Bodily Representation and Cross-dressing in the
Yayoi and Kofun Periods
MITSUMOTO Jun1
ABSTRACTIn this paper, I re-examined the perception of sex/gender in the Yayoi period, and then pursued thepossibility of cross-dressing bodily representation based on case studies of the Yayoi and Kofun
periods. Regarding the former, I conﬁrmed that genitals and breasts tended not to be represented
in the bodily representation of the Yayoi period. I pointed out that it is important to reexamine how
the biological and anatomical diﬀerences between females and males were discovered and given
meaning in the gendered process. As for the latter, I discussed the possibility of cross-dressing
bodily representation in case studies of buried skeletons from the late Yayoi to Kofun periods at theHirota site on Tanegashima Island, Kagoshima Prefecture, and of human haniwa (clay ﬁgurines)
from the Kabutozuka Kofun in Tochigi Prefecture during the late Kofun period. As a result, it waspointed out that cross-dressing bodily representation appeared in relation to the social structureof the time, and the possibility of male’s clothing being linked to stratiﬁcation. At the same time, I
pointed out that the categories of “females” and “males” were themselves variable in the context ofthe times.
KEYWORDS: Yayoi period, Kofun period, gender, cross-dressing, bodily representation

Whether or not it is possible to ﬁnd bodily representations of cross dressing inarchaeological artefacts depends to a large extent on the view of the individual researcher
or of contemporary society. Cross-dressing is generally deﬁned as dressing in a manner
typical of the other sex (Lovaas 2004). In this paper, however, due to the nature ofarchaeological artefacts examined and in order to expand the number of attributes to beanalysed, cross-dressing is broadly deﬁned to include all body representation, including
hairstyles and personal accessories. The term “cross-dressing” is used here regardless ofwhether it is intentional or unintentional, conscious or unconscious. The main arguments ofthis paper are as follows.
First, cross-dressing bodily representation cannot be found in gender-dual interpretations
that understand objects as having gender-representing/deﬁning eﬀects only when they areassociated with or represent either “women” or “men.” For example, it occurs when an
attribute normally associated with a woman is associated with a man. However, in sucha case, the interpretation pattern would be X) scepticism about the gender representation
1 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Okayama University, Kita-ku, Okayama 700–8530, Japan(jun_m@okayama-u.ac.jp)
Category: Original Article Received: 18 May 2021; Accepted: 27 October 2021
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 9 (2022): 189–210

MITSUMOTO Jun

and interpretation of the object itself, or Y) the assumption of other factors such as social
status rather than gender only when the object is associated with men. I believe that theseinterpretations of X) and Y) arise from taking sex or gender as an interpretive premisein a binary theory of men and women, and then unconsciously applying that binaryclassiﬁcation to objects. As Rosemary Joyce (Joyce 2008, p. 18) and Mary Weismantel(Weismantel 2013, p. 322), who question the relationship between biological sex andcultural and social sex (gender) in archaeology, and others who look at transgenderarchaeology, have already argued the stance that it is necessary to move away fromassumptions of simple sex or gender duality and treatment of gender according only totraits that can be assigned to one of the two categories.
Second is the need to aim at restoring past perceptions of the body, rather than modern,a priori gender, to the concept of “opposite sex” as a precondition for deﬁning crossdressing. For example, to what extent were diﬀerences in reproductive organs an integral
part of gender categories in past societies? According to Akasaka Shunichi, in the Middle
Ages in Western Europe, gender diﬀerences were recognized as diﬀerences in bodytemperature and moisture (Akasaka 2010, p. 62).
In this paper, I would like to ﬁrst examine bodily perceptions of the past, and thenexplore the speciﬁc aspects of cross-dressing in the Yayoi and Kofun periods.

1.

Biological body and gender

How did people in the past perceive their own bodies in relation to gender? Let us consider
the example of the Yayoi culture, which is rich in pictorial materials and ﬁgurines.
Fukazawa (1987) pointed out that gender symbols in pictorial materials and ﬁgurines ofthe period are few. Phallic-shaped stone objects (sekibō) were found throughout westernJapan dating to the early Yayoi period, but from the end of the ﬁrst half of the period,
when pictorial materials appeared, genitalia were rarely represented in either paintings orﬁgurines.1
Shitara (2007) studied the history of gender relations between males and females in the
Yayoi period based on ﬁgurines. What is most noteworthy about Shitara’s research is that
he has shown that the male–female gender pair is not universal but the product of history.
On the other hand, even in ﬁgurines, there are few individual items that represent sex
symbols. Based on compilation of the results found by Shitara and Ishikawa (2017), of 15
ﬁgurine-shaped vessels (dogū-gata yōki) that show the condition of the chest,2 only two(the Fuchinokami example from Nagano Prefecture and the Nakayashiki example from
Kanagawa Prefecture) ﬁguratively represent breasts. Similarly, of the 13 wooden ﬁgurines(mokugū)3 that have external genitalia, two have external genitalia (examples from
Dainakanoko-minami and Yunobe, Shiga Prefecture).
© Japanese Archaeological Association

190

BODILY REPRESENTATION AND CROSS-DRESSING IN THE YAYOI AND KOFUN PERIODS

The possibility that size of body represents gender has earlier been pointed out by
Tsude (1989) and Harunari (1990) based on their analysis of bronze bell (dōtaku) pictures.
Their researches are consistent with the earlier work of Shitara Hiromi (2007). On theother hand, Shitara’s study shows that the attribute of size varies from period to period as
the power relationship between males and females changes. There are views that aﬃrm
the general tendency that a narrow waist represents a woman (Shitara 2007; Harunari2007), but there are also claims that such a distinction is not made in painted materials(Mitsumoto 2006; Matsumoto 2008). In the past, I have argued from the perspective ofdōtaku and pottery paintings that the gendered representation of the whole body in the
mid to late Yayoi period was achieved through gestures (actions) without going throughgenitalia. In the late Yayoi period, with the emergence and development of tattoo paintings,
not only genitals but also actions were omitted, and genderization was achieved throughthe cultural elements of personal “faces” and “tattoos” (Mitsumoto 2006).
If we go back to historian Joan Scott’s famous deﬁnition of gender as “knowledge
about sexual diﬀerence” (Scott 1992, p. 2), it is rather unclear from pictorial materials andﬁgurines what meaning was given to diﬀerences in biological bodies from the mid-Yayoi
period onward. In other words, it is important to re-examine how biological and anatomical
diﬀerences between males and females, including genitalia, were acknowledged/expressed
and given meaning in the genderization process.

2.

