ARCHAEOLOGIA JAPONICA

Yayoi Period
Morioka Hideto1
it has been a long time since the Yayoi period in Japanese archaeology was established
as an era indispensable in the historical chronology unique to Japan. However,traditionally valued indicators of the Yaoyi period: existence of wet rice cultivation,
metal tools, and warfare (added later), do not actually overlap in their distribution andthe time they begun. at present, researchers are starting to recognize that the deviation
should be understood as a complex of multiple “archaeological cultures” that differ
signiﬁcantly. While it is generalized as a name “Yayoi culture,” there are few researchers
who can come up with an easy answer to the question: which region or timeframe isappropriate to be designated as the central location or representative aspects of material
culture. Therefore, although the Yayoi period in Japan was an effective historical divisionof a country in the eastern edge of asia for a long time, if you compare it to the world
standard of time division, it is hard to say it is inseparable with the geographical spacethat it was once assumed to have represented, despite the fact it is still a historicalstep/concept that is difﬁcult to judge. It should be welcomed academically that there
are quite many opinions in recent years suggesting a reevaluation of the Yayoi period.
Simultaneously, the organization of study history that once seemed clear may lead to abold cleaning up of pre-war study movements in Showa history with different handlingviews and attitudes, which could be the foundation of discussions proﬁtable for thefuture. recent works by oTSUka Tatsuro are deepening examination on academic
history of Yayoi cultural study, going back to the days of YaMaNoUCHi Sugao,MORIMOTO Rokuji, KOBAYASHI Yukio and others. He is expressing his uniqueinterpretation of situation analysis, taking the social condition of the militaristic Japan
at the time of invasive war in his view. He is also requesting Yayoi scholars in kansai
region to use criticism on succession of typology, but no one is yet to give him a fullscale opposing argument.
One of the things in this ﬁscal year that made us realize how the time goes fast wasthat it has been ten years since the National Museum of Japanese History ofﬁciallyannounced the long term chronology of the Yayoi period by AMS carbon dating. When
1 Japanese Archaeological Association, 5–15–5 Hirai, Edogawa Ward, Tokyo 132–0035, Japan(jjarch@archaeology.jp)
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 2 (2014): 78–79© Japanese Archaeological Association78

TRENDS IN ARCHAEOLOGY
Title
IN JAPAN

it was announced at the general meeting of the Japanese archaeological association,
the sensational dating framework advocating high accuracy chronology went wellbeyond the academic society. The ten years after the announcement has not been longenough time to make a proper interim judgement, and it was ﬁlled with pluralistic
criticisms and counter criticisms. FUJio Shin’ichiro, who was directly involved withthe Yayoi chronology, published a thesis on Yayoi cultural theory which could be a ﬁnal
conclusion. Fujio stated the process of presenting the framework, and reconstructed thehistorical image of the Japanese islands. The author has been observing the struggle
for development of the ever changing northern limit of Yayoi since this kind of study
started in 2000 with “Yayoi Bunka no Han-i (Extent of the Yayoi Culture)” Wajin wo
Torimaku Sekai (World Surrounding Wajin), but Fujio’s deﬁnition of the Yayoi culture
was settled as “a culture that located wet rice cultivation within a selective subsistence
structure and then specialized it, and once the cultivation started it was never stopped
and continued to kofun culture.” He stands to accept wet rice farming in Jomon culture
as a part of the all-inclusive subsistence structure, and he distinguished three other wet
rice farming cultures that do not belong to the Yayoi culture: Satsuma after 7th century
B.C., central and southern Tohoku in 400 B.C., and Aomori between 4th to 2nd centuries
B.C. He acknowledged that the former two cultures made transition to Kofun culture,and he summarize by stating “kofun culture was created by Yayoi culture and non-Yayoi
culture falling into mass hypnosis,” stressing that kofun culture was not an extensionof productivity expansion and development of a farming/political society. The author
wonders what kind of agreement could be reached on such argument if veriﬁed from thestandpoint of kofun period researchers.
It can be stressed that this ﬁscal year saw abundant Yayoi period studies from many
standpoints.

© Japanese Archaeological Association79