Archaeology on the Eve of the Establishment of the
Ryukyu State
SHINZATO Akito1
ABSTRACTThis paper approaches the cultural dynamics of the Ryukyu Islands from the standpoint of foodrelated pottery by clarifying the production and distribution of pottery, based on typological analysisof pottery. The author ﬁrst points out rather unusual pottery assemblage in the northern AmamiŌshima island and Kikaijima island, consisting of Sue stoneware, Haji earthenware, and early
porcelain. The author goes on to suggest a chronological framework of pottery in diﬀerent islands of
Ryukyu and discusses trade patterns of talc stone nabe pots made in Kyushu and porcelains imported
from China. Furthermore, the author examines the production, distribution and origins of production
techniques of gray stoneware called kamuiyaki. The author argues that the production techniques
were originated from the Korean peninsula and that the production and distribution reached theirsigniﬁcant turning point in the middle thirteenth century. Finally, the author suggests an overallchronological framework for the entire Gusuku period based on the production and distribution offood-related pottery. Based on these discussions, the author concludes that by the middle thirteenth
century culture of diﬀerentiating porcelain, stoneware, and earthenware oﬀering vessels according
to social status appeared in Gusuku-period Ryukyu. This culture diﬀused to the whole Ryukyu islands
from the Amami islands because the Amami islands were in an advantageous position in trades with
Kyushu. However, these oﬀering vessels representing the social class were only used at banquetsand ceremonies, and this culture of diﬀerentiating oﬀering vessels according to the social class
was adopted as life culture rather than social system by the elite class. The author conjecture that astrict class society where the acquisition and ownership of artifacts was thoroughly controlled would
emerge in the following Ryukyu Kingdom period.
KEYWORDS: Ryukyu archipelago, Gusuku period, food-related pottery production, food-related
pottery distribution, social status representation [status symbol culture]

Introduction
The Ryukyu chain of islands between the Kyushu island and Taiwan is located on thesouthwestern end of the territory of Japan (Figure 1). With its subtropical climate, large
and small coral reefs rim the coastlines of the islands. Findings of archaeological research
conducted so far reveal that during the Gusuku period (from the mid-eleventh to thefourteenth centuries), which came after the more than 5,000-year-long Shell Midden period
1 Research Center for Buried Cultural Properties, Kumamoto University, Kurokami, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto

City 860–8555, Japan (akitoshinzato@kumamoto-u.ac.jp)
Category: Original Article Received: 23 October 2020; Accepted: 7 May 2021
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 9 (2021): 35–83

SHINZATO Akito

Figure 1.

Ryukyu Archipelago and Its Island Groups(a hunter-gatherer society), farming became prevalent and a common culture of foodrelated pottery (for cooking, serving, eating and drinking, storage) ﬂowered in the Amami,
Okinawa, and Sakishima (Miyako and Yaeyama) groups of islands. Around the beginningof the fourteenth century local leaders based in gusuku (castles or fortresses) held swayin their own sphere of inﬂuence. Historical accounts record that in the fourteenth century
the rulers of the three kingdoms (“Sanzan”) of Hokuzan, Chūzan, and Nanzan sent tribute© Japanese Archaeological Association

36

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE

Table 1.

Periodization by Island Group

Japanesearchipelago

Ryukyu archipelago
Amami Islands

Paleolithic
periodOkinawa Islands

Sakishima Islands*

Paleolithic period

Jōmon
periodParallel withJōmon period

Yayoi
periodParallel with
Yayoi period

Kofun
periodParallel with
Kofun period

5000 BC

Okinawa Shell
midden period

Pre-histoy
Prehistory

Nara period Parallel withAncient period
Heian
periodKamakura
periodParallel with
Medieval period

mid-11 th
century
Gusuku period

Protohistory and history

Old Ryukyu

Sanzan period
Muromachi
periodRyukyu Kingdom (First Shō Dynasty–Early Second Shō Dynasty)
Edo period
ModernperiodContemporary period

Year

Period under
Satsuma domain
rule

Ryukyu Kingdom (Late Second Shō Dynasty)

Kagoshima
prefecture

Okinawa prefecture

1429
1609
Early modern
Ryukyu1879
Modern andcontemporary

1945*Period names according to philological history
Note: Shaded parts refer to the periods mainly dealt with in this study.

missions to the Ming dynasty of China and that Chūzan uniﬁed the three kingdoms. In
1429 the Ryukyu Kingdom, with its capital at Shuri Castle on the Okinawa main island,brought the entire area from the Amami to Sakishima groups of islands under its rule(Nagayama 2010; Tokuno 2010; Yuge 2010). This history is symbolized by UNESCO’slisting of the cultural heritage of the Ryukyus under the title “Gusuku Sites and Related
Properties of the Kingdom of Ryukyu.”
Study of the Gusuku period has all too often focused mainly on the Okinawa islands,© Japanese Archaeological Association

37

SHINZATO Akito

home to the Ryukyu Kingdom. Despite limited archaeological research, the conditionsof the Okinawa islands have tended to be extended as historical trends pertaining to theentire Ryukyu archipelago. The theory of social development as centered on the Okinawa
main island was long predominant. Recent archaeological investigation of important sitesin Amami and Sakishima, however, has shown that the Amami islands are dotted withspecial sites such as pottery production sites (Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985a, 1985b; Aozaki& Itō eds. 2001; Shinzato ed. 2005), large castle sites (Nakayama ed. 2003), and tradebase settlement sites (Sumida et al. eds. 2006, 2008, 2009; Nozaki et al. eds. 2011, 2013a,
2013b; Matsubara et al. eds. 2015). Chinese-produced plain white porcelain rarely found in
the Japanese archipelago and distinct stone-enclosed dwellings have also been found in the
Sakishima islands (Kin 1988; Shimabukuro & Kinjō eds. 1990). These ﬁndings not only
indicate the diversity of material culture unfolding on various islands during the Gusuku
period but also suggest a hypothesis that an advanced social division of labor acrossthe Ryukyu archipelago and close inter-island cooperation were driving forces behindthe emergence of the Ryukyu Kingdom, urging archaeologists to present new historicalperspectives. Paying attention to such historical trends, Richard Pearson (2007, pp.
145–146) looks at Gusuku-period Ryukyu from the viewpoint of the formation of the state.
He considers that the Gusuku period was an epochal time during which the population
grew, technology spread, the economy developed, consumption increased, society became
more complex, and new identities were created, and that the Gusuku period made up partof the shift to the medieval period in Japan.
Based on these observations, an analysis was made of food-related pottery (Figure 2)
that is unearthed from Gusuku-period sites in general. The pottery provides information—
concerning broad-area distribution from production to consumption areas—that can be
helpful in learning about the economy of the time. The analysis demonstrates the following
three main historical phenomena:(1) The Gusuku period in the Ryukyus came into being in close connection with Japanesetrade with Song China and Goryeo Korea in the eleventh century.
(2) In the mid-thirteenth century, local leaders in the Ryukyus engaged in robust tradeactivities.
(3) Flourishing trade promoted social stratiﬁcation, which was most notable on the
Okinawa main island.
The study also explains changes in the economy of individual island groups throughobservation of local developments in food-related pottery culture in the Amami, Okinawa,
and Sakishima island groups as well as exploring the cultural and symbolic meaning offood-related pottery. Reexamining the interrelationships of trade, culture, and society in
the Ryukyu archipelago from that point of view can make a signiﬁcant contribution toreconstructing the process of how the port-city state of Ryukyu came into existence.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

38

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE

Figure 2.

Main Archaeological Vessels to Examine

I. Research on the Archaeological conditions immediately before
the Gusuku period
The deﬁnition of “Gusuku period” diﬀers among researchers (Asato Susumu 1987; Tōma
2000; Kin 1998). For this study, the main object of which is analysis of food-related
artifacts, it will be deﬁned as extending from the mid-eleventh to the fourteenth century.
This is the period when “Gusuku pottery,” which originated not from traditional local
pottery made since prehistoric times but from vessels widely distributed in medieval Japan,
was used.
Investigation of Gusuku-period sites was launched, in the case of the Amami islands, by
the Kyūgakkai Rengō (Council of Nine Learned Societies) (Kokubu et al. 1959) and, inthe case of the Okinawa islands, by the Ryukyu government under U.S. control (Tawada1956). The research revealed the basic trends of the Gusuku period (Takamiya 1965), andafter the return of Okinawa to Japan in 1972 archaeological investigation became activeon the Ryukyu island groups, yielding one new discovery after another of settlement sites,
production sites, and so forth (Figure 3). Especially, the evidence that nabe cooking pots
representing the Gusuku period emerged modeled after talc stone pots made in Kyushu(Kin & Higa, eds. 1979) indicates that the prehistory of Amami and Okinawa ended around© Japanese Archaeological Association

39

SHINZATO Akito

Figure 3.

Main Historic Sites Discussed

the twelfth century. There also has been considerable progress in chronological researchon various types of food-related vessels, which were more often excavated from historicsites than other artifacts (Asato Susumu 1991, 2006; Ōnishi 1996; Satō 1970; Shinzato
Takayuki 1997, 2004, 2006, 2010, 2015; Yoshioka 2002). Based on such periodization
there is a study showing a staged historical transition from a production-oriented economy
and society (agricultural, ceramic, and iron production, overseas trade) to a rule-oriented© Japanese Archaeological Association

40

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE

society (fortress construction and establishment of kingship) (Asato Susumu 1990). Some
researchers point to mobilization of metal workers and roof tile makers for construction of
the kings’ tombs (Asato Susumu 2003, pp. 110–111; Uehara Shizuka 2013, pp. 156–157).
Progress has thus been made in exploring the realities of Gufuku-period society with aview to a structural grasp of kingship.
Most of studies of the Gusuku period have focused on the Okinawa main island, where
the kingdoms of the period were based. Historical images of that period, therefore, arebased mainly on information coming from the Okinawa main island, not relativizedthrough comparison with archaeological ﬁndings of the Amami and Sakishima groupsof islands located at the northern and southern ends of the Ryukyu archipelago. Amami
is dotted with sites of trade and pottery production centers, as mentioned earlier, and thisnorthern island group in the Ryukyus most certainly played an important role in driving the
Gusuku-period economy. To explore that background, it is useful to examine the peculiar
situation of Amami immediately prior to the beginning of the Gusuku period.
Pre-historic sites in Amami’s northern area (northern Amami Ōshima island andKikaijima island) dating from the ninth to eleventh centuries—just before the beginningof the Gusuku period—sometimes yield Haji and Sue wares, leading pottery types ofeighth to eleventh century Japanese mainland, as well as high-ﬁred glazed pottery from
Tang and Northern Song China (so-called early trade ceramic). Given the characteristicsof their shapes and also compared with archaeological ﬁnds in Kyushu of the same period,
the Haji wares found are estimated to date from the latter half of the ninth century to theﬁrst half of the tenth century. On the Tokara islands, Kikaijima island, and Tokunoshimaisland, discovery of Yuezhou-type celadon wares and Northern Song white porcelain
wares dating to the end of the eighth century to the mid-eleventh century (Tang andNorthern Song periods) have been conﬁrmed (Sumida & Nozaki eds. 2008; Nozaki et al.
eds. 2011; Shinzato Takayuki 2017); it is highly likely that these Chinese wares werecarried to the islands in the same period as the abovementioned Haji wares (Figure 4). In
response to these new inﬂuences, pottery made on the model of Kyushu’s Haji pots was
locally produced on Amami Ōshima and Kikaijima, giving birth to a pottery style speciﬁcto the north of Amami islands. This indicates that the northern part of the Amami islandgroup right before the Gusuku period functioned as the cultural gateway to the Ryukyus
through its dominant interaction and trade with Kyushu. That function provides valuable
hints for conjecture about the subsequent Gusuku-period economy. The following sections
will speciﬁcally examine Gusuku-period food-related vessels to shed light on economic
relations between the Ryukyu archipelago and the areas around it. Let us ﬁrst set forth aclear time division for the Gusuku period, and for that purpose, begin with a typologicalexamination of the locally made pottery that makes up the majority of the food-related
pottery that was found.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

41

SHINZATO Akito

Figure 4.

Unique Tableware Composition in the Amami Islands just before the Gusuku Period

II. Transformation and Development of Local Pottery: Social
Change in the Ryukyus
Pottery in the shape of pots (nabe) that mark the beginning of the Gusuku period is known
to have been modelled on talc stone pots made in Kyushu (Kin & Higa, eds. 1979).
Research on these pots was ﬁrst conducted on the Okinawa islands where many examples
were unearthed (Asato Susumu 1987, 1991; Kinjō Kamenobu 1990; Kinjō Shōko 1999;
Miyagi & Gushiken 2007; Gushiken 2006, 2014; Miyagi 2015; Ikeda 2015). In recent
years much has been learned about such artifacts found in the Amami and Sakishima islandgroups, too (Kin 1994; Shinzato Takayuki 1997, 2004, 2006, 2015). The vessels are of anumber of types—nabe pot-shaped, kame pot-shaped, ﬂanged kettle-shaped, jar (tsubo)shaped, bowl (wan)-shaped, and dish (tsuki)-shaped. Since some of them have shapes
originating in Chinese-made pottery and iron pots, they are considered to have been closely
related to Japanese medieval pottery (Asato Susumu 1995, p. 213). Research on pottery
until now has been conducted separately for the diﬀerent groups of islands, so it will be
an important task to extract local characteristics of each island group and obtain an overall
grasp of the tendencies of the whole Ryukyu archipelago. This section makes a typologicalexamination of pottery excavated from the island groups and considers the historical andcultural signiﬁcance of the composition of food-related pottery of each region.
A look at the typological characteristics of talc stone nabe pots shows a tendency forthese vessels, which make up a majority of excavated food-related pottery, to change
in shape from those similar to stone nabe pots to those less similar. The typologicalclassiﬁcation presented here follows that tendency, and Figures 5–7 show changes in thecomposition of excavated vessels by region (island group) according to a relationship ofassociation with other vessel types (tsubo jars, kame pots, wan bowls) found in the samesite. The pottery production trends identiﬁed by region can be summed up as follows.
First phase (mid-eleventh to mid-twelfth centuries): Nabe pot-shaped vessels modelledon Kyushu-made talc stone nabe pots and kame pot-shaped vessels from a lineage of© Japanese Archaeological Association

42

Figure 5.

Changes in Composition of Vessel Types (Okinawa Islands)

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE© Japanese Archaeological Association

43

SHINZATO Akito

Figure 6.

Changes in Composition of Vessel Types (Sakishima Islands)

Kyushu-made Haji ware kame pots began to be produced in the Amami, Okinawa, andSakishima island groups. They were all pots for boiling water and cooking with no vessels
for oﬀering of food and drink; hence there emerged in the Ryukyus a distinctive pottery
culture diﬀerent from Japanese archipelagos.
Second phase (mid-twelfth to mid-thirteenth centuries): The nabe-shaped vessels beganchanging in shape in a way peculiar to each region. Regional diﬀerences emerged in thecomposition of vessels with production of storage jars (tsubo) in the Okinawa islands. With
the passage of time, regional pottery culture unfolded according to local conditions.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

44

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE

Figure 7.

