Taxonomic study of
prehistoric pottery in Japan
- Sugao Yamanouchi and the Japanese archaeology -− Kimio Suzuki −
Foundation of Yamanouchi's study of prehistoryThe greatest achievement of the prehistory study by Sugao Yamanouchi was the establishment of chronological system for Japan's prehistory, based on the close examination and classification of the Jomon pottery. In a study to clarify the chronological change or development of phenomena, such as archaeology or prehistory, it is essential to have an chronological order. The Japanese archeologists began to recognize the need to establish the chronological order from the late Taisho to the early Showa period, which was also the period when the scientific archaeology took root in Japan.
It was already known in the Meiji Period that the Jomon pottery found in various parts of the Japanese Archipelago was not monolithic but differed in various ways. However, interpretations varied as to the reason for such difference, some attributed to the chronological difference, to localities, while others to the difference in the cultural or ethnological system. Amid the flood of various theories, Yamanouchi aimed to establish a chronological order based on a new method.
- "The various differences among all the Jomon pottery are the mixed results of locality and chronological differences. We do not see themselves as showing the true picture of the Jomon pottery. Let us stop citing one pottery after another for now. Instead, let us set up a chronological unit by which to show the locality and chronological difference - we call this a model - and organize it locally and chronologically in order to knit up a model system. This new standard will enable us to traverse the subject, such as the manufacture, style and decoration, and chronicle the transition of the pottery. - (omitted) - This standard is not only related to the research on the pottery itself. There are many artifacts other than the Jomon pottery that also show they underwent many changes, ups and downs. - (omitted) - The classification of the pottery served as the base in shedding lights on the transition of such other artifacts, which would have not been possible simply by listing such artifacts or their transitions. - (omitted) - The development of the Jomon pottery culture can be clarified by the following process and method ムfirst, classify the pottery by form, group them by period and locality, chronicle the pottery itself based on the classification and grouping, compile chronological and distributive data for each cultural item thus listed up, and review them ("Ancient culture of Japan." Truth of Jomon Pottery Culture).
As seen in the foregoing, establishing the chronological system based on the form of the pottery formed the central part of Yamanouchi's prehistoric research. As the basis for the chronological system, Yamanouchi provided two concepts: form and genealogy. "Form" refers to "Group of pottery of certain form and decoration, with distinctive features. Some distinctive features may be enough as the contents of form in the beginning, as full contents may be shown later when sufficient materials become available ("Jomon Pottery/Introduction." Jomon Pottery classified by period and region). Therefore, "In identifying the form of pottery, correctness can be assured only by comparing with original specimens and consulting specialists, as taxonomists do when deciding species (Classification and grouping of Jomon pottery by form). Thus, the "form" set up as a basic unit of the chronological system becomes one of the standard criteria to show the chronological unit specifically.
Fig.1 The first draft of chronological system of Jomon
pottery style that Sugao Yamanouchi had been trying to complete all his life (1936)
Whereas, in classification, the form is given the concept similar to that of "species," "genealogy" is conceived as indices in finding chronological and spatial relationships between various forms. This concept, which stems from pattern methodology of Hikoshichiro Matsumoto, as Yamanouchi himself stated, is a key concept of Yamanouchi's pottery research, as is the concept of form. "Pottery research is partly comparable to morphology. So-called typology can be best compared to comparative anatomy. Similar form, identical form, and other concepts may be introduced. The pattern methodology mentioned here also has the same directions (principles) for materials, focus of observation and in establishing theories" ("Jomon Pottery/Introduction - V pattern methodology"). Yamanouchi formed this idea in the very early stage of his research, as clearly stated in his "Textile Pottery of North Kanto" published in 1929. It is also clear from "Distribution of Kamegaoka Pottery and end of Jomon Pottery" written in 1930 that emphasis was placed on the genealogy of pattern in tracing the changes in form of Kamegaoka pottery. It provided important foundations in determining that the Jomon period ended at about the same time at all parts of the country, without significant time lag from place to place.
