The Functions of Wooden Mallets: Focus on the
Kinki Region in Prehistoric and Ancient Times
MAEDA Hitoki1
ABSTRACTThe aim of this study is to reveal the functions of yokozuchi/kakeya wooden mallets excavatedfrom Prehistoric and Ancient sites mainly in Japan’s western Kinki region. These tools have beenused since prehistoric times to beat or pack straw, to drive stakes or piles, and for various otherpounding purposes, and are folk tools still in use today. In terms of shape, they seem to have hadsuch a wide variety of uses that little research has been done based on excavated artifacts to identify
their speciﬁc functions other than for pounding. In addition to their morphological attributes,
however, yokozuchi and kakeya mallets recovered from archaeological sites retain use marks, andan increasing amount of data on wood chosen for mallet making is being accumulated. What can weconclude in a comprehensive way about the functions of mallets considering these attributes? Whatrole did these tools play in the times and places they were used?
In this study I set up a quantitative framework of classiﬁcations by shape and infer the functions of
the tools from use marks and the type of wood used. Clear distinctions among yokozuchi, kakeya,
and yokozuchigata mallets were not previously made, and here I attempt to deﬁne the three focusing
on their shapes and elucidate their respective functions. Some of the yokozuchi for handcraft use
are distinct from the others in terms of shape. I also show that the yokozuchi with a conical head,as recovered from Yayoi- and Kofun-period sites, likely had functions diﬀerent from those of theyokozuchi with a cylindrical head. I lastly examine the functional transition of these tools over time,extending my discussion to artifacts excavated outside the Kinki region. This study thereby reveals
aspects of the distinctive selection of wood for yokozuchigata mallets as well as the process in which
rice-straw processing [rice-straw crafts] and the growing demand for construction of irrigation works
as the result of the introduction of wet-rice cultivation led to the stylization of yokozuchi and kakeya
shapes and their spread over a wide area. The introduction of the kizuchi wooden hammer, which goesback to the Ancient period, aﬀected the functions of the yokozuchi/kakeya.
KEYWORDS: Prehistoric and Ancient periods, Kinki region, yokozuchi/kakeya, kizuchi, tool
functions

Yamada Masahisa deﬁnes “yokozuchi/kakeya” (Figure 1) as wooden tools, among thoseused for beating or pounding objects, that have a head with a handle attached to it (Yamada
2003).1 They are among wooden artifacts recovered from many ancient wetland sites, but
1 Yamada uses the term “yokozuchi/kakeya” with a slash to cover all tools that are reported as “yokozuchi,” “kakeya,” or“yokozuchigata.” Since there are not deﬁnitions that clearly diﬀerentiate between them, I borrow the term “yokozuchi/
kakeya” for this paper.
1 Graduate

School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Yoshida-nihonmatsu-cho,
Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606–8501, Japan (maeda.hitoki.25s@st.kyoto-u.ac.jp)
Category: Original Article Received: 16 January 2022; Accepted: 10 April 2022
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 10 (2023): 71–115

MAEDA Hitoki

almost no systematic research has been
done about these mallets, except for thatby Watanabe Makoto (1985). We surmise,
however, that the functions and uses of
yokozuchi/kakeya tools for pounding
wood and beating plant ﬁber, may relate
to research on diverse topics such as
production of vessels made of wood, rice
Figure 1. Names of Parts of Yokozuchi/Kakeya
cultivation and subsistence, and utilization When the grip has no knob, handle length is theof beans. In other words, studying the same as eﬀective handle length.
functions of these mallets is basic toinvestigation of the history of the use of plant resources. The present study examines thefunctions mainly of yokozuchi and kakeya excavated from archaeological sites and reveals
the role they played in the periods they were in use.

1.

Research History and Problems

1-1. History of Research

The research history of yokozuchi/kakeya can be divided into three phases: ﬁrst, discovery
of artifacts; second, systematic research by Watanabe Makoto (1985); and third,
post-Watanabe (1985) research and proposals.

First phase: Discovery of artifacts

When wetland sites came to be investigated on a large scale in the 1930s–1950s,
discoveries of yokozuchi/kakeya from various sites began being reported (Ōba 1939;
Kobayashi & Suenaga 1942). These reports analyzed individual excavated artifacts; theystudied their functions, referencing not only pictorial historical sources and modern folk
artifacts, but also examining use marks. The reports also indicated that the tools were likely
used for pounding straw and cloth or for handcraft work.

Second phase: Watanabe’s systematic research (1985)

With increasing archaeological excavations of ancient wetlands, Watanabe Makoto
analyzed yokozuchi mallets recovered from sites2 across the country, giving close attention
to the similarities in shape to modern and contemporary yokozuchi folk tools (Watanabe
1985, 1989). His analysis identiﬁed eight functions for yokozuchi: pounding straw,
2 Watanabe (1989) deﬁnes yokozuchi as “a tool that consists of a head and handle that continue horizontally and seamlessly;

it is gripped by the handle and swung to strike an object with the head.” How Watanabe understood the kakeya is not known,so I use Yamada’s (2003) term “yokozuchi/kakeya” in this study.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

72

THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

crushing beans, straw crafts, pounding paper mulberry bark (kōzo), beating cloth, beating
cotton, as a tool of craft, and for making kubishiro/katashiro (eﬃgies used in rituals),noting that the last two functions developed from the uses for pounding straw and beans.
Showing that in folk tools these functions correspond to the shape or structure of the tools,
Watanabe applied this correspondence to archaeological artifacts and thereby believed
the functions of excavated yokozuchi were based on their shape and structure. He also
examined chronology of change for each function and demonstrated that the rise anddecline of a function was linked to subsistence in each relevant period. Using the analogy
with folk tools, Watanabe thus opened up a new approach to the study of tool function.

Third phase: Post-Watanabe research and proposals

After the publication of Watanabe 1985, yokozuchi/kakeya began being referred to instudies on relevant wooden artifacts as well as in reports of excavations of folk tools. Mostof these works, broadly speaking, followed Watanabe’s lead, but some posed doubts.
The Mokki shūsei zuroku, Kinki genshi-hen (Catalogue of Collection of Wooden
Artifacts, Prehistoric Kinki Region), edited by Uehara Mahito, touches on yokozuchi,
and, while much of the explanation is borrowed from Watanabe (1985), points out that,in the Yayoi to Kofun periods before kizuchi wooden mallets made of two diﬀerent kindsof wood came into being, the yokozuchi for handcraft use was not an adaptation of thefunction of an existing tool but had its own inherent function (Uehara ed. 1993). The
Mokki shūsei zuroku, moreover, puts the kakeya for handcraft use in a category separate
from the yokozuchi for agricultural use, thereby emphasizing the diﬀerence in terms offunction. The kakeya, it says, are often oval or angular in cross section in contrast to the
yokozuchi, which are most often round in cross section; the morphological deﬁnition of
kakeya is relative; the catalogue only says they are “over 50 centimeters in total lengthand larger than the yokozuchi.” It also indicates the possibility that some of the tools itclassiﬁes as yokozuchi might have a handcraft-tool-like function, but that, except for theircross-section shape, they are not distinguishable from other yokozuchi. The catalogue
further suggests that, among yokozuchi, those for handcraft use can be identiﬁed byobserving use marks. The catalogue includes “yokozuchigata” mallets in the category of
ritual tools, indicating the existence of small-sized yokozuchi in Prehistoric times, but thecatalogue gives no deﬁnition or details of “yokozuchigata” mallets.
Murakami Yumiko analyzes the folk tool yokozuchi and, while following the data
analysis methods of Watanabe (1985), pays particular attention to use marks (Murakami1997). As a folk tool, she maintains, the farming yokozuchi used for pounding plants
has a smooth, shiny surface whereas the yokozuchi for handcraft use often has a roughsurface from use or shows linear use marks. Therefore, she asserts, the yokozuchi used
for pounding plants and those used in craft work for striking hard objects are clearly© Japanese Archaeological Association

73

MAEDA Hitoki

distinguishable. In a separate study, she considers the functions of kakeya. In discussing
wedges (kusabi) unearthed from archaeological sites, she touches on the kakeya, which shesays “was quite likely a tool for driving in wedges,” adding that how to distinguish it fromthe tool for driving in stakes or piles (kui) is a question for further study (Murakami 2002).
Hozumi Hiromasa examines a group of tools, excavated at the Rokudai-A site in Mie
prefecture and the Ishikawa Jōri site in Nagano prefecture, that are shaped like smaller
versions of ordinary yokozuchi. “They might possibly be included among small-sizedpractical items,” he says, but, “The state in which they were found suggests they wereunused and probably reserved for ritual use.” Judging from the marks remaining from thecarving process and their conditions when excavated, he indicated the possibility that they
had a ritual function3 (Hozumi 2011).
In addition to the deﬁnition of yokozuchi/kakeya given above, the Kōko shiryō taikan
8: Moku/sen’i seihin (Encyclopedia of Archaeological Resources, Volume 8: Wooden
and Textile Artifacts), edited by Yamada Masahisa, states that the kakeya were large-typemallets but that there is no clear distinction between yokozuchi and kakeya (Yamada ed.
2003). Citing several examples of yokozuchi/kakeya from around the country, it roughly
explains the kakeya as made from hardwoods such as Cyclobalanopsis oak and often
utilized branching and other parts where the wood is solid and complex in structure.

1-2. Trends and Problems in Research History

In summary, while Watanabe (1985) discussed the speciﬁc agricultural functions ofyokozuchi/kakeya, there were also excavation reports from archaeological sites thatindicate the presence of large and small examples, suggesting that the yokozuchi/kakeya
might have had more diverse functions. Attention was focused especially on the position of
handcraft tools. Large tools and small tools are expected to have vastly diﬀered in function,and some reports call the former “kakeya” and the latter “yokozuchi.” Morphologicalclassiﬁcations based on functions have not yet been presented.
Watanabe (1985) also inferred yokozuchi/kakeya functions from folk tools based on theirsimilarities in shape. With simple tools like yokozuchi, however, function was not likely
to have been strongly limited by shape. It is necessary to identify attributes, other thanshapes, that reﬂect function and try to identify functions based on the artifacts excavated.

3 Hozumi holds that the wooden ritual objects thought of as katashiro (eﬃgies) came into existence in the Kofun period(Hozumi 2018). Among yokozuchigata (“yokozuchi-shaped”) and kinegata (“kine (pestle)-shaped”) tools there are some thatare similar in shape to the stone-imitation ishigine (stone pestles), Hozumi says, and considering them to derive from thestone pestles used to crush mineral cinnabar into powder, he concludes that the yokozuchigata and kinegata often correspondto tools recovered from kofun tumulus sites.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

74THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

2.

Methodology

2-1. Analytical Method and Object Scope

The research history outlined above forms the background against which this paper
examines the functions of yokozuchi/kakeya.4 Here we will look at their functional changes
over the course of the Prehistoric and Ancient times—with later developments also in
perspective—in relation to subsistence and the uses of plant resources, and discuss thehistorical signiﬁcance of yokozuchi/kakeya.
As attributes that reﬂect function, attention is focused on shape, type of wood, anduse marks. The shape attribute can be considered eﬀective in the broad classiﬁcation offunctions. But, since the yokozuchi/kakeya morphologically had a wide range of usage it isalso necessary to analyze use marks, which are attributes acquired at the stage of use. It ishighly likely, moreover, that the type of wood was selected according to function.
After proposing a classiﬁcation by shape, the following analyzes these tools by use marks
and type of wood. This section closes with a discussion of changes according to period.
The yokozuchi/kakeya examined here are artifacts excavated in the Kinki region (Osaka,
Nara, Shiga, Mie, and Kyoto prefectures). The scope of analysis is limited to the Kinki
region because of the assumption that the functional changes in yokozuchi/kakeya wererelated to wet-rice cultivation in the Yayoi period and the introduction of architectural
technology in the following Ancient times (Asuka, Nara, and Heian periods). The Kinki
area relatively uniformly entered the Yayoi period at an early stage and earliest ancient
Buddhist temples were built in the region by the government. A total of 155 wooden
mallets were collected, but since classiﬁcation was made with focus on the handle partof the tool, the 97 items with a handle existing in complete condition and excavated from
Prehistoric and Ancient sites were selected for analysis.

2-2. Organizing Functions and Terms Presented in Research History

The functions of yokozuchi/kakeya presented in previous studies can be organized into
three basic types: agricultural, handcraft, and symbolic (ritual) functions. The agriculturalfunctions, as identiﬁed by Watanabe (1985), were those for pounding straw (warauchi),crushing beans (mameuchi), and beating cloth (kinuta uchi).5 The yokozuchi/kakeya arealso assumed to have had the same function as that of a small tategine pestle (Uehara ed.
1993). The handcraft functions include those for pounding a stake or pile or driving in awedge (Murakami 2002), for straw crafts (Watanabe 1989), as well as for working with a
4 This study follows Yamada (2003)’s deﬁnition of yokozuchi/kakeya as tools with a handle and a head for the purpose ofpounding/beating/striking. The yokozuchi as a modern folk tool is called mingu yokozuchi (“folk tool yokozuchi”) here to
distinguish it from an archaeological artifact. Wooden hammers [to use the term you introduced above] made of two diﬀerent
kinds of wood instead of a single kind are referred to as “kizuchi” or “ōgata [large] kizuchi.”© Japanese Archaeological Association

75

MAEDA Hitoki

chisel or hatchet, or driving in earth-retaining planks (yaita). Among symbolic functions,scholars have pointed to the use of yokozuchi/kakeya for rituals, but mention them also as“assorted tools” (zatsugu), toys, and furniture (Watanabe 1985; Hozumi 2011).

3.

Classiﬁcation and Identiﬁcation of Functions

3-1. Morphological Classiﬁcation and Analysis

In classifying the mallets by shape, the ﬁrst criterion of categorization is the handle areawith the head part used as the second criterion of categorization (see Figure 1 for partterms). The handle is the part that is directly gripped with one or both hands by the user, so
it represents the most basic structure for the action of use. The head, on the other hand, iswhat directly acts on the object and is the part best suited for studying the functions of thetool on a ﬁner level.

The handle area

Presented here is a quantitative categorization focusing on handle length. “Eﬀective handle
length” is deﬁned as the part of handle that is gripped (Figure 1).6 The eﬀective handle
lengths for the 97 yokozuchi/kakeya tools that have a complete handle are represented in
the histogram in Figure 2. Based on the histogram, the tools can be divided into three types
by size: Type A (2 or more cm and less than 9cm), Type B (9 or more cm and less than
22cm), and Type C (22 or more cm and less than 34cm). The number of items belonging
to each type is: 22 for Type A, 67 for Type B, and 8 for Type C. Since the eﬀective handle
length indicates the length actually gripped, Type A has an extremely short handle, Type B
a medium-sized handle, and Type C a considerably long handle.
5 In this paper “beating cloth” (kinuta uchi) refers to beating silk and other ﬁber and textiles such as hemp, ramie, and cotton.

