ON THE ESTIMATION OF EARLY BRONZE LEAD ORIGIN
IN JAPAN BY LEAD ISOTOPE APPROACH
Hiroshi ARAI and Bo-Young HUR
Gyeongsang National University, Gyeognamdo 660-701, Korea
ABSTRACT
The bronze production in Japan dates back from the early Yayoi period (BC.2nd C). However
it has not been clear yet where the raw materials came from in those days. In order to discuss these
situations a lead isotope analysis provides us with some pieces of useful information. But the
lead-isotope analysis used in Japanese archaeology is still based on the framework “original theory”.
Since the idea was presented long ago, analyzed examples have largely increased and the
Chinese study in this area has made remarkable progress. So, it seems very important to re-evaluate
all the results done up to now. The results in this paper are as follows.
(1) In ancient China, both South China and North China lead had been co-used. (2) It has been
said in “original theory” that lead contained in the early Yayoi period originated in Korea but its
relative isotopic abundance corresponds to that of the ancient Chinese lead. (3) The lead in the late
Yayoi is more likely to be from Northeast China (Shandong, Liaoning) than South China. (4) The
lead in the Kofun period seems to be not only from South China, but also from Northeast China
(Shandong, Liaoning) . (5) We should pay attention to the similarity of the lead isotope ratios
between the horse shaped bronze buckles in Korea and the triangular-rimmed bronze mirrors in the
Kofun period.
2.30
Ｐｂ２０８／Ｐｂ２０６
2.25
Ａ：W estern H an style m irrors and late Yayoibronzes
( Lead in N orth C hina )
Ｂ：E.and P .H an style m irrors and Kofun bronzes
( Lead in South C hina )
Ｃ：Japanese lead
Ｄ：Early Yayoibronzes ( Lead in Korea )
2.20
1. Introduction
Ａ
2.15
The lead isotope analysis data
Ｂ
2.10
of the ancient bronzes in Japan are
Ｃ
2.05
usually classified into four
2.00
categories as shown in Fig.1, that
Ｄ
1.95
is, region A (most of the Western
1.90
Han style mirrors and the late
1.85
Yayoi period bronzes belong to
1.80
this region and it is said that the
0.675
0.700
0.725
0.750
0.775
0.800
0.825
0.850
0.875
0.900
0.925
0.950
Ｐｂ２０７／Ｐｂ２０６
lead is from North China), region
Fig.1 Basic diagram on lead isotope ratios of bronze objects excavated in Japan
B (most of the Eastern Han,
post-Han style mirrors and the
bronzes in the Kofun period belong to this region and it is said that the lead is from South China),
region C (the lead originates in Japan) and line D (most of the early Yayoi period bronzes belong to
this region and it is said that the lead is from Korea). The typical examples are shown in Fig.2 and
Ｐｂ２０８／Ｐｂ２０６
Fig.3.
Generally speaking, some of
2.30
the bronze leads in the early
Ａ：W estern H an style m irrors and late Yayoibronzes
2.25
Yayoi period, which are quite
( Lead in N orth C hina )
Ｂ：E.and P .H an style m irrors and Kofun bronzes
2.20
similar to Korean bronze leads
( Lead in South C hina )
Ｃ：Japanese lead
Ａ
2.
15
Ｄ：Early Yayoibronzes ( Lead in Korea )
in the corresponding period,
Ｂ
2.10
well agree with the line D.
Ｃ
2.05
Moreover there are lead ores
2.00
having extremely low value lead
N arrow sw ord
Ｄ
1.95
Korean style m irror
isotope ratio of Pb207/Pb206 in
D otaku (B ellshaped)
1.90
Korea
which
are
also
1.85
characteristic in the line D.
1.80
Therefore it is no wonder that
0.675
0.700
0.725
0.750
0.775
0.800
0.825
0.850
0.875
0.900
0.925
0.950
Ｐｂ２０７／Ｐｂ２０６
the lead is thought to originate in
Fig.2 Dotaku (bell shaped ), narrow sword and Korean style mirror in Yayoi period
Korea.
