メコンデルタの考古学
カンボジア～ベトナム南部に広がるメコンデルタには，氾濫原を縦横に結ぶ古代の運河ネットワークが存在していた．ここに誕生したオケオ（Oc Eo）遺跡は，1世紀から7世紀にかけてメコンデルタ（現在のカンボジア，ベトナム南部）から東北タイ南部にかけて栄えた，古代国家であるの港市である．

オケオはインド等（西方）と中国（東方）の間の長距離交易と，メコン川流域の域内交流を結び付けた重要な遺跡と言われ，1940年代から発掘が進められてきた．ヒンドゥー教・仏教（5世紀以降）の遺物のほか，漢の鏡やローマの金貨なども発見されている．


完新世におけるメコンデルタの形成について
メコンデルタ，約3000年前以前は潮汐の影響を強く受けたデルタであったが，その後は波浪と潮汐の影響を強く受けたデルタへと変化し，南東側の平野に浜堤列が発達した（Ta et al., 2005）．オケオ遺跡は，浜堤列よりおよそ100㎞内陸に位置し，標高は2-3mである．現在のベトナム領，カンボジア国境近くの地点であり，デルタに孤立する標高190mのバテ山の麓にある．時代，オケオと周辺をつなぐ運河のひとつは，北北西に約67km離れたカンボジアのアンコール・ボレイ遺跡にまで繋がっていた．また下流側は，メコン川を下って南シナ海へと出るルートではなく，運河によってタイランド湾へとつながっていた．
オケオ遺跡での調査
オケオ遺跡は長辺1.5㎞，短辺3.5㎞の長方形の形をした都城遺跡であり，運河によって南北に分断され，更に4つの運河が東西に走っていた．この運河は現在埋め立てられ，主に水田として利用されている．オケオ文化の遺跡発掘を進めてきた平野（2007）は河川や運河に沿って大規模の遺跡群が形成され，低湿地への開拓と水路の利用が活発に行われたこと，特にオケオ文化発展期（3-4世紀以降）に低湿地へと開拓が進んだことを指摘している．

2017年，筆者らはかつての運河の位置で掘削を行い，深度約3mの堆積物中からオケオ文化発展期の年代値を得た．都城外側では更新世を示す年代値が得られ，オケオ港市が形成されたころの地形が少しずつ明らかになってきた． 本発表では，オケオの地形的な特徴について概観するとともに，運河の果たした役割について現地調査の結果をもとに報告する．

抄録全体を表示

As an epoch-making event in the history of friendship between China and Kampuchea, Zhu Ying and Kang Tai's serving as diplomatic envoys to Funan took place in the 3rd century AD. Yet, exactly in what year of that century, there have been many different opinions both in China and in the other countries.
Prof. Sugimoto asserts that Zhu “Congshi” and Kang “Zhonglang” were sent by Lu Dai, governor of Kaozhou in the kingdom Wu, and that the king they met in Funan was Fan Zhan. Thus he infers that the time of this diplomatic mission was the first year of Huanglong (229 AD). Prof. Watabe holds an opinion that the king whom Zhu and Kang met in Funan was Fan Xun and there the two met two envoys from India, Chen and Song, who were then staying in Funan. For this reason, he judges that the time of Zhu and Kang's mission must be between 243 and 252 AD.
In the “Biography of Lu Dai in the History of the Three Kingdoms”, it was not clearly pointed out who was the “Congshi”, an official position, also nothing about “Zhonglang”, an official position, was mentioned. But in the “Commentaries of Hainan in the Book of Liang”, it was clearly recorded that the envoy which Shun Quan, king of Wu, sent to the south for the propaganda for his country was “Congshi” Zhu Ying and “Zhonglang” Kang Tai. It is hard to regard what the two books recorded as one event. And “Zhonglang”, the official position, is in the central government. The local governor had no right to dispatch “Zhonglang”. The event was so clearly written that it couldn't be confused. There was description about Zhu and Kang's diplomatic mission to Xun's kingdom in the “Commentaries of Funan in the Book of Liang”. And Zhu and Kang's mission also provides some appropriate proofs. Therefore, it can be considered that the king they met was Fan Xun. Since there was an account that Fan Zhan, king of Funan, dispatched envoys to send musicians and local specialities in the sixth year of Chiwu 243 AD. in “Wu's Chronicles from History of the Three Kingdoms”, the time of Zhu and Kang's serving as diplomatic envoys could only be after 243 AD, because at that time Fan Zhan was still on the throne. So the king was not yet Fan Xun whom they met. Shun Quan died in the second year of Tai-yuan, 252 A D. The time of his sending of Zhu and Kang abroad could not be later than 252 AD. Considering the description in the “Commentaries of Zhuyi in the Book of Liang” that Zhu and Kang met the two Indian envoys Chen and Song who were then visiting Funan and calculating years, the latest time limit could even be pushed back to 247 AD.
To summerize, my opinion on the question is that the time of Zhu and Kang's serving as diplomatic envoys to Funan should be between 244 and 247 AD. This may be the shortest length of time we can so far decide on.