Hirota Site, Tanegashima Island

2.1

Outline of the site and some issues

The Hirota site on Tanegashima Island, Kagoshima Prefecture, is an example of pioneeringresearch that recognized the special power of cross-dressing bodily representations. With
its abundance of human remains and burial accessories, it provides a valuable case forconsidering the issues discussed in the previous section.4 The site is a mass grave datingfrom the late Yayoi period to the Kofun period. The ﬁrst three excavations by Kokubu
Naoichi, Morizono Naotaka, and Kanaseki Takeo in 1957–1959 unearthed the remains ofmore than 150 people and more than 40000 shell ornaments.
During the excavation of the site, Kokubu and his colleagues focused on a male humanskeleton buried in a unique manner (DIII District No. 2, hereafter referred to as DIII-2;
Figure 1), and interpreted it as a “shaman having both sexes/genders” (Kanaseki 1975;
Kokubu 1975; Kuwabara ed. 2003). According to Kokubu 1975, the DIII-2 skeleton(1) wore a large number of shell pendants (tōtetsu-mon kaifu), (2) wore dragon-shaped
shell ornaments (ryū-hai-gata kaisei suishoku), (3) wore Sinustrombus latissimus shellbracelets (gohōra-sei kaiwa), (4) was not reburied (characteristic of female burials), (5)had a dominant skeleton that is male but appears feminine. This male also has female© Japanese Archaeological Association

191

MITSUMOTO Jun

Figure 1. DIII-2 remains at Hirota site (Kuwabara Hisao, ed. 2003. Tanegashima Hirota Site.
Kagoshima: Kagoshima Prefectural Center for History and Archives, Reimeikan)

characteristics (1), (2), and (4). Kokubu interpreted it as a special shaman who embodied
the abilities of both sexes/genders in a uniﬁed manner. Since then, Kokubu’s interpretation
has had an impact beyond the archaeological community. In support of Kokubu’s theory,
Mitsuhashi Junko, who conducts cultural history research on cross-dressing and gender“gender-crossing,” cites this case as one in which cross-dressers were considered to have a
special power to transcend and integrate the male and female categories, or “power derived
from both sexes/genders” (Mitsuhashi 2008, pp. 37–45). Referring to folk examples andthe Nihon shoki (Chronicles of Japan), Mitsuhashi also argues that the “duality principle”(awe and reverence for duality) has existed not only in the Nansei Islands but also in Japan
since ancient times.
The long-awaited report by Kokubu and his colleagues published in 2003 did notevaluate the remains of DIII-2 as cross-dressing or as a shaman having both sexes/© Japanese Archaeological Association

192

BODILY REPRESENTATION AND CROSS-DRESSING IN THE YAYOI AND KOFUN PERIODS

genders, except for the transcript of an oral report given by Kokubu and Morizono on the
background and outline of the research. The reason for this is not clear, but here I would
like to look at the research by Yamochi Kumie (2000), which was presented before thepublication of the Kokubo et al. report. Yamochi’s study (2000) analysed the percentage
of male and female holders of shell bracelets and shell pendants, including those made ofgohōra [Sinustrombus latissimus]. As a result, she found that a) the ratio of male to female
ownership of shell bracelets was about 1 : 2, with females owning more shell bracelets thanmales, and b) although females tended to own more shell amulets, a certain number ofmales also owned shell amulets. In other words, the existence of shell amulets cannot be
regarded as feminine, and as a result, the theory of dual-sex priestesses was rejected.
However, following the deﬁnitions I mentioned at the beginning of this article, theseinterpretations are pattern X) and can also be developed into pattern Y). In other words,
it is not possible to extract cross-dressing bodily representations from these patterns ofinterpretation in the ﬁrst place.

2.2 Analysis

At this point, I would like to summarize again the relationship between remains and burial
accessories for the DIII-2 skeleton and contemporaneous materials (Figure 2). In the reporton the Hirota site, Kinoshita Naoko presented the results of her detailed research on theshell ornaments (Kinoshita 2003). The burial remains were grouped based on the strata
and category of shell ornament. Remains [Skeleton] No. DIII-2 is considered to belong to
the “Lower Typology I” group (late Yayoi to early Kofun periods). Based on Kinoshita’s
research and ﬁndings on the remains in the report, I would like to examine nine of the ten
burials in this group, excluding one multi-burial structure for which gender is unidentiﬁed.
Figure 2 lists the sex of the remains and burial accessories for each subject. The order ofthe remains is based on the proximity of the sex and the contents of the burial accessories.
According to the report, there is some uncertainty about the gender of the remains of nos.
S1 and A5, but it is pointed out that the former may be male and the latter may be female.
The following points may be gleaned from Figure 2.5a) The shell bracelet is consistent with the male/female classiﬁcation of the skeletons, andis present only on female remains.
b) All three male skeletons are accompanied by the dragon-shaped shell ornament, but
only one of the ﬁve female skeletons was accompanied by it. Therefore, there is a maleleaning trend in the number of dragon-shaped shell ornaments. The DIII-2 skeleton
stands out in terms of quantity.
c) Shell pendants are present in both males and females, but except for DIII-2, they tend
to be more abundant with female skeletons. The male DIII-2 skeleton had more shellpendants than the female ones.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

193

© Japanese Archaeological Association

194

1

1

1?

1

1

1

1?

1

Male Female

adult

adult

adult

adult tomiddle
adult

adult

infantadult

young to
adult

young

Age

Shell beads

4

8

25

3

2

4

8

13

23

1

1

3

4

6

6

2

9

1

1

0

143

1095

123

750

2653

10064

87

184

97

1044

1

617

1950

6272

69

87

3

33

112

110

564

2185

17

87

6

13

10

21

109

1584

1

7

37

5

2

30

23

3

DragonShell
Shell ShellshapedThin type Thick type Stripedbracelet pendant beads
Conidaependant
dentalium dentalium engina
sum
total

Figure 2. Combinations of human remains and burial goods at the Hirota site
Legend: Numbers represent quantities (Kinoshita 2003). The highest numbers are shaded.

E

D

A-5

EX-1

C

C-5

D

B′

D-II-4

D

B

D-III-2

A-4

A

C-11

A

S1

D-VII-1

Skeleton Gender
No.
type

Skeleton

2

1

1

1

12

1

5

297

2209

275

1508

5321

20138

175

370

Perforated
Turbo
Shell
diskmarmoratus- Glass
artefacts
shapedmadebeads
sum total
artefact
container

MITSUMOTO Jun

BODILY REPRESENTATION AND CROSS-DRESSING IN THE YAYOI AND KOFUN PERIODSd) Shell beads tend to be relatively common in juvenile and female remains, except for
DIII-2.
In this way, it can be said that No. DIII-2 shows masculine characteristics in the shellbracelet and the dragon-shaped shell ornaments, but feminine characteristics in theshell pendants. In addition, considering the fact that DIII-2 has the largest number ofornaments in terms of quantity, it is also possible to interpret DIII-2 as having masculine
characteristics in the dragon-shaped shell ornaments and feminine characteristics in theshell amulets. Therefore, based on the shell ornaments, we can conclude that DIII-2 has
both masculine and feminine characteristics.
In addition, it is also possible to ﬁnd cross-dressing bodily representations on skeletons
other than DIII-2. No. 5, the only female skeleton in District C, has the male-associateddragon-shaped shell ornament, and the number of female-associated shell bracelets issmall. Juvenile skeleton is also cross-dressing in that it is accompanied by a large amountof shell beads, which tend to be more common with females, while the juvenile remains
have the dragon-shaped shell ornaments. Juvenile skeleton is also cross-dressing in that theremains holds a large amount of shell beads [kaitama].
Thus, if we subdivide by gender based on the combination of burial objects and thegender of the human remains (including those that are unclear), we can classify them into
ﬁve or six categories as shown in Figure 2.
Class A: Accompanied by a small amount of shell amulets and dragon-shaped shellornaments. No shell bracelets: Two male skeletons.
Class B: The largest number of shells, dragon pendants, and shell beads. No shell bracelets:
One male skeleton (DIII-2).
Class B′: Similar combination of Class B and shellﬁsh products, but in smaller quantity
than Class B. Juvenile skeleton.
Class C: More shell marks and dragon pendants than Class A, but also shell bracelets: One
female skeleton.
Class D: With shell amulets and many shell rings. No ornament: Three female skeletons.
Class E: Female skeleton with shell amulets and shell bracelets, no dragon-shaped shellornaments; no shell beads: One female skeleton.
In this way, rather than assuming a clear division into male and female, we can thinkof Group I as the product of multiple genders, including minute diﬀerences, in relation
to burial accessories (type and quantity) and sex. The masculine gender is class A, andthe feminine gender is classes D and E. The two classes are at the poles, but there are
diﬀerences among classes D and E as well. In between these two groups, DIII-2 stands
out as intermediate due to the abundance of burial accessories, followed by the juvenile
skeleton and the skeleton of District C, No. 5.
On the other hand, if the above is true, then biological sex also became a reference point© Japanese Archaeological Association

