1997, Tsujikawa 2015). These characteristic examples were distributed in the late fourthand the beginning of the ﬁfth centuries in the ancient province of Tango (northern Kyoto
Prefecture; E in Figure 2); they are well known as having been adopted at the three largest
keyhole-shaped mounded tombs located on the Sea of Japan coastal region. These three are
the Ebisuyama No. 1 mounded tomb (145 meters; third quarter of the fourth century), theAmino-Chōshiyama mounded tomb (5 in Figure 2; 198 meters; fourth quarter of the fourth
century), and the Shinmeiyama mounded tomb (190 meters; beginning of the ﬁfth century).
Although the Tango-type cylindrical haniwa and those in the Shōrinzan tradition diﬀer
in the way that the haniwa production techniques were adapted locally, the two cases are
similar in that regionally characteristic cylindrical haniwa were displayed at unusually large
keyhole-shaped mounded tombs in their respective regions. Indeed, in various local regions
from the middle to late fourth century, the larger the keyhole-shaped mounded tombs
the more regionally characteristic the haniwa that were adopted. The author interprets
this phenomenon as resulting from the local polity’s desire to uphold its autonomy while
maintaining a relationship with the central polity, in addition to the central polity’s strategy
of establishing close relationships with local polities while allowing them some degree of
freedom.
If the author’s speculation is indeed the case, it is then highly likely that the size of a
keyhole-shaped mounded tomb in a local region was not simply “assigned” by the central
polity. Rather, the large size of a keyhole-shaped mounded tomb in a local region was
the result of the central polity assessing the “power” of a local elite. From the standpointof the local elite, the large size of a keyhole-shaped mounded tomb was a symbol of his/her autonomy and power. The central polity’s assessment was not merely based on the
agricultural productivity and economic resources of a local region, but, more importantly,
the author speculates, derived from the strategic necessity to establish a close relationshipwith a selected local polity at a speciﬁc juncture.
For example, the author speculates that the reason why keyhole-shaped mounded tombs
and circular mounded tombs where haniwa production techniques were directly adopted
from the central polity were distributed in the coastal regions of western Japan and coastal
area of the Ise Bay from the late fourth to the beginning of the ﬁfth centuries was related
to the central polity’s concern about military tension on the Korean peninsula at that time.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

53

HIROSE Satoru

Moreover, in such cases, the direct adoption from the central polity took place only once.
This indicates that the central polity established relationships with individual local elites
independently from other local elites.
The situation changed rather suddenly in the early ﬁfth century. Not only did theconstruction of keyhole-shaped mounded tombs decrease drastically, but locallycharacteristic haniwa, such as jar-shaped haniwa and Tango-type cylindrical haniwa,
disappeared, as if these two phenomena were related. In selected areas in local regions,mounded tomb groups displaying a hierarchy with large keyhole-shaped mounded tombs at
the apex emerged. Haniwa production techniques of the central polity were directly adopted
at these mounded tomb groups.
The author interprets this change as follows: The central polity established relatively
stable relationships with local polities by the end of the fourth century. At the beginningof the ﬁfth century, the central polity attempted to gain more political control over local
polities through the local chiefs who represented each local polity. At the same time, the sizeof a keyhole-shaped mounded tomb in a local region was likely a reﬂection of the “wealth”
or “power” of a chief in the local region, rather than being “assigned” by the central polity.
The author’s hypothesis can be applied to the case of the Ōta-Tenjin’yama keyhole-shaped
mounded tomb (1 in Figure 2) in Gunma Prefecture (D in Figure 2), 80 miles northwestof Tokyo. Ōta-Tenjin’yama is the largest keyhole-shaped mounded tomb in eastern Japan,
measuring 210 meters in length, and its cylindrical haniwa include those produced withtechniques that had developed locally since the late fourth century, those produced withtechniques newly adopted from the central polity, and those produced with techniques that
mixed them both.
The “wealth” or “power” of a local chief in the early ﬁfth century was never stable. This isevidenced by the fact that large keyhole-shaped mounded tombs were rarely constructed in asingle tomb group. Indeed, in the middle and late ﬁfth century, the construction of keyholeshaped mounded tombs decreased. Meanwhile, the construction of small- and mediumscale scallop-shaped, circular and square mounded tombs increased, and haniwa production
techniques were adopted at these smaller tombs directly from the central polity. The author
suspects that the restriction of the construction of large keyhole-shaped mounded tombs
and the adoption of haniwa production techniques at these smaller tombs directly fromthe central polity were related. The author hypothesizes that in the middle ﬁfth century
the central polity abolished the position of the local chiefs of the early ﬁfth century andattempted to establish a more centralized control over them. It is likely that the local polities
also accepted the central polity’s stronger control.
As discussed above, the author reexamined the formation process of the stratiﬁed politicalorder symbolized by mounded tombs from the perspective of haniwa. The author has vividly
illustrated various patterns of relationships between the central polity and local polities, as© Japanese Archaeological Association

54

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPANwell as among local polities, assessed the inﬂuence of the central polity on these local
polities, and taken into consideration the historical context that provided a backdrop to both
the relationship of the central polity with local polities and the relationships among local
polities. Previous studies assumed that the relationships among local elites and the local
ties within a region that characterized the preceding Yayoi Period disappeared soon after
the beginning of the Kofun Period. However, regional diﬀerences in the various aspectsof mounded tombs of the Early Kofun Period, including haniwa, and interaction among
local elites outside the control of the central polity strongly suggest that the traditional
relationships among local elites continued into the Kofun Period.
All information concerning haniwa production techniques and the nature of arranging
haniwa atop mounded tombs originated in the southeastern Nara basin, which was thecore area of the central polity at the beginning of the Kofun Period. Subsequently, local
polities came to establish some degree of relationship with the central polity, either directly
or indirectly. It is important to note that the relationship between the central polity andlocal polities was not one-way from the center. For example, pottery of daily and ritual
uses originating in diﬀerent regions was transported to the southeastern Nara basin in the
Early Kofun Period and wooden tools used for the mound construction also originated fromregions outside the Nara basin. It is a well-accepted hypothesis that local elites of diﬀerent
regions in the Late Yayoi period were actively involved in the invention and construction of
the characteristic keyhole-shaped mounded tombs in the southeastern Nara basin (Kondō
1983).
These interactions between the central polity and local polities, as well as among local
polities, resulted in the emergence of a broad, inter-regional ritual sphere characterized by
the sharing of keyhole-shaped mounded tombs among the elite. The author argues that thewidespread adoption of keyhole-shaped mounded tombs and associated mortuary rituals
did not dissolve the relationships among local elites that characterized the preceding
Yayoi Period. Rather, the central polity took advantage of these, allowing local polities
a considerable degree of autonomy. This regional autonomy is clearly evidenced by thesustained local traditions of haniwa. Within the shared ritual sphere, the central polity
gradually increased its inﬂuence over local polities through various strategies, such asproviding new technology. The construction of mounded tombs in the Early Kofun Period
was made possible by the congruence of the central polity’s intension and the local region’s
autonomy. In the early ﬁfth century (early phase of the Middle Kofun Period), the central
polity ﬁnally succeeded in establishing and maintaining the political and social order
symbolized by the hierarchy of mounded tombs.

C.

Conclusion and areas for future research

As previously argued, some degree of regional and local autonomy remained in the Early© Japanese Archaeological Association

55

HIROSE Satoru

Kofun Period. Before the political and social order symbolized by the hierarchy of mounded
tombs matured in the early ﬁfth century, a set of mortuary rituals invented by the central
polity had to be repeated and accumulated in the process of strengthening its authority. Whilesome previous studies have argued that the central polity was established in the middle third
century when large keyhole-shaped mounded tombs appeared in the southeastern Narabasin, the author concludes that the appearance of large keyhole-shaped mounded tombs
marks the beginning of the formation process of the central polity and its authority, and thatthe central polity ﬁnally gained political control over local regions throughout the Japanesearchipelago in the early ﬁfth century.
At the same time, it is important to note that the central polity of the ﬁfth century was
not as stable as it would become in the following sixth century. The fact that large keyholeshaped mounded tombs were clustered into four diﬀerent groups, two in the Nara basin andtwo on the Osaka plain, suggests the coexistence of four dominant elite lineages within
the central polity. The author speculates that the production of haniwa and the practiceof arranging them atop the mounded tombs greatly contributed to the maintenance andstrengthening of the political unity among these diﬀerent lineages of dominant elites. This
perspective is an important contribution to our understanding of the central polity of the
Kofun Period; nevertheless, a consideration of the central polity should also incorporate theresults of analyses of mound construction plans and goods deposited with the dead.
Another contribution of this paper is the author’s clariﬁcation of the development processof haniwa craft organization toward a permanent, specialized system in more detail andclarity than previous studies. At the same time, this development process of the haniwa craft
organization was also a process of decline in rituals utilizing haniwa. Originally, haniwa
were used to transform a mounded tomb into a ritual precinct. For that purpose, diﬀerent
kinds of haniwa were specially produced during the Early Kofun Period for diﬀerent aspectsof these rituals.
As the demand for haniwa increased and the specialized production system grew, theauthor speculates that the ritualistic aspects of haniwa began to decline. From the earlyﬁfth century, the drastic increase in the size of large keyhole-shaped mounded tombs
witnessed a corresponding increase in the production of haniwa. An increase in production
required eﬀorts to improve production eﬃciency, and this pursuit of eﬃciency resulted in a
simpliﬁcation of haniwa styles. It was also during the ﬁfth century that the construction ofsmall- and medium-scale scallop-shaped, circular, and square mounded tombs increased,
and haniwa production techniques were adopted at these smaller tombs directly from thecentral polity. The author speculates that this resulted in a decline of the “scarcity value” ofhaniwa. By the time a system of distributing haniwa from a single kiln to multiple mounded
tombs, including those far away, was established in the late ﬁfth century, haniwa were nolonger funeral paraphernalia, but had transformed into commodities.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

56

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPANSoon after this system of distributing haniwa from a single kiln to multiple mounded
tombs matured and reached its peak in the early sixth century, haniwa production ended in
the central polity and in many other regions except for the Kantō region of eastern Japan.
This likely occurred because, as the haniwa production system became highly specialized
and at the same time greatly inﬂated, mortuary rituals utilizing haniwa began to lose their
original meaning and the signiﬁcance of the rituals declined. This paper does not cover theprocess of the decline of the haniwa production system. It remains to be investigated why
and how regional diﬀerences in haniwa became stronger with the appearance of multiple
centers of haniwa production and how ideologies related to mortuary practices changed in
the sixth century.

