Title

Survey of the present conditions of prehistoric architectural reconstructions in
Hokuriku and Tokai regions in Japan
Sub Title
先史時代建築物復元の現状調査 (北陸・東海地方)
AuthorErtl, John吉田, 泰幸( Yoshida, Yasuyuki)
Publisher
慶應義塾大学日吉紀要刊行委員会
Publication year 2023
Jtitle慶應義塾大学日吉紀要. 社会科学 (The Keio University Hiyoshi review of social
sciences). No.33 (2022. ) ,p.21- 62
JaLC DOI
Abstract
Notes
Genre
Departmental Bulletin Paper
URL
https://koara.lib.keio.ac.jp/xoonips/modules/xoonips/detail.php?koara_id=AN10425
830-20230331-0021
慶應義塾大学学術情報リポジトリ(KOARA)に掲載されているコンテンツの著作権は、それぞれの著作者、学会または出版社/発行者に帰属し、その権利は著作権法によって保護されています。引用にあたっては、著作権法を遵守してご利用ください。
The copyrights of content available on the KeiO Associated Repository of Academic resources (KOARA) belong to the respective authors, academic
societies, or publishers/issuers, and these rights are protected by the Japanese Copyright Act. When quoting the content, please follow theJapanese copyright act.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

この著作物は著作権法によって保護されています／This content is protected by the Japanese Copyright Act

Survey of the Present Conditions ofPrehistoric Architectural Reconstructionsin Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japan
John Ertl
Yasuyuki Yoshida

Introduction
This article is a continuation of two previous surveys on prehistoric architectural
reconstructions in Japan (Ertl 2021; Ertl and Yoshida 2022). The first survey identified
984 buildings at 340 sites throughout Japan that represent ancient buildings dating fromthe Paleolithic through Heian periods (Ertl 2021). The information presented included
the site names and locations, designation as historical sites, numbers and types ofbuildings, historical period, the dates constructed, and the names of the designers orconstruction firms. The second publication added to the initial survey by (1) including alist of references with information the reconstruction process, and (2) providing imagesof these buildings at sites in Kansai, Chugoku, and Shikoku regions (Ertl and Yoshida2022).
This article provides references and images for sites in the Hokuriku and Tokai
regions, covering 111 structures at 42 sites in 6 prefectures (Table 1).1) Appendix 1 is a listof references found for 27 of these sites. These are publications with information on thereconstructed buildings and range from site development reports, academic journals,
1)

Mie Prefecture is considered part of the Tokai region, but it is not included in this article. The
information on the reconstructions in Mie may be found in the authors’ earlier survey covering
the Kansai region (Ertl and Yoshida 2022).
―

21 ―newspaper articles, and online materials. Appendix 2 contains 86 images of reconstructedbuildings. Photographs were taken between 2012 and 2022 and include all currently
standing structures as well as a few sites where buildings have been removed. The
discussion section details the pit dwelling design at Toro site made by Sekino Masaru in
1951. This building is remarkable as it is one of the earliest designs and has been one of
the most influential images of prehistoric architecture in Japan (Aoyagi 2019).
This survey provides a reservoir of comparable data on reconstructed architecture
located at archaeological site parks in Japan. These buildings are generally the mostvisible features at these sites. They are also important monuments reflecting changes in
the history of archaeological site preservation and development. Unfortunately, there is a
dearth of information on these buildings, even basic facts about where they are locatedand when they were built. Even less documentation is available on the thoughts andprocesses that went into their construction. Documenting this knowledge allows for one
to evaluate the accuracy and integrity of these prominent displays of Japan’s historicalorigins (Ertl 2021; Ertl and Yoshida 2021, 2022).

Background Research and Literature
The data provided in this article are companions to the authors’ earlier surveys (Ertl
2017, 2021). Previously we identified the names, numbers, and locations of reconstructedbuildings, the dates of construction, site designation, names of designers, and the roofing
materials utilized. Additional data were also collected on their shapes, dimensions, andbuilding materials, and this information is available online (https://tateana.org).
Previously, we compiled a list of publications (covering 33 of 75 sites) and images ofreconstructions (158 of 180 buildings) for sites in Kansai, Chugoku, and Shikoku regions(Ertl and Yoshida 2022).
There is an abundance of information on prehistoric and ancient architecture
documented in tens of thousands of site excavation reports.2) Analyses of ancient
2)

The Comprehensive Database of Archaeological Site Repor ts in Japan is a database ofarchaeological publications administered by the Nara National Research Institute for Cultural―

22 ―Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japanbuildings may be found in fields of architectural history (Miyamoto 1986, 1996) andarchaeology (Asakawa ed., 1998; Fujimoto ed., 1997; Tatsumi 1990), although discussion
is more commonly focused on settlement patterns than the form and materials ofprehistoric buildings themselves (Kito 1985; Kosugi et al. ed., 2009). Using the term“reconstructionology” (fukugen-gaku), Unno Satoshi has outlined the processes by whicharchaeological remains are analyzed and ancient architecture is designed (Unno 2017;
Unno ed., 2019; see also Ertl, Yoshida, and Ikari 2022: 16–17). In a couple of recent
exhibitions on Japanese architectural history, there have been reviews on thereconstruction of pit dwellings and the work of prominent architects in designing them(Sato 2018a, 2018b).
Surveys of architectural reconstructions have been limited. They include a conference
report (Dai-27-kai zenkoku iseki kankyō-seibi kaigi 2002), a museum catalogue(Mizukokaizuka Museum 2017), and two self-published books on pit dwellings(Yamamoto 2011, 2018). The only previous attempt to fully document archaeological sites
with reconstructions was a 1978 survey by Nara National Research Institute for Cultural
Properties (Nabunken 1978). The authors’ previous research was intended as an updateto this survey by Nabunken (Ertl 2021). As a whole, these surveys are important
contribution to understanding the history of prehistoric reconstructions, even thougheach is limited in its scope. Together, they fill an important gap in the documentation ofreconstructions, ranging from where these structures are built, how they were designed,
their costs, and how they are utilized and maintained.

Methodology
For this article, the authors collected a list of publications and took photographs ofreconstructed buildings located at archaeological sites and outdoor museums in the
Hokuriku and Tokai regions of Japan (Table 1). The reference list (Appendix 1) contains
openly accessible documents with information on reconstructed buildings, including
Properties contains records of over 125 thousand reports and documents. (https://sitereports.
nabunken.go.jp/ja Last Accessed 11 November 2022)―

23 ―online sources such as news articles, official site webpages, and blogs. The list does notinclude unpublished documents like architectural blueprints or information provided atmuseum displays or on-site signage. It also excludes many site-excavation reports, which
may have information on the archaeological features reconstructed, but usually do notcover reconstructed buildings.
The reference list was compiled over a period of several years beginning in 2016. The
easiest and most common resources are site development reports, which can be foundthrough a simple search on library databases. Confirming the content of such reports isdifficult, as many are available at only a few libraries. The 1978 Nabunken survey (seeabove) included references for eight of the sites in this list and these references arerepeated here.3) Furthermore, where no information was readily available, the boards ofeducation and management authorities were contacted. This provided new references insome cases and in other cases confirmed the absence of any published documentation.
The images (Appendix 2) were taken by the authors during visits to 32 sites (out of 42
total) between 2012 and 2022. To gather these images four field trips were taken on 26–27
January 2021, 18–19 June 2021, 29 October 2022, and 26 November 2022.4) The sites thatwere not visited were those where the reconstructions were known to have been
removed.

Results
Table 1 is the list of sites with reconstructions located in Hokuriku and Tokai regions(Ertl 2021: 189–193). It contains information on 111 buildings (81 currently standing) at
42 sites. It records the name of the site and municipality where it is located, the date3)

4)

In fact, only seven of those references are included, as the noted reference for ShikanotaniHongo Site (Katsuyama city, Fukui) did not contain any information on the reconstructedbuildings. A similar issue was presented with Iba site (Hamamatsu city, Shuzuoka), where it was
not clear what publication was cited.
Where the images for our previous article (Ertl and Yoshida 2022) were mostly taken within ayear of publication, the authors’ visits to these sites took place over a much broader time period.
The reason is that the authors previously worked in the Hokuriku and Tokai regions and visitedmany of these sites years before this article was planned.
―

24 ―Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japan

constructed, the number of buildings (total constructed/currently standing),archaeological period, and type of buildings at the sites. It also denotes whether there are
publications on the buildings (see Appendix 1), and it includes the number-ranges for theimages reproduced in Appendix 2.
The references are listed in Appendix 1. Publications and online resources wereidentified for 27 of the 42 sites. Aichi (6 of 7) had publication for most of their sites andevery other prefecture had documentation for half or more. The types of documents
range from site development reports (kankyō seibi jigyō hōkokusho) to newspaper articles
and online documentation. The references are written in the original Japanese script andcitations and URL links are included when available.
Appendix 2 contains photographs of 86 reconstructed buildings at these sites. This
includes all currently standing dwellings as well as images for three buildings previously
located at Kaga City Central Park (Ishikawa), and a pit dwelling removed from
Sakuramachi site (Toyama). Image captions include information on the type of building,
its archaeological period, GPS location, and date photographed.