On the other hand, the
bronze leads in the late Yayoi
period including Western Han
style mirrors concentrate on the
region A and the bronze leads in
the Kofun period including
Eastern Han and post-Han style
mirrors concentrate on the
region B. The lead origin of the
region A has been estimated to
North China and that of the
region B has been estimated to
South
China
from
the
consideration of the mirror
production
sites
or
the
distribution of the lead isotope
ratios of Chinese lead ores.
However these considerations are mainly based on the “original theory” presented by
H.Mabuchi, Y.Hirao et al [1]. Since the idea was presented twenty years ago, analyzed bronze
examples have largely increased and the study in China has made a remarkable progress, producing
results that do not correspond to that framework.
In view of this situation, it seems very important to re-evaluate all the results of analysis of
bronzes by lead isotope analysis done in the past without sticking to the past “original theory”.
For the reason we prepared the lead isotope data-base consisting about 1700 analysis data and
discussed on the lead origin estimation from the most updated view point.
Addenda: In this paper we refer to a great number of reports due to the wide-ranging data
gathering and discussion but we can not show one by one on account of limited space. Please make
reference to the preceding paper presented by one of these authors[2].
○
□
▲
Ｐｂ２０８／Ｐｂ２０６
Ｐｂ２０８／Ｐｂ２０６
2. Bronze leads in Early Yayoi period (Line D)
Line D shows extremely
low value of the lead isotope
2.30
Ａ：W estern H an style m irrors and late Yayoibronzes
ratio(Pb207/Pb206). It is true
2.25
( Lead in N orth C hina )
Ｂ：E.and P .H an style m irrors and Kofun bronzes
2.20
that there are existing some lead
( Lead in South C hina )
Ｄ：Early Yayoibronzes ( Lead in Korea )
Ａ
2.15
ores having this tendency in
2.10
Korea. But the lead isotope
Ｂ
2.05
ratios in Korea lead ores are not
2.00
always agree well with the line
M abuchireports
Ｄ
1.95
D. Fig.4 shows a comparison
Sasakireport
1.90
of the lead isotope ratios in
1.85
Korean lead ores and the four
1.80
categories lead types shown in
0.675
0.700
0.725
0.750
0.775
0.800
0.825
0.850
0.875
0.900
0.925
0.950
Ｐｂ２０７／Ｐｂ２０６
Fig.1. From the comparison
Fig.4 Lead isotope ratios in Korean peninsula lead ores
above, we may conclude that
there is no positive evidence for
2.30
Ａ：W estern H an style m irrors and late Yayoibronzes
the Korean lead being used .
2.25
( Lead in N orth C hina )
Ｂ：E.and P .H an style m irrors and Kofun bronzes
On the contrary we can
( Lead in South C hina )
2.20
Ａ
R egion Ｅ
Ｄ：Early Yayoibronzes ( Lead in Korea )
find so many examples that the
2.15
lead isotope ratios almost
2.10
Ｂ
coincide with the line D in
2.05
ancient Chinese bronzes. We
2.00
■ Erlitou culture
Ｄ
will give a few concrete
× P andongcheng
1.95
△ Yueshi
□ Erligang
examples of the coincidence in
1.90
Fig.5 to Fig.7. Moreover we can
1.85
find some lead ores being
1.80
0.675
0.700
0.725
0.750
0.775
0.800
0.825
0.850
0.875
0.900
0.925
0.950
similar to the line D in the
Ｐｂ２０７／Ｐｂ２０６
southern
China,
Yunnan
Fig.5 Lead isotope ratios in earliest Chinese bronze objects (Xia, Shang periods)
province, as shown in Fig.8.
This Yunnan type lead is, up to now, very peculiar in East Asia, therefore most of the bronze leads in
coincidence with the line D can be considered to be brought from Yunnan lead directly or after many
recycling uses.
Of course, Korea or Japan is far from Yunnan province. It would be a hasty conclusion that the
early Yayoi period bronze leads are brought from Yunnan even if assuming the recycling uses.
However we can find out that some of Yanguodaoqian(燕国刀銭) are on the line D as shown in Fig.6.
Yangua just next door to Korea .
It seems to be quite all right to conclude that the Yayoi period bronze leads were brought from
China by recycling uses. The “original theory” that the bronze leads in the early Yayoi period
originated in Korea should be discarded.
