JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society of Cultural Anthropology

Okinawan Studies in Japan, 1879'2007

HARA Tomoaki

Shizuoka University

The purposes of this paper are to track the main trends of Ok[nawan studies by Japanese scholars from the Meiji period to the present and to discuss the prospects for future studies, Before the Asian-Pacific War, most

scholars embraceci and attempted to verify the hypothesls called NichityO ddisoron in which the Okinawan and

Yamato peoples were thought to have a common racial and ethnic ancestry. Afterthe war, however, interest in

the origins of the Okinawan and Japanese peoples declined while interest in the socio-religious aspects of Oki-

nawan culture increased. In the last two decades, Okinawan studies have becQme more diversified and spe-

cialized than ever before under the influence of postmodemism and postcolonialism. There are stlll, however,

important subjects that remain almo$t untouched in Okinawan studies. Along with exploring subjects that have

been ignored in the past, practitioners of Okinawan studies should strive to provide a common platform for promotingdialogueamongthemselves.

Key words: Okinawa, Ryukyu(s>, NantO, Nichitya dOsoron, kotOku, social organization, folk religion, historicity,

coeva]ness

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to track the main trends of Okinawan studies by Japanese

seholars from the later 1870s to the present, in the domains of socio-cultural anthTopology

and folklore studies. Since space does not allow me to fu11y review the vast corpus of past

studies of Okinawan culture and societM I will focus on the mainstream and diseuss the

trends and prospects for future studies.i

`fOkinawa." Befbre going on to the main subject, it is necessary to identify the area called

The chain of more than 200 islands stTetching over approximately 1300 kilometers between

"the Kyushu Island (Japan) and Taiwan (Republic of China) is generally called Nansei (literallM Southwest) Islands." The area of this archipelago is administratively divided into

' For more extended reviews, see BEILLExLMRE 1999i HEsHIKI 1975i ITO and WATANABE 1986i KINJO 1950a; MABUCHI and OGAWA 1971; MATSUI 1987; MIYARA 1973; MTYARA and YAMASHITA 1994; MORITA 2002; MU-

RATAKE 1966I NOGucHI 1976; OMo'ro and NoGucHl 1978; OTO 1950, 1965, 19661 TAKAKuwA 1978; WATANABE 1986a, 1996; cf. SEKIMOTO 2003; YAKABI 1999,

.lbpanese Review ofCuliuratAnthropology, vol. 8, 2007

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society ofCulturalof Cultural Anthropology

102 HARA Tbmoaki

the Satsunan Islands to the north and the Ryukyu Islands to the south, The fbrmer, which

consists of the Osumi Islands, the [[bkara Islands, and the Amami Islands, belongs to Kago'

shima Prefecture; while the latter, which consists of the Okinawa Islands, the Miyake Islands,

the Ylaeyama Islands, and the disputed Senkaku Islands, belongs to Okinawa Prefecture.

"Okinawa" Thus, first of all designates Okinawa Prefecture, which consists of the Ryukyu

"Okinawa" Islands. Historically and originallM however, was the name given only to Oki-

nawa Island, the largest island in the Ryukyu Islands, and its neighboring islands. In other

"Okinawa" words, the Miyako and Ylieyama Islands were not called at that time, Even

`COkinawa," today, when people of the Miyako and Yaeyama Islands refer to they often mean

0kinawa Island and do not include the Miyako and Ylaeyama Islands. Mueh the same is

true of the Dait6 Islands. The Dait6 Islands, a part of the Okinawa Islands, had been uninhabited until the Meiji period (1868'1912), and have since then been settled by people

most of whom are from parts of Japan other than Okinawa Prefecture.

"Okinawa" It also should be noted that has not been a self-evident concept in academic

discouTse. Some seholars divide Okinawa PTefectuTe into thTee cultural areas: Okinawa,

"Okinawan Miyako, and Ylieyama. Other scholars promote the conception of an Cultural Area" which consists of not only Okinawa Prefecture but also the Amami Islands, once a part

of the Ryukyuan Kingdom (cf, TSuHA 1996; WATANABE 1985). When their focus of study "Ryu- includes the Amami Islands as in the latter ease, some scholars employ sueh terms as

"Ryukyu-Okinawa," "Amami-Okinawa" "Okinawa." "Nant6 kyu(s)," or instead of just (liter-

"the "the allM the Southern Islands)", Nansei Islands," and Ryukyu Archipelago" have been

"Okinawa." also used as substitutes for

The complicated situatien concerning what to call these islands raises an important point

that is worth discussing, The further diseussion, however, exeeeds the seope of this paper.

C[Okinawan" In this paper, I refer only to Okinawa PrefectuTe in focusing on studies, that is,

"Okinawa," `"YIimato" anthropological and folkloristic studies of is used to refer to so'called

Nihon Hondo (Mainland Japan), which consists of the islands of Kyushu, Shikoku and

Honshu, and their neighboring islands other than the Amami Islands.2

The achievements of studies in the Amami Islands have enriched ouT understanding of `COkinawan Cultural Area" (cf. KyU Gakkai Reng6 Amami Oshima Ky6d6 Ch6sa Iinkai 1959>,

I will not, however, take Amami studies as a subject of my discussion fbT two reasons. First,

although the Amami Islands weTe part of the Ryukyuan Kingdom and scholars have found

cultural continuities between Amami and Okinawa in various fields, there are also historical

differences between these two areas that cannot be ignored. I will trace the main trends of

Okinawan studies, paying attention only to the modern history of Okinawa, Referring to

Amami studies in such a context would function to marginalize Amami studies. Second,

taking into account the historical differences between Amami and Okinawa, we can thus say

2 In this paper, I do not see Hokkaido and its neighboring islands as a part of Yhmato, or Nihon Hondo. HistorieallM the Ainu and other indigenous people lived in this area. Although the Ylamato people constitute a "Naiehi" majority of the population in Hekkaido todaM they otLen do not include Hokkaido when they refer to (MainlandJapan),

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society of Cultural Anthropology

Okinawan Studies in Japan, 1879'20e7 103

that Amami constitutes an independent field of study (cf. UENo 1983). As such, in order to

promote Amami studies in connection with Okinawan Studies, it is necessary to inquire not

only into the cultuTal relations between these two areas, but also into the cultural and

historical uniqueness of Amami. With due considerations for these, I review and discuss

modern Okinawan studies in Japan.

Let me briefly overview the pre-Meiji Okinawan studies here. Although there were quite a few works written prior to the Meiji period (cf. ShUritsu Hawai Daigaku H6rei S6kan

Hensan Iinkai 1981), they were rarely based on field research as are modern studies, NlrvntoJ

S7ii, er Abtes on the Sbuthern Islancis, reputed to be one of the best works completed before the

Meiji period, was written by ARAI Hakuseki, a notable Confucian scholar and politician in the

Edo period (1603-1867). This study was dependent on written materials and interviews

with ambassadors from the Ryukyuan Kingdom (ARAI 171911996). One of the exceptional figures whose works were products of direct experience was TAIcHO, a Buddhist priest of the

J6do sect, who drifted ashore on Okinawa on his way to China in 1603 and stayed there for

several years. His writings include Ilyudyu Shinto- Ki, or 1}4ie Account ofthe PPlry ofthe Deities in Ryukyu, and are valuable materials for historical research on Okinawa (BENRENSHA [[IAIcHO, 1605/2001).