195

MITSUMOTO Jun

in the process of gendering, which can be inferred from the fact that certain combinationsof burial objects and human remains are found. In terms of detailed gender diﬀerences,
however, rather than the burial accessories (gender) being solely deﬁned by sex, I believethat the interaction of sex and gender was created in the context of burial rituals.
As for the DIII-2 human remains, which are intermediate in terms of gender and possessa wealth of secondary burials, as well as the paediatric human remains and the C area No.
5 human remains, it is possible that hierarchical excellence was also achieved. If we argue
in this way, we may rather have the following objections. In other words, the content andquantity of the burial accessories may simply reﬂect hierarchy, not gender. However, I do
not think it is necessary to choose between gendered and stratiﬁed. First of all, I think it
is a general category that cross-dressing phenomena (or phenomena that cross the genderbinary) are accompanied by stratiﬁcation, as I will explain later. Second, I do not think it
is necessary to interpret the two aspects of the display of hierarchy and gender of burial
objects based on gender dualism. In general terms, burial accessories are interpreted toindicate the hierarchy of the buried subject by their quality and quantity. If the burial object
is a “hierarchically dominant male” or a “hierarchically dominant female,” which conforms
to the framework of gender dualism, then perhaps there will be no criticism. Why is itthat as soon as we use the term “hierarchically dominant cross-dressers” (or intermediateor cross-dressing bodily representation with respect to gender), we are forced to choose
between the two, thinking that it is not a matter of gender but of stratiﬁcation? Suchcriticism is ultimately based on the assumption of gender dualism, which is why I do notagree with it in this paper.

3.

Human-shaped Haniwa

3.1

Cross-dressing Bodily Representations in Human-shaped Haniwa

It was Sugiyama Shinsaku (2003, 2006) who pointed out that cross-dressing bodily
representations are recognized on human-shaped haniwa (clay ﬁgures) from the Kofun(mounded tomb) period. Sugiyama pointed out that there is a haniwa from the Shiroyama
No. 1 tomb in Chiba Prefecture that has both the male hairstyle (mizura: divide the hair
into left and right sections and tie the ends of each section around the ears) and breast
representation (double line engraving). The author has also been studying human-shaped
haniwa clay images with cross-dressing bodily representations, such as Tsukamawari No.
4 Kofun in Gunma Prefecture (Mitsumoto 2006), the Aramaki Kofun in Nara Prefecture(Mitsumoto 2013a), the Yatano Ejiri Kofun in Ishikawa Prefecture, Harayama No. 1 Kofun
in Fukushima Prefecture, and others (Mitsumoto 2013b). Normally, human-shaped haniwa
are ﬁrst classiﬁed as male or female according to their hairstyle and whether or not they
have breasts. In general, there are two types of hairstyles for the human-shaped haniwa:© Japanese Archaeological Association

196

BODILY REPRESENTATION AND CROSS-DRESSING IN THE YAYOI AND KOFUN PERIODS

the mage, with long hair tied up at the top of the head, and the mizura, with hair parted left
and right in the middle of the head and tied up near the ears (Kobayashi 1974). The former,
with breast expression, is considered to be a female hairstyle, while the latter, withoutbreast expression, is considered to be a male hairstyle. However, these are attributes
chosen for the purpose of dividing them into two groups, male and female. The author’s
approach, therefore, is to analyse from a single kofun the shared relationship of attributesof the entire bodily representation of a group of human-shaped haniwa excavated.

3.2

Outline of Kabutozuka Kofun, Tochigi Prefecture

In this paper, I would like to take up Kabutozuka Kofun (80 m long, scallop-shaped
mound, TK43 type)6 in Tochigi Prefecture as a new case for gender analysis (Kimura, ed.
2014). Kabutozuka Kofun is known as a burial mound in which an abundance of humanclay ﬁgurines, including two depicting ﬁgures weaving on looms, were excavated in goodcondition. The gender of the 20 human-shaped haniwa, excluding a shield-bearing haniwa,
is assumed to be based on their position upon excavation, rather than their hair style or

Figure 3.

Human-shaped haniwa from Kabutozuka Kofun (Kimura et al. 2014)© Japanese Archaeological Association

197

MITSUMOTO Jun

the presence of breasts (see Figure 3). In order from the stone chamber side, they are
considered as follows (Hidaka 2014).
Figurine nos. 10–16: Males
Figurine nos. 1–9: Females (including loom-weaving type)Figurine nos. 17–20: Males (horse-drawn terra-cotta tomb ﬁgurine)
The above aspect of Kabutozuka Kofun has been evaluated as a group of humanhaniwa clay images based on two distinct categories, male and female (Hidaka 2014). It isnoteworthy that the largest female haniwa, with a bowl on her head, belonging to group 2,
is the central ﬁgure of this haniwa group and is considered to represent the burial subjectof this tomb (Hidaka 2014, 2016; Higashimura 2017). It is not my intention to pursue thepossibility of its representing the latter burial or not. In the previous case analyses thatthe author has undertaken, the arrangement of human-shaped haniwa was not taken into
account. In this paper, I would like to explore the gender structure of the haniwa images
in the kofun tombs based on the arrangement of the haniwa, including this central ﬁgurine
No. 6.