Cotton, however, did not spread widely until the sixteenth century (Nagahara 2004), and can be excluded from the discussionof the functions of Prehistoric and Ancient artifacts. The mallet for “beating cloth,” which functions like an adjusting tool bybeating soft textiles, should be considered to have agricultural functions as opposed to the handcraft functions of pounding
hard objects. Similar in function to “beating cloth” is pounding and softening the raw material used for making paperkōzo mulberry bark, hemp, and other plant ﬁbers. Such practices occurred later than the time under study here, however.
According to Yuyama Ken’ichi, who chronicles the history of writing paper, handmade paper (washi) was produced at staterun workshops until the ninth century; only when the centralized ritsuryō system started to go into decline did papermaking
develop as the private local industries that played a part in supporting people’s lives around the country (Yuyama 2017). The
tools for making paper, moreover, were likely produced in far smaller quantity than the tools for pounding straw, crushingbeans, and beating cloth, which were an essential part of subsistence, and therefore are not included as part of the discussion
in this paper. Watanabe (1985), however, conﬁrms examples of yokozuchi being used as papermaking tools in his studyof folk tools, suggesting the need for further research on the shape, types of wood, use marks, and so on of mallets used in
papermaking.
6 The eﬀective handle length is that part from the end knob to the border connecting to the head. There were a few examples
whose border between handle and head was very diﬃcult to determine, making them undistinguishable from a stick-shaped
wooden artifact in terms of shape and use mark. Since it could not be judged whether they were a beating tool or not, they
were excluded from analysis here.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

76THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

Figure 2.

Classiﬁcation by Eﬀective Handle Length

The head area

Next, each category is further subdivided by the measurements of the head. Volume andweight may diﬀer from one head to another depending on the beating object, and therefore
the analysis is performed with attention to the diameter7 and length of head, which arestrongly related to volume and weight. With head diameter on the vertical axis and headlength on the horizontal axis, the scatter plots present analysis for types A to C. Since
categorization is determined by the ratio of length and diameter of the head, inevitably theheads are expected to be similar to one another in shape among those of the same type.
Type A is classiﬁed with focus on the ratio of head diameter and head length (Figure 3).
Here, Type A can be organized into three groups—Type A-1, Type A-2, and Type A-3 inthe descending order of the number of items. Type A-1 is the group concentrated near the
least square line8 and 17 items belong to this group (Figure 7, Nos. 1 to 17). Type A-2, agroup with ratio larger than Type A-1, has 3 items (Figure 7, Nos. 18 to 20). Type A-3, agroup with ratio smaller than Type A-1, has 2 items (Figure 7, Nos. 21 to 22).
Type B is divided in four, separating the outliers from the box plot for head diameter andfor head length (Figure 4). The four are Type B-1, Type B-2, Type B-3, and Type B-4 indescending order of the number of items excavated. Type B-1 has 58 items, the largest of all
types studied. In Type B-1 there are two diﬀerent kinds in terms of head shape, one being
cylindrical (45 items; Figure 7, Nos. 23 to 27), the other conical (13 items; Figure 7, Nos. 28 to
32). The latter—“conical Type B”—has the circular head end that narrows toward the axis andmost in this group have a head that gradually narrows down toward the handle, but there are
exceptions like Figure 7, No. 30. Type B-2 (4 items) have considerably long heads and a large
head diameter9 (Figure 7, Nos. 33–34). Type B-3 (3 items) have considerably long heads but a7 When used, a wider surface area of the head is thought to act on the beating object; therefore, when the head is oval in crosssection its longer diameter is measured.
8 Type A-1 can be quantitatively deﬁned as the distance to the least square line (0.65x-y-1.16=0) being less than 0.9.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

77

MAEDA Hitoki

small head diameter (Figure 7, No. 35). Type
B-4 (2 items) have a considerably large head
diameter (Figure 7, No. 36).
With focus on the size of head diameter,
Type C can be classiﬁed into two groups(Figure 5). Type C-1 (5 items) have a large
head diameter (Figure 7, Nos. 37 to 38)
and Type C-2 (3 items) have a small head
diameter (Figure 7, No. 39). The foregoingis summed up in Figure 6.

3-2. Perspective of Type of Wood Used
Speciﬁc gravity

Figure 3.

Type A Classiﬁcation by Head

Diameter and Length
The speciﬁc gravity (relative density) ofwood selected for making yokozuchi/kakeya
is an indicator of the density of the material and is therefore strongly correlated with theweight and strength of the tool and presumably related to its functions.10 Lightweight andsoftwoods with low relative density is unlikely to be suitable for mallets.

TextureA rough-textured wood surface, which risks snagging the ﬁbers of cloth, is presumably
unsuitable for beating cloth, and this relates to function. This study is concerned with thetexture of the wood used. Wood texture “shows in relative terms the density and evennessof the grain of the wood” (Shimaji et al. 1985). In this paper texture is divided between“ﬁne” and “rough” in line with the distinction made by Kishima et al. 1977.11
9 One item in Type B-2 is not included in the outlier in the box plot (Figure 4), but the head length histogram shows it isdistinct from Type B-1 and the scatter plot, too, shows it near Type B-2, and so it is regarded as Type B-2.
10 For relative density of each wood material, the present study uses air dried speciﬁc gravity data published in the Genshoku
mokuzai daizukan (The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Wood) (Kishima et al. 1977) and Ki no daihyakka (The Encyclopedia ofWood) (Hirai 1996). It should be noted, however, that wood, a product of nature, varies greatly in density (Saeki 1993). For
wood materials identiﬁed at the genus or family level, the density of a representative wood of that genus or family is used. In
this paper, the term “broadleaf hardwood” is used to refer to heavy and hard broadleaf trees, such as Cyclobalanopsis (oak)and yabutsubaki (camellia), which were frequently used for making agricultural and handcraft tools.
11 Speciﬁcally, cited as “ﬁne textured” wood are shikimi star anise, Cupressaceae, kamatsuka photinia, Photinia, Pyroideae,
hisakaki (Eurya japonica), sakaki cleyera, yabutsubaki camellia, Osmanthus, and mochinoki ilex. Except for “ﬁne textured”
are ﬁr, Quercus, konara oak, Cerris, Cyclobalanopsis oak, kuri chestnut, and Callicarpa. In a case study of folk-tool
yokozuchi (Watanabe 1985), too, it is pointed out that, reﬂecting the diﬀerence in ﬁneness of texture—despite similarity ofmallet shape—“the relation between oak and camellia stands out, the former being used for pounding straw and the latter for
beating cloth.” As a similar example of study, Shimakura Misaburō wrote that the wood selected for making vertically-heldpounding pestles (tategine) “is either heavy and strong wood with the large vessel [that moves water from roots to leaves] or
ﬁne diﬀuse-porous wood with small vessel,” suggesting that the function might diﬀer depending on the vessel diameter anddensity of the wood (Shimakura 1979, 1983). Wood texture thus provides a useful analytical perspective.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

78

THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

Figure 4.

Type B Classiﬁcation by Head Diameter and Length

3-3. Categorization by Use Marks

With yokozuchi/kakeya, use marks12 are detected as concavities on the head. Use marks ofyokozuchi/kakeya excavated from archaeological sites are divided into three types (Figure8). The Use Mark I type shows no concavity on the side of the head and the sides of the
Use Mark II type13 are gently indented. The creases on the sides of the head of the UseMark III type14 are shallow and uneven; items partially with very deep creases also fall inthis category.
Considering the relationship between function and use-mark classiﬁcation, the Use MarkI type has no concavity for various possible reasons, such as that the tool was not used forbeating objects, or that the frequency of use was low, or that a use mark does not appear in
the form of a depression because the tool was for beating something with a broad surface.
When the tool is used to pound a soft object laid on a ﬂat board it would be diﬃcult for
it to leave a depression as a use mark. This is the likely tendency found for cloth-beating
12 In this paper, categorization of concavities on the head is treated as categorization of use marks. But these do notnecessarily correspond to the object of beating, because, as described later, the concavity might likely reﬂect frequency of useor the shape of the block upon which the object was beaten or pounded. With Use Marks I and II, especially, it is diﬃcult toestablish a strict relation with function, partly because frequency of use is involved. But, arguably, the concavities were madewhen the tool was in use, which would obviously mean they were closely related to the tool’s function. The concavities cantherefore be considered an eﬀective basis for the study of function. Meanwhile, a more elaborate analysis of use marks will
be necessary; for example, the overlapping of use marks needs further study.
13 Given the impact of earth pressure and reaction wood, dents or creases on opposite sides or all sides of the head would fall
into the Use Mark II type.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

79

MAEDA Hitoki

tools and for some of straw-pounding
tools.15 This also applies to tools of a ritualnature.
The Use Mark II type does not directly
reﬂect the object or material pounded. The
shallow concavity of the head is likely the
result of being used to pound a soft object
laid on a board that had a slightly convex
surface. Similar use marks are found on folk
tool yokozuchi used to pound straw placedon a rounded river stone16 (Figure 9).
The Use Mark III type presumably comesfrom striking such a hard object that the
Figure 5. Type C Classiﬁcation by Headwooden head was partially chipped or worn
Diameter and Lengthaway. The indentations may be consideredclosely linked to the function of a handcraft
tool to pound wedges or drive in stakes or piles.
Some reports present examples of yokozuchi with use marks on the top end of the head,suggesting it had a function like that of a vertically held tategine pestle. But, it was diﬃcult
to conﬁrm the use mark based only on the report’s illustrations or through observation after
14 Even when an illustration shows a very considerable depression on the head side there is a possibility that the mallet wasconverted, after its original purpose of use was over, into use as a board on which objects were pounded, causing the deep
concavity. An observation of the considerably dented head for the item in Figure 7, No. 27 shows it was struck by an ironblade at a sharp angle, most unlikely a mark left when the yokozuchi struck a blade. This example, moreover, is missing
half its side and blade marks are found near the missing surface, suggesting that, after the half side was lost, the wood wasrecycled as a board on which objects were cut with a bladed tool. Such examples, however, are rare and it is diﬃcult to judge
the piece from the illustrations; examples with marked depressions, including this one, are considered to belong to the UseMark III type. A more detailed diﬀerentiation of use marks requires conﬁrmation by actually observing individual examples.
The overlapping of use marks made both when the tool was used as a wooden mallet and when used as a cutting board also
calls for further discussion.
15 This is the ﬁnding of a folk tool survey. The Nara Prefectural Folk Museum conducted a survey of 22 folk yokozuchi for
beating cloth and found that none of them had a depression. It also found that, of 7 yokozuchi thought to have been used for
multiple purposes including pounding, 3 had no depression. The result seems to relate to the shape of a board on which theobject was beaten or the frequency of the tool’s use.
16 Mostly for pounding straw, it seems, river stone was used as a board on which straw or other such object was set andpounded with the yokozuchi folk tool. Note that the use-mark varies depending on frequency of use and how the object was
beaten. Figure 9 shows a yokozuchi folk tool that was used—together with a circular river stone serving as a board—at thisauthor’s house (a mountainous area in the southern part of Mie prefecture). I had an interview survey with my grandfather
who used the tool and board, concerning their function and how he used them. Yokozuchi folk tools are preserved at folk
museums and other such facilities across the country, but it is very rare that they are preserved paired with a board. The shapeof such a board is regarded as very important in this study to understand use marks, and folk tool examples are indispensable.
I am grateful to my grandfather, who carefully preserved the yokozuchi and board even after ceasing to use them and who
showed me in detail how he used them.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

80THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

Figure 6. Morphological Classiﬁcation
Small number indicates no. of artifacts.

preservative treatment had been applied. No relations with other attributes were found,either. The present study regards indentations or concavity only on the side of the head asuse mark.17

3-4. Classiﬁcation of Eﬀective Handle Length and Analysis

Classiﬁed eﬀective handle length is compared with the relative density of the type of woodand with the size of the head, to examine their respective correlations.

Handle length and the density of wood

Figure 10 shows types A to C of selected wood in descending order of their relative density.
As a whole it indicates that Cyclobalanopsis oak and yabutsubaki camellia, both with a heavy
density, were frequently used. Type A, consisting mainly of conifers and other relatively lightwoods, was an unsuitable selection for wooden mallets, which need to be heavy.
Type B, meanwhile, includes a diversity of wood, mainly solid broadleaf hardwoods, suchas Cyclobalanopsis oak and yabutsubaki camellia, which were common options for making
agricultural and handcraft tools. There are too few Type C examples, making it diﬃcult to
study the types of wood used, but broadleaf hardwoods were mostly chosen among the few
examples.
17 Even if, for example, a report says the top end of the head has a use mark, if the side of the head has no depression, thisfalls under the category of Use Mark I.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

81

MAEDA Hitoki

Figure 7.

Yokozuchi/Kakeya by Classiﬁcation© Japanese Archaeological Association

82THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

Handle length and head size

The size of the head is deﬁned as equal tohead length multiplied by head diameter,18
and its relationship with classiﬁcation by
eﬀective handle length is shown in thebox plots in Figure 11. A clear tendency
can be detected between the handle-lengthclassiﬁcation and head size; that is, a groupwith a longer eﬀective handle is likely tohave a larger head. Based on this correlation
it is possible to use head size to estimate
the classiﬁcation of eﬀective handle length.
Classiﬁcation by eﬀective handle length is a Figure 8. Classiﬁcation by Use Markmethod that can be applied to examples thatare missing handles.

Handle length and hand breadth

Finally, a comparison is made between
eﬀective handle length classiﬁcation andhand breadth. Since the eﬀective handle
length indicates the part of handle that isgripped, it is expected to have correlation
with the person’s hand breadth. The
average hand breadth of Japanese people
today is approximately 7.98 centimeters(Kōchi 2012), and this biological ﬁgure ofbreadth agrees very well with the Figure 2
histogram shown earlier. The hand-breadth
average value of 7.98 centimeters lies at theborder between types A and B, and the types Figure 9. Folk Tool Yokozuchi for Pounding
B and C border is equivalent to more than Straw (Use Mark II)
7.98cm×2. Considering that there should
be some leeway for grip on a handle, it is presumed that a tool with a type-A handle is
not used for gripping, that a tool with a Type B handle is held in one hand, and that a toolwith a Type C handle is held in both hands. The conclusion drawn here gives an importantsuggestion in describing the possible functions of each type of mallet. That is to say,while summing up the discussion in this section, we can assert that the Type A tool, made18 This equation is not precise because the head has a three-dimensional shape, but it can be a usable measurement.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

83

MAEDA Hitoki

Figure 10.

Wood Types for Eﬀective Handle Length Classiﬁcation

mainly of light wood like conifer trees, has a narrow-size head and is not used by gripping
the handle. The Type B tool, made mainly using the wood of broadleaf hardwoods has a
handle for a one-handed use, and the Type C tools have a wide head size and a handle longenough to be gripped with two hands. In other words, eﬀective handle length is closely
related to head size and hand breadth. From this we understand that eﬀective handle length
provides an important perspective from which to broadly classify functions.
What are the functions for types A, B, and C? Let us clarify them in the following
section by examining head diameter, a subcategory of the classiﬁcation of eﬀective handle
length.

3-5. Assumed Functions of Each Mallet Type
Correlation by type between wood type and use marks

Especially with types for which the number of items is large, graphs are used to show theircorrelations with wood and use marks (Figures 12 and 13).