It was not until the Meiji era that full-fledged anthropological and folkloristic studies in

Okinawa appeared. The history of modern Okinawan studies can be divided into five

periods in terms of mainstream subjects, theoretical framework, methodologM and the socio-historical background of Okinawa: 1) the period of pioneers, 1879 to 1910; 2) the period of founders, 1911 to 1945; 3) the period of soeial anthropologists I, 1946 to the 1960s; 4) the period of social anthropologists ll,the 1970s to the 1980s; and 5) the period ofpostmodernt

ists, the 1990s to the present. In the fo11owing sections, I throw into relief the distinctive

features of each period,

The Period of Pioneers, 1879 to 1910

In the Edo period, after the invasion by the Satsuma feudal domain of Kyushu in 1609, the

Ryukyuan Kingdom became politically and economically subordinated to Satsuma, Al'

though the Ryukyuan Kingdom remained a nominally independent state, it was treated as a

vassal state of Satsuma under the [[bkugawa regime, After the Meiji restoration in 1868,

officials of the new Meiji government argued over whether the government should incerpo'

rate the Ryukyuan Kingdom into the Japanese Empire or not. EventuallM in 1879, the

Ryukyuan Kingdom was abolished and Okinawa Prefecture was established. Okinawa was

C`South "Main regarded by the Meiji government as the Gate" for guarding the House" of

Japan, Ykimato, from the Westem powers. After the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture, or so-called Ilyutvu shobun (literallM the disposal of Ryukyu), many people began to flow from Yamato into Okinawa as civi1 servants,

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society ofCulturalof Cultural Anthropology

104 HAIthTbmoaki

servicepersons, teachers, merchants, explorers, and so forth. The pioneers of Okinawan

studies included some of these Ylimato people, Among the representative works of this period are Okinawa Shi, or Nbtes on Okinawa, by IJICHI Sadaka, a government official (IJICHI

1877f1973); ftyutvu Adanroku, or 7kavel Repons on 1tyudyu, by WATANABE Shigetsuna, a military doctor (WAI:ANABE 1879); Ninnt6 7lrnken, or Ehr,ploration ofthe Sbuthern IslancXs, by SASA]vloRI Gisuke, an explorer (SASAIMORI 189411982, 1894/1983); and Ryukyu no Kenkyu-, or A STucly on ilyukyu, by KATb Sango, a teacher (KATO 1906-190711975). These works contain valuable materials on

the society and culture of Okinawa around the period of the 1lyukyu shobun. TAsHIRo Ylisusada

period. [[ASHIRO, a civil servant and botanist, first visited Okinawa as early as 1882, eom-

missioned by the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce. After that, he condueted field

"Yiieyama research three times in Okinawa, especially in the Islands, His reports on the

Yaeyama Islands that appeared in The Bultetin of the lbkyo AnthFopologicat Society covered a broad range of topics such as geographM historM language, customs, religion, and plants.

Based on his field research, [tAsmRo insisted that the language and culture of Yicieyama,

though loeated in the most southeTn part of Okinawa close to China and Taiwan, were in fact

similar to those of Yamato, and that this meant that Ylaeyama had culturally belonged to

Japan (TASHIRo 1890, 1894, 1945I1977).

With broad field research experience in China, Korea, and Taiwan, ToRll Ryuz6, one of the leading anthropologists and archaeologists in pre'war Japan, visited Okinawa in 1904. He did research on prehistoric sites and artifacts there, and elaimed that the Ainu were the

indigenous Stone Age inhabitants of Okinawa as well as of Yamato. However, he argued

that the origins of the contemporary Okinawan people could be traced back to the second [CJapanese Stone Age inhabitants, the Proper," who had come down to the south from Yamato

(TORII 190511975), His hypothesis was not only based on his own field researeh but also on

the reports by [VASHIRO, as well as on the argument on the status of Ryukyuan languages by

Basil Hall CHArL(BERLAIN, a notable English linguist and Japanologist.

CHAMBERLAIN conducted linguistic research in Okinawa in 1893, and published Essays in Aid of a Grammar and Dictionary of the Luchuan Language (CHAMBERLAIN 1895/2005). In this classic work, he claimed that both the Japanese and Ryukyuan languages descended from a

common ancestral language. As a renowned pioneer and authority in studies in Ryukyuan languages, CHAMBERLAIN remained influential in the periods that followed. Tb sum up, the pioneers in Okinawan studies inquired into the historical and cultural re- lationships between Okinawa and Yamato, and they often insisted on the eultural proximity

between these two areas. Such an argument entailed a hypothesis called Aiiehiiyti dosoron,

which is an argument that the Okinawan and Ylimato peoples have a common raeial and ethnic ancestry, This hypothesis was further developed and popularized by the subsequent founders of Okinawan studies in the next period, particularly by IHA FuyU and YANAGITA Kunio.

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society of Cultural Anthropology

Okinawan Studies in Japan, 1879-2007 105

The Period of Founders, !911 to 1945

The issue of the jurisdiction of Okinawa in the 1879 IbJultyu shobun was finally settled after Japan's victory over Qing Dynasty China in the first Sino-Japanese War (1894"1895). It was not until after the end of the war that the Meiji government changed from its policy of pTeserving the old manneTs and customs of Okinawa to a poliey of comprehensive assimila'

tion of Okinawa into Japan. As a result, during the next two decades, Okinawa underwent

Japanization in various respects, It was in the midst of this transitional peTiod that IHA

"Okinawa "OkinawaologM" FuyU, later called the father of gaku" or started to publish work

on the history and culture of Okinawa and carried out enlightening activities to encourage

his fellow citizens in Okinawa, IHA published the landrr}ark work, Kb 1lyukyu, or Aneient Ryukp,u, in 1911. In this, he com- piled into book form sundry articles covering a broad range of subjects including the historM

language, customs, myths, and literature of Okinawa. He based his studies on written

records, oral tradition and previous studies, ineluding those ef CHAiMBERLAIN and TORII. In "On his ehapter the Ancestry of the Ryukyuan People," IHA maintained that Okinawa was a

storehouse for preserving ancient Japanese culture which had already decayed and become

"just nearly obsolete in Yhmato. He said that Okinawa was like a natural antiquity mu-

seum" (IHA 1911/1974: 32). IHA also claimed that the Okinawan and Ylimato peoples de' scended from a common ancestral populatien, and that part of the Okinawan population

"south' came from Kyushu about two thousand years ago. He continued to develop this

ward-migration hypothesis" throughout his life. 'IHrts version of Nichiiyfi dbsoron is remarkable fOr the fo11owing two points, First, he tried

to integrate findings from various disciplines and then explore the aneestry of the Okinawan

people. His multifaceted approach had a great influence on subsequent Okinawan scholars `{Okinawaology" in shaping an that explores various aspects of Okinawa and aims to inte-

grate them into a whole. Second, IHA shed light on the cultural proximity between Okinawa

and Yamato and at the same time emphasized Okinawa's own unique individuality He

critically examined the history and current conditions of Okinawa, and through the concept

