ARCHAEOLOGIA JAPONICA

Yayoi Period
KUWABARA Hisao1
Debate continues over the chronological age of the Yayoi period. SHITARA Hiromi
discusses the formation of Yayoi culture from the position which advocates a longer
Yayoi chronology beginning in the 10th–9th centuries BC, with the end of the Early Yayoi
period going back to the 4th century BC. FUJIO Shin’ichiro sorts out various themes andchronological perspectives in need of reassessment under this longer chronology, andurges a reconstruction of the view of Yayoi culture. In opposition to these views, whiletouching upon the problems of C14 sampling and the calibration curve used to support
the longer chronology, TANAKA Yoshiyuki suggests positing the latter half of the FinalJomon (Earliest Yayoi) to 700 BC or later, the Yusu II and Itazuke I pottery styles to560 BC or later, and the end of the Early Yayoi period to no earlier than 260 BC. Froma similar position of doubt regarding the longer chronology, IWANAGA Shozo discusses
temporal and spatial assessments of Yayoi period and culture within the East Asiancontext.
Reevaluations are also proceeding regarding ‘Yayoi culture’ as a conceptualframework. SHITARA Hiromi deﬁnes Yayoi culture as an ‘agricultural cultural complex’that emerged as the rites of daily production progressed along the axis of agriculturalritual, resulting in the inﬂuence of agriculture being pressed into every corner of daily
life, while FUJIO Shin’ichiro deﬁnes thus: ‘Yayoi culture as a specialized productwhich arose from selectively placing wet paddy irrigated rice cultivation at the centerof the structure of livelihood, leading continually and with no return into Kofun culture
once begun.’ MORIOKA Hideto raises the issues of whether ‘Yayoi culture’ as aframework is not an “archaeological culture,” a multifaceted artiﬁcial construct fated
for deconstruction, which may perhaps be granted an extension on life through repeatedacts of redeﬁnition. TANAKA Yoshiyuki argues that the bearers of Yayoi culture werea ‘Yayoi people’ who emerged through the process of Jomon descendants being added
to mixed-blood groups produced by original Jomon peoples and immigrants. HASHINO
Shimpei asserts that the Songgunni culture which emerged in the central westernregion of the Korean peninsula spread in various directions, with a transformation of1 Department of History and Culture Studies, Tenri University, 1050 Somanouchi, Tenri, Nara 632–0032,Japan(kuwa@sta.tenri-u.ac.jp)

JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 3 (2015): 54–56© Japanese Archaeological Association

54

JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 3 (2015): 54–56

TRENDS IN ARCHAEOLOGY
Title
IN JAPAN

it occurring in the Namgang and Gimhae regions and then crossing the sea against abackground of climatic cooling, while MISAKA Kazunori searches out relations between
indigenous peoples and immigrants through a comparison of pottery-making techniquesof the Final Jomon to the start of the Yayoi period with those of the southern part of theKorean peninsula.
Research with work on material culture as an axis has advanced with regard to thespread of Yayoi culture and its regionality within the archipelago as well. In researchon Yayoi pottery, there have been mutually stimulating interactions between studies
examining ceramic aspects and trends within particular regions on the one hand andwide-area examinations extending beyond local regions on the other, as well as between
studies of particular lines of typological development and those pursuing regional
differences in development. With regard to stone knives at the start of the Yayoi period,
SAKURAI Takuma has clariﬁed regional characteristics based on production techniques,
while TABATA Naohiko has pointed out commonalities in ceramics for the San’in andKanmon regions. YOSHIDA Hiroshi has sorted out aspects of the appearance of bronze
weapons and bells with respect to regional differences from the start to the mid-portionof the Middle Yayoi period, after the period lacking metal items following the start ofrice agriculture.
Prompted by the view of a longer Yayoi chronology, archaeological research has
made progress with regard not merely to Japan, but also to the bronze and iron culturesof the Korean peninsula and Liaoning regions. With regard to the appearance of iron
implements in both Japan and Korea, Lee Chang Hee points out, recognizing congruity
with the longer Yayoi chronology, that the diffusion of iron implements in the ancient
Yan state possibly goes back prior to 300 BC. NOJIMA Hisashi sorts out the historyof theories regarding iron, and emphasizes that iron implements given and received asprestige goods were related to the emergence of relations of imbalance among chiefs.
NEGITA Yoshio conducted a reconsideration of the introduction of iron implements
to the Kinki region of the Yayoi period, and points to the possibility of iron tool
production at 13 sites based on examinations of artifacts and features related to iron tool
manufacture, while SUGIYAMA Kazunori posits a complex network of circulation ofiron swords for eastern Japan. There are noteworthy advances in every region in research
aimed at reconstruction of various activities, and particularly in attempts at ascertaining
human groups using multifaceted approaches stimulated by a new perspective insettlement debate, which sees single communities as possibly comprised of multiple
groups. HIGAMI Noboru attempts to clarify how forest resources were managed attimber producing sites from the Yayoi into the Kofun periods.
With regard to exchange between regions, MORIMOTO Mikihiko makes an
examination of the coastal region of Hakata Bay, and TAKESUE Jun’ichi points out that© Japanese Archaeological Association55

Author JAPONICA
ARCHAEOLOGIA

three ‘bronze-bell-shaped stone objects’ from the Aoya Kamijichi site in Tottori prefecture
were used as weights for a balance scale. While emphasizing the military nature ofupland settlements along the coasts of the Inland Sea, TERASAWA Kaoru also discusses
the roles they played in securing and transmitting information for maintaining territorial
hold and controlling transportation routes; also, from an examination of materials
derived from China, he renews debate over exchanges between the Korean peninsulaand northern Kyushu, and between northern Kyushu and the eastern portions of Japan.
SHIBATA Shoji sees boats with dugout hulls as the main type on the Inland Sea in theYayoi period, with half-dugout types built up with planks on the sides developing fromthe mid-portion of the Middle period on; he also sees the unity of regional characteristicsof Middle Yayoi pottery visible between the northern and southern areas of the Geiyo
islands as reﬂecting chains of routine interactions in mutually beneﬁcial exchanges, andobserves that such links served as paths for trade in the formation of the Inland Sea
maritime route. Based on new data and advances in research, the points and lines of theYayoi trade networks are linking up bit by bit even as researchers themselves connect
through modern social networks, and with the routinization of international exchange
and the construction of researcher networks within and beyond local regions, we movetoward an ‘era of great exchange’. (translated by Edwards Walter)© Japanese Archaeological Association56