Functions for types A-1, A-2, and A-3

With regard to Type A, its use as a beating tool is unthinkable because holding the handleof this type with a hand is diﬃcult as discussed earlier.
Let us ﬁrst consider tools of Type A-1 (Figure 7, Nos. 1 to 17). As morphological© Japanese Archaeological Association

84THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

characteristics, most of them have a gripwith an end knob and the head area isconical in shape, suggesting that there
might have been some speciﬁcations that
determined the shape. This typical shapewas especially notable for tools up to the
Early Kofun period. Although it is diﬃcult
to tell from the illustrations, Figure 7,
No. 5 and Figure 7, No. 11 are said to be
ﬁnely made (Shimizu et al. 1992; Sugiuraed. 2005). Overall, conifer wood was
frequently used for type A-1 (Figure 12).
Notably, the wood material from the Early
Kofun period identiﬁed is consistently
inugaya (plum yew). For this study, all theexamples made of inugaya are limited toType A, including those with the handle
part missing. This suggests that the mallets
in question had some special function that
required the use of the inugaya19 wood.
Regarding use marks, except for Figure 7,
No. 8, there is no noticeable depression on
the head categorized as Use Mark I (Figure13). Figure 7, No. 2 is worn down at its top
end and Figure 7, No. 6 is reported to havebeen used as a tategine pestle (Yamauchi Figure 11. Relationship between Effective
ed. 1995; Hirai et al. 2008). Many examples Handle Length Classiﬁcation and the Head Size
were excavated from ditches and sloughs,
and some, from the Late Kofun period, were found at well-known archaeological sitesof ritual such as the Rokudai-A site (Mie pref.) and Nangō-Ōhigashi site (Nara pref.).
Observation of shapes, wood material, use marks, and state upon excavation, therefore,
indicates that the likely functions of Type A-1 might be ritual nature, household goods,
toys, furniture, or small-type tategine pestle. If the tools of this type were toys, however,
it would be unnatural that they were highly crafted according to standard speciﬁcationsof material and shape. If they were small tategine, this also would raise a question of why
19 Outside the Kinki region there are some cases of inugaya having been used for yokozuchi. So, we cannot sweepingly
generalize this, but this wood is generally considered to have been “rarely utilized for wood product because the timber is too
small” (Hirai 1996). It is not a wood suitable for making farming or handcraft tools.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

85

MAEDA Hitoki

Figure 12.

Speciﬁc Gravity of Wood Types for Types A-1, B-1, and C-1

conifer wood, not broad-leaf wood, was chosen and, again, why they were highly crafted
according to standard speciﬁcations of material and shape. Given the above, it seems
appropriate to think that tools of type A-1 were not for beating objects but that most ofthem had a symbolic, such as ritual, function.
The three examples of Type A-2 (Figure 7, Nos. 18–20) are all from the Yayoi and
Kofun periods. They have an eﬀective handle length too short to grip, but their head islarge and wide and they all have a knob at the end of the grip. The woods selected forthis type are Cyclobalanopsis oak and shashanbo (sea bilberry). The head shaft shows nouse mark but the top end for Figure 7, Nos. 18 and 19, is worn away (Machida & Sawada
1981; Hama et al. 1998). These observations suggest that they were a type of tategine
pestle. If they were, the handle area could be shorter than for a mallet used in pounding andmight also have been used in combination with a karausu mill.
There are two items for Type A-3 from the Middle or Late Kofun period (Figure 7,
Nos. 21 and 22). Both have an elongated head and an end knob. The Figure 7, No. 22
example was so ﬁnely crafted that it was unlikely to have been used for practical purposes(Hama et al. 1998). One of the two is made of hinoki cypress and the other of kōyamaki
umbrella pine. Neither has marks of use. Although the number of examples for type A-3 isvery small, they are quite similar to those of type A-1 in terms of types of wood used and© Japanese Archaeological Association

86THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

presence or absence of use marks. For thetime being, I believe their function might
have been symbolic, perhaps ritual nature,
as for Type A-1.

Functions for types B-1, B-2, B-3, and
B-4

Examples of Type B-1 are the largest in
number among all types excavated andtherefore can be said to be most typicalof yokozuchi/kakeya. Morphologically,
too, they are more densely distributed in Figure 13. Relationship between Use Marks
the scatter plot than other types (Figure and Classiﬁcation
4). They are mallets to be held with one
hand. Using broad-leaf hardwoods suchas Cyclobalanopsis oak and yabutsubaki
camellia (Figure 12), and displaying all
three types of use marks, these examples
most likely had a wide variety of functions(Figure 13).
By shape of the head, this Type B-1 canbe further divided into Type B-1 cylindricaland Type B-1 conical. Both have statisticalsigniﬁcance in terms of ﬁneness/roughness Figure 14. Wood Texture for Type B-1 Cylindricalratio of texture (Figure 14) and in terms of and Conical (including examples with missing
use-mark (Figure 15).20 A higher proportion handle)of the conical type are assumed to havebeen made using a ﬁne-grained wood such as yabutsubaki camellia, and to have Use MarkI than type B-1 cylindrical. In terms of the presence or not of an end knob (Figure 16),
statistical signiﬁcance was not obtained, but the way they were processed seems to suggest
20 Statistical signiﬁcance was gained for Type B-1 cylindrical and conical mallets using Fisher’s exact test (probability level0.05). Items of comparison were ﬁneness of wood grain, presence or absence of Use Mark I type, and presence or not of anend knob. Test results show that ﬁneness of grain was P=0.08, Use Mark I P=0.06, and end knob P=0.11. Probability in eachcase is very low but not below 0.05. This, I think, is because the sample for type B-1 conical was very small. I re-tested for theconical type, this time including examples with missing parts. With the conical type there are a total of 12 items with the head
missing, and such items were also found for Type A-1 and Type A-2. Of the 12, four with a very small head were excluded as
Type A, and the remaining eight were added to Type B-1 conical mallets for re-testing. It was found that the ﬁneness of grain
this time was P=0.04 and Use Mark I was P=0.003, both below the signiﬁcance level. The re-testing was not performed as forthe presence or not of an end knob, which cannot be known when the head is missing. But the ﬁrst test results produced a low P
value, and so, if the sample size is increased the conical type will likely have a higher signiﬁcance level.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

87

MAEDA Hitoki

that many examples of the conical type havea carefully crafted end knob (Figure 7, Nos.
28 to 32).
First, let us look at the functions oftype B-1 conical mallets which have more
distinctive attributes than those of thecylindrical type. Tools for beating cloth,
which is ﬂat, do not easily show use marks,
and a ﬁne-grained wood surface is preferredover rough-grained wood by which fabric Figure 15. Presence or Absence of Use Mark I
might be snagged, as mentioned earlier. for Type B-1 Cylindrical and Conical (includingThis matches a characteristic of Type B-1 examples with missing handle)
conical mallets. Making the connection
between the head and handle by shaping
the head conically can be understood asa way of preventing fabric from getting
snagged when beating it. Meanwhile, given
the way the head was made conical21 andthe end knob crafted with care, there is also
the possibility that the mallet had a special
function such as of a ritual nature. Type A-1(Figure 7, Nos. 1 to 17) mallets are also agroup having conical heads and solid end
knobs. But, considering that conifer wood Figure 16. Presence or not of End Knob forType B-1 Cylindrical and Conicalwas mostly chosen for making the Type
A-1 mallets and broad-leaf hardwoods wereused for Type B-1 conical mallets, it is unlikely that both types were made for symbolic
purposes; it is more reasonable to conclude that Type A-1 alone consisted of symbolic
items that were so-to-speak miniature versions of the Type B-1 conical mallets made forhousehold use.
Next, with regard to Type B-1 cylindrical (Figure 7, Nos. 23 to 27) mallets, broadleaf
hardwoods were mostly selected for this type and all three kinds of use marks are found(Figure 13). This makes it diﬃcult to narrow down the functions, but the use marks aremostly of the I and II types, suggesting that the cylindrical type were mainly for practicaldaily use, such as in farming. Only a few examples, such as Figure 7, No. 26, display Use
Mark III, which indicates some were used for handcraft work. Type B-1 are dense in the
21 A cylindrical shape can be made using the natural surface of a round timber, but to make a conical shape requires going to

the trouble of shaving the head that gets narrower downward.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

88THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

scatter plot (Figure 4) and, morphologically, they were stylized. There is a high possibility,
therefore, that the Type B-1 cylindrical yokozuchi, which do not vary much in terms ofshape from one example to another, were made to be multifunctional tools from the outset.
These tools were presumably used, as needed, for pounding straw, crushing beans or forhandcraft purposes.22
While Type B-1 yokozuchi/kakeya are presumed to have generally had a variety offunctions, those of Type B-1 conical alone can be speciﬁed as being used for beating cloth
because of their shape and wood material that was determined by the special requirementthat the wood not snag fabric. Otherwise, function did not much determine shape, and it isassumed that Type B-1 tools, most of them cylindrical in shape, were used for a variety of
purposes. Further research on individual items’ use marks and types of wood used will beneeded to open up more insight on their functions.
Regarding Type B-2 (Figure 7, Nos. 33 to 34), all the four examples of this typehave considerably long heads, and the diameter of the head is wide, as well. The head
was made wide probably to increase its weight and also to avoid missing a small object
when pounding. It was likely wielded in broad strokes. The type of wood used has been
identiﬁed for only two examples; broad-leaf hardwood—Cyclobalanopsis and Cerris,
both types of oak—were selected. All of the four examples display Use Mark III. Given
these conditions, there is a possibility that Type B-2 were one-handed-use yokozuchi for
handcraft uses.
Among mallets with a considerably long head, those with a small head diameter are ofType B-3 (Figure 7, No. 35). Three items fall under this category. All excavated in Osaka
prefecture, they date from the Yayoi period. Selected woods are Cyclobalanopsis oak,Photinia, and hinoki cypress. Use marks are either “unknown” or “Use Mark I.” Attempts
at conjecture about the functions for Type B-3 have failed. The shape of this type suggests
a tategine pestle that was split in two. In fact, a comparison of the measurements of
tategine and yokozuchi examples from a wetland area at the Yōkaichi Jikata site, a Yayoiperiod wetland site in Ishikawa prefecture, indicates the possibility that the tategine might
have been converted into use as a yokozuchi mallet (Shimohama 2004). Type B-3 werelikely examples for which head was not cut short when converted for use as a yokozuchi
mallet. Since they originally were not made as yokozuchi, they have a very long shape andwere therefore detectable as outliers.
Two items fall into type B-4 (Figure 7, No. 36). They date from the Kofun period andtheir head diameters are remarkably wide. One of the two is made of kuri chestnut. Neither
have noticeable use marks. It is diﬃcult to imagine their functions, but morphologicallythey are clearly diﬀerent from other examples, suggesting that they might have had a
22 This speculation is based on investigations of folk tools. There are some cases where a single folk tool yokozuchi was used

for several diﬀerent purposes.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

89

MAEDA Hitoki

special function. More examples of this type need to be found before it will be possible to
make any conjectures about their function.

Functions for types C-1 and C-2

Type-C examples have a handle area large enough to grip with both hands. Five items
come under type C-1 (Figure 7, Nos. 37 and 38). They were excavated at diﬀerent sites in
the Kinki region. Their head diameter is the largest in this Type C group, indicating thatthey have a relatively large area of contact with an object pounded. As in the case of Type
B-2, examples of Type C-1 have a wide and ﬂat head, apparently to increase eﬀectivenessin striking the target material. As for the wood used, the sample is too small to detecttendencies, but all Type C-1 examples available are made with broadleaf hardwood (Figure12). They clearly show Use Mark III (Figure 13), and most of them seem to show that thefour sides of the head were all used for beating. As pointed out in previous studies (Ueharaed. 1993; Yamada ed. 2003), the head often is shaped in a square bar or made from a partof the wood where the timber branched. Given these conditions, it can be considered that
the Type C-1 items were tools for fashioning handcrafted products by striking something
hard with broad strokes.
Next are three items from Middle and Late Yayoi sites in Osaka prefecture, which fallunder Type C-2 (Figure 7, No. 39). They have what appears to be a handle area, so they areincluded in this collection of yokozuchi/kakiya, but their characteristics as tools are hard
to identify. Their handle and head are long and narrow; they are made of Salix (willow)
or other wood not often selected for yokozuchi/kakiya. As for traces of use, they do notdisplay concavities or indentations, but all the examples of this group seem to be missing
part of the head, which suggests that part might have been broken oﬀ in the pounding or
striking process. Due to these conditions it is diﬃcult to propose the possible functions ofType C-2. The possibility should be considered that they might have been a timber for abuilding or a pole-like object, rather than a yokozuchi/kakiya mallet.
The following chapter will organize the terms used so far while summarizing theforegoing discussion and move on to understand how the functions of these items changedin the course of time.

4.

Functions and Changes for Yokozuchi/Kakeya

4-1. Functions

While organizing the ﬁndings of the analysis discussed in the previous chapter, this section
reconsiders the yokozuchi, kakeya, and yokozuchigata terms used in previously publishedreports and studies, classifying them as terms distinguished by morphology. Theirfunctions will also be reexamined below.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

90

THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

Type B and yokozuchi

Type B mallets are all wooden mallets for one-handed use and their head area is moderate
in size. Use Marks I, II, and III are all found with this group. They are mainly made using
broad-leaf hardwoods such as Cyclobalanopsis oak and yabutsubaki camellia. In functionalterms, they were used either for handcraft or agricultural purposes.23 Examples of TypeB-1 cylindrical mallets were multifunctional tools; their functions were for farming in
general, but they might also be used for some kind of handcraft. Type B-1 conical mallets,
on the other hand, were likely used for beating cloth or for ritual purposes. The two types
are referred to respectively as “entokei yokozuchi” (cylindrical yokozuchi) and “ensuikei
yokozuchi” (conical yokozuchi). Some of yokozuchi for handcraft use are separately
categorized as “Type B-2” and called “ōgata yokozuchi” (large-type yokozuchi). Type B-3
and Type B-4 might possibly be tools that had a special function, but they are included
among the yokozuchi group because they are the same as types B-1 and B-2 in that they too
were mallets for one-handed use. Their functions cannot be identiﬁed and are not discussed
here. The term yokozuchi is suitable for the Type B group, which are close to folk tool
yokozuchi in both shape and function.

Type C-1 and kakeya

Type C-1 mallets can be used with both hands, their head area is wide, they are made withbroadleaf hardwood, and they display only “Use Mark III.” These attributes all indicatethat they were mallets used for handcraft work. The term kakeya is therefore suitable forthese mallets. No particular name is assigned to examples of Type C-2 as their functions
remain unidentiﬁed.