References
Barnes, Gina L. 2007 State Formation in Japan: Emergence of a 4th-Century Ruling Elite.
Routledge, London.
Claessen, Henry and Peter Skalnik, eds. 1978 The Early States. Mouton, The Hague.
Claessen, Henry and Peter Skalnik, eds. 1981 The Study of the Early State. Mouton, The
Hague.
Fujisawa Atsushi 藤沢敦 2002 Tōhoku Chihō no Entō Haniwa: Ana-gama Shōsei Haniwa noHakyū to Seisan 「東北地方の円筒埴輪—窖窯焼成埴輪の波及と生産」[Cylindrical
Haniwa in Northeastern Mainland Japan: Production and Dispersal of Haniwa Firedin Kilns]. Haniwa Kenkyū Kai Shi 『埴輪研究会誌』 No. 6, pp. 17–42. Society of
Haniwa Archaeologists
Fujisawa Atsushi 2003 Tōhoku Chihō no Entō Haniwa: Gihō, Keifu, Denpa 「東北地方の円筒埴輪—技法・系譜・伝播—」[Cylindrical Haniwa in Northeastern Mainland Japan:
Technology, Tradition, and Transmission]. Haniwa 『埴輪』, edited by Morishita Shōji森下章司, Kohama Sei 小浜成, Hirose Satoru, Nakamura Tomoko 中村朋子, Iwamoto
Takashi 岩本崇, Katō Ichirō 加藤一郎, Ichikawa Sō 市川創, Kondō Mami 近藤麻美,
and Kaneyuki Michiko 金行美智子, pp. 315–330. 52nd Meeting of the Maizō-BunkazaiKenkyū Shūkai 埋蔵文化財研究集会[Japanese Association of Field Archaeology], heldat Ōtemae University, Hyōgo.
Fujita Kazutaka 藤田和尊 2006 Kofun Jidai no Ōken to Gunji 『古墳時代の王権と軍事』[Kingship and Military in the Kofun Period]. Gakusei-sha 学生社, Tokyo.
Fukunaga Shin’ya 福永伸哉 1999a Kofun Jidai no Shuchō Keifu Hendō to Funbo Yōsono Henka 「古墳時代の首長系譜変動と墳墓要素の変化」[Fluctuation of ChieﬂyLineages and Temporal Change in Attributes of Burial Mounds during the Kofun
Period]. In Kofun Jidai Shuchō Keifu Hendō Pattern no Hikaku Kenkyū 『古墳時代
首長系譜変動パターンの比較研究』[Comparative Study of Fluctuation Patterns of
Chieﬂy Lineages of the Kofun Period], edited by Tsude Hiroshi, pp. 17–34. Report© Japanese Archaeological Association

57

HIROSE Satoru

of Research Conducted by Grant-in-Aid for Scientiﬁc Research from 1996 to 1998
(Category B-2) Submitted to the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Dept. ofArchaeology, Osaka University, Osaka.
Fukunaga Shin’ya 1999b Kofun no Shutsugen to Chūō Seiken no Girei Kanri 「古墳の出現と中央政権の儀礼管理」[Appearance of Mounded Tombs and Control over Rituals
by the Central Polity]. Kōkokgaku Kenkyū 『考古学研究』, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 53–72.
Hashimoto Hirofumi 橋本博文 1976 Tōgoku heno Shoki Entō Haniwa Hakyū no Ichi
Rei to sono Shiteki Ichizuke 「東国への初期円筒埴輪波及の一例とその史的位置づけ」[Example of Early Transmission of Cylindrical Haniwa to Eastern Japan and its
Historical Context]. Kodai 『古代』, No. 59–60 (combined), pp. 50–6.
Hashimoto Hirofumi 1980 Kai no Enō Haniwa 「甲斐の円筒埴輪」[Cylindrical Haniwa in
the Ancient Province of Kai]. Kyūryō 『丘陵』, No. 8, pp. 14–38.
Hirose Satoru 廣瀬覚 2003a Yanai-Chausuyama Kofun no Haniwa to sono Seisan
Soshiki 「柳井茶臼山古墳の埴輪とその生産組織」[Haniwa at the Yanai-Chausuyama
Mounded Tomb and its Production System]. Ritsumeikan Daigaku Kōkogaku
Ronshū 『立命館大学考古学論集』[Archaeology Papers of the Ritsumeikan
University], Vol. III, pp. 661–682. Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto.
Hirose Satoru 2003b Settsu Ina-gawa Ryūiki ni-okeru Zenki Kofun no Haniwa tosono Keifu 「摂津猪名川流域における前期古墳の埴輪とその系譜」[Haniwa and its
Tradition in the Early Kofun Period in the Ina River Region of the Ancient Province ofSettsu]. Cultura Antiqua 『古代文化』, Vol. 55, No. 9, pp. 1–26.
Hirose Satoru 2007 Kyodai Kofun no Haniwa Seisan Soshiki Zō: Kobe Shi Goshikizuka
Kofun no Kentō kara 「巨大古墳の埴輪生産組織像—神戸市五色塚古墳の検討から」[Hypothetical Reconstruction of Haniwa Production System for a Giant KeyholeShaped Mounded Tomb: Examination of Haniwa at the Goshikizuka Mounded Tomb,
Kobe City]. Haniwa Ronkō 『埴輪論考』[Discussion on Haniwa], Vol. I, pp. 25–49.
Papers of the Osaka Ōtani University Museum, No. 53, Osaka.
Hōjō Yoshitaka 北條芳隆 1999 Sanuki-Gata Zempō-Kōen-Fun no Teishō 「讃岐型前方後円墳の提唱」[Proposal of the Sanuki-Type Keyhole-Shaped Mounded Tombs]. In Kokka
Keisei Ki no Kōkogaku 『国家形成期の考古学』[Archaeology of State Formation],edited by Tsude Hiroshi 都出比呂志 and Fukunaga Shin’ya, pp. 205–229. Dept. ofArchaeology, Osaka University 大阪大学考古学研究室, Osaka.
Hōjō Yoshitaka, Mizoguchi Kōji 溝口孝司 and Murakami Yasuyuki 村上恭通 2000 Kofun
Jidai Zō wo Minaosu 『古墳時代像を見なおす』[Reconsideration of the Image ofKofun Period]. Aoki Shoten 青木書店, Tokyo.
Inuki Tsutomu 犬木努 1995 Shimousa-Gata Haniwa Kiso-Kō 「下総型埴輪基礎考」[Fundamentals of the Shimouosa-Type Haniwa]. Haniwa Kenkyū Kai Shi 『埴輪研究会誌』, Vol. 1, pp. 1–36.
Inuki Tsutomu 2002 Haniwa Dōkō Hin Ron no Genzai 「埴輪同工品論の現在」[Current
State of Research into Haniwa Craftsmanship]. Kikan Kōkogaku 『季刊考古学』, No.
79, pp. 32–36.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

58

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPANInuki Tsutomu 2005 Shimousa-Gata Haniwa Sairon 「下総型埴輪再論」[Shimouosa-Type
Haniwa Revisited]. Haniwa Kenkyū Kai Shi 『埴輪研究会誌』, Vol. 9, pp. 1–22.
Jōkura Masayoshi 城倉政祥 2012 Haniwa 「埴輪」[Haniwa]. In Kofun Jidai Kenkyū noGenjō to Kadai, Jō 『古墳時代研究の現状と課題』（上）[Current Issues and Areas for
Future Research in Kofun Period Archaeology], Vol. 1, edited by Habuta Yoshiyuki 土
生田純之 and Kameda Shūichi 亀田修一, pp. 343–362. Dōseisha, Tokyo.
Kanekata Masaki 鐘方正樹 1997 Chūki Kofun no Haniwa 「中期古墳の埴輪」[Haniwa
in the Middle Kofun Period]. In Shiseki Daian-ji Kyū Keidai 『史跡大安寺旧境内』[Daian-ji Buddhist Temple, a Historic Site], Vol. I, edited by Kanekata Masaki, pp.
407–417. Nara Municipal Board of Education, Nara.
Kanekata Masaki and Nakajima Kazuhiko 中島和彦 1992 Sugawara-Higashi Haniwa Kama
wo-meguru Sho-Mondai 「菅原東埴輪窯をめぐる諸問題」[Various Issues Related
to the Sugawara-Higashi Haniwa Kiln]. Nara-Shi Maizō Bunkazai Center Kiyō
1991 『奈良市埋蔵文化財センター紀要 1991』, pp. 1–27. Nara Municipal Board of
Education, Nara.
Kawanishi Hiroyuki 川西宏幸 1978 Entō Haniwa Sōron 円筒埴輪総論[Comprehensive
Discussion of Cylindrical Haniwa]. Kōkokgaku Zasshi 『考古学雑誌』, Vol. 64, No. 2,
pp. 1–70.
Kondō Yoshirō 近藤義郎 1983 Zempō-Kōen-Fun no Jidai 『前方後円墳の時代』[Eraduring Which Keyhole-Shaped Mounded Tombs were Built]. Iwanami Shoten 岩波書店, Tokyo.
Kondō Yoshirō and Harunari Hideji 春成秀爾 1967 Haniwa no Kigen 埴輪の起源[Origin ofHaniwa]. Kōkokgaku Kenkyū, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 13–35.
Mizuno Masayoshi 水野正好 1985 Kofun Jidai 「古墳時代」[Kofun Period]. Zusetsu
Hakkutsu ga Kataru Nihon-Shi 『図説 発掘が語る日本史』[Japanese History as
Illustrated by Archaeological Excavations], Vol. 4 (Kinki Region), edited by Tsuboi
Kiyotari 坪井清足, pp. 123–180. Shin-Jinbutsu-Ōrai-sha 新人物往来社, Tokyo.
Nonoguchi Yōko 野々口陽子 1996 Iwayuru Kinai-Kei Nijū-Kōen Tsubo no Tenkai 「いわゆる畿内系二重口縁壷の展開」[Origin and Development of Jars with Stepped Rim of theCentral Kinki Tradition]. Kyoto-Fu Maizō Bunkazai Ronshū 『京都府埋蔵文化財論集』[Collected Papers in Archaeology of Kyoto Prefecture], No. 3, pp. 225–242. Kyoto
Prefectural Center for Archaeological Investigations and Research, Kyoto.
Ōkubo Tetsuya 大久保徹也 2002a “Minzoku” Keisei no Mechanism to Zempō-KōenFun no Ronri 「〈民族〉形成のメカニズムと前方後円墳の論理」[Rational behind theConstruction of Keyhole-Shaped Mounded Tombs and the Formation of “Ethnicity”].
Kōkogaku Kenkyū, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 20–36.
Ōkubo Tetsuya 2002b Shikoku Hokutōbu Chiiki ni-okeru Chiikiteki Shuchō Maisō Saishi
Yōshiki no Seiritsu Jiki wo Megutte 「四国北東部地域における地域的首長埋葬祭
祀様式の成立時期をめぐって」[When did Regionally Characteristic Elite Mortuary
Rituals Start in Northeastern Shikoku?]. Ronshū Tokushima no Kōkogaku 『論集徳島の考古学』[Collected Papers in Archaeology of Tokushima Prefecture], edited by Amō© Japanese Archaeological Association

