英文タイトル･アブストラクトの提案

７月５日(土)･６日(日)の福岡市と久留米市の講演会に千葉市から参加された倉沢良典さん(古田史学の会･会員)から、『古代に真実を求めて』掲載論文に英文のタイトル(表題)とアブストラクト(概要)を付けてはどうかとの提案をいただきました。

確かに古田史学を世界に発信するためには必要なことですし、近年では文系の学会誌にも投稿時の英文タイトル･アブストラクトの提出要請は普通に行われています。とは言うものの、英文に強くないわたしにはハードルが高く、自分の論文を英訳するだけならまだしも、アブストラクトとは言え、他者の英文論文を正しく査読する自信はありません。氏の提案に躊躇するわたしにハッパをかけるかのように、FaceBookに転載した｢洛中洛外日記｣第３５０２話(2025/07/04)〝炭素14 年代測定法の原理と限界〟の倉沢さんによる英訳が送られてきました。下記の通りです(気づいた点を少し修正しました)。もともとの私の構文が英訳を前提としないものですから、そのまま英訳するのは大変な作業だったと思います。

読んでいて、なるほどと思ったのが次の英訳でした。

『古代に真実を求めて』　’Seeking the Truth in Antiquity’
『｢邪馬台国｣はなかった』”There Was No ‘Yamataikoku'”

いきなり英文アブストラクトは難しくても、タイトルだけなら英文表記して目次に入れることはできるかもしれません。そのために、古田史学独特の単語だけでも統一しておいたほうが良いと思いました。たとえば、｢九州王朝｣｢九州年号｣｢多元史観｣｢一元史観｣｢二倍年暦｣などです。ちなみに｢古田史学の会｣は‘Furuta’s Historical Science Association’としてきました。英文ホームページをご参照下さい。

現役時代、製品説明書や注意表記は、輸出業務や海外でのプレゼン資料用に英訳したことはありましたが、テクニカルタームが国際的に統一されている分野ですから何とかなったものの、古田史学独特の専門用語の英訳は簡単にできそうもありません。もっと、英語を勉強しておけばよかったと、この年になって後悔しています。

《以下、倉沢さんによる英訳》
‘Rakuchu Rakugai Diary’ 3502 July 4th,2025
The principles and limitations of carbon-14 dating method
―Email from Mr.Shigeru Tanimoto―

I received the following email from Mr.Shigeru Tanimoto (editor of ‘Seeking the Truth in Antiquity’), who read the article by Mr.Fumitaka Urano introduced in ‘Rakuchu Rakugai Diary’ 3501, titled ‘Hashihaka is around AD300, and Hokenoyama is around AD270: Simple Evidence’ (Note).
The content scientifically points out the limitations of the carbon-14 dating method from the perspective of a science researcher (a graduate of the Department of Electronic Engineering at Kyoto University, who has excelled at Hewlett-Packard and Agilent Technologies).
I will quote the relevant part.

【Email from Mr. Shigeru Tanimoto (excerpt)】
Thank you for providing very interesting information. (Omitted)
Regarding the analysis by Fumitaka Urano, although he uses the calibration curve (Intcal20) to obtain actual ages from measurement data with the age calibration software OxCal, while it is good to utilize those results, there seem to be some inaccuracies in his basic understanding of statistical inference (if evaluated strictly).
That aside, in broad terms, M.Urano’s concise logic is impressive as it sharply points out the internal contradictions of the conventional interpretation while relying on the same data as the mainstream view!
I was impressed that he recognized the logical constraints of dating based on pottery forms and that he was someone capable of scientific logical thinking.
Well, since the original interpretations of the C14 measurement data from historical museums and the Nara National Research Institute were somewhat distorted, I think it is impressive that the point that clearly pinpointed those shortcomings with straightforward logic.
Perhaps it means that we can no longer maintain unreasonable interpretations forever, and the veneer of common theory has begun to wear off…
By the way, it is a major misunderstanding to think that the actual age can be pinpointed (for example, ±10 years) using the C14 method.
Considering factors such as measurement errors in data and the range of calibration curves (statistically significant range), there is a width of about one century (±50 years) even under the best conditions, and typically the precision (or accuracy) is about ±100 years.
In the historical museum’s paper, there was a mention that the construction period of the Hashihaka Tomb was identified within a margin of ±10 years, but this is clearly an erroneous interpretation of the calibration curve reading results.
For those who are familiar with measurement theory and statistical inference, it was a basic interpretative error.
(I don’t know how it is currently interpreted, but…) [End of reproduction]

I completely agree with Mr.Tanimoto’s point.
During my active years, I was also responsible for quality control and testing operations of chemical products, and in order to accurately measure the quality of products, it is fundamental to confirm that the precision of measuring instruments and the measurement principles are appropriate for the purpose of measurement.
In that sense, carbon-14 dating can be expected to have a scientifically significant and excellent effect for rough dating on the order of hundreds of years, but it is fundamentally not possible to achieve measurement accuracy on the order of tens of years.
It’s a basic problem, so to speak, of whether you can measure the size of a grain of sand, which is about 1mm, with a ruler that only has markings at 1cm intervals.
If we are to investigate the “Yamatai(臺) Kingdom” (referred to as Yamawi (壹) Kingdom in the original text) as recorded in the “Chronicles of Japan,” we must rely on methods such as dendrochronology or the measurement of cellulose oxygen isotopes in tree rings, rather than the carbon-14 dating method, which has a wide calibration curve (intCAL).
Just as measuring a sand grain’s size, roughly 1mm, requires at least a ruler with divisions of 0.1mm, ideally 0.01mm, so too does our inquiry into Yamatai necessitate more precise methodologies.
Of course, even in that case, the required measurement conditions and sampling environment (methods) will be necessary. (to be continued)

(Note) Urano Fumitaka “Hashihaka is around AD300, Hokenoyama is around AD270: Simple Evidence” ‘note’ September 2, 2024.
https://note.com/fumitaka_urano/n/n33c623b935b1

(Photos) A transcript of a lecture by Mr. Tanimoto and Koga published in “Criticism of Eastern Historical Sources – A Challenge from ‘Honest History'” (2001).
A transcript of the lecture held at the Asahi Shimbun building in Tokyo to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the publication of “There Was No ‘Yamataikoku'”.