Reading Dogu: The Mystery of Jomon Mythology Unsolved for 130 Years (Fumito Takekura)
(Note: This article is a reprint of one first posted in 2021.)
The author, Mr. Fumito Takekura, is the younger brother of an acquaintance of mine through work, so I have been very interested in this book since it was published.
I find his challenging stance very attractive: approaching a major mystery in ancient Japanese history from a cross-disciplinary position—not as a traditional 'archaeology expert'—and meticulously verifying a bold hypothesis presented from a 'zero-base' perspective.
Mr. Takekura's hypothesis is as follows.
(Quoted from p. 58) What I had intuited was not at the abstract level of 'there seems to be a relationship between dogu and plants.' A more direct and concrete hypothesiswas racing through my mind. It is that 'dogu are figurines modeled after the plants that the Jomon people of that time were eating.' Could it be that the reason dogu figures look 'distorted' is simply because we have assumed that dogu are human figures?
Perhaps it is not the shape of the dogu that is distorted, but our own perception.
This kind of 'presentation of a concrete hypothesis that goes a step or two further' is refreshing and satisfying.
And Mr. Takekura specifically verifies this hypothesis by taking up various types of dogu.
The verification process is steady and precise.
First, he uses the basic hypothesis as a starting point for his thinking to find 'concrete model objects (nuts, shellfish, etc.),' and then meticulously confirms the similarities between them and the shapes of the dogu, as well as the proximity between the locations where the dogu were discovered and the locations where the objects existed.
Even if one might feel that some of the evidence is a bit forced or self-serving when taken as a single piece of evidence, the validity of the hypothesis certainly increases as multiple arguments are layered from various angles.
Also, the concept of 'iconology' which served as the basis for the verification process, was interesting.
I think it is quite plausible that there is no major difference in the impressions that both Jomon-period people and modern people receive from 'icons'. In other words, 'things that look similar at first glance (even when separated by time) are indeed similar (the same).'
Furthermore, in setting and verifying his hypothesis, Mr. Takekura did not stick to the achievements or thinking styles of 'narrow-sense archaeology,' but proceeded with his thinking by incorporating perspectives from other academic fields in an interdisciplinary manner.
(Quoted from p. 246) We modern people represent 'humans' and 'plants' as completely different species that are disconnected, based on a natural scientific classification system. However, in cultures where an animistic worldview like that of the Ainu is dominant, things with form that can house spirits—including humans, animals, plants, natural objects, and tools—are represented as continuous 'living entities'.
This is an insight from the Ainu's method of perceiving plants based on animism.
Now, this book is a tour de force that chronicles Mr. Takekura's logical process and results in attempting to clarify the 'motifs of dogu,' which had been a mystery that no one had been able to interpret in a total way until now.
The process of verifying his hypothesis was full of the excitement of reading a light-touch detective novel. The steps of solving the mystery are logically clear and crisp, so it is fun to read.
And along with the joy of that intellectual exploration, what left an impression on me after finishing the book was the journey of unveiling the 'Takekura Theory' recorded in the 'Afterword'.
(Quoted from p. 342) From whom should I get an 'official seal of approval'?
The people in academia and the media I contacted seemed to believe blindly that 'dogu = archaeology,' and they all repeated in unison, 'You cannot make your research public without the approval of an archaeologist.' I had no choice. I made appointments with some Jomon researchers and decided to have them look at my research results. However, this strategy made the situation even more troublesome. Only a very few responded sincerely; most of them would not comment on my research results, and furthermore, they returned a reaction that was like a gag, saying,
'We are troubled if you talk about dogu on your own, setting aside us archaeology experts.' In the end, there were even those who plotted to prevent my research results from reaching the world.
Now, this book has become a major topic of conversation through the efforts of Mr. Takekura and his supporters, following steps such as lectures and publication.
The Takekura theory has opened a large hole in the closed space of old-fashioned academia with its 'clarification of dogu motifs.' As noted in the book, I am very much looking forward to Mr. Takekura's 'next mystery solving' regarding the 'theory of dogu usage' that follows this achievement, and my expectations are rising even higher.