59

HIROSE Satoru

Toshio 天羽利夫 pp. 429–460. Private Publication, Tokushima.
Ōkubo Tetsuya 2006 Sanuki oyobi Shūhen Chiiki no Zenpō-Kōen-Fun Seiritsu Ki no
Doki Yōsō「讃岐および周辺地域の前方後円墳成立期の土器様相」[Pottery Assemblagearound the Time of Appearance of Keyhole-Shaped Mounded Tombs in Northeastern
Shikoku]. Koshiki Hajiki no Nendai-Gaku『古式土師器の年代学』[ChronologicalStudies of Early Haji-Earthenware], edited by Morioka Hideto 森岡秀人 and Nishimura
Ayumu 西村歩, pp. 423–438. Osaka Center for Cultural Heritage Management 大阪府文化財センター, Osaka.
Seike Akira 清家章 2001 Ina-gawa Sagan-iki ni-okeru Shō Kofun no Igi 「猪名川左岸域における小古墳の意義」[Signiﬁcance of Small Mounded Tombs in Areas to the Immediate
West of Ina River]. Makikaneyama Iseki 『待兼山遺跡』[Machikaneyama Site], III,edited by Seike Akira, pp. 74–88. Osaka University Committee for Archaeological
Operations 大阪大学埋蔵文化財調査委員会, Osaka.
Shioya Osamu 塩谷修 1992 Tsubo-Gata Haniwa no Seikaku 「壺形埴輪の性格」[Nature of
Jar-Shaped Haniwa]. Hakuko Kenkyū 『博古研究』, No. 3, pp. 1–18.
Shiraishi Taichirō 白石太一郎 1989 Kyodai Kofun no Zōei 「巨大古墳の造営」[Constructionof Giant Mounded Tombs]. Kodai wo Kangaeru: Kofun 『古代を考える—古墳』[Consideration of Ancient History: Mounded Tombs], edited by Shiraishi Taichirō,
pp. 73–106. Yoshikawa-Kōbunkan 吉川弘文館, Tokyo.
Shiraishi Taichirō 2000 Kofun to Kofun-Gun no Kenkyū 『古墳と古墳群の研究』[Study on
Mounded Tombs and Mounded Tomb Groups]. Hanawa Shobō 塙書房, Tokyo.
Shiraishi Taichirō 2008 Wakoku Ōbo Zōei-chi Hensen no Imi-suru Mono 「倭国王墓造営
地変遷の意味するもの」[What was the Meaning of Shifts in the Locations of Lage
Mounded Tomb Groups in the Kinki Region?]. Kinki Chihō ni-okeru Ōgata Kofun-Gun
no Kiso-teki Kenkyū 『近畿地方における大型古墳群の基礎的研究』[Fundamental
Study on Large Mounded Tomb Groups in the Kinki Region], edited by Shiraishi
Taichirō, pp. 451–457. Report of Research Conducted by Grant-in-Aid for ScientiﬁcResearch from 2005 to 2007 (Category A) Submitted to the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science. Dept. of the Studies of Cultural Properties, Nara University,
Nara.
Taguchi Ichirō 田口一郎 1981 Nijū-Kōen Tsubo no Keifu no Kentō 「二重口縁壷の系譜の検討」[Examination of Origins of Jars with Stepped-Rim]. Motoshimana-Shōgunzuka
Kofun 『元島名将軍塚古墳』[Motoshimana-Shōgunzuka Mounded Tomb], edited by
Iizuka Keiko and Taguchi Ichirō, pp. 85–90. Reports of Cultural Heritage Managementof Takasaki City, No. 22, Takasaki City, Gunma.
Takahashi Katsuhisa 高橋克壽 1994 Haniwa Seisan no Tenkai 「埴輪生産の展開」[Growthof Haniwa Production]. Kōkokgaku Kenkyū, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 27–48.
Takahashi Katsuhisa 1997 Sandai Kofun to Haniwa 「三大古墳と埴輪」[Three Giant
Mounded Tombs in Tango and Their Haniwa]. Nihon-Kai Sandai Kofun ga Naze
Tango ni Tsukuraretanoka 『日本海三大古墳がなぜ丹後につくられたのか』[Whywere Three Largest Keyhole-Shaped Mounded Tombs on the Coastal Regions of the© Japanese Archaeological Association

60THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPANSea of Japan Built in Tango?], pp. 57–68. Kaya Township Board of Education 加悦町

教育委員会, Kyoto.

Takahashi Katsuhisa 2012 Haniwa「埴輪」[Haniwa]. Kōza Nihon no Kōkogaku: Kofun Jidai,
Ge『講座 日本の考古学 古墳時代』（下）[Introduction to Japanese Archaeology:
Kofun Period, Pt. 2], edited by Hirose Kazuo 広瀬和雄 and Wada Seigo 和田晴吾, pp.
237–269. Aoki Shoten 青木書店, Tokyo.
Tanaka Motohiro 田中元浩 2005 Kinai Chiiki ni-okeru Kofun Jidai Shotō Doki-Gun no
Seiritsu to Tenkai 「畿内地域における古墳時代初頭土器群の成立と展開」[Origins
and Growth of Pottery Assemblage Characteristic of the Beginning of the Kofun
Period in the Central Kinki Region]. Nihon Kōkogaku 『日本考古学』, No. 20, pp.
47–73.
Tanaka Shinsaku 田中晋作 2001 Mozu Furuichi Kofun-Gun no Kenkyū 『百舌鳥・古市古墳群の研究』[Study on the Mozu and Furuichi Mounded Tomb Groups]. Gakuseisha
学生社, Tokyo.
Tanaka Shinsaku 2010 Kofun Jidai no Ina-gawa Ryūiki: Ina-gawa Ryūiki ni Tōei Sareta
Kinai Seiken no Dōsei 『古墳時代の猪名川流域—猪名川流域に投影された畿内政権の動静—』[Ina River Tributary Regions: Political Movement in the Central Polity
as Reﬂected in the Ina River Tributary Regions]. Ikeda Municipal Museum of Folk
History and Culture 池田市立歴史民俗資料館, Osaka.
Tanaka Tomoko 田中智子 2013 Kofun Jidai Kōki no Haniwa Seisan, Kyōkyū Taisei no Jitsuzō
wo Megutte 「古墳時代後期の埴輪生産・供給体制の実像をめぐって」[Approach to
the Nature of Haniwa Production-Distribution Systems in the Late Kofun Period]『立命館大学考古学論集』[Archaeology Papers of the Ritsumeikan University], Vol.
VI, pp. 333–352. Ritsumeikan University 立命館大学, Kyoto.
Teramae Naoto 寺前直人 2011 Ina-gawa Ryūiki ni-okeru Zenki Kofun no Dōkō 「猪名川流域における前期古墳の動向」[Aspects of Fourth-Century Mounded Tombs in the
Ina River Tributary Regions]. Kofun Jidai Seiken Kōtai Ron no Kōkogaku-teki SaiKentō 『古墳時代政権交代論の考古学的再検討』[Archaeological Reexamination of
Hypothesis on Replacement of Political Hegemonies]平成 20〜22年度科学研究費補助金基盤研究 B 研究成果報告書、大阪大学大学院文学研究科 Report of Research
Conducted by Grant-in-Aid for Scientiﬁc Research from 2008 to 2010 (Category B)
Submitted to the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Dept. of Archaeology,
Osaka University, Osaka.
Todoroki Shunjirō 轟俊二郎 1973 Haniwa Kenkyū 『埴輪研究』[Study on Haniwa], Vol. 1.
Private Publication, Chiba.
Tsude Hiroshi 都出比呂志 1981 Haniwa Hennen to Zenki Kofun no Shinko 「埴輪編年と前期古墳の新古」[Haniwa and Relative Chronology of Mounded Toms in the Early
Kofun Period]. Ōryo no Hikaku Kenkyū 『王陵の比較研究』[Comparative Study on
Imperial Mausolea]. Dept. of Archaeology, Kyoto University 京都大学考古学研究室,
Kyoto.
Tsude Hiroshi 1988 Kofun Jidai Shuchō Keifu no Keizoku to Danzetsu 「古墳時代首長© Japanese Archaeological Association

61

HIROSE Satoru

系譜の継続と断絶」[Continuity and Discontinuity of Chieﬂy Lineages in the Kofun
Period]. Machikaneyama Ronsō: Shigaku Hen 『待兼山論叢』（史学篇）[Memoir of
the Faculty of Letters, Osaka University (History)], Vol. 22, pp. 1–16.
Tsude Hiroshi 1990 Chieﬂy Lineages in Kofun-Period Japan: Political Relations Between
Centre and Region. Antiquity 64(245): 923–931.
Tsude Hiroshi 1991 Nihon Kodai no Kokka Keiseiron Josetsu: Zempō-Kōenfun Taisei
no Teishō 日本古代の国家形成論序説—前方後円墳体制の提唱— [State Formationin Ancient Japan: A Proposal of Keyhole-shaped Mounded Tomb Political System].
Nihonshi Kenkyū, No. 343, pp. 5–39.
Tsude Hiroshi 2006 Early State Formation in Japan. Introduced and interpreted by Walter
Edwards. In Capital and Countryside in Japan, 300–1180: Japanese Historians inEnglish, edited by Joan R. Piggott, pp. 13–53. Cornell East Asia Series, 129. East Asia
Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Tsujikawa Tetsurō 辻川哲朗 1999 Entō Haniwa Tottai-kan Settei Gihō no Fukugen: Haniwa
Juyō Keitai Kentō no Kiso Sagyō toshite 「円筒埴輪突帯間設定技法の復元—埴輪受容形態検討の基礎作業として—」[Reconstruction of Technique to Determine a Spacebetween Belts of a Cylindrical Haniwa]. Haniwa Ronsō 『埴輪論叢』, Vol. 1, pp. 1–15.
Society for Study of Haniwa 埴輪検討会, Osaka.
Tsujikawa Tetsurō 2015 Zenki Haniwa Seisan no Ichi Yōsō 「前期埴輪生産の一様相—」[An
Aspect of Haniwa Production in the Early Kofun Period]. Kōkogaku Journal 『月刊考古学ジャーナル』, No. 667, pp. 5–10.
Ugaki Tadamasa 宇垣匡雅 1984 Tokushu Kidai-Gata Haniwa ni Kansuru Jakkan no
Kōsatsu 「特殊器台形埴輪に関する若干の考察」[Consideration of Ritual Pottery
Stand-Shaped Haniwa] Kōkogaku Kenkyū, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 59–72.
Ugaki Tadamasa 1997 Tokushu Kidai-Gata Haniwa no Mon’yō to Hennen 「特殊器台形埴輪の文様と編年」[Decorative Patterns and Chronology of Ritual Pottery StandShaped Haniwa ]. Kōkogaku Kenkyū, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 98–102.
Wada Seigo 和田晴吾 1987 Kofun Jidai no Jiki Kubun wo Megutte 「古墳時代の時期区分をめぐって」[Chronological Sub-Division of the Kofun Period]. Kōkogaku Kenkyū, Vol.
34, No. 2, pp. 44–55.
Wada Seigo 1988 Minami Yamashiro no Kofun: Sono Gaiyō to Genjō 「南山城の古墳—その概要と現状—」[Mounded Tombs in Southern Kyoto Prefecture: Overview and their
Current Status]. Kyoto Chiiki Kenkyū 『京都地域研究』, Vol. 4, pp. 22–34. Institute of
Humanities, Ritsumeikan University 立命館大学人文科学研究所, Kyoto.
Wada Seigo 1994 Kofun Chikuzō no Sho-Dankai to Seijiteki Kaisō Kōsei 「古墳築造の諸段階と政治的階層構成」[Temporal Change in Mounded Tomb Construction
and Political Hierarchy]. In Yamato Ōken to Kōryū no Shosō 『ヤマト王権と交流の諸相』[Regional Interaction and the Yamato Kingship] (Vol. 5 of Kodai Ōken to
Kōryū 『古代王権と交流』[Regional Interaction and Ancient Kingship]), edited by
Araki Toshio 荒木敏夫, pp. 17–47. Meicho Shuppan 名著出版, Tokyo.
Yoshida Eiji 吉田恵二 1973 Haniwa Seisan no Fukugen 「埴輪生産の復原」[Reconstructing© Japanese Archaeological Association

