South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

Nissology, Island Archaeology, and the Archaeology of
Ryukyus (1)Takamiya Hiroto1

1: Research Center for Pacific Islands, Kagoshima University
1-21-24 Korimoto, Kagoshima, 890-8580 JapanE mail: takamiya@cpi.kagoshima-u.ac.jp

Abstract
Nissology, or the science of islands, aims to study islands holistically. Thus, nissologyrelated journals, such as South Pacific Studies, cover islands’ natural, economic, social, and cultural
aspects. These themes are also presented and discussed at annual meetings of nissology, such as at
the Japan Society of Island Studies meetings. While the objective of nissology is proclaimed to be aholistic approach to island studies, the prehistoric aspect seems to be missing. Prehistory attempts toelucidate the human past before any written records. A prehistoric approach to nissology is essential
to understand contemporary people and culture as in many cases more than 90% of islands’ history isprehistoric.
On the other hand, island archeology has been dominated by islands in the Mediterranean,
Oceania, the Channel (California), and the Caribbean. The archeology of these regions has been thesource of clarifying cultural histories. Furthermore, comparison and contrast of archeological datafrom these islands extracted general tendencies of human-island environmental relationships. Some ofthese have been proposed as theories - however, there is a lack of archeological data from the Ryukyu
Archipelago islands. For the last 100 years, a considerable amount of archeological data, comparable
to the four major regions of island archeology, has been accumulated. Therefore, archeological
data from the Ryukyu Archipelago compensate and/or provide new aspects to the world of islandarcheology.
The present paper outlines archeological data from the Ryukyu Archipelago, mainly focusing on
the Central Ryukyus, in order to demonstrate how the data from the Central Ryukyus contributie tonissology and island archeology.
Key words:

Central Ryukyus, island archaeology, nissology, Paleolithic, prehistory, Ryukyu
Archipelago――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
Received: 28 October, 2021
Accepted: 16 November, 2021

50

South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

Introduction
Nissology, or the science of islands, was inaugurated during the International Small
Islands Studies Association Conference in 1994 in Okinawa, Japan, and the purpose ofthis newly born discipline is “the study of islands on their own term” proposed by Grant
McCall of the New South Wales University (Kakazu 2019: 14). This is an epochturning point in the study of islands. While scholars had studied islands before 1994, thecommencement of nissology set the stage to conduct multi-disciplinary island studies for the
first time. For the last three decades, nissology has been conducted in many areas of study,
such as economy, society, tourism, biology, fishery, and agriculture, and have successfully
produced valuable scientific data (Kawai et al. 2013).
However, while nissology has successfully obtained important scientific data fromislands, almost all of them have dealt with present or at least a shallow history. For example,
although the South Pacific Studies, published by the International Center for Island Studies,
Kagoshima University, has been published since 1980, almost all articles focus on modern
economy, cultures, and industries. Less than five deals with prehistory.
All islands have a long history. In terms of history, many islands were occupied bypeople without writing systems. The islands in the Caribbean (Keegan and Hoffman 2015)
and Oceania (Kirch 1984) were inhabited by non-literate people before the Europeans“discovered” these islands. Of course, many islands in the world are occupied by people
with writing systems. However, these islands also have a history without writing, that is,their prehistory. To establish a complete nissology, human history, especially prehistoric orarcheological data, must be considered.
Archeology of islands, on the other hand, has been extensively studied in the
Mediterranean (Broodbank 2000, Cherry 1981, Knapp 2013), Oceania (Kirch 1984,
Steadman 2006), California Channel Islands (Kennett 2005, Rick and Earlandson2008), and Caribbean islands (Fitzpatrick 2013, Keegan and Hoffman 2017). Archeology
has greatly contributed to the reconstruction of the cultural histories of these regions.
Furthermore, comparisons of archeological data among these islands have provided valuable
insights into human-island environmental relationships. It is probably not exaggerated
to state that some of these insights have been promoted as a larger theory comprising ofprinciples or rules.
What is lacking in the world of island archaeology is data from the Ryukyu
Archipelago. The history of archeological research goes back as early as the late nineteenth
century. For example, Kanda, as early as 1884, published a report on surface-collectedstone adzes from the Amami Oshima Island. In 1904, Torii conducted the first excavation
on Ishigakijima Island (Asato 2012). While archeological research during the first threequarters of the twentieth century was sporadic, it established the foundation of thechronology of this region. Archeological works have increased exponentially since the1970s, as in the mainland of Japan, due to development projects. As a result of largescale buildings, roads, and other large-scale constructions (Asato 2012), the number of
excavations surged, as well as the areas of excavation. Intensive and extensive excavations

Takamiya: Nissology, Island Archaeology, and the Archaeology of Ryukyus (1)51conducted over the last five decades have successfully produced details on the prehistory ofthis region. Thus, archeological data from the Ryukyu Archipelago are comparable to thoseof the Mediterranean, Oceania, California Channel Islands, and Caribbean islands. In otherwords, the archeological data from the Amami and Okinawa Archipelago offer valuable
insights into island archeology and anthropology in general.
This paper will demonstrate how the prehistory of the Central Ryukyus can contributeto nissology and island archeology. At least Japanese nissology appeared to have,superficially, if not at all, touched deep history. It is difficult to determine how modern
people and cultures have evolved and matured since the written history of Central Ryukyus
only began from the fifteenth to sixteenth centuries AD. Archaeology and prehistory are theonly approaches which can reveal deep history.
On the other hand, the archeology of islands has been mainly centered around theMediterranean, Oceania, California Channel Islands, and Caribbean islands. Archeological
data from the Central Ryukyus provide complementary or brand-new data to islandarcheology. Among these data, this paper deals with the colonization processes of Homosapiens to the Central Ryukyus. This paper will contribute to island archeology bybringing about a new aspect of island archeology and the nissology of the Central Ryukyus
by presenting the time-depth of peopling of the islands. The remainder of this paper isorganized as follows. First, it provides background information such as geography andchronology. Second, it discusses the first appearance of Homo sapiens in this region. Third,
it investigates the origin of the modern Central Ryukyu population. Finally, in summaryand conclusion, this paper highlights the contribution of this research to island archeology
and nissology. In the future, I would like to provide several other unique aspects of theprehistory of this region, such as hunter-gatherer-fisher adaptation to an island environment.

Background
Geography
The Central Ryukyus Islands are located at the center of the Ryukyu Archipelago,
stretching between the Kyushu and Taiwan Islands, approximately 1200 km. Geographically,
the Ryukyu Archipelago is subdivided into Northern, Central, and Southern Ryukyus.
Northern Ryukyu comprises Tanegashima Island, Yakushima Island, and its surroundingislands. The Central Ryukyus consists of the Amami and Okinawa archipelagos. The
Miyako and Yaeyama Archipelago formed the Southern Ryukyus (Fig. 1). The present paper
mainly focuses on the prehistory of the Central Ryukyus.
Chronology
The Amam and Okinawa Archipelago chronology consist of Paleolithic, Shellmidden,
and Gusuku periods (Table 1, modified from Shinzato 2014). The Paleolithic period beganwith the appearance of Homo sapiens ca. 36,000 years ago and ended approximately 10,000
years ago. The Early and Late Shellmidden periods are featured by the appearance ofpottery culture and covers between, generally and traditionally, ca. 6,500 years ago and 1,000