Comparisons with Kansai, Chugoku, and Shikoku regions
Our earlier study on reconstructions in Kansai, Chugoku, and Shikoku yielded threethemes for analysis. These were (1) the reasons behind the lack of references, (2) theabandonment and dismantling of reconstructions, and (3) the bias toward Yayoi and
Kofun period buildings (Ertl and Yoshida 2022: 5–10). As these issues overlap to a large
extent, they will be readdressed in comparison to our new dataset.
Comparing the number of publications, we found publications for 64% of sites (27 of 42)
in this article compared to 44% (33 of 75) in our study of Western Honshu and Shikoku.
There are no obvious indicators for the discrepancy. One possibility is the thoroughnessof the authors’ research for this report. The authors contacted authorities at several sites
where they were unsure if publications existed. For example, when we contacted Asahi
site (Kiyosu city, Aichi), the managing authorities provided the authors a copy of theirrecently published site development report. The discrepancy does not seem related to theage of the sites. For example, in the 1978 Nabunken article, 8 of 19 sites in Hokuriku and―25 ―Tokai had references, which was similar to the 7 of 18 sites in Western Honshu andShikoku.
One interesting trend is the quantity of site development reports (seibi jigyō hōkokusho).
For Hokuriku and Tokai, we found that 9 of 42 (21%) sites had these reports compared to
10 of 75 sites (13%) in Western Honshu and Shikoku. Furthermore, there were more siteexcavation reports (hakkutsu chōsa hōkokusho) that included the reconstructions (8compared to 4). We previously noted that information on reconstruction was often seen in
excavation reports in the 1950s (Ertl 2021: 12), but the excavation reports documented
here date to the 1960s, 1970s, and one as recent as 1985 (Tanoya site in Shimada city,
Shizuoka).
In our survey of Kansai, Chugoku, and Shikoku regions, we photographed 85% (158 of
186) of the buildings. This article covering the Hokuriku and Tokai regions is similar at
77.5%. In both cases, the authors took photographs of all structures that are still standing(with two buildings absent from the earlier publication), and the difference reflects aslightly larger proportion of structures still standing in Western Japan.
As we noted in regard to Western Honshu and Shikoku, the lack of upkeep of thestructures means that many of buildings were largely abandoned and are unlikely to be
repaired or rebuilt (Ertl and Yoshida 2022: 7–9). Similar conditions were found at several
sites visited for the present survey. In fact, reconstructions at Koshiya-Yokoanagun (4buildings), Amenomiya Kofun (1), Funaoka site (2 of 3), Tsukahara site (4 of 6), andMineichigo site (2 of 5) had been removed only a few years before the authors’ intended
visites. Additionally, the buildings at Sakuramachi site (1 of 3) and Kaga Central Park (4)were removed soon after having been photographed.
Another similarity between the surveys was in the reasons for the removal or renewalof buildings. We proposed this sometimes occurs when new sites are found in a
municipality, or new information about a site or its buildings become available. We
previously described this phenomenon with the example of Fukuichi site (Yonago city,
Shimane), where its pit dwelling was removed following the discovery and massive site
development project at Mukibanda site (also in Yonago city). While unconfirmed, it ispossible that the removal of buildings at Kasuga (built 1966) and Ushinameri sites (1963)―

26 ―Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japan

Figure 1: Model of the original site developments at Tsukahara site. The four pillar buildings withlean-to roofs have not been replicated at other Jomon sites. These pillar buildings were all removed
from the site and the two remaining reconstructed buildings are quite different from the original
versions (see Images 16.1-2 in Appendix 2 for comparison). (29 October 2022)

in Toyama city was related to the site development activities at Kitadai site in 1999. At thevery least, one can see that the image of the Jomon pit dwelling at Kitadai with sod roofs
was radically different than the high roof thatch structure at Ushinameri.5) It is likely that
local site managers would not want to present such vastly different images to the public.
In a more concrete example, the on-site manager at Tsukahara site (Seki city, Gifu)
explained there were two reasons for reducing the number of reconstructions (from 6 to2). The first was the cost of rebuilding them, which he said cost the city 10 million yen
each. The other reason for changing the buildings were the discoveries of SannaiMaruyama, which caused them to rethink the design and function of the settlement.
Originally, the site depicted two pit dwellings and four separate pillar buildings made withlean-to roofs (katanagare-yane). The site manager did not elaborate what specificdiscoveries at Sannai-Maruyama made them rethink the designs. The current pillar
building at Tsukaraha is designed as a longhouse building with walls and a high roof,
similar in some respects to the massive longhouse at Sannai-Maruyama. Notably, all of
the lean-to roof pillar buildings were removed, indicating a perceived problem with thisunique design (Figure 1).
5)

There are many images of the sod covered buildings at Kitadai. The only known image of thereconstruction at Ushinameri may be seen at: https://www.city.toyama.toyama.jp/etc/maibun/
kitadai/kitadai_katudou/kikaku/ushinameri-shiryou.pdf (Last accessed 14 November 2022)―

27 ―As for the archaeological periods represented, reconstructions in Western Japan mostly
dated to the Yayoi and Kofun periods, with only 13 of 75 sites having a Jomon periodbuilding (Ertl and Yoshida 2022: 9). Of the 42 sites identified in this survey, there were 27
with Jomon period buildings, 13 with Yayoi buildings, 8 Kofun, 1 Heian, and 2 Nara (6sites had buildings from more than one period). This distribution closely reflects thenational distribution, where there are 175 sites with Jomon period buildings, 113 Yayoi, 56
Kofun, 11 Heian, and 21 from the Nara period (Ertl 2021). This distribution is notaltogether surprising, as the Hokuriku and Tokai regions run along the divide between
Western Japan (with mostly Yayoi and Kofun period sites) and Eastern Japan (where
Jomon period sites are dominant).

Discussion
Toro site and “one of the most important buildings in the history of modern
architecture”
Toro (Shizuoka city, Shizuoka) is among the first sites in postwar Japan to reconstructancient architectural remains, with a pit dwelling and raised floor storehouse built in 1951.
In particular, the pit dwelling at Toro is the most intensely documented of any prehistoricreconstruction, with an abundance of research articles, architectural plans, photographs,
critical evaluations, and interviews that cover various aspects of its design. The influenceof the Toro pit house on both the designs of subsequent pit houses and the practice ofarchitectural reconstruction in general cannot be understated. With no hint of irony,architectural historian Aoyagi Norimasa (2019) has called Sekino’s pit dwelling: “One of
the most important buildings in the history of modern architecture” (139).
Toro is a remarkable Yayoi period site and is distinguished as a special historic site
(tokubetsu shiseki). Its influence, however, extends far outside archaeological circles.
Otsuka Hatsushige (1926–2022), emeritus professor at Meiji University, frequently
mentioned Toro as providing “hope” for postwar Japanese. The excavation at Torooverlaps with Otsuka’s personal history, especially his war experience and the major shift
in his pre-war thoughts following his liberation from the imperialist view of history after―

28 ―Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japandefeat. For Otsuka, a soldier of the emperor during the war, Toro’s excavation was thestarting point to make “our own” history by our own hands, free from the previous
imperial ideology. In this regard, Toro was special not only to Otsuka or the otherexcavation team members, but also to postwar Japanese society as a whole (Edwards
1991).

Sekino Masaru and the Toro pit house
Architectural historian Sekino Masaru (1909–2001) designed the reconstructed buildings
at Toro. Sekino’s early research centered on the genealogy of the Japanese house (Sekino
1942) and focused on the prehistoric pit dwellings at Togariishi-Yosukeone (Jomon) andToro (Yayoi) sites. Following his work at Toro in 1951, he went on to become a key figure
in post-war cultural property administration (Fujimori 2001). As the pedigreed son ofarchitectural historian Sekino Tadashi (Imperial University of Tokyo), Sekino Masaru
also studied architectural design and history at the Imperial University of Tokyo andbecame a faculty member at the university until retirement in 1969. He also held senior
positions at the Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties and supervised
several major conservation projects. In 1979 he became the first director of Meiji-mura, an
open-air museum of relocated and restored buildings dating to Japan’s Meiji era (1868–1912). He was recognized for his conservation work with national and international
awards, including the Piero Gazzola Prize by ICOMOS (International Council on
Monuments and Sites) in 2001.
The final design plan (jisshi-an) for Sekino’s pit dwelling at Toro was published in 1951
in the Journal of architecture and building science (the flagship journal for architecturestudies in Japan). The result of many years of research, this was Sekino’s final attempt todesign a prehistoric pit house.6) Early in his career, Sekino took up his father’s research
on ancient architecture. Sekino Tadashi had looked to shrine architecture and identified a6)

Sekino is also credited with the design of five Middle Jomon period pit dwellings in 1970 at
Haraseuehara site in Nihonmatsu city, Fukushima (Ertl 2021). It is likely that his participation
was limited to a supervisory role, with local archaeologist Meguro Yoshiaki working directlywith the resident-led conser vation group (hozonkai) that built them. See URL: https://kazenoshin.exblog.jp/6874790/ (Last accessed 23 November 2022)―

29 ―subterranean two pillar a-frame building called tenchi kongen miya zukuri as central in theorigins of Japanese architecture (Sekino 1940: 96). The only problem with this structure,according to Sekino Masaru, was that excavations did not uncover any prehistoricremains might correlate with it (Sekino, Choi, and Muramatsu 1988).
Sekino’s design for the prehistoric pit dwelling took root in 1938, several years before
the excavations at Toro, when he looked to the tatara iron furnace (a circular pit building
with four pillars) as a historical building that appeared to have a layout similar toprehistoric remains (Sekino 1938). This was followed by three design drafts for Sekino’s
pit dwelling (Aoyagi 2019: 124–129). These included plans for the Jomon period
Togariishi-Yosukeone site (Chino city, Nagano) in 1940, three models depicted in Sekino’s
Short History of the Japanese House (Sekino 1942), and plans presented in the 1949
publication of the Toro site report (Nihon kokogaku-kyokai 1949). In each of these
iterations, the basic shape driven by the tatara iron furnace as well as a divided hip-andgable (shikoro-buki)7) roof structure remained consistent.