"unique of individuality" looked toward a better futuTe for Okinawa, or fbr that matter fbr the

entireofJapan. Thus,hesays:

The heaven ordains us, the Okinawan people, to show what other peoples eannot, that is,

our unique individuality We alone demonstrate our individualitM which other peoples can never possibly demonstrate. The uniqueness of a people is just like this. Our po'

sition in the Japanese Empire will also be settled by our uniqueness. Losing our unique

individuality is equivalent to committing spiritual suicide. No doubt, nothing will be a

greater loss than this to the Empire (IHA 191111975: 10'1).3

3 All translations from the Japanese are by the author.

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society ofCulturalof Cultural Anthropology

106 HARiLTbmonki

YANAGI[IA Kunio, the founder of fblklore studies in Japan, had a point of view on Okinawa

partly similar to but also difEerent from that of IHA, YANAGIIEA, very much inspired by Ko

jlyudyu, visited Okinawa in 1921, and there he met IHA and other loeal scholars in Okinawa.

After he came back to Tbkyo, YANAGIItA founded IVantti Danwa Kdi (A Discussion Group on the Southern Islands) in 1922, This turned out to be a stronghold of Okinawan studies during

this period. Under YANAGITA7s influence, other scholars from Ylamato including ORIKuCHI

Shinobu, a tanka-poet and leading scholar of folklore studies, visited Okinawa, while scholars from Okinawa participated in the IVanto' Danwa Ktxi. In this waM YANAGITA beeame a hub fbr a network of scholars from both Okinawa and Yhmato, and he promoted the organization of Okinawan studies. He also supported Okinawan scholars to publish their monographs (HIGASHION'NA 1925; IHA 1922; KISHABA 1924; MIYANAGA 1925; SAKIMA 1922, 1925; SHIMA-

BUKURO 1929>.

There were three main reasons why YANAGITA put a fbcus on Okinawa during this period

when he embarked on systematizing Japanese fblklore studies, First, Okinawa was a

crucial area for YANAGITA to establish and verify the eore theory and methodology of Japanese

"the folklore studies. In a textbook on folklore studies, he later stated that discovery of

Okinawa was a landmark event for our discipline" (YANAGITA 1935f1998: 251), [[1]ying to

reconstitute the histoTy of Japanese cultuTe based on folkloristic materials, he took notice of

the eultural proximity among mutually distant areas in Japan. IHA, fbr example, suggested

the Iinguistic similarity among Okinawa and such remote areas in Yhmato as Izumo and Ou in Ko Ryttkyu (IHA 191111974: 293), YANAGITA thought that such a phenomenon indicated the prineiple that new eultural forms eontinually produced in the urban cultural centers gradu- ally spread to the surrounding areas one after another like a series of ripples. In other

words, the latest urban cultural forms rarely reach the ma}ginal areas immediatelM and as a

result the old urban andlor pristine cultural fbrms are still to be seen there. YANAGITA

"principle argued that this of cultural ripples" (YANAGITA 1925/1998: 87) explained the cul-

tural proximity among mutually distant areas in Japan and fbrmed the fbundation of his coTe theory of Japanese fblkloTe studies. Okinawa was the best place for YANAGIzA to verify the

`Cprinciple of cultural ripples," not only because Okinawa, far distant from urban areas in

Ylamato, seemed to be a storehouse of ancient Japanese culture as suggested by IHA. YA-

NAGIi[A also recognized the multilayered relationships between cultural centers and periph- eries in Okinawa itself: e.g., the relationship between Shuri, wheTe the seat of government of the Ryukyuan Kingdom was placed, and Ishigaki Island, the main island of Yaeyama; or, the

relationship between Ishigaki Island and other remote islands in Yheyama.

Second, YANAGITA saw Okinawa as a microcosm of Japan, or fbr that matter of the entire world (cf. TANAKA 2000). Pondering the past and present situations of Okinawa and other islands in the Pacific, he coined the concept koto'ku, or predicament of solitary islands, to analyze on a mult･idimensional sca]e the difficult situations of peripheral areas that have

"VANAGITA been politieally and economically dominated, and then forgotten, by central areas.

thought that the hardships whieh the remote islands in Okinawa had endured under the

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society of Cultural Anthropology

Okinawan Studie$ in Japan, 1879'2007 107

Ryukyuan Kingdom were akin to those which Okinawa faced in relation to Yiimato, and to

those which the entire of Japan would face in relation to the Western powers in the near

"SIANAGITA, future, For the study of center-periphery relationships in Okinawa was a prom-

"the ising field that could contribute tQ verifying principle of cultural ripples" as well as to

"causes "remedies" finding of the disease" and for Japan and other areas that suffered from kotOku (YlmuAGITA 1925f1998: 84). Third, Okinawan studies held great significance for YANAGITA in exploring the ancestry of the Japanese people. Based on his observation of folk religion in both Okinawa and Ylftmato,

YANAGITA set up a hypothesis that the Japanese ancestral population came north to Ylatmato

"northward via the Ryukyu Islands (YANAGITA 192511997), It is needless to say that this

"southward migration hypothesis" was in conflict with IHA's migration hypothesis." HoweveT,

'Ylimato, both put their focus on the eultural proximity between Okinawa and treated Oki-

nawa as a storehouse of ancient Japanese culture, and contended that Okinawa and Ylimate

had the same ancestrM i.e., AJichiryu' closoron,

This argument was embraced by most of other scholars in this period, ORIKuCHI Shinobu,

for instance, described the key concept of deities in ancient Japanese religion as that of mare

bito (literallM rare people), drawing inspiration from Okinawan religious rituals in which deities were thought to periodically come from beyond the sea. He applied this concept to

elarify the proeesses through which liteTature, performance arts and religious rituals emerged in ancient Japan (ORIKucHI 192911995a, 1929f1995b, 193011995), Although such

an argument on aneient Japanese religion was quite different firom that of YANAG-A, ORI-

KucHI also thought that pristine Japanese cu]ture remained in Okinawa.4 Nichit:yit dosoion as developed and embraced by these great founders of Okinawan studies, however, declined

in the next period,

The Period of Social Anthropologists I, 1946 to the 1960s

The Battle of Okinawa in 1945 caused great damage to the whole of Okinawa, but espe" ･Okinawa cially to the main island. After the Asian'Pacific War, was plaeed under American control foT 27 years and experieneed dramatic social changes during this period, As early as 1947, YANAGITA edited Okinawa Bunha sasetsu, or 71Jie Collection ofEssays on Okinawan Cultune, to estimate the achievements of pre'war Okinawan studies and to eall the attention of the Ytimato people towards Okinawa, which had been tremendously damaged by the war (YA- NAGITA 1947).

"northward In the 1950s, YANAGulA further developed his migration hypothesis," and his

4 ORIKUCHI, huwever, did not accept without reserve the theory that Ryukyuan languages has kept some of Old Japanese (ORIKucHI 193011995). He put forward several objections, ineluding: while these two languages may have originally belonged to the same system, they have been separated so long that there are now fewer similarities than ditferences between them. Even if similarities were to be found, these would inelude words

formed after the separation of the two languages.