抄録全体を表示

The geographical recording of the Former Han Dynasty refers to a people called Tung-t'i, living far off the coast of Hui-chi province, south of the mouth of the Yang-tse River. In the following Three Kingdoms Age, we find the names of islands I and T'an, to the former of which the kingdom of Wu sent an expeditionary force and captured there thousands of natives, having been unable to reach the latter island. The T'an Island being supposed to be the Hainan Island, the I Island would possibly be Formosa, as Dr. S. ICHIMURA suggests. And the letter in question was pronounced tei beides i at least in the Later Han Dynasty, and it may be not improbable, as Dr. K. SHIRATORI remarks, that the island Tungt'i, tung being the "east", corresponds with the island I. However, the present author thinks that both Tung-t'i and I were the names of fictitious islands in the southeastern sea and the name of the island I was applied to Formosa, when the force of the Wu Kingdom landed there. For three centuries, from the Three kingdoms Age to the Sui Dynasty, there was no allusion to Formosa in the Chinese recordings. In Sui-shu, we find a more or less minute description on the Liu-ch'iu, where the force of the Sui Dynasty invaded and captured thousands of natives. Dr. ICHIMURA points out a noteworthy coincidence between the description of this island and that of the I Island. There have been much debates as to whether this Liu-ch'iu was Formosa or Okinawa, or whether the informations about these two islands were confused each other in the Chinese recording of the Sui Dynasty. Anyhow, the vocabulary of the native in the Sui-shu, deciphered by Dr. SHIRATORI, suggests an affinity with the Indonesian languages. Without doubt, Liu-ch'iu in this case was Formosa. During the Tang and Sung Dynasties, Formosa was rarely referred to and was regarded as a home of furious headhunters. Chao Ju-kua, a geographer and a superintendent for the marchant shipping in the province of Fu-chien, wrote : "in Liu-ch'iu there are no particular products, and the natives have a liking for piracy, and so few marchants go there." In his famous Chu-fan-chih, we find for the first time the name of P'eng-hu, the islands lying between Formosa and the Continent. The biography of Wang Ta-you, a governer of Ts'uan-chou (Fu-chien Province), also of the Southern Sung Dynasty, referred to an event that the Visayan of the Philippines invaded P'ing-hu and the coast of Ts'uan-chou. As Dr. T, FUJITA suggests, this P'ing-hu seems to be P'eng-hu. Later in the Mongol Age, the settlement of Chinese immigrants was recorded there. Meanwhile, informations about Formosa became better in the Mongol Age : besides a punitive expeedition toward the natives, various trading articles between China and Formosa were enumerated. At the beginning of the Ming Dynasty, an envoy was despatched to Liu-ch'iu. Presumably he thought it more preferable not to go to the barbarous Formosa at his peril, but to Okinawa instead, because he had visited Japan beforehand and might have been informed of Okinawa through some of Japanese. Since then, the name of Liu-ch'iu became applied especially to Okinawa was called Great hiu-ch'iu, and Formosa Little Liu-ch'iu or Tung-fan. In the later half of the Ming Dynasty, various place-names in Formosa, such as Wang-kang, Tayuan, Ta-kuo and Ta-hui in the southern part and Chi-lung and Tan-shui in the northern part, were known to the Chinese. Nevertheless, the Ming government did not regard Formosa a part of the Chinese dominion. When the Dutch occupied Peng-hu, the Ming government demanded them to remove to Formosa and to settle wherever they prefer in the island. The modern history of Formosa begins with the Dutch occupation thereof.

