日本的死者葬在哪里？

Kyoto National Museum, 「金銅威奈大村骨蔵器」, collection introduction, object data and inscription summary. The museum identifies the 707 vessel, its two-part form and 391-character inscription, Ōmura's appointment to Echigo in 705, death there in 707, and burial in his Yamato home district. The inscription's geography is used without reconstructing the cremation site, carriers, or route. https://www.kyohaku.go.jp/jp/collection/meihin/kouko/item11/

Tokyo National Museum, 「文祢麻呂墓誌」, collection description reproduced in the Agency for Cultural Affairs' Cultural Heritage Online, record 540371. The description identifies the nested glass and gilt-bronze vessels, protected epitaph, charcoal-lined pit, and the deceased's name and year. The archaeological account, rather than an independent examination of the excavated bones, supplies those details. https://online.bunka.go.jp/heritages/detail/540371

Kinoshita Hiroyoshi (木下浩良), 「霊宝館秋期企画展の見どころ」, Kōyasan Culture and History Research Institute, Shōjōshin'in, 6 November 2025, section 「重要文化財の『金銅製宝篋印塔』（南保又二郎納骨遺品）について」. The object description and reproduced inscription identify the twenty-seven-centimeter pagoda, the deceased, the 1287 death, and the named deposition site. The essay does not adopt the article's conjecture linking Matajirō to a warrior named in a later war narrative. https://koyabun.com/2025/11/06/jihou_rei_2025au/

Wakayama Prefecture Cultural Heritage Division, 「高野山奥之院出土品」, わかやまの文化財, explanation reproduced from the prefectural cultural-property guidebook. Used for the difference between containers around the mausoleum and those found in the Lantern Hall area, and the collection's relevance to medieval deposition and Kōya holy men. Vessel type is not treated as a secure identifier of each depositor's wealth or status. https://wakayama-bunkazai.jp/bunkazai/bunkazai-spot-1172/

Katō Masaharu (加藤正春), 「竹田聴洲のモノグラフからみた京都府旧山国村大字比賀江と中江における墓制形成の動態」, 日本民俗学 317 (2024): 67–100, DOI 10.34560/nihonminzokugaku.317.0_67, published abstract. The published abstract supplies the village comparison and the 1513 monument; the underlying monographs were not independently examined. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/nihonminzokugaku/317/0/317_67/_article/-char/ja/

Kai City Board of Education, 「両墓制跡（法泉寺）」, cultural-property description. The entry identifies the interment and visiting grounds across a road, the documented range 1677–1887, and the collective memorial towers of 1713 and 1716. These dates establish identifiable evidence, not necessarily the first or last local performance of every associated rite. https://www.city.kai.yamanashi.jp/page/4891.html

Andrew Bernstein, “Fire and Earth: The Forging of Modern Cremation in Meiji Japan,” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 27, nos. 3–4 (2000): 297–334, especially pp. 297–300, on the 1873 prohibition, its 1875 repeal, and the range of opponents. The diverse positions are not reduced to a single government facing a unified Buddhist community. https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/journal/6/article/1039/pdf/download

Police Bureau inquiry of 22 May 1873, subsequent Ministry of Justice submission, and Council of State discussion, quoted in Nishino Kōichi (西野光一), 「明治六年の火葬禁止令における火葬観について」, 佛教文化学会紀要 8 (1999): 92–115, pp. 97–98, section 3. The documents distinguish relocation to address smoke from the council's proposal to prohibit the practice. Their statements about harm and appropriate conduct are historical administrative arguments, not independent medical findings. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bukkyobunka1992/1999/8/1999_8_92/_pdf

Tokyo and Osaka prefectural responses to the proposed cremation prohibition, 1873, quoted and discussed in Nishino, pp. 98–100, section 3. The twenty-year reuse assumption and Osaka's forty-to-fifty-day estimate are official projections reproduced in this study, not demographic measurements accepted by this essay. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bukkyobunka1992/1999/8/1999_8_92/_pdf

Ōuchi Seiran, 「火葬御禁令ノ儀ニ付建言」, submitted to the Sain on 19 August 1874; passages reproduced in Nishino, pp. 101–102, section 4(1). The article paraphrases the petitioner's argument about conduct, filial duty, and disturbance of earlier graves. It does not adopt his forecasts as demonstrated outcomes or present the published transcription as direct examination of the original petition. Same PDF as note dead09.

Tokyo Metropolitan Park Association, 「概要・沿革　霊園」, section 「現在に至るまでの軌跡」, paragraphs on the 1874 regulations, cemetery opening, and 1876 administrative transfer. Aoyama, Zōshigaya, Somei, and Yanaka are examples within the larger original program, not its complete list. The historical restrictions concern the red-line area, not all burial grounds throughout Japan. https://www.tokyo-park.or.jp/reien/overview_reien/index.html

Bernstein, “Fire and Earth,” pp. 316–317, discussion of the spouse exception and Tokunaga Kanmyō's August 1874 petition. The example illustrates how a rule differentiated family relationships; it is not an account of the later outcome for every household affected. https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/journal/6/article/1039/pdf/download

Kasō ben'ekiron (火葬便益論), 1873, submitted by Tokyo temples and crematory operators seeking resumption of cremation; contents summarized in Nishino, p. 100, opening of section 4. The portable urn, return to the ancestral locality, and division between hometown and urban graves are the petition's stated advantages, not a census of actual household practice. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bukkyobunka1992/1999/8/1999_8_92/_pdf