52South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

Ｎ

A
u
Ce

nt
ra

uk
yu
s
Ry
he
rn
N
or
t

lR

ky
Ry
u
e
Th

・Gohezu cave

Kikaijima

・Sogo ground・Shitabaru cave・Gusuku Site Group・Garazo・Amangusuku, Kamuiyaki kiln
・Tobaru cave、Oyama cave、Toguchi-agaribaru
・Noguni Shellmidden group B
・Yabuchi cave

・Yamashita cho No.1

Okinawajima ・Mintatogawa fissure

s

ut

uk

So

yu

he

rn

・Shimojibaru cave Kumejima

Ry・Tsuchihama Ya-ya
・Kishikawa
・Akakina、Hango

Okinoerabujima Tokunoshima
・Nakafu cave・Otsubobata
・Tachikiri

・Yokomine C

Amami-oshima

Iejima ・Gadabaru cave

TaiwanTanegashima

Yakushima

yu
ky
us

rc

hi
pe
la
go

KyushuMiyakojima

Ishigakijima

・Sakitari cave・ Tiiragama

・Pinza Abu

・Shiraho-saoneta-baru
０

200km

Fig. 1. Map of the Ryukyu Archipelago and locations of sites mentioned in the text (Originally by
Shinzato, A.).
Table 1. Chronology of Central Ryukyus (modified from Shinzato 2014).
Mainland Japan(except Hokkaido)

ca.11/12~15 AD

GusukuKamakura to Muromachi

1,400

Late 2

Asuka to Heian

2,600

Late 1

Yayoi to Kofun

Early 5

Final Jomon

Early 4Late Jomon

Early 3

Middle Jomon

Early 2

Early Jomon

3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
6,500

Shellmidden Period

Central Ryukyus

B.P.

Early 1

Beginning of pottery culture?
10,00032,000Palaeolithic

Initial Jomon
Incipient Jomon
Paleolithic*The mainland chronology is provided as a rough guide. Periodizations between the Central Ryukyus
and mainland Japan do not always correspond exactly.

Takamiya: Nissology, Island Archaeology, and the Archaeology of Ryukyus (1)53years ago. The Early period is subdivided into five sub-periods and the Late period into
two sub-periods based on the analysis of pottery. The Gusuku period is also known as the
protohistoric period. During this period, numerous castles were formed. The term Gusuku isa dialect in this region, and one of its meanings is a “castle.” During this period, chiefdom
societies emerged, and by the fifteenth century, a state known as the Ryukyu Kingdom wasestablished (Pearson 2013).

Presence of Homo sapiens during the Paleolithic period(or earlier than 10,000 years ago)

Homo sapiens appeared in Africa approximately 200,000–100,000 years ago. From
there, they spread to Europe (ca. 40,000 years ago), East Asia (ca. 40,000 years ago),
Australia (ca. 50,000–40,000 years ago), and North America (ca. 14,000 years ago). It is
astonishing to know that about 10,000 years ago, they reached the southernmost region ofSouth America (Intoh 2013). The fact that Homo sapiens moved from the northernmost
region of North America to the southernmost region of this continent within several
thousand years demonstrates their immense adaptability to various environments. It further
demonstrates that these Homo sapiens were hunter-gatherers with high adaptability tovarious environments.
Although hunter-gatherers reached all continents except Antarctica before 10,000 years
ago, and this fact indicates their high adaptability to different environments, it was probably
a formidable challenge for them to conquer island environments. This is revealed by the factthat only a handful of islands in the world were colonized by Homo sapiens before 10,000
years ago. They are the California Channel Islands (Rick and Earlandson 2008), New
Britain, New Ireland, Buka, Manus (Spriggs 1997), Timor (O'Connor et al. 2011), andpossibly Cyprus (Knapp 2013). A few more islands, such as the Talaud Islands, might havebeen settled by Homo sapiens 10,000 years ago or earlier (Ono 2017).
Why was it difficult for Homo sapiens to colonize the islands? Several reasons havebeen suggested (Keegan and Diamond 1987, Takamiya 2005). First, Homo sapiens had
acquired navigation skills by 10,000 years ago, as evidenced by their arrivals at Australia,
Melos Island (Phoca-Cosmetatou 2011), and Kozu Island (Tsutsumi 2004); yet, ocean
crossing is even today, not 100 % secure. There must have been more failures than successes
in water crossing during the Paleolithic period.
Second, islands are generally characterized by a scarcity of natural resources, including
edible plants and animals. Thus, the carrying capacity of a newly found island is usually
lower than that of the colonizer’s motherland. In addition, animal and plant foods found on
the motherland are sometimes not available on a newly discovered island. For example, thedeer, which Kyushu Jomon frequently hunted, did not inhabit the Central Ryukyu Islands.
On the other hand, colonizers on a newly found island might encounter animals and plantsthat are potential food, but it takes time for them to discover that. Again, if colonizers
migrated from Kyushu to the Central Ryukyus, they would have encountered numerous
fish and shellfish in the coral reef environment. However, since these coral reef species are
unknown in Kyushu, they would have to experiment with these species.

54

South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

Fig. 2. Logistic model.

Third, it is likely that the colonizers consisted of a few people based on the size ofprehistoric boats or canoes. Small groups are susceptible to natural disasters. For example,
large tsunamis can easily wipe them out. In addition, small groups are sensitive to infectious
diseases. For example, Covid 19 causes more serious damage to populations of a small
group (e. g. small islands) than a large group (large urban cities, such as Tokyo).
Even if they safely crossed the water, obtained enough food to sustain the group, andconquered natural disasters and infectious diseases, more issues could arise. The fourth issue
is how a small group of people maintains their population. Among them, they must include
fertile women and men. The question arises: how many men and women are needed?
McArthur et al. (1976) conducted computer simulations on how reproductively capable
women and men of three, five, and seven couples could maintain their population. The result
was that none of them could maintain their population, suggesting that many more womenand men were needed to reproduce and maintain a population. Wobst (1974) suggested thatat least 500 people are needed to maintain a population safely.
Fifth, it is known that once a human population successfully adapts to an island
environment, the population increases logistically according to the carrying capacity of theisland (Fig. 2), which is not naturally high. On the one hand, the population grows rapidly.
On the other hand, due to limited resources, growing population implies that many people
have to share an already small amount of resources or compete for scarce resources.
Sixth, it is also well known that the deterioration of the island environment is expected
after the human population has successfully colonized an island. For example, many islandsin the Mediterranean, Oceania, and the Caribbean have witnessed deforestation, landslides,
and animal extinctions. The well-known Easter Island (Rapanui) was covered by forest
before people colonized the island (Hunt and Lipo 2012). This environmental deterioration
sometimes lowers the island’s carrying capacity, resulting in a shortage of resources, making
matters worse. The fifth factor mentioned above implies that, while the population increases
logistically, the carrying capacity might be lowered due to environmental deterioration.
People may experience further food shortages.
Finally, all people who lived 10,000 years ago and earlier were hunter-gatherers.