3.3 Analysis

Figure 4 lists the human-shaped haniwa of Kabutozuka Kofun in the order of their
excavation location (the right side is on the stone chamber side, and the left side is on therear circle side). First of all, I would like to focus on the relationship between the presenceor absence of a headdress and the hairstyle. In order from the stone chamber side, we canﬁnd a) No. 16 with a hat and hair worn down (mizura), and No. 15 with a hat and hairswept upward (mizura style), b) nos. 9, 6, and 5 with a headband and mage style hair, andc) No. 7 with a fragment of a possible crown excavated from the vicinity. The relationshipbetween hairstyle and headdress in c) is not known, but the situation in a) and b) can beseen to correspond to the form of the hairstyle, at least depending on the type of headdress.
If we take up only this point, it may be understood that a clear distinction was madebetween males and females.
The actual situation is a little more detailed: nos. 10 to 12 of the raised mizura, which
are sandwiched between a) and b) and c), and the individuals on the posterior side of thecircle from No. 5 do not have headgear. The presence or absence of hats and hairstyles
indicate that the attributes of the human-shaped haniwa on the stone chamber side are
diﬀerent from those on the stone chamber side. The relationship between the two is gradualas it moves to the left side. It is a relationship that is diﬀerentiated by the presence orabsence of a hat and the form of mizura, but is also connected.
With hat+hair down mizura (No. 16)
With hat+hair swept up mizura (No. 15)
No hat +hair swept up mizura (nos. 10–12, 19, and 20)© Japanese Archaeological Association

198

199

〇

〇

×

—

—

—

horse

×

28

19

31.5

20.6

horse horse

—

—

×
—

×

1

—

〇

1

—

—

—

17

mage

×

2

32

21.6

stick
vessel

×

〇

〇

×

2

30

22.6

×

×

〇

〇

×

1

vessel comb

mage

×

1

40

21.4

×

×

〇

〇

○

1

comb

mage

×

3

36

22.4

—

×

〇

〇

○

×

—

—

—

4

6

7

40

21.6

×

×

〇

〇

○

1

×

mage

46

24.6

×

〇

〇

×

×

1

comb

mage

×

〇

〇

—

—

—

—

—

8

(32.7)

61.9·
29.5

40.6

38.2·
29.7

weavingweavingloom
loom(special (indigenous
type)
type)

〇

〇

〇

○

1

—

—

headband headband coronet?

5

Figure 4. Attributes of human-shaped haniwa from Kabutozuka Kofun—: unknown ○: exist ×: don’t/doesn’t exsist ( ): restored numerical data

Height ofcylindalsection (cm)

—

×

×

Bottomdiameter ofcylindalsection (cm)

〇

×

—

Breasts

Paintig Red
color:
White
upper
garment Black

horse

—

—

Necklace:
1 or 2 strings

Combination
with otherthings

〇

×

×

—

—

Objects on thehead: comb/
vessel×

upwardly
mizura×

upwardly
mizura18

Hairstyle19

Headdress

20

Individual No./
Attribute

41

22.6

—

×

〇

〇

○

1

comb

mage

headband9(37.5)

22.6

×

〇

〇

×

×

1

×

upwardly
mizura×10(37.3)

19.5

knife

〇

〇

×

×

×

×

upwardly
mizura

×

11

41

20.4

knife

〇

〇

〇

×

×

×

upwardly
mizura

×

12

42

22.6

〇
hoe

〇

×

×

1

×

×

40.5 34

hat

16

—

—

×

〇

〇

×

—

×

×

upwardly downwardly
mizuramizura

hat

15

〇

〇

×

—

—

—

—

—

14

22.4 20.6

hoe

〇

〇

〇

×

×

×

—

—

13

BODILY REPRESENTATION AND CROSS-DRESSING IN THE YAYOI AND KOFUN PERIODS© Japanese Archaeological Association

MITSUMOTO Jun

This situation changes drastically in the group of nos. 9, 6, and 5, which have aheadband, and No. 7, which may have a crown. In other words, the presence or absenceof headgear has a waveform of presence, absence, presence, and absence from the stonechamber side in the sequence. The group of nos. 9 to 5 (although 8 is unknown) is more
distinctive because it is surrounded by a group without headgear, and because it is placednext to nos. 10 to 12, the group closest to the stone chamber where the common attributewith No. 16 is weakened. It can be said that these objects stand out for their individual
character.
On the other hand, how can we understand the size of the individual haniwa? Since
there are only a limited number of specimens whose total body size is known, let us focus
on the base diameter and height of the vessel base (Figure 4, Figure 5). In both cases, No.
6 is the largest. Next to No. 6, which has the highest base, the next highest are No. 15 andnos. 9–13, which are on the side of the stone chamber from No. 6. However, the heightof No. 14 and nos. 7 and 8, which are the loom-weaving haniwa, is diﬀerent from theabove, because the height of the back part tends to be higher than that of No. 6 until nos.
3 and 5, and then it decreases with the formation of nos. 1, 2, 17 and 18. In this way, thecharacteristic of large size that has been pointed out for No. 6 can be linked to the trend ofheight from the stone chamber side to nos. 3 and 5.

Figure 5. Height of cylindrical section of human-shaped haniwa excavated from Kabutozuka
Kofun (based on the order in which they were arranged in the burial mound). Nos. 7, 10, and 11:
restored numerical data
© Japanese Archaeological Association

200

BODILY REPRESENTATION AND CROSS-DRESSING IN THE YAYOI AND KOFUN PERIODS

Let us take a look at the other attributes. Of the eight individual haniwa with the
topknot hairstyle (nos. 1–9), seven have a necklace. In contrast, only two of the six inthe nos. 10–16 area, where the mizura hairstyle is found on the stone chamber side, havea necklace. In other words, the presence or absence of a necklace is considered to havea certain relationship with the hairstyle. In addition, the fact that No. 1, which is at theposterior end of the kofun, has two necklaces, while No. 16, which is located at the mostlithic side of the latter, has no necklaces, suggests that the presence or absence of necklaces
and the number of necklaces may be used to classify gender.
An interesting trend can also be seen in the colouring of the upper garment. The basic
colour scheme for individuals nos. 1 through 9 is red pigment, but for No. 6, the colour
scheme is diﬀerent, consisting of white and black. This aspect of No. 6 is common to nos.
10, 11, 15, and 16 on the stone chamber side.
In this way, each attribute that constitutes expression of a bodily feature corresponds
to the arrangement of the individual item. In this way, each attribute that constitutes
bodily expression can be said to create a commonality that straddles the diﬀerences andcohesiveness within and across the cohesiveness of (1) nos. 10 to 16, (2) nos. 1 to 9, and(3) nos. 17 to 20 that has been pointed out so far. There is some validity in the conventional
interpretation that zones (1) and (3) are male gender and (2) is female gender, dependingon the hairstyle and the presence of breasts. However, in reality, if we add the layers of
the relationship between the hat and the hairstyle, the neck ornament, and the colouring of
the upper garment, we can see that the eﬀects of the female/male gender are linked to theplacement of the hat and the hairstyle, and that there is a detailed intensity and undulation.
The most markedly male-gendered ﬁgure is No. 16, while the most female-gendered ﬁgure
is No. 1 in terms of arrangement, neck ornament, upper garment colouring, and height.
In other words, I believe that the poles of both genders are generated by the arrangement
and body expression. In this context, No. 6, along with the surrounding group of nos. 5
to 9, has a high aﬃnity with No. 16. The fact that there is no breast expression in No. 6
also increases its commonality with No. 16. Hidaka (2015, p. 70) points out the paired
relationship between nos. 6 and 16 as central ﬁgures, but considers No. 6 to be a crossdressing physical expression in that it has a shared attribute relationship with No. 16 as
well as the cohesion of nos. 5 to 9. In this case, it could be both male and female clothing,or it could be more ambivalent, as has been pointed out at the Hirota site.7

4.

Formation mechanism of cross-dressing bodily representation

So far, we have examined the biological body and the cases of the Hirota site andKabutozuka Kofun. Although the periods and regions are diﬀerent, I would like todiscuss the formation mechanism of cross-dressing bodily expression by focusing on the© Japanese Archaeological Association

201

MITSUMOTO Jun

similarities between the Hirota site and the Kabutozuka Kofun.