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society ofCulturalof Cultural Anthropology

108 HARA W]moaki

studies finally bore fruit in 1961 in one of his most famous works, as well as his last, KbijO no

Michi, or 77ie Path Over the Skea (Y)XNAGI[[IA 196111997). He maintained that the Japanese

ancestral population migrated to the Ryukyu Islands from southern China because they were attracted to cowry shells found on the islands. Cowry shells were quite valuable and used as a medium of exchange in aneient China, and large amounts of the shells were found in the

Ryukyu Islands. YANAGITA thought that descendants of the ancestral migrants firom south'

ern China came north to Ylamato seeking suitable land for rice eultivation, In passing, "horse'rider YlrtNAGIass hypothesis stTongly criticized the well`known theory" that had a great deal of response at that time (OKA et al. 194911958). It is also said that through his "northward migration hypothesis" YANAGITA attempted to demonstrate that Okinawa is

integral part of Japan, implying criticism of the separation of Okinawa from the rest of Japan

after the 1952 San Franciseo Peace [Eveaty (FuKul[A 1989).

On the other hand, some younger scholars started to reconsider the 7Viehiryti dosoron, shift- ing the directions of their studies. The pioneering work in this regard was the first special issue on Okinawan Studies of 71ije .lapanese Jburnal ofEthnoiogy, which appeared in 1950 (Vbl. 15, No,2). In the prefatory note to this issue, ISHIDA Eiichir6 expressed his doubts as fbllows:

So far, the Okinawan culture has been compared only to those of the Japanese Islands.

It is true that past studies have surely found suffieient evidence to preve the cultural proximity between Okinawa and Japan. Isn't there, however, a problem that overem- phasizing the common ancestry between Okinawa and Japan leads to either missing or misinterpreting points such as the ethnic characteristics of the Okinawan people as a whole and the non'Japanese aspects of Okinawan culture? (ISMDA 1950: 1)

The same tone of argument ean be seen in a review paper on Okinawan studies by OTO [[bkihiko and in the postscript by KINJO Ch6ei, the editor of this issue (KINJO 1950b; OTO 1950), KINJOwrote:

Okinawan studies so far have regarded Okinawan culture as an anomaly of Japanese

culture and have for the most part searehed only for similarities between them. On the other hand, first of all, we have to grow out of this conventional approach, and aim at

treating Ryukyuan eulture as independent and autonomous and at liberating it from its

subordinate position towards soucalled Ylamato culture. Then, we have to scrutinize

more narrowly various aspects of Ryukyuan culture and compare them with those of

neighboring foreign countries as well as Japan. I understand that this special issue has

been planned en these two larger viewpoints (KINJO 1950b: 148).

KINJO's statement summarized the new direction of post-war Okinawan studies, pursued by many scholars after the 1950s, For example, ITO Mikiharu reexamined AJichii:yti dosoron

through empirical research on rice rites in both Okinawa and Yamato, and emphasized the

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society of Cultural Anthropology

Okinawan Studies in Japan, 1879-2007 109

cultural differences between these two areas (kO 1962'196311974). Among those who

pursued the new appToach to Okinawan studies, MABucHI T6ichi, a leading social anthro' pologist, had a great influence on other scholars including ITO. imBucHI substantially

confirmed KINJ6's statements through his own research and was at the firont of Okinawan

studies in this period, Until Japan's defeat in theAsian-Pacific War, MABucHI had engaged in research in Taiwan

and Indonesia. After the war, MABucHI became interested in Okinawa upon encountering

YANAGIpts work referring to the Okinawan belief in onari gami (sister deity), the belief in the spiritual predominance of sisters over their brothers. YANAG!7]A, on the other hand, was at that time planning a new research project on Okinawa, and asked MABuCHI to join as he was

"YANAGITA a specialist in Taiwan, an area neighboring on Okinawa. Both and MABUCHI

thought that Okinawa was a crucial area that would serve as a bridge between anthropology

and folklore studies in Japan.

The new direction of Okinawan studies is exemplified by MABucHI's analysis of the belief in onari gami, In contrast with preceding scholars who had often seen the belief as a reflection

of ancient religion or ancient maternal societM MABucm showed through his field research

how the belief was connected to existing local kinship struetures both in principle and in practice (]V[ABUCHI 1955f1974), He also made comparisons with the belief and kinship

rituals among Malayo'Polynesian people, and thus attempted to grasp Okinawan culture firom a worldwide perspeetive (MABucHI 1964),

As to the reason why MABucHI devoted himself to 0kinawan studies in this period, it

cannot be ignored that he had a feeling of eompetition against U.S. anthropologists. In the

early 1950s, a squad of U,S. anthropologists had already carried out two large research

projects in Okinawa in succession, both supportedby the National Research Council; i.e., the

"Scientific "Post-War Investigation of the Ryukyu Islands" project (1951-1952), and the Okinawa" project (1953-1954). In 1961, the [fenth Congress of the Pacific Science Associa'

tion summoned scholars firom both the United States and Japan, including MABucHI, to

discuss various aspects of Okinawan culture and society (SMITH 1964). Confironting a

situation in which U.S, scholars seemed to be overtaking Japanese scholars in Okinawan

"Japan studies, MABUCHI stated, was defeated by the U,S. in the war, but we cannot lose this

war (i.e., academic competition)" (NOGUCHI 1976: 51). MABucHI had a plan to develop

Okinawan studies in Japan based on scrupulous fieldwork that eould meet international

standards. In fact, a number of representative Japanese scholars of Okinawan studles were

trained under the supervision of MABucHI and his eolleagues at [[bkyo Metropolitan Univer'

sity

In passing, American anthropologists of this period contended that the ancestral popula- tion of the Okinawan people was Malayo'Polynesian and was thus different from that of the Ylamato people (MAI{ETzKI 1962). A similar aTgument, in opposition te IVichirya dOsoivn and that caused much controversy in the 1950s, was presented by KANAsEKI Takeo, who joined the afbrementioned YANAGI7zA researeh project on Okinawa (TANIGAWA 1971). Such an

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society ofCulturalof Cultural Anthropology

110 HARA Tbmoaki

argument inspired a younger generation of Okinawan scholars and created an opportunity for them to reexamine the unique individuality of Okinawa (HIGA 1999: 60), In general, however, interest in what weTe the origins of the Okinawan and Japanese peo' ples gradually declined during this period, and interests in the socio-religious aspects of

Okinawan culture increased instead. In this connection, MABucHI's researeh on Okinawa

aimed at exploring the function and structuTe of social organizations, scrutinizing the rela'

tionships between social organizations and folk religion, and carving out the Okinawan

symbolic worldview, His research interests refiected the trends in Western social anthro-

pology at that time, and his views were shared by many other Japanese anthropologists

engaged in Okinawan studies. For example, the second special issue on Okinawan studies of 71ie ,lapanese Jburnai ofEth- nology issued in 1962 (Vbl. 27, Ne. 1) focused on social organizations, partieularly on kinship,

and related topics: kinship structure, marriage and familM kinship terminologM ritual

organization, and so fbrth, In the introduction to this issue, NApcANE Chie, a leading social

anthropologist in this period, generalized various ethnographic aceounts of social organiza' tions in Okinawa, relying on eoncepts and theories in kinship studies, and proposed to make

comparisons between the social organizations of Okinawa and those of the Polynesian islands

(NAKANE 1962). NAKANE's argument and the fbeus of this issue reflected the flourishing of

kinship studies in Western anthropology

While the interest in social organizations in Okinawa was growing, it was the descent

group called munchti that especially attracted the interest of many scholars, Mitnchfi is an

exelusive patrilineal group that is especially important in the central and southern parts of Okinawa Island. The main functions ofmunchfi coneern ancestor worship practices. It thus closely relates to cultural norms for the succession of the aneestral tablets and to the status of

female priests who play important roles in ancestor worship practices. Although research on muncha had appeared in the pre'war period (WATANABE 1940), muncha studies with a fbcus on its function and structure did not flourish until the 1960s.