Takamiya: Nissology, Island Archaeology, and the Archaeology of Ryukyus (1)55

One of the features of their lives is their nomadic way of life. They relocated their camps
several times a year. For example, the !Kung of the Kalahari establishes a camping place,and from there, they acquire the food they need. When the foraging location reachedabout 10 km from the camp, they relocated their camp to a new location. The !Kung was
relocated several times per year. To obtain an adequate amount of food, a nomadic way oflife requires a large landmass. Cherry (1981), who reviewed the colonization processes
in the Mediterranean islands, concluded that because the areas provided by islands wereinsufficient for the nomadic way of life of hunter-gatherers, agriculture was necessary tosettle the islands in this region. In addition to the Mediterranean, almost all the Oceania
islands and the Caribbean islands were colonized by agriculturalists. The earliest agriculture
began at approximately 10,000 BP. For these reasons, only a handful of islands in the world
were occupied by Homo sapiens before10,000 years ago. Thus, the colonization of islands
during the Paleolithic period was a formidable challenge for Homo sapiens.
However, it should be emphasized that the Central Ryukyus was occupied by huntergatherers during the Paleolithic period (Takamiya et al. 2019, see Fig. 1 for locations ofsites). In addition to the well-known Minatogawa fissure site (Fig. 3), Yamashita Cho No.
2 cave site, and the recently discovered Sakitari cave site (Fig. 4), two Paleolithic sites are
known on Okinawajima Island (Tobaru and Oyama cave sites). Iejima Island uncovered two
Paleolithic sites (Gadabaru and Gohezu cave sites). On Kumejima Island, one Paleolithic
site has been reported (Shimotabaru cave site). The Amai Oshima Island yielded three
Paleolithic sites: Kishikawa (Fig. 5), Tsuchihama Ya-ya (Fig. 6), and Akakina Gusuku sites.

Fig. 3. Minatogawa fissure site with Drs. Fitzpatrick and Rick.

Fig. 4. Sakitare cave site.

Fig. 5. Kishikawa site.

Fig. 6. Tsuchihama Ya-ya site.

56

South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

Two Paleolithic sites are known on Tokunoshima Island (Garazo and Amangusuku sites).
Tanegashima Island (Northern Ryukyus) has revealed three Paleolithic sites dating
between 30,000 and 35,000 years ago (Yokomine C, Tachikiri, and Otsubobata sites).
Furthermore, we have Homo sapiens occupation in the Southern (Miyako and Yaeyama
Archipelagos) Ryukyus. The Pinza-Abu site in Miyakojima Island unearthed fossil
human skeletal remains, dating ca. 25,000 years ago. The Shiraho-saoneta-baru site, anewly discovered site on Ishigakijima Island, dates ca. between 9,000 and 24,000 years
ago, yielded numerous fossil human remains. According to recent paleogeographic
reconstruction, the islands of the Ryukyu Archipelago were islands, not part of a landbridge, when people occupied these islands. Thus, while 10–20 islands were settled
by Homo sapiens before10,000 years ago in the non-Ryukyu Archipelago area, in the
Ryukyu Archipelago, at least eight islands (Tanegashima, Amami Oshima, Tokunoshima,
Okinawajima, Iejima, Kumejima, Miyakojima, and Ishigakijima) were colonized by Homosapiens during the Paleolithic period.
Naturally, the next question is whether these Paleolithic populations were the direct
ancestors of the modern Ryukyu population. The present paper will mainly focus on
the Central Ryukyus, especially the Okinawa Archipelago, because of its more detailed
archeological data to examine this question. More than five decades ago, in the Okinawa
Archipelago, the world-renowned Minatogawa fossils were discovered. Suzuki, who
studied the Minatogawa fossils, concluded that “present-day Okinawans (also Amami
people) are without doubt the direct descendants of Minatogawa humans” Suzuki (1982:
37). According to him, the reconstructed facial structures of the Minatogawa and modernday Okinawa (and Amami) people are similar. However, the origin of the Central Ryukyu
population is not as straightforward as that predicted by Suzuki (1982). This has become acomplicated issue in the last three decades.
Takamiya (1993) first questioned population continuity from the Paleolithic to thepresent. One of the main reasons was that at that time (before 1992), there was a temporary
hiatus (i.e., no archeological sites) between the final date of the Paleolithic (ca. 18.000 yearsago) and the earliest date of the Shellmidden period (ca. 6,500 years ago), suggesting no
human occupation during the hiatus. Based on Kirch’s (1984) and Keegan and Diamond’s(1987) concept of a logistic model of population growth (Fig. 2), which is expected after
successful human colonization, a paleodemography was reconstructed based on the numberof sites during the Shellmidden and Gusuku periods. An expected logistic pattern wasobserved after Early 4 (Takamiya 1998, 2005, Fig. 7). Two conclusions were drawn: First,
while there were archeological sites in Early 1 and Early 2, since the logistic pattern was
not obtained after these two periods, it was during the later part of Early 3 and Early 4
when people first successfully colonized the islands. Second, the Paleolithic people either
moved elsewhere or became extinct because they could not adapt to the environmental
change toward the end of the Pleistocene (i.e., the formation of islands due to sea levelrise, resulting in an abrupt decrease in carrying capacity). Consequently, Takamiya (2005)
proposed the “Early 4” (with quotasion marks and “Early 4” covers from late Early 3 to
Early 4) hypothesis.

Takamiya: Nissology, Island Archaeology, and the Archaeology of Ryukyus (1)57

Okinawajima
Satellite Islands

Fig. 7. Population reconstructed based on number of sites.

Itoh (2011), an expert in Central Ryukyu prehistoric pottery, examined this hypothesis
soon after. He reanalyzed the pottery recovered from the Shellmidden period. Accordingly,
he established 28 pottery types from Early 1 to Late 2. The most important conclusion
he reached was that there was no discontinuity in the pottery sequence. If the “Early 4”
hypothesis was acceptable, then a drastic change in pottery type sequence must havebeen observed between the early part of Early 3 and “Early 4” (from late Early 3 to Early
4). However, Itoh (2011) could not see such a drastic change but rather observed thecontinuation of pottery types from Early 1 to Late 2. Thus, Itoh (2011) rejected the “Early
4” hypothesis and proposed the Early 1 hypothesis. He argued that the islands were firstsuccessfully colonized during Early 1 (ca. 6,500 years ago), and people have sustained
themselves since then. His meticulous analysis of the pottery sequence and its conclusion
appears to have finalized the question of the first successful colonizers of the Central
Ryukyus. He concluded that people successfully colonized the Central Ryukyu Islands
approximately 6,500 years ago (Early 1 hypothesis).
However, recent archeological findings require further investigation into the firstsuccessful colonizers. Itoh (2011) suggested the Early 1 hypothesis because there was atemporary hiatus between 18,000 and 6,500 years ago. Recently, the hiatus seems to havebeen filled up, though still in a fragmented manner. One reason is that the beginning of thepottery culture was likely earlier than approximately 6,500 years ago. The other reason isthat the end of the hiatus period between ca. 18,000 and 10,000 years ago was also gradually
filled up by recent discoveries. In this paper, we call the hiatus previously thought from10,000 to 6,500 years ago as the later gap and from 18,000 to 10,000 years ago as the earlier
gap. We now examine these two gaps.
First, this study addresses the later gap. Sogo ground site pottery, approximately 7,800
years ago, was discovered as early as 2003, and the Minatogawa fissure site pottery, ca.
9,400–8,800 years ago, was recovered in 1998. However, at that time, since the belief that
finger-nailed pottery (Fig. 8, ca. 6,500 years ago, first recovered from Toguch-agaribaru<Fig. 9 > and Noguni Shellmidden group B Area) was the earliest pottery in the Central
Ryukyus, which was firmly established among the archeologists, these two cases were not

58South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

Fig. 8. Finger-nailed pottery(from Yomitan Village Board of Education).

