National Museum of Japanese History Repository
Not a member yet
2571 research outputs found
Sort by
[Article] Development of Local Subsistence Activities and Protected Area Regime on the Northern Slope of Mt. Fuji
Get PDFapplication/pdf本研究は，富士山北斜面にて行われてきた生業について，(1)特に採取活動の実態を通時的に明らかにし，(2)これが国立公園制度といかなる関係を持ってきたかを検討した。この地域では，近世から富士山の高山帯に至るまでの広大な山野を背景とした生業活動が繰り広げられていた。大正時代から昭和初期にかけて訪れた国立公園指定と観光開発の動きの中で，富士山北斜面の入会（いりあい）住民はこの動きに主体的にかかわることはなかった。一方で，近世より継続されてきた富士山入会地での資源採取は，入会地の地盤が国有，皇室有，県有と変わる中で，管理の仕組みが精緻化し，特に今に続く入山鑑札制度として基盤が確立した。富士山の国立公園指定により，入会地のほぼ全域が国立公園の区域に包含され，現行制度においては，高山帯および亜高山帯は特別保護地区あるいは特別地域として，旧来の採取活動を停止しうるような規制内容を持っている。しかしながら，各入会組合は依然として入山鑑札を発行し，高山帯であっても人々の採取を容認している。これを可能にするものとして，現行法である自然公園法により特別保護地区が新設される際に，厚生省と農林省間で交わされた覚書で，区域設定前からの慣行は着手行為として規制の対象外とする了解事項が存在する。富士山北麓地域では，少なくとも近世まで遡ることのできる採取活動が実質的に継続しており，かつ，形式的にも鑑札制度があるために採取活動の存在が公認しうるものになっていることが，着手行為としての正当性を担保しているものと考えられた。一方で，入会組合と国立公園管理者の間での情報共有は行われておらず，将来的には，対立が引き起こされる可能性が指摘できる。This paper clarifies the reality of subsistence activities, especially regarding the gathering of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) historically, and investigates how such activities have been influenced by the national park system. Records of local people engaging in various gathering activities on the vast range of the northern slope of Mt. Fuji,where they accessed common lands, date back to the beginning of the 18th century, at the latest. Their activities occasionally reach the alpine area of the mountain. After the Meiji era (1860s-1912), these common lands were owned by the government, then the imperial court, and, finally,Yamanashi Prefecture. Accordingly, the commons became substantially institutionalized; in particular, the license system that allows gathering activities even in the alpine area of Mt. Fuji has been established and refined. While a movement advocating that Mt. Fuji and its surrounding area be declared a national park took place during the Taisho era and the beginning of the Showa era (1910s-1930s), local people did not actively commit to it. As Mt. Fuji was designated as a national park in 1931, the whole area of the commons at Mt. Fuji was brought under the national park system. The current national park system designates the alpine and subalpine zone of Mt. Fuji as special protection areas or special areas, which may prohibit the traditional gathering activities. However, commoners' associations still issue licenses for gathering activities even for the alpine zone. When the current "Natural Parks Act," which established a new system including special protection areas, was enforced in 1965, the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry agreed that local people's activities regarding agriculture and forestry should not be restricted by the new national park system; this would be possible by treating these activities as "existing practice" before the time of enforcement. This is why gathering activities at special protection areas or special areas of the national park system are permitted. In the case of Mt. Fuji, this paper considers that the legitimacy of treating the case as an "existing practice" is guaranteed by the fact that the local gathering activities at alpine area can be dated back to before the Meiji era and that
