Middle Jomon Pottery Chronology in Kanto

Introduction

Pottery Types in Jomon Archaeology

In pottery typology studies, Japanese archaeologists begin with "stratigraphy" -- they attempt to isolate at the time of excavation all the pots and potsherds that are the debris of a single face-to-face community. Through minute analysis of vertical and horizontal stratigraphy, they then set about determining the sequence of these point-in-time pottery assemblages. The next step is to describe each assemblage in detail. The final step is to look for any unique traits, motifs, and clusters of traits and/or motifs that define this point-in-time pottery assemblage. The archaeologists give these types within-site names, such as "III-a-1", meaning type III, subtype a, sub-subtype 1 (which generally is assumed to temporally precede Type III-a-2 in the same system).

Good reports will then compare these within-site types to the types in the standard sequences, using statements like: "Type III is Katsuzaka pottery, subtype III-a is Katsuzaka I, and sub-subtype III-a-1 is early Katsuzaka I; Type III-a-2 is middle Katsuzaka I," and so on. Reports that do not give the relationships to the standard names are effectively useless to most other archaeologists.

There is a problem with Japanese pottery typology, however -- disagreement on the definition of the types. What one archaeologist calls Kasori E-x another calls Kasori E-y. Kuroo, Kobayashi and Nakayama (1995) have provided a rare chart showing the relationships among different views of the Kanto Middle Jomon pottery types.

Chronologies in Japanese Archaeology

1. The last roughly thorough summary of Jomon dates was published in 1982 (Keally & Muto 1982). Even at that time, the number of dates available for the Jomon period was small, and I see no indication that the number has increased nearly as much as the 17 years since then would suggest it should have.
2. There seems to be no awareness of the difference in the half-life 5730 and 5563 years (although the existing dates are so few and so rough that the difference is hardly significant at this point).
3. The use of calibrated dates is effectively unheard of in Japan, and most archaeologists do not seem to know what "calibrated date" means.
4. Dates published in excavation reports generally are simply appended. Some reports give no hint of the cultural association of the dates; others bury the information in the fine print of the lengthy text. I have never seen a report that truly integrated the dates into the interpretation of the site.
5. Some archaeologists seem to think AMS dates give older ages than standard techniques; others appear to think AMS gives younger ages. No archaeologists seem to understand clearly that AMS simply gives more accurate dates with less material.
6. Most archaeologists seem to have trouble understanding the meaning of the plus-minus standard error given with most dates.
7. Lab numbers and citations are frequently not given for dates, making it difficult to confirm them.
8. Most archaeologists compare radiocarbon dates to obsidian hydration dates, fission-track dates, thermoluminescence dates, and calibrated radiocarbon dates, as if they were not aware that these are all different systems with different sources of error.

Suzuki (1974) uses the symbols NKJ (North Kanto Jomon), SKJ (South Kanto Jomon), and II (Izu Islands) like lab nos. for the dates. Keally and Muto (1982) give the full information on these dates.

References

• Keally, Charles T., and Muto Yasuhiro. (1982). Jomon Jidai no Nendai (Jomon Period Dates). In Jomon Bunka no Kenkyu, I, Jomon-jin to sono Kankyo (Research into the Jomon Culture, vol. 1, The Jomon People and Their Environment), ed. Kato Shimpei, Kobayashi Tatsuo, and Fujimoto Tsuyoshi. Tokyo: Yuzankaku, pp. 246-275.

• Kidder, J. Edward, Jr. (1968). Prehistoric Japanese Arts: Jomon Pottery. Tokyo: Kodansha International.

• Kobayashi, Tatsuo, and Ogawa Tadahiro. (1988a). Jomon Doki Daikan, vol. 2, Chuki I (Jomon Pottery, vol. 2, Middle Jomon I). Tokyo: Shogakukan.

• Kobayashi, Tatsuo, and Ogawa Tadahiro. (1988b). Jomon Doki Daikan, 3, Chuki II (Jomon Pottery, vol. 3, Middle Jomon II). Tokyo: Shogakukan.

• Kuroo, Kazuhisa. (1995). Jomon Chuki Shuraku Iseki no Kisoteki Kento (I) -- Jikanjiki no Settei to sono Kangaekata ni tsuite (Basic Examination of Middle Jomon Settlement Sites [I] -- Establishing Temporal Vectors and the Thinking Behind Them). Ronshu Utsukidai (Utsukidai Discussion), 1:11-76. (published by Utsukidai Chiku Kokogaku Kenkyukai)

• Kuroo, Kazuhisa, Kobayashi Ken'ichi, and Nakayama Shinji. (1995). Tama Kyuryo-Musashino Daichi o Chushin to Shita Jomon Jidai Chuki no Jiki Settai (Defining Phases for Middle Jomon in the Tama Hills and Musashino Upland). Shinpojiumu Jomon Chuki Shuraku Kenkyu no Shinchihei -- Happyo Yoshi-Shiryo (Symposium New Horizons in the Study of Middle Jomon Settlements -- Papers and Materials). Tokyo: Jomon Chuki Shuraku Kenkyu Gurupu & Utsukidai Chiku Kokogaku Kenkyukai (Middle Jomon Settlements Research Group & Utsukidai Area Archaeological Research Society), pp. 1-21.

• Suzuki, Masao. (1974). Chronology of Prehistoric Human Activity in Kanto, Japan, Part II -- Time-Space Analysis of Obsidian Trnasportation. Journal of the Faculty of Science, The University of Tokyo, Sec. V,, Vol. IV, Part 4, pp. 395-469.

• Suzuki, Masao. (1975). Kokuyoseki Bunseki (Obsidian Analysis). Nakazanya Iseki (The Nakazanya Site). ICU Archaeology Research Center Occasional Papers, No. 1.

• Suzuki, Masao. (1977). Goryogadai Iseki (Hiratsuka-shi) no Kokuyouseki no Bunseki (Analysis of Obsidian from the Goryogadai Site, Hiratsuka City). Shizen to Bunka (Nature and Culture). Hiratsuka-shi Hakubutsukan Shiryo 8-go (Hiratsuka City Museum, Materials no. 8).