Research of the collection, classification and the chronology about the representational Haniwa in western Japan

1999年，我们确定了数据库卡的样式，收集了四国地区具有代表性的哈尼瓦；2000年，我们在中部地区的金州和奈良县的和歌山志贺收集了它们；2001年，我们在兵库和京都收集了它们；2002年，我们在大阪府收集了它们，并开始准备研究结果的报告。根据22个县的说法，作为在日本西部收集具有代表性的Haniwa的结果，我们在大约2000个地点确认了它们。他们是基于公开的数据，所以我们预计未来数字还会增加。特别是大阪府450个点和奈良县390个点，数量在日本西部地区是最多的。我们认为这是因为在那些地区(墨祖、胡瑞提、寺谷南、大山柳本光根)ar…中存在5个大的神枪(挂墓群)。更令人担忧的是，这些是这个国家最大的科洪枪，包括日本最大的科洪枪。此外，我们还建立了以下课题。(1)近海地区是日本西部的中心，被认为是该地区最强大的力量，并在整个地区产生了影响，但我们发现了日本西部地区之间的地区性差异，也建立在近海地区。特别是，我们具体找出了差异，例如，在以下两点上。首先，关于5世纪下半叶的屋型哈尼瓦(特别是分别制作和烘烤屋顶和墙壁的技术)和岩美型哈尼瓦(一种屏蔽型哈尼瓦)。这两个组合集中在Kinki地区，但在分布上也有一定的阴影。其二，古浑期前期存在罐状汉尼瓦，九州地区北部和三仁县后期则可见罐状汉瓦。(2)与圆柱形的汉尼瓦类似，我们预计在大和地区东南部建立具有代表性的汉尼瓦的可能性很高。(3)排行榜可以在很大范围内认识到较大的高浑有许多具有代表性的哈尼瓦，我们可以在许多较小的高浑，如长原或石州昆郡，发现组织贡书浑(小墓群)有许多较大的有代表性的哈尼瓦。这意味着，除了总体上覆盖范围更广的排名之外，还有一种可能性，即在较小的区域层面上存在特殊排名。因此，我们可以说，也许科匈帝国时期的社会结构不是简单的，而是复杂的、多层次的社会。但我们已经花了很多时间和金钱来收集代表国家的哈尼瓦，我们不能在报告中反映上述结果。稍后我们将逐一对其进行预估。较少

In year 1999, we had decided the style of the data-base card and collected the representational Hani wa in the Shikoku region, in year 2000, we had collected them in the Kynshu, Chugoku region and Wakayama Shiga, Nara prefecture, in year 2001, we had collected them in Hyogo and Kyoto prefecture, in year 2002, we had collected them in Osaka prefecture and started to prepare the report of the research results. As a result of collecting the representational Haniwa in western Japan, we had confirmed them inapproximately 2000 sites, according to 22 prefectures. They are based on the data which are in public, so we are expecting the amount of number will increase in future. Especially, we had confir med them in 450 sites in Osaka prefecture and 390 sites in Nara prefecture, and their amount of number is the largest among western Japan. We think it is because the existence of the 5 large Kohungun (mounded tomb group) in those areas (Mozu, Huruiti, SakiTatenami, Oyamato Yanagimoto Kohungun) ar … More e concerned, and those are the largest Kohungun throughout this country, including most of the largest Kohun in Japan. And further, we had founded the following subjects. (1) Kinki region was the center of western Japan and thought to held the strongest power in that area and had influenced throughout th ere, but we had founded regipnal differences between the areas inside western Japan, and also founded in Kinki reion, too. Especially, we had founnded the differences concretely, for example, in following 2 points. First of all, on house-shaped Haniwa (espacially, the techniques making and baking roofs and walls separately) and Iwami-type Haniwa (somekind of shield-shaped Haniwa) in the latter half of 5th century. The combination of those twos are concentrately founded in Kinki region, but also there is a shade in that region on distribution, too. Secondly, jar-shaped Haniwa is used to exist on the former stage of Kohun period, but in the northern part of Kyushu region and in the San-in region, we could find it on the latter stage of Kohun period. (2) Similar to cylindrical Haniwa, we expect thepossibility of establishing the representational Haniwa in southeastern part of Yamato area is very high. (3) Besi des the ranking wecould realize in wide range that larger Kohun has many representational Haniwa, we could find at many smaller Kohun, such as Nagahara or Shijou Kohungun, organizing Gunshu-hun (cluster of small mounded tombs)has many representational Haniwa like larger ones. That means there is a possibility of the existence concerning the special rank in smaller area level, besides the ranking covering wider area in general. So that we could say, maybe the social structure of the Kohun period was not simple but complexed and multiple ranked society. But we had spent pally times and moneys to collecting represent ational Haniwa, we could not reflect the above results in the report. We are going to presenrate it one by one later. Less