The activities can be officially recognized because of the license system. However, it can be stated that there is no proper communication between commoners' associations and the local managers of the national park, so conflict may possibly occur in the future.departmental bulletin pape
The "1968" Report as Seen from the Perspective of Specialist Correspondents of the University of Tokyo Struggle : Focusing on Kunio Naito, Mainichi Shimbun
Get PDFapplication/pdf本稿は，『毎日新聞』の社会部記者であった内藤国夫（1937～1999年）を中心に，東大闘争の専従記者が「1968年」報道にいかに携わったのかを明らかにする。
第1節では，運動学生の行動動機を顧みずに，かれらを「暴徒」と見なす全般的な報道の特徴を検討した。それをよく示すものが『山陽新聞』の改ざん事件と，内藤国夫が取材した王子デモ報道であった。この背景には，学生運動の「暴徒」観を根強く抱く編集幹部の存在が挙げられる。
第2節では，大学担当記者になった内藤国夫が東大専従記者となり，大河内一男総長の辞意報道に及ぼした影響や，各社が集った東大記者クラブと取材班の陣容を整理した。
第3節では，内藤の日頃の取材先を押さえた上で，東大専従記者と運動学生の緊張関係が高まった読売新聞記者「暴行」事件に焦点をあてた。この事件を契機に学生の新聞不信が激化したことと，内藤の学生のために取材をしているという「君らのため」観との間に乖離があることを示した。
第4節では，安田講堂の攻防で時計台放送が投げかけた，記者たちにとって東大闘争と報道とは一体何であったのかという，内藤を含めた記者たちの主体性を突きつける問題を考察した。それとともに警察側のデモ現場での巧妙な潜入や学生対策の実態について言及した。
内藤は，東京大学法学部の卒業生という利点をいかし，取材源に食い込み，多くのスクープをものにした。しかし，その取材現場では学生の「暴徒」観に象徴されるように，事実に向き合おうとする記者と報道機関の姿勢も問われていた。そして多様な事実を報じる回路を制約したのが，現場記者と編集幹部の認識の差であった。記事決定の裁量権をもつデスクや編集幹部の力関係の構造の下，「1968年」報道も多面的な現実を読者に報じる役割が妨げられていたのである。最後に東大闘争と学生運動における暴力の問題についても見通しを提示した。This paper clarifies the extent of the involvement of specialist correspondents of the University of Tokyo Struggle in the "1968" report with a focus on Kunio Naito (1937-1999) who was the local news correspondent of Mainichi Shimbun.
In the first section, the authors examine the characteristics of the general reports that regarded the students of the movement as "rioters" regardless of the motivations of their actions. This representation was amply demonstrated in the falsification incident pertaining to Sanyo Shimbun, and in the Oji demonstration report written by Kunio Naito. The strongly rooted bias of executive editors forms the background of this depiction of the agitated students.
The second section of the paper is devoted to Kunio Naito, who was the reporter in charge of universities, and who became a specialist correspondent for the University of Tokyo. This section discusses Naito's influence on coverage of President Kazuo Okochi's resignation, and lists the lineup of the University of Tokyo Reporters' Club which comprises a gathering of all news organizations and of their crews.
Section 3 delves into the incident of "assault" on a Yomiuri Shimbun reporter in which tensions between the University of Tokyo specialist correspondents and the students of the movement were heightened, and led to the restriction of daily coverage by Naito. In the wake of this incident, the students' distrust of newspapers intensified, demonstrating that there was a gap between Naito's opinion that his reporting was meant for the students and the perception of the students themselves.
In section 4, the authors examine the issue of the independence of the reporters including Naito and attempt to ascertain what the University of Tokyo Struggle and its news coverage meant for the reporters. This concern is highlighted by the clock tower broadcast during the Yasuda Hall incident. Along with this event, the skillful infiltration of the police at the site of the demonstration and the realities of the student measures are also discussed.