Types A-1 and A-3 and yokozuchigata

The term “yokozuchigata” is used to refer to Type A-1. Their handles are not made forgripping and their head areas are small. They often show “Use Mark I” and are mainly
made of conifer wood. The functions of these mallets appear to have been mainly
symbolic, such as for use in a ritual. Type A-3 is separated from Type A-1 in the scatter
plot, but they are close to each other in terms of type of wood used and use marks. It would
be better to understand Type A-3 as an exceptional example of the yokozuchigata category.
Examples of Type A-3 may be considered miniature versions of yokozuchi; I would callthem yokozuchigata (which means “like yokozuchi”). It is presumed that type A-2 weretategine pestles, not mallets.
Above I have assigned names to these tools according to their morphological
23 Ritual use might have been possible as an exceptional function. There is no evidence that yokozuchi mallets fromarchaeological sites were ever used for ritual purpose, but many cases of folk tool yokozuchi being used in ritual context havebeen reported by Kamino 1987.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

91

MAEDA Hitoki

Figure 17.

Relation between Classiﬁcation and Functionsclassiﬁcation and described their respective functions (as outlined in Figure 17).24© Japanese Archaeological Association

92

THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

Figure 18. Chronological Survey of Mallets in the Kinki Region
Dotted lines indicate presumption.

24 In terms of function, yokozuchi alone had agricultural-tool functions. They often combine Use Mark I or II and use ofbroadleaf hardwood. The yokozuchi with handcraft functions are, in order of small to large, some of cylindrical yokozuchi,ōgata (large) yokozuchi, and kakeya. The kakeya were large hammers for use with both hands, while the cylindricalyokozuchi and ōgata yokozuchi were used mainly for striking a hatchet, wedge, chisel, or small pile. The kakeya weremainly used to drive in large piles or earth-retaining planks (yaita). They often combine Use Mark III and use of broadleaf
hardwood. The yokozuchigata and some of the yokozuchi had a ritual function. They often have Use Mark I and were mostly
made of conifer wood, especially until the Early Kofun period.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

93

MAEDA Hitoki

Figure 19.

Yokozuchi-Kakeya-like Artifacts in the Jomon Period and the Korean Peninsula

4-2. Chronological Changes

This section considers changes in the yokozuchi/kakeya over the course of time andnarrows down the possibilities of their functions for each period to discuss the roles they
may have performed (Figure 18).

Before the Yayoi period

The yokozuchi/kakeya considered here are based on examples collected from the Kinki
region that date from the Yayoi period and after. Nationwide, however, a number of
yokozuchi-like wooden artifacts from the Jomon period have been found25 (Figure 19).
The example recovered from the Aota site (19-1) in Niigata prefecture, from the Jomon
period, is closer in shape to the yokozuchi of the Yayoi period and later, but the use marks
seem to be not on the side of the head but on the top end of the head (Arakawa et al. 2004).
The example from the Shidanai site (19-2) in Iwate prefecture most closely resembles the
Yayoi-and-later yokozuchi. But it is not very thick; it is shaped rather like a ﬂat paddle.
In this way, those from the Jomon period, vary widely in shape, while some have a shapesimilar to Yayoi and later tools. Very few Jomon mallets have a neatly shaped cylindrical
25 I have conﬁrmed 17 such Jomon wooden artifacts for this paper. Besides these, in Hokkaido many discoveries of
yokozuchi-like wooden mallets called “Kiusu-style kizuchi” (Miura et al. 2008) have been reported (Sawada 1996, 1998;
Miura et al. 2008; Tanishima et al. 2010; among others). These discoveries are concentrated in the Ishikari lowlands in
Hokkaido (Tanishima et al. 2010), and the wood used for most of these mallets is limited to Acer (maple) (Miura et al.
2008). The artifacts are morphologically diverse: some have carvings or horn-like projections, others are ﬂat in cross section,
still others have a handle attached diagonally. The area where they were excavated is very limited, moreover. This suggests
discontinuity between these tools and the yokozuchi made from the Yayoi period onward.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

94

THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

or conical head found with mallets of the Yayoi period and later. Jomon tools were lessstylized than in the later periods. Moreover, yokozuchi-like mallets from the Jomon period
were found mainly in Hokkaido and the Tohoku region, and none were conﬁrmed in
the Kinki region, whereas Yayoi and later yokozuchi have been found in large quantities
throughout the country. No tools from the Jomon period that are conﬁrmed to have beenyokozuchi or kakeya exist. Meanwhile, a small number of Jomon wedges used for splitting
wood do exist (Murakami 2002), and so, in the Jomon period there possibly existed
wooden tools for driving wedges and stakes, but such have not been conﬁrmed. As things
stand now, there is no archaeological evidence for linear continuity between yokozuchilike wooden artifacts of the Jomon period and yokozuchi of the Yayoi period. Looking at
the Korean peninsula, we ﬁnd that tools very similar to Yayoi-period yokozuchi/kakeya
have been excavated from the Bronze Age at the Jeojeons-ri site in the city of Andong
and from the Early Iron Age at the Sinchang-dong site in Gwangju. Most notably, at leastnine examples from the Sinchang-dong site correspond to Type B and Type C. Discovery
of more such examples and further investigation of them is much needed. From what
we know now, it is quite possible that the yokozuchi were introduced from the Korean
peninsula.

Yayoi and Kofun periods

Yokozuchi, kakeya, and yokozuchigata mallets were made in large quantities in the Yayoi
and Kofun periods. Yokozuchi mallets with a cylindrical head and a bar-shaped handle—aform typical of yokozuchi in later periods had already emerged in the Early Yayoi period—
as found at the Karako-Kagi site in Nara prefecture (Figure 7, No. 23) and the Nōso site inMie prefecture (Figure 7, No. 24). Regarding the function of the earliest type of yokozuchi
from the Early Yayoi period, Watanabe speculates that it was for crushing beans sinceyokozuchi excavated from the ﬁrst half of the Yayoi period have a shape corresponding
to the shape of folk tool yokozuchi used for crushing beans (Watanabe 1985). He also
indicates the strong possibility that yokozuchi for pounding straw began to diverge fromthe bean-crushing mallets in the Late Yayoi period.26 The reason he cites is that the speciesof rice that was introduced to Japan in the Middle to Late Yayoi period was suitable formaking things out of straw. He assumes that the earliest yokozuchi had the function of
crushing daizu soybeans (Glycine max) and azuki red beans (Vigna angularis) as with thelater yokozuchi folk tool. Pointing out that azuki red beans appeared in the middle of theLate Jomon period, he suggests the possibility that the bean-crushing yokozuchi (the originof yokozuchi) date back to the middle of the Late Jomon period.
In my view, pounding straw was likely among the functions of the earliest yokozuchi.
26 Uehara ed. 1993 supports this speculation and emphasizes that straw beating tools proliferated with the spread of rootcutting (negari) in harvesting rice.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

95

MAEDA Hitoki

There is currently no evidence, as mentioned earlier, that indicates continuity of yokozuchi
from Jomon to Yayoi. Even if some continuous lineage could be identiﬁed, recent research
has revealed that the widespread use of beans began in the Middle to Late Jomon period(Nasu 2018; Obata 2014), making it incongruous to link beans with a sudden increaseof yokozuchi in the Yayoi period. It is also notable that although use marks from bean
crushing are unknown, yokozuchi bearing Use Mark II were already in existence in the
Early Yayoi period. As things stand, it seems more appropriate to consider the inﬂuenceof rice cultivation introduced from the continent than bean crushing as the impetus formaking yokozuchi.
Yokozuchi were likely used not only for pounding rice straw, but also for pounding or
crushing many diﬀerent ﬁber materials. The techniques of using vegetable ﬁbers suchas hemp, ramie, and mulberry (kōzo) to make cloth (Takeuchi 1989), which requires
beating them until soft, were probably known since very olden times. While the spreadof rice straw pounding can be seen as a major factor behind the quantitative increase andstylization of yokozuchi in the Yayoi period, the yokozuchi were most likely a tool to beatother ﬁber materials, too.
Conical yokozuchi appeared around the Middle Yayoi period and disappeared aroundthe Middle Kofun period. If the conical yokozuchi was for beating cloth, then it meansthat cloth beating with a conical yokozuchi had started by the Middle Yayoi period at theearliest. The practice of beating cloth itself has since continued to the present, as frequently
found in historical documentary and pictorial sources, indicating that the cloth-beating
function was taken over by cylindrical yokozuchi and other bar-shaped wooden tools in the
Middle Kofun and later periods.27
Yokozuchigata mallets were already in use in the Middle Yayoi period, and those thatwere highly standardized in terms of shape and type of wood used existed from the Late
Yayoi to Early Kofun periods, coinciding more or less with the rise and fall of conicalyokozuchi. This increases the probability that yokozuchigata-type mallets of the time
originated in conical yokozuchi. In the Early Kofun period, especially, there emergeda group of yokozuchigata-type mallets with a highly standardized shape, made using
27 As a documentary source, the Yūgao chapter from the Genji monogatari (The Tale of Genji) has a passage that goes,“Shirotae no koromo utsu kinuta no oto mo kasuka ni konata kanata kiki watasare … .” (The sound of white cloth being
beaten with wooden mallets (kinuta) is faintly heard hither and yon . . .). From this passage we know that the work of cloth
beating with a kinuta was in existence by the early eleventh century when the Tale was written. A pictorial source from the
Kamakura period, Ise shinmeisho utaawase emaki, an illustrated handscroll showing a poetry contest on the themes of newly
selected places in Ise, written around 1295, has an illustration showing a woman beating cloth with a mallet (Komatsu ed.
1992). The mallet she holds seems to be a cylindrical yokozuchi. Moreover, according to Nagahara Keiji, before the spreadof cotton in the sixteenth century, the main ﬁbers for weaving cloth had been hemp and ramie, and such hard ﬁbers had to bebeaten in order to produce cloth comfortable to wear (Nagahara 2004). Even after cotton became widely in use, beating clothwith a mallet continued to be widely practiced in the bleaching, calendaring, and washing processes, as depicted in ukiyoe
and other paintings.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

96

THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

inugaya plum yew (Cephalotaxus harringtoni). A miniature stone artifact shaped likeyokozuchigata was unearthed at the Tenjinyama Kofun site (Middle Kofun period)in Gunma prefecture (Toyama 1976; Hōjō & Negita 2002), as also pointed out by
Hozumi 2011, and this discovery at the largest tumulus in eastern Japan is important inunderstanding the way ritual ceremonies using yokozuchigata-type mallets were conductedin those days. Yokozuchigata mallets from the Middle and Late Kofun period were notas standardized as in the earlier times in terms of shape and type of wood used, but those
excavated at such well-known ritual sites as the Rokudai A site and the Nangō-Ōhigashisite are worthy of note.28
The Yayoi and Jomon periods were also the time when kakeya and large-type yokozuchi
were used in handcraft work. Yamada Masahisa argues that, given that few wedges orno kakeya have been excavated from the Jomon period, the splitting of timber did not
become a wide practice until the Yayoi period (Yamada 2018). He also indicates that, given
the stylization of kakeya in the Yayoi period, the spread of wedges and kakeya suggests
splitting timber was a daily practice in that period (Yamada 2012). This indication agrees
with the present study’s ﬁnding that the period of production of the kakeya unearthed in the
Kinki region is limited to the Middle Yayoi to Kofun periods. But, if the kakeya and largetype yokozuchi that appeared in the Yayoi and later periods were also used for pounding
stakes or piles and driving in earth-retaining planks as with modern-day large-type kizuchi
wooden hammers, then we would not be able to attribute the increase of kakeya only to the
spread of the timber splitting. Among the kakeya examples were those with a concavity
covering a broad area of the surface, such as shown in Figure 7, No. 38, suggesting thestrong possibility that they might have also been used to strike earth-retaining planks(yaita) and large piles. A useful reference here might be a report on the kakeya from the
Hyakkengawara Ojima site in Okayama prefecture. “These [kakeya] were used for driving
in piles, etc., and both sides of their thick head are indented. They were indispensable tools
for rice cultivation related earthworks such as irrigation ditches, weirs, and embankments”(Okada 1984). We should understand that the increase of kakeya was related not only totimber splitting but also to the work of driving piles and yaita planks into earthworks.
In the Yayoi period, “Rice paddy irrigation technologies [for building water channels,
weirs, ridges] . . . were introduced along with farming tools, as a single system” (Hirose
1988), and if that was the case, it is highly likely that numerous piles and yaita planks
were required to install weirs and other structures necessary for maintaining rice paddies,increasing the demand for kakeya. At the Nakakyūhira site in Fukuoka prefecture, indeed,
28 The yokozuchigata-type mallets were found in river and ditch areas at the Nangō-Ōhigashi and Rokudai A sites, and fromthe same stratigraphic location wooden ritual items such as katashiro eﬃgies were unearthed. Hozumi reports that groups
of ﬁnely made yokozuchi and yokozuchigata tools have sometimes been excavated from ritual sites like the Rokudai A site
(Hozumi 2011).
© Japanese Archaeological Association

97

MAEDA Hitoki

rows of piles and a large number of kakeya, likely used to drive them into the ground, havebeen excavated (Rikitake & Ōba ed. 1987).
It is still diﬃcult to judge whether kakeya were uniquely created on the Japanesearchipelago or were introduced from the Korean peninsula, but tools closely resembling
kakeya have been unearthed in the peninsula (Figures 19-5 and 19-6). If information
on rice-related living and production environments, including the methods of building
settlements and ﬁelds, was also introduced along with paddy rice cultivation (Kuraku
2008), it would be quite possible that the kakeya, an important tool for reclaiming land,
might have made their way from the continent.
In the Yayoi and Kofun periods, as the above shows, the demand for such works as
driving in piles and yaita planks grew as rice cultivation spread. This presumably had astrong bearing on the increase of yokozuchi and kakeya.