4.1

Cross-dressing and hierarchy

What both sites have in common is that cross-dressing bodily representations are expressedin a hierarchical manner. Regarding the Hirota site, Shinzato Takayuki described skeleton
No. DIII-2 as “bisexual” with parentheses on the diagram, and focused on the fact that
it is the only one in this particular burial posture and has the largest number of shellornaments of any ﬁgure at the site, as well as the fact that its burial position is surroundedby others (Shinzato 2009, p. 162). As a result, the DIII-2 skeleton was evaluated as having
a privileged status over the other persons buried there. Shinzato’s point is suggestive in
exploring the social position of the DIII-2 remains. At the same time, what is important
here is not to fall into the existing interpretation pattern Y) described at the beginning of
this paper. In the ﬁrst place, gender is something that works in tandem with various social
factors. At least in the case of the DIII-2 remains, the cross-dressing situation seems tohave had the eﬀect of raising the status of the individual.
In the case of Kabutozuka Kofun, the phenomenon of shared attributes was also
observed among the central ﬁgures. The attribute of height has been considered linked tohierarchy (Mizuno 1977). The analysis here, by contrast, focuses on the fact that high/low
groups are formed across the two categories of male and female according to height, i.e.,
noting that the sharing of attributes between males and females occurs even if it is a resultof stratiﬁcation.
In the case of Tsukamawari No. 4 Kofun, Gunma prefecture, for example, there is a
ﬁgure with a topknot hairstyle and a large sword. In another example, there is a ﬁgure witha mage hairstyle and a large sword in Tsukamawari No. 4 Kofun, as well as a ﬁgure sitting
on a chair and a kneeling ﬁgure with a mizura hairstyle (Mitsumoto 2006). In the Aramaki
Kofun in Nara Prefecture, there is a ﬁgure of a person playing a koto, a ﬁgure with a malegendered headgear, but with line engravings of breasts (but no hairstyle) (Mitsumoto
2013a).
The close intertwining of cross-dressing and social stratiﬁcation is a phenomenon thatis often recognized, especially in cases of male cross-dressing. This is especially true inthe case of cross-dressing and social stratiﬁcation, such as the cross-dressing saints ofmedieval Western Europe (Akasaka 2010), the theory that Himiko and emperors Kōken
and Shōtoku were queens and empresses dressed as males (Takeda 1998, 2000), the imageof Queen Hatshepsut with the beard of ancient Egypt (Arnold 2014, p. 17), or even inliterary works and plays (Saeki 2009). Due to the eﬀect of misogyny, on the contrary,
there are also examples of literature from seventeenth-century England where women’s
masculine hairstyles were tolerated, while men’s feminine hairstyles were given strict
attention (Garber 1992, p. 30).
© Japanese Archaeological Association

202

BODILY REPRESENTATION AND CROSS-DRESSING IN THE YAYOI AND KOFUN PERIODS

This tendency to associate male attire with social hierarchy is more likely to beestablished in a male-dominated society. In the case of the Hirota site, it is diﬃcult todetermine whether it represents a more ambivalent bisexual power, or cross-dressing.
However, at least it does not ﬁt the above scheme of “male attire = hierarchicalexcellence.” On the other hand, there is the possibility of male attire in No. 6 haniwa
of Kabutozuka Kofun. According to research on kinship structure, while the Kofun
period was based on a bilinear kinship structure, from the mid-Kofun period onward, thepatrilineal succession to the position of leadership progressed at the head-of-state level(Seike 2011, p. 235). This paper focuses on the relationship between the human body andthe haniwa. In the case of Tsukamawari No. 4 Kofun, which is analysed in Mitsumoto(2006), there were both male and female human-shaped haniwa with cross-genderedbodily representations, and they represent particular examples of human-shaped haniwa.
Based on the analysis in this paper, the following characteristics of cross-dressing bodily
representations in the Yayoi and Kofun periods may be identiﬁed.
(1) Cross-dressing bodily representations are formed by the mixture of gender expressionof males and females.
(2) Those particularities are linked to a high social status.
(3) Based on these two points, the nature of power relations between males and females
in an individual community is likely to have aﬀected the direction of cross-dressing or
ambiguity.
In other words, the cross-dressing bodily representations of the Yayoi and Kofun
periods suggest a background in which power relations between males and females were
not established or indeterminate to the extent that the simple scheme of “male attire =hierarchical superiority” described above could be established. Rather than creating a sex/
gender category crisis (Garber 1992), I believe the community was accommodating for
persons practicing cross dressing.

4.2

Diﬀerences in “ female ” and “ male ” categories

In the case of the Hirota site, anthropological research on the Kofun period foundcorrespondences between the gender of human remains, i.e., the biological body, and burial
accessories (Seike 1996). The analysis of the Hirota site attempted to present a gendertypology, and I believe that a more detailed gender typology than that of the biologicalbody was formed through the combination of the two.
As one example for clarifying the background of that typology, Kabutozuka Kofun may
provide a helpful reference point. At Kabutozuka Kofun, the combination of the placementof the human-shaped haniwa and their attributes express hierarchy and occupation, and at
the same time overlap male and female gender attributes. As a result, diﬀerences arise evenamong haniwa of each gender. For example, the height of the base of horse-drawn haniwa© Japanese Archaeological Association

203

MITSUMOTO Jun

nos. 18 and 19 is lower than that of the haniwa with hair worn down in the mizura style on
the stone chamber side, and even lower than that of the No. 1 female gender haniwa at the
far end. Although it is possible that the formative factor of the horse-drawn set inﬂuenced
the height, they are the farthest from the No. 16 male gender haniwa at the far end in termsof both placement and physical attributes, and are rather continuous with the adjacent nos.
1 and 2 in terms of no headdress, neck ornament, no breast expression, and height of thevessel base. In other words, the presence or absence of a hat and the height of the vessel
are continuous. In other words, as mentioned in the section on the presence/absence ofa hat and the type of mizura hairstyle, the male/female categories are not a single color,but rather, as mediated by the hierarchy and the job title, there are gradations within the
category, with the male haniwa closer to the female category.
In the case of Kabutozuka Kofun, the presence or absence of breast expression on an
individual with a topknot does not mean that breast expression was regarded as an essential
attribute that deﬁned female gender, even if we assume that age may have been a factor.
These examples suggest that the ritual practice of making and arranging haniwa, which isrelated to burial, plays a part in the “knowledge” that gave meaning to physical diﬀerences,and that physical diﬀerences are not something given, but are socially signiﬁed and foundin the community through the device of ritual.

Conclusion
This paper examines cross-dressing bodily representation while re-examining the categoryof gender itself, which is assumed to be the basis of cross-dressing. What kind of genderarchaeology can be developed in a situation where past perceptions of the biological bodyare unclear? The culture-historical archaeological approach, as in the previous study,
which posits there being two categories of gender, namely females and males, and explores
the relationship between the two, may provide important insights. What I would like toargue here, however, is that it is necessary to pursue the historicity of the minute gendercategories that may be lost in this dichotomy from even more diverse perspectives. I
believe that this is an inevitable part of the future development of the subtopic of sexual
orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in the ﬁeld of gender archaeology.