The critiques of Sekino’s prehistoric pit house
The influence of Sekino’s pit dwelling reconstruction has been enormous. Photographs
were depicted in history school textbooks for years, making it the first, if not only,prehistoric house that most Japanese people saw. It is fair to say that subsequent designsof reconstructed pit buildings built in archaeological parks around Japan have been under
Toro’s influence in one way or another.
Despite the influence of Sekino’s pit house, there was never a consensus amongarchitects and archaeologists that his designs adequately reflect the actual the Yayoi period
dwellings at Toro. Even before construction, Goto Shuichi (1888–1960), emeritus professorof archaeology at Meiji University and supervising archaeologist at Toro, noted his
objection to the hip-and-gable roof design – which he thought was inappropriate for easternJapan. In the same breath he also differed to Sekino, admitting that he was “unable to7)

Shikoro-buki is a hip-an-gable roof structure split into two halves with a gable roof on the top
separated by a different pitched hip roof beneath it. This style of roof can be seen in shrines andtemples as well as in some traditional homes.
―

30 ―Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japanargue that the assumed reconstruction (sōtei-fukugen) by this architectural historian isincorrect” (quoted in Aoyagi 2019: 140). The fact that Sekino was the only architectural
historian who worked at Toro meant that his expertise was differed to in the end.
Among architectural historians, one early critique was presented by Inoue Mitsuo(Tokyo Institute of Technology). Inoue’s critique was little concerned with the design
itself, but rather on Sekino’s approach. Sekino believed that “new technologies lead tonew structural forms” (quoted in Aoyagi 2019: 129) and he wished to examine howchanges in technology and economic production were reflected in architecture during theshift from the Jomon (stone tools and hunting and gathering) to the Yayoi period (bronze
tools and rice agriculture). For Inoue (1948), the problem with Sekino’s approach was his
outright dismissal of the importance of “style history” (yōshiki-shi), the dominant
approach to architectural history studies at the time.8)
The strongest critiques of Sekino’s pit dwelling at Toro focused on his reliance on
obscure historical documents and the use of thatch roofing. These critiques arepronounced in the same 1951 issue of Journal of architecture and building science where
Sekino’s seminal article on Toro was published.9) One of the reviewers, Murata Jiro
(Kyoto University), took aim at the roof, arguing through ethnographic examples
including the Ainu and Koryaks (Kamchatka Peninsula) and North American Indians(Inuit and Hidatsa) to show the prevalence of sod roofs on pit houses (Murata 1951: 8–10).
Concurrently, Murata also looked at examples of thatch roofs in South American Indianarchitecture to show how the differences in the structural does not allow for comparison
with the Japanese tatara iron furnace (11).
In an even sharper critique, Ishihara Kenji (Tokyo Metropolitan University) examined
8)

9)

Inoue particularly took of fense to Sekino referring to “architectural style histor y” as the“graveyard of architecture” (Sekino 1947: 5). His concluding response was to write “The historyof architecture begins with the history of style, although it must not end with the history ofstyle” (Inoue 1948: 13).
This was a special issue that included articles on the Jomon period Togariishi-Yosukeone site
(Chino city, Nagano) by Horiguchi Sutemi and the Kofun period Hiraide site (Shiojiri city,
Nagano) by Fujishima Gaijiro. These three articles on the reconstruction process were pairedwith three review ar ticles that provided critiques and alter native methodologies forreconstruction.
―

31 ―various documents that Sekino based his design upon to show the untenability of his
proposal. Ishihara writes: “The basis and reason for the reconstruction is not clear, since
the reconstruction is suddenly proposed without any comprehensive explanation between
the report of the fact (the archaeological report of the pit house remains) and thereconstruction” (Ishihara 1951: 2). Ishihara dismisses the applicability of the tatara
architecture drawn from the “Tetsuzan hisho” document. He questions Sekino’s relianceon the Kofun period house-shaped haniwa as a basis for the design of the upper structureof the reconstructed building. He also questions the validity of introducing elements oftraditional farmhouse architecture (udatsu, kiri-sasu, and hafu) into Sekino’s design.
Similar to Murata, Ishihara also examines the similarities between prehistoric pit
buildings and those of the Sakhalin Ainu and northern indigenous peoples. Here Ishihara
mentions: “the same earth-covered structure as seen in the Ainu’s toi-chise structures of
Hokkaido and Sakhalin may have been used in prehistoric pit dwellings of our country”(Ishihara 1951: 6).
Despite Murata and Ishihara’s strong arguments for sod-roofing rather than thatch, no
one took up their ideas for decades. It took almost half a century before pit buildings withearthen roofs became an acceptable “alternative” at Japanese archaeological parks. It was
only after burnt sod roof remains were discovered at Goshono site (Ichinohe town, Iwate)
and reconstruction experiments in the late 1990s proved the habitability of such buildings.
Since Goshono, however, about half of all new Jomon sites have included at least one sodroof design (Ertl 2017). As for the Yayoi period, the influence of Goshono is far lower. Of
the 252 Yayoi period pit dwellings built throughout Japan since 1951, only 11 (at 8 sites)
have sod roofs (with the first built in 2000).

Reconstructing reconstructions and the obduracy of the Toro pit house
In 1999, Toro underwent new excavations in preparation for the renewal of the Toro
Archaeological Park (Shizuoka City Board of Education 2012). The results from new
excavations at Toro, combined with information from other Yayoi period sites over theintervening years, were incorporated into new designs for the reconstructed buildings.
These redesigns were led by Miyamoto Nagajiro, an architectural historian long affiliated―32 ―Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japan

Figure 2: The pit dwelling and raised floor
storehouse designed by Sekino Masaru andrebuilt off the site grounds during theredevelopment of Toro site from 2006 to 2011.
(23 August 2020)

Figure 3: The new pit dwelling and raised floor
storehouse at Toro designed by Miyamoto
Nagajiro and built in 2007. (23 August 2020)

with Nabunken who has consulted on the design of buildings at some 23 prehistoric sites
in Japan (Ertl 2021: 9). The designs of the raised floor storehouses were largely
unchanged. The additional excavations at Toro informed a new raised floor structure thatwas designed as a shrine (saiden).10) As for the pit houses, these underwent a structuralredesign, where the former shikoro-buki (divided hip-and-gable) roof structure was
replaced with a simpler (hip-and gable) roof and the location of the entry was moved tothe center position (Figures 2 and 3). Today, Sekino’s designs remain at Toro but havebeen moved off the archaeology site to a neighboring area marked “memorial plaza”(memoriaru hiroba).
10) Similar to the storehouses, it was slightly larger and contained roof ridge suppor t posts(munamochi-bashira) on both ends of the building, a feature commonly associated with Japaneseshrine architecture (shinmei-zukuri). The inclusion of this seemingly religious structure reflects
a philosophical shift from the initial design by Sekino, who had wanted to represent Japan’sprehistoric architecture free from the emperor centered histor y (kōkoku-shikan). With
Miyamoto’s design, connecting the architectural structure to religious architecture may beviewed as reintroducing these ideological elements. Notably, there was no direct justification tolabel this building a “shrine” (saiden) except for the structural similarities to ancient religious
architecture. Here, we have to understand that Miyamoto has been seemingly eager to interpretlarge-sized pillar buildings as shrines, even going as far as to incorporate ridge-roof support
beams (munamochi-bashira) into his designs even when the archaeological evidence points
otherwise (see Inoue 2007).
―

33 ―Figure 4: The Jomon period pit dwelling designed by Fujimori Terunobu at the Edo Tokyo Open Air
Architectural Museum (Koganei city, Tokyo) and built in 2021. The structure of the building was
taken directly from Sekino Masaru’s plans for prehistoric pit dwellings. Covered in sod and withwattle and daub walls, the appearance is considerably different from Sekino’s Toro pit dwelling. (12December 2021)

Even though Toro site managers may have recognized Sekino’s biases and thelimitations in his data and methodology, his hold over pit dwelling designs elsewhere in
Japan remains. For example, Fujimori Terunobu, one of the most influential contemporary
architects in Japan, recently built a Jomon pit dwelling on the ground of Edo-Tokyo OpenAir Architectural Museum in 2021 (Fujimori 2021). Fujimori endorses Sekino’s design
process and does not question his plans for the structure of prehistoric pit dwellings.
Fujimori mentions:

While Sekino’s theory is correct for the structure of the house, there is a question
about the finish. It would have been impossible to have such a beautiful thatch roof
in the Yayoi period without iron shears for trimming it. (Fujimori 2021: 112)

In Fujimori’s reconstruction project, the structure based Sekino’s theory was first covered
with bark from cypress trees. Dirt was placed on top of the bark and grass was planted toprevent soil erosion (Figure 4).
Planting this grass on the roof was an extension of Fujimori’s interest in shibamune,
which is a traditional method of planting grass and flowers on the ridge of thatch roof
farmhouses. Fujimori’s interest in shibamune can also be seen in several contemporary―

34 ―Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japanbuildings he has designed with planted rooftops. In the end, Fujimori’s pit dwelling wasan amalgamation, with an internal structure based on Sekino’s proposal and an exterior
based on recent archaeological research and ethnographic examples based in his personal
interests.
Another example of Sekino’s influence can be seen at Asahi site (Kiyosu city, Aichi)
which was renovated in 2020.11) When it was initially designed as a historical park, areconstructed house was built, modelled on a middle Yayoi period pit dwelling at the
nearby Daichi site (Iwakura city, Aichi). In 2015, a plan was launched to build a newmuseum and renovate the park, and in 2020 the Aichi Asahi Site Museum opened. In thepark, the previously reconstructed house was renewed unchanged from before. One newreconstructed pit house was built on the model of a dwelling found at Asahi site, and areconstructed storage house was built based on a row of columns also found at Asahi site.
Interestingly, despite seventy years of additional research, both buildings can be seen as
under the influence of Sekino’s design. Even though a detailed report on the development
project was published, the rationale for the structure and design of the reconstructedhouses was not explicitly mentioned (Aichi Prefecture 2021) (Figure 5).
The reconstructions at Asahi site reflect the difficulties with reconstruction. When
there is a lack of new or contradictory evidence, it is difficult for site archaeologists tosuggest designs that widely diverge from previous examples. This does not reflect an
explicit recognition that Sekino was correct, but rather his design forms the baseline fromwhich any new design needs to justify its differences. Without an expertise inarchitectural history, or novel results from excavations, or the time and willingness toexperiment, archaeological site managers are left with little recourse than to replicate theimage of pit dwellings that came before them.12)
11) The site was first named Kaigarayama Shell Mound Park and is located in Kiyosu city, Aichi. The
site was known as Kaigarayama Kaizuka from the 1920s, and it became a national historic site in1971 and a museum and park opened in 1975. The area around Kaigarayama Shell Mound was
the site of highway construction projects during which a Yayoi period settlement was discovered.
The rescue excavation site was named Asahi site, of which the Kaigarayama Shell Mound is aconstituent part.
12) There is perhaps yet another way that Toro has influenced reconstruction practices in theregion. In this survey we found documentation for reconstructed buildings at 27 of 42 sites,―

35 ―Figure 5: An image of the Yayoi period reconstructed raised floor storehouse and pit dwelling at
Asahi site. Built in 2021 and based on extensive data, these reconstructions appear to be strongly
influenced by Sekino Masaru’s designs at Toro site. (19 December 2021)

Conclusion
Glancing at the images of Yayoi period pit dwellings at the sites provided in both this andin our previous survey (Ertl and Yoshida 2022), the similarities to Sekino’s designs at
Toro are unmistakable. If nothing else, the neatly shaped thick thatch roofs haveremained dominant – even the Miyamoto redesign at Toro made them even more thickand nicely trimmed than Sekino’s original. This is despite many critiques, notably by
Murata and Ishihara in 1951, who provided ethnographic and historical examples of sodcovered roofs for pit dwellings built in Japan and elsewhere. The dominance of Sekino’s
imagined reconstruction, we explained, stems in part from his authoritative position inarchitectural history and conservation. It may relate to the difficulties and challenges thatmake it difficult to present alternative designs.
At the end, however, it may be that people (both specialists and the general public)
simply prefer the look of thatch roofs that are reminiscent of traditional farmhouses. Andoreflecting a stronger propensity to record reconstruction activities in comparison to the Kansai,
Chugoku, and Shikoku regions. Notably, within Shizuoka (and neighboring Aichi prefectures)
most of the reconstruction projects administered by official agencies (as opposed to residentbased projects) have some associated report. One wonders if the vast documentation on Sekino’s
design may have set some kind of expectation for officials in the region. It would require further
research to fully understand it, but the correlation is nonetheless intriguing.
―

36 ―Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japan

Figure 6: The pit dwellings at Otsuka-Saikachido site are thatched similarly to those at Toro site.
This is despite the direct suggestion during the planning phase that it may be morearchaeologically accurate to cover them in sod. (10 April 2018)

Hiromichi, archaeologist at Keio University, described his experiences advisingreconstructions at Otsuka-Saikachido site (Figure 6):

I thought about sod roofing for the pit dwellings. In fact, burnt dwellings from the
Yayoi period include many remains of charred dirt near the floors, which are likely
the result of dirt that collapsed in from the roof. If the “replicas” (saigen mono) had
been built according to this original plan, the site park and exhibits would havelooked very different from how they do today. However, my proposal was not
approved by the supervisors (kanshū no sensei-gata), and we settled for a typicalthatched roof. (Ando 2017: 112)

While Ando does not name “the supervisors” for the Otsuka-Saikachido site development
project, the individual credited with the design is Miyamoto Nagajiro (Ertl 2021: 188), thesame architectural historian in charge of the redesigns at Toro site. What exactly inspired“the supervisors” to disregard Ando’s advice and his evidence remains undocumented.13)13) Here this line of thought comes to an impasse, where Miyamoto’s preference for using thatchroofing is unclear. What is known, however, is that none of Miyamoto’s Yayoi period pit dwellingreconstructions have used sod roofing. As a counter, almost all sod roofed Yayoi period pit
dwellings are credited to Asakawa Shigeo, who followed Miyamoto at Nabunken where both
worked for many years advising reconstruction projects around Japan (Ertl 2021).
―

37 ―Much is the same at most sites throughout Japan. In the absence of direct evidence thata pit dwelling was covered in dirt, the default roofing material is thatch. This is despite theaccepted fact that Yayoi (and Jomon) period people did not have the tools that would allow
them to process and properly thatch roofs as they are commonly reconstructed. These
thatch roofs were described by Sekino as containing a “little lie” (Fujimori 2013) used togarner public acceptance. This little lie, unfortunately, has become commonly accepted
and remains standard practice some seventy years later.

References Cited
Aichi Prefecture. 2021. Shiseki kaigarayama kaizuka seibi jigyō hōkokusho (Report of the renovationof the Kaigarayama Shell Mound historic site). Nagoya: Aichi Prefecture.
Ando, Hiromichi (2017) Hakubutsukan to Yayoi jidai shūraku kenkyū (The museum and Yayoi
period settlement research), Yokohama ni inasaku ga yattekita!? : Yokohamashirekishihakubutsukan Heisei 29-nendo kikaku-ten: Ōtsuka-Saikachido-iseki kōen kaien 20-nen
Santonodai kōkokan kaikan 50-Nen (Rice cultivation comes to Yokohama!?: Yokohama History
Museum 2009 special exhibition: the 20th anniversary of the opening of the OtsukaSaikachido site park and the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Santonodai ArchaeologicalMuseum). Yokohama History Museum, ed. 106–115. Yokohama: Yokohama History Museum.
Aoyagi, Norimasa (2019) Toro-iseki fukugen jūkyo (1951) no dōjidaisei: kenchikushi-ka Sekino
Masaru ni yoru jūkyo fukugen-an no keisei katei (Contemporaneity of the restored dwelling at
the Toro site [1951]: formation process of the dwelling restoration proposal by architectural
historian Sekino Masaru), Bunkaisan to “fukugengaku”: iseki, kenchiku, teien fukugen no riron
to jissen (Cultural heritage and “reconstruction studies”: theory and practice of reconstructionof sites, architecture, and buildings). Unno Satoshi, ed. 119–142. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan.
Asakawa, Shigeo, ed. (1998) Senshi Nihon no jūkyo to sono shūhen: Nara kokuritsu bunkazai
kenkyūjo shinpojiumu hōkoku (Prehistoric dwellings in and around Japan: symposium report,
Nara National Cultural Properties Research Institute). Tokyo: Doseisha.
Dai-27-kai zenkoku iseki kankyō-seibi kaigi (2002) Jōmon jidai shūraku iseki no seibi to katsuyō(Jomon period settlement sites and their development and utilization). Ichinohe: Ichinohe
Town Board of Education.
Edwards, Walter (1991) Buried Discourse: The Toro Archaeological Site and Japanese National
Identity in the Early Postwar Period. The Journal of Japanese Studies 17(1): 1–23.
Ertl, John (2017) Jōmon jidai no fukugen tatemono no jittai chōsa (Survey of Jomon period―