Changes in Composition of Vessel Types (Amami Islands)

Third phase (mid-thirteenth to mid-fourteenth centuries): The tradition of imitatingstone nabe pots faded, and production of diverse kinds of pottery became pronounced in all
the regions. In the Okinawa islands, the production of oﬀering vessels was active, giving
rise to a style of pottery greatly diﬀerent from that of Amami and Sakishima.
The pottery style common in Amami, Okinawa, and Sakishima became establishedalong with the spread of agriculture, signifying a major social change in the whole Ryukyu
archipelago. Most of the pottery made in this period followed lineages of vessels in Kyushu
and China; they are of historical signiﬁcance for their strong connection with the culture of© Japanese Archaeological Association

45

SHINZATO Akito

medieval Japanese food-related pottery that is characterized by its distribution and popular use.
Notably, the possibility is posited that pottery oﬀering vessels in Okinawa in the third phrase
might have possessed some symbolism, rather than being utilitarian wares to augment the
shortage of Chinese ceramic wares, given that they have often been found in castle sites thatyield relatively many Chinese ceramic wares for presenting oﬀerings. Most of the pottery items
for oﬀerings have shapes similar to those of Chinese ceramics. In research on medieval pottery
in Japan, vessels imitating the shapes of overseas vessels are considered to be symbols of social
status and those not imitating such shapes as having religious or ceremonial signiﬁcance (Uno
1997, pp. 418–425). If we follow this line of thinking, then the presence in the Okinawa islandsof earthenware oﬀering vessels can be interpreted as indicating that the complicated social
situation in the period immediately prior to Sanzan era or the establishment of the Ryukyu stateis reﬂected in the composition of food-related pottery wares. It might be concluded that theirpresence is vivid testimony to the development of a stratiﬁed society in Okinawa.

III.

Reception of Overseas Cooking Vessels

The main factor that led to the ﬂowering of Gusuku-period pottery culture is Kyushu-madetalc stone nabe pots (Figure 8). Their presence was known in the Meiji era (1868–1912)(Fujii 1886), and old records and paintings of medieval Japan show they were used as
cooking implements heated over a ﬁre (Shimokawa 1995, pp. 183–185; Matsuo 2016,
pp. 64–65). It is also known that they were used for salt making (Yamasaki 1993, p. 112).
These ﬁndings indicated that talc stone nabe pots were multipurpose implements. The
pots have roughly three diﬀerent shapes, with handles, with a ﬂange, and without a ﬂange(hachi bowl shape). Excavation of large-scale production sites in Nagasaki prefecture in
Kyushu has revealed that the diﬀerences in shape correspond to diﬀerences in the way ofobtaining the talc stone material (Higashi 2003, pp. 38–40). To shed light on the economic
relationship between the Ryukyus and Kyushu, this section examines the distribution
trends of Kyushu-made talc stone nabe pots and how the pots were received in the
Ryukyus.
The typological examination made over the past few decades shows that talc stone nabe
pots with handles ﬁrst appeared (the second half of the ninth century to the mid-twelfth
century), followed by ﬂanged pots (the second half of the twelfth century to the ﬁrst halfof the fourteenth century) and by ﬂangeless pots (from the second half of the fourteenth
century onward), in that order (Morita 1983; Kido 1995; Tokunaga 2010). Especially,among ﬂanged pots, it has been conﬁrmed that those in the shape of inverted trapezoidwith a narrow ﬂange and a small bottom diameter were distributed across the entire
Japanese archipelago (Suzuki ed. 1998; Ishizuka 2006). Excavation ﬁndings in the Amami
islands suggest that talc stone nabe pots appeared in the Ryukyu archipelago around the© Japanese Archaeological Association

46

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE

Figure 8.

Various Types of Talc Stone Nabe Pots

eleventh century. Their number is still small, indicating the strong possibility that in thosedays the pots were brought in as household goods by groups of people from Kyushu. Fromthe middle of the eleventh century onward, however, their number increased and the rangeof their distribution expanded as far as the Sakishima islands, suggesting that these pots
were distributed as a commodity throughout the Ryukyu islands. Flanged pots, meanwhile,which were distributed throughout Japan, are rarely unearthed in the Ryukyus, where
vessels imitating ﬂanged pots were never widely used. As for stone nabe pots with handles,in the Ryukyus, the number of those excavated is the largest in the Amami islands—
overwhelmingly large on Kikaijima—followed by the Okinawa islands. The number isvery small in the Sakishima islands. As this shows, the closer to Kyushu, where talc stone
pots were produced, the more likely excavations in groups of islands in the Ryukyus wereto yield stone pots (Figure 9). However, the fact that these talc stone pots were excavatedfrom the Sakishima islands, although their number is small, is of great signiﬁcance. The
Sakishima island group during prehistoric times (which is followed immediately by the
Gusuku period there) had a potteryless culture and no traces of cultural relationships withany area from the Okinawa islands to the north; and so the excavation of talc stone pots
and the appearance of pottery wares modelled after them are something so abrupt that weshould presume that the talc stone pots were brought in not so much through inter-regional© Japanese Archaeological Association

47

SHINZATO Akito

connections within the Ryukyu archipelago
as through merchants from distant places
engaged in commodity distribution.
Hakata, a medieval-period international
trade city in northern Kyushu, was where
Chinese merchants/shipowners called “Hakata
gōshu,” resided in the city. Traveling to andfrom their home country, they played a leading
part in Japan-Song China trade (Kamei 1986,
pp. 23–35). Given their presence, we canassume a composite distribution network inwhich long-distance traders like Hakata gōshu
were involved in the commodity trade between
Kyushu and the Ryukyus, joined by Kyushu
merchants as well as local traders within the
Ryukyus. As will be discussed in detail in
the next section, given the state of Chinese
ceramics distribution, Kyushu and the Ryukyus
deﬁnitely maintained economic relationships
even in the thirteenth century and onward. The
fact that stone nabe pots with ﬂange, whichwere distributed throughout the Japanesearchipelago, were rarely used in the Ryukyu
archipelago indicates the germination of an
economy where commodities were supplied
according to demand, which in turn suggests
the establishment of a distribution economy led
by local trade groups in the Ryukyus.
Figure 9. The Number of Talc Stone Nabe
Pots Detected on Each Group of Islands in the
Ryukyu Archipelago

IV.

Reception of Imported Oﬀering Vessels

In sections II and III, it was pointed out that: 1) local pottery oﬀering vessels had a cultural
meaning in that they represented the social strata of their users, and 2) the distribution of© Japanese Archaeological Association

48

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE

cooking implements from Kyushu had a strong correlation with the development of tradeactivities led by local leaders in the Ryukyus. This section, IV, sheds light on the routes
through which Chinese-made ceramic that served as the model for local oﬀering vessels
was brought into the Ryukyu archipelago. It also examines the distribution economy of thattime from the viewpoint of how these imported vessels were received.
Examination of local pottery and various types of Chinese pottery excavated from thesame historic sites reveals that the composition of Chinese pottery changed as shown in
Figure 10. Taking into account the quantities excavated from Ryukyu groups of islands,
moreover, the shifts in consumption of Chinese pottery can be organized as follows.
Phase I (second half of eleventh century to the ﬁrst half of twelfth century): This phasesaw the active reception of Chinese pottery, mainly bowls (wan) and plates (sara) of white
porcelain. Sometimes, along with them, brown-glazed stoneware jars (tsubo) were brought
into the Sakishima islands and Korean-made celadon and stoneware into the Amami
islands. There is a high likelihood that these wares from the continent were distributed via
Kyushu, given that the largest quantities of them have been excavated from the Amami
islands, located closest to Kyushu.
Phase II (second half of twelfth century to the ﬁrst half of thirteenth century):
Compared with Phase I, quantities of excavated Chinese wares, mainly celadon bowls
and plates, increased, making Phase II a stable period in terms of reception of Chinese
pottery. Some historic sites have yielded brown-glazed stoneware jars, bowls, and water
holders (suichū). Quantities of excavated wares increased dramatically in the Okinawa
and Sakishima groups of islands, suggesting the possibility that some change might haveoccurred to the distribution routes.
Phase III (second half of thirteenth century to the ﬁrst half of fourteenth century):
Celadon bowls and plates make up most of excavated Chinese wares, as in Phase II, butplain white porcelain wares (Nakijin type, Birōsuku type) produced in China’s Fujian
province, rarely found in the Japanese archipelago, were also excavated (Kin 1988;
Morimoto & Tanaka 2004). Quantities of excavated Chinese wares increased evenmore in the Okinawa and Sakishima groups of islands, and especially in Sakishima the
excavation of brown-glazed stoneware of various kinds is conspicuous. The compositionof Chinese pottery in the Amami islands is similar to that in Kyushu, but in Sakishima
many plain white porcelain wares made in the Fujian province have been found. Regional
characteristics of each group of islands became increasingly evident, and so this Phase III
may be considered a turning point in the reception of Chinese pottery.
Organizing the reception of high-ﬁred Chinese pottery in the three phases, we can seethat regional diﬀerences among the groups of islands became increasingly pronouncedwith the passage of time. The outstanding features of Phase III, in particular, suggested amajor change in the transportation routes of pottery. A route of ceramic wares transported© Japanese Archaeological Association

49

SHINZATO Akito

Figure 10.

Chinese Ceramic Wares Excavated from Ryukyu Archipelago© Japanese Archaeological Association

50

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE

by way of the Sakishima islands from southern China, instead of by way of Kyushu, waswithout doubt established. The new relationships between Sakishima and southern China
had a great impact on the economy of the Ryukyu archipelago. Hints of that relationshipare provided by pottery production on Tokunoshima Island, which will be discussed in thefollowing section.

V.

Ceramics Production on Tokunoshima Island

The oldest site of pottery production in the Ryukyu archipelago is in Tokunoshima,
part of the Amami island group. Gray stoneware called kamuiyaki was produced at thesite. Kamuiyaki ware was shaped by beating and wheel-throwing the clay, and ﬁred in akiln. The vessels were used for preserving food and presenting oﬀerings throughout the
Ryukyus. Since the technique of making them had nothing to do with the pottery-making
method that had been used locally, it is presumed that kamuiyaki came into being by
introducing pottery-making techniques from outside (Ikeda 2000).
The existence of kamuiyaki had been known since before World War II (Hirose 1933, p.
14). After the war, as archaeological research and surveys became active in the Ryukyus,
the importance of kamuiyaki drew increasing attention (Kokubu et al. 1959; Tomoyose
1964; Takamiya 1965). In 1983, a kiln site was discovered on a mountain in Tokunoshima,located 200 kilometers north of the Okinawa main island. Products produced there wereformally named kamuiyaki, the name derived from the site’s location (Shintō & Aozaki
1985a, 1985b). Subsequent investigations of the production area conducted throughcollaboration of government, universities, and other organizations revealed that there
were seven groups of kamuiyaki production sites (Figure 11). The natural environment
surrounding production sites was examined, the types of wood for fuel were studied, theage of kilns was estimated, and scientiﬁc analysis of the clay was made, among othereﬀorts (Aozaki & Itō, eds. 2001; Shinzato ed. 2005; Ikeda ed. 2005).
Typological research on the various vessels focusing on shapes, patterns, and rim(lip) conﬁgurations was also conducted (Satō 1970; Asato Susumu 1975, 1991, 2006;Ōnishi 1996; Yoshioka 2002), revealing the presence of the vessel types that received theinﬂuence of Chinese pottery. Drawing on the ﬁndings of the study, I made a comprehensive
examination of vessel types, rim conﬁgurations, shaping methods, and so on, andpresenting the chronology of changes in type composition (Figure 12), I came to thefollowing conclusions:
Changes in form: Tsubo jars, kame pots, and hachi bowls share the characteristic thatthree-dimensionally-formed rims gradually became simple and two-dimensional over thecourse of time, and typologically the rim area was continuous in shape.
Production methods: Based on those changes, the overall shapes of tsubo, kame, and© Japanese Archaeological Association

51

SHINZATO Akito

Figure 11.

Distribution of Kiln Sites

hachi vessels, their thickness, presence or absence of wave patterns, paddle and other tool
marks, and surface ﬁnish were studied. It was found that kamuiyaki can be roughly divided
into two groups. Group A has thin walls, paddled patterns on the exterior surface, and adense lattice pattern or wide parallel line pattern densely the interior surface. Group B has
thicker walls, no pattern on the exterior surface (ﬁnger stroking smoothed over), and sparse
slender parallel lines on the interior surface.
Phases: Of the tsubo, kame, and hachi vessel rim conﬁgurations, Group A corresponds totypes 1 to 4 and Group B to types 5 and 6. The production period of kamuiyaki wares canbe divided in two phases: Group A phase (eleventh century to the ﬁrst half of thirteenth
century) and Group B phase (mid-thirteenth century to fourteenth century). They arefurther divided in six sub-phases.
Type composition: Seven out of every ten excavated kamuiyaki are tsubo jars. At theGroup A phase, mainly jars, large bowls (hachi), and small bowls (wan) were produced,
but at the Group B phase a greater diversity of types were made, including very large kamepots and hachi bowls.
Transition in production: Chronological study shows that the middle of the thirteenth© Japanese Archaeological Association

52

Figure 12.

Changes in the Composition of Kamuiyaki Types

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE© Japanese Archaeological Association

53

SHINZATO Akito

century marks the boundary between the Group A and Group B phases. Considering majorchanges in the techniques of production and the composition of types, one can conclude
that the production of kamuiyaki underwent a great change around that time.
In the archaeological sites on the Ryukyu archipelago, kamuiyaki have been foundtogether with talc stone pots and Chinese pottery, forming sets. Since storage jars (tsubo)
make up a major part of these kamuiyaki, one can say that its production was characterized
by division of usage between kamuiyaki jars (for storage), talc stone pots (for cooking),
and Chinese ceramics (for oﬀerings). Kamuiyaki, produced in a technique unconnectedwith locally made wares, were widely distributed in tandem with the spread of farming
across the Ryukyus, indicating a strong possibility that pottery production in Tokunoshima
started with the introduction of pottery techniques that accompanied agricultural
production techniques. The major change in kamuiyaki production occurred in the midthirteenth century, as mentioned earlier, and this coincided with the time when the routesof transportation of Chinese pottery into the Ryukyu archipelago diversiﬁed as discussed
in the previous section. The great change in production techniques was highly likely the
result of eﬀorts at mass production as a way to escape competition with, and in preparation
for the inﬂow of, Chinese storage pottery. Trade activities initiated by local leaders invarious parts of the archipelago must have exerted a strong inﬂuence on the productionof kamuiyaki. That we cannot ﬁnd evidence of kamuiyaki production from the fourteenth
century onward may be ascribed to the loss of their market to the overwhelmingly increasein the inﬂow of jar shaped Chinese ceramics. The cessation of its production appears tohave been inseparably related to the fact that kamuiyaki was mainly used for storage.

VI.

Characteristics of Kamuiyaki Distribution

What relationship was there between the change in production of kamuiyaki and its
distribution? This section discusses the economic situation of the time by looking at the
distribution of kamuiyaki and the composition characteristics of oﬀering vessels as foundin the diﬀerent groups of islands in the Ryukyus. Observing the location and numberof sites that yielded the vessels on each group of islands (Figure 13), we can conﬁrm
diﬀerences in distribution range between the Group A and Group B phases. A look by
region at the combinations of vessel types of kamuiyaki and Chinese ceramic excavatedat consumption sites shows that these regional characteristics became conspicuous in thecourse of time. The changes over time can be summarized as follows:First-half Group A phase (mid-eleventh to mid-twelfth centuries): Distribution range
broadly extends from southern Kyushu to the Sakishima islands. It centers around theAmami and Okinawa island groups. In the Amami islands, consumption sites of kamuiyakioﬀering vessels (wan and hachi bowls) in addition to kamuiyaki tsubo jars, stand out,
© Japanese Archaeological Association

54

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE

Figure 13.