Fig. 9. Toguchi-agaribaru site.

readily accepted by the specialists. A decade later, in 2009, Yamasaki et al. (2010) claimed
that they had found pottery dating around 9,000 years ago at the Tiiragama site. Soon after,
pottery dated ca. 9,600 years ago was discovered at the Sakitari cave site (Yamasaki 2015).
Although scholars did not readily accept these findings, several other sites yielded pottery
types dating before 6,500 years ago.
However, Itoh (2017) argued that several issues must be solved to accept the presenceof pottery types before 6,500 years ago. Itoh (2017) suggested that the following threecriteria must be met if we agree with the implied earlier dates: 1) data directly obtained frompottery themselves, such as the shape of pottery and decoration patterns, to establish theirstatus in the pottery chronology. 2) Stratigraphical data confirming the temporal sequenceof pottery types. 3) The affirmation of pottery types and their 14C dates. As of 2017, Itoh(2017) did not observe any sites, that yielded possible earlier pottery types, satisfied thesethree criteria. For example, Itoh (2017) doubts the association between pottery recoveredfrom Tiiragama and the dates obtained from shellfish. To him, the other sites that yielded
possible pre-6,500 years pottery also did not satisfy his criterion. According to Itoh (2017),
the only site that satisfied these three criteria was the Nakafu cave site on Okinoerabujima
Island. In this case, what Yamasaki and others thought of being older than the finger-nailed
pottery was recovered above the finger-nailed pottery layer, suggesting that finger-nailed
pottery was the oldest pottery in the region. Based on this piece of information, Itoh (2017)
believes that the earliest pottery is finger-nailed pottery and denies the existence of pottery
prior to finger-nailed pottery.
Contrary to Itoh’s (2017) belief, however, recently excavated sites have yielded datathat satisfy Itoh’s criteria. The most astonishing finding comes from the Shitabaru cavesite (Fig. 10) on Tokunoshima Island (Amagi Town Board of Education 2020). In 2015,
the site unearthed finger-nailed pottery from Layer II. Layer III contained a new type of
pottery, never known in academia. The 14C dates of wood charcoal were approximately 7,400
years ago. This type of pottery, called wave-patterned decoration (Fig. 11), was recovered
below finger-nailed pottery with reliable 14C dates and remarkable fine preservation. Thus,
Itoh’s (2017) criteria were met. Furthermore, Layer IV at this site yielded linear appliquetype pottery (Fig. 12). This pottery type is one of the earliest in mainland Japanese Jomon,
belonging to the Incipient Jomon (16,000–11,500 years ago). The linear applique-type

Takamiya: Nissology, Island Archaeology, and the Archaeology of Ryukyus (1)Fig. 10. Shitabaru cave site.

Fig. 11. Wave-pattern pottery recovered from
Shitabaru cave site.

Fig. 12. Linear-applique pottery recovered from
Shitabaru cave site (photo provided
Amagi Town Board of Education).

Fig. 13. Hango site.

Fig. 14. Finger-nailed pottery (right) and push andpull decoration (left) recovered from Hango
site (Photo provided by Shinzato, T).

59

Fig. 15. Yabuchi cave site.

pottery at the Shitabaru cave site was dated 13,800 years ago. Again, the data satisfy Itoh’s(2017) criteria. In addition, at the Hango site (Fig. 13), an unknown type of pottery (nowcalled push and pull decoration pottery) and possible finger-nailed pottery were dated
around 11,400–11,200 years ago (Fig. 14; Takamiya 2021). The Yabuchi cave site (Fig.
15) seems to reveal that a new type of pottery (wave pattern pottery) was unearthed below
finger-nailed pottery dating ca. 10,400–10,200 years ago (Fig. 16; Yokoo 2017). These
pieces of information strongly suggest that pottery types (humans) existed before 6,500
years ago (before Early 1).

60South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

Fig. 16. Wave pattern pottery recovered from Yabuchi cave site.

How could the earlier gap be explained? The Sakitari cave site (Fig. 4) on southern
Okinawajima Island provides some answers to this question. A series of excavations began
in 2009 (Fujita 2019, Yamasaki 2015). The site consists of three cultural layers. The
youngest layer dates from 16,000 to 14,000 years ago. This layer (Layer I) yielded a human
tooth and stone tools. The stone tools were quartz flake artifacts. The raw material wasavailable at approximately 30 km from the cave. The cave contains two other cultural layers,
Layer II, which dates between 23,000 and 20,000 years ago, and Layer III, which has notbeen excavated yet but is estimated to date around 36,000 years ago. It should be noted thatthe date of the earliest pottery almost coincides with the youngest date at the Sakitari cavesite.
Did Homo sapiens successfully colonize during Early 1, sometimes during the later
gap period (10,000–6,500 years ago), or sometime during the Paleolithic? Currently, we
do not have enough data to confirm or reject any of the hypotheses. We can state that thecultural hiatus period between 18,000 and 6,500 years ago gradually filled up. In the future,archeological sites dating to this period will likely be discovered. However, even if any ofthese three hypotheses correctly indicates the date of the initial successful colonization of
the Central Ryukyus, recent data still suggest that the population history of this region is notstraightforward. That is, the islands were likely recolonized by the southern Kyushu people
around 1,000 years ago.

The origin of the modern Amami and Okinawa population
One of my research themes is the beginning of agriculture in this region. Until three
decades ago, there was almost no clue as to when the transition from hunting and gathering
to agriculture took place. The introduction of flotation has revealed that agriculture began
rather abruptly, from eighth to twelfth centuries in the Amami Archipelago and tenth totwelfth centuries in the Okinawa Archipelago (Takamiya 2021). Why did agriculture begin
so abruptly? Physical anthropological and linguistic data appear to provide an answer to thisquestion.
Physical anthropologists noted acute differences between the Shellmidden and Gusuku
populations. In short, the Shellmidden people are characterized by being short, fragile, andTakamiya: Nissology, Island Archaeology, and the Archaeology of Ryukyus (1)61Fig. 17. The result of non-metric analysis (after Dodo 1993).
Kanto
Edo
KyushuTohokuMuromachi
Kamakura
Kofun
Yayoi
Sakishima

Tokunoshima
Okinawa
Yoro

Gyokusendo
Kume
Ainu
Jomon

Fig. 18. The result of metric analysis (after Pietrusewsky 1999).

brachycephaly (round-headed). On the other hand, the Gusuku people are tall, robust, anddolichocephaly (long-headed, Asato and Doi 2012). The non-metric analysis conducted by
Dodo (1993; Fig. 17) demonstrates that the population from the Early Modern period, who
are direct descendants of the Gusuku people, and direct ancestors of the modern Amami andOkinawa people, belong to the group of Yayoi and their descendants. Pietrusewsky (1999,
Fig.18) carried out a metric analysis, and the result obtained by his approach supports
Dodo’s conclusion.
Linguists early on indicated that Japanese and Ryukyu dialects are related to eachother, although speakers of both dialects are unintelligible today. As early as 1894, BasilHall Chamberlain (in Kawamura 1999) indicated that when Japanese and Ryukyuan

62South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

Table 2. The relationship among the mainland Japanese and Ryukyu dialects (modified from Hattori 1998).
Tokyo

Kameyama
(Mie)

Kyoto

Shuri
(Okinawa)

MiyakoIshigaki

63

63

63

70

74

73

85

Miyako

59

59

59

79

73

72

Shuri

66

66

66

82

94

Yonamine

69

68

68

83

68

Yamatohama

68

68

Kyoto

92

96

Yamatohama Yonamine(Amami) (Okinawa)