抄録全体を表示

Since the theory regarding this kingdom was put forward by Mayers in 1875, A. D., according to which Ho-ling is the transcription of Kalinga in South India and showing that the people coming from that region had settled in Java, many scholars have accepted it. In 1964 Damais, who had been trying to prove the new theory by Coedés (proposed in 1948) wrote an article, in which he said that the name of Ho-ling in Chinese is to be transcribed Walai_??_ in Old Javanese found in southen Central Java, and that this state existed as a kingdom from 640 A. D. to 818 A. D. In 1962 Iwamoto wrote an article, in which the name was transcribed as Sailendra.
This writer has drawn following conclusions regarding this problem, 1) that Ho-ling existed from before 640 A. D. to the second half of the ninth century (860-875 A. D.), according to the Hsin T'ang-shu, 2) that Ho-ling was established as a country in before 640 A. D. because it had sent the envoys to China in 647 A. D., 648 A. D., and 666 A. D. which were earlier than the years noted in the book by (_??_ie-dzia_??_) on the country of Srivijaya, 3) that during (Da_??_) period the main harbor was (Kua_??_-tsi_??_u) for plying between China and India or Southeast Asia by ship and then the route was along East of Malay Peninsula and Java, according to some historical sources in Chinese, 4) that Ho-ling is given the names of (Zia²-b'uâ¹) and (Zia¹-b'uâ¹) in the Hsin T'ang-shu and the country of is named (Piu²-ka-liu_??_¹), too, in the Ling-wai-tai-ta and Piu-ka-liu_??_ is written the name of a harbor by way of (Ja_??_gala) at East Java in the (Tao-i-tsa-chik), so Piu-ka-liu_??_ is not a name of country but that of the harbor of Pakalongan in 1817 A. D. at the northern Central Java, 5) that the following word formation and sound changes are conceivable:
luwa_??_>lo_??_→pakalo_??_an
luwa_??_>lwa_??_→kaluwa_??_>kalwa_??_→pakalwa_??_an>pakalo_??_an}>pakalo_??_an
and (xa¹-lia_??_¹) can be interpreted as abbreviation of pakalwa_??_an and identified with kalwa_??_/kalo_??_ in Old Javanese, 6) that Såjåmetå and Tuk Mas inscriptions (undated) are found in northern Central Java; the former is found at the village near Batang which is located at the east of Pekalongan in the present, and these inscriptions are written in one of the variety of Brahmi script which is, however, different from usual script in appearing of new types of letters in cerebral NA/N-and liquid RA/R as shown on the inscriptions of Kedukan Bukit, Talang Tuwå in Sumatra and Hampran, Dinåyå in Java, and 7) that on the inscriptions of Kota Kapur at Bangka and Sañjaya in Java, archaic forms for liquid RA/R- and medial U (suku in Javanese) had been used reguarly, and if it is correct to identify Såjåmertå inscription at the time befor 639 A. D. (of. Nakada, 1973), the family of Selendra inscribed on it had ruled the northern Kedu; also that the amily of Sañjaya settled at the southern Kedu or Prambanan, either from another part of Java or from another land, in 732 A. D. at the latest.