62

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPANHaniwa Production System]. Kōkokgaku Kenkyū, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 30–48.
Site Reports Cited: Central Polity and Its Surrounding Regions (The numbers match thosein Figure 3)
Nara Prefecture
1. Hashihaka 箸墓 (Princess Yamatototomomoso’s Mausoleum; Ōichi-no-Haka)3
Nakamura Ichirō 中村一郎 and Kasano Takeshi 笠野毅 1976 Ōichi-no-Haka no
Shutsudo-hin 「大市墓の出土品」[Artifacts Discovered at Hashihaka ]. ShoryōBu Kiyō 『書陵部紀要』[Memoir of the Division of Documents and Mausolea,
National Agency of Imperial Household], No. 27, pp. 57–65.
Tokuda Masashi 徳田誠治 and Seiki Yūji 清喜裕二 2000 Yamatototomomosohime-noMikoto Ōichi-no-Haka Higai-Boku Shori Jigyō Kasho no Chōsa 「倭迩迩日百襲姫命大市墓被害木処理事業（復旧）箇所の調査」[Survey of an Area Where
Trees Fell on the Mound Surface of Hashihaka]. Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No. 51, pp.
26–40.
2. Shibutani-Mukaiyama 渋谷向山(Emperor Keikō’s Mausoleum; Yamanobe-noMichinoe-no-Misasagi)
Kasano Takeshi 1975 Keikō Tennō Yamanobe-no-Michinoe-no-Misasagi no Shutsudohin 「景行天皇山辺道陵の出土品」[Artifacts Unearthed from Emperor Keikō’s
Mausoleum]. Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No. 26, pp. 68–75.
Kasano Takeshi 1979 Keikō Tennō-Ryō Watari-Dote Kaishū Kuiki no Chōsa 「景行天皇陵渡土堤改修区域の調査」[Excavation Conducted Prior to the Repair Work ofa Dike Connecting the Mound and Outer Dike of Emperor Keikō’s Mausoleum].
Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No.30, pp. 84–94.
Fukuo Masahiko 福尾正彦 and Satō Toshihide 佐藤利秀 1995 Keikō Tennō Yamanobeno-Michinoe-no-Misasagi Seibi Kōji Yotei Kukaku no Chōsa 「景行天皇山辺道
上陵整備工事予定区画の調査」[Excavation Conducted in an Area to be Aﬀectedby a Maintenance Work of Emperor Keikō’s Mausoleum]. Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No.
46, pp. 107–135.
3. Uenoyama 上の山
Kinoshita Wataru 木下亘 ed. 1996 Uenoyama Kofun 「上の山古墳」[Uenoyama
Mounded Tomb]. In site report 6, pp. 223–272.
4. Andon’yama 行燈山
Kasano Takeshi 笠野毅 1977 Sujin Tennō-Ryō Gaitei oyobi Funkyū Gogan Kuiki
no Jizen Chōsa 「崇神天皇陵外堤及び墳丘護岸区域の事前調査」[Excavation
Conducted Prior to the Maintenance Work of Dikes Enclosing Emperor Sujin’s
Maosoleum]. Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No. 28, pp. 94–101.
3 [Editor’s note] There are three names for a mounded tomb that has been designated as an imperial mausoleum by the national

government of Japan. The ﬁrst one (without parenthesis) is the name commonly accepted among scholars. The second one (ﬁrst
one in the parenthesis) indicates to whom (several mythical ﬁgures) the tomb is attributed, and the third written in early historic
sources, such as the Nihon Shoki [Chronicle of Japan].
© Japanese Archaeological Association

63

HIROSE Satoru

5. Kushiyama 櫛山
Ueda Hironori 上田宏範 and Nakamura Haruhisa 中村春寿 1961 Sakurai-Chausuyama
Kofun Fu Kushiyama Kofun『桜井茶臼山古墳附櫛山古墳』[Sakurai-Chausuyama
Mounded Tomb, With Addendum on Kushiyama Mounded Toomb]. (Report ofInvestigation into Historic Site, Scenic Spot, and Natural Monument of Nara
Prefecture 奈良県史蹟名勝天然記念物調査報告), No. 19. Archaeological Instituteof Kashihara, Nara Prefecture.
6. Nakayama-Ōtsuka 中山大塚
Kawakami Kunihiko 河上邦彦, Toyooka Takushi 豊岡卓之, Urabe Yukihiro 卜部行
弘, and Ban Yasushi 坂靖, eds. 1996 Nakayama-Ōtsuka Kofun 「中山大塚古墳」[Nakayama-Ōtsuka Mounded Tomb]. In Nakayama-Ōtsuka Kofun, Fuhen
Kuzumoto-Bentenzuka Kofun, Uenoyama Kofun 『中山大塚古墳 附篇 葛本弁天塚古墳 上の山古墳』[Nakayama-Ōtsuka Mounded Tomb, With Addenda on
Kuzumoto-Bentenzuka and Uenoyama Mounded Tombs], edited by Kawakami
Kunihiko, Toyooka Takushi, Urabe Yukihiro, and Ban Yasushi, pp. 1–178.
(Report of Research and Investigations, Archaeological Institute of Kashihara,
Nara Prefecture 奈良県立橿原考古学研究所調査報告書), No. 82. Archaeological
Institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture.
7. Nishi-Tonozuka 西殿塚(Empress Tashiraka’s Mausoleum; Fusumada-no-Misasagi)
Fukuo Masahiko 1991 Fusumada-no-Misasagi no Funkyū Chōsa 「衾田陵の墳丘調査」[Mound Survey of Nishitonozuka]. Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No. 42, pp. 100–111.
Matsumoto Hiroaki 松本洋明, ed. 2000 Nishi-Tonozuka Kofun and Higashi-Tonozuka
Kofun 『西殿塚古墳・東殿塚古墳』[Nishi-tonozuka and Higashi-tonozuka
Mounded Tombs]. (Report of Archaeological Excavations in Tenri City 天理
市埋蔵文化財調査報告書), No. 7. Tenri Municipal Board of Education, Nara
Prefecture.
8. Higashi-Tonozuka 東殿塚
Matsumoto Hiroaki, ed. 2000 Nishi-Tonozuka Kofun and Higashi-Tonozuka Kofun.
(Report of Archaeological Excavations in Tenri City), No. 7. Tenri Municipal
Board of Education, Nara Prefecture.
9. Nishiyama 西山
Okita Masa’aki 置田雅昭 1974 Yamato no Zempō-Kōhō Fun 「大和の前方後方墳」[Keyhole-Shaped Mounded Tombs with Square Rear Sections in Nara].
Kōkogaku Zasshi 『考古学雑誌』, Vol. 59, No. 4, pp. 1–16.
Taketani Toshio 竹谷俊夫 and Hirose Satoru 廣瀬覚 2000 Tenri Nishiyama
Kofun Shutsudo no Haniwa Kan nitsuite 「天理西山古墳出土の埴輪棺墓について」[Coﬃn Recycled from Cylindrical Haniwa at the Nishiyama Mounded
Tomb, Tenri City]. Tenri Sankōkan Hō 『天理参考館報』, No. 13, pp. 48–65.
10. Mesuriyama メスリ山
Date Muneyasu 伊達宗泰, ed. 1977 Mesuriyama Kofun 『メスリ山古墳』[Mesuriyama
Mounded Tomb]. (Report of Investigation into Historic Site, Scenic Spot, and© Japanese Archaeological Association

64

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPAN

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Natural Monument of Nara Prefecture), No. 35. Archaeological Institute ofKashihara, Prefecture and Nara Prefectural Board of Education.
Sakurai-Chausuyama 桜井茶臼山
Ueda Hironori and Nakamura Haruhisa 1961 Sakurai-Chausuyama Kofun Fu
Kushiyama Kofun. (Report of Investigation into Historic Site, Scenic Spot,and Natural Monument of Nara Prefecture), No. 19. Archaeological Institute ofKashihara, Nara Prefecture.
Higashikage Yū 東影悠, ed. 2011 Higashi Asia ni-okeru Shoki Kyūto oyobi Ōbono Kōkogaku-teki Kenkyū 『東アジアにおける初期宮都および王墓の考古学的研究』[Archaeological Study on Early Palaces, Capitals and Mausolea in EastAsia]. 平成 19年度〜平成 22年度科学研究費補助金基盤研究（A）研究成果報告
書 Report of Research Conducted by Grant-in-Aid for Scientiﬁc Research from2007 to 2010 (Category A) Submitted to the Japan Society for the Promotion of
Science. Archaeological Institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture.
Kuzumoto-Bentenzuka 葛本弁天塚
Nakai Kazuo 中井一夫 and Toyooka Takushi, eds. 1996 Kuzumoto-Bentenzuka
Kofun 「葛本弁天塚古墳」[Kuzumoto-Bentenzuka Mounded Tomb]. In site
report 6, pp. 179–222.
Ichio-Hakayama 市尾墓山
Kawakami Kunihiko 河上邦彦 1984 Ichio-Hakayama Kofun 『市尾墓山古墳』[IchioHakayama Mounded Tomb]. Takatori 高取 Township Board of Education andArchaeological Institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture.
Tomta Shinji 冨田真二, ed. 2007 Kuni Shitei Shiseki Ichio-Hakayama Kofun Seibi
Jigyō Hōkokusho 『国指定史跡市尾墓山古墳整備事業報告書』[Report of the
Restoration Project of the Ichio-Hakayama Mounded Tomb, a Nationally
Designated Historic Site]. Takatori Township Board of Education, Nara
Prefecture.
Wakigami-Kansuzuka 掖上鑵子塚
Kusumoto Tetsuo 楠元哲夫 and Sekikawa Hisayoshi 関川尚功 1978 Gose-Shi
Wakigami-Kansuzuka Zenpōbu Shūgō Hakkutsu Chōsa Gaihō 「御所市掖上鑵
子塚前方部周濠発掘調査概報」[Preliminary Report of Excavation of the Moat
Enclosing the Frontal Section of the Wakigami-Kansuzuka Mounded Tomb].
Nara-Ken Iseki Chōsa Gaihō 『奈良県遺跡調査概報』[Preliminary Reports ofArchaeological Excavations in Nara Prefecture], 1977, edited by Kuno Kunio
久野邦雄 and Terasawa Kaoru 寺沢薫, pp. 41–47. Archaeological Institute ofKashihara, Nara Prefecture and Nara Prefectural Board of Education.
Kimoto Mamoru 木許守 1992 Wakigami-Kansuzuka Kofun Dai-2-ji Hakkutsu Chōsa
Hōkoku 『掖上鑵子塚古墳第 2次発掘調査報告』[Report of the 2nd Excavation
at the Wakigami-Kansuzuka Mounded Tomb]. Gose 御所 Municipal Board of
Education, Nara Prefecture.
Muro-no-Miyayama 室宮山© Japanese Archaeological Association