In this regaTd, Okinawa no Shahai to Shu-kyo-, or Society andReligion ofthe Ryukyus, mainly com'

piled by social anthropologists at [[bkyo Metropolitan University, was a monumental woTk

([[bkyo [[britsu Daigaku Nansei Shot6 KenkyU Iinkai 1965). This volume consists of ethno-

graphie accounts and analyses of social organizations, especially munchu', and their relations

to folk Teligious practices in various parts of Okinawa. The findings presented in this "It volume were summarized by FuRuNo Kiyoto as fbllows: is the various secial organizations

of Okinawa and the system of religion and worldview elosely connected to these organizations

that have been the guiding principles for building the basic communities of Okinawa, as well as the matrices for producing the strong uniqueness of Okinawa" (FuRuNo 1965: 1). This volume also included reseaTch on the dynamic aspects ofmunchfi as well as analyses of its static function and structure (TsuNEMI 1965), OriginallM munchuJ was formed in the later

17th century among the noble class at Shuri after the establishment of the class system of the

Ryukyuan Kingdom under the rule of Satsuma. It was after the late 19th century abolisht

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society of Cultural Anthropology

Okinawan Studies in Japan, 1879'2007 111

ment of the Ryukyuan Kingdom and its elass system that the convention of munehdr spread to

various parts of Okinawa. The process of munchti formation was called munchfika by scholars and a body of work on munchuLka has grown since the Iate 1960s (AKAMINE 1983; KASAHARA

1975, 1977, 1989a; MATsuzoNo 1970, 1972; ODA 1987; TAKAKuiMeL 1979, 1982; YAMAJI 1968).

As stated above, fblk religion was one of the most important subjects as well as social or- ganizations in this period, Okinawan folk religion had been much puTsued by IHA, YANAGITA, and otheT scholars since the pre-war period, The fbeus on both the social and symbolic aspects of fblk religion, however, was a new approach emerging in the post'war period.

MABUCHI and one of his successors, MuRATAKE Seiichi, sought to construct a synchronic

model of the Okinawan symbolic worldview underlying rituals, myths, social organizations,

andlor the socie-spatial structures of village communities (MABuCHI 1968; MuRATAKE 1964).

Their work, reflecting the fiourishing of symbolic anthropologM had considerable impact on subsequent studies (HIGA 1967/1983; ITO 1973; KASAHARA 1974; WAZDANABE 1985). Another major characteristic of Okinawan studies during this period was that social an'

thropologists started to conduct intensive field research, if not long-term partieipant obser'

vation, at local communities in Okinawa. On the whole, those who engaged in such inten-

sive research did not stick to the AJIchiiydr dbsoron argument. Their focus was on Okinawan

culture regarded as independent and autonomous; and in fact they often treated Iocal com-

munities as autonomous cultural units, In consequence, the internal cultuTal diversity of

Okinawa was revealed through the large number of ethnographic reports produced. Study

circles of Okinawan college students also made a significant contribution in this regard as

they also started to conduct field researeh in various areas in Okinawa,

Although declining during this period, the Mehiryfi dosoron had not vanished altogether, as

is exemplified by YANAGI[!Ais Kaijo- no Michi. The diseourse of IVichir:yti dosoron and alike

remained alive in the midst of politieal trends in post-war Okinawa that turned into a mas-

sive reversien movement in the 1960s.

The Period of Social Anthropologists II, the 1970s to the 1980s

In 1972, administrative Tights over Okinawa were returned to Japan. The Japanese gev-

ernment launched a program to spur economic development in Okinawa, and the Okinawan

"hondo authorities worked in concert announcing the motto nami" (`Ccatch up with the

mainland"), The next two decades saw the rapid social'economic changes to attain this goal,

centered around the development of infrastructure.

Around the time when Okinawa was returned to Japan, both general and academie inter"

ests in Okinawa incTeased throughout Japan. 1<);it Gakkai Rengo-, or the Consortium of the

Nine Academic Societies, in which the Japanese Society of Ethnology and the Folklore

Society of Japan participate{l, conducted a large jQint research project in Okinawa in 1971'1973 (Kytt Gakkai Reng6 Okinawa Ch6sa Iinkai 1976). Vbluminous publications

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society ofCulturalof Cultural Anthropology

]]2 HARATbmoaki

reflecting past as well as prospective future achievements of Okinawan studies were also put out one after another (Howm 1971, 1972; MABucHI and OGAwA 1971; OTO and OGrwA 1971;

SHINZArO 1972; TANIGAWA 1970-1972), 711ielapanese .Jburnal ofEthnology planned a third special issue on Okinawan Studies, which was published as a separate volume in which the landmarks ofpost-war Okinawan studies were demonstrated (Nihon Minzoku Gakkai 1973).

After the 1970s, studies of the origins of the Okinawan and Japanese peoples declined both

in anthropology and folklore studies, On the other hand, studies of social organizations, folk

religion, and the symbolic worldview of Okinawa, in which msucHI had taken the initiative,

were succeeded and elaborated by such scholars as HIGA Masae, IT6 Mikiharu, MuRATAKE

Seiichi, TSuHA Takashi, and Wiw]ANABE Ybshio (HIGA 1983, 1987; ITO 1980; MuRAIAKE 1975; TsuHA 1990; WATANABE 1985). Comparative studies of Okinawa and neighboring areas otheT than Yamato were also promoted in various fields (NAKANE 1973; OBAYASHI 1973). In

that connection, KUBO Noritada led the study of the influenee of foreign religions on Okinawa,

espeeially of the influenee of Chinese religions, and his work strongly inspired other scholars (KUBO 1971, 1978, 1981, 1989). Kdn Chugoku Ktii no Minzoim to Bunka, or 71he]Fblk Cultunes ofthe Areas aiound the Cireum-China Slea (4 volumes) also provided a broad everview of Okinawan culture in comparison with other cultures in this area (HIGA 1993; UEMATsu 1991; WN]ANABE 1989; WATANABE and MIuRA 1994), Such a broad perspective on Okinawa was surely rele'

vant to emerging trends in historical studies (cf. [FAKARA 198011989).