Naito exploited the advantage of being the University of Tokyo, Department of Law graduate, and secured several scoops by making inroads into the source of the news. However, as symbolized by the perception of the students as "rioters" at the site of the incidents, the attitude of the reporters who tried to face the facts and the press organizations is also questionable. Further, the course of the reporting of various facts was constrained by the mismatch between the perception of the site reporters and the editorial executives. Based on the structure of the power relationship at news organizations, in the case of the "1968" report too, reporting of the multifaceted reality to the readers was hindered by the authority of the desk and the editorial executives. Finally, the authors' opinions with regard to the problem of violence in the University of Tokyo Struggle and during the student movements are also presented in this paper.departmental bulletin pape
Nihon University Struggle : The Aftermath of the 9/30 Mass Bargaining
Get PDFapplication/pdf1968～69年における日本大学学生運動は，全国学生総数が約100万人と言われたこの時代に，学内学生3万人の参加という空前絶後の対理事会大衆団交を実現し，東京大学全共闘運動とともに当該時期の全共闘型学生運動の双璧に位置付けられている。本稿は，日大全共闘運動の組織論・運動論の特質を考察した拙稿「「1968年」大学闘争が問うたもの―日大闘争の事例に即して」の続編であり，日大闘争の展開過程を基本的な事実，諸資料から確定するという課題を継続している。前稿は，日大全共闘が，大衆団交という場において勝利できる展望を有していた時期までを対象とした。本稿では1968年9月30日「9.30 団交」への過程を再検討したうえで，日大闘争の戦術を象徴する各学部・各校舎のバリケードが一斉に解除・強制撤去される69年2月～3月までの基本的な経緯を示しながら，日大全共闘の組織と運動の時期的変化を検討する。
具体的には，第1節で9月初めのバリケード撤去の強制執行をめぐる攻防を契機として，全共闘への求心力が高まり，6月以来要望し続けてきた大衆団交実施の意義がさらに掘り下げられていく過程，第2節は，大衆団交と政府の政治的介入を経て，各組織レベルでいかなる総括が行われ，他方で運動面ではどのような模索が行われたのか，さらに教員層や親たちの動き，警察権や司法権関与の変化，卒業・疎開授業強行問題，東大闘争との連携など10月～12月期の動向を多面的に追求し，第3節で，年明け以降3月までのバリケード闘争の終焉までの過程とその後の闘争継続の要因を指摘する。日大闘争の全過程を対象とした唯一の研究として，日本大学新聞研究会『日大紛争の真相―民主化闘争への歩み―』などに依拠した小熊英二『１９６８【上】』第9章「日大闘争」がある。本稿は，新たに利用が可能となった当事者の一次資料を中心に分析した。The Nihon University student movement of 1968-69 accomplished the first and probably the last mass bargaining with the institution's board of directors. Around 30,000 students within the campus participated in this action in an era when the total number of students nationwide was said to be approximately one million. It is positioned as one of the two most significant All-Campus Joint Struggle League student movements of that period along with the University of Tokyo All-Campus Joint Struggle League student movement. This paper is a sequel to the author's manuscript entitled "Questions Raised by the 1968 University Struggles-With the Nihon University Struggle as a Case Study," which examined the characteristics of the organizational and movement theories of the Nihon University All-Campus Joint Struggle League movement. This paper further continues discussion on ascertaining the development process of the Nihon University Struggle from basic facts and varied material resources. The previous paper targeted the period up to the time when the Nihon University All-Campus Joint Struggle League (Nichidai Zenkyoto) had the possibility of winning at the mass bargaining. In this paper, the authors reevaluate the process of the "9/30 Bargaining" on September 30, 1968. While describing the basic course of events that occurred until February- March 1969 when the barricades of each department and school building that symbolize the tactics of the Nihon University Struggle were lifted and forcibly removed, the paper examines the periodical changes in the Nihon University All-Campus Joint Struggle League organization and movement.
