page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
page 5
page 6
page 7
page 8
page 9
page 10
page 11
page 12
page 13
page 14
page 15
page 16
page 17
page 18
page 19
page 20
page 21
page 22
page 23
page 24
page 25
page 26
page 27
page 28
page 29
page 30
page 31
page 32
page 33
page 34
page 35
page 36
page 37
page 38

Fig. 4 Image of a goggle- eyed dogufrom a book once in the possession of Neil Gordon Munro, author of Prehistoric Japan ( 1908). This volume, which comprises annotated watercolours and ink drawings of many dogu, is now in the possession of the British Museum ( 38.5 x 29.4 cm). Munro's collection of Japanese antiquities, including dogu, is now at the National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh. Intriguingly, the main image of the dogu appears reversed ( compare to cat. 29). The dogu itself is a well- known example, whose right leg ( not the left leg as shown in this image) is missing. It is possible that the illustrations in Munro's book were based on photographs, and this one was perhaps reversed prior to copying. Harada Masayuki notes that there is a special connection between the goggle- eyed figures, the pioneer of anthropological studies of dogu, Tsuboi Shogoro, and the British Museum. During Tsuboi's stay in London in the late 19th century, he often visited the British Museum. He noted that the giant eyes of the Kamegaoka doguresembled the protective masks and snow goggles worn by Siberian Yakut and Tungus peoples, which were in the Museum's collection. Despite many excavations of Jomon sites, however, no examples of Jomon snow goggles have been discovered, and the large eyes seem to be a stylistic development rather than representing goggles. 26Encountering necklaces, often complemented by other aspects of body ornamentation including hairstyles, beards and tattoos. Tsuboi suggested that the variation among the doguindicated that some were intended to represent actual persons, while others were more abstract deities. By the time he died, his colleague ono Nobutaro( 1863- 1938) had published one of the first typologies of dogu, which appeared in 1910 ( fig. 5). ono proposed that as most of the doguwere female in form, and many appeared pregnant, perhaps they were representations of deities invoked to secure safe childbirth. The early decades of the twentieth century saw the further development of figurine typologies, in tandem with the arrangement of Jomon pottery into series by Yamanouchi Sugao ( 1902- 70). 6By 1928 the archaeologist and anthropologist Kono Isamu ( 1901- 67) was able to outline all the major types of dogu, including

Fig. 3 Probably the back and front view of a single early Final Jomon goggle- eyed figure, described as " Two dogufrom Tsugaru', in an early report on the discoveries of dogufrom Kamegaoka ( in modern- day Aomori prefecture), in the Tanki manrokuof 1824. Encountering dogu25 first scientific archaeological investigations at the shell- midden sites of omori. 5 These were prehistoric refuse mounds of edible mollusc shells that were uncovered during the construction of a new railroad from Tokyo to Yokohama. Morse described the pottery he found there as ' cord marked', or jomon, subsequently naming the period in which it was made. He did not report any dogu, although Harada Masayuki considers that one of the carefully illustrated pottery sherds may well be from a ceramic figure rather than a vessel, but investigations of other shell mounds did reveal their presence. In 1879, the same year that Morse published his report of the omori excavation, Shirai Mitsutaro( 1863- 1932) published the first archaeological treatise on dogu, Thoughts on dogufrom shell middens. It was based on discoveries in the Kantoregion and at Kamegaoka, some of which were then in the possession of a Baron Kanda Takahira. Kanda organized one of the first ever exhibitions of Japanese archaeological artefacts, and was closely involved in the formation of the imperial collections, later to become the Tokyo National Museum. Shirai had actually participated in the excavations of shell middens in Kanto, and, unlike the Edo antiquarians who preceded him, paid close attention to the stone tools and pottery sherds associated with the dogu. He discussed their relative chronology and also offered a number of interpretations for their use, such as toys, ritual images and ornaments. Shirai's ideas were taken up and debated in the pages of the Journal of the Anthropological Society of Tokyo, founded in the 1880s by one of the most influential early Japanese archaeologists, Tsuboi Shogoro( 1863- 1913). Tsuboi spent three years in London, where he studied with the pioneering social anthropologist Edward Tylor and spent time at the British Museum. During this period he formulated his theory of the ' snow goggles' that appear on the goggle- eyed dogu( fig. 4). Tsuboi drew on ethnography for his research into prehistoric customs and practices. This led him to propose that the goggle- eyed form, which we now date to the Final Jomon, was representative of beings wearing snow goggles of the type used by the native peoples of the Arctic. Reflecting the preoccupations of early Western ethnography, namely the identification of the different races and their attendant customs, Tsuboi also developed a view as to who had made the dogu. He proposed that they were the work of the Korobokkuru, a race of people mentioned in early Japanese chronicles. Although his ideas were discredited in the light of evidence from physical anthropology, ethnography and anthropology, by the time he died in St Petersburg in 1913 much of the foundation of doguresearch had been laid. In terms of form and manufacture, archaeological records show that dogu came in both small and large sizes. Some were made of solid clay; others were hollow. Some were very finely made, indicating that they were not mere toys; others were much cruder. While some were designed to stand up; others could only lie flat. As we have already seen, doguwere often found in shell middens along with food remains, suggesting that they had been thrown away rather than carefully buried, and most were broken into fragments. Tsuboi proposed that they were discarded once their special powers had gone and the occasion they served had passed, and that breaking them possibly related to the belief systems of the people who made them. While some appeared to be naked, others were clothed. Some wore masks, while others revealed their faces. Personal accessories, too, were often depicted, including ear and lip ornaments and