□
◆
2.30
Ｐｂ２０８／Ｐｂ２０６
2.25
2.20
Ａ：W estern H an style m irrors and late Yayoibronzes
( Lead in N orth C hina )
Ｂ：E.and P .H an style m irrors and Kofun bronzes
( Lead in South C hina )
Ｄ：Early Yayoibronzes ( Lead in Korea )
R egion E
Ａ
2.15
2.10
Ｂ
2.05
2.00
＊ Sanxingduibronze
□ Xingan bronze
◆ N orth C hina coin
Ｄ
1.95
Yanguo daoqian
in Zhan-G uo period
1.90
1.85
1.80
0.675
0.700
0.725
0.750
0.775
0.800
0.825
0.850
0.875
0.900
0.925
0.950
Ｐｂ２０７／Ｐｂ２０６
Fig.6 Lead Isotope ratios in Sanxingdui, Xingan bronzes and North China coins
2.30
Ｐｂ２０８／Ｐｂ２０６
2.25
2.20
Ａ：W estern H an style m irrors and late Yayoibronzes
( Lead in N orth C hina )
Ｂ：E.and P .H an style m irrors and Kofun bronzes
( Lead in South C hina )
Ｄ：Early Yayoibronzes ( Lead in Korea )
R egion D
2.15
Ａ
2.10
Ｂ
2.05
2.00
Ｄ
1.95
1.90
1.85
1.80
0.675
0.700
0.725
0.750
0.775
0.800
0.825
0.850
0.875
0.900
0.925
0.950
Ｐｂ２０７／Ｐｂ２０６
Fig.7 Lead isotope ratios in early Chinese bronze objects in Izumiya museum
2.30
2.25
Ｐｂ２０８／Ｐｂ２０６
3. Early bronze leads in
China
Concerning to the earliest
Chinese bronzes (Xia and Shang
period), the lead isotope ratios
are reported as shown in Fig.5
[3]. Fig.6 and Fig.7 (mainly
Zhan-Guo period bronzes) also
show the same tendency, that is,
very wide ranging on the
diagram. Especially we should
pay attention to the region E
which lead isotope ratios are not
found in Japan. In contrast with
these distributions, as well
known, the lead isotope ratios of
the East Asian bronzes after
Eastern Han period are almost
all concentrated in the region A
or B. This fact has an important
meaning
on
considering
Japanese ancient bronzes.
Before
entering
this
problem, let us briefly discuss a
few points about where these
early Chinese bronze leads
originate in. Fig.8 shows the
lead isotope ratios of Chinese
and Korean lead ores. We can
point out that the lead isotope
ratios in Northeast China or
North Korea such as Shandong,
Liaoning
province
and
Hwanghae-Do agree with the
lead isotope ratios of the region
E
Although we can not
definitely conclude this, in
ancient China, both the southern
lead and the northeastern lead
had been co-used.
2.20
2.15
Ａ：W estern H an style m irrors and late Yayoibronzes
( Lead in N orth C hina )
Ｂ：E.and P .H an style m irrors and Kofun bronzes
( Lead in South C hina )
Ｄ：Early Yayoibronzes ( Lead in Korea )
R egion E
Ａ
Ｂ
2.10
Ｃ
2.05
2.00
●
○
◆
×
△
□
Ｄ
1.95
1.90
1.85
1.80
0.675
0.700
0.725
0.750
0.775
0.800
0.825
Shandong,Liaoning and H w anghae-D o
Shanxi
Yunnan
C hina except avove areas
N orth Korea
South Korea
0.850
0.875
0.900
Ｐｂ２０７／Ｐｂ２０６
Fig.8 Lead isotope ratios in China and Korea lead ores
0.925
0.950
Ｐｂ２０８／Ｐｂ２０６
4. Bronze swords from Isumo Kojindani site
As we mentioned already,
2.22
we could not find the region E
type lead in Japanese ancient
2.20
D -35
region Ａ
bronzes. But there is only one
2.18
exceptional example showing
2.16
Tie line betw een
the region E type leads. It is one
region A and E
2.14
of the bronze swords from
2.12
Isumo Kojindani site in
Shimane prefecture. Fig.9 shows
2.10
Line D
the distribution of the lead
A -26
2.08
isotope ratios of the bronze
2.06
swords from Kojindani site.