As seen in the foregoing, Yamanouchi's principles for pottery research had strong effects from biology, especially taxonomy. In a sense, it gave Yamanouchi's methodology scientific and systematic backbone. This is well demonstrated in the chronological table of Jomon pottery based on the form and the pictorial book of prehistoric pottery developed by him. Yamanouchi publicized for the first time the chronological table (which he called chronological system at the time) of Jomon pottery form prepared in national-scale in 1936 when he had the well-known "Minerva controversy" with Sadakichi Kida (Fig.1). In this method, he divided the whole country of Japan into about ten areas and the Jomon period into five stages: Initial, Early, Middle, Late and Final, with each stage subdivided into four or five according to forms of pottery. This set the classification of forms and division of the period for the Jomon pottery that is still used today. He attempted to show in detail the forms of the pottery, which was the element of the chronological system thus set up, in the "Illustrative Guide to Japan's Prehistoric Pottery" published in 1939-1940. This book, containing 119 photographs and detailed explanation for the Jomon pottery unearthed mainly in the Kanto Area, is still used as standard reference regarding the forms of the Jomon pottery. It appears that Yamanouchi borrowed the idea from an anatomical atlas used in biology in preparing this pictorial book, taking into consideration the use for identifying, and retrieving information about, the forms of Jomon pottery (Fig.2).
Achievement of Yamanouchi's study of prehistory
Fig.2 One of the greatest works of Sugao Yamanouchi
"Illustrative Guide to Japan's Prehistoric Pottery" Vol. 1 (1939)Using the method noted in the foregoing (1), Yamanouchi outlined the archaeological chronicle of Japan as early as 1932-1932 in his study entitled "Japan's Prehistoric Culture." He divided the study into three sections: origin of the Jomon pottery, end of the Jomon pottery, and after the Jomon period; presenting noteworthy views in each section. Yamanouchi classified the Jomon pottery into four groups, No. 1 to No. 4, stated they evolved in that chronological order. He expressed the view that, though the No. 1 group, that they used sharpened pottery, is regarded the origin of the Jomon pottery, the existence of more ancient pottery cannot be ruled out, and that the relationship between the Jomon pottery and the Asian Continent would be clarified in the future.
His view on the end of Jomon pottery period and what followed is worth noting. After examining the latest pottery of the No. 4 Jomon group, namely those unearthed at Kamegaoka in the Tohoku Area, and the forms parallel to those, Yamanouchi stated "we can conclude that the Jomon pottery period ended just about the same time (in all areas of Japan) without much time lag between areas. Judging by the given specimens, the time lag between the Mikawa and Tohoku Regions would have been probably just one "pottery form" and that between the Kinki and Tohoku regions no more than two or three "forms" ("Japan's Prehistoric Culture" - End of Jomon Pottery). This theory, summary of which he had earlier stated in the "Distribution of Kamegaoka Pottery and end of Jomon Pottery" of 1930, came to be recognized officially. This view was challenged by Sadakichi Kida, who argued that the Jomon pottery continued until the Kamakura period, provoking the well-known "Minerva controversy." This controversy, which arose in 1936 as one of a few such cases in the Japanese archaeology, resulted in the reconfirmation and wider acceptance of the scientific rationality of Yamanouchi's chronological system. The thesis titled "Order of the Japanese Archaeology," presented in the first round of the debate, and another "Classification and grouping of Jomon pottery by form," written a year later, are very important source of information about Yamanouchi's pottery forms and chronological system based on them.
Another noteworthy point in the "Japan's Prehistorical Culture" is Yamanouchi's view on the northernmost Jomon culture. He made an important statement that separate cultural zones developed in Hokkaido and the rest of Japan (south of main islands) after the Jomon period.
- "Hokkaido belonged to the Jomon pottery cultural zone, as did the main islands of Japan. However, this area began to see transformation different from that of the main islands around the time when Iwaibe pottery began to be used in the Tohoku area. When the main islands fully entered the Iron Age, they continued to use stone tools in Hokkaido. They continued to use the pottery with features inherent to the Jomon period, albeit without Jomon cord-marking. Even when farming became the main way of life in the main islands, hunting and fishing of the Jomon period survived as mainstream lifestyle.
The Jomon pottery cultural zone thus divided into one in the main islands and the other in Hokkaido. But the cultures of the main islands were partially introduced to Hokkaido via frequent contacts between these contrasting cultural zones. - (omitted) - The contrast between the two cultural zones continued long, and Hokkaido underwent its own evolution. Over time, the use of stone tools and pottery and pit dwellings gradually disappeared. It was not until later days that we came to know that the master of that cultural zone was the Ainu" (Japan's Prehistoric Culture, Post-Jomon Period).