Numbers of Kamuiyaki Excavation Sites by Island Group© Japanese Archaeological Association

55

SHINZATO Akito

indicating diverse types of pottery were consumed there.
Second-half Group A phase (mid-twelfth to mid-thirteenth centuries): The central
area of the distribution range is the same as in the preceding phase. In the Okinawa islands
oﬀering vessels (wan and hachi bowls) came to be used, indicating diverse types of pottery
were consumed there as well.
Group B phase (mid-thirteenth to the fourteenth centuries): While distribution
quantities considerably decrease in the Sakishima islands, the distribution range becomesnarrower and is concentrated more on the Okinawa islands. Sites where Chinese highﬁred pottery were mainly used are found across the Ryukyus, and the tendency is mostconspicuous in the Sakishima islands.
That early-stage kamuiyaki vessels were excavated in Kyushu, too, is understandable,
given the region’s economy at that time. Kamuiyaki in the Group B phase, which were
distributed mainly in the Okinawa islands, were rarely used in the Sakishima islands,
which most likely had to do with Sakishima’s stronger economic ties with southern China.
This indicates that the epochal change of kamuiyaki production coincided with that of
kamuiyai distribution, and that, as the result of lively trade activities between Sakishima
and southern China, the production of Group B phase kamuiyaki started in the attempts
both at mass production and at escaping competition with Chinese wares.
In the Amami islands, kamuiyaki oﬀering vessels were consumed from early on. Moresuch vessels were used there than the rest of the Ryukyus. Moreover, Amami had a strong
economic relationship with Kyushu and has yielded the largest amount of excavatedChinese pottery of the Phase I period (second half of eleventh century to the ﬁrst half of
twelfth century) in the Ryukyus. These factors indicate that the kamuiyaki vessels usedwere not utilitarian pieces to make up for the shortage of Chinese oﬀering pottery but werevessels with a symbolic meaning that were produced as society grew more complex. With
that in mind, we can observe how the culture in which social hierarchy was represented byfood-related pottery originated in the Amami islands [in the north] and gradually spreadthrough the Ryukyu archipelago. This spread will be discussed in detail in the ﬁnal sectionof this report.

VII.

Lineages of Pottery Technologies

Through analysis of food-related pottery of various types, we have discussed economic
relations between the Ryukyus and Kyushu. This section examines the history of pottery
technologies and their introduction to the Ryukyus.
Before the discovery of kiln sites the greatest riddle in Ryukyu archaeology was wherekamuiyaki had been produced (Shintō & Aozaki 1985b, p. 6). A number of diﬀerent theories
about the origin of kamuiyaki were proposed: according to one, it originated in the Japanese© Japanese Archaeological Association

56

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATEarchipelago (Kokubu et al. 1959, p. 49); another claimed it began in the Okinawa islands(Tomoyose 1964, p. 19); still another placed its origins in the Korean peninsula (Mishima
1966, p. 51; Shirakihara 1971, p. 263, 1975, p. 122), and so on. As progress was made intypological research on kamuiyaki per se and as it was found that old roof tiles excavatedin the main island of Okinawa had been under the inﬂuence of Korean roof tiles and that
Korean celadon had been unearthed from castle sites in Okinawa, increasing attention
was drawn again to the view that traced the lineage of kamuiyaki pottery techniques to the
Korean peninsula (Nishitani 1981, p. 84). When the excavation of kiln sites clariﬁed kiln
structures in 1984, similarities were noted between the kamuiyaki kiln sites and Sagariyama
sue ware kiln sites No. 1 and No. 3 in Nishiki-machi, Kumamoto prefecture. It was also
conﬁrmed that bowls (wan) modeled on Chinese pottery were made at Sagariyama.
These served as the basis for connecting the origins of kamuiyaki pottery with southern
Kyushu (Shintō & Aozaki 1985b). Based on successive discoveries of Goryeo stoneware
being made in the excavations of the international trade city of Hakata, as well as the
excavations of the national government agency of Dazaifu—both in northern Kyushu—
Akashi Yoshihiko (1991, p. 64) regarded the wares as a strong evidence of trade between
the Japanese archipelago and Goryeo. Akashi (1999, p. 57, 2007, p. 127) also pointed out
a strong aﬃnity between kamuiyaki and Goryeo stoneware, given the similarities in theirproduction techniques. Emphasizing such historical developments, Ikeda Yoshifumi stressed
the necessity to put East Asia into perspective in order to corroborate relations between
kamuiyaki and Goryeo stoneware (Ikeda 2000, p. 37, 2003, p. 201).
To empirically demonstrate the origins of the kamuiyaki technique, I made acomparative study of the production techniques and kiln structures of kamuiyaki kilnsites, Sagariyama Sue ware kiln sites (southern Kyushu), and Munjun-ri kiln sites (South
Chungcheong province, Republic of Korea). I found similarities in patterns and shaping
techniques between vessels produced in kamuiyaki and Munjun-ri kiln sites (Figure 14).
Although diﬀerent in the angle of inclination of the ﬂues, kamuiyaki, Sagariyama, andMunjun-ri sites share much in terms of basic kiln structure (Figure 15).
Looking at ceramic production in the Japanese archipelago, we can see Korean inﬂuence
on medieval Sue vessels and roof tiles (Uehara Mahito 1980, p. 6; Yoshioka 2002, p. 432),
clearly indicating that Goryeo’s ceramic technology had a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on Japan’s
medieval ceramic industry. The origins of the kamuiyaki technique do not have to be traced
directly to southern Kyushu. The similarities in both shaping techniques and kiln structure
support the assumption that kamuiyaki originated in the Korean peninsula. This makes it
possible to argue that the kamuiyaki kiln with a strong tinge of Korean ceramic techniquecame into being in the Ryukyu archipelago where a tradition of stoneware production
technique had been lacking. The vicinity of kiln sites in Tokunoshima was blessedwith clay ideal for stoneware, wood for fuel, and the indispensable fresh water supply© Japanese Archaeological Association

57

SHINZATO Akito

Figure 14.

Study of Production Techniques© Japanese Archaeological Association

58

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE

Figure 15.

Comparative Study of Kiln Structures(Terada 2015; Naruo 2015). The fact that the island of Tokunoshima had such a suﬃcientconditions for the start of ceramic production could have been a major factor behind theemergence of kamuiyaki under the inﬂuence of Korea.
The eleventh century, when the kamuiyaki kilns emerged, corresponds to the time
when merchants were ﬂourishing from trade between Japan and Song China and between© Japanese Archaeological Association

59

SHINZATO Akito

Japan and Goryeo. Goryeo stoneware and celadon from that time have sometimes beenunearthed in the Amami islands. Although these excavated quantities were small, theytended to be found frequently in Kyusyu—especially in northern Kyusyu, home to
Hakata and Dazaifu (Akashi 1991; Furiya 2002; Yamamoto 2003; Chikara 2016). Indeed,
Kyushu-Ryukyu trade relations were driven by a strong connection between the Amami
islands and northern Kyushu. A persuasive case may be made for the establishment of thepottery industry in Tokunoshima as part of the extension of Japan’s trade with Song andwith Goryeo that was monopolized by northern Kyushu. Against this historical backdrop,
Korean potters were sent to Tokunoshima and kamuiyaki spread around the Ryukyus
through both distant Hakata-based distribution networks and the Ryukyu archipelago interisland connections.

VIII.

Gusuku-period Trends in Food-related Pottery

The Ryukyu archipelago has the more than 5,000-year-long Shell Midden period (5000 BC
to the tenth century AD) during which hunting and gathering were the principal means ofsubsistence. A study of settlements and graves based on an elaborate chronology of pottery
shows that society gradually grew complex (settlement, investment of labor, division oflabor) during the Shell Midden period (Takamiya & Shinzato 2013, p. 106). In those times,
there were three cultural spheres in the archipelago: the “northern sphere” closely relating
to the pottery culture of Kyushu (extending from the Ōsumi islands to the Akusekijima
island of the Tokara islands); the “central Ryukyu sphere” with a distinctive pottery culture(the Takarajima and Kodakarajima of the Tokara islands, the Amami islands, the Okinawa
islands); and the “southern Ryukyu sphere” assumed to have had relations with Taiwan
and the Philippines (the Miyako islands, the Yaeyama islands) (Kokubu 1966, pp. 34–40).
The cultural spheres as a whole border on Kyushu in the north and Taiwan in the south,and each sphere’s cultural features clearly correspond to their geographical locations. In
the common natural environments of the subtropical island area the three diﬀerent material
cultures developed in their distinctive ways.
The following Gusuku period (mid-eleventh to fourteenth centuries) was a time ofan emerging production-based economy supported by agriculture and stock farming(Asato Susumu 1990, pp. 110–112). In connection with the distribution of stone cooking
implements from Kyushu, nabe pot-shaped vessels modeled after them were produced in thecentral and southern spheres, and thus, the Amami, Okinawa, and Sakishima island groups
were integrated for the ﬁrst time under the common pottery culture zone (sections II and
III). The ﬁrst half of the Gusuku period (mid-eleventh to mid-thirteenth centuries) witnessed
the full-ﬂedged development of stoneware production, iron production, and commodity
distribution and the second half (late thirteenth to fourteenth centuries) was characterized© Japanese Archaeological Association

60

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATEby the construction of gusuku (castles, fortresses). With these historical developmentsin the background, the three kingdoms of Hokuzan, Chūzan, and Nanzan, located in themain island of Okinawa, began tributary trade with Ming China in the second half of the
fourteenth century. There emerged an even more complex society—featuring social divisionof labor, social hierarchy, organization, etc.—which paved the way for the subsequent
Ryukyu state as a port state. The long, continuous hunting and gathering period, followedby the spread of agriculture, led rapidly to the establishment of the Ryukyu Kingdom. In myview, the history of the Ryukyu archipelago is characterized mainly by conspicuous disjunctbetween the long continuous hunting/gathering age, on the one hand, and rapid changes
from the emergence of farming culture to the rise of the kingdom, on the other.
Japan’s medieval period, which roughly corresponds to the Gusuku period, was the time
when high-ﬁred Chinese pottery, which had once been a luxury, became mass-produced,
lower-priced items due to the industrial growth of the Song dynasty and were imported toJapan in large quantities with the development of shipping, leading to the wide diﬀusion ofChinese wares among Japanese people. The diﬀusion is attributed to the Japan-Song tradeand Japan-Goryeo trade that occurred in the international trade city of Hakata. Earliermentioned “Hakata gōshu” residing in Hakata going back and forth between Hakata andChina supported the international trade by transporting large quantities of commodities
from their home country (Kamei 1986, pp. 24–35). Deeply connected with thisdevelopment, food-related pottery items were transported from far-away areas like China,
Korea, and the Japanese archipelago and were widely used among the Ryukyuan people,
while the turbo shell (yakōgai) and trumpet shell (horagai) that inhabited the shallow
coral reefs were export products of the Ryukyu archipelago (Kinoshita 2002, pp. 129–134;
Takanashi 2005, pp. 251–256), and so too was sulfur and other products from the Ōsumi
islands (Yamauchi 2009, pp. 56–58). The Ryukyus were thereby linked to the East Asian
commercial zone through Hakata. Paying attention to this strong correlation between the
East Asian economic situation and the formation of Ryukyu’s Gusuku period, Asato Shijun(1991, p. 5) deﬁnes the new cultural realm of the Gusuku period as the “Ryukyu cultural
sphere” (Ryukyu ken), pointing out that the cultural inﬂuence from the north determined thecourse of historical development of, and the characteristics of, the cultural sphere.
It is against the backdrop of that East Asian economic situation that Ryukyu-Kyushu
relations were built. Organizing what we have discussed about the production of foodrelated pottery items and their distribution situation, we can divide the Gusuku-period
historical development into the following three phases.
Early Gusuku period (mid-eleventh to mid-twelfth centuries): Kamuiyaki kilns were built
in connection with Japanese trade relations with Song China and Goryeo Korea, and throughactive trade activities, talc stone nabe pots, Chinese-made pottery wares, and kamuiyaki vessels
spread throughout the Ryukyus. Food-related vessels were established as a set of everyday© Japanese Archaeological Association

61

SHINZATO Akito

Table 2.
Century
11th

Divisions of Gusuku Period and Epochs of Food-related Pottery
Period/divisions
Shell
Middenperiodmid-11th

Late 2

Kamuiyaki

Group A, old phase 1

EarlyGroup A, old phase 2

MiddleGroup A, new phasemid-13thLate

mid-14th

SanzanGroup B,phases old and new

mid-12th

1429

GusukuperiodTalc stonenabe pots

Phase I
Phase II

Phase III

Local
pottery
Group A

Chineseceramics
Dazaifu
Phase B

Group B,phase 1

Phase IGroup B,phase 2Phase IIGroup B,phase 3Phase III

RyukyuKingdom
perioditems (sections II to V). Hence there emerged the common pottery culture of the Ryukyu sphere.
Dominant in this sphere was the Amami island group, which had maintained close relations
with Kyushu since prehistoric times. The presence of production and distribution bases andlarge-scale castles—as represented by the Gusuku site on Kikaijima island, the Akakina castle
site on Amami Ōshima island, and the Kamuiyaki kiln sites on Tokunoshima island—indicatesthe progress of social division of labor and social stratiﬁcation in the Amami group of islands
ahead of the rest of the Ryukyu archipelago. In this connection, a culture came into being in the
Amami area where pottery for oﬀerings represented expressions of social status (see section VI).
Middle Gusuku period (mid-twelfth to mid-thirteenth centuries): Distribution of talc stonenabe pots tapered oﬀ and the tradition of imitating the stone nabe pot in pottery production
declined. Since the consumption of Chinese pottery wares was on an upward trend, it is judgedthat economic relations with Kyushu were maintained. The drastic decrease in the consumptionof talc stone pots can be considered a consequence of the burgeoning of vigorous economic
activities under the leadership of local leaders responded to demand by supplying items for dailyuse (section III). Meanwhile, kamuiyaki for oﬀerings were consumed everywhere and, withthe development of active trade society grew complex in all the groups of islands, and thus theculture characterized by expression of social status spread throughout the Ryukyus (section VI).
Late Gusuku period (mid-thirteenth to fourteenth centuries): Establishment of new
economic relations between the Sakishima island group and the coastal area of southern China© Japanese Archaeological Association

62

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE

set in motion competition between Chinese-made pottery and the kamuiyaki ware made in
Tokunoshima, marking a major turning point in the production and distribution of kamuiyaki(section V). In the Okinawa islands, where large-scale gusuku castles began being built, pottery
oﬀering vessels were produced, and the status-symbol culture advanced more rapidly than in therest of the Ryukyus (section II). Trade routes diversiﬁed, which likely triggered the establishmentof a stratiﬁed society in Okinawa immediately prior to the emergence of the Ryukyu Kingdom.

IX.

Social Dynamics on the Eve of the Founding of the Ryukyu StateThe maps in Figure 16 oﬀer a summary of the changes of trade routes and the degree of

Figure 16. Gusuku-period Economic Situation from the Viewpoint of Food-related Pottery and
Degree of Diﬀusion of Hierarchical Representation Oriented Culture© Japanese Archaeological Association

63

SHINZATO Akito

spread of the status-symbol culture as discussed in this paper. The maps show that theexpression of social status through oﬀering vessels appeared in the Amami islands, theregion that held a superior position in trade activities in the mid-eleventh century, and thengradually spread through the Ryukyu archipelago. The mid-thirteenth-century food-related
pottery culture characteristic of the Okinawa islands using various kinds of oﬀering vessels
can be seen as an aspect of the socially stratiﬁed society that grew increasingly multilayered leading into the three-kingdom period and the subsequent Ryukyu state period.
Around that time Chinese pottery wares were brought into the Okinawa islands by way of
the Amami islands in the north and the Sakishima islands in the south. The study conﬁrm
Okinawa’s close economic relations with these two island groups and the strong possibility
that the signs of increasingly stratiﬁed society in Okinawa appeared in connection with thevigorous trade activities of local leaders who sought to maintain the economic relations
with the rest of the archipelago. We may conclude that social stratiﬁcation in the Ryukyus
developed in strong connection with the increasingly active economic relations among thegroups of islands in the archipelago.
Clarifying the actual state of production and distribution of food-related pottery in the
Gusuku period leads us not only to a graspof the economic situation of that time but
also to an understanding of the developmentof locally initiated trade activities within
the Ryukyus. Meanwhile, observing thecultural and symbolic meaning inherent
in the oﬀering vessels that represented thesocial hierarchy of their owners, we ﬁndthat the extent of the ownership of such
vessels can serve as a measure of the levelof development of social hierarchy. We
can clearly see that food-related pottery is
an important archaeological material for
elucidating the formative process of the
Ryukyu state.
If the quantities of oﬀering vessels fromaround the middle of the thirteenth century
are presented graphically (Figure 17),
they display a shape (Figure 17-b) that isFigure 17. Ideal Hierarchy (Top) and Actual far from the ideal form of a hierarchical
Graphic Representation of Food Pottery structure (Figure 17-a). This indicates thatthe pattern of consumption of oﬀering
Quantity in the Gusuku Period© Japanese Archaeological Association

64

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE

vessels during the Gusuku period was not one created by a strict class system. From thiswe can judge that the status symbol culture expressed through oﬀering vessels as discussed
above was no more than a means of representing social class on a limited number ofoccasions such as ceremonies and banquets. It can be conjectured that a strict class society
where the acquisition and ownership of artifacts was thoroughly controlled would emerge
in the following Ryukyu Kingdom period. Study of food-related artifacts during that period
is indispensable. It is essential to demonstrate the stratiﬁcation of food-related pottery
through comparative study of the Gusuku and Ryukyu Kingdom periods. Continued
research on this topic will proceed by closely observing future developments in ongoingarchaeological research on Ryukyu Kingdom-period food-related pottery (Seto 2010, 2013,2015; Shibata 2015), ports (Seto 2017), and Shuri, the capital of the kingdom.