Specifically, the first section contends with the enhancement of the unifying power of the All- Campus Joint Struggle League in the wake of the struggle surrounding the forcible execution of the removal of barricades in the beginning of September. It also deals with the process of further investigating the significance of the enforcement of mass bargaining that was continually being demanded since June. Section two presents a multifaceted exploration of the trends that became noticeable between October and December, including the implementation of all kinds of reviews at each organizational level after mass bargaining and the government's political intervention. This part of the paper also considers the types of exploration for a solution that occurred within the movement, the actions of faculty members and parents, the changes in police authority and jurisdictional involvement, the issues of graduation and enforcement of class evacuation, and the cooperation of other sections of society with the University of Tokyo Struggle. In section three, the authors discuss the course of the movement up to the demise of the barricade struggle from the beginning of the new year until the end of March and the factors that influenced the continuation of the struggle thereafter. As the only study that targets the entire process of the Nihon University Struggle, the authors refer to Chapter 9, entitled "Nihon University Struggle" in Eiji Oguma's "1968 (cited above)," which based on the Nihon University Newspaper Research Association for the study "The Truth of the Nihon University Struggle-Steps toward the Struggle for Democracy" among others. This paper presents an analysis based on primary sources that have become newly available for use that relate to the parties concerned.departmental bulletin pape
[Research Notes] The 1960's Circle - The Yamanami no Kai : Notes on Ideas and Themes
Get PDFapplication/pdfdepartmental bulletin pape
Human Traffic and Diplomacy between Wa and Baekje : Emigration of the Wajin and Bureaucrat of Kudara of the Wajin Native Place (Part I)
Get PDFapplication/pdf倭と栄山江流域の交流史を考える場合，文献的に問題となるのは，まず全羅南道および耽羅の百済への服属時期を確定することが必要と思われる。そのうえで北九州系および畿内系などに細分化される倭人の移住集団の活動内容の分析が必要となる。さらには加耶地域への移住集団との対比も必要となる。以下ではこの問題を考える素材として『日本書紀』欽明紀に散見する倭系百済官僚を中心に検討した。
現在，栄山江流域の前方後円墳被葬者についての諸説は，大きくは在地首長あるいは土着勢力とする説，倭人あるいは倭系の人物を被葬者とする説に分かれている。本稿では在地的な首長系列とは異なる地点に突如出現する点を重視して，後者の可能性を指摘した。
結論として，憶測を述べるならば五世紀後半以降の一時期に限定される栄山江流域の前方後円墳被葬者像として，百済王族たる地名王・侯の配下で，県城以下クラスの支配を任された，北九州を含む倭系豪族と想定した。彼らはやがて，百済の都に集められて官僚化し，倭国との外交折衝などに重用されたために，一時的な現象として古墳は消滅したのではないか。栄山江流域にのみ前方後円墳が集中する理由や，移住の詳細なプロセスなどについては不明であり，今後も検討する必要がある。When thinking of the history of exchanges between Old Japan and the Yeongsan River Basin, what emerges as an issue of document, is that it will first be necessary to confirm the period when the Cholla-Namdo (South Cholla Province) and the Tamna yielded allegiance to Baekje. Further, it will be essential to analyze the content of the activities of the migrant groups of Wajin who were subdivided into the Kitakyushu lineage and the Kinai lineage. Besides, it will also be necessary to compare with the groups migrating to the Gaya region. Below we examine by focusing on the Japanese government officials of Baekje whom one comes across occasionally in the Kinmei period of "Nihon Shoki" (Chronicles of Japan) that is used as material to discuss this issue.
Currently, theories about persons buried in the large zenpo-koen-fun or keyhole-shaped tomb mounds of the Yeongsan river basin are broadly divided into the theory that considers the local heads or the indigenous people and the theory that considers the Wajin or the people of the Wa lineage as those buried in the tombs. In this paper, we suggest the possibility of the latter, emphasizing the fact that they appear abruptly at sites different from the ones of local chieftains' lineage.
In conclusion, if we speculate, we can assume that the figures of persons buried in the zenpo-koen-fun of the Yeongsan river basin that are limited to a specific period since late 5th century were the powerful Wajin families. They were entrusted with the rule of the classes inferior to those of the prefectural castle under the Baejke royal family who were kings of the place or followers of warlords, including in Kitakyushu. As they eventually gathered in the capital of Baejke before long, were bureaucratized, and were promoted to responsible posts including diplomatic negotiations with Wa, the Kofun may have disappeared as a temporary phenomenon. The reasons the zenpo-koen-fun were concentrated solely in the Yeongsan river basin or the detailed process of the migration are unclear, and there is a need to examine this in the future.departmental bulletin pape