抄録全体を表示

What kind of title a ruler (monarch) took is an important matter to show the characrer of a given state. The fact that the Ritsuryo-state of Japan in eighth century was based on the Chinese constitutional system and that the monarch at that time took a special title 'Tenno' (天皇, lit. ten=heaven, no=empror) should be remarked. By means of the inscription on the iron sword which was discovered recently in Sakitama-Inariyama, an old mound, we see that a monarch of Japan in fifth and sixth century was called 'Daio' 大王. The change from 'Daio' to 'Tenno' was made after seventh century according to the international negotiation with China. Therefore it seems to be sure that the name of 'Tenno' came from Chinese term. If it is true, from which Tenno of China Japanese governor took its name? And for what did he adopt the title 'Tenno'? To answer these questions, I tried to consider the thought background of the motive in this paper. Among the past studies on Tenno, Sokichi Tsuda's paper 'Tenno-ko' is a representative one. In this paper, he told that 'Tenno' had two meanings : one is the Divine Being from a point of astrological view, the other a fictitious character's name as an emperor from a view point of superhuman being with divine power. Each meaning is mainly based on the religious concept implying a metaphorical meaning of a monarch. There is a recent opinion, by Shigeru Watanabe and Haruyuki Tono, that Japanese usage is bound to that of 'T'ien-huang' 天皇 and 'T'ien-hou' 天后 used in the reign of Kao-tuung 高宗 in T'ang. There is also Yukihisa Yamao's opinion that a title of 'Tenno' which unified separated functions of T'ien-tzu 天子 and Huang-ti, 皇帝 was newly created in the reign of Tenji, but I cannot follow him. I make much of the siginificance of the establishment of 'Tenno' as a title of a monarch, but I cannot follow the view that a title of 'T'ien-huang' in the reign of Kao-tsung brought forth its adoption in Japan directly. Because T'ien-huang in the reign of Kao-tsung did not mean to strengthen the right of the monarch at all, but, on the contrary, to rationalize the direct imperial rule of Tse-t'ien-wu-hou 則天武后. And it may be said that a title of a monarch which was based on Huang 皇 as well as Tenno did not exist at all in China befofe T'ang. For example, T'ai-shang-huang 太上皇 was a dignified title for the monarch after his abdication or demise. In An-p'ing-hsien-wang Fu ch'uan 安平獻王誤孚伝 (Chin shu 晋書) 'T'ien-huang, T'ien-huang-chih-hou' 天皇・天皇之后 was used with a meaning of a dignified title for the past monarch. So I suppose that 'Tenno' at first had no clear meaning of a title of a monarch when the name came into Japan. Therefore I do not think the oldest date when the name was imported to Japan is bound to the first year of the Shang-yuan 上元 (674 A.D.) in the reign of Kao-tsung. In Suiko period when the first direct connection with Chinese title of a monach was made, the monarch called himself 'Tenshi (T'ien-tzu)' 天子 contrasting with a title 'Huang-ti' 皇帝 of China. This shows that Japanese side at that time accurately understood the title of a monarch of China. Taking these facts into consideration, I infer as follows : Till the end of seventh century a present ruler was called 'Tenshi 天子 '(Kotei 皇帝) as well as 'Daio' which was still used among the nation, and the past monarchs were called 'Tenno'. The name of 'Tenshi' means a very name of Chinese monarch, and at the same time, among the nations of Northeast Asia including the Japanese, the name means Ame-tarashi-hiko 阿毎多利思比弧 (Sui-shu 隋書), a noble man from the Heaven. While 'Tenno' in contrast with 'Tenshi', must be

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示

This article examines memorials (上表文) sent to the Southern dynasties that display a strong Buddhist influence. Its first chapter focuses on the analysis of the memorials sent to the Song and the Liang Dynasties from the Shizi 師子 Kingdom and the Tian-zhu-jia-pi-li 天竺迦〓黎 and Zhong-tian-zhu 中天竺 Kingdoms, which have been considered the same kingdom, but despite the common name Tian-zhu 天竺, they should not be regarded as the same. In addition, it is difficult to confirm that tribute sent in the name of the Shizi Kingdom in 527 was really sent by that kingdom. Chapter 2 discusses the circumstances under which the memorials sent to the Song and Nanqi Dynasties correspond to those sent to the Liang Dynasty and concludes that the former were composed by Buddhist monks who moved between the Nanhai 南海 Kingdoms and China, in such places as Funan 扶南. Moreover, the author argues that during the reign of Liang Dynasty Emperor Wu, correspondence was sent out expressing the emperor's wish to receive Buddhist-worded memorials, which forced neighboring kingdoms to consult older memorials preserved in a place presumably Funan. Given this background, Chapter 3 examines the relationship between the Southern dynasties and those kingdoms which sent Buddhist-influenced memorials, concluding that the traditional tribute relationship (册封 or 除授) was not formed between the Southern dynasties and those kingdoms, with only one exception during the Song era. This is because their memorials presumed a different relationship, between the Chinese emperor as bodhisattvas who provide guidance in popular worship and the kingdoms, as described in the Buddhist scripture about the relationship between Ashoka the Great and the kingdoms on his periphery. Within such a scenario, the traditional emperor-subject tribute relationship was considered inappropriate. Considering the situation of the Southern dynasties having to legitimize their existence in competition with the Northern dynasties, the author argues that the former, particularly the Liang dynasty, instituted a new form of diplomatic relationship based on Buddhism, which was now expected to play an international role as the guarantor of dynastic legitimacy.

抄録全体を表示