38 ―Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japan
reconstructions), Goshono iseki kankyō seibi-jigyō hōkokusho III (Goshono Site Environmental
Development Report 3). Ichinohe Town Board of Education, ed. 67–79. Ichinohe Town:
Ichinohe Town Board of Education.
Ertl, John (2021) Survey of prehistoric and ancient period architectural reconstructions in Japan.
Japanese Journal of Archaeology 8: 157–199.
Ertl, John, and Yasuyuki Yoshida (2021) Approaches to experimental pit house reconstructions in
the Japanese Central Highlands: Architectural history, community archaeology, and ethnology.
EXARC Journal 2021(4). Persistent Identifier: https://exarc.net/ark:/88735/10599
Ertl, John, and Yasuyuki Yoshida (2022) Prehistoric architectural reconstructions in Kansai,
Chugoku, and Shikoku Regions in Japan. The Keio University Hiyoshi Review of Social Sciences
32: 1–50.
Ertl, John, Yasuyuki Yoshida, and Yoko Ikari (2022) Archaeological craftwork 2021: ethnography ofarchaeology at Suwahara site, Hokuto City, Yamanashi 2021. The Hiyoshi Review of the
Humanities 37: 1–35.
Fujimori, Terunobu (2001) Sekino Masaru sensei wo shinobu (Obituary of Sekino Masaru). Journalof the Society of Architectural Historians of Japan 37: 124–130.
Fujimori, Terunobu (2013) Dai-17-kai kenchiku no moto: Jōmon-jūkyo no kōzō (The principles ofarchitecture, volume 17: The structure of Jomon dwellings). Neppū 11: 64–68
Fujimori, Terunobu (2021) Tateana jūkyo fukugen purosesu (A pit house reconstruction process),
Tokyo ni ikita Jōmon jin (Jomon People who lived in Tokyo). Edo-Tokyo Museum, ed. 112–129. Tokyo: TOTO Publication.
Fujimoto, Tsuyoshi, ed. (1997) Jū no kōkogaku (Archaeology of dwelling). Tokyo: Doseisha.
Inoue, Mitsuo (1948) Yōshikishi no tachiba kara: Sekino Masaru no Toro-iseki to kenchiku-shi nohansei wo yonde (From the perspective of style history: reading Sekino Masaru’s reflections
on Toro site and architectural history). Journal of architecture and building science 739: 8–14
Inoue, Shoichi (2007) Ikegami-Sone iseki de hakken-sareta “ōgata tatemono” no fukugen ni kansuru
ni, san no kōsatsu (A few thoughts on the restoration of the “large structure” discovered at theremains of the Ikegami-Sone site). Nihon kenkyū 35: 147–187.
Ishihara, Kenji (1951) Tateana jūkyo ni tsuite: toku ni Toro no fukugen wo chūshin ni ronzu. (On thepit house: centered on Toro’s reconstructed house) Journal of architecture and building science
66 (775): 1–7.
Kito, Kiyoaki (1985) Kodai no mura (The ancient village), Kodai Nihon wo kakkutsu suru 6(Excavating ancient Japan, 6). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Kosugi, Yasushi et al. (2009) Seikatsu kūkan: shūraku to isekigun (Living spaces: settlements andsites). Tokyo: Doseisha.
Miyamoto, Nagajiro (1986) Heijōkyō: kodai no toshikeikaku to kenchiku (Heijokyo: city planning―

39 ―and architecture in the ancient period). Tokyo: Soshisha Publishing.
Miyamoto, Nagajiro (1996) Nihon genshi-kodai no jūkyo kenchiku (Primitive and ancient dwellingarchitecture in Japan). Tokyo: Chukoronbijutsu-shuppan.
Mizukokaizuka Museum (2017) Tateana jūkyo no sekai: Heisei 27 nendo kikaku-ten (The world of
pit dwellings: 2015 exhibition). Fujimi: Mizukokaizuka Museum.
Murata, Jiro (1951) Genshi jūkyo kōzō no hitotsu no kata (A type of structure of primitive house).
Journal of architecture and building science 66 (775): 8–12.
Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (Nabunken) (1978) CAO NEWS, Centre
for Archaeological Operations 13.
Nihon kokogaku-kyokai (1949) Toro (Toro: a report on the excavation of the Toro sites). Tokyo:
Maichinichi Shimbun-sha.
Sato, Ryuma (2018a) Dai-4 shō: nemoto no kenchiku (Chapter 4: original architecture), Nihon
kenchiku no jigazō: tankyūsha-tachi no monogatari (Portraits of architecture in Japan: stories of
its protagonists). The Kagawa Museum, ed. 59–76. Takamatsu: The Kagawa Museum.
Sato, Ryuma (2018b) Restoration study of a Jōmon dwelling, Architecture in Japan: genealogies of its
transformation. Takahide Tsuchiya et al., ed. 250. Tokyo: Echelle-1.
Sekino, Masaru (1938) Tetsuzan hisho tatara ni tsuite (Genshijidai ichi kenchiku kōzō no keiji) (Onthe Tetsuzan hisho tatara [Revelation of the architectural structure in the ancient times])
Journal of the Archaeological Society of Nippon 28(7): 429–446.
Sekino, Masaru (1942) Nihon jūtaku shōshi (Short history of Japanese homes). Tokyo: Sagamishobo.
Sekino, Masaru (1947) Toro iseki to kenchiku-shi no hansei (Reflections on Toro site and architectural
history). Journal of architecture and building science 62 (735): 2–5.
Sekino, Masaru (1951) Toro no jūkyoshi ni yoru genshi jūka no sōzō fukugen (Imagined reconstructionof the primitive house based on Toro’s pit house). Journal of architecture and building science
66 (774): 7–11.
Sekino, Masaru, Choi Kanghoon, and Muramatsu Shin (1988) Kodai Nihonjin no kenchiku gijutsu(Architectural technology of ancient Japanese) Journal of architecture and building science 103(1273): 16–21.
Sekino, Tadashi (1940) Nihon no kenchiku to geijutsu (Japanese architecture and art). Tokyo: Iwanami
Shoten.
Shizuoka City Board of Education (2012) Shiseki Toro iseki: sai-seibi jigyō hōkokusho (Torohistorical site: re-development report). Shizuoka City: Shizuoka City Board of Education.
Tatsumi, Kazuhiro (1990) Takadono no kodaigaku: kōzoku no kyokan to ōken saigi (Ancient studiesof the takadono: Clan residences and royal rites). Tokyo: Hakusuisha.
Unno, Satoshi (2017) Ko-kenchiku wo fukugen suru: kako to genzai no kakehashi (Reconstructing
ancient architecture: bridging the past and present). Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan.
―

40 ―Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japan
Unno, Satoshi, ed. (2019) Bunka-isan to “fukugen-gaku”: iseki, kenchiku, teien fukugen no riron tojissen (Cultural heritage and “reconstructionology”: theory and practice of the reconstructionof archaeological sites, buildings, and gardens). Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan.
Yamamoto Toshihiro (2011) Fukugen tateana jūkyo shashin-shū: jimen ga kataru ie (Photo album ofreconstructed pit houses: A house to which the ground speaks). Tokyo: Miyaobi Publishing.
Yamamoto Toshihiro (2018) Jōmon daiyakushin: Tateana jūkyo 252+α (The Jomon breakthrough:pit dwellings 252+α). Tokyo: Miyaobi Publishing.

―

41 ―

Table 1: List of sites and prehistoric reconstructed buildings in Hokuriku and Tokai
Site name

