신석기 연구의 제 문제

Some Problems on the Research of the Korean Neolithic

It is assumed that most important topics on the Korean Neolithic are subsistence pattern and migration theory based on cultural diffusionism. Archaeologists and paleobotanists have been slow to advance integrated enviro-technical models that account for Korea's incipient experimentation with millet horticulture during the Middle Neolithic period (3500-2000 B.C). Most previous students have concluded that the agricultural complex, consisting of both plants and cultivation techniques, was simply diffused to Korea by means of cultural stimulus or migration from North China. This paper advances an alternative, in situ model for incipient Korean horticulture. Archaeological evidence indicates that peoples of the western and eastern Neolithic areas had established a stable, non-horticultural food economy during the Early Neolithic period (5000-3500 B.C). In the western area, this economy was based largely upon wild plant collecting and deer hunting. The eastern area, on the other hand, reflects a littoral adaptation to fish and marine molluscs. Adaptation efforts in both areas supported semi-permanent settlements and an increase in human population. From about 3500 B.C., the inhabitants of western parts of Korea tried to cultivate millets in order to adapt to the changing environments. Therefore, reconsideration on subsistence pattern is the key subject for Korean Neolithic. Another topic on the Korean Neoltihic we have to review is migration theory suggested by previous study. It has been widely accepted in Korean prehistory that Korean Neolithic inhabitants were Paleo-Asian who migrated from the lake Baikal region that they were later expelled or assimilated by Tungus group who introduced bonze metallurgy and agriculture. There is also no clear archaeological data to support the migration theory. Re-evaluation of prior research leads us to counter the diffusionist's view of the Korean Neolithic. There is no genetic relationship between Korean “Comb and pit marked pottery” with that of Siberian pottery. Such pottery attributes as decoration pattern, decoration technique, color, temper and building method differ between the tow pottery traditions from their earlist appearance. The views that there was a dramatic shift in ethnic composition between the Neolithic and succeeding inhabitants suggested by previous researchers is also unsupportable. If the Neolithic inhabitants whose economic base was mainly fishing were replaced by Tungus with bronze technology, agriculture and a new pottery style, it is assumed that the new cultural complex would appear abruptly and diffuse in a relatively short time period. But present evidence indicates that this cultural complex was introduced to the Korean peninsula gradually over more than 1000 years. There was no revolutionary change as a consequence of a mass migration of Tungus agriculturalists around 1000 B.C., as posited by previous reserachers.