References
AKASHI Yoshihiko 1991. Kenkyū nōto: Chōsen san muyū tōki no ryūnyū [Research note:
Inﬂow of Korea-made unglazed stoneware]. Kyūshū Rekishi Shiryōkan kenkyū ronshū『九州歴史資料館研
16: 53–67. 赤司善彦 1991.「研究ノート 朝鮮産無釉陶器の流入」
究論集』16, pp. 53–67.
AKASHI Yoshihiko 1999. Tokunoshima Kamuiyaki koyōseki saishū no Nantō tōshitsu
doki ni tsuite [Ryukyu stoneware gathered from old kiln sites of Kamuiyaki inTokunoshima]. Kyūshū Rekishi Shiryōkan kenkyū ronshū 24: 49–60. 赤司善彦 1999.
『九州歴史資料館研究論集』「徳之島カムィヤキ古窯跡採集の南島陶質土器について」
24, pp. 49–60.
AKASHI Yoshihiko 2007. Kōrai jidai no tōjiki to Kyūshū oyobi Nantō [Goryeo-period
pottery and Kyushu and Ryukyu]. Higashi Ajia no kodai bunka 130: 118–131. Tokyo:『東アジアの古Daiwa Shobō. 赤司善彦 2007.「高麗時代の陶磁器と九州および南島」
代文化』130 号、pp. 118–131. 東京：大和書房．
AOZAKI Kazunori and ITŌ Katsunori (eds.) 2001. Kamuiyaki koyōseki-gun III[Kamuiyaki ware old kiln III]. Isen, Kagoshima Prefecture: Isen Town Board of．鹿児島県伊仙
Education. 青崎和憲・伊藤勝徳 (編) 2001.『カムィヤキ古窯跡群 III』
町：伊仙町教育委員会．

ASATO Shijun 1991. Chūgoku Tō-dai kasen ‘Kaigen tsūhō’ to Ryūkyū-ken no keisei[Tang China’s Kaiyuan Tongbao coins and the formation of the Ryukyu cultural
sphere]. Bunka-ka kiyō 7: 1–10. 安里嗣淳 1991.「中国唐代貨銭「開元通寶」と琉球圏の形成」『文化課紀要』第 7 号、pp. 1–10.
ASATO Susumu 1975. Gusuku jidai kaishiki no jakkan no mondai ni tsuite: Kumejima
Yajā-gama iseki no chōsa kara [Some problems at the beginning of the Gusuku
period: From the survey of the Yajāgama site in Kumejima island]. Okinawa Kenritsu
Hakubutukan kiyō 1: 36–54. 安里 進 1975.「グスク時代開始期の若干の問題について— 久米島ヤジャーガマ遺跡の調査から—」『 沖縄県立博物館紀要 』第 1 号、pp
© Japanese Archaeological Association

65

SHINZATO Akito

36–54.
ASATO Susumu 1987. Ryūkyū-Okinawa no kōkogaku-teki jidai kubun o meguru
shomondai (jō) [Issues over the archaeological periodization of Ryūkyū – Okinawa(1)]. Kōkogaku Kenkyū 34(3): 65–84. 安里 進 1987.「琉球—沖縄の考古学的時代区分をめぐる諸問題 (上) 」『考古学研究』第 34 巻第 3 号、pp. 65–84.
ASATO Susumu 1990. Kōkogaku kara mita Ryūkyūshi jō [History of Ryukyu seen fromarchaeology (1)]. Okinawa: Hirugisha. 安里 進 1990.『考古学からみた琉球史 上』
沖縄：ひるぎ社．

ASATO Susumu 1991. Okinawa no hirozoko-doki, kamuiyaki-kei doki no hennen ni tsuite[On the chronology of wide-bottomed pottery and Kamuiyaki in Okinawa]. Kōryū nokōkogaku: Mishima kaichō koki kinen gō [The archaeology of interaction: Memorial
issue commemorating Chairman Mishima’s 70th birthday]: 579–593. 安里 進 1991.
『交流の考古学 三島会長古稀記念「沖縄の広底土器・亀焼系土器の編年について 」
号』pp. 579–593.
ASATO Susumu 1995. 14. Okinawa [14. Okinawa], in Chūsei Doki Kenkyūkai (ed.)
Gaisetsu Chūsei no doki, tōjiki [Introduction to medieval pottery]: 212–223. Kyoto:
Shin’yōsha. 安里 進 1995.「14. 沖縄」中世土器研究会 (編)『概説 中世の土器・陶磁器』pp. 212–223. 京都：真陽社．
ASATO Susumu 1998. Gusuku, kyōdōtai, mura [Gusuku, community, and village].
Okinawa: Yōju Shorin. 安里 進 1998.『グスク・共同体・村』沖縄：榕樹書林．
ASATO Susumu 2003. I Ryūkyū ōkoku no keisei to Higashi Ajia [I. Emergence of the
Ryukyu Kingdom and East Asia], in TOMIYAMA Kazuyuki (ed.) Ryūkyū/Okinawa
shi no sekai [The World of Ryukyu-Okinawa History]: 84–115. Tokyo: Yoshikawa
Kōbunkan. 安里 進 2003.「I 琉球王国の形成と東アジア」豊見山和行 (編)『琉球・沖縄史の世界』pp. 84–115. 東京：吉川弘文館．
ASATO Susumu 2006. Kamuiyaki no kishubunrui to kishusosei no hensen [Changes intype classiﬁcation and composition of Kamuiyaki], in Yoshioka Yasunobu sensei
koki kinen ronshū kankōkai (ed.) Yoshioka Yasunobu sensei koki kinen ronshū Tōjino shakaishi [Essay collection commemorating Professor Yoshioka Yasunobu’s 70thbirthday: Social history of pottery]: 129–140. Toyama: Katsura Shobō. 安里 進
『吉岡康暢先生古稀記念論集
2006.「カムィヤキ (亀焼) の器種分類と器種組成の変遷」
陶磁の社会史』pp. 129–140. 富山：桂書房．
CHIKARA Hidenori 2016. Kyūshū shutsudo no Kōrai tōki [Goryeo stoneware
excavated in Kyushu]. in Tanaka Yoshiyuki sensei tsuitō ronbunshū henshū iinkai(ed.) Kōkogaku wa kagaku ka (ge): Tanaka Yoshiyuki sensei tsuitō ronbunshū [Isarchaeology a science? Part II: Collected essays in memory of the late Professor
Tanaka Yoshiyuki]: 927–943. Fukuoka: Chūgoku Shoten. 主税英徳 2016.「九州出土の高麗陶器」『考古学は科学か 下 田中良之先生追悼論文集』pp. 927–943. 福岡：中国書店．

Doshisha Daigaku Bungakubu Bunkagakka (ed.) 1971. Wakasa, Ōmi, Sanuki, Awa ni
okeru kodai seisan iseki no chōsa [Research on the production site in Wakasa,© Japanese Archaeological Association

66

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATEŌmi, Sanuki and Awa region]. Archaeological Research Oﬃce, Faculty of Letters,
Doshisha University Kyoto. 同志社大学文学部文化学科 (編) 1971.『若狭・近江・讃岐・阿波における古代生産遺跡の調査』同志社大学文学部文化学科内考古学研究室．
FUJII Tadashi 1886. Ishinabe [Stone pots]. Tōkyō jinruigakkai hōkoku 9: 18–19. 藤井 忠
『東京人類學會報告』第 9 號、pp. 18–19.
1886.「石鍋」FURIYA Tetsuo 2002. Kan Hantō san tōjiki no ryūtsū: Kōrai jidai no seiji o chūshin ni[Distribution of pottery produced in the Korean Peninsula: Focusing on Goryeoperiod celadon]. Bōeki tōji kenkyū 22: 138–167. 降矢哲男 2002.「韓半島産陶磁器の流通—高麗時代の青磁を中心に」『貿易陶磁研究』No. 22, pp. 138–167.
GUSHIKEN Ryō 2006. Nakijin jōseki, Shiina-gusuku shutsudo doki no kentō [A study ofpottery excavated from the Shiina Gusuku in the Nakijin Gusuku site]. Hiroyūkai-shi『廣友会誌』
2: 2–12. 具志堅 亮 2006.「今帰仁城跡、シイナグスク出土土器の検討」
第 2 号、pp. 2–12.
GUSHIKEN Ryō 2014. Gusuku doki no hensen [Changes in Gusuku Pottery], in
TAKAMIYA Hiroto and SHINZATO Takayuki (ed.) Ryūkyū rettō senshi-genshi jidai
ni okeru kankyō to bunka no hensen ni kansuru jisshōteki kenkyū: Kenkyū ronbunshū[Empirical studies on environmental and cultural changes in the prehistoric andprotohistoric Ryukyu Archipelago: Collected research papers] 1: 215–226. Tokyo:
Rokuichi Shobō. 具志堅 亮 2014.「グスク土器の変遷」高宮広土・新里貴之 (編)『琉球列島先史・原始時代における環境と文化の変遷に関する実証的研究 研究論文集』
1, pp. 215–226. 東京：六一書房．
GUSHIKEN Ryō (ed.) 2013. Nakagumi iseki [Nakagumi site]. Amagi, Kagoshima
Prefecture: Amagi Town Board of Education. 具志堅 亮 (編) 2013.『中組遺跡』鹿児
島県天城町：天城町教育委員会．

HIGASHI Takayuki 2003. Kasseki-sei ishinabe seisakusho ni tsuite [Talc stone pot
production sites]. Saikai kōko 5: 21–42. 東 貴之 2003.「滑石製石鍋製作所について」『西海考古』5 巻、pp. 21–42.
HIROSE Yūryō 1933. Shōwa 9-nen: Kyōdoshi kenkyū, Tokunoshima no bu [1934: Studiesof local history—Tokunoshima], in Tokunoshima chōshi hensanshitsu (ed.) 2019.
Tokunoshima chōshi kiso shiryōshū [Basic records of Tokunoshima Town]: 11–89. 廣
瀬祐良 1933.「昭和 9 年 郷土史研究 徳之島ノ部」徳之島町誌編纂室 (編) 2019.
『『徳之島町史』基礎資料集』pp. 11–89.
IKEDA Masahiro (ed.) 1998. Kande koyō seki gun [Kande kiln site]. Hyōgo Prefecture:
Hyōgo Prefectural Board of Education. 池田征弘 (編) 1998.『神出古窯跡群』兵庫県神戸市：兵庫県教育委員会．

IKEDA Yoshifumi 2000. Sueki kara mita Ryūkyū Rettō no kōryū-shi [The history ofinternation in the Ryukyu Archipelago as found in Sue ware]. Kodai bunka 52: 34–38.
池田榮史 2000.「須恵器からみた琉球列島の交流史」『古代文化』52 巻、pp. 34–38.
IKEDA Yoshifumi 2003. Zōho: Rui-sueki shutsudo chimei hyō [List of names ofplaces where Sue-like wares were excavated, enlarged edition]. Ryūkyū Daigaku
Hōbungaku-bu Ningen Kagaku-ka kiyō: Ningen kagaku 11 : 201–242. 池田榮史 2003.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

67

SHINZATO Akito「 増補・類須恵器出土地名表 」『 琉球大学法文学部人間科学科紀要 人間科学 』pp.
201–242.
IKEDA Yoshifumi (ed.) 2005. Nantō shutsudo Sueki no shutsuji to bunpu ni kansuru
kenkyū [A study of the origin and distribution of Sue wares excavated in the
Ryukyus]. 2002–2003 Grant-in-Aid for Scientiﬁc Research (B)-(2) research report.
Faculty of Law and Letters, University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa. 池田榮史 (編) 2005.
『南島出土須恵器の出自と分布に関する研究』平成 14 年度〜平成 16 年度科学研究費補助金基盤研究 (B)-(2) 研究成果報告書、琉球大学法文学部．
IKEDA Yoshifumi 2015. Ryūkyū rettō gusuku shakai no keisei: Doki bunka ni miru
keizokusei to danzokusei [Formation of Gusuku society in the Ryukyu Archipelago:
Continuity and discontinuity in earthenware culture], Keizokusei to danzokusei:
Shizen, dōbutsu, bunka [Continuity and discontinuity: Nature, animals, and culture]:
77–91. University of the Ryukyus Archaeological Research Oﬃce, Okinawa. 池田榮
史 2015.「琉球列島グスク社会の形成—土器文化にみる継続性と断続性」『継続性と断続性—自然・動物・文化』pp. 77–91. 琉球大学法文学部考古学研究室．
ISHIMATSU Yosio, YOKOTA Kenjirō, AKASHI Yoshihiko, and YOSHIMURA
Yasunori (eds.) 1990. Dazaifu shiseki heisei gannendo chōsa gaihō [Dazaifu site:Archaeological excavation summary at 1989]. Dazaifu, Fukuoka Prefecture: Kyushu
Historical Museum. 石松好雄・横田賢次郎・赤司善彦・吉村靖徳 (編) 1990.『大宰府史跡 平成元年度発掘調査概報』福岡県太宰府市：九州歴史資料館．
ISHIZUKA Hiroki 2006. Higashi Nihon ni okeru ishinabe no ryūtsū ni kansuru kenkyū[A study of stone Nabe pot distribution in eastern Japan]. Komazawa shigaku 67:『駒沢史学』第 67
93–128. 石塚宇紀 2006.「東日本における石鍋の流通に関する研究」
巻、pp. 93–128.
KAMEI Meitoku 1986. Nihon bōeki tōji shi no kenkyū [A study of the history of theJapanese ceramics trade]. Kyoto: Dōhōsha Shuppan. 亀井明徳 1986.『日本貿易陶磁史の研究』京都：同朋舎出版.
KATAGIRI Chiaki (ed.) 2004 Kushikanekubaru iseki [Kushikanekubaru site]. Okinawa
Prefecture: Okinawa Prefectural Archaeological Center. 片桐千亜紀 (編) 2004.『後兼久原遺跡』沖縄県西原町：沖縄県立埋蔵文化財センター．
KAWAGUCHI Sadanori (ed.) 1979. Usyuku Kaizuka [Usyuku shellmidden]. Kasari,Kagoshima prefecture: Kasari Town Board of Education. 河口貞徳 (編) 2003.『宇宿貝塚』鹿児島県笠利町：笠利町教育委員会．
KIDO Masayuki 1995. 13. Ishinabe [13. Stone Nabe Pots], in Chūsei Doki Kenkyūkai(ed.) Gaisetsu Chūsei no doki/tōjiki [Introduction to medieval pottery]: 511–521.
Kyoto: Shin’yōsha. 木戸雅寿 1995.「13. 石鍋」中世土器研究会 (編)『概説 中世の土器・陶磁器』pp. 511–521. 京都：真陽社．
KIN Seiki 1988. Birōsuku-taipu hakujiwan ni tsuite [Birōsuku-type white porcelainbowls]. Bōeki tōji kenkyū 8: 148–158. 金武正紀 1988.「ビロースクタイプ白磁碗について」『貿易陶磁研究』No. 8, pp. 148–158.
KIN Seiki 1989. Okinawa ni okeru 12, 13 seikino chūgoku tōjiki [Chinese ceramics of the© Japanese Archaeological Association