Date#

PeriodType

1999

6 M Jomon

5 Pit
1 Raised

Pub Image

Toyama Prefecture ｜富山県
Kitadai Site, Toyama City ｜北代遺跡

○

1.1-6

Kasuga Site, Toyama City ｜春日遺跡

1966

1/0 M Jomon

1 Pit

Ushinameri Site, Toyama City ｜牛滑遺跡

1963

1/0 M Jomon

1 Pit

Mizukakarazu Site, Namerikawa ｜不水掛遺跡

1981

3/0 M Jomon

3 Pit

1999･03

3/2 M Jomon

1 Pit○
1 Raised
1 W. Circle

2.1-3

1981

3 M Jomon

3 Pit

○

3.1-3

Ishikawa Archaeological Foundation, Kanazawa ｜石川県
埋蔵文化財センター

2001

3 M Jomon
M YayoiNara

1 Pit
1 Flat
1 Pit

○

4.1-3

Kaga Central Park ｜加賀市中央公園

1983

4/0

Jomon
Yayoi
E KofunF Kofun1
1
1
1

Yoshizaki-Suba Site, Hakui ｜吉崎・次場遺跡

1999

3

M Yayoi

2 Flat1 Raised1

L Yayoi

1 Pit

7.1

3/1 M Jomon

3 Pit

8.1-2

Sakuramachi Site, Oyabe ｜桜町遺跡

F JomonFudodo Site, Asahi ｜不動堂遺跡○

Ishikawa Prefecture ｜石川県

Oominishiyama Site, Kahoku ｜大海西山遺跡

1992

Funaokayama Site, Hakusan ｜舟岡山遺跡

1959

Okyozuka Site, Nonoichi ｜御経塚遺跡

1982

1

L Jomon

1 Pit

Amenomiya Kofun, Nakanoto ｜雨の宮古墳群

1993

1/0

Kofun

1 Pit

2011･17

2

F Jomon

Mawaki Site, Noto ｜真脇遺跡

5.1-4

Pit
Raised
Pit
Pit
○

6.1-3

○

9.1

1 Pit
○
1 W. Circle

10.1-2

Fukui Prefecture ｜福井県
Shikanotani-Hongo Site, Katsuyama ｜鹿谷本郷遺跡

1977

1/0 M Jomon

1 Pit

Nishitani Site, Sakai ｜西谷遺跡

1995

1/0 Int Kofun

1 Pit

○

Torihama Shell Midden, Wakasa ｜鳥浜貝塚

2000

3 M Jomon

3 Pit

○

3 Pit

○

11.1-3Gifu Prefecture ｜岐阜県
Donosora Site, Takayama ｜堂之上遺跡

1982

3

E Jomon1970･93

M Kofun2111Kadohashi Jomon Dwelling Ruins, Takayama ｜門端縄文
住居跡

1971

1

E Jomon

1 Pit

Kitamachinishi Site, Tajimi ｜喜多町西遺跡

1999

2

L Yayoi
Int Kofun

1 Pit
1 Raised○

15.1-2

Tsukahara Site, Seki ｜塚原遺跡

1992

6/2 M Jomon

1 Pit
1 Pillar4 Raised○

16.1-2

1972･06

7 M Jomon

6 Pit
1 Raised○

17.1-7

Robata Site, Kakamigahara ｜炉畑遺跡

5 M Jomon
M Yayoi

12.1-3

Akahogii Stone Age Hearth, Takayama ｜赤保木石器時
代火炉

Pit
Pit
RaisedPit

Mineichigo Site, Gero ｜峰一合遺跡

1972

5/3

E JomonL Yayoi

4 Pit
1 Pit

Nakano Site, Sekigahara ｜中野遺跡

1965

1/0 M Jomon

1 Pit

―

42 ―

13.1-5

14.1

18.1-3

Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japan
Shizuoka Prefecture ｜静岡県
Toro Site, Shizuoka City ｜登呂遺跡

1951

9

L Yayoi

5 Pit
4 Raised○

19.1-9Shijimizuka Site, Hamamatsu ｜蜆塚遺跡

1957

5

L Jomon

5 Flat○20.1-5Iba Site, Hamamatsu ｜伊場遺跡

1976

6/4

M KofunNara

2 Pit
2 Flat2 Raised○

21.1-4

1 Pit

○

22.1

Hirashiro Site, Hamamatsu ｜ヒラシロ遺跡

1993

Yuzuriha Site, Atami ｜ゆずり葉遺跡

1975

1/0

Jomon

1 Pit

Tanoya Site, Shimada ｜田ノ谷遺跡

1984

2/1

L Yayoi

1 Pit
1 Raised○

23.1

1985･87

2

Heian

1 Pit
1 Raised○

24.1-2

Higashidaira Site, Fuji ｜東平遺跡

1 M Jomon

Kamishiraiwa Site, Izu ｜上白岩遺跡

1987

1 M Jomon

1 Pit

Midaka-Danma Site, Kawazu ｜見高段間遺跡

1970

1/0 M Jomon

1 Pit

Kashiya Yokoanagun, Kannami ｜柏谷横穴群

1993

4/0

L Kofun

3 Pit
1 Raised

25.1○

Aichi Prefecture ｜愛知県
Urigo Site, Toyohashi ｜瓜郷遺跡

1955

1

M Yayoi

1 Pit

Sone Site, Toyota ｜曽根遺跡

1976

1 M Jomon

1 Pit

○

26.1
27.1

Inba-Otsuka Kofun, Owariasahi ｜印場大塚古墳

1975

1

M Kofun

1 Pit

○

28.1

Daichi Site, Iwakura ｜大地遺跡

1996

1

M Yayoi

1 Pit

○

29.1

1965･20

3

M Yayoi

1 Pit○

30.1-3Asahi Site, Kaigarayama Shell Midden, Kiyosu ｜朝日遺跡・貝殻山貝塚
Kurafune Site, Shitara ｜鞍船遺跡

1957

1

E Jomon

1 Pit

○

31.1

Hongo-Sakuradai Site, Toei ｜本郷桜平遺跡

2015

1

Jomon

1 Pit

○

32.1

―

43 ―

Appendix 1：Reference Materials on Prehistoric Reconstructed Buildings in Tokai and Hokuriku
Regions
Kitadai Site ｜北代遺跡
富山市教育委員会 編（1999）史跡北代遺跡ふるさと歴史の広場整備事業報告書．富山市：富山市
教育委員会．Citation link：https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA47960383
富山市教育委員会埋蔵文化財センター 編（2017）富山市北代縄文広場復原建物等再整備事業報告
書：北代遺跡歴史活き活き ! 史跡等総合活用整備事業報告書．富山市：富山市教育委員会．
Available at：https://sitereports.nabunken.go.jp/en/21960
Ushinameri Site ｜牛滑遺跡
富山市教育委員会埋蔵文化財センター 編（2012）婦中地域の縄文遺跡（ 2 ）牛滑遺跡．富山市：
富山市教育委員会．Available at：https://www.city.toyama.toyama.jp/etc/maibun/kitadai/
kitadai_katudou/kikaku/ushinameri-shiryou.pdf
Sakuramachi Site ｜桜町遺跡
桜町遺跡発掘調査団（2005）考古資料から建築材・建築技術を考える：桜町遺跡シンポジウム：
記録集．小矢都市：桜町遺跡発掘調査団．Available at：https://sitereports.nabunken.go.jp/
en/13718
渡邉晶（2000）縄文時代の建築技術：桜町遺跡大型高床建築の復元について（建てる、築く）．

建築雑誌 1461、56–57．Citation link：https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110003809731
木造建築技術研究フォラム 編（2000）第37回公開フォラム 先史時代の木造建築技術．Citation
link：https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10005327757
小矢部市教育委員会文化課（2003）環状木柱列の復元．さくらまち NEWS 2003.3、1 ．小矢部市：
桜町遺跡発掘調査団．
Fudodo Site ｜不動堂遺跡
朝日町（1982）国指定史跡不動堂遺跡：その概要と整備のあらまし．富山県朝日町．Citation
link：http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA43483271
細 見 啓 三（1982） 不 動 堂 遺 跡 の 建 物 復 原． 奈 良 文 化 財 研 究 所 年 報 1982，15．Available at：
http://repository.nabunken.go.jp/dspace/handle/11177/3076
Ishikawa Archaeological Center ｜石川県埋蔵文化財センター
財団法人 石川県埋蔵文化財センター 編（2002）．古代の人々の生活や技術を楽しく体験、先人の暮らしを再発見しよう！古代体験ひろばの概要．いしかわの遺跡 10： 1 – 3 ．Available at：https://www.ishikawa-maibun.jp/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/iseki_10.pdf
Yoshizaki-Suba Site ｜吉崎・次場遺跡
羽咋市教育委員会 編（1999）史跡吉崎・次場遺跡整備事業報告書：能登の復元弥生ムラ．羽咋
市：羽咋市教育委員会．Citation link：https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA44272012

―

44 ―

Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japan
Okyozuka Site ｜御経塚遺跡
野々市町教育委員会・史跡御経塚遺跡環境整備委員会 編（1983）史跡御経塚遺跡：保存整備報告
書．野々市町：野々市町教育委員会．Citation link：https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BB12072418
Mawaki Site ｜真脇遺跡
能登町教育委員会（2012）石川県能登町真脇遺跡：第 1 期史跡整備事業報告書．能登町：能登町
教育委員会．Citation link：https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BB09074018
雨宮国広（2020）ぼくは縄文大工：石斧でつくる丸木舟と小屋．東京：平凡社．Citation link：
https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BC0261581X
Nishitani Site ｜西谷遺跡
福井新聞（1995）竪穴式住居が完成：三国・出世山公園．12月 3 日．
福井新聞（1996）三国町「出世山古墳公園」完成． 3 月29日．
Torihama Shell Midden ｜鳥浜貝塚
三方町縄文博物館（2001）三方町縄文博物館 DOKIDOKI 館年報 第 1 号．三方町：三方町縄文博
物館．Citation link：https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/AA11991558
Donosora Site ｜堂之上遺跡
久々野町教育委員会 編（1983）史跡堂之上遺跡：保存環境整備事業報告書．久々野町：久々野町
教育委員会．Citation link：https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA59857202
岐阜県大野郡久々野町教育委員会 編（1997）堂之上遺跡：縄文時代集落跡の調査記録．久々野
町：久々野町教育委員会．Citation link：https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA33606397
岐阜女子大学 地域資源デジタルアーカイブによる知の拠点形成のための基盤整備事業（2020）史
跡 堂 之 上 遺 跡 Available at：https://digitalarchiveproject.jp/information/ 史 跡 %E3%80%80
堂之上遺跡 /
Kitamachinishi Site ｜喜多町西遺跡
多治見市文化財保護センター 編（2005）喜多町西遺跡発掘調査報告書．多治見市：多治見市教育委員会．Citation link：https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA75305750
多治見市文化財保護センター（2000）喜多町西遺跡公園のしおり．多治見市：多治見市文化財保護センター．
Tsukahara Site ｜塚原遺跡
宮 本 長 二 郎（2001） 日 本 の 美 術420 原 始・ 古 代 住 居 の 復 元． 東 京： 至 文 堂．Citation link：
https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA51464862
Robata Site ｜炉畑遺跡
各務原市教育委員会 編（1973）炉畑遺跡発掘報告書．各務原市：各務原市教育委員会．Citation
link：https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA30106004
Toro Site ｜登呂遺跡
静岡市教育委員会 編（2012）特別史跡登呂遺跡：再整備事業報告書．静岡市：静岡市教育委員会
編．Citation link：https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BB12757278―