0.820
0.830
0.840
0.850
0.860
0.870
0.880
0.890
0.900
0.910
0.920
Ｐｂ２０７／Ｐｂ２０６
Almost all the lead isotope
Fig.9 Lead isotope ratios in bronze swords from Izumo Kojindani site
ratios of the swords are
concentrated on the region A.
But the sword named D-35 and some other swords are on the tie line between the region A and the
region E, and the sword named A-26 and some other swords are on the line D.
This strongly suggests that the very early Chinese bronze scraps mixed into the Kojindani
swords while the most of the leads are provided from the same source of the region A. Saying
technically, large amounts of scraps such as liners or risers always arise unavoidably in casting and
these scraps are returned to the following casting. Therefore the lead isotope ratios show a straight
line on the diagram.
Ｐｂ２０８／Ｐｂ２０６
5. Bronze leads in late Yayoi period (region A)
It is said that the leads in the
2.20
late Yayoi period originate in
Ａ：W estern H an style m irrors and late Yayoibronzes
( Lead in N orth C hina )
North China somewhere around
Ｂ：E.and P .H an style m irrors and Kofun bronzes
2.18
( Lead in South C hina )
Ｄ：Early Yayoibronzes ( Lead in Korea )
the Yellow River (Shanxi
2.16
Ａ
province). However North China
covers vast area where the lead
2.14
isotope ratios scatter widely.
Ｄ
2.12
Let us look up the lead ores
Ｂ
N ortheast C hina (Liaoning)
just around the region A and
＊ N orth C hina (Shanxi)
2.10
South C hina
region B shown as Fig.10.
Roughly speaking, we can
2.08
0.84
0.85
0.86
0.87
0.88
0.89
recognize that there is a big
Ｐｂ２０７／Ｐｂ２０６
difference in the lead isotope ratios
Fig.10 Lead isotope ratios Northeast China, North China and South China
between North and South China,
but seeing in detail it is not definite. Therefore we must be careful in estimating the origin. Fig.10
does not exactly support “original theory” or rather more likely suggests the leads of the region A are
from the northeastern China (Liaoning province). The history of the Western Han (漢書食貨志)
●◆
□
informs that Gingzhuo(青州 including Liaoning province）produces and supplies lead.
6. Bronze lead in Kofun period (region B)
It is said that the leads in Kofun period originate in South China. However comparing the
distribution between the southern Chinese lead ores shown in Fig.10 and the leads in Kofun period
such as Triangle rimmed bronze mirrors shown in Fig.3, there is a subtle difference between them.
That is, the southern Chinese lead ores distribute in the lower left area of the region B but the leads
in Kofun period mainly in the upper right area of the region B. Moreover some of the northern China
lead ores (Liaoning province) droop their tails to the upper right area of the region B.
Therefore it is still dangerous to conclude that the leads in Kofun period originated in South
China, because this problem has great influence for the controversy that the Triangle-rimmed bronze
mirrors with divinity and animal figure were really cast in China or in Japan.
In connection with matter, we find out that the lead isotope ratios of the horse shaped bronze
buckles in Korea (Chonan) [4] completely agree with these of the Japanese imitative mirrors
including some of the Triangle-rimmed mirrors. This is not quite an accidental coincidence.
From the recent study of the mirror patterns and inscriptions, an interesting theory that the
Triangle rimmed mirrors including the imitative ones were cast in the northern part of Korea. We
should pay more attention to the idea that the bronze leads in Kofun period originate in the
northeastern China or North Korea.
REFERENCES
1. H.Mabuchi, Y.Hirao and M.Nishida, Archaeometry, 27,2,(1985),131-159.
H.Mabuchi, Archaeology and Natural Science, vol 31/32,(1995),119-134 and so on.
2. H.Arai, Kohkogaku Zasshi(Archaeology Magazine), 85,2,(2000),1-30.
3. Jin Zhengyao, Zheng Guang, Y.Hirao, Y.Hayakawa and W.T.Chase, BUMA-Ⅳ,(1998),127-132.
4. Hyung-tae Kang, et al, Journal of the Institute of Korean Archaeology and Art History,
No.9,(1998), 127-136.