This research aims to further the study of Kaya history and other unsowed questions concerning Kaya culture by archaeological analysis of earthenware objects and other materials of the Kaya period. The states of Kaya played an important role in the history of early state formation in ancient Korea, together with the kingdoms of Koguryo, Silla and Paekche. The study of Kaya is particularly important for examining links between Korea and Japan during the ancient period. Despite the importance of Kaya within the framework of ancient Korean history, the study of Kaya remains the most incomplete area of research. There are a number of reasons for the academic on activity in misfield. One of the main reasons is the lack of documentary materials concerning Kaya. In the study of ancient Korean history, when researching into the Neolithic or Bronze Age, it is permissible to base ones the one's on archaeological data, However, from the emergence of early state formation, at around the beginning of the first millenium A.D., we enter the historical period. At this point in Korean history, fragmentary historical records tell of the development of numerous small states. This documentary material is, however, too scant to give a substantial view of the historical circumstances. It is by examining archaeological materials that we are able to discern differences in common objects and thereby to recognize the existence of reigional cultures. However when it is necessary to rely solely on archaeological materials for analytical purposes, it is very difficult to as certain chronological time phases. In the history of Kaya, with its scant literary documentation which does not clarify the time of the emergence of the Kaya states, it is not only difficult to pinpoint the beginning of the Kaya states historically, but in view of the small amount of literary documentation actually related to Kaya, the story of Kaya is almost on a par with a pre-historic field of research. Thus research into Korean archaeology which aims to re-construct Kaya history is very different from similar fields where there is an abundance of relased written documents. In a situation where archaeological materials can be related to a specific historical period for precise dating, then the archaeological data supports of compliments the historical facts, However in fields of research such as Kaya history, where these historical materials are lacking, this hierarchical relationship between archaeology and history becomes reversed and the discipline of archaeology takes on the role of umpire concerning the results of historical documentary research, and furthermore it may occur that historians construct historical theories and arguments around archaeological data. The latter phenomenon applies to the study of Kaya history. As a result, those involved in Kaya archaeology perform a vitally important role in the development of Kaya research. In such a situation, where research into Kaya history has to rely on archaeological material - one fact that various theories have been put forward, none of which can be termed an established theory, - highlights the many problems that have occurred where research into Kaya history has been based on archaeological data. Materials which have under gone archaeological examination and scientific inspection play an important role in the consideration of the societal structure of the period and in the reconstruction of the contemporary lifestyle, areas of research which cannot be covered by literary documents alone. It is well known that in prehistoric research where there is no literary documentation. It is impossible to carry out research without using archaeological data, and in areas of study where there is little or no literary documentation, achaeology performs a vital role in research into ancient history. However, historical interpretations which are based on archaeological data involve questions which are open to subjective interpretation, and in the interpretation of archaeological data of ancient periods in history where there is little or no literary documentation, it is often the case that greating differing interpretations arise according to the standards and historical perspective of the researcher in question. This may result in an interpretation which is Jar removed from the actual historical circumstances. Such instances come to light when archaeological materials are discovered which completely over throw prior established theory. In this research, I have focused on the major Kaya tomb sites. Having grouped the burials according to structure and burial goods, I have examined closely each type of burial items and divided them into groups accordingly. The burial foods have then been placed in order according to their co-existence with other objects and according to stylistic changes, Based on the burial structures and burial goods of each site, 1 have examined the relationship between burials of the same type and shape and the existence or absence of certain burial goods. In doing so I have attempted to identify regions of cultural exchange, spheres of mutual influence and spheres of power and thus to clarify unified cultural spheres with recognizable regional characteristics.