Ancient period and later

In my view, cylindrical yokozuchi did not change much from those in the Kofun period
and continued to exist in the Ancient period. They were also found at Medieval and Early
Modern sites (Yamaguchi 2014 and others). They were presumably linked to modern folk
tool yokozuchi. Since cylindrical yokozuchi are thought to have been multifunctional tools,
they were probably used for pounding rice straw, crushing beans, and beating cloth invarious eras and regions.
As for yokozuchigata tools, two examples from the Ancient and later periods werecollected (Figure 7, Nos. 16 and 17), and, compared with yokozuchigata examples ofprevious times, both were very roughly made such as with a curved handle. And no longer
having such features as an end knob or a conical head, they were far less standardized
than before. They likely show a change in the symbolic function earlier represented in
the yokozuchigata mallets. Yokozuchigata of this period have a relatively long eﬀective
handle length, indicating a possibility that they might have been small-sized beating
tools. From later times, too, many examples of yokozuchigata mallets from the medieval
Kamakura period (Yamaguchi 2014) has been conﬁrmed, and so also were modern folk
tool yokozuchigata mallets. This suggests that miniature yokozuchigata mallets continued
to be produced while their functional signiﬁcance underwent changes.
A major epochal shift occurred as the kakeya and large-type yokozuchigata mallets that
had been used for handcraft functions disappeared, and were replaced by kizuchi hammers.
In my view, the kizuchi were introduced and then began to spread for construction of largescale buildings of political signiﬁcance in and after the Asuka period (552–645).
Among kizuchi and large-type kizuchi, the oldest unearthed as of today is an item fromthe eighth century (Figure 20). Excavated examples are very few in the Ancient period(approx. seventh to twelfth centuries) and their exact dates are unknown.29 Kizuchi were
© Japanese Archaeological Association98

THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

unearthed at the sites of capital cities andgovernment oﬃces.
Another handcraft tool excavated inlarge numbers from capital city sites andgovernment-oﬃce sites around the sametime were carpenter’s ink pots (sumitsubo).
Uehara Mahito writes, “The epochal
event in the Ancient history of building
technology on the Japanese archipelago
was the introduction of Buddhist temple
architecture from the continent. [Mostsigniﬁcant] was the construction of the
Asukadera temple,” adding that the oldest
ink pot made its way to Japan from Baekje,
Korea around that time (Uehara 2009).
Watanabe Akira, who studies carpenter’s
tools from an architectural history
perspective, points out that the advanced
architectural technology introduced from Figure 20. Kizuchi and Large-type Kizuchi
the continent by Baekje carpenters who
were invited to Japan during the Asuka period brought a major change in the compositionof tools for processing timber and wood (Watanabe 2004b). Among the tools that he says
appeared around that time were large-type saws and planes. I speculate that kizuchi, too,
were among the wooden tools brought from Baekje in the Asuka period. Actually, on
the Korean peninsula kizuchi from the Three Kingdoms period (the ﬁrst century BCE toseventh century CE) were excavated at the Samnyeon Sanseong fortress, Boeun (Figure21). In the context of ruling-class control of building technology, it is likely that theincrease in timber splitting was strongly linked to the shift from large-type yokozuchi andkakeya to the kizuchi. Medieval illustrations often depict scenes of timber being split witha kizuchi (Watanabe 2004a), which indicates that kizuchi were indispensable tools forprocessing wood in the construction of temples and shrines. In regions outside of Kinki,
meanwhile, large kakeya have been excavated even from Ancient sites (Figure 22), whichsuggests the possibility that, for a certain period of time after their introduction, kizuchi
29 For this study, I have conﬁrmed ﬁve large-type kizuchi and eight kizuchi in the Kinki region. Distinguishing the two

requires quantitative analysis, but with so small a number of examples available such analysis is diﬃcult. Here let me deﬁne“large-type kizuchi” (ōgata kizuchi) as the ones that are larger than easy-to-carry kizuchi. Excavated ōgata kizuchi areespecially rare, and the oldest example conﬁrmed for this study dates back only to the Kamakura period (the earliest phase of
the Medieval period). However, because the kizuchi that have the same structure as ōgata kizuchi that were excavated from
Ancient sites, this study assumes that ōgata kizuchi appeared either about the same time or slightly later than kizuchi.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

99

MAEDA Hitoki

were used only by carpenters who belonged
to the system of oﬃcially patronizedworkshops. I presume that handcraft-use
yokozuchi and kizuchi continued to be usedeven in the Ancient period and later withfunctions divided between them.

5. Epilogue
Given their simple shapes, yokozuchi andkakeya appear to have been suited to beator pound almost anything. That is precisely
why it is necessary to adequately identify
Figure 21. Kizuchi in the Korean Peninsula
and analyze the attributes that reﬂect
their functions, which would lead to an
empirical study of functions.30 The present
study focuses on the handle length of thetools that have been called “yokozuchi,”“kakeya,” and “yokozuchigata” andclassiﬁes them according to their handle
length. It assumes their respective functions
by looking at the relationship among
their head part, selection of wood type,and use marks, and organizes their names
by morphological definition. Tracing
the changes in these tools over time,furthermore, provides glimpses into thedevelopment of farming tools.

Acknowledgements

Figure 22.

Kakeya in the Ancient Period

This paper is a revision of my graduation thesis submitted to the Ritsumeikan University
College of Letters in December 2018. Professor Nagatomo Tomoko kindly gave me
invaluable comments and suggestions on both the content and methodology of the thesis.
30 A more empirical way to identify functions is to analyze the residue attached to a tool’s head area. Regarding pestles,

mortars, and other folk tools used by the Ainu people, Kamijō Nobuhiko identiﬁes the speciﬁc materials processed, by
analyzing residual grains of starch on these tools and discusses the relationship between these materials and tool shapes anduse marks (Kamijō 2014). In the case of yokozuchi, residue of plant ﬁbers other than starch may be attached; analysis ofresidues is thus also important in assuming functions.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

100THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

Professors Yano Ken’ichi, Kidachi Masaaki, Ko Jungyong, and Nakamura Ōki provided
me with very useful advice. Regarding research on wooden artifacts, I regularly received
many suggestions and much encouragement from professors Murakami Yumiko, Ura
Yōko, and Tsurugi Kōsuke. I am also grateful to the many individuals and organizations
for their advice and assistance in facilitating my research and investigation, including thefollowing: (in alphabetical order) Ajimoto Mayumi, Fukasawa Yoshiki, Fukuyama Hiroaki,
Higami Noboru, Hoshino Yasuharu, Ishikawa Hideshi, Kōzuma Yōsei, Kudō Yūichirō,
Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Nara Prefectural Folk Museum,Noshiro Shūichi, Okada Maiko, Sasaki Ken’ichi, Ritsumeikan Daigaku Kōkogaku-shitsu(Ritsumeikan University Archaeology Oﬃce), Sasaki Yuka, Shiba Kōjirō, Shōda Shin’ya,
Shutsudo Mokki Kenkyūkai (Recovered Wooden Artifacts Research Society), Suzuki
Shin’ya, Takahashi Manabu, Takahashi Tsutomu, Tomii Makoto, Uemine Atsushi, Wada
Seigo, and Yokoyama Hiroko.
Parts of this study were presented at a Ritsumeikan University–Meiji University
Academic Exchange meeting held on the occasion of the 70th regular meeting of theHistorical Association of Ritsumeikan University, and a research meeting of Kyoto
University Archaeology Club, and received many useful suggestions from those present at
the meetings.

References
Drennan, Robert D. 2008. Statistics in Archaeology, in Encyclopedia of archaeology, 3:2093–2100. London: Elsevier Academic Press.
FUJIYOSHI Shirō & NISHIMURA Hirofumi (eds.) 1990. Shimokawatsu iseki [TheShimokawatsu site]. Kagawa Prefectural Board of Education, Kagawa Prefecture
Buried Cultural Properties Investigation Center, and Honshu-Shikoku Bridge Park. 藤
好史郎・西村尋文（編） 1990『下川津遺跡』香川県教育委員会・香川県埋蔵文化財調査センター・本州四国連絡橋公園．

HIRAI Shinji 1996. Ki no daihyakka [The encyclopedia of trees]. Tokyo: Asakura Shoten.
平井信二 1996『木の大百科』東京：朝倉書店．
HIROSE Kazuo 1988. Seki to suiro [Dams and waterways], in Yayoi bunka no kenkyū,Dai-2-kan, Seigyō [Studies of Yayoi culture, Vol. 2, Subsistence]: 39–53. Tokyo:『弥生文化の研究 第 2 巻生業』pp. 39–53. 東Yūzankaku. 広瀬和雄 1988「堰と水路」
京：雄山閣．

HŌJŌ Yoshitaka & NEGITA Yoshio 2002. Kōko shiryō taikan 9: Sekki, sekiseihin,
kokkakuki [Encyclopedia of archaeological materials 9: Stone implements, stonemade objects, and bone tools]. Tokyo: Shōgakukan. 北條芳隆・禰冝田佳男 2002
『考古資料大観 9 石器・石製品・骨角器』東京：小学館．
HOZUMI Hiromasa 2011. Kofun jidai mokusei saishigu no saihen [Reorganization of© Japanese Archaeological Association

101

MAEDA Hitoki

Kofun period wooden ritual tools], in Ki, hito, bunka: Shutsudo Mokki Kenkyūkai
ronshū [Wood, people, and culture: collected essays of Shutsudo Mokki Kenkyūkai(Recovered Wooden Artifacts Research Society)]: 225–240. Okayama: Shutsudo『木・ひと・文化
Mokki Kenkyūkai. 穂積裕昌 2011「古墳時代木製祭祀具の再編」
出土木器研究会論集』pp. 225–240. 岡山：出土木器研究会．
HOZUMI Hiromasa 2018. Saigu, gigu [Ritual and ceremonial tools], in Mono to gijutsu
no kodaishi: Mokki hen [Ancient history of goods and technology: Wooden artifacts]:『モノと技術の211–236. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan. 穂積裕昌 2018「祭具・儀具」
古代史 木器編』pp. 211–236. 東京：吉川弘文館．
ITŌ Takao & YAMADA Masahisa (eds.) 2012. Ki no kōkogaku [The archaeology ofwood]. Ōtsu: Kaiseisha. 伊東隆夫・山田昌久（編）2012『木の考古学』大津：海青社．
KAMIJŌ Nobuhiko 2014. Ainu minzoku no tateusu to tategine, oke, tegine: Keitai,shiyōkon kansatsu to zanzon denpun ryū bunseki kara [Ainu people’s tateusu
mills, tategine pestles, oke tubs, and tegine pestles: Observation of their shapes anduse marks and analysis of residual starch grains], in TAKAKURA Hiroaki (ed.),Higashi Ajia kobunka ronkō 1 [Studies in East Asian Archaeology and History1]: 82–100. Fukuoka: Chūgoku Shoten. 上條信彦 2014「アイヌ民族の竪臼と竪杵、桶、手杵— 形態・使用痕観察と残存デンプン粒分析から—」高倉洋彰（ 編 ）『東アジア古文化論攷 1』pp. 82–100. 福岡：中国書店．
KAMINO Yoshiharu 1987. Yokozuchi: Mingu to jujutsu [Yokozuchi: Folk tools andmagic], Shunjū seikatsugaku 1 (inaugural issue): 175–177. 神野善治 1987「横槌—民具と呪術—」『春秋生活学』No. 1 創刊号、pp. 175–177.
KISHIMA Tsuneo, OKAMOTO Shōgo, & HAYASHI Shōzō 1977. Kaitei Genshoku
mokuzai daizukan [A color illustrated guide to wood, revised edition]. Osaka:
Hoikusha. 貴島恒夫・岡本省吾・林 昭三 1977 改訂『原色木材大図鑑』大阪：保育社．

KOBAYASHI Yukio & SUENAGA Masao 1942. Dai-6-shō, Mokkirui oyobi shokubutsu
seihin [Chapter 6: Wooden artifacts and plant products], in Yamato Karako Yayoishikiiseki no kenkyū, Kyōto Teikoku Daigaku Bungakubu Kōkogaku kenkyū hōkoku, dai-16
satsu [A study of Yamato Karako Yayoi-style site: archaeological research report No.
16, Kyoto Imperial University Faculty of Literature]. Kyoto: Rinsen Shoten. 小林行
雄・末永雅雄 1942「第六章 木器類及び植物製品」『大和唐古弥生式遺跡の研究 京都帝国大学文学部考古学研究報告 第十六冊』京都：臨川書店．
KŌCHI Makiko. 2021. AIST Nihonjin no te no sunpō dēta [AIST data on measurementsof Japanese people’s hands]. https://www.dh.aist.go.jp/database/hand/data/index.
html (accessed April 15, 2018). Digital Human Research Group, Human Informatics
Research Institute, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology(AIST). 河内まき子 2012「AIST 日本人の手の寸法データ」https://www.dh.aist.go.jp/
database/hand/data/index.html（2018.04.15 閲覧）．AIST 国立研究開発法人 産業技術総合研究所

人間情報研究部門デジタルヒューマン研究グループ．

KOMATSU Shigemi (ed.) 1992. Zoku Nihon no emaki 18: Obusuma Saburō ekotoba Ise© Japanese Archaeological Association

102

THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

shinmeisho e utaawase [Japanese illustrated handscrolls, second series 18: poetry
contest based on paintings of new scenic spots in Ise, Text by Obusuma Saburō].
Tokyo: Chūō Kōron Sha. 小松茂美（編）1992『続日本の絵巻 18 男衾三郎絵詞 伊勢新名所絵歌合』東京：中央公論社．
KURAKU Yoshimichi 2008. Doboku kōkogaku no suishin [Promotion of earthwork『季
archaeology], Kikan Kōkogaku 102: 14–16. 工楽善通 2008「土木考古学の推進」
刊考古学 特集土木考古学の現状と課題』第 102 号、pp. 14–16.
MURAKAMI Yumiko 1997. Yokozuchi [Yokozuchi wooden mallets], in Jinruishi shūhō1997 [Reports of human action and society 1997]: 81–89. Tokyo Metropolitan
University occasional papers of archaeology. 村上由美子 1997「ヨコヅチ」『人類誌集報 1997』pp. 81–89. 漆利用の人類誌 調査・飛騨山峡の人類誌調査グルー
プ．

MURAKAMI Yumiko 2002. Mokusei kusabi no kisoteki ronkō [A basic study of wooden『史林』
wedges]. Shirin 85(4): 36–75. 村上由美子 2002「木製楔の基礎的論考」
第 85 巻第 4 号、pp. 36–75.
NAGAHARA Keiji 2004. Karamushi, kinu, momen no shakaishi [A social history of false
nettle, silk, and cotton]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan. 永原慶二 2004『苧麻・絹・木
綿の社会史』東京：吉川弘文館．
NASU Hiroo 2018. Jōmon jidai no shokubutsu no domesutikēshon [The domestication ofplants in the Jomon period]. Daiyonki Kenkyū 57(41): 109–126. 那須浩郎 2018「縄文時代の植物のドメスティケーション」『第四紀研究』Vol. 57, No. 41, pp. 109–126. 日
本第四紀学会．

ŌBA Iwao 1939. Kazusa Sugō iseki no ichikōsatsu (2) [A study of the Kazusa Sugō site(2)]. Kōkogaku Zasshi 29(3): 154–169. 大場磐雄 1939「上総菅生遺跡の一考察（二）」『考古学雑誌』第 29 巻第 3 号、pp. 154–169.
OBATA Hiroki 2014. Mame o sodateta Jōmonjin [Jomon people who grew beans], inKokomade wakatta! Jōmonjin no shokubutsu riyō [Here’s what we know about
people’s use of plants in Jomon times]: 70–93. Tokyo: Shinsensha. 小畑弘己 2014「マメを育てた縄文人」『ここまでわかった！縄文人の植物利用』pp. 70–93. 東京：新泉社．

OKADA Hiroshi 1984. Kadō [River channels], in Okayama Prefectural Board of
Education (ed.), Hyakkengawara Ojima iseki 2: Asahikawa hōsuiro (Hyakkengawa)kaishū kōji ni tomonau hakkutsu chōsa V [The Hyakkengawara Ojima site: excavationon the sidelines of the Asahikawa river ﬂood bypass (Hyakkengawa) repair
construction, V]: 223–246. Ministry of Construction Okayama River Construction『百間川原尾島遺跡 2—旭Oﬃce. 岡田 博 1984「（3）河道」岡山県教育委員会（編）
川放水路（百間川）改修工事に伴う発掘調査 V—』pp. 223–246. 岡山：建設省岡山河川工事事務所．