After Hattori (1998)

are compared in detail, they are understood to be fundamentally related. Since then, many
comparative studies on phonological systems, grammatical systems, vocabulary, and otheraspects of these two dialects have been conducted. These studies have demonstrated a close
relationship between these dialects.
For example, Hokama (1975), who studied the grammar and vocabulary of thesetwo dialects, concluded that his analysis clearly indicates a close relationship between the
two. Hattori (1998, originally 1959) examined the basic vocabulary (200 vocabularies)of three dialects from mainland Japan (Tokyo, Kyoto, Mie) and five from Ryukyu (Amami
Oshima, two from Okinawajima, Miyakojima, and Ishigakijima). His analysis indicatesthat the former three are closely related, and so are the latter four. While the former andlatter indicate some distance between the two, Hattori (1998) concluded that Japanese andOkinawa dialects are related (Table 2). Hattori (1998) also considered the divergence timeof these two dialects based on glottochronology, which was thought to be the most advanced
linguistic approach at that time. The result suggested that the divergence date between thetwo dialects was 500 AD. While this approach was criticized afterward, linguists agreed
that these two dialects diverged between the second/third and the sixth/seventh century AD(Hokama 1975). Abrupt beginning of agriculture, physical anthropological, and linguistic
data suggested Takamiya (2005) that the beginning of agriculture was rationally explainedby the migration of people to the Central Ryukyus from Kyushu. The migrants were tall,robust, and longheaded, spoke language which had been diverged from Japanese and later
became Ryukyu dialects, and agriculturalists (most likely southern Kyushu, Takamiya
2005).
Thus, the following question emerges: The date of agriculture beginning in Central
Ryukyu was approximately 1,000 years ago. However, the suggested dates of the Japaneseand Ryukyuan dialects diverge prior to the eighth century AD. There has been a gap between
these estimates for more than 200 years. How can this be explained? As a non-linguist,
I speculated that while they diverged before the eighth century AD, the proto-Ryukyuan
remained in southern Kyushu for several hundred years (Takamiya 2005). This explanation
is what linguists call the principle of marginal distribution (Saitoh 2010).
Recently, Pellard (2012, 2015), a linguist, analyzed and compared Japanese (including

Takamiya: Nissology, Island Archaeology, and the Archaeology of Ryukyus (1)63ancient Japanese) and Ryukyu dialects on phonemes, phonological change, grammar, andloan words. He reached two important conclusions. First, Japanese and Ryukyu dialects
diverged before the eighth century, which many linguists have suggested. Unlike many
linguists, he distinguishes between the timing of divergence and the timing of diffusion.
He argues that while two dialects diverged prior to the eighth century, the proto-Ryukyuan
remained in southern Kyushu. Second, and more importantly to the present paper, Ryukyu
dialects spread from southern Kyushu to the islands ca. 1,000 years ago by agriculturalists.
Furthermore, this colonization of the agriculturalists was “not achieved by different wavesof migration at different periods and from different places, but probably by one or a few
moves from a single area, and within a rather narrow time frame” (Pellard 2015: 25). He
further stresses that these farming populations replaced the hunter-gatherer-fishers who lived
there during the Shellmidden period.
As early as 1994, Hudson (1994) suggested that the origin of the Ryukyuan dialects
was due to colonization by people from mainland Japan. Since then, linguistic, physicalanthropological, and archeological data have accumulated, which supports his suggestion.
Genetic data have accumulated in the last two decades in addition to linguistic, physicalanthropological, and archeological data (Jarosz et al. in press, Robbeets et al. 2021).
Shinoda (2018) analyzed mitochondrial DNA in human bones recovered from the Central
Ryukyus and southern Kyushu populations. Haplotype D, which is absent in the Jomon
population but present among the Yayoi and the feature of the Yayoi, has been sporadicallyfound among the Late Shellmidden populations. This indicates that mainland Yayoi
occasionally visited Okinawa, and some of them stayed (or died) there. While haplotype
D is a minority among the analyzed Shellmidden population, it increases to almost 40%
among the Gusuku people on Kikaijima Island. This percentage is almost identical to that of
the modern Central Ryukyu population. An indistinguishable result was obtained from theMedieval population of Miyazaki Prefecture, southern Kyushu. Shinoda (2018) reported
that the appearance of haplotype D in the Central Ryukyus was due to the colonization ofpeople from southern Kyushu.
In addition, the Y chromosome analysis conducted by Sakitani (2008) also supports
Shinoda’s (2018) conclusion. Based on the Y chromosome, the Central Ryukyu populationis characterized by haplotypes D2, O2b, and O3. Among them, haplotype D2 originatedfrom the Kyushu Jomon. In contrast, haplotypes O2b and O3 were introduced from thecontinent after Yayoi. Sakitani (2008) believed that the latter two haplotypes expanded to
the Central Ryukyus prior to or during the Gusuku period.
Saitoh (2017) applied nuclear DNA analysis to the Japanese population, including the
Ryukyu population. He estimated when mainland Japanese DNA began to be brought into
the Ryukyu population based on the analysis. According to him, it began 43–44 generations
ago. Assuming one generation was 25 to 30 years, it must have started 1,075 to 1,320 years
ago. This timing is almost the same as at the beginning of agriculture in this region (Takamiya
2021). Thus, genetic data also suggest an inflow of people from most likely southern
Kyushu.
Linguistic, physical anthropological, and genetic data are also supported by recent

64South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

archeological data. One of this century’s most impressive archeological discoveries camefrom the Gusuku Site Group on Kikaijima Island. The site consists of eight sites withmore than 150,000 m2, the largest site among the contemporaneous sites in the Ryukyu
Archipelago. The site dates between the ninth and the first half of the eleventh (period I),
between the second half of the eleventh and the first half of the twelfth (period II), andbetween the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries (period III), with the most prosperous period
being period II. In addition to its astonishing size, extraordinary archeological data obtained
from the site brought heated debates about Japanese expansion among scholars.
The following was known before the Gusuku Site Group was excavated. That is,contemporaneous sites in the Amami Archipelago are associated with local pottery, known
as the Kaneku-type pottery. However, strangely enough, Kikaijima Island yielded no
Kaneku-type pottery, but mainland Japanese pottery, such as Sue and Haji (Ikehata 2007).
The large-scale excavation was then conducted at the Gusuku Site Group for the first time.
The artifacts recovered were phenomenal. They were mainly brought to the island from theoutside. They include Kamuiyaki (gray stoneware), Chinese white porcelain, and soapstonecauldrons. Kamuiyaki was produced at the Kamuiyaki kiln site located on TokunoshimaIsland. While the island is located within the Central Ryukyus (or more precisely within
the Amami Archipelago), Kamuiyaki was produced by non-native Shellmidden people. The
manufacturing techniques for producing Kamuiyaki are not based on traditional pottery
making in Kaneku but Korean and mainland Japanese. The products were exported to
Kikaijima Island. Soapstone is available in Nagasaki Prefecture. Chinese white porcelain
and soapstone cauldrons were probably brought from Hakata, the largest merchant city intoday’s Fukuoka. They were then exported to the Gusuku Site Group.
Moreover, numerous foreign exotic artifacts were unearthed from the site. These
include Yue-zhou-yao celadon, Korean unglazed earthenware, bellows tuyere, iron residue,
Early Goryeo celadon, and iron tools. Some of these artifacts, such as Early Goryeo celadon,
are associated with elites in Hakata and Dazaifu. The former was one of the major ports
tied between Japan and Asia, and the latter was the administrative center for the imperial
court to govern Kyushu. Nakajima (2007), who works for the Dazaifu Board of Education,states that the artifacts recovered from the Gusuku Site Group are comparable with thoseunearthed from Dazaifu.
In addition to the artifacts recovered from the site, the site also yielded extraordinaryfeatures. For example, Sumida and Nozaki (2007) reported that the site unearthed 1,650–
4,000 postholes, about 40 burial pits including interment burials, secondary burials andcremations, numerous hearths, more than 20 iron manufacturing– and blacksmith–related
features, and a stone paving feature. Almost all of them were unknown in the Amami
Archipelago (or in the entire Ryukyu Archipelago) prior to the advent of the Gusuku
Site Group. Sumida (2014) suggests that the site is the largest Medieval Age site in theentire Ryukyu Archipelago. Large-scale structures were also discovered. One of them
was approximately 3.6 m × 5.5 m. Because this structure was further surrounded by 33
postholes, which are interpreted as eaves, the size of the structure itself is much larger than 3.6
m × 5.5 m (Fig. 19).