목차 = ⅰ
Ⅰ. 序論 = 1
1. 硏究史的 檢討 = 2
1). 硏究傾向 = 2
2). 瓦質土器論과 加耶土器 編年에 관한 硏究 = 6
3). 加耶土器의 特徵에 관한 硏究 = 9
2. 硏究範圍와 方法 = 10
Ⅱ. 加耶의 歷史 = 13
1. 加耶와 新羅의 起源과 初期紀年 間題 = 13
2. 加耶의 變遷 = 16
3. 加耶疆域의 變動 = 24
4. 小結 = 35
Ⅲ. 加耶土器의 背景과 器種 = 37
1. 瓦質土諸와 硬質土器의 出現 = 37
2. 加耶土器의 器種과 樣式에 대한 考察 = 49
1). 加耶圈과 新羅圈의 區分 = 49
2). 加耶樣式과 新羅樣式의 檢討 = 50
3). 土器의 器種 分類와 名稱 = 52
(1). 鉢(바리) = 56
(2). 碗(사발, 보시기) = 56
(3). 盒 = 57
(4). 접시 = 57
(5). 壺(단지) = 60
(6). 器臺(그롯받침) = 61
(7). 甕(항아리, 독) = 62
(8). 甁(병) = 62
3. 小結 = 62
Ⅳ. 加耶土器 關聯 分析 對象 主要遺蹟 = 64
1. 金海地域 = 64
1). 會峴里貝塚 = 67
2). 府院洞貝塚 = 67
3). 府院洞古墳群 = 68
4). 大成洞古墳群 = 68
5). 七山洞古墳群 = 69
6). 禮安里遺讀 = 70
7). 良洞里遺蹟 = 71
8). 退來里古墳群 = 72
2. 星州地域 = 73
1). 星山洞古墳群 = 74
3. 高靈地域 = 74
1). 池山洞古墳群 = 75
2). 木館洞古墳群 = 77
4. 大邱池域 = 77
1). 伏賢洞古墳群 = 78
5. 釜山地域 = 79
1). 福泉洞古墳群 = 81
2). 老圃洞古壙群 = 82
3). 德川洞古壙群 = 82
4). 華明洞古墳群 = 83
5). 蓮山洞古墳群 = 83
6). 五倫臺古墳群 = 85
7). 塊亭洞古墳群 = 85
8). 生谷洞 가달古墳 = 86
9). 堂甘泂古墳群 = 87
10). 杜邱洞 林石遣讀 = 87
6. 慶州地域 = 87
1). 月城路古墳群 = 90
7. 馬山-昌原地域 = 90
1). 馬山 縣洞古墳群 = 91
2). 昌原 道溪洞古壙群 = 92
3). 昌原 三東洞古墳群 = 92
4). 昌原 城山貝塚 = 93
8. 鎭海地域 = 94
1). 熊川 于馬山古墳群 = 95
2). 熊川 貝塚 = 95
9. 晋州地域 = 95
1). 水晶洞古墳祥 = 96
2). 加佐洞古墳群 = 96
10. 昌寧地域 = 97
1). 校洞古墳群 = 97
2). 桂城里古墳群 = 98
11. 狹川地域 = 98
1). 三嘉古墳群 = 100
2). 倉里古墳群 = 100
3). 鳳溪里(梧林洞)古墳群 = 101
4). 苧浦里遣讀 = 101
(1). 苧浦里A地區 古墳群 = 102
(2). 苧浦里B地區 古墳群 = 103
(3). 苧浦里C, D地區 遣讀 = 103
(4). 苧浦里D地區古 墳群 = 103
(5). 苧浦里E地區墳群 = 104
5). 中磻溪古墳群 = 104
6). 磻溪堤遺讀 = 104
7). 玉田古墳群 = 105
12. 咸安地域 = 106
1). 道項里古墳群 = 107
13. 固城地域 = 108
1). 固城貝塚 = 108
14. 泗川 - 三千浦地域 = 108
15. 小結 = 109
Ⅴ. 加耶土器의 分類와 分析 = 110
1. 高杯類의 分類와 分析 = 110
1). 無盞式高杯의 分類와 分析 = 110
2). 有盞(式)高杯의 分類와 分析 = 113
3). 短脚高杯의 分類와 分析 = 118
4). 盞楙의 分類와 分析 = 119
5). 蓋의 分類와 分析 = 121
6). 高杯 및 蓋類의 綜合的인 分析 = 124
(1). 分析 = 125
(2). 高杯類 分析結果의 綜合 = 147
2. 銶, 壺, 器臺 및 其他 器種의 分析 = 149
3. 小結 = 170
1). 高杯類 分析結果의 綜合 = 170
2). 高杯類 以外 器種 分析結果의 綜合 = 172
3). 全器種의 分析結果 綜合 = 174
Ⅵ. 加耶土器의 編年 = 176
1. 旣存의 年代觀에 대한 檢討 = 176
1). 器種別 年代觀 = 178
2). 遣構別 年代觀 = 187
2. 編年 = 205
1). 編年資料 = 205
2). 同種同裂土器와 共伴關係 = 218
3). 同種同型土器群과 共伴一相關關係 辯集 = 230
4). 同種同型土器群의 群集連鎖編年 = 241
5). 旣存의 編年案과 比較 檢討 = 250
3. 小結 = 266
Ⅶ. 結論 = 268
參考文獻 = 275
SUMMARY = 299

부산대학교 중앙도서관 (221016)

• 가야토기
• 영역
• Kaya-Earthenwares
• Territory