最近の弥生時代年代論について  [in Japanese] A Review of the Recent Debate about the Date of Yayoi Period  [in Japanese]

Access this Article

Search this Article

Author(s)

    • 大貫 静夫 ONUKI Shizuo
    • 東京大学大学院人文社会系研究科 Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, The University of Tokyo

Abstract

最近,国立歴史民俗博物館の研究者が,AMSによる弥生時代の<sup>14</sup>C年代測定値をおもな根拠にして,弥生時代の年代は従来考古学者が一般に考えていた年代よりも,開始時期で約500年,前期末中期初頭で約200年古くなるだろと発表した。考古学的に年代を知るためには,年代が分かっている中国中原地域とつなぐ必要があるが,遠距離になるほど,古くなるほど精度が低くなるという問題があった。さらに文物の流れが片方向だけなので,上限年代しか定まらない。もう一つ,すでに年代が分かっている時点を起点にして,未検証の仮定をしながら過去に遡って年代を推定する方法がある。従来は,後者の方法をおもな根拠に,前者から導かれる上限年代より,だいぶ遅らせた傾斜編年を組み立てていた。しかし,今回の <sup>14</sup>C年代は前者の上限年代に近いものであった。弥生時代研究者には従来の年代を支持する人がいまだ少なくないが,大陸研究者の多くは年代の見直しに大きく舵を切ることになった。ただし,測定数の増加や補正の仕方によってはまだ変動の余地がありそうな現状の <sup>14</sup>C年代は,考古学的な再検討によってもやや古すぎるように思われる。今回の問題提起は考古学者に従来年代の見直しする契機を与えてくれた。そのことが重要なのである。<br>

The research team of the National Museum of Japanese History recently published a new chronology of the Yayoi period, based mainly on the calibrated AMS radiocarbon dating. Compared to the traditional chronology, the date of the Yayoi period becomes much older in this new chronology; the beginning of the Earliest Yayoi period becomes 500 years older, while the beginning of the Middle Yayoi period becomes 200 years older. Two methods not using the radiocarbon dating have traditionally been used to estimate the date of the Yayoi period. The first method is cross dating with the Central Plain of China, where written records exist. This method is, however, not accurate enough in this case, because of the long distance and old age. In addition, we can only know the upper limit age, because of the one-way flow from China to Japan. The second method is to date back from a time period whose date is determined; the weak point of this method is that it needs to use some uncertain assumptions. The traditional chronology was based mainly on the second method, resulting in a much older age than the age estimated by the first method. The new radiocarbon date of the Yayoi period is, however, closer to the upper limit estimated by the first method. While many archaeologists majoring in Yayoi studies still support the traditional chronology, most of the archaeologists majoring in Asian studies are now changing their chronology. The radiocarbon dates obtained today are not yet determined, however, because they seem to be too slightly old, even after the reexamination of the archaeological evidence. The most important thing is that this debate about radiocarbon dating gave us a chance to reexamine the traditional chronology.<br>

Journal

  • Anthropological Science (Japanese Series)

    Anthropological Science (Japanese Series) 113(2), 95-107, 2005-12-01

    The Anthropological Society of Nippon

References:  73

Cited by:  1

Codes

  • NII Article ID (NAID)
    10017171465
  • NII NACSIS-CAT ID (NCID)
    AA11307827
  • Text Lang
    JPN
  • Article Type
    Journal Article
  • ISSN
    13443992
  • NDL Article ID
    7778118
  • NDL Source Classification
    ZS1(科学技術--人類学)
  • NDL Call No.
    Z19-11
  • Data Source
    CJP  CJPref  NDL  J-STAGE 
Page Top