OKAMURA Michio 1985. Kinōron [A study of functions], in Iwanami-kōza Nihon
kōkogaku 1, Kenkyū no hōhō [Iwanami-kōza series—Japanese archaeology 1:
Research methodology]: 161–192. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. 岡村道雄 1985「機能論」© Japanese Archaeological Association

103

MAEDA Hitoki『岩波講座日本考古学 1 研究の方法』pp. 161–192. 東京：岩波書店．
R Core Team 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundationfor Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/. (R version
3. 5. 1 [CRAN, freeware] was used for statistical processing and part of graphics.)
RIKITAKE Takuji & ŌBA Yasutoki (eds.) 1987. Fukuoka-shi Nakakyūhira iseki II[Fukuoka city’s Nakakyūhira site II]. Fukuoka City Board of Education. 力武卓治・大庭康時（編）1987『福岡市那珂久平遺跡 II』福岡市教育委員会．
SAEKI Hiroshi 1993. Kono ki nan no ki [What Is This Tree?]. Ōtsu: Kaiseisha. 佐伯 浩
1993『この木なんの木』大津：海青社．
SHIMAJI Ken, SAEKI Hiroshi, HARADA Hiroshi, SHIOKURA Takayoshi, ISHIDA
Shigeo, SHIGEMATSU Yorio, & SUDŌ Shōji 1985. Mokuzai no kagaku: 1. Mokuzaino kōzō [Science of Wood: 1. The Structure of wood]. Tokyo: Buneidō Shuppan. 島地
謙・佐伯 浩・原田 浩・塩倉高義・石田茂雄・重松頼生・須藤彰司 1985『木材の科学・1 木材の構造』東京：文永堂．
SHIMAKURA Misaburō 1979. Mokushitsu shutsudobutsu to kodaijin no seikatsu[Excavated artifacts of wood and the lives of people of ancient times], in Gangōji
Bunkazai Kenkyūjo nenpō: Sōritsu 10-shūnen kinen ronbunshū—1977, 1978 [Gangoji
Institute for Research of Cultural Property annual report: a collection of essays
commemorating the tenth anniversary of the founding of the Institute, 1977 and『元興寺文化財研究所年
1978]: 1–7. 嶋倉巳三郎 1979「木質出土物と古代人の生活」
報—創立 10 周年記念論文集—1977・1978』pp. 1–7. 元興寺文化財研究所．
SHIMAKURA Misaburō 1983. Mokushitsu ibutsu ni miru gijutsu to seikatsu no chie
[Technology and the wisdom of life as shown by wooden relics], in Asahi Culture
Books 28: Kodai Nihon no chie to gijutsu [Asahi Culture Books 28: wisdom andtechnology in ancient Japan], 197–249. Osaka: Ōsaka Shoseki. 嶋倉巳三郎 1983「木質遺物にみる技術と生活の知恵」『朝日カルチャーブックス 28 古代日本の知恵と技術』pp. 197–249. 大阪：大阪書籍．
SHIMOHAMA Takako 2004. Dai-4-bu Mokki hen [Part 4: Wooden artifacts], in Yōkaichi
Jikata iseki II [The Yōkaichi Jikata site II]. Komatsu City Board of Education. 下濱貴
子 2004「第 4 部木器編」『八日市地方遺跡 II』小松市教育委員会．
TAKEUCHI Akiko 1989. UP Kōkogaku sensho 9: Yayoi no nuno o oru [UP Archaeology
Selections no. 9: Weaving Yayoi cloth]. Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai. 竹内晶子
1989『UP 考古学選書 9 弥生の布を織る』東京：東京大学出版会．
TOYAMA Kazuo 1976. Sekisei mozōhinrui o shutsudo shita Takasaki-shi Kenzaki
Tenjinyama kofun o megutte [The Kenzaki Tenjinyama kofun (Takasaki city), a
mounded tomb with imitative stone artifacts]. Kōkogaku Zasshi 66(2): 31–53. 外山和夫 1976「石製模造品類を出土した高崎市剣崎天神山古墳をめぐって」『考古学雑誌』
第 62 巻第 2 号、pp. 31–53.
UEHARA Mahito (ed.) 1993. Mokki shūsei zuroku, Kinki genshi-hen [Catalogue ofcollections of wooden artifacts, Prehistoric Kinki region]. Nara National ResearchInstitute for Cultural Properties. 上原真人（編）1993『木器集成図録近畿原始編』奈良© Japanese Archaeological Association

104THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

国立文化財研究所．

UEHARA Mahito 2009. Kaikyū kakusa o shimesu mokkō gijutsu: Sumitsubo [Class
disparities reﬂected in woodworking technology: Carpenter’s ink pots], in Ki no
bunka II [Culture of wood II]: 21–25. Shimonoseki City Archaeological Museum. 上
原真人 2009「階級格差を示す木工技術—墨壺—」『木の文化 II』pp. 21–25. 下関市立
考古博物館．

WATANABE Akira 2004a. Nihon kenchiku gijutsushi no kenkyū [A history of architectural
technology in Japan]. Tokyo: Chūō Kōron Bijutsu Shuppan. 渡邉 晶 2004a『日本建築技術史の研究』東京：中央公論美術出版．
WATANABE Akira 2004b. Daiku dōgu no Nihon-shi [Japanese history of carpenter’s
tools]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan. 渡邉 晶 2004b『大工道具の日本史』東京：吉川弘文館．

WATANABE Makoto 1983. Oyama Sengen iseki shutsudo mokuseihin no mingugakuteki kenkyū [A study of wooden tools excavated from the Oyama Sengen site fromthe perspective of folk tools], in Oyama Sengen iseki (fuhen) [Oyama Sengen site
(appendix)]: 33–50. Fukushima Prefectural Board of Education and Japanese National『御山千軒遺跡
Railways. 渡辺 誠 1983「御山千軒遺跡出土木製品の民具学的研究」（付編）』pp. 33–50. 福島県教育委員会・日本国有鉄道．
WATANABE Makoto 1985. Yokozuchi no kōko-mingugaku-teki kenkyū [A study ofyokozuchi mallets from the perspective of archaeology and folk tools]. Kōkogaku『考古学雑誌』
Zasshi 70(3): 52–93. 渡辺 誠 1985「ヨコヅチの考古・民具学的研究」
第 70 巻第 3 号、pp. 52–93. 日本考古学会．
WATANABE Makoto 1989. Yokozuchi o megutte [Yokozuchi mallets], in Mingu ga kataru
Nihon bunka [The story of Japanese culture in folk tools]: 157–180. Tokyo: Kawade『民具が語る日本文化』pp.
Shobō Shinsha. 渡辺 誠 1989「ヨコヅチをめぐって」
157–180. 東京：河出書房新社．
YAMADA Masahisa (ed.) 2003. Kōko shiryō taikan 8 Moku sen’i seihin [Encyclopedia ofarchaeological materials 8: Wooden and textile products]. Tokyo: Shōgakukan. 山田昌
久（編）2003『考古資料大観 8 木・繊維製品』東京：小学館．
YAMADA Masahisa 2012. Yayoi jidai no mokkō gijutsu to nōgu seisan [Woodcraft andproduction of farming tools in the Yayoi period], in Ho-otoshi-kami no sokuseki [Thedeity of rice ears]: 110–117. Osaka Prefectural Museum of Yayoi Culture. 山田昌久
『穂落とし神の足跡』pp. 110–117. 大阪府立
2012「弥生時代の木工技術と農具生産」
弥生文化博物館．

YAMADA Masahisa 2018. Nihon genshi, kodai no mokkō gijutsu: Bassai seizai gijutsu togenshō zōka kakō gijutsu [Woodcraft in Japan’s prehistoric and ancient times: Timber
felling and lumbering technique and processing technique], in Mono to gijutsu no
kodaishi: Mokki hen [Ancient history of goods and technology: Wooden artifacts]:
15–76. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan. 山田昌久 2018「日本原始・古代の木工技術—
伐採・製材技術と減少・増加加工技術—」『モノと技術の古代史 木器編』pp. 15–76.
東京：吉川弘文館．

© Japanese Archaeological Association

105

MAEDA Hitoki

YAMAGUCHI Masaki 2014. Chūsei Kamakura no ki no riyō to yakuwari [The use androle of wood in medieval Kamakura], in Ki no chūsei: Shigen, gijutsu, seihin—
shiryōshū [Medieval wood: Resources, technology, products—historical materials]:
8–46. Kōkogaku to Chūseishi Kenkyūkai (Archaeology and Medieval History『木の中世—資源・Research Society). 山口正紀 2014「中世鎌倉の木の利用と役割」
技術・製品—資料集』pp. 8–46. 考古学と中世史研究会．
YAMANAKA Ichirō 1979. Gijutsu keitaigaku to kinō keitaigaku [Techno-morphology andfunction-morphology]. Gekkan Kōkogaku Jānaru 167(13): 13–15. 山中一郎 1979「技術形態学と機能形態学」『月刊考古学ジャーナル』第 167 号 13、pp. 13–15. ニューサ
イエンス社．

YUYAMA Ken’ichi 2017. Waga kuni ni okeru ryōshi no rekishi ni tsuite: “Ryōshi nohensenhyō” oboegaki [A history of writing paper in Japan: notes on the “Chronology
of Changes” in writing paper], in Komonjo ryōshi ronsō [Essays on writing paper for
old documents]: 3–37. Tokyo: Bensei Shuppan. 湯山賢一 2017「我が国に於ける料紙の歴史について—『料紙の変遷表』覚書」『古文書料紙論叢』pp. 3–37. 東京：勉誠出
版．

EXCAVATION REPORTS
Osaka prefecture
HAMANO Toshikazu 1991. Dai-4-shō Higashi-nara iseki (90-1) HNG-7-C・G・K. chiku[Chapter 4: Higashi-nara site (90-1) HNG-7-C.G.K district], in Ibaraki-shi maizō
bunkazai hakkutsu chōsa gaiyō (Heisei 2-nendo) [Overview of the excavation surveyof buried cultural properties in Ibaraki city (Fiscal 1990)]. Ibaraki City Board of『茨木
Education. 浜野俊一 1991「第 4 章東奈良遺跡（90-1）HNG-7-C・G・K 地区」
市埋蔵文化財発掘調査概要（平成 2 年度）』茨木市教育委員会．
HATAKE Yōko & INOUE Tomohiro 2002. Dai-IV-shō Ikō ibutsu [Chapter IV: Structural
remains and artifacts], in Ikeshima-Fukumanji iseki 2, ikō ibutsu hen [2nd reporton the Ikeshima-Fukumanji site: structural remains and artifacts]. Osaka Center『池島・
for Cultural Heritage. 畑 暢子・井上智博 2002「第 IV 章遺構・遺物」
福万寺遺跡 2 遺構遺物編』大阪文化財センター．
HIROSE Kazuo, TSUJIMOTO Takeshi, ISHIGAMI Sachiko, AKIYAMA Kōzō,
OKUMURA Takeshi, OKADA Naoki, & YAMAGUCHI Seiji 1986. Kamei (sono 2)[The Kamei site (part 2)]. Osaka Center for Cultural Heritage. 広瀬和夫・辻本 武・
石上幸子・秋山浩三・奥村 毅・岡田直樹・山口誠治 1986『亀井（その 2）』大阪文
化財センター．

HORIGUCHI Kenji (ed.) 2015. Tarumi-minami iseki hakkutsu chōsa hōkokusho II[2nd Report on excavation survey at the Tarumi-minami site]. Suita City Board of
Education. 堀口健二（編）2015『垂水南遺跡発掘調査報告書 II』吹田市教育委員会．
ICHINOSE Kazuo 1987. Dai-IV-shō, dai-3-setsu Mokki-rui [Chapter IV, section 3:
Wooden artifacts], in Kyūhōji-minami (sono 2) [Kyūhōji-minami (Part 2)]. Osaka
Prefectural Board of Education and Osaka Center for Cultural Heritage. 一瀬和夫
© Japanese Archaeological Association

106

THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

1987「第 IV 章第 3 節木器類」『久宝寺南（その 2）』大阪府教育委員会・大阪文化財センター．

IWASE Tōru, FUJITA Michiko, MIYAZAKI Taiji, & FUJINAGA Masaaki (eds.) 2009.
Shitomiya-kita iseki I [1st report on the Shitomiya-kita site]. Osaka Prefectural Boardof Education. 岩瀬 透・藤田道子・宮崎泰史・藤永正明（編）2009『蔀屋北遺跡 I』
大阪府教育委員会．

KAMESHIMA Shigenori & TAGAYA Akira (eds.) 1999. Tainaka iseki hakkutsu chōsa
gaiyō VIII [8th overview of excavation survey at Tainaka site]. Cultural Properties
Protection Section, Osaka Prefectural Board of Education. 亀島重則・多賀谷昭（編）1999『田井中遺跡発掘調査概要・VIII』大阪府教育委員会文化財保護課．
MATSUDA Takatsugu 1983. Wakae-kita iseki yori shutsudo shita mokusei ibutsu no jushu
ni tsuite [Tree species of wooden artifacts excavated from the Wakae-kita site], inWakae-kita [The Wakae-kita site]. Osaka Center for Cultural Heritage. 松田隆嗣 1983
『若江北』大阪文化財センター．
「若江北遺跡より出土した木製遺物の樹種について」
MIYAKE Masahiro 1985. Sadō (sono 1) [The Sadō site (part 1)]. Osaka Center for
Cultural Heritage. 三宅正浩 1985『佐堂（その 1）』大阪文化財センター．
MORIMITSU Yōko 1980. Mokuseihin [Wooden artifacts], in Onji iseki [The Onji site].
Uryūdō Iseki Chōsakai [Uryūdō Site Investigation Team]. 毛利光用子 1980「木製品」『恩地遺跡』瓜生堂遺跡調査会．
SAIHARA Kanehiro, HAYASHI Shōzō, & SHIMAJI Ken 1988. Kitoragawa iseki chōsa
gaiyō I: Ibutsu-hen moku-seihin [Overview of the investigation at the Kitoragawa site
I: Relics—wooden artifacts]. Higashi-Osaka City Cultural Properties Association. 才
原金弘・林 昭三・島地 謙 1988『鬼虎川遺跡調査概要 I 遺物編木製品』東大阪市
文化財協会．

SAKATA Norihiko 2000. Dai-2-shō: Komoda iseki no dai-3-ji chōsa [Chapter 2:
Third investigation of the Komoda site], in Higashi-Osaka-shi gesuidō jigyō
kankei hakkutsu chōsa gaiyō hōkoku—Heisei 11-nendo [Summary reporton excavation surveys related to sewer-building projects in Higashi-Osaka
city—Fiscal 1999]. Higashi-Osaka City Board of Education. 坂田典彦 2000
『 東大阪市下水道事業関係発掘調査概要報告—「 第 2 章コモ田遺跡の第 3 次調査 」
平成 11 年度—』東大阪市教育委員会．
SAKURAI Hisayuki (ed.) 1993. Nagahara Uriwari iseki hakkutsu chōsa hōkoku VI[Report on excavation survey at Nagahara Uriwari site VI]. Osaka Center for Cultural
Heritage. 櫻井久之（編） 1993『長原・瓜破遺跡発掘調査報告 VI』大阪文化財セン
ター．