68

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE

12th–13th centuries found in Okinawa]. Okinawa Kenritsu Hakubutsukan kiyō 15:『沖縄県立博物館紀1–22. 金武正紀．1989「沖縄における 12・13 世紀の中国陶磁器」
要』第 15 号、pp. 1–22.
KIN Seiki 1994. Doki → mudoki → doki: Yaeyama kōko Hennen shian [The Pottery to
Potteryless to Pottery Eras: An attempt at archaeological periodization of Yaeyama].
Nantō kōko 14: 83–92. 金武正紀 1994.「土器→無土器→土器—八重山考古編年試案」『南島考古』No. 14, pp. 83–92.
KIN Seiki 1998. Okinawa ni okeru bōeki tōki [Trade ceramics in Okinawa]. Nihon
Kōkogaku Kyōkai 1998-nendo taikai Kenkyū happyō yōshi [1998 Convention of theJapanese Archaeological Association: Summary of Research Presentations]: 35–36.
『日本
Japanese Archaeological Association. 金武正紀 1998.「沖縄における貿易陶磁」
考古学協会 1998 年度大会 研究発表要旨』pp. 35–36.
KIN Seiki (ed.) 1983. Birōsuku iseki [Birōsuku site]. Ishigaki, Okinawa Prefecture:
Ishigaki city Board of Education. 金武正紀 (編) 1983.『ビロースク遺跡』沖縄県石垣市：石垣市教育委員会．

KIN Seiki (ed.) 1991. Nakijin jōshi hakkutsu chōsa hōkoku II [Report on the excavationof the Nakijin castle II]. Nakijin, Okinawa Prefecture: Nakijin villege Board of
Education. 金武正紀 (編) 1991.『今帰仁城跡発掘調査報告 II』沖縄県今帰仁村：今帰仁村教育委員会．

KIN Seiki (ed.) 1994. Hiyajōmō iseki [Hiyajōmō site]. Naha, Okinawa Prefecture: Nahacity Board of Education. 金武正紀 (編) 1994.『ヒヤジョー毛遺跡』沖縄県那覇市：那覇市教育委員会．

KIN Seiki (ed.) 1997. Mekarubaru iseki [Mekarubaru site]. Naha, Okinawa Prefecture:
Naha city Board of Education. 金武正紀 (編) 1997.『銘苅原遺跡』沖縄県那覇市：那覇
市教育委員会．

KIN Seiki and HIGA Harumi (eds.) 1979. Onnason Atta kaizuka hakkutsu chōsa
hōkokusho [Report on the excavation of the Atta shell midden in Onnason]. Okinawa
Prefecture: Okinawa Prefectural Board of Education. 金武正紀・比嘉春美 (編) 1979.
『恩納村熱田貝塚発掘調査報告書』沖縄県那覇市：沖縄県教育委員会．
KIN Seiki and KINJŌ Kamenobu (eds.) 1986 Shimotabaru kaizuka and Ōdomarihama
kaizuka [Shimotabaru shell midden and Ōdomarihama shell midden]. Okinawa
Prefecture: Okinawa Prefectural Board of Education. 金武正紀・金城亀信 (編) 1986.
『下田原遺跡・大泊浜貝塚』沖縄県那覇市：沖縄県教育委員会．
KIN Seiki and MIYAZATO Suehiro (eds.) 1983. Nakijin jōshi hakkutsu chōsa hōkoku
I [Report on the excavation of the Nakijin castle I]. Nakijin, Okinawa Prefecture:
Nakijin villege Board of Education. 金武正紀・宮里末廣 (編) 1994.『今帰仁城跡発掘調査報告 I』沖縄県今帰仁村：今帰仁村教育委員会．
KINJŌ Kamenobu 1990. Gusuku doki no shutsugen [The emergence of Gusuku pottery].
『考古学ジャーナ
Kōkogaku jānaru 320: 13–16. 金城亀信 1990.「グスク土器の出現」
ル』320 号、pp. 13–16.
KINJŌ Kamenobu (ed.) 1991. Itokazu jōshi [Itokazu castle]. Tamagusuku, Okinawa© Japanese Archaeological Association

69

SHINZATO Akito

Prefecture: Tamagusuku villege Board of Education. 金城亀信 (編) 1991.『糸数城跡』
沖縄県玉城村：玉城村教育委員会．

KINJŌ Kamenobu (ed.) 1994. Kaijibama kaizuka [Kaijibama shell midden]. Okinawa
Prefecture: Okinawa Prefectural Board of Education. 金城亀信 (編) 1994.『カイジ浜貝塚』沖縄県那覇市：沖縄県教育委員会．
KINJŌ Shōko 1999. Gusuku(-kei) doki no kenkyū [A study of Gusuku-style pottery].
Ryūkyū Daigaku Kōkogaku Kenkyūshitsu shūroku [University of the Ryukyus
Archaeological Research Oﬃce Collection of Essays]: 24–36. University of the
Ryukyus Archaeological Research Oﬃce, Okinawa. 金城匠子 1999.「グスク (系) 土器の研究」『琉球大学考古学研究室集録』pp. 24–36.
KINOSHITA Naoko 2002. Kai kōeki to kokka keisei: 9-seiki kara 13-seiki o taishō ni [Theshell trade and the formation of a state: From the ninth to the thirteenth centuries].
KINOSHITA Naoko (ed.) Senshi Ryūkyū no seigyō to kōeki [Means of subsistence
and trade in the prehistoric Ryukyus]: 117–144. 1999–2001 Grant-in-Aid for
Scientiﬁc Research (B) Research Report. Faculty of Letters, Kumamoto University,
Kumamoto. 木下尚子 2002.「貝交易と国家形成—9 世紀〜13 世紀を対象に—」木下
尚子 (編) 『先史琉球の生業と交易』平成 11〜13 年度科学研究費補助金基盤研究 (B)(2) 研究成果報告書，pp. 117–144. 熊本大学文学部．
KOKUBU Naoichi 1966. Nantō no senshi doki: Inyū doki to tōsho doki ni tsuite[Prehistoric earthenware of Southern Islands: About imported earthenware and island
earthenware]. Kōkogaku kenkyū 13(2): 31–40. 国分直一 1966.「南島の先史土器—移入土器と島嶼土器について—」『考古学研究』第 13 巻第 2 号、pp. 31–40.
KOKUBU Naoichi, KAWAGUCHI Sadanori, SONO Toshihiko, NOGUCHI Yoshimaro,and HARAGUCHI Shōzō 1959. Amami Ōshima no senshi jidai [The prehistoric
period of Amami Ōshima], in Kyūgakkai Rengō Amami Ōshima kyōdō chōsa iinkai(ed.) Amami: Shizen to bunka, Ronbun-hen [Amami: Nature and culture, essays]:
196–271. Tokyo: Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. 国分直一・河口貞徳・
曾野寿彦・野口義麿・原口正三 1959. 「奄美大島の先史時代」九学会連合奄美大島共同調査委員会 (編)『奄美—自然と文化 論文編』pp. 196–271. 東京：日本学術振興会．

KŌMOTO Kiyoshi and KUZUHARA Katsuhito (eds.) 1972. Furōzan Kobizen yōshi[Furōzan kobizen kiln site]. Maizō bunkazai hakkutsu chōsa hōkoku [Report on the
excavation of buried cultural properties of Okayama prefecture]. Okayama Prefecture:
Okayama Prefectural Association for Cultural Heritage. 河本 清・葛原克人 (編)『埋蔵文化財発掘調査報告』岡山県岡山市：岡山県文化財
1972. 「不老山古備前窯跡」
保護協会．

LEE Hohyeong, LEE Sang-yoeb, O Gyujin, and NA Geonju (eds.) 2000. Seosan Mujangni kamato [Seosan Mujang-ni kiln site]. Chungcheong Cultural Properties ResearchInstitute. 李浩炯，李尚燁，呉圭鎭，羅建柱 (編) 2000.『瑞山 舞将里窯址』忠清埋蔵文化財研究院，(株) 現代精工．
MATSUBARA Nobuyuki, NOZAKI Takuji, SUMIDA Naotoshi, and SŌDA Haruki (eds.)© Japanese Archaeological Association

70

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE2015. Gusuku iseki-gun: Sōkatsu hōkokusho [Gusuku Site group: A summary report].
Kikai, Kagoshima Prefecture: Kikai Town Board of Education. 松原信之・野﨑拓司・
澄田直敏・早田晴樹 (編) 2015.『城久遺跡群—総括報告書』鹿児島県喜界町：喜界町
教育委員会．

MATSUMOTO Kenrō (ed.) 1980. Seisan iseki kihon chōsa hōkokusho II [Basicarchaeoigical reports on production sites in Kumamoto prefecture]. Kumamoto
Prefecture: Kumamoto Prefectural Board of Education. 松本健郎 (編) 1980.『生産遺跡基本調査報告書 II』熊本県熊本市：熊本県教育委員会．
MATSUO Hideaki 2016. Kasseki-sei ishinabe no seisan ryūtsū: Chūsei Saikai chiiki no
tokusanhin [Production and distribution of talc stone Nabe pots: Local specialties in
the medieval Nishisonogi Peninsula area (Kyushu)]. Ishi ga kataru Saikai no rekishi:
Wakō to Kirishitan sekai o yominaosu [A history of the Nishisonogi Peninsula area
as told in stone: Re-reading the world of Wakō pirates and Kirishitan faith]: 57–77.
Tokyo: Alpha Beta Books. 松尾秀昭 2016.「滑石製石鍋の生産・流通—中世西海地域の特産品」『石が語る西海の歴史 倭寇とキリシタン世界を読み直す』pp. 57–77. 東
京：アルファベータブックス．

MIKAMI Tsugio (ed.) 1982. Okinawa: Iriomotejima Yonara iseki hakkutsu chōsa gaihō[Archaeological excavation summary of Yonara site in Iriomote Island, Okinawa
Prefecture] Tokyo: Yonara site Research Committee. 三上次男 (編) 1982.『沖縄・西表島 与那良遺跡発掘調査概報』東京：与那良遺跡調査団．
MINOGUCHI Masao 1997. Kababanjō yōshi no chūsei sueki (1) [Sue ware in medieval
period from Kababanjō kiln, Part 1]. Higo kōko 10: 94–117. 美濃口雅朗 1997.「樺番城窯跡の中世須恵器 (1) 」『肥後考古』第 10 号、pp. 94–117.
MISHIMA Itaru 1966. Nansei Shotō doki bunka no shomondai [Issues of pottery culture in
the Nansei (Ryukyu) Islands]. Kōkogaku kenkyū 13(2): 46–56. 三島 格 1966.「南西諸島土器文化の諸問題」『考古学研究』第 13 巻第 2 号、pp. 46–56.
MIYAGI Hiroki 2015. Nansei Shotō shutsudo kasseki-sei oyobi kasseki-konnyū doki
shutsudo iseki shūsei [Historic sites of vessels made of, or mixed with, soapstone in
the Nansei Islands]. Hiroyūkai shi 8: 19–31. 宮城弘樹 2015.「南西諸島出土滑石製及
び滑石混入土器出土遺跡集成」『廣友会誌』第 8 号、pp. 19–31.
MIYAGI Hiroki and GUSHIKEN Ryō 2007. Chūsei heikōki ni okeru Nansei Shotō nozaichi doki no yōsō [Aspects of local pottery on the Nansei (Ryukyu) Islands during
the medieval period]. Hiroyūkai shi 3: 2–16. 宮城弘樹・具志堅亮 2007.「中世並行期
における南西諸島の在地土器の様相」『廣友会誌』第 3 号、pp. 2–16.
MIYAGI Shin’ichi and NAKAMURA Tsuyoshi (eds.) 2011. Katsuren jōseki: Yon no
kuruwa kitaku hakkutsu chōsa hōkoku sho [Katsuren castle: Report on the excavationof the North area of No. 4 compound]. Uruma, Okinawa Prefecture: Uruma city
Board of Education. 宮城伸一・中村 毅 (編) 2011.『勝連城跡—四の曲輪北区発掘調査報告書—』沖縄県うるま市：うるま市教育委員会．
MIYASHITA Takahiro (ed.) 1998. Mottaimatsu iseki dai ichiji chōsa [First survey ofMottaimatsu site]. Kinpō, Kagoshima Prefecture: Kinpō Town Board of Education. 宮© Japanese Archaeological Association

71

SHINZATO Akito

下貴浩 (編) 1998.『持躰松遺跡第一次調査』鹿児島県金峰町：金峰町教育委員会．
MORIMOTO Asako and TANAKA Katsuko 2004. Okinawa shutsudo no bōeki tōjiki
no mondaiten: Chūgoku sosei hakuji to Betonamu shoki bōeki tōji [Issues of tradeceramic wares excavated in Okinawa: Chinese plain white porcelain and Vietnamese
early trade pottery], in Nakijin Village Board of Education (ed.) Gusuku bunka okangaeru [Thoughts on Gusuku culture]: 353–370. Tokyo: Shinjinbutsu Ōraisha. 森本
朝子・田中克子 2004.「沖縄出土の貿易陶磁器の問題点：中国粗製白磁とベトナム初期貿易陶磁」今帰仁村教育委員会 (編)『グスク文化を考える』pp. 353–370. 東京：新人物往来社．

MORIMOTO Isao (ed.) 1989. Takausu jōseki [Takausu castle]. Gusukube, Okinawa
Prefecture: Gusukube Town Board of Education. 盛本 勲 (編) 1989.『高腰城跡』沖
縄県城辺町：城辺町教育委員会．

MORITA Tsutomu 1983. Kasseki-sei yōki: Tokuni ishinabe o chūshin to shite [Talc stone
vessels: With focus on Nabe pots]. Bukkyō geijutsu 148: 135–148. 森田 勉 1983.
『佛教藝術』第 148 巻、pp. 135–148.
「滑石製容器—特に石鍋を中心として」
NAGAYAMA Shūichi 2010. Dai-7-shō Chūsei Nihon no Ryūkyū-kan [Chapter 7: The
medieval Japanese view of Ryūkyū], in Zaidanhōjin Okinawa ken bunka shinkōkai
shiryō hensanshitsu (ed.) Okinawa-kenshi kakuron-hen, dai-3-kan Ko-Ryūkyū[Okinawa prefectural history, essays: Volume 3, Old Ryūkyū]: 591–610. Okinawa
Prefecture: Okinawa Prefectural Board of Education. 永山修一 2010.「第七章 中世
日本の琉球観」財団法人沖縄県文化振興会資料編集室 (編)『沖縄県史 各論編 第三巻 古琉球』pp. 591–610. 沖縄県那覇市：沖縄県教育委員会．
NAKASONE Tadashi (ed.) 2007. Yabumēdabaru kaizuka [Yabumēdabaru shell midden].
Nago, Okinawa Prefecture: Nago City Board of Education. 仲宗根 禎 (編) 2007.『屋部前田原遺跡』沖縄県名護市：名護市教育委員会．
NAKAYAMA Kiyomi (ed.) 2003. Akakina gusuku iseki [Akakina castle]. Kasari,Kagoshima Prefecture: Kasari Town Board of Education. 中山清美 (編) 2003.『赤木名グスク遺跡』鹿児島県笠利町：笠利町教育委員会．
NAKAYAMA Kiyomi (ed.) 2006. Matsunoto iseki [Matsunoto site]. Kasari, Kagoshima
Prefecture: Kasari Town Board of Education. 中山清美 (編) 2006.『マツノト遺跡』鹿児島県笠利町：笠利町教育委員会．