Notes
1 Such recognition is reasonable in light of Akiyama 2017.
2 The 16 ﬁgurine-shaped containers are from: Shimohashita, Aichi Prefecture (1);Murajiri, Niigata Prefecture (2); Fuchinoue, Nagano Prefecture (2); Shimosakaizawa,
Nagano Prefecture (1); Kaito, Nagano Prefecture (1); Oka, Yamanashi Prefecture© Japanese Archaeological Association

204

BODILY REPRESENTATION AND CROSS-DRESSING IN THE YAYOI AND KOFUN PERIODS(2); Sakai, Yamanashi Prefecture (1), Ikegami, Saitama Prefecture (1); Nakayashiki,
Kanagawa Prefecture (1), Uenojiri, Fukushima Prefecture (1); Suzukinuma, Miyagi
Prefecture (1); t the ruins of Hachinohe Castle, Aomori Prefecture (2); and Unoda,
Aomori Prefecture (1).
3 The 13 wooden ﬁgurines consist of: Yamaga, Osaka Prefecture (1); Kami, Osaka
Prefecture (1); Dainakanoko-minami, Shiga Prefecture (2); Yunobe, Shiga Prefecture(4), Karasumazaki Shiga Prefecture (1); Akanoi-hama, Shiga Prefecture (1);Kawamukami, Shimane Prefecture (1), Aoya Kamijichi, Tottori Prefecture (1); andAsahi, Aichi Prefecture (1).
4 My analysis of the Hirota site was presented at the 2016 World Archaeological Congress(Kyoto). After discussing the site for the ﬁrst time at the Kyoto conference, I mentioned
it in my lectures and presentations at the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford
University in 2019 (Mitsumoto 2016, 2019a, 2019b). I would like to thank Habu Junko,
Christine Hastorf, Rosemary Joyce, and Laurie A. Wilkie at the University of California,
Berkeley, Li Liu at Stanford University, and others for their helpful suggestions.
5 According to Funahashi Kyōko, in the case of the Hirota site, there is no correlation
between tooth extraction and the sex of the human remains (Funahashi 2010).
6 The way the Kabutozuka Kofun example should be was noticed by the Faculty of
Literature at Okayama University, in which I participate. I would like to express
my gratitude for the opportunity to have been able to attend Higashimura Junko’spresentation (Higashimura 2019) and to have had the opportunity to discuss it.
7 Hidaka Shin (2021) evaluated the aforementioned interpretation presented in
Mitsumoto’s research publication (Mitsumoto 2019c), which is the basis of this paper,as interesting, but also showed a negative view (Hidaka 2021). In particular, this authorﬁnds signiﬁcance in the absence of breasts in No. 6, which pointed to the possibilityof cross-dressing, and the absence of breasts in No. 1, which was evaluated as themost female-gendered haniwa, and therefore, my interpretation was questioned. Thisauthor does not believe, as Hidaka argues, that the breast is necessarily associated withfemale haniwa in a single tomb. In addition, as Hidaka states, the presence or absenceof breast expression may be due to factors such as the age group to which the humanshaped haniwa belongs, or the fact that the haniwa creator may have inadvertently
omitted breast expression with no particular intention. The author believes that thepresence or absence of breast expression is related to various individual circumstancesof each haniwa. This is the reason, based on attributes other than breast expression,
why I interpreted No. 1 as the most female-gendered haniwa. On the other hand, withregard to the absence of breast expression in No. 6, I dared to point out its relevance tocross-dressing because I thought that the possibility of cross-dressing being includedin the individual circumstances regarding the presence or absence of breast expression© Japanese Archaeological Association

205

MITSUMOTO Jun

could be taken into consideration along with other factors. With regard to the presenceor absence of breast expression, if it is expressed, it may be pointed out that it may
indicate femininity. On the other hand, the problem lies in the fact that there arevarious factors that can be assumed when breasts are not expressed. In other words, it
is possible to assume that the reason for not expressing breasts is sometimes because
the person is too young, sometimes to weaken the femininity, and sometimes to express
male gender (male attires). In other words, when assuming various factors related tothe presence or absence of breast expression, it would be a mistake to exclude factors
caused by cross-dressing, as this would lead to an interpretation that is based on modern
heteronormativity. In this paper, the possibility of No. 1 or No. 2 as the most femalegendered individual is pointed out, based on the points made by Hidaka (2021) and peer
review.

References
AKASAKA Shunichi 2010. Iseisō no gendā kōzō [The gender structure of cross-dressing],
in AKASAKA Shunichi and YANAGITANI Keiko (eds.) Gendā-shi sōsho [Series ongender history] 8: 46–71. Tokyo: Akashi Shoten. 赤阪俊一「異性装のジェンダー構造」
赤阪俊一・柳谷慶子『ジェンダー史叢書』東京：明石書店．
AKIYAMA Kōzō 2017. Kōgō, san, onmyōdō, and usu: kōkogaku to sono shūhen[Intercourse, birth, onmyōdō and mortars: the archaeology and related topics]. Tokyo:
Seifudo Shoten. 秋山浩三『交合・産・陰陽道・臼—考古学とその周辺—』大阪：清風堂書店．

Arnold, Dorothea 2014. Queens and goddesses in ancient Egypt, in The Metropolitan
Museum of Art’s ancient Egypt: queens and goddesses: 15–21. Tokyo: Asahi
Shimbun.
FUKAZAWA Yoshiki 1987. Yayoijin no biishiki [The aesthetic of the Yayoi people], in
KANASEKI Hiroshi and SAHARA Makoto (eds.) Yayoi Bunka Nokenkyū [Studies of
Yayoi Culture] 8: 215–224. Tokyo: Yūzankaku. 深澤芳樹「弥生人の美意識」金関恕・
佐原眞『弥生文化の研究』第 8 巻．東京：雄山閣．
FUNAHASHI Kyōko 2010. Basshi to shakai shūdan [Ritual tooth extraction and socialgroupings]. Tokyo: Suirensha. 舟橋京子『抜歯と社会集団』東京：すいれん舎．
Garber, Marjorie. 1992. Vested interests: Cross-dressing and cultural anxiety. New York:
Routledge.
HARUNARI Hideji 1990. Otoko to onna no tatakai: dōtaku kaiga no hitokoma[Interpretation of the drawing of a ﬁght sketched on a dōtaku]. Kokuritsu Rekishi
Minzoku Hakubutsukan Kenkyū Hōkoku [Bulletin of the National Museum of『国Japanese History] 25: 1–30. 春成秀爾 1990「男と女の闘い—銅鐸絵画の一齣—」立歴史民俗博物館研究報告』25: 1–30.
HARUNARI Hideji 2007. Girei to shūzoku no kōkogaku [Archaeology of rites and© Japanese Archaeological Association

