The Kofun era and early state formationdefines the quasi- state as a stage in which a polity evolves from an egalitarian to a stratified society.
I consider his model valid because different aspects of a society evolve at different speeds and
there should be considerable time difference from the point when one aspect of a society shows a
feature of a state- level society until the point when all the aspects of the society are features of a
state- level society. In this sense, his proposal is very similar to that of Tsude Hiroshi to be dis-
cussed below. A problem with both Hara’s and Tsude’s proposals is that, because both use the
term “state” to describe a society that has not reached the state- level, the definition of a state may
become unclear.
Debate over state formation: archaeologists’ contributions
The early 1990s marked the dawn of a new epoch in Japanese studies of state formation, because
of the publications of four important papers by Tsude Hiroshi, Iwanaga Shōzō (b. 1956), Niiro
Izumi (b. 1952), and Suzuki Yasutami (b. 1942). Among the four, Suzuki alone is a historian,
while the other three are all archaeologists. The archaeologists’ publications of theoretical papers
symbolize that Japanese archaeologists also make considerable contribution to understanding
about the state formation process, without depending upon historical sources.^14
In his 1991 paper, Tsude sharply criticized the Marxist model of tribal confederacy, contend-
ing that the model tends to overlook the possibility of clear social stratification as evidenced by
considerable size differences in the burial mounds. He proposed that the Kofun era society be
considered an early state, based on definitions proffered by Henry Claessen and Peter Skalnik.^15
In response to this criticism, Yoshida retorted that what he meant by “tribal confederacy” should
be termed “chiefdom confederacy.” Tsude’s paper has stimulated Japanese archaeologists to be
more involved in abstract discussions and to propose theoretical models of state and state forma-
tion processes.
Iwanaga’s synthesis provides a framework for thoughts shared by both historians and archae-
ologists, one which encouraged theoretical discussions between the two fields. Both Niiro and
Suzuki introduce Western theories of state and social evolution. Niiro applies the concept of
“segmentary state” proposed by sociologist Aidan Southall to explain sixth and seventh century
(Late Kofun era) Japan.^16 Suzuki applies the Amer ican neo- evolutionary concept of chiefdom to
the Kofun era.
In the wake of these landmark studies, several models have been proposed to explain Kofun-
era society. In 1992, archaeologist Shiraishi Taichirō (b. 1938) expressed his strong support for
Suzuki’s proposal for the Kofun era chiefdom model in the introduction to Kofun no tsukurareta
jidai, a thirteen- volume series surveying all aspects of Kofun- era archaeology up to the beginning
of the 1990s. This series serves as an outstanding introduction to Kofun- era archaeology.^17
In 1996, cultural anthropologist Sasaki Kōmei (1929–2013) applied the “Galactic Polity”
model proposed by social anthropologist Stanley J. Tambiah (1929–2014) to the Kofun- era
society. Tambiah used his model to explain the nature of the Ayuthaya Kingdom in Thailand
(1350–1767). In 1998, archaeologist Wada Seigo (b. 1947) proposed a “chiefdom confederacy”
model, taking into consideration both clear social difference evidenced by mound sizes and
considerable regional differences. Probably stimulated by Tambiah’s model based on a Southeast
Asian case, Fukunaga Shin’ya (b. 1959) introduced the possibility of applying the “theater state”
model to the Early Kofun- era society. The model was originally proposed by cultural anthro-
pologist Clifford Geertz (1926–2006) to explain modern Bali society.^18
In 2003, archaeologist Hirose Kazuo (b. 1947) published a highly provocative book, entitled
Zenpō-kōen-fun kokka (“The Keyhole Mounded Tomb State”). Hirose, who majored in economics
for his undergraduate study, defines a state as