＜遺跡の消長＞研究に見る近畿･中国地方の縄文集団動態論の方法的･論理的課題

機関リポジトリ Web Site

書誌事項

タイトル別名
  • <イセキ ノ ショウチョウ>ケンキュウ ニ ミル キンキ ・ チュウゴク チホウ ノ ジョウモン シュウダン ドウタイロン ノ ホウホウテキ ・ ロンリテキ カダイ
  • A Review of the Study of Population Dynamics in the Kinki and Chugoku Regions in the Jomon Period with Focus on Methodological and Theoretical Issues in the Archaeological “Ebb and Flow Diagram” Research

この論文をさがす

抄録

遺跡や竪穴住居等の遺構の少ない近畿・中国地方における縄文時代の集団動態論は，遺跡を列記していく空間軸と，土器型式ないし相対的な時期表現の目盛りからなる時間軸とで構成される，＜遺跡の消長＞と呼ばれる図表を作成しながら，個別データを解釈する形で進められてきた。50年以上前にその手法によって研究が進められたときには，定着性を帯びた定住的狩猟採集民，という前提的な認識のもとで，①遺物がわずかでも出土していればその時期の人間活動を認め，②その時期を細別型式で示し，③同一型式内でも時間差を設け得ることを認め，④全貌が知られている遺跡（群）を対象にする，といった方法的・論理的な特性がうかがえた。その後は，人間活動の質や量に対する評価基準が定まらないままに，考古資料の増加によって，遺跡の数も遺跡内での活動時期の数も増加してきている。しかし，集団が定着的なことを前提とする以上は，遺跡数が増加すれば集団の領域は狭くなり，遺物や遺構の数の少なさと相まって，必然的に，＜小規模集団が狭い領域で拡大を控えて活動していた＞という解釈に向かう。あるいは，活動時期が増加すれば，定着性の高い集団による固定的な領域の占有という認識も強化される。また，基礎データ不足のところでは，その前提の適用や典型的地域の成果援用によって，典型地域と同質な状況にあると想定されがちで，画一的な復元像が形成されやすい。このように，検証されることのない前提に縛られ，人間活動の質・量の判断基準や表現が不十分なままに資料が増加していく状況では，推論も資料操作も特定の解釈へ誘導的になり，＜小規模集団が小規模空間を固定的に保持しながら，拡大することなく継続的に活動を続けた＞という復元像が各地で画一的に生み出されていく。今後は，豊富な資料から縄文社会の多様性を読み解くための，個別事象をたゆまず精査し仮説を前提化せずに検証する方法と論理が期待される。

The analysis of population dynamics in the Jomon period in the Kinki and Chugoku regions, which are sparsely dotted with archaeological sites and structural remains such as pit dwellings, has been developed based on the so-called Archaeological Diagram of Ebb and Flow, which shows the locations of archaeological sites along the spatial axis and the typology or relative chronology of pottery along the temporal axis, together with the interpretation of individual data. When archaeologists started to use this approach over five decades ago, they assumed that the regions were populated by sedentary hunter-gatherers who settled in permanent villages. This approach was characterized by the following four methodological/theoretical features, though they were not explicitly stated. First, if artefacts were found at all, they were treated as evidence of human activities at that time. Secondly, the measurement unit for such activity period was a chronological subdivision of the relative dating of pottery. Thirdly, it was accepted that even a single unit of activity period could include the time difference in activity between two sites. Fourthly, the research targeted (clusters of) archaeological sites that were revealed in their entirety. Later, as more archaeological evidence was found, the number of archaeological sites increased, and so did the total number of activity periods represented as chronological subdivisions at each site, though neither quantitative nor qualitative criteria were developed for assessing human activities. Under the assumption of sedentary populations, an increase in archaeological sites would mean ever smaller territories for individual groups; therefore, the absolute numbers of artefacts and structural remains in a site being small inevitably leads to the conclusion that small population groups were confined to small territories. Meanwhile, the increase of chronological subdivisions which are represented as activity periods reinforces the presumption that sedentary population groups occupied their fixed territories. When this presumption is applied, along with the results of studies of typical districts, the districts that lack basic data are often assumed to have been similar to typical districts, which results in the reconstruction of uniform images. Thus, when research materials increase in quantity while assumptions are left unchallenged and the quantitative and qualitative criteria for assessing and describing human activities are left underdeveloped, the data is apt to be analysed, manipulated, and interpreted uniformly. As a result, the same conclusion can be drawn for different districts: small population groups held small fixed territories and continued activities within the boundaries without expanding. Going forward, it is essential to develop methodologies and theories that can lay the foundation for examining individual cases without putting too much trust in assumptions so that the abundant archaeological data can be properly interpreted to gain insights into the diversity of the Jomon society.

source:https://www.rekihaku.ac.jp/outline/publication/ronbun/ronbun9/index.html#no208

収録刊行物

キーワード

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