TAKAHASHI Kōichi 2000. Imashirozuka kofun dai-2-ji kibo kakunin chōsa[Imashirozuka kofun, Second survey for measuring site scale], in Takatsuki-shi
bunkazai nenpō [Takatsuki city annual report on cultural properties], Takatsuki City
『高槻市文化財
Board of Education. 高橋公一 2000「今城塚古墳第 2 次規模確認調査」
年報』高槻市教育委員会．
TAKAHASHI Masako & ONOUE Minoru 1983. Dai-IV-shō dai-3-setsu, Ibutsu [Chapter© Japanese Archaeological Association

107

MAEDA Hitoki

IV, section 3: Relics], in Wakae-kita [The Wakae-kita site]. Osaka Center for Cultural『若江北』大阪文化財セン
Heritage. 高橋雅子・尾上 実 1983「第 IV 章第 3 節遺物」
ター．

TAKASHIMA Tōru, HIROSE Masanobu, & HATAKE Yōko (eds.) 1983. Kamei [TheKamei site]. Osaka Center for Cultural Heritage. 高島 徹・広瀬雅信・畑 暢子（編）1983『亀井』大阪文化財センター．
TAMAI Isao, ONO Hisataka, ITŌ Kazuko, MATSUDA Takatsugu et al. 1982. Koma
Uryūdō [The Koma Uryūdō site]. Osaka Center for Cultural Heritage. 玉井 功・小野久隆・井藤和子・松田隆嗣ほか 1982『巨摩・瓜生堂』大阪文化財センター．
Nara prefecture
AOYAGI Taisuke (ed.) 2003. Nangō isekigun III [The Nangō site cluster, III].
Archaeological Institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture. 青柳泰介（編）2003『南郷遺跡群 III』奈良県立橿原考古学研究所．
AOYAGI Taisuke (ed.) 2009. Wada Watana iseki, Yatahara iseki [The Wada-Watana andYatahara sites]. Archaeological Institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture. 青柳泰介（編）2009『和田ワタナ遺跡・矢田原遺跡』奈良県立橿原考古学研究所．
ISHIKAWA Yuzuha 2009. Dai-II-shō 5-2 Mokuseihin [Chapter II, 5-2: Wooden artifacts]/
Dai-IV-shō 7-2 Mokuseihin [Chapter IV, 7-2: Wooden artifacts], in Karako-Kagi iseki
I: Han’i kakunin chōsa, ikō shuyōibutsu hen [The Karako-Kagi site, I: Excavation
scope survey: Structural remains and major artifacts]. Tawaramoto Town Board of「第 IV 章 -7-2 木製品」
『唐古・鍵
Education. 石川ゆずは 2009「第 II 章 -5-2 木製品」
遺跡 I—範囲確認調査—遺構・主要遺物編』田原本町教育委員会．
IWANAGA Shōzō 1986. Dai-IV-shō 4, Mokuseihin sen’i seihin [Chapter IV, 4: Wooden
artifacts and textile products], in Heijōkyō Sakyō Sanjō Nibō Rokutsubo hakkutsu
chōsa hōkokusho [Report on the excavation survey at Heijōkyō Sakyō Sanjō Nibō
Rokutsubo site]. Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties. 岩永省三
『平城京左京三条二坊六坪発掘調査報告書』奈1986「第 IV 章—4 木製品・繊維製品」
良国立文化財研究所．

IZUMI Takeshi & YAMADA Keiko (eds.) 1990. Hoshizuka Shōji iseki no chōsa[Investigations at the Hoshizuka Shōji site]. Tenri City Board of Education. 泉 武・
山田圭子（編）1990『星塚・小路遺跡の調査』天理市教育委員会．
KAWAKAMI Kunihiko, MIYAHARA Shin’ichi, NAGURA Satoshi, & FUKUDA Sayoko(eds.) 2000. Yamato mokki shiryō I [Yamato’s wooden materials I]. Archaeological
Institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture. 河上邦彦・宮原晋一・名倉 聡・福田さよ子（編）2000『大和木器資料 I』奈良県立橿原考古学研究所．
KOBAYASHI Ken’ichi (ed.) 1997. Heijōkyō Sakyō Shichijō Ichibō Jūgo/Jūroku-tsubo
hakkutsu chōsa hōkokusho [Report on excavation survey at the Heijōkyō Sakyō
Shichijō Ichibō Jūgo/Jūroku-tsubo site]. Nara National Research Institute for Cultural
Properties. 小林謙一（編） 1997『平城京左京七条一坊十五・十六坪発掘調査報告書』
奈良国立文化財研究所．

© Japanese Archaeological Association

108

THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

KOBAYASHI Yukio & SUENAGA Masao 1942. Dai-6-shō Mokkirui oyobi shokubutsu
seihin [Chapter 6: Wooden artifacts and plant products], in Department ofArchaeology, Faculty of Literature, Kyoto Imperial University and UMEHARA
Sueji (ed.), Yamato Karako Yayoi-shiki iseki no kenkyū [Studies of the Yamato
Karako Yayoi-style site]. Kyoto: Rinsen Shoten. 小林行雄・末永雅雄 1942
『大和
「第 6 章木器類及び植物製品」京都帝国大学文学部考古学教室・梅原末治（編）唐古弥生式遺跡の研究』臨川書店．
MACHIDA Akira (ed.) 1975a. Heijōkyō hakkutsu chōsa hōkoku VI: Heijōkyō Sakyō Ichijō
Sanbō no chōsa [Report on the excavation survey at Heijōkyō, VI: Excavation at
Heijōkyō Sakyō Ichijō Sanbō site]. Nara National Research Institute for Cultural
Properties. 町田 章（編）1975a『平城京発掘調査報告 VI—平城京左京一条三坊の調査—』奈良国立文化財研究所．
MACHIDA Akira (ed.) 1975b. Heijōkyō Sakyō Sanjō Nibō [Survey of the Heijōkyō Sakyō
Sanjō Nibō site]. Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties. 町田 章
（編）1975b『平城京左京三条二坊』奈良国立文化財研究所．
MACHIDA Akira & SAWADA Masaaki (eds.) 1981. V-3 Mokuseihin [V-3: Wooden
artifacts], in Heijōkyū hakkutsu chōsa hōkoku X, Kofun jidai I [Report on the
excavation survey at Heijō Palace X: Kofun period I]. Nara National Research『平城
Institute for Cultural Properties. 町田 章・沢田正昭（編）1981「V-3 木製品」
宮発掘調査報告 X 古墳時代 I』奈良国立文化財研究所．
MACHIDA Akira & UEHARA Mahito (eds.) 1985. Mokki shūsei zuroku, Kinki kodaihen [Illustrated collection of wooden artifacts: Ancient-period Kinki]. Nara National
Research Institute for Cultural Properties. 町田 章・上原真人（編）1985『木器集成図録近畿古代篇』奈良国立文化財研究所．
MORIMITSU Toshihiko (ed.) 1995. Heijōkyō Sakyō Nijō Nibō/Sanjō Nibō hakkutsu
chōsa hōkoku: Nagayaō tei/Fujiwara no Maro tei no chōsa [Report on the excavation
survey at Heijōkyō Sakyō Nijō Nibō/Sanjō Nibō: Excavation surveys at the sites of
the Nagayaō and Fujiwara no Maro residences]. Nara National Research Institute forCultural Properties. 毛利光俊彦（編）1995『平城京左京二条二坊・三条二坊発掘調査
報告—長屋王邸・藤原麻呂邸の調査—』奈良国立文化財研究所．
NAKAI Kazuo 1983. Mokuseihin [Wooden artifacts], in Archaeological Institute ofKashihara, Nara Prefecture (ed.), Wani-Morimoto iseki [The Wani and Morimotosites]. Nara Prefectural Board of Education. 中井一夫 1983「木製品」奈良県立橿原考古学研究所（編）『和爾・森本遺跡』奈良県教育委員会．
NISHIOKA Nariaki & FUJITA Saburō 2013. Hotsu-Miyako iseki dai-ichiji hakkutsu
chōsa hōkokusho [Report on the ﬁrst excavation survey at the Hotsu and Miyako
sites]. Tawaramoto Town Board of Education. 西岡成晃・藤田三郎 2013『保津・宮古遺跡第 1 次発掘調査報告書』田原本町教育委員会．
OKADA Shigehiro 1966. IV-4, Mokuseihin, kinzoku seihin [Chapter IV-4, Wooden
artifacts and metal products], in Heijōkyū hakkutsu chōsa hōkoku IV [Report on the
excavation survey at Heijō Palace]. Nara National Research Institute for Cultural© Japanese Archaeological Association

109

MAEDA Hitoki

Properties. 岡田茂弘 1966「IV-4 木製品・金属製品」『平城宮発掘調査報告 IV』奈良国立文化財研究所．

SHIMAKURA Misaburō 1983. Wani-Morimoto iseki kara shutsudo shita mokuseihin nojushu [Tree species of wooden artifacts excavated from the Wani and Morimoto sites],in Archaeological Institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture (ed.), Wani-Morimoto iseki[The Wani and Morimoto sites]. Nara Prefectural Board of Education. 嶋倉巳三郎
1983「和爾・森本遺跡から出土した木製品の樹種」奈良県立橿原考古学研究所（編）『和爾・森本遺跡』奈良県教育委員会．
SHINOHARA Toyoichi & MIYOSHI Miho 1995. Heijōkyō Sakyō Sanjō Sanbō Juttsubo/
Nijō jōkanro no chōsa dai-317-ji [317th Survey at Heijōkyō Sakyō Sanjō Sanbō
Juttsubo/Nijō Jōkan-ro], in Nara-shi maizō bunkazai chōsa gaiyō hōkokusho (Heisei
6-nendo) [Summary report on excavations of buried cultural properties in the city of
Nara (1994)]. Nara City Board of Education. 篠原豊一・三好美穂 1995「平城京左京三条三坊十坪・二条条間路の調査第 317 次 」『 奈良市埋蔵文化財調査概要報告書（平成 6 年度）』奈良市教育委員会．
SUGIYAMA Hiroshi 1983. Dai-ichiji Chōshūden suiteichi no chōsa dai-146-ji [Firstarchaeological survey at the presumed site of the Chōshūden hall (146th Heijōpalace site survey)], in Heijō-kyūseki Hakkutsu Chōsa-bu hakkutsu chōsa gaihō[Summary excavation survey report by the Heijō Palace Excavation Survey
Oﬃce]. Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties. 杉山 洋 1983
『平城宮跡発掘調査部発掘調査概報』奈良国立「第一次朝集殿推定地の調査第 146 次」
文化財研究所．

YAMAKAWA Hitoshi & FUKUDA Sayoko 1990. Harumichi iseki Kogita chiku hakkutsu
chōsa gaiyō hōkokusho [Summary report on the excavation survey at the Harumichisite in the Kogita district]. Yamato Kōriyama City Board of Education. 山川 均・福田さよ子 1990『治道遺跡小北地区発掘調査概要報告書』大和郡山市教育委員会．
YAMAUCHI Noritsugu et al. 1995. Furu iseki Mishima (Satonaka) chiku hakkutsu
chōsa hōkokusho [Report on the excavation survey at the Furu site in the Mishima(Satonaka) district]. Tenri University Sankōkan (ed.). Nara Prefecture: Tenri
University. 山内紀嗣ほか 1995『布留遺跡三島（里中）地区発掘調査報告書』天理大学
付属天理参考館分室（編） 奈良県：天理大学．
Shiga prefecture
HAMA Osamu, KITAHAMA Yoshihiro, ATŌ Hiroshi, YOSHIDA Hidenori, TAINAKA
Yōsuke et al. 1998. Akanoiwan iseki [The Akanoiwan site]. Shiga Prefectural Boardof Education (Secretariat’s section of cultural properties protection) and Shiga
Prefectural Association for Cultural Heritage. 濱 修・北浜圭弘・阿刀弘史・吉田秀
則・田井中洋介ほか 1998『赤野井湾遺跡』滋賀県教育委員会事務局文化財保護課・
滋賀県文化財保護協会．

HIRAI Yoshinori, NAKAMURA Tomotaka, NAKAGAWA Masahito, NIIYAMA
Masahiro, FUJINE Hisashi, TAKEHARA Hironobu, KAWAMOTO Kōzō, YAMADA© Japanese Archaeological Association

110THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

Takuji, KANOMATA Yoshitaka, SAKAI Kumiko, & IKEDA Toshiharu 2008. Yanagi
iseki IV Kusatsu-shi Aoji-chō [Yanagi site IV, Aoji, Kusatsu]. Shiga Prefectural Boardof Education and Shiga Prefectural Association for Cultural Heritage. 平井美典・中村

智孝・中川正人・新山雅広・藤根 久・竹原弘展・川本耕三・山田卓司・鹿又喜隆・
酒井久美子・池田利晴 2008『柳遺跡 IV 草津市青地町』滋賀県教育委員会・滋賀県文化財保護協会．

NAKAI Hitoshi 1987. Irie-naiko iseki hakkutsu chōsa hōkokusho [Report on the
excavation survey at the Irie-naiko site]. Maihara Town Board of Education. 中井 均
1987『入江内湖遺跡発掘調査報告書』米原町教育委員会．
NAKAI Hitoshi, OKADA Fumio et al. 1988. Irie-naiko iseki (Gyōjimachi chiku) hakkutsu
chōsa hōkokusho [Report on the excavation survey at the Irie-naiko site (Gyōjimachiarea)]. Maihara Town Board of Education. 中井 均・岡田文男ほか 1988『入江内湖遺跡（行司町地区）発掘調査報告書』米原町教育委員会．
ŌHASHI Nobuya & TANIGUCHI Tōru 1984. Hattori iseki hakkutsu chōsa hōkokusho V[5th Report on the excavation survey at the Hattori site]. Shiga Prefectural Board of
Education, Moriyama City Board of Education, and Shiga Prefectural Association for
Cultural Heritage. 大橋信弥・谷口 徹 1984『服部遺跡発掘調査報告書 V』滋賀県教育委員会・守山市教育委員会・滋賀県文化財保護協会．

