부산대학교 도서관

The current study adopts a population-based biocultural approach to the investigation of prehistoric violence in the hunter-gatherer Jōmon period of Japan (15,000-2750 cal BP). It challenges two incompatible beliefs: the view widely held in Japan that the Jōmon were peaceful people, and a relatively new 'orthodoxy' in archaeology which asserts that all ancient hunter-gatherer societies were frequently violent. Skeletal remains of 1208 individuals from across the Japanese archipelago were examined for evidence of violence-related trauma. Wherever possible, skeletons were physically examined to confirm previously reported cases of Jōmon violent injuries contained in the archaeological literature, and to uncover new cases in old osteological collections. Both the 'Minimum Number of Individuals' (MNI) and the more sophisticated 'Effective Number of Individuals' (ENI) methods were employed. This was especially important given the generally poor preservation conditions and completeness of Jōmon skeletons predominantly due to Japan's highly acidic soils. The resulting data were analysed to establish the prevalence of violence, and its distribution spatiotemporally, as well as by age-at-death and biological sex. Trauma timing, type, and quantity were determined, in addition to identifying the skeletal element and side most affected. To help assess the level of violence, this direct bioarchaeological data was augmented by indirect archaeological evidence: weapons; settlements; defensive structures; iconography, and warrior graves. Combined with an exploration of the environmental, geographical, and sociocultural contexts, the thesis shows that a multi-layered framework is better at identifying patterns of (non)violence in prehistoric societies. To deduce whether Jōmon Japan was more or less violent than other prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies, it was compared with Mesolithic Europe and California. The Jōmon were found to be significantly more violent than previously thought, but nevertheless somewhat less violent than Mesolithic Europeans as a whole and especially prehistoric Californians. Overall, the prevalence of violent trauma in all three regions hovered around 4~5%, but unlike for the latter, there is no definitive evidence-direct or indirect-to suggest that the Jōmon people engaged in large-scale organised intergroup conflict (warfare). Blunt force traumatic injuries predominated in Japan, whereas in California sharp force/projectile trauma were more prevalent. Furthermore, in contrast to California where young to middle-aged adult males exhibited the most violent trauma, in Jōmon society, males sustained only slightly more trauma than females, and old adults were more likely to have suffered (antemortem or perimortem) trauma. Moreover, clear evidence of trophy-taking and ritualised violence have been unearthed in central and southern California, respectively, but not in Japan. The fallibility of population estimates and the imprecision of skeletal dating make it impossible to identify clear causes or reach any definitive conclusions about the effects of violence on these societies. No single factor can explain the disparate and fluctuating patterns of violence, but a combination of climate, topography, population, resources, and socio-political structure goes some way towards solving this riddle.