ARCHAEOLOGIA JAPONICA

Yayoi Period
FUJII Hitoshi
In Kinki, a symposium was held which aimed to evaluate SAKAI Ryuichi’s model. Also
KUWABARA Hisao discussed the importance of constructing a model based on theexistence of settlement hierarchy, rather than Sakai’s homogeneous and equal settlement
system model (“Kinki ni Okeru Yayoi Setorumento Shisutemu Saikochiku ha Kanouka[Possiblilities of Reconstructing Yayoi Settlement System in Kinki],” In Yayoi Jidai
Shuraku no Jitsuzo to Dotai wo Saguru [Reality and Movement of Yayoi Settlement], pp.
1-12. Nara: Kinki Yayoi-no-kai). However, it may still take time to reevaluate the Sakaimodel, including the possibility of coexistence with the fundamental group theory, as it isstill supported by scholars such as SHITARA Hiromi, who stresses the usefulness of theSakai model’s assumption of a reciprocal and homogeneous distribution system in Middle
Yayoi (“Yayoi Chuki Toiu Jidai [Phase Called Middle Yayoi]”, In Yoyoi-jidai no kokogaku,Vol. 3: Tayoka Suru Yayoi Bunka [Diversified Yayoi Culture], pp. 3-24. Tokyo: Doseisha).
TERASAWA Kaoru evaluated WAKABAYASHI Kunihiko’s fundamental group theory,
stating that it did not break away from unit group theory while it tried to leave theparadigm of existing community theory [“Yayoi Jidaishiron [History of the Yayoi Period]”,
In Yayoi Jidai Jo (Yayoi Period Volume 1), pp. 3-82. Tokyo: Aoki Shoten]. Also, he
criticized the fact that many studies are ignorant of the need for a theoretical break off toovercome Marxist archaeology, pointing out the problem of lack of demonstrability ofanthropological concepts such as descent group developed by TANAKA Yoshiyuki andothers.
On the other hand, in “Yayoi Shurakuron to Yuibutsushikan:
Jinruigaku/Shakaigaku Moderuron (Yayoi Settlement Theory and Historical Materialism:
Anthropological/Sociological Models)”, In Yayoi Jidai Shuraku no Jitsujo to Dotai wo
Saguru [Reality and Dynamics of Yayoi Period Settlements], pp. 13-18. Nara: Kinki
Yayoi-no-kai) Wakabayashi proposed that a research method based on realistic coherence
should be pursued consulting anthropological results, without being bounded by historicalmaterialism.
As for grave system study, EGE Kazuhiro examined large-sectioned graves, pointing out

1Kyoto prefectural board of education, Yabunouchi-cho, Kamigyo Ward, Kyoto 602-8041, Japan(hitfuj@gmail.com)
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 1 (2013): 64-66© Japanese Archaeological Association

64

TRENDS IN ARCHAEOLOGY IN JAPANthat in Middle to Late Yayoi, stratified society and equal society appeared alternatively ina large area from northern Kyushu to Tokai [“Boiki Kousei no Henka, Kukakubo noTenkai [Change in Grave Area Structure, Development of Sectioned Graves]”, InYayoi-jidai no kenkyu, Vol. 4: Kofun Jidai heno Taido (Signs of the Kofun Period), pp.
191-210. Tokyo: Doseisha]. In “Yayoi Doki no Seisaku Giho to Chiikikan Koryu(Manufacturing Techniques of Yayoi Pottery and Regional Exchanges)”, In Yayoi Jidai Jo(Yayoi Period Volume 1), pp. 589-617. Tokyo Aoki Shoten, FUKASAWA Yoshiki
discussed pottery used as offerings by assuming production places from their
manufacturing technique, and demonstrated regional exchanges supported by complex
social networks. It was an important study to solve the function of chiefs and real imageof the group. Continuation and development of this method will be a future issue.
On group theory, YAMADA Yasuhiro discussed the future direction of Yayoi study indetail in “Yayoi Shudanron no Kensho to Yukue (Verification and Future of Yayoi GroupTheory)”, In Yayoi-jidai no kenkuyu, Vol. 9: Yayoi Kenkyu no Ayumi to Yukue [History andFuture of Yayoi Study], pp. 133-150. Tokyo: Doseisha). As for the actual picture of thegroup, while Tsude regards the whole Yayoi society as chiefdom phase, MORIOKA
Hideto proposed an evaluation that emergence of chiefs had to be wait till Late Yayoi, andtransition to the Kofun period was not drastic (“Rettonai Kakuchi ni Okeru Chuki to Koki
no Danzetsu [Break between Middle and Late Yayoi in Various Parts of the Archipelago]”,In Yoyoi-jidai no kokogaku, Vol. 3: Tayoka Suru Yayoi Bunka [Diversified Yayoi Culture],
pp. 176-193. Tokyo: Doseisha).
SEIKE Akira pointed out that the central figure in burials tends to be males in northern
Kyushu and Kinki, but he evaluated the existence of female chiefs in Late Yayoi andconcluded that patrilineality was not developed in Yayoi society (“Yayoi Jidai no Shinzoku
Kozo [Kinship Structure in the Yayoi Period]”, In Yayoi Jidai Ge [Yayoi Period Volume 2],
pp. 463-479. Tokyo: Aoki Shoten). As Morioka pointed out, the development from“consanguinity” to “territorial bond ”(chien) in classic theory is not consistent with thesimplified move from descent group to domicile group, and the breakthrough is not yet
found (“Yayoi Shuraku Kenkyu no 40-sunen to Mirai ni Mukete [Over 40 Years of YayoiSettlement Study and Its Future]”, In Yayoi Jidai Shuraku no Jitsuzo to Dotai wo Saguru[Reality and Movement of Yayoi Settlement], pp. 19-36. Nara: Kinki Yayoi-no-kai).
IWANAGA Shozo pointed out that tangible identification of buried figures in mounded
tombs and the end of bronze tool rituals are linked in large areas of the Japanesearchipelago, describing a process of grand burial for the leading class by controlling
distribution of high-prestige goods and their allocation as the background. Therefore,
discontinuity due to exhaustion of prestige goods tend to happen easily, unable to achieve
stable political integration (“Funkyubo to Shuchoso no Keisei [Formation of MoundedTombs and Chiefdom]” In Yayoi Jidai Ge [Yayoi Period Volume 2], pp. 422-461. Tokyo:© Japanese Archaeological Association

65

ARCHAEOLOGIA JAPONICA

Aoki Shoten).
While reevaluation of settlement theory was conducted in various parts of the country,
many researchers gave summaries of the study history, developing into reorganization ofgroup theory. Fiscal 2011 saw many ambitious research results to summarize the Yayoi
period, defining future course of the study.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

66