45 ―日 本 考 古 学 協 会 編（1978） 登 呂 本 編． 東 京： 東 京 堂 出 版．Citation link：https://ci.nii.ac.jp/
ncid/BN04117468
関野克（1951）登呂の住居址による原始住家の想像復原．建築雑誌 66（774）、 7 –11．Citation

link：https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1520009408038101376
Shijimizuka Site ｜蜆塚遺跡
浜松市教育委員会 編（1962）蜆塚遺跡：総括篇．浜松市：浜松市教育委員会．Citation link：
https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BB03409044
中日新聞（2021）蜆塚公園、大改修へ 遺跡と博物館を同時に． 1 月 3 日．Citation link：https://www.chunichi.co.jp/article/179774
Iba Site ｜伊場遺跡
浜松市教育委員会 編（1975）伊場遺跡第 6 ・ 7 次発掘調査概報．浜松市：浜松市遺跡調査会．
Citation link：https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130282272107049216
Hirashiro Site ｜ヒラシロ遺跡
浜松市教育委員会（2016）ヒラシロ遺跡：発掘調査と保存整備事業のあらまし．浜松市：浜松市
教育委員会．Available at：https://sitereports.nabunken.go.jp/en/21294
Tanoya Site ｜田ノ谷遺跡
島田市教育委員会社会教育課 編（1985）田ノ谷遺跡発掘調査報告書．島田市：島田市教育委員会
Higashidaira Site ｜東平遺跡
富士市教育委員会 編（1985）東平遺跡高床倉庫復原工事報告書．富士市：富士市教育委員会．
Citation link．https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA67966699
富士市教育委員会 編（1987）東平遺跡竪穴住居復原竣工概要．富士市：富士市教育委員会．
Midaka-Danma Site ｜見高段間遺跡
段間遺跡第二次調査団 編（1973）河津町見高段間遺跡：第二次調査報告書．河津町：河津町教育委員会．Citation link：https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BN03438502
Urigo Site ｜瓜郷遺跡
豊橋市教育委員会（1963）瓜郷．豊橋市：豊橋市教育委員会．Citation link：https://ci.nii.ac.jp/
ncid/BN08976625
Inba-Otsuka Kofun ｜印場大塚古墳
尾張旭市教育委員会（1977）印場大塚古墳．尾張旭市：尾張旭市教育委員会．Citation link：
https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BN03639887
Daichi Site ｜大地遺跡
城戸久（1954）尾張の古農家と大地遺跡の竪穴住居：古農家の構架報に基ずく竪穴住居復原への一提示．日本建築學會研究報告 27、357–358．Citation link：https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/11000
3833892
Asahi Site, Kaigarayama Shell Midden ｜朝日遺跡・貝殻山貝塚
愛知県県民文化局文化部 文化芸術課文化財室（2021）史跡貝殻山貝塚整備事業報告書．名古屋―

46 ―Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japan
市：愛知県県民文化局文化部 文化芸術課文化財室．Citation link：https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/
BC07469817
Kurafune Site ｜鞍船遺跡
津具村 編（1997）津具村誌 資料編 1 ．愛知県津具村：津具村．Citation link：https://ci.nii.ac.jp/
ncid/BA37180683
Hongo-Sakuradai Site ｜本郷桜平遺跡
松永佳伸（2014）復元するぞ、竪穴式住居 20日完成見込み．朝日新聞（名古屋版）12月13日朝刊．

―

47 ―

Appendix 2：Images of Prehistoric Reconstructed Buildings

Image 1.1: Middle Jomon period pit dwellingat Kitadai Site 北代遺跡 (36.717469,
137.186531). (19 June 2021)

Image 1.2: Middle Jomon period pit dwellingat Kitadai Site 北代遺跡 (36.717586,
137.186204). (19 June 2021)

Image 1.3: Middle Jomon period pit dwellingat Kitadai Site 北代遺跡 (36.717599,
137.186098). (19 June 2021)

Image 1.4: Middle Jomon period pit dwellingat Kitadai Site 北代遺跡 (36.717177,
137.185979). (19 June 2021)

Image 1.5: Middle Jomon period pit dwellingat Kitadai Site 北代遺跡 (36.717271,
137.185906). (19 June 2021)

Image 1.6: Middle Jomon period raised floor
building at Kitadai Site 北代遺跡 (36.717459,
137.186179). (19 June 2021)―

48 ―Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japan

Image 2.1: Middle Jomon period pit dwellingat Sakuramachi Site 桜町遺跡 (36.687462,
136.872701). (16 May 2012)

Image 2.2: Middle Jomon period raised floor
building at Sakuramachi Site 桜町遺跡
(36.687430, 136.873105). (16 May 2012)

Image 2.3: Final Jomon period wooden circle
at Sakuramachi Site 桜町遺跡 (36.687413,
136.872922). (16 May 2012)

Image 3.1: Middle Jomon period pit dwellingat Fudodo Site 不動堂遺跡 (36.920694,
137.553827). (19 June 2021)

Image 3.2: Middle Jomon period pit dwellingat Fudodo Site 不動堂遺跡 (36.920714,
137.554009). (19 June 2021)

Image 3.3: Middle Jomon period pit dwellingat Fudodo Site 不動堂遺跡 (36.920528,
137.553722). (19 June 2021)―

49 ―Image 4.1: Middle Jomon period pit dwellingat Ishikawa Prefecture ArchaeologicalCenter 石川県埋蔵文化財センター(36.508908, 136.688641). (17 August 2016)

Image 4.2: Middle Yayoi period flat landbuilding at Ishikawa Prefecture
Archaeological Center 石川県埋蔵文化財センター (36.509070, 136.688441). (17 August 2016)

Image 4.3: Nara period pit dwelling at
Ishikawa Prefecture Archaeological Center
石川県埋蔵文化財センター (36.509153,
136.688531). (17 August 2016)

Image 5.1: Jomon period pit dwelling at Kaga
Central Park 加賀市中央公園 (36.322073,
136.329066). (21 January 2017)

Image 5.2: Remains of removed Yayoi period
raised floor building at Kaga Central Park
加賀市中央公園 (36.322121, 136.328781). (21January 2017)

Image 5.3: Early Kofun period pit dwelling at
Kaga Central Park 加賀市中央公園(36.322245, 136.328903). (21 January 2017)―50 ―Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japan

Image 5.4: Final Kofun period pit dwelling at
Kaga Central Park 加賀市中央公園(36.322377, 136.329005). (21 January 2017)

Image 6.1: Middle Yayoi period flat landbuilding at Yoshizaki-Suba Site 吉崎・次場遺跡 (36.905486, 136.789321). (19 June 2021)

Image 6.2: Middle Yayoi period flat landbuilding at Yoshizaki-Suba Site 吉崎・次場遺跡 (36.905670, 136.789498). (19 June 2021)

Image 6.3: Middle Yayoi period raised floor
building at Yoshizaki-Suba Site 吉崎・次場遺跡 (36.905723, 136.789793). (19 June 2021)

Image 7.1: Late Yayoi period pit dwelling at
Oominishiyama Site 大海西山遺跡(36.775534, 136.755617). (27 December 2017)

Image 8.1: Middle Jomon period pit dwellingat Funaokayama Site 舟岡山遺跡(36.443362, 136.632136). (3 December 2016)―51 ―Image 8.2: Remains of two removed Middle
Jomon period pit dwellings at
Funaokayama Site 舟岡山遺跡 (36.442837,
136.631985). (3 December 2016)

Image 9.1: Middle Jomon period pit dwellingat Okyozuka Site 御経塚遺跡 (36.546550,
136.599390). (4 November 2016)

Image 10.1: Final Jomon period pit dwellingat Mawaki Site 真脇遺跡 (37.305227,
137.208381). (23 February 2021)

Image 10.2: Final Jomon period wooden circle
at Mawaki Site 真脇遺跡 (37.305659,
137.206943). (23 May 2012)

Image 11.1: Middle Jomon period pit dwellingat Torihama Shell Midden 鳥浜貝塚
(35.560653, 135.895481). (29 October 2022)

Image 11.2: Middle Jomon period pit dwellingat Torihama Shell Midden 鳥浜貝塚
(35.560894, 135.895593). (29 October 2022)―

52 ―Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japan

Image 11.3: Middle Jomon period pit dwellingat Torihama Shell Midden 鳥浜貝塚
(35.560891, 135.895785). (29 October 2022)

Image 12.1: Early Jomon period pit dwellingat Donosora Site 堂之上遺跡 (36.053682,
137.279736). (18 June 2021)