One outstanding extension of past research was the study of Feng shui in Okinawa and surrounding areas, notably by WA]]ANABE Ybshio (WA[I]ANABE 1988a, 1988b, 1990, 1994; WrtrANABE and MIURA 1994), Wisu]ANABE premoted studies in Feng shui after the 1980s, in collaboration with scholars in geographM historM and architectonics, WA[IrANABE thought

that Feng shui was closely associated with the main subjects of Okinawan studies, as de-

scribed above, and argued that the thought and theory of Feng shui born in ancient China

had the potential to relativize medern Western science including Western anthropology

WATANABE concurrently advocated the promotion of the anthropology of knowledge, or

studies in the dynamies of folk knowledge, on the basis of his own research experienee and

his reflections on past Okinawan studies (WATANABE 1986b, 199012004). Conducting re-

search in speeific local communities over a prolonged period, WATvtNABE realized the diversity conflicts and changes in people's folk knowledge. Although past studies had revealed differences in folk knowledge between local eommunities in Okinawa, they often disregarded

the complexities and dynamics of fblk knowledge within a particular eommunity In other

words, past studies had often represented a local community as if it were fi11ed with a ho-

mogeneous and unchangeable folk knowledge. In constrast, WA[rANABE fbcused on the

dynamics of folk knowledge within a local community,

WA]]ANABE's version of the anthropology of knowledge also reflected the self-reflexive dis- cussion in kinship studies. After the 1970s, a series of questions was raised about the

cross-cultural validity of such principal analytical concepts as familM kinship and descent, and about the prioritization of kinship oveT other soeial relationships (cf. KupER 1988;

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society of Cultural Anthropology

Okinawan Studies in Japan, 1879'2007 113

NEEDHAM 1971; ScHNEIDER 1984), With due consideration of such critical discussion,

"emic WrvTANABE argued that Okinawan studies should promote studies" of folk knowledge

`[etic instead of studies" that deductively apply Western anthropological analytieal concepts (WA[I]ANABE 1990f2004). WATANABE's aTgument regarding the dynamies of folk knowledge is eutstanding in that it

provides a general epistemological framework applicable not only to Okinawan studies, but also to studies of other areas, and it has influenced other scholars (ODA 1987; SHIBuyA 1992; YANG 1989).

Although studies of the socio-religious aspects of Okinawan eu]ture led by the suceessors of MABuCHI including WrvrANABE maintained their infiuence, Okinawan studies became more

diversified and specialized during this period. Studies of Okinawan shamanism eenteTing

around traditional shamanistic practitioners called yuta, and research on related topics such

as shamanistic new religion increased not only in anthropology and folklore studies but also

in religious studies, soeiologM social psychologM and psychiatry (AI)ACHI 1986; FUJISAKI 1987;

IKEGAMI 1992; MATsul et al, 1980; MIyA[eA 19771 OHAsHI 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1998;

OHAsHI et al, 1984; Okinawa Shakai Gakkai 1986, 1987; SAKuMIcHI et al. 1984; SAKURAI

1973; SASAKI K6kan 1980, 1984; SAsAKI YUji 1984; TAKAEsu 1980). Ecological andlor cogni-

tive studies that focused upon the complex relations between Okinawan people and their environment also sprung forth in a stream (AKImucm 1984; ANKEI 1978, 1985, 1986, 1988,

1989, 2007; HA]VA 1978; ICHIKAWA 1978; MMSUI 1983, 1989; SASAKI 1976; SuD6 1978; TAKEDA

1987; WATABE and IKUTA 1984; YAMADA 1984J YosHIKAwA 1984). These works demonstrated

the importance of taking into aecount the unique natural environment of Okinawa, charac'

terized by its insularity and subtropical climate, while carrying out research on the culture

and society of Okinawa, As for studies in subsistenee and commercial activities, one cannot

ignore the monumental woTks about the well-known Itoman migrant fisherfolk published in this period (NAKAI[IATE 1987, 1989; NOGUCHI 1987; cf. UEDA 1991>. It also must be noted that publications on regional history increased in Okinawa after the 1970s, There are two remarkable characteristics of these publications: one is that they

contain valuable oral historical materials, especially on the experiences of migration and the

Battle of Okinawa, both of which strongly eharacterize the modern histery of Okinawa; and

the other is that they include a large amount of aza shi, or the historiography ofa local com'

munity (usually called aza or shima) that constitutes a part of a larger municipality Aza shi,

"native edited by local people, can be viewed as a kind of ethnography" These local histories

usually cover comprehensive subjects including the natural environment, subsistence and

cQmmercial aetivities, place names, labor customs, oral traditions, rituals and festivals,

community assoeiations, education, and so on. It is said that more than a quarter of all the loeal communities in Okinawa have published aza shi (NAKAMuRA 1999),

It may well seem firom the above outline that Okinawan studies prospered more than ever

in the 1970s and 1980s. HoweveT, academic interest in Okinawa in Japanese anthropology

and folkloTe studies actually decreased during these two decades for the fOllowing three

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society of Cultural Anthropology

114 HARA Tbmoaki

reasons. First, speculative studies on the origins of the Okinawan and Japanese peoples

declined, as empirical studies based on scrupulous fieldwork beeame standard in the both

disciplines. Second, kinship studies, which had formed the mainstream of Okinawan

studies, declined in both Western and Japanese anthropologM as we have seen above. Third,

the research areas of Japanese anthropologists expanded to a broad range of countries and

regions all over the world, mainly due to the lifting of restrietions on overseas travel by the

Japanese governm,ent in the mid 1960s, but also due to the economie growth of Japan. Since

"training this time, not a few Japanese anthropologists have seen Okinawa only as a kind of

range" for themselves and their students in preparation for going overseas and conducting fu11-fledged field reseaTeh elsewhere (cf. CHol et al. 1996).

The Period of Postmodernists, the 1990s to the Present

Since the 1990s, Okinawa has attTacted renewed nationwide attention for its cultural

uniqueness and the vast U.S, military bases that it has been forced to retain. In the early

1990s, around the time Japan celebrated the 20th anniversary of the reversion of Okinawa to

Japanese control, Shuri Castle, which symbolizes the history of the Ryukyuan Kingdom, was

reeonstructed and opened to the public. The traditional eulture of Okinawa including

Ianguage, music, danee and food received heavy media attention and weTe celebrated by the

Yamato people. In the mid"1990s, however, U.S. base problems in Okinawa, masked by the "Okinawa boom;' suddenly stood out as serious issues. In 1995, an Okinawan schoolgirl was

raped by three U.S. servicemen, This rape ineident caused much protest in Okinawa, and led to the establishment of the Special Action Committee on Okinawa

nese and U.S. governments to deal with U.S. base problems in Okinawa,

Around the turn of the millennium, Okinawa was embraced by the mainstream media

again. Okinawa was chosen as a venue for the G8 Summit Meeting in 2000, In addition,

"Nabi "Chura the movie no Koi" (Nabbie's Love, 1999) and the TV drama san" (Chura san: The Promise to The Chura Sea, 2001), both of which featured a-"pure and naive" Okinawa,

enjoyed nationwide popularity The 9fll terrorist attacks, however, brought the U.S, mi]i-

tary presence in Okinawa into relief again. At the moment, Okinawa is at the center of the

realignment of U.S. forees in Japan.