SHIMIZU Takashi, KOTAKEMORI Naoko, ŌSAKI Tetsuhito, HATANAKA Eiji,
DEBUCHI Junko, & NAKAMURA Masumi 1992. Hariekawa-kita (II) iseki,
Yoshitakejō iseki [Hariekawa II site and Yoshitakejō site]. Shiga Prefectural Board of
Education and Shiga Prefectural Association for Cultural Heritage. 清水 尚・小竹森
直子・大崎哲人・畑中英二・出渕順子・中村ますみ 1992『針江川北（II）遺跡・吉武
城遺跡』滋賀県教育委員会・滋賀県文化財保護協会．
SUGIURA Takashi (ed.) 2005. Shiga-ken Kanzaki-gun Ishida iseki [The Ishida site in the
Kanzaki district, Shiga prefecture]. Notogawa Town Board of Education. 杉浦隆支（編）2005『滋賀県神崎郡石田遺跡』能登川町教育委員会．
TANABE Shōzō, KATŌ Osamu, EGUCHI Chieko et al. 1973. Kosei-sen kankei isekihakkutsu chōsa hōkokusho [Report on the excavation survey at Kosei Line-relatedsites]. Shiga Prefectural Board of Education. 田辺昭三・加藤 修・江口千恵子ほか
1973『湖西線関係遺跡発掘調査報告書』滋賀県教育委員会．
TANAKA Katsuhiro (ed.) 1988. Hokuriku Jidōshadō kanren iseki hakkutsu chōsa
hōkokusho X: Nagahama-shi Kunitomo iseki [10th Report on excavation surveys
at Hokuriku Expressway-related sites: Kunitomo site, city of Nagahama]. Shiga
Prefectural Board of Education and Shiga Prefectural Association for Cultural
Heritage. 田中勝弘（編） 1988『北陸自動車道関連遺跡発掘調査報告書 X—長浜市国友遺跡—』滋賀県教育委員会・滋賀県文化財保護協会．
UEDA Fumio (ed.) 1992. Tononishi iseki (2-ji chōsa) [The Tononishi site (2nd survey)].
Notogawa Town Board of Education. 植田文雄（編）1992『斗西遺跡（2 次調査）』能
登川町教育委員会．

YAMAZAKI Hideji 1985. Yoshiminaka iseki hakkutsu chōsa hōkokusho [Report on© Japanese Archaeological Association

111

MAEDA Hitoki

the excavation survey at the Yoshiminaka site], in Moriyama-shi bunkazai chōsa
hōkokusho (dai-16 satsu) [City of Moriyama cultural properties survey reports (vol.
16)]. Moriyama City Board of Education and Moriyama Municipal Research Center『守山市
for Buried Cultural Properties. 山崎秀二 1985「吉見中遺跡発掘調査報告書」
文化財調査報告書（第 16 冊）』守山市教育委員会・守山市立埋蔵文化財センター．
Mie prefecture
HOZUMI Hiromasa (ed.) 2000. Rokudai A iseki hakkutsu chōsa hōkoku mokuseihin hen[Report on the excavation survey at the Rokudai A site: Wooden artifacts]. Mie
Prefectural Research Center for Buried Cultural Properties. 穂積裕昌（編）2000『六大A 遺跡発掘調査報告木製品編』三重県埋蔵文化財センター．
ISHII Tomohiro, KAWABE Kōji, SAKURAI Takuma, & HOZUMI Hiromasa 2012.
Nōso iseki I: Ikō, doki, mokuseihin hen [The Nōso site I: Structural remains, pottery,wooden artifacts]. Mie Prefectural Research Center for Buried Cultural Properties.
石井智大・川部浩司・櫻井拓馬・穂積裕昌 2012『納所遺跡 I—遺構・土器・木製品
編—』三重県埋蔵文化財センター．
KAWATO Tatsuya, KIHIRA Midori, HOZUMI Hiromasa, & KAWAKITA Hidemi 2009.
Hashigaito iseki (kendō A–C chiku) hakkutsu chōsa hōkoku [Report on the excavation
survey at the Hashigaito site (prefectural road A–C areas)]. Mie Prefectural ResearchCenter for Buried Cultural Properties. 川戸達也・紀平みどり・穂積裕昌・河北秀美
2009『橋垣内遺跡（県道 A 〜 C 地区）発掘調査報告』三重県埋蔵文化財センター．
WATANABE Naoto & HOZUMI Hiromasa 1993. Ōmizo shutsudo mokuseihin ni tsuite[Wooden artifacts excavated from large ditches], in Matsunoki iseki, Moriyamahigashi iseki, Ōta iseki hakkutsu chōsa hōkoku [Report on the excavation surveys at
the Matsunoki, Moriyama, and Ōta sites]. Mie Prefectural Research Center for Buried『松ノ木遺Cultural Properties. 渡辺尚登・穂積裕昌 1993「大溝出土木製品について」跡・守山東遺跡・太田遺跡発掘調査報告』三重県埋蔵文化財センター．
Kyoto prefecture
MORI Tadashi, INO Chikatomi, & NAKAGAWA Kazuya 1993. 1. Kokudō 176-gō kankei
iseki hakkutsu chōsa gaiyō (1) Kuragasaki iseki [1. Overview of the excavation
surveys at sites related to National Road no. 176(1): The Kuragasaki site], in Kyōtofu iseki chōsa gaihō (dai-54 satsu) [Kyoto prefecture archaeological investigation
summary reports (vol. 54)]. Kyoto Prefectural Research Center for Buried Cultural
Properties. 森 正・伊野近富・中川和哉 1993「1．国道 176 号関係遺跡発掘調査概要（1）蔵ヶ崎遺跡 」『 京都府遺跡調査概報（ 第 54 冊 ）』京都府埋蔵文化財調査研究セン
ター．

SUZUKI Hisao & NAGATA Shin’ichi (eds.) 1998. Mizutare iseki Nagaokakyō Sakyō
Roku/Shichi-jō Sanbō [The Mizutare site, Nagaokakyō Sakyō Roku/Shichi-jō Sanbō].
Kyoto City Archaeological Research Institute. 鈴木久男・永田信一（編）1998『水垂遺跡長岡京左京六・七条三坊』京都市埋蔵文化財研究所．
© Japanese Archaeological Association

112THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

TAKANO Yōko 2018. Mokuseihin [Wooden artifacts], in Kyōto-fu iseki chōsa
hōkokushū (dai-173 satsu): Shimomizushi iseki dai-1, 4, 6 ji [Kyoto prefecturearchaeological investigation reports (vol. 173): The ﬁrst, fourth, and sixth
excavations at the Shimomizushi site]. Kyoto Prefectural Research Center for Buried『京都府遺跡調査報告集（第 173 冊）
Cultural Properties. 高野陽子 2018「木製品」
下水主遺跡第 1・4・6 次』京都府埋蔵文化財調査研究センター．
Kizuchi and ōgata-kizuchi in the Kinki region
AOYAGI Taisuke (ed.) 2009. Higasahanagari iseki [The Higasahanagari site].
Archaeological Institute of Kashihara, Nara Prefecture. 青柳泰介（編）2009『日笠花刈遺跡』奈良県立橿原考古学研究所．
HORIGUCHI Kenji (ed.) 2009. Kurōdo iseki hakkutsu chōsa hōkokusho II [2nd Report on
the excavation survey at the Kurōdo site]. Suita City Board of Education. 堀口健二
（編）2009『蔵人遺跡発掘調査報告書 II』吹田市教育委員会．
INOUE Kazuto 1990. Dai-3 shō Ibutsu I: Kinzoku seihin, senka, mokuseihin nado
[Chapter 3, Relics I: Metal products, coins, wooden artifacts, etc.], in Nara Prefectural
Board of Education (ed.) Saidaiji bōsai shisetsu kōji hakkutsu chōsa hōkokusho[Report on excavation surveys at Saidaiji temple’s disaster prevention facilities]. Nara
Prefectural Board of Education and Nara National Research Institute for Cultural
Properties. 井上和人 1990「第 3 章遺物 1 金属製品・銭貨・木製品等」奈良県教育委員会（編）『西大寺防災施設工事・発掘調査報告書』奈良県教育委員会・奈良文化財研究
所．

KOBAYASHI Ken’ichi, MACHIDA Akira et al. (eds.) 1997. Heijōkyō Sakyō Shichijō
Ichibō Jūgo/Jūroku-tsubo hakkutsu chōsa hōkokusho [Report on excavation surveys atthe Heijōkyō Sakyō Shichijō Ichibō Jūgo/Jūroku-tsubo site]. Nara National ResearchInstitute for Cultural Properties. 小林謙一・町田 章ほか（編）1997『平城京左京七条一坊十五・十六坪発掘調査報告書』奈良国立文化財研究所．
MORIMITSU Toshihiko (ed.) 1985. Heijōkyō Sakyō Hachijō Ichibō San/Roku-tsubo
hakkutsu chōsa hōkokusho [Report on excavation surveys at the Heijōkyō Sakyō
Hachijō Ichibō San/Roku-tsubo site]. Nara National Research Institute for Cultural
Properties. 毛利光俊彦（編）1985『平城京左京八条一坊三・六坪発掘調査報告書』奈良国立文化財研究所．

MORITA Katsuyuki 1984. Settsu Takatsukijō honmaru ato hakkutsu chōsa hōkokusho[Report on excavation surveys at the site of the Settsu Takatsuki castle main
enclosure]. Takatsuki City Board of Education. 森田克行 1984『摂津高槻城本丸跡発掘調査報告書』高槻市教育委員会．
TAKAHASHI Yoshikuni, MOMOSE Masatsune, MOMOSE Chidori, ISHIO Masanobu,& YAMANAKA Akira 1978. 3 Shutsudo ibutsu [3. Excavated artifacts], in Mukōshi maizō bunkazai chōsa hōkokusho dai-4 shū [Reports on surveys of buried
cultural properties in the city of Mukō, no. 4]. Mukō City Board of Education. 高
橋 美 久 二・ 百 瀬 正 恒・ 百 瀬 ち ど り・ 石 尾 政 信・ 山 中 章 1978「3 出 土 遺 物 」© Japanese Archaeological Association

113

MAEDA Hitoki『向日市埋蔵文化財調査報告書第 4 集』向日市教育委員会舘．
TATENO Kazumi, KOBAYASHI Ken’ichi, TAMADA Yoshihide, & TERASAKI Yasuhiro
1987. Dairi tōhō Higashi-ōmizo chiku no chōsa [Excavation at the Higashi-ōmizo
area east of Heijō palace], in (Shōwa 61-nendo) Heijō Kyūseki Hakkutsu Chōsa
Bu hakkutsu chōsa gaihō [(FY 1986) Excavation survey summary report of Heijō
Palace Site Excavation Survey Oﬃce]. Nara National Research Institute for Cultural
Properties. 舘野和己・小林謙一・玉田芳英・寺崎保広 1987「内裏東方東大溝地区の調査」『（昭和 61 年度）平城宮跡発掘調査部発掘調査概報』奈良文化財研究所．
Yokozuchi-style wooden artifacts of the Jomon period
AMITANI Katsuhiko 1996. Torihama kaizuka shutsudo no mokuseihin no keitai bunrui[Morphological classiﬁcation of wooden artifacts excavated from the Torihama shell
midden], in Torihama kaizuka kenkyū 1 [Studies of the Torihama shell midden, No.
1]. Fukui Prefectural Wakasa Museum of History and Folklore. 網谷克彦 1996「鳥浜貝塚出土の木製品の形態分類」『鳥浜貝塚研究 1』福井県立若狭歴史民俗資料館．
ARAKAWA Takashi, ISHIMARU Kazumasa, IKARI Toshiya, KATŌ Manabu, &AKATSUKA Tōru 2004. Aota iseki [The Aota site]. Niigata Prefectural Board of
Education and Niigata Prefecture Archaeological Research Corporation. 荒川隆史・石丸和正・猪狩俊哉・加藤 学・赤塚 享 2004『青田遺跡』新潟県教育委員会・新潟
埋蔵文化財調査事業団．

ISHIBASHI Takao, KUDŌ Tomoe, & NISHIKATA Mayu 2005. Ishikari Momijiyama
49-gō iseki hakkutsu chōsa hōkokusho [Report on the excavation survey at the
Ishikari Momijiyama no. 49 site]. Hokkaido Ishikari City Board of Education. 石橋孝
夫・工藤義衛・西方麻由 2005『石狩紅葉山 49 号遺跡発掘調査報告書』北海道石狩市
教育委員会．

KUDŌ Toshiyuki et al. 1982. Morioka-shi Shidanai iseki I [The Shidanai site in the city ofMorioka, I]. Iwate Prefectural Research Center for Buried Cultural Properties. 工藤利幸ほか 1982『盛岡市萪内遺跡 I』岩手県埋蔵文化財センター．
MIURA Masato, KIKUCHI Yasuto, SUEMITSU Masataka, SODEOKA Junko, &HIROTA Ryōsei 2008. Kiusu 5 iseki (8) [The Kiusu site 5, 8th report]. Hokkaido
Research Center for Buried Cultural Properties. 三浦正人・菊池慈人・末光正卓・袖岡淳子・広田良成 2008『キウス 5 遺跡（8）』北海道埋蔵文化財センター．
NOSHIRO Shūichi, SUZUKI Mitsuo, & AMITANI Katsuhiko 1996. Torihama kaizuka
kara shutsudo shita mokuseihin no jushu [Tree species of wooden artifacts excavatedfrom the Torihama shell midden], in Torihama kaizuka kenkyū 1 [Studies of the
Torihama shell midden, 1]. Fukui Prefectural Wakasa Museum of History and
Folklore. 能城修一・鈴木三男・網谷克彦 1996「鳥浜貝塚から出土した木製品の樹
種」『鳥浜貝塚研究 1』福井県立若狭歴史民俗資料館．
SAWADA Takeshi 1996. 5 Mokuseihin [5. Wooden artifacts], in Kiusu 5 iseki (3) [TheKiusu 5 site (3)]. Hokkaido Research Center for Buried Cultural Properties. 澤田 健
『キウス 5 遺跡（3）』北海道埋蔵文化財センター．
1996「5 木製品」
© Japanese Archaeological Association

114

THE FUNCTIONS OF WOODEN MALLETS

SAWADA Takeshi 1998. 5 Mokuseihin [5. Wooden artifacts], in Kiusu 5 iseki (5) [TheKiusu 5 site (5)]. Hokkaido Research Center for Buried Cultural Properties. 澤田 健
『キウス 5 遺跡（5）』北海道埋蔵文化財センター．
1998「5 木製品」
TANEICHI Yukio (ed.) 1989. Oshorodoba iseki, Oshoro 5 iseki [The Oshorodoba site andOshoro 5 iseki]. Hokkaido Research Center for Buried Cultural Properties. 種市幸生
（編）1989『忍路土場遺跡・忍路 5 遺跡』北海道埋蔵文化財センター．
TANISHIMA Yuki, SATŌ Gō, & YOSHIDA Yurihiro 2010. Kashiwagigawa 4 iseki (4)[Kashiwagigawa site 4, 4th report]. Hokkaido Research Center for Buried Cultural
Properties. 谷島由貴・佐藤 剛・吉田裕吏洋 2010『柏木川 4 遺跡（4）』北海道埋蔵文
化財センター．

Yokozuchi-style wooden artifacts on the Korean Peninsula
National Gaya Cultural Heritage Research Institute 2012. Korean Woodwork I: Farming
Tools and Implements. National Gaya Cultural Heritage Research Institute.
국립가야문화재연구소 2012『한국 목기자료집 I- 농기구 및 공구편』국립가야문화재연구소．
CHO Genjong, SHIN Sanghyo, SEON Jae-myeong and SHIN Gyeongsook 2001. Gwangju
Sinchang-dong Wetland Site II. National Gwangju Museum. 趙現鐘・申相孝・宣在
明・申敬淑 2001『光州新昌洞低湿地遺跡Ⅱ』国立光州博物館．

© Japanese Archaeological Association

115