65

HIROSE Satoru

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Akiyama Hideo 秋山日出男 and Aboshi Yoshinori 網干善教 1959 Muro-noŌhaka 『室大墓』[Muro-no-Ōhaka Mounded Tomb]. (Report of Investigation
into Historic Site, Scenic Spot, and Natural Monument of Nara Prefecture), No.
18. Archaeological Institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture and Nara Prefectural
Board of Education.
Kimoto Mamoru and Fujita Kazutaka 藤田和尊 1996 Nara-Ken Gose-Shi Muro-noMiyayama Kofun Han’i Kakunin Chōsa Hōkoku 『奈良県御所市室宮山古墳範囲確認調査報告』[Report of Archaeological Excavation to Determine Spatial
Extent of the Muro-no-Miyayama Mounded Tomb, Gose City, Nara Prefecture].
Gose Municipal Board of Education, Nara Prefecture.
Shinjō-Yashikiyama 新庄屋敷山古墳
Sugaya Fuminori 菅谷文則 1975 Shinjō-Yashikiyama Kofun 『新庄屋敷山古墳』[Shinjō-Yashikiyama Mounded Tomb]. Archaeological Institute of Kashihara,
Nara Prefecture and Nara Prefectural Board of Education.
Tsukiyama 築山(candidate of imperial mausoleum at Iwasono)
Tokuda Masashi 1998 Iwasono Ryōbo Sankō-Chi Taiseki-do Jokyo Kuiki no Jizen
Chōsa 「磐園陵墓参考地堆積土除去区域の事前調査」[Excavation in an Area
Conducted Prior to the Removal of the Surface Layer of Mounded Tomb beinga Candidate of Imperial Mausoleum at Iwasono]. Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No. 49, pp.
122–132.
Seiki Yūji 2001 Iwasono Ryōbo Sankō-Chi Fun’ei-Suso Gogan Kōji Kuiki no
Chōsa 「磐園陵墓参考地墳塋裾護岸工事区域の調査」[Excavations Prior to theWorks of Reinforcing the Foot of the Mound being a Candidate of Imperial
Mausoleum at Iwasono]. Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No. 52, pp. 23–54.
Shin’yama 新山
Izumori Kō 泉森皎 1982 Kōryō-Chō Shin’yama Kofun-Gun 「広陵町新山古墳群」[Shin’yama Mounded Tomb Group in Kōryō Town], In Nara-Ken Iseki
Chōsa Gaihō 『奈良県遺跡調査概報』[Preliminary Report of Archaeological
Excavations in Nara Prefecture], 1980, Pt. 1, pp. 79–100. Archaeological Instituteof Kashihara, Nara Prefecture and Nara Prefectural Board of Education.
Samida-Takarazuka 佐味田宝塚
Kawakami Kunihiko, Urabe Yukihiro 卜部行弘 and Matsumoto Yuriko 松本百合子 1986 Samida-Takarazuka Kofun 『佐味田宝塚古墳』[Samida-Takarazuka
Mounded Tomb]. Kawai 河合 Township Board of Education, Nara Prefecture andArchaeological Institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture.
Nikiyama 新木山
Seiki Yūji and Yokota Shingo 横田真吾 2012 Mitsuyoshi Ryōbo Sanōchi Seibi
Kōji Yotei Kuiki no Jizen Chōsa 「三吉陵墓参考地整備工事予定区域の事前調
査」[Excavation Prior to a Maintenance Work at the Mound being a Candidateof Imperial Mausoleum at Mitsuyoshi]. Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No. 63 (Mausolea), pp.
50–98.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

66

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPAN21. Suyama 巣山
Inoue Yoshimitsu 井上義光 2005 Suyama Kofun Chōsa Gaihō 『巣山古墳調査概報』[Preliminary Report of Excavation at Suyama Mounded Tomb]. Kōryō
Township Board of Eductaion, Nara Prefecture and Gakuseisha 学生社, Tokyo.
22. Nagareyama ナガレ山
Izumori Kō, ed. 1976 Samida-Nagareyama Kofun 『佐味田ナガレ山古墳』[SamidaNagareyama Mounded Tomb]. In Nara-Ken Bunkazai Chōsa Hōkoku (奈良県文化財調査報告[Report of Archaeological Excavations in Nara Prefecture]), No. 26.
Nara Prefectural Board of Education.
23. Nagareyama-Kita No. 3ナガレ山北 3号
Date Muneyasu and Akatsuka Jirō 赤塚次郎 1981 Bessho-Shita 39-gōfun Shutsudo
no Entōkei Haniwa 「別所下 39号墳出土の円筒形埴輪」[Cylindrical Haniwa
Excavated from the Bessho-Shita No. 39 Mounded Tomb]. Kodaigaku
Kenkyū 『古代学研究』, No. 96, pp. 38–41.
25. Kawai-Ōtsukayama 河合大塚山
Sekigawa Hisayoshi 1981 Kita-Katsuragi-Gun Kawai-Chō Ōtsukayama Kofun,
Maruyama Kofun Rinsetesuchi no Hakkutsu Chōsa Gaihō 「北葛城郡河合町大塚山古墳・丸山古墳隣接地の発掘調査概報」[Preliminary Report of Excavations
at the Ōtsukayama and Maruyama Mounded Tombs in Kawai Town, KitaKatsuragi County]. Nara-Ken Iseki Chōsa Gaihō, 1979, Pt. 1, edited by Ishino
Hironobu, pp. 71–74. Archaeological Institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture andNara Prefectural Board of Education.
Yoshimura Kimio 吉村公男 1993 1992-Nendo Maizō Bunkazai Chōsa Hōkoku 『1992年度埋蔵文化財調査報告』[Report of Archaeological Excavations in the Fiscal
Year of 1992]. (Kawai-Chō Bunkazai Chōsa Hōkoku 河合町文化財調査報告),
No. 8. Kawai 河合 Township Board of Education.
26. Shimanoyama 島の山古墳
Urabe Yukihiro 卜部行弘 and Misu Shunsuke 見須俊介 1998 Shimanoyama Kofun Dai3-ji Hakkutsu Chōsa Gaiyō 『島の山古墳第 3次発掘調査概要』[Preliminary
Report of Third Excavation at the Shimanoyama Mounded Tomb]. (Report ofInvestigations into Cultural Heritages of Kawanishi Town), No. 1. Kawanishi
Township Board of Education, Nara Prefecute.
27. Sasakizuka 佐々木塚
Ban Yasushi, ed. 2001 Shimonaga Higashihō Iseki 『下永東方遺跡』[Shimonaga
Higashihō Site]. (Report of Investigations into Cultural Heritages in Nara
Prefecture), No. 86. Archaeological Institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture andNara Prefectural Board of Education.
28. Suishōzuka 水晶塚
Ban Yasuhi, ed. 2006 Hachijō Iseki 『八条遺跡』[Hachijō Site]. (Report of Researchand Investigations, Archaeological Institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture), No.
94.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

67

HIROSE Satoru

29. Gosashi 五社神(Empress Jingū’s Mausoleum; Saki-no-Tatanami-no-Ikenoe-noMisasagi)
Tokuda Masashi, Seiki Yūji, Arima Shin 有馬伸, and Katō Ichirō 加藤一郎 2005 Jingū
Kōgō Saki-Tantenami Ikegami-Ryō Fun’ei-Suso Gogan sonota Seibi Kōji Kuiki
no Chōsa oyobi Funkyū Gaikei Chōsa 「神功皇后狭城盾列池上陵墳塋裾護岸その他整備工事区域の調査および墳丘外形調査」[Excavations Prior to the Worksof Reinforcing the Foot of and other Maintenance of the Mound and Survey ofthe Mound Exterior of Empress Jingū’s Mausoleum]. Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No. 56,
pp. 5–54.
30. Misasagi-chō 山陵町
Oguri Akihiko 小栗明彦, ed. 1994 Heijō-Kyō Ukyō Ichijō Hokuhen Nibō Santsubo,
Yontsubo 『平城京右京一条北辺二坊三坪・四坪』[Third and Fourth Blocks,
Second Ward, North of the First Street, Western Sector, Heijō Capital]. (Reportof Investigation into Historic Site, Scenic Spot, and Natural Monument of Nara
Prefecture), No. 67. Archaeological Institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture andNara Prefectural Board of Education.
31. Saki-Ishizukayama 佐紀石塚山(Emperor Seimu’s Mausoleum; Saki-no-Tatanami no
Ikejiri-no-Misasagai)
Fukuo Masahiko 1997 Saki-no-Tatanami no Ikejiri-no-Misasagai Seibi Kōji Kuiki no
Jizen Chōsa 「狭城盾列池後陵整備工事区域の事前調査」[Excavation Prior to a
Maintenance Work at Emperor Seimu’s Mausoleum]. Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No. 48,
pp. 98–133.
32. Saki-Misasagiyama 佐紀陵山(Empress Hihasume’s Mausoleum; Saki-no-Terama-noMisasagi)
Ishida Mosuke 石田茂輔 1967 Hihasume-no-Mikoto Goryō no Shiryō nitsuite 「日葉酢媛命御陵の資料について」[Artifacts Discovered at Empress
Hihasume’s Mausoleum]. Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No. 19, pp. 37–62.
Habuta Yoshiyuki 土生田純之 1980 Saki-no-Terama-no-Misasagi Gaitei Hitodome
Saku Kaishū Kōji Kasho no Chōsa 「狭木之寺間陵外堤人止柵改修工事箇所の調査」[Excavation Conducted Prior to a Repair of a Fence on the Outer Dike
Enclosing Empress Hihasume’s Mausoleum]. Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No. 32, pp. 72–75.
Fukuo Masahiko 1986 Saki-no-Terama-no-Misasagi Seibi Seibi Kōji Kuiki no Chōsa「狭木之寺間陵整備工事区域の調査」[Excavation Conducted in an Area to be
Aﬀected by a Maintenance Work of Empress Hihasume’s Mausoleum]. ShoryōBu Kiyō, No. 38, pp. 57–74.
Fukuo Masahiko and Tokuda Masashi 1992 Saki-no-Terama-no-Misasagi Seibi
Seibi Kōji Kuiki no Chōsa 「狭木之寺間陵整備工事区域の調査」[Excavation
Conducted in an Area to be Aﬀected by a Maintenance Work of Empress
Hihasume’s Mausoleum]. Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No. 43, pp. 95–118.
33. Maezuka マエ塚
Kojima Shunji 小島俊次 1969 Maezuka Kofun 『マエ塚古墳』[Maezuka Mounded© Japanese Archaeological Association

68THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPAN

34.