After the 1990s, discussions ealling for a radical Tevision of the fundamental premises of

past Okinawan studies have started to appear from both within and without anthropolegy and folklore studies, ToMIyAIMA Ichir6, a specialist in modern historM persuasively dis-

"Okinawan" "Japanese," cussed how the social categories of and often taken for granted, have been constructed and substantialized through modern Japanese history (ToMIyAMA 1990, 1994). MURAI Osamu, a speeialist in literary criticism, cTiticized YANAGI7Ars studies in C`Nant6 Okinawa as (the Southern Islands) Ideelogy" (MURAI 199212004), MURAI argued

that YANAGITA turned his eoncern to Okinawa in order to forget his involvement as an elite

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society of Cultural Anthropology

Ol{inawan Studies in Japan, 1879-2007 115

bureaucrat in the political process of Japan's annexation of the Korean Peninsula. Accord-

"proto'Japan" ing to MURAI, YLoqAGITA assigned a key role as to Okinawa in order to create

through his folklore studies the myth of a homogeneous Japanese society MuRAI also

contends that Nant6 Ideelogy is still alive in contemporary Japanese folklore studies and

media coverage,

In Japanese anthropology, OTA Ybshinobu has critically examined past academic works on Okinawa and argued that these were seriously problematic because their mode of discourse

"an on Okinawa eould be considered an example of entropic naTrative" (OTA 1991, 1992; c £

CLIFFoRD 1988). OTA argued that entropic narrative discourses on Okinawa viewed the

rapid changes in the social conditions of Okinawa as eultural devastation due to Japanization

E[pure" and thus attempted to salvage culture of Okinawa. In other words, the entropic

narrative mode has ignored the subjectivity of Okinawan people who have been struggling to

create their own eultural space and identity within the constTaints imposed on them firom the

outside. According to OTA, Okinawan studies should adopt a mode of discourse that can be "a called narrative of emergence" which sees present conditions in Okinawa not in terms of "pure" the devastation of Okinawan culture but of the creation of new eultural forms by the

Okinawan people,

The arguments by MuRAI and OTA provoked mueh controversy during the 1990s. On the one hand, other works appeared based on MuRAI's and Ov'Ys arguments (CHol et al. 1996;

MORITA 1997). However, on the other hand, direct and indireet criticisms were also made of

MURAI and OTA. For instance, AKAsAKA Norio and ITO Mikiharu scrutinized YANAGIwts

works and presented an internal criticism of his Okinawan studies, in contrast to the exter- nal eritieism of MURAI (AKASAKA 200e; ITO 2002), ODA pointed out the pitfall of 0TAis "narrative of emergence," and attempted to interpret cultural creation by the Okinawan people from an alternative perspective (ODA 1996). At any rate, MURAI, OTIA, and TOMIYAMA have incited scholars in Okinawan studies to take more self-reflexive attitudes.

special on of The fburth issue Okinawan studies 71zeJl?panese.Jburnal ofEthnology,issued in 1996 (Vbl. 61, No. 3), was also fi11ed with a self-refiexive tone. HIGA Masao cTitieized past

Okinawan studies which had only concentrated on particular cases and laeked a synthesizing and comprehensive perspective (HIGA 1996). TsuHA Takashi focused on problems coneern-

"Okinawa" ing the term and its substitutes, to which I have already referred in this papez

He proposed recognizing Okinawa and the Amami Islands as an area where people have

"Non-Yamato fostered a identity" (TSuHA 1996),

While both HIGA and TsuHA called for the necessity of constructing a comprehensive theo-

retieal overview on Okinawan Culture, CHol Intag et al., on the basis of discussions of

postmodernism and posteolonialism in Western anthropologM stressed the need for recon" structing the relationship between Japanese scholars and the Okinawan people (CHol et al, 1996). They also eritically reexamined past studies of munchti and Okinawan fblk religion.

One of the problems that CHOI et al, raised was that past studies have essentially ignored

social changes in modern Okinawa. In contrast, [DAKARA Kurayoshi, a renowned specialist in

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society ofCulturalof Cultural Anthropology

116 HARAIbmoaki

the history of Okinawa, pointed eut that Okinawan studies should scTutinize the pre'modern

history of Okinawa in Qrder to fu11y undeTstand the historical processes through which folk culture was created (TAKARA 1996). For example, some of foIk religious practices were in "folk" faet created not as a part of autonomous culture in Iocal communities, but as a part of

official culture commissioned by the Ryukyuan Kingdom, Okinawan studies, however, did

not produce work on official culture as managed by the Ryukyuan Kingdom, [EAKARA alse

eontended that Okinawan studies have been overly engTossed in the folk eulture of rural

communities and did not pay sufficient attention to the folk culture of urban areas or to folk

culture concerning Ryukyuan maritime trade, In addition, he argued that theTe have been

few studies that have grasped a certain local community as a whole or its long'term soeial changes (cf. MATSul 1989i 16),

It is true that the mainstream of Okinawan studies until the 1980s foeused mostly upon

rural communities and concentrated on narTow fields of research. However, studies of new

subjects, mostly ignered in the past, have been emerging more recentlM ineluding research "Japanese" "Okinawan" on: academic and political discourses on the nature of being and (NAKA)vlURA 1997; YONAHA 2004, 2006; cf. OGUrvIA 1998); the construction of self'images by the people in a remote island (KAsAHARA 1996); contemporary theatrieal performance and other popular culture (OTA 1997); tourism by the Yamato people andXor U,S. servicepersons (Mo- RITA 1997, 2003; OTA 1993; TANAKA 2006; UMEDA 2003); Yamato wemen who are married to

Okinawan men (IsmzuKI 2002); and U.S. military base problems (INouE 1998, 2002, 2004a, 2004b, 2007), It,is also worth noting that work that focuses upon the Okinawan people as "diaspora" or on the spread of Okinawan culture in Yiamato and other overseas areas are

emerging recently, although they may not be ealled Okinawan studies in the sense employed

in this paper (ARAKAKI 2002; AsAI 1999; HARA 2005a, 2005b; KOBAyASHI 2001; NIsHI and HARA 2003; SHIROTA 2000). ' As for familiar subjects such as social organization and folk religion, various new ap- proaches have recently appeared, including: critical examination of past munchti studies in `Cgroup" which treating munchti as is refuted as biased (NISHIMURA 1993); reexamination of the

"invention "imagined formation of munchg, introducing such concepts as the of tradition,"

"construction communitM" or the ofidentity" (ADACHI 2001; LEE 1995; ODA 1996; cf. KITAHARA and A]NA 2001); scrutinizing how Okinawan shamanism has been represented in film and

literature (SHIOTsuKI 2002); fbeusing upon the inheritance of war memories through sha-

manic ritual (SAT6 2007>; exploring the dynamics of foIk knowledge and oral tradition as

intertwined with ofTicial culture, popular culture, andfor academic culture (HARA 2000).