When Yamanouchi called the post-Jomon period cultural zone in Hokkaido as "Post-Jomon" in 1939, the concept of post-Jomon culture took hold. After World War II, Yamanouchi, who kept focusing on the relationship between the post Jomon culture and the Ainu, introduced his view to divide the post-Jomon period into the first stage that parallels to the Yayoi period of the main islands, and the second stage that corresponds to the Kofun period. Citing the fact that the Ebetsu pottery, assumed to have been used in the second stage, had been often unearthed in the northern half of the Tohoku Area, Yamanouchi said "the existence of Ebetsu pottery shows that this northern tip of the mainland probably belonged to the territory of the Ainu culture as did Hokkaido, and was confronting with the oldest, northernmost power of the Kofun culture that was heading north. On the other hand, the coexistence of the fracture of the Ebetsu pottery, as seen in Yamagata and Miyagi Prefectures, shows that the Ainu culture partially headed south. Some may disagree to attributing the Ebetsu pottery to the Ainu. However, it has become possible to define regions and ages far more clearly than before in the ethnologic study of Japan around the fifth century, due in part to the recent archaeological findings. It may be possible to endorse my assumption with evidences, such as archaeological sites in the northernmost Japan, the fact that Ainu words are used in the name of places, various views concerning the Ainu from the viewpoints of archaeological ethnogeny and history, etc. But I regret not being able to talk in detail yet (Latest study on Jomon period - Life and culture in Jomon period)."
Yamanouchi's apparent passion seen in the foregoing view, which contracts with the modesty backed up by scrutinizing inherent to his other views, puzzles us. As he touched on such subjects as linguistic geography, ethnology and bibliography, we feel more so. Yamanouchi had a profound interest throughout in that the Jomon cultural zone, which once was a solidity, divided into two parts, one of which developed the culture of the Historical Age Japan, and the other the Ainu race. What underlies his thought was probably his view of the physical features of the Jomon people. This viewpoint is attracting attention due to its relationship with the recent findings in the physical ethnology.
Great expanses of Yamanouchi's prehistoric study
The ultimate objectives of Yamanouchi's prehistoric study was not only the establishment of the chronological system but comparative study with the prehistory of the world.
- "To date, we have subdivided Japan's prehistory, with focus on the Jomon period, and established the chronological system, but that alone is nothing more than a fine work of building blocks. We should clarify the actual order of historical events by comparing the chronological system with those of the continents. Only then, Japan's prehistory will become a part of the world history. Our work develops into the study of prehistory in the context of the world history. (Latest study on Jomon period - Dividing Jomon culture by period).
Yamanouchi held this concern throughout from the prewar times, and often cited it in studies on the origin of the Jomon culture. Moreover, he had a thorough knowledge of the results of the prehistoric studies in Europe, Africa and America, which played an important part in his research on the decoration, especially the straw-rope pattern and the tools used, on the Jomon pottery. He also had great interest in comparative ethnology and anthropology. He examined the findings of comparative ethnological study of the American Indians, and used them as the basis in preparing the theses titled "Salmon trout thesis" and "On the population of Jomon period." Although he was unable to complete these theses in his lifetime, they are highly evaluated even today as unique theses on the Jomon culture. As noted, Yamanouchi made clear in the prewar years his intention of pursuing comprehensive researches of prehistory.
- "The Jomon people had been gathering food from the natural world for a long time. Farming began in the Yayoi Period but it coexisted with hunting, fishing and gathering as the Jomon Period. Farming became the main means of supporting life in the Kofun period due to the advance in the farming technology. It is interesting to note that economic relations changed in step with the archaeological cultural phases. Along with them, there must have been various changes in the social relationship and spiritual life which cannot be certified directly by remains. Though they became the subjects of many discussions, I do not want to debate on them in depth at present. The only thing I wish to say is that I want to identify the economic system at each historical period to that of the primitive race at present, thereby to make a base for the comprehensive study of the life in the past." (Origin of farming in Japan - conclusion.)
The foregoing passage shows that Yamanouchi aimed at making a broad-based comprehensive research, outside the boundary of prehistory of one country. It is quite remarkable that this view was presented as early as 1937. The stylization and chronology of Yamanouchi's prehistory was handed down to the present archaeology of Japan and enabled us to make a detailed chronological system. Regretfully, however, the succession of the above-mentioned viewpoints of Yamanouchi cannot be described as satisfactory. This was due in part to the fact that Yamanouchi's researches on these subjects were, in many cases, presented in unfinished forms. However, the great expanse of areas for prehistoric study which Yamanouchi tried to show is probably the most important thing to be inherited, in light of the present status of archeology in Japan.