35.

36.

37.

Tomb]. (Report of Investigation into Historic Site, Scenic Spot, and Natural
Monument of Nara Prefecture), No.24. Archaeological Institute of Kashihara,
Nara Prefecture and Nara Prefectural Board of Education.
Nakai Kazuo 中井一夫 1976 Maezuka Kofun Gaitei 「マエ塚古墳外堤」[Outer Dike
Enclosing the Maezuka Mounded Tomb]. In Nara-Ken Kofun Hakkutsu Chōsa
Shūhō 『奈良県古墳発掘調査集報』[Collection of Reports of Archaeological
Excavations at Mounded Tombs in Nara Prefecture], I, edited by Izumori Kō 泉森皎, pp. 1–18. (Report of Investigations into Cultural Heritages in Nara Prefecture
奈良県文化財調査報告書), No. 28. Archaeological Institute of Kashihara, Nara
Prefecture and Nara Prefectural Board of Education.
Ichiniwa 市庭
Sahara Makoto 佐原真, ed. 1976 Heijō Kyū Hakkutsu Chōsa Hōkoku 『平城宮発掘調査報告書』[Reports of Archaeological Excavations at the Nara Imperial Palace]VII. Nara National Research Institute of Cultural Properties 奈良国立文化財研究所, Nara.
Shimeno 神明野
Kaneko Hiroyuki 金子裕之, ed. 1993 Heijō Kyū Hakkutsu Chōsa Hōkoku 『平城宮発掘調査報告書』[Reports of Archaeological Excavations at the Nara Imperial
Palace] XIV. Nara National Research Institute of Cultural Properties, Nara.
Konabe コナベ(Candidate for an imperial mausoleum)
Nakai Kō 中井 公, Akatsuka Jirō 赤塚次郎 and Hino Michiyo 日野美智代 1980
Konabe Kofun Zempōbu Minami Gaitei Hakkutsu Choōsa Hōkoku 「コナベ古墳前方部南外堤発掘調査報告」[Report of Excavation of the Dike to the Southof the Frontal Section of the Konabe Mounded Tomb]. Nara Shi Maizō Bunkazai
Chōsa Hōkokusho 『奈良市埋蔵文化財調査報告書』[Report of Archaeological
Excavations in Nara City], 1979, edited by Morishita Keisuke 森下恵介 and NakaiKō, pp. 81–102. Nara Municipal Board of Education.
Kinoshita Wataru 木下亘 and Mizuno Toshinori 水野敏典 1998 Saki-Tatenami Kofun
Gun, Shōrin-En Hakkutsu Chōsa Gaihō 「佐紀・盾列古墳群、松林苑発掘調査
概報」[Preliminary Report of Excavations at the Saki Mounded Tomb Groupand the Shōrin-En Garden]. Nara-Ken Iseki Chōsa Gaihō, 1997, Pt. 1, pp. 1–7.
Archaeological Institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture and Nara Prefectural
Board of Education.
Arima Shin, Seiki Yūji, and Katō Ichirō 2011 Konabe Ryōbo Sankōchi Fun’ei Gogan
sonota Seibi Kōji ni-tomonau Jizen Chōsa 「小奈辺陵墓参考地墳塋裾護岸その他整備工事に伴う事前調査」[Excavations Prior to the Works of Reinforcing
the Foot of and other Maintenance of the Mound of a Candidate for an Imperial
Mausoleum of Konabe]. Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No.62 (Mausolea), pp. 7–32.
Tōin 東院 Compound of the Nara Imperial Palace, SX17455
Seino Takayuki 清野孝之 1997 Haniwa Kan (SX17455) no Chōsa「埴輪棺（SX17455）の調査」[Investigation of Coﬃn Recycled from Haniwa (Feature SX17455)]. Nara
© Japanese Archaeological Association

69

HIROSE Satoru

38.

39.

40.

41.

Kokuritsu Bunkazai Kenkyū-Jo Nempō『奈良国立文化財研究所年報』[Annual
Report of the Nara National Research Institute of Cultural Properties], 1997-III,
pp. 22–24.
Hishiage ヒシアゲ (Empress Iwa’s Mausoleum; Nara-no-Sakanoue-no-Misasagi)
Kasano Takeshi and Satō Toshihide 1996 Nara-no-Sakanoue-no-Misasagi Seibi Kōji
Kuiki no Chōsa 「平城坂上陵整備工事区域の調査」[Excavations Prior to the
Maintenance Works of Empress Iwa’s Masusoleum]. Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No. 47, pp.
89–116.
Uwanabe ウワナベ(Candidate for an imperial mausoleum)
Machida Akira 町田章, ed. 1975 Heijō Kyū Hakkutsu Chōsa Hōkoku 『平城宮発掘調査報告書』[Reports of Archaeological Excavations at the Nara Imperial Palace],
VI. Nara National Research Institute of Cultural Properties, Nara.
Sugawara-Higashi 菅原東
Kanekata Masaki 鐘方正樹, Yasui Nobuya 安井宣也 and Nakajima Kazuhiko 中島
和彦 1992 Sugawara-Higashi Iseki no Chōsa Dai-200-ji 「菅原東遺跡の調査—
第 200次」[200th Excavation at the Sugawara-Higashi Site]. Nara Shi Maizō
Bunkazai Chōsa Gaiyō Hōkokusho: Heisei-3-Nendo 『奈良市埋蔵文化財調査
概要報告書—平成 3年度』[Preliminary Reports of Archaeological Excavations
in Nara City in 1991], edited by Nakai Kō, pp. 4–23. Nara Municipal Board of
Education.
Hōraisan 宝来山(Emperor Suinin’s Mausoleum; Sugawara-no-Fushimi-no-Higashi-no
Misasagi)
Katō Ichirō 2013 Suinin Tennō Sugawara-no-Fushimi-no-Higashi-no Misasagi Saishū
no Haniwa ni-tsuite 「垂仁天皇 菅原伏見東陵採集の埴輪について」[Haniwa
Collected on the Mound Surface of Emperor Suinin’s Mausoleum]. Shoryō-Bu
Kiyō, No. 64 (Mausolea), pp. 19–30.

Kyoto Prefecture
42. Shibagahara 芝ケ原 No. 12
Kondō Yoshiyuki 近藤義行 1987 Shibagahara Kofun 『芝ケ原古墳』[Shibagahara
Mounded Tomb]. Jōyō Shi Bunkazai Chōsa Hōkokusho 城陽市文化財調査報告書[Report of Investigations into Cultural Heritages of Jōyō City], No. 16. Jōyō
Municipal Board of Education 城陽市教育委員会, Kyoto.
Koizumi Hiroshi 小泉裕司, Iwamoto Takashi 岩本崇, Kishimoto Naofumi 岸本直文,
Shimogaki Hitoshi 下垣仁志, Tamura Tomomi 田村朋美, Nakahara Kei 中原計,
Nakamura Daisuke 中村大介, Nagatomo Tomoko 長友朋子, and Warashina Tetsuo 藁
科哲男 2014 Shibagahara Kofun Hakkutsu Chōsa Seibi Hōkokusho 『芝ケ原古墳
発掘調査・整備報告書』[Report of Archaeological Excavations and Restorationsof the Shibagahara Mounded Tomb]. Jōyō Shi Bunkazai Chōsa Hōkokusho, No.
68. Jōyō Municipal Board of Education, Kyoto.
43. Kutsukawa Kurumazuka 久津川車塚© Japanese Archaeological Association

70

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPANKondō Yoshiyuki and Tsujimoto Kazumi 辻本和美 1976 Kurumazuka Kofun Hakkutsu
Chōsa Gaihō 「車塚古墳発掘調査概報」[Preliminary Report of Archaeological
Excavation of the Kurumazuka Mounded Tomb]. In Jōyō Shi Bunkazai Chōsa
Hōkokusho, No. 4, edited by Kondō Yoshiyuki, pp. 18–26. Jōyō Municipal Boardof Education, Kyoto.
Kondō Yoshiyuki and Iga Takahiro 伊賀高弘 1986 Kutsukawa Kurumazuka Kofun,
Maruzuka Kofun Hakkutsu Chōsa Gaihō 「久津川車塚古墳・丸塚古墳発掘調査概報」[Preliminary Report of Archaeological Excavations of the Kutsukawa
Kurumazuka and Maruzuka Mounded Tombs]. In Jōyō Shi Bunkazai Chōsa
Hōkokusho, No. 15, edited by Staﬀ of the Dept. of Public Education of the City 城
陽市社会教育課, pp. 49–73. Jōyō Municipal Board of Education, Kyoto.
Kondō Yoshiyuki and Iga Takahiro 1987 Kutsukawa Iseki Gun Hakkutsu Chōsa
Gaihō 「久津川遺跡群発掘調査概報」[Preliminary Report of Archaeological
Excavations of the Kutsukawa Sites]. In Jōyō Shi Bunkazai Chōsa Hōkokusho,
No. 17, edited by staﬀ of the Division of Social Learning, Jōyō Municipal Boardof Education, pp. 1–36. Jōyō Municipal Board of Education, Kyoto.
Koizumi Hiroshi and Fuchiuchi Michiko 渕内美智子 2010 Shikutsu Chōsa 1,
Kurumazuka Kofun no Chōsa 「試掘調査 1. 久津川車塚古墳の調査」[Test
Trench 1, Excavation at the Kutsukawa Kurumazuka]. In Jōyō Shi Bunkazai
Chōsa Hōkokusho, No. 60, edited by staﬀ of the Jōyō Municipal Board of
Education, pp. 18–25. Jōyō Municipal Board of Education, Kyoto.
44. Kawaradani 瓦谷 No. 11
Ishii Kiyoshi 石井清司 and Arii Hiroyuki 有井広幸, eds. 1997 Kawaradani KofunGun 『瓦谷古墳群』[Kawaradani Mounded Tomb Group]. (Kyoto Fu Iseki Chōsa
Hōkokusho 京都府遺跡調査報告書[Report of Archaeological Investigations
in Kyoto Prefecture], No. 23. Kyoto Prefectural Center of Archaeological
Operations, Kyoto.
45. Terado-Ōtsuka 寺戸大塚
Kondō Kakaichi 近藤喬一 and Tsude Hiroshi 1971 「京都向日丘陵の前期古墳群の調査」『史林』第 54巻第 6号, pp. 116–139.
Umemoto Yasuhiro 梅本康広, ed. 1999 Terado-Ōtsuka Kofun: Dai-6-ji Chōsa no
Seika 『寺戸大塚古墳—第 6次調査の成果—』[Terado-Ōtsuka Mounded Tomb:
Results of the Sixth Excavation]. (Mukō Shi Bunkazai Chōsa Hōkokusho 向日
市文化財調査報告書 [Report of Investigations into Cultural Heritages of Mukō
City], No. 49). Mukō Municipal Board of Education, Kyoto.
Kunishita Tamiki 國下多美樹 and Nakatsuka Ryō 中塚良, eds. 2000 Terado-Ōtsuka
Kofun Dai-7-ji (4PTBSM-7 Chiku) Hakkutsu Chōsa Hōkoku 「寺戸大塚古墳第7次（4PTBSM-7地区）発掘調査報告」[Report of the Seventh Excavations at
the Terado-Ōtsuka Mounded Tomb (Locality4PTBSM-7)]. (Mukō Shi Bunkazai
Chōsa Hōkokusho, No. 50). Mukō Municipal Board of Education, Kyoto.
46. Baba 馬場 No. 1 square moated burial© Japanese Archaeological Association