Takamiya: Nissology, Island Archaeology, and the Archaeology of Ryukyus (1)65Fig. 19. A large house structure found at Gusuku Group Site (phot provided by Kikai Town Board of Education).

Based on these observations, some scholars have suggested that the Gusuku Site Group
must have been the base camp or administrative institution for the Japanese (Suzuki 2007).
While the final report of the excavations at the site concludes that available data do notsuggest that the site was the base camp or administrative institution for the Japanese, thesociety was stratified and functioned as the major center of the trade between Kyushu andthe Central and Southern Ryukyus (Kikai Town Board of Education 2015).
The series of excavations conducted at the Gusuku Site Group strongly indicate thatthe mainland Japanese were not sporadically living on the island but intensively occupied
the island. While the most prosperous period at the site was period II, archeological datasuggest that the mainland Japanese population visited and lived on the island during period I(the 9th to early 11th century). While only one well-preserved osteological data was obtained
from the site, according to Takenaka (2016), this female individual does not look likethe typical Shellmidden or Gusuku population, suggesting an inflow of Japanese genes.
In addition, one of the Gusuku Site Groups yielded the earliest remain of cultigen dating

66

South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

to the eighth century AD (Takamiya and Chida 2014). Since recovered artifacts from thesite dating to period I show they were not traditional but related to Japanese origin, thedata obtained from the Gusuku Site Group strongly support the hypothesis that around
1,000 years ago, people who spoke the Ryukyu dialects (or ancestors of the dialects), werecharacterized as tall, robust, and long-headed, and were agriculturalists colonized theislands. Since artifacts recovered from the Gusuku Site Group were also recovered on manyislands in Central and Southern Ryukyus (although in small quantity compared with the
Gusuku Site Group), including the Okinawa Archipelago and the Southern Ryukyus islands,
these colonizers headed from the Amami Archipelago to further south. They became theancestors of the modern Amami and Okinawa populations.

Summary and Conclusions
Homo sapiens occupied Central Ryukyus during the Paleolithic period. Furthermore,
we have shown the presence of Homo sapiens prior to 10,000 years ago, not only in Central
Ryukyus but also in Northern and Southern Ryukyus. On the other hand, it is overwhelming
to know that in the rest of the world, only ten to 15 (at the most 20) islands witnessed theappearance of Homo sapiens. Several factors were discussed, such as difficulty in population
maintenance in the newly discovered island, as to why it was a formidable challenge for
Homo sapiens to colonize an island during the Paleolithic or before10,000 years ago.
Were the Homo sapiens who settled in Central Ryukyus during the Paleolithic period
initially successful colonizers of the islands? Almost three decades ago, based on population
reconstruction, it was hypothesized that the first successful colonizers were the “Early4”(between the late Early 3 and Early 4) people, but not the Paleolithic people. The “Early
4” hypothesis was challenged by analyzing the Shellmidden pottery types, and this new
analysis denied the “Early 4” hypothesis and proposed the Early 1 hypothesis instead.
When the Early 1 hypothesis was proposed, it was considered decisive since noarcheological site was known dating between 18,000 and 6,500 years ago. However, werecently uncovered sites dating back to the hiatus period. The appearance of pottery culture
dates back to approximately 14,000 years ago. At the same time, the latest date of the
Paleolithic descended approximately 14,000 years ago. Did the first successful colonization
occur at the beginning of the Paleolithic, the appearance of the first pottery culture, or about
6,500 years ago, when many archeologists traditionally traced the emergence of the earliest
pottery culture? More data are needed to confirm when Homo sapiens first successfullycolonized Central Ryukyus.
Even if the issue of the first successful colonizers of the islands is solved, they
appear not to be the ancestors of the modern Amami and Okinawa populations. Recent
archeological, physical anthropological, genetic, and linguistic data strongly suggest
population discontinuity between the Shellmidden and Gusuku periods. These data
demonstrate the inflow of farmers between the Late Shellmidden and initial Gusuku periods.
Several lines of evidence strongly suggest that these migrant populations were the direct
ancestors of the modern Amami and Okinawa populations.

Takamiya: Nissology, Island Archaeology, and the Archaeology of Ryukyus (1)67

How does this information contribute to nissology? Most research in nissology lacksa scientific approach to the past. For example, only one article dealing with prehistory
has been published in South Pacific Studies in the last decade. Other major island-related
journals, the Journal of Island Studies, included no articles that dealt with the deep past.
Furthermore, Kakazu’s introductory book of Nissology (2019) explains the issues of
economy, culture, tourism, and other aspects of the present-day islands, but not prehistory.
The readers of Kakazu’s book on nissology might be astonished by the fact that only
ten to 20 (at the most) islands in the world were occupied by Homo sapiens before 10,000
years ago. Furthermore, these readers might be surprised to learn that almost half of them
are in the Ryukyu Archipelago. Today’s Central Ryukyu people, who are major players in,for example, economy, politics, culture, and tourism, have not emerged from a vacuum.
They are descendants of a complicated population history in this region. Many islands in theworld may also have a complex population history before modern people played an active
part in their islands.
How do prehistoric data from the Central Ryukyus contribute to island archeology
around the world? As discussed earlier, archeological data are mostly presented on islands in
the Mediterranean, Oceania, Caribbean, and California Channel. Comparison and contrast ofdata from these regions sometimes produced several theories. One of them is that it would
have been difficult for hunter-gatherer Paleolithic people to settle down on islands before
the advent of agriculture. The fact that only a handful of islands in the world were occupied
10,000 years ago or earlier strongly supports this theory.
However, at least eight islands in the Ryukyu Archipelago were colonized during the
Paleolithic period. The presence of Homo sapiens on these islands further suggests the highnavigation skills of the Paleolithic people in this region. While we do not have adequate dataon how these hunter-gatherers survived on the islands, elucidating their strategies (including
subsistence) to adapt to the island environment during the Paleolithic period will provide a
new aspect not only to island archeology but also to world archeology. Thus, the data fromthis region enrich and contribute greatly to the world of island archeology.