[Research Materials] On the Engishiki Formerly in the Possession of the Seta Family
Get PDFapplication/pdfdepartmental bulletin pape
[Research Notes] Manuscript Lineages and Critical Edition of Scroll 17 of the Engishiki
Get PDFapplication/pdfdepartmental bulletin pape
Collaborative Research Overview and the Features of this Collection
Get PDFapplication/pdfdepartmental bulletin pape
[Article] The Transformation of the Zakkōko (Groups of Miscellaneous Artisans) and the Dissolution of the Office of Weapon Manufacture
Get PDFapplication/pdf本稿は、品部・雑戸の系譜を引く雑工戸に焦点を当て、彼らに対する管理や収取のあり方がどのように変化していったのかを検討することで、寛平八年（八九六）に造兵司が兵庫寮へと統合されていくことの背景を明らかにしようとするものである。
これまで、軍事関係の雑戸である雑工戸が『延喜式』にまで維持されるように、律令国家が彼らに対して強い関心を抱いていたとされながら、一方ではこれら雑工戸は造兵司に上番せず、在地で武器を生産し貢納していたとされ、相反する理解がなされてきた。このように造兵司が立脚する雑工戸への理解が曖昧であったために、なぜ造兵司が解体されて兵庫寮へと統合されたのかという問いにも、明確な解答が出されないままであった。
その要因は、延喜兵庫式雑工戸条の内容分析の不足と、兵庫寮への統合までの造兵司の活動に対する検討の不足であった。そこで本稿では、こうした不足を補い、造兵司と雑工戸との関係性の変遷を整理して、造兵司解体の要因を探った。
内容分析から、延喜兵庫式は雑工戸による在地での武器生産などは想定されておらず、延喜兵庫式が依然として中央に工人を上番させることを規定していた。
次いで八・九世紀の造兵司について、先学の成果によりその中心的機能が軍需生産技術の再生産にあることを確認した。さらに史料から造兵司の活動をうかがうと、造兵司における技術伝習と、造兵司による雑工戸への管理とは、いずれも九世紀に衰退していた。
その結果、造兵司は雑工戸への支配を放棄して、当時京内を中心に発達した雇用労働と、京畿内における手工業民の増加を背景に、必要な技術者・労働力を雇用する形態へと移行したのであり、大宝令以来雑工戸の管理を職務とした造兵司は解体され、工房機能が兵庫寮へと引き継がれたのであった。In this paper, I will focus on zakkōko 雑工戸, groups of miscellaneous artisans descended from the shinabe 品部 and zakko 雑戸, groups of skilled workers in the Nara period. Through an examination of the changes in their management and recruitment, I will clarify the context that led to the integration of the Office of Weapon Manufacture into the Bureau of Military Storehouses in the eighth year of the Kanpyō era (896).
Scholars have developed mutually incompatible understandings of this process. On one hand, it is thought that the zakkōko, made up of zakko who were involved in military affairs, was maintained until the Engishiki because the ritsuryō state had a strong interest in them; on the other hand, some think they were not made to serve in the Bureau of Military Storehouses and ended up producing weapons in the provinces as tribute. In this way, because there was only a vague understanding of the zakkōko on which the Office of Weapon Manufacture was based, scholars have been unable to provide a clear answer to the question of why the Office of Weapon Manufacture was dissolved and incorporated into the Bureau of Military Storehouses.
I think there are two reasons for this. First, article 31 on the zakkōko from the "Procedures for the Bureau of Military Storehouses" in the Engishiki has not been properly analyzed; and second, the activities of Office of Weapon Manufacture up until into incorporation into the Bureau of Military Storehouses have not been sufficiently examined. Therefore, in this paper I will offer a corrective to these shortcomings by outlining the change in the relationship between the Office of Weapon Manufacture and the zakkōko, and by investigating the reasons that brought to the dissolution of the Office of Weapon Manufacture.
From an analysis of the "Procedures for the Bureau of Military Storehouses" in the Engishiki it can be noted that there is no mention of the fact that the zakkōko would be engaged in the production of weapon in the provinces, and it is specified that, as it was also previously done, craftsmen would be made to serve in the center.
Concerning the Office of Weapon Manufacture in the eighth and ninth centuries, I have corroborated the results of previous research by showing that its central function lay in the reproduction of manufacturing techniques for military supplies. In addition, the historical sources that record the activities of the Office of Weapon Manufacture show that the technical training within the office and its management of the zakkōko were in decline in the ninth century.
As a result, the Office of Weapon Manufacture relinquished control over the zakkōko, and on the backdrop of the growth of the labor force in the capital and of the increase of people involved in handcraft manufacture in the central provinces, it switched to a system in which technicians and manpower would be hired as necessary. Thus, the Office of Weapon Manufacture, which since the emanation of the Taihō codes had been in charge of administering the zakkōko, was dissolved, and its function as a place of production was inherited by the Bureau of Military Storehouses.departmental bulletin pape