NARUO Hidehito 2015. Sankō shiryō 4: Shiseki Tokunoshima Kamuiyaki tōki kamaato
shūhen no chashitsu [Reference material 4: Geological features in the neighborhoodof the Kamuiyaki kiln sites in Tokunoshima], in SHINZATO Akito (ed.) Shiseki
Tokunoshima Kamuiyaki tōki kamaato hozon kanri keikakusho [Plan for preservation
management of the Kamuiyaki kiln sites in Tokunoshima]. Isen, Kagoshima
Prefecture: Isen Town Board of Education. 成尾英仁 2015.「参考資料 4 史跡徳之島カムィヤキ陶器窯跡周辺の地質」新里亮人 (編)『史跡徳之島カムィヤキ陶器窯跡保存管
理計画書』鹿児島県伊仙町：伊仙町教育委員会．
NISHITANI Tadashi 1981. Kōrai Chōsen ryō ōchō to Ryūkyū no kōryū: Sono kōkogakuteki kenkyū josetsu [Interactions between the Ryukyus and the Goryeo and Joseon© Japanese Archaeological Association

72

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE

Dynasties: Introduction to the archaeological study of their relations]. Kyūshū
Bunkashi Kenkyūjo kiyō 26: 75–100. 西谷 正 1981.「高麗・朝鮮両王朝と琉球の交流—その考古学的研究序説—」『九州文化史研究紀要』第 26 巻、pp. 75–100.
NOZAKI Takuji, SUMIDA Naotoshi, and MIYAGI Ryōma (eds.) 2011. Gusuku iseki-gun
Maehata iseki and Kohane iseki [Gusuku site group: Maehata site and Kohane site].
Kikai, Kagoshima Prefecture: Kikai Town Board of Education. 野﨑拓司・澄田直敏・
宮城良真 (編) 2011.『城久遺跡群前畑遺跡・小ハネ遺跡』鹿児島県喜界町：喜界町教
育委員会．

NOZAKI Takuji, MATSUBARA Nobuyuki, and SUMIDA Naotoshi (eds.) 2013a. Gusuku
iseki-gun Ōufu iseki and Hanta iseki [Gusuku site group: Ōufu site and Hanta site].
Kikai, Kagoshima Prefecture: Kikai Town Board of Education. 野﨑拓司・松原信之・
澄田直敏 (編) 2013a.『城久遺跡群大ウフ遺跡・半田遺跡』鹿児島県喜界町：喜界町教
育委員会．

NOZAKI Takuji, MATSUBARA Nobuyuki, and SUMIDA Naotoshi (eds.) 2013b. Gusuku
iseki-gun Hantaguchi iseki [Gusuku site group: Hantaguchi site]. Kikai, Kagoshima
Prefecture: Kikai Town Board of Education. 野﨑拓司・松原信之・澄田直敏 (編)2013b.『城久遺跡群半田口遺跡』鹿児島県喜界町：喜界町教育委員会．
OKADA Hiroshi (ed.) 1988. Kameyama iseki [Kameyama site]. Sanyō jidōsha dō kensetsu
ni tomonau hakkutsu chōsa 3 [Excavation for the construction of Sanyō Expressway].
Okayama Prefecture: Okayama Prefectural Board of Education. 岡田 博 (編) 1988.
『山陽自動車道建設に伴う発掘調査 3』岡山県岡山市：岡山県教育委員会．
「亀山遺跡」
ŌMURA Toshimichi and MIZUGUCHI Tomio (eds.) 1983. Uozumi koyō seki [Uozumi
kiln site]. Hyōgo Prefecture: Hyōgo Prefectural Board of Education. 大村敬通・水口富夫 (編) 1990.『魚住古窯跡』兵庫県神戸市：兵庫県教育委員会．
ŌNISHI Kazutomo 1996. Nantō Sueki no mondaiten [Issues of the Sue wares of Ryukyu『南Islands]. Minami Nihon bunka 29: 19–35. 大西和智 1996.「南島須恵器の問題点」
日本文化』第 29 巻、19–35.
ŌSHIRO Kei and KINJŌ Kamenobu (eds.) 1991. Uemura iseki [Uemura site]. Okinawa
Prefecture: Okinawa Prefectural Board of Education. 大城 慧・金城亀信 (編) 1991.
『上村遺跡』沖縄県那覇市：沖縄県教育委員会．
Pearson, R. 2007. Early medieval trade on Japan’s southern frontier and its eﬀect on
Okinawan State development: Grey stoneware of the East China Sea. International
Journal of Historical Archaeology 11 (2): 122–151.
SATŌ Shinji 1970. Nantō no Sueki [Sue wares of Ryukyu Islands]. Tōyō bunka 48, 49:『東洋文化』第 48, 49 巻、pp. 169–204.
169–204. 佐藤伸二 1970.「南島の須恵器」
SETO Tetsuya 2010. Okinawa ni okeru 12–16 seiki no bōeki tōji: Chūgoku-san tōji ochūshin to shita yōsō to sosei [Twelfth–sixteenth century trade ceramics in Okinawa:
Aspects and composition of Chinese-made pottery]. Bōeki tōji kenkyū 30: 17–40. 瀬戸
哲也 2010.「沖縄における 12 〜 16 世紀の貿易陶磁—中国産陶磁を中心とした様相と組成」『貿易陶磁研究』No. 30, pp. 17–40.
SETO Tetsuya 2013. Okinawa ni okeru 14–15 seiki Chūgoku tōji hennen no saikentō [A© Japanese Archaeological Association

73

SHINZATO Akito

reexamination of the chronology of fourteenth–ﬁfteenth century Chinese ceramics
in Okinawa]. Chū-Kinsei doki no kiso kenkyū 25: 113–126. 瀬戸哲也 2013.「沖縄における 14・15 世紀中国陶磁編年の再検討」『中近世土器の基礎研究』第 25 巻、pp.
113–126.
SETO Tetsuya 2015. 14–15 seiki no Okinawa shutsudo Chūgoku-san seiji ni tsuite[Fourteenth–ﬁfteenth century Chinese-made celadon excavated in Okinawa]. Bōeki
tōji kenkyū 35: 17–32. 瀬戸哲也 2015.「14・15 世紀の沖縄出土中国産青磁について」『貿易陶磁研究』No. 35, pp. 17–32.
SETO Tetsuya 2017. Naha-kō seibi izen no bōeki tōji no ryūtsū to kōeki keitai: Okinawahontō chūnanbu o chūshin ni [Trade ceramics distribution and forms of trade before
the improvement of Naha port: With focus on the central and southern parts of themain island of Okinawa]. Nantō kōko 36: 223–234. 瀬戸哲也 2017.「那覇港整備以前の貿易陶磁の流通と交易形態—沖縄本島中南部を中心に」『南島考古』No. 36, pp.
223–234.
SHIBATA Keiko 2015. Gusuku jidai ni okeru tōji no juyō [Acceptance of Chinese pottery
in the Gusuku period]. Nantō kōko 34: 19–32. 柴田圭子 2015.「グスク時代における陶瓷の受容」『南島考古』No. 34, pp. 19–32.
SHIMABUKURO Hiroshi and KINJŌ Kamenobu (eds.) 1990. Shinzato-mura iseki[Shinzato-mura site]. Okinawa Prefecture: Okinawa Prefectural Board of Education.
島袋 洋・金城亀信 (編) 1990.『新里村遺跡』沖縄県那覇市：沖縄県教育委員会．
SHIMOKAWA Tatsuya 1995. Seikatsu o kaeta shokunin-tachi no ishinabe [Stone Nabepots that changed craftsmen’s lives], in AMINO Yoshihiko and ISHII Susumu (ed.)
Higashi Shina-kai o kakomu chūsei sekai [The medieval world surrounding the East
China Sea, Vol. 7]: 163–188. Tokyo: Shinjinbutsu Ōraisha. 下川達彌 1995.「生活を変えた職人たちの石鍋」網野善彦・石井 進 (編) 『東シナ海を囲む中世世界』第 7 巻、pp. 163–188. 東京：新人物往来社．
SHIMOMURA Satoru (ed.) 1996. Hakata 53 [Hakata site 53]. Fukuoka, Fukuoka
Prefecture: Fukuoka city Board of Education. 下村 智 (編) 1996.『博多 53』福岡県
福岡市：福岡市教育委員会．

SHINTŌ Kōichi and AOZAKI Kazunori (eds.) 1985a. Kamuiyaki koyōseki-gun I[Kamuiyaki ware old kiln I]. Isen, Kagoshima Prefecture: Isen Town Board of
Education. 新東晃一・青崎和憲 (編) 1985a.『カムィヤキ古窯跡群 I』鹿児島県伊仙町：伊仙町教育委員会．

SHINTŌ Kōichi and AOZAKI Kazunori (eds.) 1985b. Kamuiyaki koyōseki-gun II[Kamuiyaki ware old kiln II]. Isen, Kagoshima Prefecture: Isen Town Board of
Education. 新東晃一・青崎和憲 (編) 1985b.『カムィヤキ古窯跡群 II』鹿児島県伊仙町：伊仙町教育委員会．

SHINZATO Akito 2003. Tokunoshima Kamuiyaki koyōsan seihin no ryūtsū to sono
tokushitsu [Distribution of Kamuiyaki ware and its characteristics]. Senshigaku
kōkogaku ronkyū [Prehistoric research and archaeology essays IV], 384–410. Tatsuta『先史学・
kōkokai．新里亮人 2003.「徳之島カムィヤキ古窯産製品の流通とその特質」© Japanese Archaeological Association

74

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE

考古学論究 IV』pp. 384–410. 龍田考古会．
SHINZATO Akito (ed.) 2005. Kamuiyaki koyōseki-gun IV [Kamuiyaki ware old kiln IV].
Isen, Kagoshima Prefecture: Isen Town Board of Education. 新里亮人 (編) 2005.『カムィヤキ古窯跡群 IV』鹿児島県伊仙町：伊仙町教育委員会．
SHINZATO Akito (ed.) 2010. Kawaminetsuji iseki [Kawaminetsuji site]. Isen, Kagoshima
Prefecture: Isen Town Board of Education. 新里亮人 (編) 2010.『川嶺辻遺跡』鹿児島
県伊仙町：伊仙町教育委員会．

SHINZATO Takayuki 1997. Yaeyama gaiji-doki no keishikigakuteki kentō [Typologicalstudy of Yaeyama-style vessels with ear-shaped handles]. Jinruishi kenkyū 9: 28–50.
新里貴之 1997.「八重山外耳土器の型式学的検討」『人類史研究』第 9 号、pp. 28–50.
SHINZATO Takayuki 2004. Sakishima shotō ni okeru Gusuku jidai shafutsu-dokino tenkai to sono haikei [Gusuku-period cooking pots in the Sakishima Islands:
Development and background], in Nakijin villege Board of Education (ed.) Gusuku
bunka o kangaeru [Thoughts on Gusuku culture]: 307–324. Tokyo: ShinjinbutsuŌraisha. 新里貴之 2004.「先島諸島におけるグスク時代煮沸土器の展開とその背景」
今帰仁村教育委員会 (編)『グスク文化を考える』pp. 307–324. 東京：新人物往来社．
SHINZATO Takayuki 2006. Amami shotō no gusuku-kei doki [Gusuku-type pottery
in the Amami Islands]. Kagoshima Daigaku Kōkogaku Kenkyūshitsu 25-shūnen
kinen ronshū [Collection of essays in commemoration of the 25th anniversary of
Kagoshima University Archaeology Research Oﬃce]: 221–234. Group for Publishing
the Collection of Essays in Commemoration of the 25th Anniversary of Kagoshima
University Archaeology Research Oﬃce. 新里貴之 2006.「奄美諸島のグスク系土器」『鹿児島大学考古学研究室 25 周年記念論集』pp. 221–234. 鹿児島大学考古学研究室
25 周年記念論集刊行会．
SHINZATO Takayuki 2010. Nansei Shotō no yōsō kara mita Kikaijima [Kikaijima Islandas part of the Nansei Islands]. Kodai makki Nihon no kyōkai: Gusuku isekigun to Ishie
isekigun [Boundaries of Japan at the end of the ancient period: The Gusuku (Kikai)
and Ishie (Aomori) site clusters]: 71–83. Tokyo: Shinwasha. 新里貴之 2010.「南西諸島の様相からみた喜界島 」『 古代末期・日本の境界— 城久遺跡群と石江遺跡群 』pp.
71–83. 東京：森話社．
SHINZATO Takayuki 2015. Miyako Shotō doki shutsugen-ki no yōsō: Gusuku jidai shoki
no doki shiryō no bunrui-nendai kan [Aspects of the era of discoveries of pottery in
the Miyako Islands: Classiﬁcation and periodization of pottery in the early Gusuku
period]. Okinawa Kōkogakkai 2015-nendo kenkyū happyōkai shiryō [Papers for
Okinawa Archaeological Society 2015 Research Presentation Meeting]: 40–50.
Okinawa Archaeological Society. 新里貴之 2015.「宮古諸島土器出現期の様相—グス
ク時代初期の土器資料の分類・年代観」『沖縄考古学会 2015 年度研究発表会資料』
pp. 40–50. 沖縄考古学会．
SHINZATO Takayuki 2017. Tokara rettō no Yayoi jidai to Heian jidai: Nakanoshima
Jinushi Jinja shikichinai hakkutsu chōsa seika kara [The Yayoi and Heian periods
on the Tokara Islands: Results of the excavation of the Jinushi Jinja Shrine precinct© Japanese Archaeological Association

75

SHINZATO Akitosite]. Ippan shadan hōjin Nihon Kōkogaku Kyōkai dai-83-kai Sōkai kenkyū happyō
yōshi [Abstracts of Research Presentations at the 83rd Convention of the JapaneseArchaeological Association]: 178–179. Japanese Archaeological Association. 新里貴
之 2017.「トカラ列島の弥生時代と平安時代—中之島地主神社敷地内発掘調査成果から」『一般社団法人日本考古学協会第 83 回総会研究発表要旨』日本考古学協会．
SHINZATO Takayuki (ed.) 2014. Okinoerabu Hōsūdō and Ōyama Suikyōdo no
kenkyū [Study on Hōsūdō cave and Ōyama Suikyōdo cave on Okinoerabu island].
Kagoshima University, Kagoshima. 新里貴之 (編) 2014.『沖永良部鳳雛洞・大山水鏡洞の研究』鹿児島大学．
SHIRAKIHARA Kazumi 1971. Tōshitsu no tsubo to garasu no tama [Ceramic Tsubo jars
and glass balls]. Kodai bunka 23 (9–10): 258–265. 白木原和美 1971.「陶質の壺とガラスの玉」『古代文化』第 23 巻第 9–10 号、pp. 258–265.
SHIRAKIHARA Kazumi 1975. Rui-sueki no shutsuji ni tsuite [The origin of Sue-like『法文ware]. Hōbun ronsō 36: 112–126. 白木原和美 1975.「類須恵器の出自について」
論叢』36, pp. 112–126.
SUMIDA Naotoshi and NOZAKI Takuji (eds.) 2006. Gusuku iseki-gun Yamada Nakanishi
iseki I [Gusuku site group: Yamada Nakanishi site I]. Kikai, Kagoshima Prefecture:
Kikai Town Board of Education. 澄田直敏・野﨑拓司 (編) 2006.『城久遺跡群山田中西遺跡 I』鹿児島県喜界町：喜界町教育委員会．
SUMIDA Naotoshi and NOZAKI Takuji (eds.) 2008. Gusuku iseki-gun Yamada Nakanishi
iseki II [Gusuku site group: Yamada Nakanishi site II]. Kikai, Kagoshima Prefecture:
Kikai Town Board of Education. 澄田直敏・野﨑拓司 (編) 2008.『城久遺跡群山田中西遺跡 II』鹿児島県喜界町：喜界町教育委員会．
SUMIDA Naotoshi, NOZAKI Takuji, and GOTŌ Noriaki (eds.) 2009. Gusuku iseki-gun
Yamada Hanta iseki [Gusuku site group: Yamada Hanta site]．澄田直敏・野﨑拓司・
後藤法宣 (編) 2009.『城久遺跡群山田半田遺跡』鹿児島県喜界町：喜界町教育委員会．
SUZUKI Yasuyuki (ed.) 1998. Kusado Sengenchō iseki shutsudo no kasseki-sei ishinabe[Talc stone Nabe pots excavated from the Kusado Sengenchō site]. Fukuyama,
Hiroshima Prefecture: Hiroshima Prefectural Museum of History. 鈴木康之 (編) 1998.
『草戸千軒町遺跡出土の滑石製石鍋』広島県福山市：広島県立博物館．
TAKAMIYA Hiroe 1965. Okinawa (Kofun bunka no chiikiteki gaikan) [Okinawa(Regional overview of Kofun culture)]. Nihon no kōkogaku IV [Archaeology in Japan,
IV]: 532–535. Tokyo: Kawade Shobō Shinsha. 高宮廣衞 1965.「沖縄 (古墳文化の地域
的概観) 」『日本の考古学』pp. 532–535. 東京：河出書房新社．
TAKAMIYA Hiroto and SHINZATO Takayuki 2013. Ryūkyū Rettō kaizuka jidai ni okeru
shakai soshiki no henka [Changes in social organization in the Ryukyu Archipelago
shell midden period]. Kodai bunka 64(4): 98–110. 高宮広土・新里貴之 2013.「琉球列島貝塚時代における社会組織の変化」『古代文化』第 64 巻第 4 号、pp. 98–110.
TAKANASHI Osamu 2005. Mono ga kataru rekishi [Reading History from Tangible
Objects] Volume 10: Yakōgai no kōkogaku [The archaeology of turbo shells]. Tokyo:
Dōseisha. 高梨 修 2005.『ものが語る歴史』第 10 巻『ヤコウガイの考古学』東京：© Japanese Archaeological Association