206

BODILY REPRESENTATION AND CROSS-DRESSING IN THE YAYOI AND KOFUN PERIODS

customs in ancient Japan]. Tokyo: Hanawa Shobō. 春成秀爾『儀礼と習俗の考古学』．

東京：塙書房．

HIDAKA Shin 2014. Kabutozuka Kofun no haniwa hairetsu ni tsuite [Arrangement of
haniwa in Kabutozuka Kofun], in KIMURA Tomonori (ed.), Kabutozuka Kofun
hakkutsu chōsa hōkokusho [Kabutozuka Kofun excavation report]: pp. 210–218.
Shimotsuke City: Shimotsuke City Board of Education. 日高 慎「甲塚古墳の埴輪配列について 」木村友則『 甲塚古墳発掘調査報告書 』下野市教育委員会．(Also in
HIDAKA Shin 2015, Tōgoku Kofun-jidai no bunka to kōryū [Culture and interactionin the Kofun period of eastern Japan]: pp. 210–218. Tokyo: Yūzankaku. 日高 慎
2015『東国古墳時代の文化と交流』pp. 210–218. 東京：雄山閣．)
HIDAKA Shin 2015. Tōgoku Kofun-jidai no bunka to kōryū [Culture and exchange in the
Kofun period eastern provinces]. Tokyo: Yūzankaku. 日高 慎『東国古墳時代の文化と交流』東京：雄山閣．
HIDAKA Shin 2016. Kofun-jidai no joseizō to shuchō: Tochigi-ken Shimotuke-shi
Kabutozuka Kofun no haniwa o moto ni shite [Chieftains and women-shaped clay
ﬁgures: based on the clay ﬁgures from the Kabutozuka burial mound in Shimotsuke
City, Tochigi]. Sōgō Joseishi Kenkyū [Annual Review of Women’s History] 33:『総30–43. 「古墳時代の女性像と首長—栃木県下野市甲塚古墳の埴輪をもとにして」
合女性史研究』33: 30–43.
HIDAKA Shin 2021. Kofun-jidai no shuchō to josei jinbutsu haniwa [Chiefs and female
human haniwa in the Kofun Period], in Sōgō Joseishi Kenkyūkai (ed.), Genderbunseki de manabu joseishi nyūmon [Introduction to Women’s History throughGender Analysis]; pp. 27–46. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten. 日高 慎 2021「古墳時代の首長と女性人物埴輪 」総合女性史学会『ジェンダー分析で学ぶ女性史入門 』pp. 27–46.
東京：岩波書店

HIGASHIMURA Junko 2017. Kabutoduka Kofun no hataorigata-haniwa kara yomitoku
kodai josei no kōnōfu seisan [Production of tribute cloth by women in ancient times:
Drawings on loom-weaving ﬁgures from the Kabutozuka Kofun]. Sōgō Joseishi
Kenkyū [Annual Review of Women’s History] 34: 22–35. 東村純子 2017「甲塚古墳の機織り形埴輪から読み解く古代女性の貢納布生産」『総合女性史研究』34: 22–35.
HIGASHIMURA Junko 2019. Kodai Nihon no josei to koshihata [Women and backstrap
looms in ancient Japan] 「古代日本の女性と腰機」, in MITSUMOTO Jun (ed.),Okayama Daigaku Bungakubu Project Kenkyū “Gender no tasōsei nikansuru ryōikiōdanteki kenkyū” kirokushū [Record of the project research “Cross-disciplinary
study on multi-layers of gender”]: pp. 36–40. Okayama: Faculty of Letters, Okayama
University. 光本順 2019『岡山大学文学部プロジェクト研究「ジェンダーの多層性に関する領域横断的研究」記録集』pp. 36–40. 岡山：岡山大学文学部．
Joyce, Rosemary A. 2008. Ancient bodies, ancient lives: sex, gender, and archaeology.
London: Thames & Hudson.
KANASEKI Takeo 1975. Hakkutsu-kara suiri suru [Deducing from excavations]. Tokyo:
Iwanami Shoten. 金関丈夫『発掘から推理する』東京：岩波書店．
© Japanese Archaeological Association

207

MITSUMOTO Jun

KIMURA Tomonori (ed.) 2014. Kabutozuka Kofun. Shimotsuke City: Shimotsuke City
Board of Education. 木村友則 2014『甲塚古墳発掘調査報告書』下野市：下野市教育委員会．

KINOSHITA Naoko 2003. Kai-sei sōshingu karamita Hirota iseki [The Hirota site fromthe perspective of shell ornaments], in KUWABARA Hisao (ed.) Tanegashima Hirota
iseki [Tanegashima Hirota site]: pp. 329–366. Kagoshima: Kagoshima Prefectural
Center for Historical Materials, Reimei-kan. 木下尚子 2003「貝製装身具からみた広田遺跡」桑原久男『種子島広田遺跡』鹿児島：鹿児島県立歴史資料センター黎明館．
KOBAYASHI Yukio 1974. Haniwa. Compendium of Japanese Ceramics 3. Tokyo:
Heibonsha. 小林行雄 1974『埴輪』日本陶磁大系．東京：平凡社．
KOKUBU Naoichi 1975. Sōsei no fujin: toku ni Nansei-shotō no jirei ni tsuite [Bisexual
Shaman: the case of the Nansei Islands]. Etonosu 3: 39–41. 国分直一 1975「双性の巫人：特に南西諸島の事例について」『えとのす』第 3 巻、pp. 39–41.
KUWABARA Hisao (ed.) 2003. Tanegashima Hirota site. Kagoshima: Kagoshima
Prefectural Center for History and Archives, Reimeikan. 桑原久男 2003『種子島広田遺跡』鹿児島市：鹿児島県立歴史資料センター黎明館．
Lovaas, Karen 2004. Cross-dressing, in Jo Eadie (ed.) Sexuality: the essential glossary: pp.
43–45. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
MATSUMOTO Naoko 2008. Danjo kankei no henka to sono haikei [Changes in gender
relations and its background], in SHITARA Hiromi, FUJIO Shin’ichiro, and MATUGITakehiko (eds.), vol. 7 of Yayoi Jidai no Kōkogaku [Archaeology of the Yayoi
Period]: pp. 169–182. Tokyo: Doeisha. 松本直子 2008「男女関係の変化とその背景」
設楽博己・藤尾慎一郎・松木武彦『弥生時代の考古学』pp. 169–182. 東京：同成社．
MITSUHASHI Junko 2008. Josō to Nihonjin [Cross-dressing and the Japanese]. Tokyo:
Kōdansha. 三橋順子『女装と日本人』東京：講談社．
MITSUMOTO Jun 2006. Shintai hyōgen no kōkogaku [Archaeology of bodily
representation]. Tokyo: Aoki Shoten. 光本順『身体表現の考古学』東京：青木書店．
MITSUMOTO Jun 2013a. Jinbutsu haniwa kara saguru shisō to shakai [Thought andsociety explored through human-shaped haniwa]. Kikan Kōkogaku [Quarterly Journalof Archaeology] 122. Tokyo: Yūzankaku, pp. 62–65. 光本順 2013a「人物埴輪から探る思想と社会」『季刊考古学』122, pp. 62–65. 東京：雄山閣．
MITSUMOTO Jun 2013b. Haniwa ni miru gendā [Gender in haniwa]. Kōkogaku
kenkyūkai Tokyo reikai symposium: Jinbutsu design no kōkogaku: dogū, kaotsubo,
haniwa [Proceedings of the Tokyo Conference of the Archaeological Institute ofJapan: archaeology of human design: dogū, face pot, and haniwa], pp. 53–59.「埴輪にみるジェンダー」『考古学研究会東京例会シンポジウム 人物デザインの考古学—土偶・顔壺・埴輪—』MITSUMOTO Jun. 2016. The queer temporality of the archaeological materials. Paper
presented at the Eighth World Archaeological Congress, Kyoto, 28 August–2
September, Kyoto: Japan.
MITSUMOTO Jun. 2019a. Beyond heteronormativity: queer archaeology in Japan, paper© Japanese Archaeological Association

