Transegalitarian Society and the Mortuary System of the Kamegaoka Culture

In this paper I criticize the studies of Ooki Nakamura, the authority in this field (sections 2 - 3), and describe the mortuary system of the Kamegaoka culture, which was a culture of the Tohoku region in the Final Jomon period characterized by distinctive, high-quality ceramics and other artifacts (sections 4 - 5 (1)). I argue that the mortuary system was influenced by the settlement system, which was largely determined by the topography of the sites of the Kamegaoka culture (section 5 (2)). Finally, I discuss whether the mortuary system of the Kamegaoka culture was that of a transegalitarian society (section 6).<BR>I develop three main criticisms of Nakamura's work: the criteria for distinguishing graves, the criteria for distin-guishing pit-burial clusters, and the criteria for identifying transegalitarian societies. Although Nakamura's criteria for distinguishing graves reflect various levels of certainty, he treated them all equally. In contrast, I propose to give criterion points according to degree of certainty. Following this, we should attempt to distinguish graves from pits in the next procedure. Does a pit have the same characteristics as the criteria for distinguishing graves? How many points in total do they come to according to a list of criteria giving points based on certainty? Do the total points exceed those of graves (5 points)?<BR>Nakamura treats all pits in a group of pits that were dug in a comparatively short period of time as graves if one or several pits in the group had the same characteristics as the criteria for distinguishing graves. While I sympathize with Nakamura's hope to advance mortuary archaeology beyond the limitations of the data, I believe this approach is too rough and attempt to consider more objective evaluations. My approach centers on the "probability" of mortuary inter-pretations. I count the points of each pit in the group that was treated as a grave by Nakamura according to the previ-ous list of criteria. The total points are termed "A". As I argue that pits with more than 5 points can be classified as graves, if all pits in the group are graves, the total is the number of pits multiplied by 5 points. This total is termed "B". A÷B thus reflects the "probability" of mortuary interpretation.<BR>I point out that there were dual mortuary systems in Kamegaoka society that were divided by dual settlement sys-tems caused by lifestyle differences between open and mountainous regions. I conclude that we cannot find sufficient evidence of a transegalitarian society in the mortuary system of the Kamegaoka culture.