Acknowledgment
A. Shinzato provided the original figure in Figure 1. Figures 9, 12, and 19 were
provided by the Yomitan Village Board of Education, Amagi Town Board of Education, andKikai Town Board of Education. The photograph in Figure 14 was taken by T. Shinzato.
I am grateful for their kindness. This study was partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid for
Scientific Research on Innovative Areas (grant # 21101005), a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research (A) (grant # 21H04362), and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (grant #18K01068), Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.

68South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

References
Amagi Town Board of Education. 2020. Shitabaru Doketsu Iseki/Komoryo Iseki(Shitabaru Cave Site/Komoryo Site). Amagi Town Board of Education, Amagi Town,
Japan (in Japanese).
Asato, S. 2012. Okinawa Kokogakushi Tanbo (Exploring the History of Okinawa
Archaeology). 330 pp., Okinawa Sangoshobunka Kenkyujo, Okinawa City, Japan (inJapanese).
Asato, S. and Doi. N. 2012. Okinawa jin wa Dokokara Kitaka: Ryukyu=Okinawa jin
no Kigen to Seiritsu (Where did the Okinawan People Come from? The Origin andFormation of Ryukyu=Okinawa People). Boda-Ink, Naha, Japan (in Japanese).
Broodbank, C. 2000. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. 414 pp., Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, USA.
Cherry, J. 1981. Pattern and Processes in the Earliest Colonization of the Mediterranean
Islands. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 47: 41-68.
Dodo, Y. 1993. Ainu to Ryukyu jin wa (Ainu and Ryukyu People). Asahi Wan Pointo
Magajin, 14: 73-84 (in Japanese).
Fitzpatrick, M. S. 2003. Seafaring Capabilities in the Pre-Columbian Caribbean. Journal of
Maritime Archaeology, 8: 101-138.
Fujita, M. 2019. Minami no Shima no Yoku Kani Kuu Kyusekkijin (The Paleolithic People
who Habitually Consumed Crabs). Iwanami Kagaku Raiburari, Tokyo, Japan (inJapanese).
Hattori, S. 1998. Nihongo no Keifu (The Genealogy of Japanese Language). Iwanami
Shoten, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese).
Hokama, S. 1975. Okinawa no Gengo to sono Rekishi (On the Okinawan Dialects and their
History). In: Iwanami-koza Nihongo 11 Hogen (Eds. Ono, S. and Shibata, T.), 181233, Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese).
Hudson, M. 1994. The Linguistic Prehistory of Japan: Some Archaeological Perspective.
Anthropological Science, 102 (3): 231-266.
Hunt, T. and Lipo, C. 2012. The Statues that Walked: Unraveling the Mystery of Easter
Island. 256 pp., Free Press, New York, USA.
Ikehata, K. 2007. Kodai/Chusei no Kagoshima to Kikaijima (Kagoshima and Kikaijima
Island during the Ancient and Medieval Ages). Higashi Ajia no Kodai Bunka, 130:109-117 (in Japanese).
Intoh, M. (ed.) 2013. Jinrui no Ido-shi (History of Human Dispersals). 371 pp., Rinsen
shoten, Kyoto, Japan (in Japanese).
Itoh, S. 2011. Senshi Ryukyu Shakai no Dankaitekihatten to Sonoyoin: Kaizuka-jidai Zen
I-Kikasetsu (Gradual Development of the Prehistoric Ryukyu Societies and Its cause:
The Shellmidden Early I Hypothesis). In: Senshi/Genshijidai no Ryukyu Retto-Hito
to Keikan (Eds. Takamiya, H. and Itoh, S.), 43-60. RokuichiShobo, Tokyo, Japan (inJapanese).
Itoh, S. 2017. Kaizuka Jidai Zen 1 ki Saiko Dankai no Doki Hennen no Ronten to Kadai (TheTakamiya: Nissology, Island Archaeology, and the Archaeology of Ryukyus (1)69

Arguments and Some Issues to be Solved for the Pottery Chronology of the Earliest
Stage of Shellmidden Period Early 1). In: 2007 Nendo Okinawa Kokogakkai Kenkyu
Happyoukai (Ed. Okinawa Koko Gakkai), 73-77, Okinawa Koko Gakkai, Nishihara
Town, Japan (in Japanese).
Jarosz, A., Hudson, M, Robbeets, M., Fernandes, R., Shinzato, A., Nakamura, N.,
Shinoto, M., and Takamiya, H. In press. Demography, Trade and State Power: A
Tripartite Model of Medieval Farming/Language Dispersals in the Ryukyu Islands.
Evolutionary Human Societies.
Kakazu, H. 2019. Toushogaku (Nissology). 330pp., Kokinshoin, Tokyo, Japan (inJapanese).
Kawai, K., Terada, R. and Kuwahara, S. 2013. The Islands of Kagoshima: Culture,
Society, Industry and Nature. Kagoshima University Research Center for the PacificIslands, Kagoshima, Japan.
Kawamura, T. 1999. Nanpo Bunka no Tankyu (An Investigation into Southern Culture).
Kodan-sha, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese).
Kennett, D. J. 2005. The Island Chumash. 298 pp., University of California Press, Los
Angeles, USA.
Kikai Town Board of Education. 2015. Gusuku Iseki Gun: Sokatsu Houkokusho (Gusuku
Site Group: The Final Report). Kikai Town Board of Education, Kikai Town, Japan (inJapanese).
Kirch, V. P. 1984. The Evolution of the Polyneisan Chiefdoms. 314 pp., Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Keegan, W. F. and Diamond, J. 1987. Colonization of Islands by Humans: A
Biogeographical Perspective. In: Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory (Ed.
Schiffer, M.), 49-92, Academic Press, New York, USA.
Keegan, W. F. and C. L. Hofman 2017. The Caribbean before Columbus. 332 pp., Oxford
University Press, Oxford, UK.
Knapp, A. B. 2013. The Archaeology of Cyprus. 639 pp., Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
McArthur, N., Saundars, I. W., and Tweedie R. L. 1976. Small Population Isolates: A
Micro-simulation Study. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 85(3): 307-326.
Nakajima, K. 2007. Dazaifu kara mita Kikaijima (Kikaijima Island as Seen from theDazaifu). Higashi Ajia no Kodai Bunka, 130: 89-95 (in Japanese).
O'Connor, S., Ono, R., and Clarcson, C. 2011. Pelagic Fishing at 42,000 Years Before
the Present and the Maritime Skills of Modern Humans. Science, 334(6059): 11171121.
Ono, R. 2017. Umi no Jinruishi (History of Humanity at the Sea). 224 pp., Yuzan-kaku,
Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese).
Pearson, R. 2013. Ancient Ryukyu. 396 pp., University of Hawaii Press, Manoa, USA.
Pellard, T. 2012. Nichi-Ryu Sogo no Bunki Nendai (The Divergent Timing of the Japaneseand Ryukyu Dialects). In: Ryukyu Shogo to Kodai Nihongo ni Kansuru Hikaku
Gengogaku teki kenkyu (Ed. Ryukyu Shogo to Kodai Nihongo ni Kansuru Hikaku