71

HIROSE Satoru

Chikida Atsushi 千喜田敦 1991 Ukyō Dai-228-ji (7ANLID-2 Chiku) Chōsa
Ryakuhō 「右京第 228次（7ANLID-2 Chiku 地区）調査略報」[Brief Reportof the 228th Excavation in the Western Sector of the Nagaoka Capital (Locality
7ANLID-2) ]. Nagaokakyō Shi Maizō Bunkazai Center Nempō 『長岡京市埋蔵文化財センター年報』[Annual Report of the Nagaokakyō City Center for
Archaeological Operations], For 1989, pp. 106–109.
Osaka Prefecture
48. Shin’ike 新池
Morita Katsuyuki 森田克行 1993 Shin’ike 『新池』[Shin’ike Haniwa Kiln]. (TakatsukiShi Bunkazai Chōsa Hōkokusho 高槻市文化財調査報告書), No. 17. Takatsuki
Municipal Board of Education, Osaka Prefecture.
49. Daisen 大山(Emperor Nintoku’s Mausoleum; Mozu-no-Mimihara no Naka no
Misasagi)
Tokuda Masashi, Katō Ichirō, Tsuchiya Takafumi 土屋隆史, and Amabe Hiroshi 海邉博史 2020 Nintoku Tennō Mozu-no-Mimihara no Naka no Misasagi Dai-1
Tsutsumi ni-okeru Ikō Ibutsu Kakunin no-tameno Jizen Chōsa 仁徳天皇百舌鳥
耳原中陵第 1堤における遺構・遺物確認のための事前調査[Test Excavation Prior
to Excavation on the First Dike Enclosing Emperor Nintoku’s Mausoleum].
Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No. 71 (Mausolea), pp. 28–74.
50. Mozu-Gobyōyama 百舌鳥御廟山
Uchimoto Katsuhiko 内本勝彦 1994 Gobyōyama Kofun (Shūgōbu) Hakkutsu Chōsa
Gaiyō Hōkoku 「御廟山古墳（周濠部）発掘調査概要報告」[Preliminary Reportof Excavation of the Moat Enclosing the Gobyōyama Mounded Tomb]. In SakaiShi Bunkazai Chōsa Gaiyō Hōkoku 『堺市文化財調査概要報告』[Preliminary
Reports of Excavations in Sakai City], No. 44, edited by Uchimoto Katsuhiko, pp.
1–23. Sakai 堺 Municipal Board of Education.
51. Chino’oka 乳岡Shirakami Noriyuki 白神典之 1986 Chino’oka Kofun 「乳の岡古墳」[Chino’oka
Mounded Tomb]. In Hirai Iseki, Fu Tōki-Senzuka 29-Gōfun Hakkutsu Chōsa
Hōkoku, Fu Mozu Kofun-Gun Hakkutsu Chōsa Hōkoku 『平井遺跡 附 陶器
千塚 29号墳発掘調査報告 附 百舌鳥古墳群発掘調査報告』[Hirai Site, With
Appendix of Reports of Excavations at the Tōki-Senzuka No.29 Mounded Tomb
and the Mozu Mounded Tomb Group], pp. 141–146. (Sakai-Shi Bunkazai Chōsa
Hōkoku 堺市文化財調査報告), No. 25. Sakai Municipal Board of Education.
52. Kami’ishizu-Misanzai 上石津ミサンザイ(Emperor Richū’s Mausoleum, Mozu-noMimihara no Minami no Misasagi)
Kasano Takeshi and Fukuo Masahiko 1995 Richū Tennō Mozu-no-Mimihara no
Minami no Misasagi no Funkyū Gaikei oyobi Shutsudohin 「履中天皇百舌鳥
耳原南陵の墳丘外形及び出土品」[Mound Exterior and Artifacts of Emperor
Richū’s Mausoleum]. Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No. 46, pp. 77–101.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

72

THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPAN53. Haji-Nisanzai 土師ニサンザイ
Uchimoto Katsuhiko, ed. 2018 Nisanzai Kofun Hakkutsu Chōsa Hōkokusho 『ニサンザイ古墳発掘調査報告書』[Report of Excavations at the Nisanzai MoundedTomb]. (Mozu Kofun-Gun no Chōsa 百舌鳥古墳群の調査 Investigations into
the Mozu Mounded Tomb Group), No. 11. Sakai Municipal Board of Education,
Osaka Prefectrue.
54. Tsudō-Shiroyama 津堂城山
Amano Sueki 天野末喜 1986 Tsudō-Shiroyama Kofun 「津堂城山古墳」[TsudōShiroyama Mounded Tomb]. Furuichi Kofun-Gun 『古市古墳群』[Furuichi
Mounded Tomb Group], edited by Nagai Hideaki 長井英昭, Amano Sueki, Akai
Takehiko 赤井毅彦, Nakanishi Yasuhiro 中西康裕, and Ōmura Takako 大村貴子,
pp. 42–49. Fujiidera 藤井寺 Municipal Board of Education, Osaka.
Yamada Yukihiro 山田幸弘, ed. 2013 Tsudō-Shiroyama Kofun『津堂城山古墳』[TsudōShiroyama Mounded Tomb] (Furuichi Kofun-Gun no Chōsa Kenkyū Hōkoku
古市古墳群の調査研究報告 Investigations into the Furuichi Mounded Tomb Group), IV
Fujiidera 藤井寺 Municipal Board of Education, Osaka.
55. Oka-Misanzai 岡ミサンザイ
Amano Sueki 1987 Oka-Misanzai Kofun no Chōsa 「岡ミサンザイ古墳の調査」[Excavation at the Oka-Misanzai Mounded Tomb]. Ishi-kawa Ryūiki IsekiGun Hakkutsu Chōsa Hōkokusho 『石川流域遺跡群発掘調査報告書』[Report ofArchaeological Excavations at Sites in the Ishi River Tributary Area], II, editedby Amano Sueki, Yamada Yukihiro 山田幸弘, and Nakanishi Yasuhiro 中西康
裕、pp. 197–203. Fujiidera Municipal Board of Education, Osaka.
Sasaki Osamu 佐々木理 1999 Oka-Misanzai Kofun no Chōsa 「岡ミサンザイ古墳の調査」 Ishi-kawa Ryūiki Iseki-Gun Hakkutsu Chōsa Hōkokusho XIV, edited by Ueda
Mutsumi 上田睦, pp. 105–115. Fujiidera Municipal Board of Education, Osaka.
57. Minegazuka 峯ケ塚
Shimoyama Keiko 下山恵子 and Yoshizawa Norio 吉澤則男, eds. 2002 Shiseki Furuichi
Kofun-Gun Minegazuka Kofun Kōen-Bu Hakkutsu Chōsa Hōkokusho 『史跡
古市古墳群 峯ケ塚古墳後円部発掘調査報告書』[Report of Excavations at theCircular Section of the Minegazuka Mounded Tomb in the Furuichi Mounded
Tomb Group, Historic Site]. Habikino 羽曳野 Municipal Board of Education.
58. Banjōyama 蕃上山古墳
Nishitani Tadashi 西谷正 1965 Fujinomori Banjōyama Ni Kofun no Chōsa 『藤の森・蕃上山二古墳の調査』[Excavations at two Mounded Tombs of Fujinomori andBanjōyama]. Osaka Prefectural Board of Education.
59. Hazamiyama はざみ山古墳
Sasaki Osamu, ed. 2018 Hazamiyama Kofun 『はざみ山古墳』[Hazamiyama
Mounded Tomb]. Fujiidera Shi Bunkazai Chōsa Hōkokusho 藤井寺市文化財調査
報告書[Report of Investigations into Cultural Heritages of Fujiidera City], No. 43.
Fujiidera Municipal Board of Education, Osaka.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

73

HIROSE Satoru

60. Hakayama 墓山
Kitano Kōhei 北野耕平 1994 Hakayama Kofun 「墓山古墳」[Hakayama MoundedTomb]. In Habikino-Shi Shi 『羽曳野市史』[History of Habikino City], Vol.
3 (Data, Pt. 1), edited by Kitano Kōhei, pp. 183–194. Habikino Municipal
Government, Osaka Prefecture.
61. Karusato 軽里 No. 4
Kawachi Kazuhiro 河内一浩 Furuichi Ōmizo (Karusato 4-Gōfun) Hakkutsu Chōsa
Gaihō 『古市大溝（軽里4号墳）発掘調査概報』[Preliminary Report of Excavation
at the Karusato No. 4 Mounded Tomb]. Habikino Municipal Board of Education.
62. Maenoyama 前の山 (Mausoleum of Prince Yamato Takeru, Shiratori no Misasagi)
Tokuda Masashi, Seiki Yūji, and Arima Shin 2003 Shiratori-no-Misasagi Fun’ei
Gogan sonota Kōji Kuiki no Chōsa 「白鳥陵墳塋裾護岸その他工事区域の調査」[Excavation Prior to the Work of Reinforcing the Foot and other Works at the
Shiratori Mausoleum]. Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No. 54, pp. 19–58.
63. Konda-Gobyōyama 誉田御廟山(Emperor Ōjin’s Masusoleum; Ega-no-Mofushi-noOka no Misasagi)
Ichinose Kazuo 一瀬和夫 and Itō Masafumi 伊藤雅文 1981 Ōjin-Ryō Kofun Gaitei
Hakkutsu Chōsa Gaiyō 『応神陵古墳外堤発掘調査概要』[Preliminary Reportof Excavation on the Outer Dike Enclosing Emperor Ōjin’s Masusoleum]. Osaka
Prefectural Board of Education.
Ichinose Kazuo 1988 Ōmizu-gawa Kaishū ni-tomonau Hakkutsu Chōsa Gaiyō 『大水川改修にともなう発掘調査概要』[Preliminary Report of Excavations Conducted
Prior to the Rerouting the Ōmizu Stream]V. Osaka Prefectural Board of
Education.
Ichinose Kazuo 1989 Ōmizu-gawa Kaishū ni-tomonau Hakkutsu Chōsa Gaiyō VI.
Osaka Prefectural Board of Education.
64. Nakatsuyama 仲津山(Empress Nakatsu’s Mausoleum)
Ichinose Kazuo 1988 Ōmizu-gawa Kaishū ni-tomonau Hakkutsu Chōsa Gaiyō, V.
Osaka Prefectural Board of Education.
Ueda Mutsumi 1993 「仲津山古墳の調査93–1区」 Ishi-kawa Ryūiki Iseki-Gun Hakkutsu
Chōsa Hōkokusho VIII, edited by staﬀ of the Fujiidera Municipal Board of Education,
pp. 205–220. Fujiidera Municipal Board of Education, Osaka.
65. Ichinoyama 市野山
Ichinose Kazuo 1981 Ingyō-Ryō Gaitei no Chōsa: Kou Iseki 80–3 Ku 『允恭陵古墳外堤の調査—国府遺跡 80–3区』[Report of Excavation on the Outer Dike
Enclosing Emperor Ingyō’s Masusoleum: Locality 80–3 of the Kou Site]. Osaka
Prefectural Board of Education.
66. Coﬃn in the lower stratum of the Akagozuka 赤子塚
Amano Sueki and Sasaki Osamu 2003 Haniwa Taido Bunseki ni-tsuiteno
Oboegaki 「埴輪胎土分析についての覚書」[Note on Analysis of Raw Material
Clay of Haniwa]. Ishi-kawa Ryūiki Iseki-Gun Hakkutsu Chōsa Hōkokusho,© Japanese Archaeological Association

74THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPANXVIII, edited by Amano Sueki, Yamada Yukihiro 山田幸弘, Ueda Mutsummi,
Shinkai Yoshio 新開義夫, Sasaki Osamu, and Kawamura Kazuko 川村和子, pp.
177–181. Fujiidera Municipal Board of Education, Osaka.
67. Chō’onji-Kita 潮音寺北Ueda Mutsumi 2009 Hajinosato Iseki no Chōsa 「土師の里遺跡の調査」[Excavation
at the Hajinosato Site]. Ishi-kawa Ryūiki Iseki-Gun Hakkutsu Chōsa Hōkokusho,
XXVIII, edited by staﬀ of the Fujiidera Municipal Board of Education, pp. 26–74.
Fujiidera 藤井寺 Municipal Board of Education, Osaka.
68. Tamateyama 玉手山 Mound Groupa. No. 1 Mound
Ishida Narutoshi 石田成年 and Kondō Kōji 近藤康司 1988 Tamateyama 1-Gōfun
Han’i Kakunin Hakkutsu Chōsa Gaihō 『玉手山 1号墳範囲確認調査概報』[Preliminary Report of Excavation to Determine Spatial Extent of theTamateyama No. 1 Mounded Tomb]. Study Group of Ancient Culture of
Kashiwara City 柏原市古文化研究会．
Kishimoto Naofumi 岸本直文, ed. 2010 Tamateyama 1-Gōfun no Kenkyū 『玉手山1号墳の研究』[Study on the Tamateyama No. 1 Mounded Tomb]. (Report ofArchaeological Study at Osaka City University 大阪市立大学考古学研究報告),No. 4.
b. No. 3 Mound
Yasumura Toshifumi 安村俊史, ed. 2001 Tamateyama Kofun-Gun no Kenkyū 『玉手山古墳群の研究』[Study on the Tamateyama Mounded Tomb Group], I (Haniwa).
Kashiwara 柏原 Municipal Board of Education, Osaka.
Kishimoto Naofumi 2005 Tamateyama 3-Gōfun no Chōsa 「玉手山 3号墳の調査」[Excavation at Tamateyama No. 3 Mounded Tomb]. In Tamateyama
Kofun-Gun no Kenkyū, V (Conclusion), edited by Ishida Narutoshi, pp. 19–32.
Kashiwara 柏原 Municipal Board of Education, Osaka.
Kishimoto Naofumi, ed. 2010 Tamateyama 3-Gōfun no Hakkutsu Chōsa Gaihō 『玉手山 3号墳の発掘調査概報』[Preliminary Report of Excavation at Tamateyama No.
3 Mounded Tomb]. Dept. of Japanese History, Osaka City University.
c. No. 7 Mound
Kishimoto Naofumi and Koshi Kokoro 高志こころ, eds. 2004 Tamateyama 7-Gōfunno Kenkyū 『玉手山 7号墳の研究』[Study on the Tamateyama No. 7 MoundedTomb]. (Report of Archaeological Study at Osaka City University), No. 1.
d. No. 9 Mound
Yasumura Toshifumi, ed. 1983 Tamateyama 9-Gōfun 『玉手山 9号墳』[Tamateyama
No. 9 Mounded Tomb]. Kashiwara Municipal Board of Education, Osaka.
69. Tsukanomoto 塚ノ本
Itō Tōru 井藤徹, Inokuma Asami 猪熊朝美, Imamura Michio 今村道雄, Otani
Masahiko 尾谷雅彦, Sakai Ryūichi 酒井龍一, Sugimoto Jirō 杉本二郎, Terakawa
Shirō 寺川史郎, Nakanishi Yasuto 中西靖人, Hatake Yōko 畑暢子, Fujisawa© Japanese Archaeological Association

75

HIROSE Satoru

Mayori 藤沢真依, Funayama Ryōichi 舟山良一, and Murakami Toshio 村上年
生 1978 Nagahara 『長原』[Nagahara Site]. Osaka Center for Cultural Heritage

Management and Osaka Prefectural Board of Education.
70. Kyūhōji 久宝寺 Site, Ryūge 竜華 Locality
Nishimura Ayumu 西村歩, ed. 2004 Kyūhōji Iseki Ryūge Chiku Hakkutsu Chōsa
Hōkokusho 『久宝寺遺跡・竜華地区発掘調査報告書』[Report of Excavations
at the Kyūhōji Site, Ryūge Locality], IV. Osaka Center for Cultural Heritage
Management, Osaka Prefecture.
71. Kayafuri 萱振 No. 1
Hirose Masanobu 廣瀬雅信, ed. 1992 Kayafuri Iseki 『萱振遺跡』[Kayafuri Site].
Osaka Prefectural Board of Education.
Outside the Central Polity Region (The numbers match those in Figure 2)
1. Ōta-Tenjin’yama 太田天神山
Shimada Takao 島田孝雄, ed. 1990 Tenjin’yama Kofun Sotobori, A-Baichō: Han’i
Kakunin Chōsa 『天神山古墳外堀・ A 陪塚—範囲確認調査—』 Ōta 太田
Municipal Board of Education, Gumma Prefecture.
Miyata Takeshi 宮田毅, Kanazawa Makoto 金澤誠, and Shin’yama Yasukazu 新山保
和 1999 Tenjin’yama Kofun Sotobori Hakkutsu Chōsa Hōkokusho 『天神山古墳
外堀発掘調査報告書』[Report of Excavations of the Outer Moat Enclosing theTenjin’yama Mounded Tomb]. Ōta 太田 Municipal Board of Education, Gumma
Prefecture.
3. Shōrinzan 松林山
Hirano Tōru 平野徹, Saguchi Setsushi 佐口節司, and Takeuchi Naofumi 竹内直文 1992
Heisei Gan-nen-do Shōrinzan Kofun Hakkutsu Chōsa Hōkokusho 『平成元年度
松林山古墳発掘調査報告書』[Report of Excavation at the Shōrinzan Mounded
Tomb in 1989]. Iwata 磐田 Municipal Board of Education, Shizuoka Prefecture.
4. Maeda-Machiya 前田町屋
Hiei Tomoko 日栄智子 1997 Maeda-Machiya Iseki Hakkutsu Chōsa Hōkokusho 『前田町屋遺跡発掘調査報告』[Report of Excavation at the Maeda-Machiya Site]. (MieKen Maizō Bunkazai Chōsa Hōkoku 三重県埋蔵文化財調査報告[Report ofArchaeological Excavations in Mie Prefecture], No. 154. Mie Prefectural Boardof Education.
Niina Tsuyoshi 新名強 1999 Maeda-Machiya Iseki Dai-2-Ji Chōsa 『前田町屋遺跡
第 2次調査』[[Report of the Second Excavation at the Maeda-Machiya Site].
(Mie-Ken Maizō Bunkazai Chōsa Hōkoku), No. 174. Mie Prefectural Board of
Education.
6. Goshikizuka 五色塚
Maruyama Kiyoshi 丸山潔, ed. 2006 Shiseki Goshikizuka Kofun, Kotsubo Kofun
Hakkutsu Chōsa Fukugen Seibi Hōkokusho 『史跡 五色塚古墳 小壺古墳発掘調査・復元整備報告書』[Report of Excavations and Restoration Projects at© Japanese Archaeological Association

76THE PRODUCTION OF HANIWA AND STATE FORMATION IN JAPANthe Goshikizuka and Kotsubo Mounded Tombs, Historic Sites]. Kobe Municipal
Board of Education, Hyōgo Prefecture.
7. Zōzan [Tsukuriyama] 造山
Nishikawa Hiroshi 西川宏 1986 Zōzan Kofun 「造山古墳」[Zōzan Mounded Tomb].
Okayama-Ken Shi 『岡山県史』[History of Okayama Prefecture], Archaeology,
edited by Kondō Yoshirō, pp. 342–343. Okayama Prefectural Government.
Yasukawa Mitsuru 安川満 2011 Okayama-Shi Shozō no Zōzan Kofun Shutsudo
Haniwa 「岡山市所蔵の造山古墳出土埴輪」[Haniwa Collected at the Zōzan
Mounded Tomb in the Collection of the Okayama Municipal Government].
Okayama-Shi Manzō Bunkazai Center Kenkyū Kiyō 『岡山市埋蔵文化財ゼン
ター研究紀要』[Memoir of the Okayama Municipal Center for Archaeological
Operations], No. 3, pp. 54–59.
Kusahara Takanori 草原孝典 2014 Zōzan Kofun no Kiso-teki Kōsatsu 「造山古墳の基礎的考察」[Comprehensive Consideration of the Zōzan Mounded Tomb].
Okayama-Shi Manzō Bunkazai Center Kenkyū Kiyō, No. 6, pp. 71–101.
8. Yatani 矢谷
Kanai Kameyoshi 金井亀喜 and Ozu Takashi 小都隆, eds. 1981 Matsugasako
Iseki-Gun Hakkutsu Chōsa Hōkoku 『松ケ迫遺跡群発掘調査報告』[Report of
Excavations of the Matsugasako Site Group]. Hiroshima Prefectural Center for
Archaeological Operations 広島県埋蔵文化財調査センター .
9. Yanai-Chausuyama 柳井茶臼山
Kanaseki Hiroshi 金関恕, ed. 1999 Shiseki Yanai-Chausuyama Kofun 『史跡柳井茶臼山古墳』[Yanai-Chausuyama Mounded Tomb, Historic Site]. Yanai 柳井
Municipal Board of Education, Yamaguchi Prefecture.
11. Mesahozuka 女狭穂塚
Fukuo Masahiko 1984 Mesahozuka Kofun Ryōbo Sankōchi Shutsudo no Haniwa 「女狭穂塚古墳陵墓参考地出土の埴輪」[Haniwa Unearthed at the Candidate of Imperial
Mausoleum at Mesaho]. Shoryō-Bu Kiyō, No. 36, pp. 41–51.
Fukuo Masahiko 1993 Osahozuka, Mesahozuka 「男狭穂塚・女狭穂塚」[Osahozuka
and Mesahozuka Mounded Tombs]. Miyazaki-Ken Shi 『宮崎県史』[Historyof Miyazaki Prefecture], (Source Materials, Archaeology, Pt. 2), pp. 339–348.
Miyazaki Prefectural Governent.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

77