<論説>初期瓦生産における王権の技術労働力編成

Abstract

初期瓦生産に関する技術労働力編成については、文献史学では律令的で先駆的な文脈から、考古学ではミヤケ制や部民制といった古墳時代的な文脈から捉えられてきた。この相反する到達点の相違はこれまで相互に批判されることなく等閑視されてきた。そこで本論では、出土瓦の痕跡からミヤケや大王家発願寺院に動員された技術者の系譜関係を整理し、既往の学説について検証した。分析の結果、以下の四点が明らかになった。①ミヤケにおいて特定の集団が世襲的に技術を維持継承していた様相は認められず、部民制的な労働力編成は否定される。②大王家の家産機構に特定の技術は定着しておらず、瓦工は王権に隷属していなかった。③王権による初期の瓦生産は大王家、マエツキミ層、在地首長層のそれぞれ保有する複合的な要素から成り立っていた。④こうした古墳時代的な様相のなかにも律令期的な様相を見出すことができ、社会情勢を反映した過渡的な構造であったことが窺える。

The organization of the technology and labor force used in early tile production has been understood through the study of historical documents in the pioneering context in terms of the Ritsuryō period and through archaeology in the context of the miyake and bemin systems in terms of the Kofun period. The difference between these opposing conclusions has been ignored, and there has been no mutual criticism by their proponents. In this paper, I have therefore clarified the lineages of the artisans mobilized by the miyake and royal houses for temple construction from tiles excavated from those sites to examine the previous theories. As a result of the analysis, the following four points were clarified. First, under the miyake system, there were no specific groups maintaining inherited technology in a hereditary manner, and the idea that the labor force was organized on the bemin model was disproven. Second, specialized artisans were not attached to the royal house, and the tile makers were not enslaved to royal authority. Third, early tile production for the royal house consisted of complex elements derived from the royal house, officials of maetsukimi status, and local chieftains. Fourth, even among these aspects that resemble Kofun period ones, I was able to find aspects of the Ritsuryōperiod type, reflecting a social situation that can be seen as those of a transitional social structure.