70South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

Gengogaku teki kenkyu Workshop), 1-13, Kyoto University Workshop, Kyoto, Japan (inJapanese).
Pellard, T. 2015. The Linguistic Archaeology of the Ryukyu Islanders. In: Handbook of
the Ryukyuan Languages: History, Structure, and Use (Eds. Heinrich, P, Miyara, S.,
and Shimoji, M.), 13-37, De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, Germany.
Phoca-Cosmetatou, N. (Ed.) 2011. The First Mediterranean Islanders: Initial Occupationand Survival Strategies. 176 pp., Oxford School of Archaeology, Oxford, UK.
Pietrusewsky, M. 1999. A Multivariate Craniometric Study of the Inhabitants of the
Ryukyu Islands and Comparison with Cranial Series from Japan, Asia, and Pacific.
Anthropological Science, 107 (4): 255-281.
Rick T. C. and Earlandson J. M. (Eds.) 2008. Human Impacts on Ancient Marine
Ecosystems: A Global Perspective. 319 pp., University of California Press, Berkeley,
USA.
Robbeets, M., with other 41 contributors. 2021. Triangulation Supports Agriculture
Spread of the Transeurasian Languages. Nature. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/
rs.3.rs-255765/v1.
Saitoh, N. 2017. Kaku DNA de Tadoru Nihon Jin no Genryu (The Origins of the Japanese
Pursued by the Nuclear DNA). Kawaide Shobo Shinsha, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese).
Saitoh, S. 2010. Gengogaku Nyumon (Introduction to Linguistics). Sanseido, Tokyo, Japan(in Japanese).
Sakitani, M. 2008. DNA de Tadoru Nihonjin 10 Mannen no Tabi- Tayo na Hito/Gengo/
Bunka wa Dokokara Kitaka (Pursuing the Journey of the Japanese for the last 100,000
years using DNA: Where did the Diversity in People, Language, and Culture Comefrom?). Showa Do, Kyoto, Japan (in Japanese).
Shinoda. K. 2018. DNA Kara Mita Nanseishoto Shudan no Seiritsu (The Formation of theSouthwest Populations). In: Amami/Okinawa Senshigaku no Saizensen (Ed. Takamiya,H.), pp.69-84, Nanpo Shin Sha, Kagoshima, Japan (in Japanese).
Shinzato, T. 2014. Ryukyu Retto no Senshijidai Meisho to Jidai Kubun (Period Names andPeriod Divisions in the Prehistoric Ryukyu Archipelago). In: Ryukyu Retto Senshi/
Genshi Jidai no Kankyo to Bunka no Hensen (Eds. Shinzato, T. and Takamiya, H.),viii-xii, Rokuichi Shobo, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese).
Spriggs, M. 1997. The Island Melanesians. 326 pp., Blackwell, Cambridge, UK.
Steadman, D. W. 2006. Extinction and Biogeography of Tropical Pacific Birds. 594 pp.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.
Sumida, N. 2014. Kikaijima no Yoso (Some Aspects of the Kikaijima Island). In Ryukyu
Rettosenshi/Genshijidai no Kankyo to Bunka no Hensen (Eds. Takamiya, H. and T.
Shinzato), 171-180, Rokuichi Shobo, Tokyo (in Japanese).
Sumida, N. and Nozaki, T. 2007. Kikaijima Gusuku Isekigun no Chosa (Archaeological
Investigations at the Gusuku Site Group, Kikaijima Island). Higashi Ajia no Kodai
Bunka, 130: 46-52 (in Japanese).
Suzuki, H. 1982. Dentition of the Minatogawa Man. In: The Minatogawa Man: The Upper
Pleistocene Man from the Island of Okinawa (Eds. Suzuki, H. and K. Hanihara),

Takamiya: Nissology, Island Archaeology, and the Archaeology of Ryukyus (1)71

7-50, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Suzuki, Y. 2007. Kodai Kikaijima no Shakai to Rekishiteki Tenkai (The Social Organizationand Historical Development of Ancient Kikaijima Island). Higashi Ajia no Kodai
Bunka, 130: 20-45 (in Japanese).
Takamiya, H. 1993. Senshi Jidai no Okinawa Honto ni okeru Hito no Tekio Katei (Adaptation
Processes of Homo sapiens to Prehistoric Okinawajima Island). Kobunka Danso, 30:
1089-1107 (in Japanese).
Takamiya, H. 1998. Gendai Okinawa-jin no Kigen (The Origin of the Modern Okinawans).
Hikakubunka-ronso, 1: 55-79 (in Japanese).
Takamiya, H. 2005. Shima no Senshigaku (Prehistory of the Okinawa Islands). 227 pp.,
Boda-Ink., Naha, Japan (in Japanese).
Takamiya, H. 2021. Kiseki no Shima jima no Senshigaku: Ryukyu Retto no Tosho Bunmei(The Miraculous Prehistory of the Ryukyu Archipelago). 336 pp., Boda-Ink., Naha,Japan (in Japanese).
Takamiya, H. and Chida, H. 2014. Ryukyu Retto Senshi/Genshi Jidai ni okeru Shokubutsu
Shoku Riyou-Amami Okinawa Shoto wo Chushin ni (Plant Foods during Prehistoricand Protohistoric Periods in the Ryukyu Archipelagos: Focusing on the Amami andOkinawa Archipelagos). In: Ryukyu Retto Senshi/Genshi Jidai no Kankyo to Bunka no
Hensen (Eds. Takamiya, H. and Shinzato, T.), 127-142, Rokuichi Shobo, Tokyo, Japan(in Japanese).
Takamiya, H., Katagiri, C., Yamasaki, S. and Fujita M. 2019. Human Colonization of theCentral Ryukyus (Amami and Okinawa Archipelagos), Japan. The Journal of Island
and Coastal Archaeology, 14(3): 375-393.
Takenaka, M. 2011. Kikaijima Gusuku Isekigun Maehata Iseki Dokobo 7 go oyobi 8 go
Shutsudo no Jinkotsu (On Human Skeletal Remains Recovered from No. 7 and No. 8
Burial Pits). Gusuku Isekigun Maehata Iseki/ Kohane Iseki (Ed. Kikai Town Board of
Education), 160-163, Kikai Board of Education, Kikai Town, Japan (in Japanese).
Tsutsumi, T. 2004. Kokuyo-seki 3 Mannen no Tabi (The Journey of Obsidian in the Past
30,000 Years). 236 pp., NHK books, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese).
Wobst, M. H. 1974. Boundary Conditions for Paleolithic Social Systems: A Simulation
Approach. American Antiquity, 39 (2): 147-178.
Yamasaki, S. 2015a. Shima ni Ikita Kyusekkijin: Okinawa no Doketsu Iseki to Jinkotsu
Kaseki (Paleolithic People who Lived on the Islands: The Cave Sites in Okinawa andHuman Fossil Remains). Shinsensha, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese).
Yamasaki, S. 2015b. Okinawa Senshi Bunka Kigen ron wo meguru Kin-nen no Doko to
Kadai (The Tendencies and Issues on the Origin of the Okinawan Prehistoric Culture).
Nanto-koko 34: 5-18 (in Japanese).
Yamasaki, S., Yokoo, M., and Ohoshiro, H. 2010. A Report on Archaeological Materials
Discovered at the Ufu-niku-Gama (cave) Site. 2010. Nanto-Koko, 113-128 (inJapanese).
Yokoo, M. 2017. Yabuchi doketsu Iseki Hakkutsu Chosa Sokuho (A Preliminary Report on
the Excavation of the Yabuch cave site). In: 2007 nendo Okinawa Kokogakkai Kenkyu

72South Pacific Studies Vol.42, No.1, 2 2021-2022

Happyoukai (Ed. Okinawa Koko Gakkai), 53-62, Okinawa Koko Gakkai, Nishihara
Town, Japan (in Japanese).