76

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE

同成社．

TAKANASHI Osamu (ed.) 2003. Kominato Fuwaganeku iseki gun han’i kakuninchōsa hōkokusho [Report on the excavation for conﬁrming the range of Kominato
Fuwaganeku site]. Naze, Kagoshima Prefecture: Naze City Board of Education. 高梨
修 (編) 2003.『小湊フワガネク遺跡群遺跡範囲確認調査報告書』鹿児島県名瀬市：名瀬市教育委員会．

TAMASHIRO Yasushi (ed.) 2005. Shiinagusuku [Shiinagusuku site]. Nakijin, Okinawa
Prefecture: Nakijin villege Board of Education. 玉城 靖 (編) 2005.『シイナグスク』
沖縄県今帰仁村：今帰仁村教育委員会．

TAWADA Shinjun 1956. Ryūkyū rettō no kaizuka bunpu to hennen no gainen [Thedistribution of shell middens in the Ryukyu Islands and the concept of chronology].
Bunkazai yōran 1956-nendo ban [Catalogue of Cultural Properties, 1956]: 43–55.
Ryukyu Government Cultural Properties Protection Committee. 多和田眞淳 1956.「琉球列島の貝塚分布と編年の概念」『文化財要覧 1956 年度版』pp. 43–55. 琉球政府文化財保護委員会．

TERADA Jinshi 2015. Sankō shiryō 5: Shiseki Tokunoshima kamuiyaki tōki kamaato
no shokusei ni tsuite [Reference material 5: Vegetation at the Kamuiyaki kiln sitesin Tokunoshima], in SHINZATO Akito (ed.) Shiseki Tokunoshima Kamuiyaki tōkikamaato hozon kanri keikakusho [Plan for preservation management of historic space
Kamuiyaki kiln sites in Tokunoshima]. Isen, Kagoshima Prefecture: Isen Town Boardof Education. 寺田仁志 2015.「参考資料 5 史跡徳之島カムィヤキ陶器窯跡の植生について」新里亮人 (編)『史跡徳之島カムィヤキ陶器窯跡保存管理計画書』鹿児島県伊仙町：伊仙町教育委員会．

TOKUNAGA Sadatsugu 2010. Shoki kasseki-sei ishinabe kō [A study of early talc stone
Nabe pots]. Senshigaku-Kōkogaku ronkyū V, ge-kan: Kōmoto Masayuki sensei tainin
kinen [Prehistoric research and archaeology essays V, Part 2, In commemoration of
the retirement of Professor Kōmoto Masayuki]: 719–742. Tatsuta Kōkokai [Tatsuta『先史学・考古学論究 V
Archaeology Society]· 徳永貞紹 2010.「初期滑石製石鍋考」
下巻 甲元眞之先生退任記念』pp. 719–742. 龍田考古会．
TOKUNO Toshimi 2010. Dai-5-shō Chūzan Seiken to Miyako, Yaeyama [Chapter 5:
The Chūzan Government and Miyako and Yaeyama], in Zaidanhōjin Okinawa ken
bunka shinkōkai shiryō hensanshitsu (ed.) Okinawa-kenshi kakuron-hen, dai-3-kan
Ko-Ryūkyū [Okinawa prefectural history, essays: Volume 3, Old Ryūkyū]: 240–259.
Okinawa Prefecture: Okinawa Prefectural Board of Education. 得能壽美 2010.「第五章 中山政権と宮古・八重山」『沖縄県史 各論編 第三巻 古琉球』pp. 240–259.
沖縄県那覇市：沖縄県教育委員会．

TŌMA Shiichi 2000. Kōkogaku kara mita Gusuku jidai kō [A study of the Gusuku period
from an archaeological perspective]. Kodai bunka 52(3): 14–20. 當眞嗣一 2000.「考古学からみたグスク時代考」『古代文化』第 52 巻 3 号、pp. 14–20.
TŌMA Shiichi (ed.) 1983. Inafuku iseki hakkutsuchōsa hōkokusho (Īnu’uganchiku)[Inafuku site (Īnu’ugan area)]. Okinawa Prefecture: Okinawa Prefectural Board of© Japanese Archaeological Association

77

SHINZATO Akito

Education. 當眞嗣一 (編) 1990.『稲福遺跡発掘調査報告書 (上御願地区) 』沖縄県那覇市：沖縄県教育委員会．

TŌME Kiyono (ed.) 2001. Isa Mēbaru dai ichi iseki [Isa Mēbaru No. 1 site]. Okinawa
Prefecture: Okinawa Prefectural Archaeological Center. 當銘清乃 (編) 2001.『伊佐前原第一遺跡』沖縄県西原町：沖縄県立埋蔵文化財センター．
TOMOYOSE Eiichirō 1964. Okinawa kōkogaku no shomondai [Issues on the archaeology
of Okinawa]. Kōkogaku kenkyū 11(1): 13–21. 友寄英一郎 1964.「沖縄考古学の諸問
題」『考古学研究』第 11 巻第 1 号、pp. 13–21.
TOMOYOSE Eiichirō and TAKEMOTO Masahide 1969. Fensa gusuku kaizuka hakkutsu
chōsa gaihō [Archaeological excavation summary of Fensa gusuku shell midden].
Ryūkyū Daigaku Hōbungaku-bu kiyō: Shakai hen 13: 55–94. 友寄英一郎・嵩元政秀『琉球大学法文学部紀要 社会扁』pp. 55–94.
1969.「フェンサ城貝塚発掘調査概報」
UEHARA Mahito 1980. Jūichi–jūni-seiki no gatō-mon’yō no genryū jō [The origins ofGatō-mon’yō (motifs applied to eave-end tiles) of the eleventh and twelfth centuries,
Part 1]. Kodai bunka 32(5): 1–21. 上原真人 1980.「11・12 世紀の瓦当文様の源流『古代文化』第 32 巻第 5 号、pp. 1–21.
(上) 」
UEHARA Shizuka 2013. Ryūkyū koga no kenkyū [A study of ancient tiles in Ryukyu].
Okinawa: Yōju Shorin. 上原 静 2013.『琉球古瓦の研究』沖縄：榕樹書林．
UMAHARA Kazuhiro and TOMOGUCHI Keiko (eds.) 1985. Tamausuku iseki[Tamausuku site]. Kumamoto Prefecture: Kumamoto University ArchaeologicalResearch Oﬃce. 馬原和広・友口恵子 (編) 1985.『玉城遺跡』熊本県熊本市：熊本大学
考古学研究室．

UNO Takao 1997. Chūsei shokki yōshiki no imi suru mono [The signiﬁcance of themedieval food-related pottery style]. Kokuritsu Rekishi Minzoku Hakubutsukan
kenkyū hōkoku [National Museum of Japanese History Research Report] 71: 377–430.
宇野隆夫 1997.「中世食器様式の意味するもの」『国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告』第71 巻、pp. 377–430.
UNO Takao and MAEKAWA Kaname (eds.) 1993. Suzu Ōbatake yō [Suzu Ōbatake kilnsite]. Toyama Prefecture: Toyama University Archaeological Research Oﬃce. 宇野隆
夫・前川 要 (編) 1993.『珠洲大畠窯』富山県富山市：富山大学考古学研究室．
YAMAMOTO Nobuo 2003. Tōnan Ajia kaiiki ni okeru muyū tōki [Unglazed stoneware in
the southeast Asian maritime area]. Bōeki tōji kenkyū No. 23: 76–89. 山本信夫 2003.
『貿易陶磁研究』No. 23, pp. 76–89.
「東南アジア海域における無釉陶器」
YAMASAKI Sumio 1993. Dai 8 shō Umi-no-Nakamichi o meguru shomondai no kentōUmi-no-Nakamichi iseki no seien o megutte [Salt making at the Umi-no-Nakamichisite], in Umi-no-Nakamichi iseki II [Umi-no-Nakamichi Site II]: 109–112. Umino-Nakamichi Site Excavation Committee, Asahi Shimbun Company West HeadOﬃce. 山崎純男 1993.「第 8 章 海の中道をめぐる諸問題の検討 1．海の中道遺跡の製塩をめぐって」『海の中道遺跡 II』pp. 109–112. 福岡県福岡市：朝日新聞西部本社・
海の中道発掘調査実行委員会．

YAMASAKI Sumio (ed.) 1982. Umi-no-nakamichi iseki [Umi-no-Nakamichi Site II].
© Japanese Archaeological Association

78

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE

Fukuoka, Fukuoka Prefecture: Fukuoka city Board of Education. 山崎純男 (編) 1982.
『海の中道遺跡』福岡県福岡市：福岡市教育委員会．
YAMASHIRO Yasuo and SHIMABUKURO Harumi (eds.) 2003. Kushikanekubaru
iseki [Kushikanekubaru site]. Chatan, Okinawa Prefecture: Chatan Town Board of
Education. 山城安生・島袋晴美 (編) 2003.『後兼久原遺跡』沖縄県北谷町：北谷町教
育委員会．

YAMAUCHI Shinji 2009. Nihonshi riburetto 75: Ni-Ssō bōeki to “Iō no michi” [Japanese
History Libretto 75: Japan-Song trade and the “sulfur road”]. Tokyo: Yamakawa
Shuppansha. 山内晋次 2009.『日本史リブレット 75 日宋貿易と「硫黄の道」』東京：
山川出版社．

YOSHIOKA Yasunobu 2002. Nantō no chūsei sueki [Medieval Sueki wares of Ryukyu].
Kokuritsu Rekishi Minzoku Hakubutsukan kenkyū hōkoku [National Museum ofJapanese History Research Report] 94: 409–439. 吉岡康暢 2002.「南島の中世須恵器」『国立歴史民俗博物館』第 94 巻、pp. 409–439.
YUGE Masami 2010. Dai-4-shō Chūzan Seiken to Amami [Chapter 4: The Chūzan
Government and Amami], in Zaidanhōjin Okinawa ken bunka shinkōkai shiryō
hensanshitsu (ed.) Okinawa-kenshi kakuron-hen, dai-3-kan Ko-Ryūkyū [Okinawa
prefectural history, essays: Volume 3, Old Ryūkyū]: 217–239. Okinawa Prefecture:
Okinawa Prefectural Board of Education. 弓削政巳 2010.「第四章 中山政権と奄美」財団法人沖縄県文化振興会資料編集室 (編) 『沖縄県史 各論編 第三巻 古琉球』
pp. 217–239. 沖縄県那覇市：沖縄県教育委員会．

NoteFigure 1
Drawing by the author
Figure 2
1: Yamasaki ed. 1982 - p. 80 - ﬁg. 51 - 2, 2: Kin & Higa eds. 1979 - p. 32 - ﬁg. 15 - 40, 3:
Aozaki & Itō eds. 2001 - p. 15 - ﬁg. 6 - 7, 4: Nozaki et al. eds. 2013a - p. 49 - ﬁg. 60 - 79,
5: Kin ed. 1997 - p. 41 - ﬁg. 18 -1
Figure 3
Seosan Mujang-ni kiln site: Lee et al. eds. 2000, Suzu kiln site: Uno & Maekawa eds.
1993, Kande kiln site: Ikeda ed. 1998, Uozumi kiln site: Ōmura & Mizuguchi eds. 1983,
Bizen kiln site: Kōmoto and Kuzuhara eds. 1972, Kameyama kiln site: Okada ed. 1988,
Tokameyama kiln site: Doshisha Daigaku ed. 1971, Kababanjō kiln site: Minoguchi
1997, Sagariyama kiln site: Matsumoto ed 1980, Mottaimatsu site: Miyashita ed. 1998,
Matsunoto site: Nakayama ed. 2006, Akakina castle site: Nakayama ed. 2003, Usyuku© Japanese Archaeological Association

79

SHINZATO Akito

shell midden: Kawaguchi ed. 1978, Kominato Fuwaganeku site cluster: Takanashi
ed. 2003, Kawaminetsuji site: Shinzato Akito ed. 2010, Nakagumi site: Gushiken ed.
2013, Tokunoshima Kamuiyaki kiln site cluster: Shintō & Aozaki ed. 1985a, 1985b,
Hōsūdō site: Shinzato Takayuki ed. 2014, Nakijin castle site: Kin & Miyazato eds.
1983, Yabumēdabaru shell midden: Nakasone ed. 2007, Atta shell midden: Kin & Higa
eds. 1979, Katsuren castle site: Miyagi & Nakamura eds. 2011, Kushikanekubaru site:
Yamashiro & Shimabukuro eds. 2003, Mekarubaru site: Kin ed. 1997, Inafuku site:
Tōma ed. 1983, Itokazu castel site: Kinjō Kamenobu ed. 1991, Yajāgama cave site: Asato
Susumu 1975, Takausu castle site: Morimoto ed. 1989, Birōsuku site: Kin ed. 1983,
Shinzatomura Higashi site: Shimabukuro & Kinjō eds. 1990, Yonara site: Mikami ed.
1982, Ōdomarihama shell midden: Kin & Kinjō eds. 1986
Figure 4
1: Nakayama ed. 2006 - p. 63 - ﬁg. 41-15, 2: Nakayama ed. 2006 - p. 63 - ﬁg. 41-15, 3:
Sumida et al. eds. 2008 - p. 66 - ﬁg. 63 -126, 4: Nozaki et al. eds. 2011 - p. 244 - ﬁg.
34-132, 5: Collection of the Isen-town Museum of History and Folklore, 6: Nakayama ed.
2006 - p. 63 - ﬁg. 41-22, 7: Nakayama ed. 2006 - p. 63 - ﬁg. 41-24, 8: Sumida et al. eds.
2009 - p. 142 - ﬁg. 178 - 76
Figure 5
1: Kin & Higa eds. 1979 - p. 32 - ﬁg. 15 - 40, 2: Kin & Higa eds. 1979 - p. 32 - ﬁg. 15 - 29,
3: Kin & Higa eds. 1979 - p. 32 - ﬁg. 15 - 38, 4: Kin & Higa eds. 1979 - p. 32 - ﬁg. 15 - 30,
5: Yamashiro & Shimabukuro eds. 2003 - p. 105 - ﬁg. 65 - 2, 6: Yamashiro & Shimabukuro
eds. 2003 - p. 109 - ﬁg. 69 - 94, 7: Nakasone ed. 2007 - p. 59 - ﬁg. 36-2137, 8: Yamashiro& Shimabukuro eds. 2003 - p. 108 - ﬁg. 68- 68, 9: Kin ed. 1997 - p. 118 - ﬁg. 52 - 1, 10:
Miyagi & Nakamura eds. 2011 - p. 84 - ﬁg. V. 2-5 - 39, 11: Miyagi & Nakamura eds. 2011
- p. 80 - ﬁg. V. 2-3 - 14, 12: Tōma ed. 1983 - p. 101 - ﬁg. 25 - 2, 13: Tōma ed. 1983. 1979 p. 101 - ﬁg. 25 - 4, 14: Kin ed. 1997 - p. 119 - ﬁg. 53 - 10, 15: Katagiri ed. 2004 - p. 106 ﬁg. 52 - 40, 16: Katagiri ed. 2004 - p. 107 - ﬁg. 53- 52, 17: Katagiri ed. 2004 - p. 106 - ﬁg.
52 - 44, 18: Tōma ed. 1983 - p. 107 - ﬁg. 31 - 111, 19: Kin ed. 1994 - p. 80 - ﬁg. 40 - 12,
20: Tōma ed. 1983 - p. 104 - ﬁg. 28 - 43, 21: Kinjō ed. 1991 - p. 37 - ﬁg. 13 - 33, 22: Tōma
ed. 1983. 1979 - p. 102 - ﬁg. 26 - 9, 23: Tomoyose & Takemoto 1969 - p. 79 - ﬁg. IV - 2,
24: Kinjō ed. 1991 - p. 35 - ﬁg. 12 - 19, 25: Kinjō ed. 1991 - p. 43 - ﬁg. 15 - 54, 26: Kinjō
ed. 1991 - p. 37 - ﬁg. 13 - 35, 27: Kinjō ed. 1991 - p. 40 - ﬁg. 14 - 41, 28: Kinjō ed. 1991
- p. 46 - ﬁg. 16 - 74, 29: Kinjō ed. 1991 - p. 48 - ﬁg. 17 - 88, 30: Kinjō ed. 1991 - p. 48 ﬁg. 17 - 80, 31: Kinjō ed. 1991 - p. 48 - ﬁg. 17 - 86, 32: Kinjō ed. 1991 - p. 48 - ﬁg. 17 75, 33: Tamashiro ed. 2005 - p. 28 - ﬁg. 15-5, 34: Kin ed. 1991 - p. 92 - ﬁg. 22 - 3, 35: Kin
ed. 1991 - p. 78 - ﬁg. 19 - 1, 36: Tamashiro ed. 2005 - p. 29 - ﬁg. 16-20, 37: Tamashiro ed.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