208

BODILY REPRESENTATION AND CROSS-DRESSING IN THE YAYOI AND KOFUN PERIODS

presented at lecture, at the Archaeological Research Facility, University of California,
Berkeley, 11 February, Berkeley: U.S.A.
MITSUMOTO Jun. 2019b. Rethinking sex and gender in protohistoric Japan, paper
presented at the Stanford Archaeology Lunch Club, the Archaeology Center, Stanford
University, 13 February, Stanford: U.S.A.
MITSUMOTO Jun. 2019c. Yayoi Kofun jidai no shintai hyōgen to iseisō [Bodily
representation and cross-dressing in the Yayoi and Kofun periods]. Nihon Kōkogaku
Kyōkai 2019 nendo Okayama taikai kenkyū happyō kirokushū [The JapaneseArchaeological Association’s 2019 Okayama Conference presentation materials],
Japanese Archaeological Association 2019 Okayama Conference Executive『日本考古学協会
Committee, pp. 227–236.「弥生・古墳時代の身体表現と異性装」
2019 年度岡山大会研究発表資料集』日本考古学協会 2019 年度岡山大会実行委員会．
MIZUNO Masayoshi 1977. Haniwa no sekai [The world of haniwa], in NAGAMINE
Kōichi and MIZUNO Masayoshi (eds.) Nihon genshi bijutsu taikei [Library ofJapanese primitive art] 3: pp. 172–187. Tokyo: Kodansha. 水野正好 1977「埴輪の世界」永峰光一・水野正好『日本原始美術大系』東京：講談社．
SAEKI Junko 2009. “Josō to dansō” no bunkashi [A cultural history of “female and maleattire’]. Tokyo: Kōdansha. 佐伯順子 2009『「女装と男装」の文化史』東京：講談社.
Scott, Joan W. 1988. Gender and the politics of history. New York: Columbia University
Press.
SEIKE Akira 1996. Fukusōhin to hisōsha no seibetsu [Correlations between the sex of thedead and the accompanying funerary objects], in FUKUNAGA Shinya and SUGII
Takeshi (eds.) Yukinoyama kofun no kenkyū, Yukunoyama kofun hakkutsu chōsadan[Research team for the Yukinoyama Kofun excavations]: pp. 175–200. 清家章 1996
「副葬品と被葬者の性別 」福永伸哉・杉井健『雪野山古墳の研究 』考察篇，雪野山古墳発掘調査団．(Also in SEIKE Akira 2010. Kofun jidai no maisō genri to shinzokukōzō [Burial principles and kinship structure in the Kofun period]: pp. 175–200.
Osaka: Osaka University Press.) 清家章 1996『古墳時代の埋葬原理と親族構造』pp.
175–200. 大阪：大阪大学出版会．
SEIKE Akira 2010. Kofun jidai no maisō genri to shinzoku kōzō [Burial principles andkinship structure in the Kofun period]. Osaka: Osaka University Press.『古墳時代の埋葬原理と親族構造』大阪：大阪大学出版会．
SHINZATO Takayuki 2009. Kaizuka jidai kōki bunka to Yayoi bunka [Late Kaizuka
period culture and Yayoi culture], in SHITARA Hiromi, FUJIO Shin’ichiro, and
MATSUGI Takehiko (eds.) Yayoi Jidai no Kōkogaku [Archaeology of the Yayoi
Period] 1: pp. 148–164. Tokyo: Dōseisha. 新里貴之 2009「貝塚時代後期文化と弥生文化」設楽博己・藤尾慎一郎・松木武彦『弥生時代の考古学』1. pp. 148–164. 東京：同成社.
SHITARA Hiromi 2007. Yayoi jidai no danjo-zō: Nihon senshi jidai niokeru danjo no
shakai henka to sono kankei [Male and female ﬁgures from the Yayoi period: change
in gender relationships in the prehistoric age]. Kōkogaku Zasshi [The Archaeological© Japanese Archaeological Association

209

MITSUMOTO Jun

Journal] 91(2): 32–79.「弥生時代の男女像：日本先史時代における男女の社会的関係とその変化」『考古学雑誌』第 91 巻第 2 号、pp. 32–79.

SHITARA Hiromi and ISHIKAWA Takehiko 2017. Yayoi jidai jinbutsu zōkeihin no kenkyū[A study of ﬁgurative artefacts of the Yayoi period]. Tokyo: Dōseisha. 設楽博己・石川岳彦 2017『弥生時代人物造形品の研究』東京：同成社．
SUGIYAMA Shinsaku 2003. Haniwa koborebanashi [Anecdotes about haniwa], Rekihaku
booklet: 26. Rekishi Minzoku Hakubutsukan Shinkōkai [Foundation for Museums ofJapanese History]．杉山晋作 2003『埴輪こぼれ話』歴博ブックレット歴史民俗博物館
振興会．千葉県佐倉市．

SUGIYAMA Shinsaku 2006. Tōgoku no haniwa to Kofun-jidai-kōki no shakai [Haniwa ofeastern Japan and the society of the late Kofun period]. Tokyo: Rokuichi Shobo.『東国の埴輪と古墳時代後期の社会』東京：六一書房．
TAKEDA Sachiko 1998. Ifuku de yominaosu Nihonshi: dansō to ōken [Japanese history
through garment: Male attire and sovereignty]. Tokyo: Asahi Shimbun. 武田佐知子『衣服で読み直す日本史—男装と王権—』東京：朝日新聞．
TAKEDA Sachiko 2000. Dansō no jōō Himiko [Himiko, queen of male attire], in TSUDE
Hiroshi and SAHARA Makoto (eds.) Kodaishi no ronten [Debates on ancient history]
2: pp. 211–234. Tokyo: Shogakukan. 武田佐知子 2000「男装の女王・卑弥呼」都出比
呂志・佐原真『古代史の論点』東京：小学館．
TSUDE Hiroshi 1989. Nihon nōkō shakai no seiritsu katei [The Formation Process ofJapanese Agricultural Society]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten. 都出比呂志 1989『日本農耕社会の形成過程』東京：岩波書店
Weismantel, Mary 2013. Towards a transgender archaeology: a queer rampage throughprehistory, in Susan Stryker and Aren Aizura (eds.) The transgender studies reader 2:
pp. 319–334. New York: Routledge.
YAMOCHI Kumie 2000. Tanegashima Hirota iseki no bosei: Maisō keitai no ruikei wochūshin ni [The grave system of the Hirota Site, Tanegashima: A typology of burial
forms]. Koji: Bulletin of the Archaeological Laboratory. Nara: Tenri University, pp.
『古事：天35–51. 矢持久民枝「種子島広田遺跡の墓制—埋葬形態の類型を中心に—」
理大学考古学研究室紀要』奈良：天理大学．

© Japanese Archaeological Association

210