Image 12.2: Early Jomon period pit dwellingat Donosora Site 堂之上遺跡 (36.053389,
137.279738). (18 June 2021)

Image 12.3: Early Jomon period pit dwellingat Donosora Site 堂之上遺跡 (36.053287,
137.279682). (18 June 2021)

Image 13.1: Middle Jomon period pit dwelling at
Akahogi Stone Age Hearth, Fudoki no Oka Ancient
Village 赤保木遺跡・風土記の丘史跡公園古代集落の里 (36.159894, 137.221822). (18 June 2021)

Image 13.2: Remains of removed Middle Jomon period
pit dwelling at Akahogi Stone Age Hearth, Fudoki no
Oka Ancient Village 赤保木遺跡・風土記の丘史跡公園古代集落の里 (36.159771, 137.221853). (18 June 2021)

―

53 ―

Image 13.3: Middle Yayoi period pit dwelling at
Akahogi Stone Age Hearth, Fudoki no Oka Ancient
Village 赤保木遺跡・風土記の丘史跡公園古代集落の里 (36.159653, 137.221661). (18 June 2021)

Image 13.4: Middle Kofun period pit dwelling at
Akahogi Stone Age Hearth, Fudoki no Oka Ancient
Village 赤保木遺跡・風土記の丘史跡公園古代集落の里 (36.159811, 137.221627). (18 June 2021)

Image 13.5: Middle Yayoi period raised floor building
at Akahogi Stone Age Hearth, Fudoki no Oka
Ancient Village 赤保木遺跡・風土記の丘史跡公園
古代集落の里 (36.159664, 137.221766). (18 June 2021)

Image 14.1: Early Jomon period pit dwellingat Kadohashi Jomon Dwelling Ruins 門端縄文住居跡 (36.122334, 137.077300). (18 June
2021)

Image 15.1: Initial Kofun period pit dwellingat Kitamachinishi Site 喜多町西遺跡(35.340419, 137.101089). (11 December 2016)

Image 15.2: Late Yayoi period raised floor
building at Kitamachinishi Site 喜多町西遺跡 (35.340419, 137.101089). (11 December
2016)
―

54 ―

Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japan

Image 16.1: Middle Jomon period pit dwellingat Tsukahara Site 塚原遺跡 (35.496184,
136.865223). (29 October 2022)

Image 16.2: Middle Jomon period pillar
building at Tsukahara Site 塚原遺跡
(35.496022, 136.865167). (29 October 2022)

Image 17.1: Middle Jomon period pit dwelling(No. 1) at Robata Site 炉畑遺跡 (35.394508,
136.894540). (11 December 2016)

Image 17.2: Middle Jomon period pit dwelling(No. 2) at Robata Site 炉畑遺跡 (35.394519,
136.895089). (11 December 2016)

Image 17.3: Middle Jomon period pit dwelling(No. 3) at Robata Site 炉畑遺跡 (35.394614,
136.895053). (11 December 2016)

Image 17.4: Middle Jomon period pit dwelling(No. 5) at Robata Site 炉畑遺跡 (35.394605,
136.895191). (11 December 2016)―55 ―Image 17.5: Middle Jomon period pit dwelling(No. 6) at Robata Site 炉畑遺跡 (35.394548,
136.894842). (11 December 2016)

Image 17.6: Middle Jomon period pit dwelling(No. 8) at Robata Site 炉畑遺跡 (35.394461,
136.894792). (11 December 2016)

Image 17.7: Middle Jomon period raised floor
building at Robata Site 炉畑遺跡 (35.395028,
136.895140). (11 December 2016)

Image 18.1: Early Jomon period pit dwellingat Mineichigo Site 峰一合遺跡 (35.802632,
137.254049). (18 June 2021)

Image 18.2: Early Jomon period pit dwellingat Mineichigo Site 峰一合遺跡 (35.802632,
137.254049). (18 June 2021)

Image 18.3: Late Yayoi period pit dwelling at
Mineichigo Site 峰一合遺跡 (35.802632,
137.254049). (18 June 2021)―

56 ―Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japan

Image 19.1: Late Yayoi period pit dwelling at
Toro Site 登呂遺跡 (34.956473, 138.408011).
(23 August 2020)

Image 19.2: Late Yayoi period pit dwelling at
Toro Site 登呂遺跡 (34.956662, 138.408038).
(23 August 2020)

Image 19.3: Late Yayoi period pit dwelling at
Toro Site 登呂遺跡 (34.956558, 138.407905).
(23 August 2020)

Image 19.4: Late Yayoi period pit dwelling at
Toro Site 登呂遺跡 (34.956616, 138.407751).
(23 August 2020)

Image 19.5: Late Yayoi period raised floor
building at Toro Site 登呂遺跡 (34.956616,
138.407751). (23 August 2020)

Image 19.6: Late Yayoi period raised floor
building at Toro Site 登呂遺跡 (34.956441,
138.407880). (23 August 2020)―

57 ―Image 19.7: Late Yayoi period raised floor
building at Toro Site 登呂遺跡 (34.956720,
138.408346). (23 August 2020)

Image 19.8: Late Yayoi period pit dwelling(Memorial Plaza メモリアル広場 ) at Toro
Site 登呂遺跡 (34.955574, 138.407667). (23August 2020)

Image 19.9: Late Yayoi period raised floor
building (Memorial Plaza メモリアル広場 )at Toro Site 登呂遺跡 (34.955594,
138.407771). (23 August 2020)

Image 20.1: Late Jomon period pit dwelling at
Shijimizuka Site 蜆塚遺跡 (34.713667,
137.703175). (27 January 2021)

Image 20.2: Late Jomon period pit dwelling at
Shijimizuka Site 蜆塚遺跡 (34.713581,
137.703032). (27 January 2021)

Image 20.3: Late Jomon period pit dwelling at
Shijimizuka Site 蜆塚遺跡 (34.713240,
137.702839). (27 January 2021)―

58 ―Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japan

Image 20.4: Late Jomon period pit dwelling at
Shijimizuka Site 蜆塚遺跡 (34.713279,
137.702919). (27 January 2021)

Image 20.5: Late Jomon period pit dwelling at
Shijimizuka Site 蜆塚遺跡 (34.713464,
137.703243). (27 January 2021)

Image 21.1: Nara period flat land building at
Iba Site 伊場遺跡 (34.694352, 137.709930). (27January 2021)

Image 21.2: Nara period flat land building at
Iba Site 伊場遺跡 (34.694097, 137.709591). (27January 2021)

Image 21.3: Nara period raised floor building
at Iba Site 伊場遺跡 (34.694225, 137.709967).
(27 January 2021)

Image 21.4: Nara period raised floor building
at Iba Site 伊場遺跡 (34.694154, 137.709763).
(27 January 2021)―

59 ―Image 22.1: Middle Jomon period pit dwellingat Hirashiro Site ヒラシロ遺跡 (34.973371,
137.760154). (27 January 2021)

Image 23.1 Late Yayoi period pit dwelling at
Tanoya Site 田ノ谷遺跡 (34.849186,
138.176053). (26 November 2022)

Image 24.1: Heian period pit dwelling at
Higashidaira Site 東平遺跡 (35.185747,
138.678810). (26 January 2021)

Image 24.2: Heian period raised floor building
at Higashidaira Site 東平遺跡 (35.185574,
138.678791). (26 January 2021)

Image 25.1: Late Yayoi period pit dwelling at
Kamishiraiwa Site 上白岩遺跡 (34.963247,
138.984001). (26 January 2021)

Image 26.1: Late Yayoi period pit dwelling at
Urigo Site 瓜郷遺跡 (34.963247, 138.984001).
(18 July 2022)―

60 ―Survey of the Present Conditions of Prehistoric Architectural Reconstructions in Hokuriku and Tokai Regions in Japan

Image 27.1: Middle Jomon period pit dwellingat Sone Site 曽根遺跡 (35.081969,
137.171841). (16 December 2018)

Image 28.1: Middle Kofun period pit dwellingat Inbaotsuka Kofun 印場大塚古墳(35.200346, 137.020377). (5 March 2017)

Image 29.1: Middle Kofun period pit dwellingat Daichi Site, Iwakura Shiseki Park 大地遺跡・岩倉市史跡公園 (35.274284, 136.863217).
(10 July 2016)

Image 30.1: Middle Yayoi period pit dwellingat Asahi Site, Kaigarayama Shell Midden
朝日遺跡・貝殻山貝塚 (35.218559,
136.851786). (19 December 2021)

Image 30.2: Middle Yayoi period pit dwellingat Asahi Site, Kaigarayama Shell Midden
朝日遺跡・貝殻山貝塚 (35.218000,
136.851265). (19 December 2021)

Image 30.3: Middle Yayoi period raised floor
building at Asahi Site, Kaigarayama Shell
Midden 朝日遺跡・貝殻山貝塚 (35.217993,
136.851125). (19 December 2021)―

61 ―Image 31.1: Early Jomon period pit dwellingat Kurafune Site 鞍船遺跡 (35.172264,
137.622718). (27 January 2021)

Image 32.1: Jomon period pit dwelling at
Hongo-Sakuradai Site 本郷桜平遺跡(35.072520, 137.705352). (27 January 2021)―

62 ―