80

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE2005 - p. 29 - ﬁg. 16-23, 38: Tamashiro ed. 2005 - p. 29 - ﬁg. 16-25, 39: Kin ed. 1991 - p.
78 - ﬁg. 19 - 7, 40: Kin ed. 1991 - p. 112 - ﬁg. 31 - 4
Figure 6
1: Shimabukuro & Kinjō eds. 1990 - p. 137 - ﬁg. 42 - 3, 2: Kinjō ed. 1994 - p. 51 - ﬁg.
21 - 1, 3: Shimabukuro & Kinjō eds. 1990 - p. 137 - ﬁg. 42 - 4, 4: Shimabukuro & Kinjō
eds. 1990 - p. 32 - ﬁg. 11 - 4, 5: Shimabukuro & Kinjō eds. 1990 - p. 137 - ﬁg. 42 - 1, 6:
Kinjō ed. 1994 - p. 56 - ﬁg. 23 - 22, 7: Shinzato Takayuki 2004 - p. 313 - ﬁg. 2a- 3, 8:
Shimabukuro & Kinjō eds. 1990 - p. 32 - ﬁg. 11 - 13, 9: Kinjō ed. 1994 - p. 56 - ﬁg. 23 31, 10: Kinjō ed. 1994 - p. 54 - ﬁg. 22 - 19, 11: Shinzato Takayuki 2004 - p. 313 - ﬁg. 2a 7, 12: Shinzato Takayuki 2004 - p. 313 - ﬁg. 2a - 9, 13: Shinzato Takayuki 2004 - p. 313 ﬁg. 2a - 8, 14: Shinzato Takayuki 2004 - p. 313 - ﬁg. 2a - 11, 15: Shinzato Takayuki 2004 p. 312- ﬁg. 2b - 31, 16: Shinzato Takayuki 2004 - p. 313 - ﬁg. 2a - 13, 17: Ōshiro & Kinjō
eds. 1991 - p. 78 - ﬁg. 26 - 65, 18: Ōshiro & Kinjō eds. 1991 - p. 66 - ﬁg. 20 - 1, 19: Ōshiro& Kinjō eds. 1991 - p. 123 - ﬁg. 49 - 1, 20: Ōshiro & Kinjō eds. 1991 - p. 78 - ﬁg. 26 - 71
Figure 7
1: Shinzato Takayuki 2006 - p. 225 - ﬁg. 3 - 1, 2: Sumida et al. eds. 2009 - p. 160 - ﬁg. 198 359, 3: Sumida et al. eds. 2009 - p. 160 - ﬁg. 198 - 361, 4: Shinzato Takayuki 2006 - p. 225 ﬁg. 3 - 3, 5: Shinzato Takayuki 2006 - p. 225 - ﬁg. 3 - 4, 6: Shinzato Akito ed. 2010 - p. 61 ﬁg. 43 - 6, 7: Nozaki et al. eds. 2011 - p. 111 - ﬁg. 125-6, 8: Nozaki et al. eds. 2013a - p. 69- ﬁg. 81 - 302, 9: Gushiken ed. 2013 - p. 28 - ﬁg. 18 - 61, 10: Gushiken ed. 2013 - p. 28 - ﬁg.
18 - 62, 11: Umahara & Tomoguchi eds. 1985 - p. 37 - ﬁg. 14 - 66, 12: Shinzato Takayuki
2006 - p. 225 - ﬁg. 3 - 31, 13: Shinzato Takayuki 2006 - p. 228 - ﬁg. 5 - 59, 14: Shinzato Akito
ed. 2010 - p. 47 - ﬁg. 26 - 4, 15: Shinzato Akito ed. 2010 - p. 47 - ﬁg. 26 - 8, 16: Shinzato
Takayuki ed. 2014 - p. 48 - ﬁg. 24 - H4, 17: Shinzato Takayuki 2006 - p. 225 - ﬁg. 3 - 13
Figure 8
1: Morita 1983 - p. 144 - ﬁg. 13 - 3, 2: Morita 1983 - p. 144 - ﬁg. 13 - 2, 3: Morita 1983 p. 144 - ﬁg. 13 - 5, 4: Suzuki ed. 1998 - p. 21 - ﬁg. 3-7 - 34, 5: Suzuki ed. 1998 - p. 23 - ﬁg.
3-9 - 48
Figure 9
Drawing by the author based on Miyagi 2015 - p. 20 - ﬁg. 1
Figure 10
1: Sumida et al. eds. 2009 - p. 69 - ﬁg. 78 - 16, 2: Kin 1989 - p. 4 - ﬁg. 2 - 3, 3: Nozaki
et al. eds. 2013a - p. 49 - ﬁg. 60 - 79, 4: Kin ed. 1997 - p. 41 - ﬁg. 18 - 1, 5: Shinzato Akito© Japanese Archaeological Association

81

SHINZATO Akito

ed. 2010 - p. 55 - ﬁg. 35 - 5, 6: Nozaki et al. eds. 2013a - p. 56 - ﬁg. 67 - 224, 7: Nozaki
et al. eds. 2011 - p. 255 - ﬁg. 46-15, 8: Nozaki et al. eds. 2013a - p. 65 - ﬁg. 77 - 262, 9:
Sumida et al. eds. 2009 - p. 69 - ﬁg. 78 - 19, 10: Kin 1989 - p. 14 - ﬁg. 15 - 54, 11: Kin& Kinjō eds. 1986 - PL.68 - ﬁg. 61 - 5, 12: Kin ed. 1997 - p. 41 - ﬁg. 18 - 9, 13: Shinzato
Akito ed. 2010 - p. 62 - ﬁg. 45 - 2, 14: Tōme ed. 2001 - p. 65 - ﬁg. 36 - 24, 15: Umahara &Tomoguchi eds. 1985 - p. 35 - ﬁg. 13 - 57, 16: Kin ed. 1983 - p. 50 - ﬁg. 15 - 8, 17: Miyagi& Nakamura eds. 2011- p. 102 - ﬁg. V. 3-2 - 7, 18: Kin ed. 1997 - p. 64 - ﬁg. 23 - 1, 19:
Kin ed. 1991 - p. 96 - ﬁg. 24 - 6, 20: Shimabukuro & Kinjō eds. 1990 - p. 51 - ﬁg. 18 - 8,
21: Shimabukuro & Kinjō eds. 1990 - p. 175 - ﬁg. 59 - 2, 22: Shimabukuro & Kinjō eds.
1990 - p. 51 - ﬁg. 18 - 3, 23: Shinzato Akito ed. 2010 - p. 55 - ﬁg. 35 - 6, 24: Kin ed. 1991
- p. 102 - ﬁg. 27 - 9, 25: Shinzato Akito ed. 2010 - p. 55 - ﬁg. 35 - 3, 26: Kin ed. 1991 - p.
102 - ﬁg. 27 - 1, 27: Kin ed. 1991 - p. 102 - ﬁg. 27 - 2, 28: Kin ed. 1991 - p. 102 - ﬁg. 27 4, 29: Kin ed. 1991 - p. 104 - ﬁg. 28 - 4, 30: Kin ed. 1983 - p. 48 - ﬁg. 13 - 10, 31: Kin ed.
1997 - p. 44 - ﬁg. 21 - 1, 32: Kin ed. 1991 - p. 128 - ﬁg. 36 - 4, 33: Kin ed. 1991 - p. 164 ﬁg. 46 - 1, 34: Kin & Miyazato eds. 1983 - p. 44 - ﬁg. 8 - 5, 35: Shinzato Akito ed. 2010 p. 55 - ﬁg. 35 - 18, 36: Miyagi & Nakamura eds. 2011- p. 102 - ﬁg. V. 3-2 - 12, 37: Kin &Miyazato eds. 1983 - p. 37 - ﬁg. 1 - 1, 38: Shinzato Akito ed. 2010 - p. 55 - ﬁg. 35 - 24, 39:
Shimabukuro & Kinjō eds. 1990 - p. 177 - ﬁg. 60 - 1
Figure 11
Shinzato Akito ed. 2005 - p. 7 - ﬁg. 3
Figure 12
1: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 30 - ﬁg. 14 - 79, 2: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 30- ﬁg. 14, 3: Aozaki & Itō eds. 2001 - p. 15 - ﬁg. 6 - 7, 4: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p.
85 - ﬁg. 59 - 493, 5: Shinzato Akito ed. 2005 - p. 24 - ﬁg. 16 - 18, 6: Shinzato Akito ed.
2005 - p. 33 - ﬁg. 23 - 41, 7: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 82 - ﬁg. 56 - 451, 8: Shintō& Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 85 - ﬁg. 59 - 495, 9: Shinzato Akito ed. 2005 - p. 25 - ﬁg. 17 - 23,
10: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 76 - ﬁg. 50 - 367, 11: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b p. 88 - ﬁg. 62 - 539, 12: Shinzato Akito ed. 2005 - p. 25 - ﬁg. 17 - 35, 13: Shintō & Aozaki
eds. 1985b - p. 52 - ﬁg. 52 - 398, 14: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 88 - ﬁg. 62 - 548,
15: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 81 - ﬁg. 55 - 435, 16: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b p. 84 - ﬁg. 58 - 487, 17: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 69 - ﬁg. 43 - 291, 18: Shintō &Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 75 - ﬁg. 49 - 366, 19: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 87 - ﬁg. 61- 531, 20: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 78 - ﬁg. 52 - 391, 21: Shinzato Akito ed. 2005
- p. 25 - ﬁg. 17 - 32, 22: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 66 - ﬁg. 40 - 253, 23: Shintō &Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 67 - ﬁg. 41 - 254, 24: Shinzato Akito ed. 2005 - p. 33 - ﬁg. 23 - 52,
25: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 87 - ﬁg. 61 - 529, 26: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b © Japanese Archaeological Association

82

ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RYUKYU STATE

p. 76 - ﬁg. 50 - 371, 27: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 78 - ﬁg. 52 - 403, 28: Shintō &Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 15 - ﬁg. 5 - 1, 29: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 63 - ﬁg. 37 209, 30: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 44 - ﬁg. 26 - 30, 31: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b- p. 69 - ﬁg. 43 - 285, 32: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 61 - ﬁg. 35 - 196, 33: Shintō &Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 62 - ﬁg. 36 - 203, 34: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 74 - ﬁg. 48- 358, 35: Aozaki & Itō eds. 2001 - p. 43 - ﬁg. 28 - 165, 36: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b p. 76 - ﬁg. 50 - 372, 37: Shinzato Akito ed. 2005 - p. 36 - ﬁg. 25 - 7, 38: Shintō & Aozaki
eds. 1985b - p. 76 - ﬁg. 50 - 373, 39: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 77 - ﬁg. 51 - 376, 40:
Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 77 - ﬁg. 51 - 378, 41: Shinzato Akito ed. 2005 - p. 36 - ﬁg.
25 - 6, 42: Shinzato Akito ed. 2005 - p. 36 - ﬁg. 25 - 1, 43: Aozaki & Itō eds. 2001 - p. 45 ﬁg. 30 - 188, 44: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 69 - ﬁg. 43 - 283, 45: Aozaki & Itō eds.
2001 - p. 42 - ﬁg. 27 - 159, 46: Aozaki & Itō eds. 2001 - p. 45 - ﬁg. 30 - 181, 47: Shintō &Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 30 - ﬁg. 15 - 51, 48: Aozaki & Itō eds. 2001 - p. 52 - ﬁg. 35 - 241,
49: Aozaki & Itō eds. 2001 - p. 43 - ﬁg. 28 - 160, 50: Aozaki & Itō eds. 2001 - p. 50 - ﬁg.
33 - 203, 51: Shinzato Akito ed. 2005 - p. 37 - ﬁg. 26 - 20, 52: Aozaki & Itō eds. 2001 - p.
44 - ﬁg. 29 - 170, 53: Aozaki & Itō eds. 2001 - p. 45 - ﬁg. 30 - 187
Figure 13
Drawing by the author based on Shinzato Akito 2003. - p. 404 - 413
Figure 14
a - 1: Tōme ed. 2001 - p. 72 - ﬁg. 38 - 9, a -2: Aozaki & Itō eds. 2001 - p. 15 - ﬁg. 6 - 7, b - 1:
Lee et al. eds. 2000 - p. 48 - ﬁg. 17 - 4, b-2: Lee et al. eds. 2000 - p. 58 - ﬁg. 22 - 6, b-3: Lee
et al. eds. 2000 - p. 58 - ﬁg. 22 - 8, b - 4: Lee et al. eds. 2000 - p. 58 - ﬁg. 22 - 1, b - 5: Ishimatsu
et al. eds. 1990 - p. 101 - ﬁg. 65 - 106, b - 6: Ishimatsu et al. eds. 1990 - p. 106 - ﬁg. 68 - 73, b 7: Shimomura ed. 1996 - p. 30 - ﬁg. 26 - 277, c: Matsumoto ed. 1980 - p. 134 - ﬁg. 94 - 30
Figure 15
1: Matsumoto ed. 1980 - p. 130 - ﬁg. 92, 2: Matsumoto ed. 1980 - p. 139 - ﬁg. 110, 3:
Matsumoto ed. 1980 - p. 149 - ﬁg. 109, 4: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 13-14 - ﬁg. 4,
5: Shintō & Aozaki eds. 1985b - p. 21 - ﬁg. 9, 6: Lee et al. eds. 2000 - p. 39 - ﬁg. 14, 7:
Lee et al. eds. 2000 - p. 35 - ﬁg. 12
Figure 16
Drawing by the author
Figure 17
Drawing by the author© Japanese Archaeological Association

83