"The The special issue on Creation of Okinawan Culture" in intriguing Asia, issued in 2003 (No, 53), symbolizes the above'mentioned new trends in Okinawan studies, WAT]ANABE

[`Okinawa" "cultuTe" Ybshio, who planned this special issue, argued that both and its are not

objective entities but socially constructed discursive categories, and thus Okinawan studies

"Okinawan should focus upon the processes through which culture" as a discursive category has been ereated and managed (WATANABE 2003). Although such a social construetionist

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society of Cultural Anthropology

Okinawan Studies in Japan, 1879-2007 .117

view of culture does not necessarily form the current mainstream of Okinawan studies, the

trajectory of WATANABE's view of Okinawan eulture summarizes the change of trends in

Okinawan studies after the 1970s.

Apart from the discussion of postmodernism and postcolenialism, work that focuses on the complex relations between the Okinawan people and their environment has been eontinu- ously pursued (KAwABrvrA 1998; KuMAKuRA 1998; MATsul 1998; MATSuMuRA 2000; MITA 2004,

2006; NAITO 1999, 2003; [EAIcAHASHI 2004; [[AKEKAWA 1996, 1998).5 Asafurther extension of

this research, several new works have recently appeared that focus upon subjects such as the

past and present of a public retail market

Concluding Remarks

Over the past two decades, Okinawan studies have become more diversified and speeial'

ized, or for that matter, more chaoti ¢ than ever before, As we all know, such chaotic condi-

tions are observed not only in Okinawan studies but also in studies ofotheT areas. We need

not lament such apparent chaos, DiveTsification and specialization of research subjects is

almost inevitable considering the vague and encompassing character of sueh core concepts as

"culture" "society" and that anthropologists have explored through empirical research.

In this light, there remain many important subjects of study still almost untouched in the `Cculture" "society" research on Okinawan and For example, although past studies have

eageTly explored Okinawan social organizations, they have not focused on the strueturing of

"What personal networks as a whole, Such questions as kinds of personal networks do the "What Okinawan people have?" and roles do kinship ties play in personal networks?" remain unanswered.

There are also few works that have taken into aeeount such important factors as commu-

nication network systems in the broad sense, which ineludes tTaffie and broadcasting systems

in Okinawa. The changes in communication network systems no doubt have had a great

impact upon the culture and society of Okinawa, consisting as it does of many sometimes

distantly located islands, In this connection, the creation of urban areas may be seen as

involving the creation of hubs of such communication systems, What is peculiar about the ereation of urban areas in post'war Okinawa is that it was closely related to the construction ofU,S. military bases. After the 1960s, many people have moved from rural eommunities to

"Okinawa urban areas, and now nearly 70 percent of the population lives in the so-called

conurbation" of the central and southern regions of Okinawa Island. However, Okinawan

studies have not yet focused upon the question of urbanization and related topics.

5 Okinawan studies have been virtually dominated by male scholars until reeently In this light, it is worth noting that many female scholars have been condueting field research in Okinawa reeentlM especially in the

field of eeological anthropology,

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society of Cultural Anthropology

ll8 HiUtA Tbmoaki

Along with exploring important subjects ignored by past research, the pTactitioners of Okinawan studies should strive to construct a common platform for dialogue among them"

selves.6 In this light, it is noteworthy that many recent seholars have begtm to eake inte "historicity" "coevalne$s" account the and ol' research subjects (cf, EABIAN 1983) and the

macro politico'economic structures that surround them; in contrast with past researeh which eften eaTved out a timeless symbo}ic woyldview er made cross'eultgral comparisons outside of

historical con'texts.

This does not･ necessarily mean, howeveg that past Oidnawan studies only pursued timer "Ok,inawa;s less and traditional Okinawan culture. As demonstrated in their concepts of

unique individuality" and koto"ku, both IHA and YANAGITA not only treated Okinawa as a

storehouse of ancient Japanese culture but were also vividly aware ef the hardships Okinawa

was suffering at that time. It is true that post'war social anthropologists conducted field research in rurai communitie$ faT distant from urban areas. Behind such trends, however,

was a sense of crisis over media coverage of Okinawa which at that time foeused on political

an.d economic issues and often ignered the traditiona} cukure on the basis of whieh local

people maintained their lives. Some scholars were also concerned that the rapid changes in Iifestyle would lead to anomie, a state of normlessness (OGo and MIYARA 1973). MuRNrAKE

argued that it was because of the vita}ity of traditional culture that the Okinawan people

could rebuild their soeial lives after the Battle of Okinawa:

iMter the war,] the Okinawan people worked very hard to ensure a stable food supply and to improve their lives in their devastated land, Besides, they asked after the safety

e £ their families and their houses, yestered ibi, the mest sacred sites of their villages and

other sacred ones, and devoted themselves to the establishment ofmunchfi. The recovery

of what the Okinawsn people hadi, leanedi on eould not be simply described as the revival

oftraditional culture, or nativism. Their earnest and conscientious eff'orts were made

not because of nostalgia, but because of theiT inevitable spiritual needs derived from

their Okinawan identity Such effOrts led te their motivation in }ife, and seTved as the

impetus for them to overcome various difficulties (MuRKIIAKll 1984: 231-2).

Judging from his st'udy of the Okinawan symbolic worldview, it may look as if MURrvIAKE

coneent･rated on, the aRalysis of the time}ess, traditienal eulture of Okinawa. In fact, how'

ever, he tried to throw into relief the cultural matrices that underlay the values and orienta"

tions of'the Okinawan people and that led them to rebuild their lives after the war.

In this regard, ene o £ the most uTgent tasks that OkiRawan studies should address is t･he reexamination of how people reorganized their lives during the periods of the Asian'Paeific War and U.S. administration. The Asiant?acific War cattsed great da,mage to Okinawa, and

6 Need]es to saM it is important･ to promote dialogue not only among Japanese scholars but also among seholars working on Okinawa around the globe. The increasingly transnat-ional cg]laborative eEforts Ln Oldnawan studies aTe well exerriplified by 7Vie 1lyorkyuanisi: A Newsletter on IU'"lj'u!Okinawa Stztdieh'

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society ofCulturalof Cultural Anthropology

Okinawan Studies in Japan, 1879'2007 119

the subsequent period of U.S. administration saw dramatic ehanges in industrial structures,

communication netwoTk systems, urbanization, and so on. The contemporary culture and

society of Okinawa have been shaped through these historical processes, For instance, as KAsAHARA Masaharu persuasively argues, the contemporary fbrm of an- cestor worship in Okinawa cannot be fu11y grasped without taking into consideration the

impact of the Asian'Pacific War in which a great number of people were killed in Okinawa

(KASAHARA 1989b). This case is Mustrative only The influences of the Asian-Paeific WaT and of the U.S. administration remain present on many fronts in Okinawa, and thus the aforementioned task has the potential to become a common platform for promoting dialogue

among those who engage in Okinawan studies. The primary reason that this task should be carried out immediately is the aging of those people who experieneed the Asian'Pacific War. In the near future, we will not be able to

conduet interviews with those who can talk about how they lived before the war and about

how they reoTganized their lives after the war. Now is the last chance to preserve and

transmit their memories,

Aeknowledgments

I would Iike to thank the JRCAeditors and readers fbr their insightfu1 comments. I would also like to express my heartfelt gratitude to James RoBERsoN and Jeremy EADEs for proof'

reading my draft.

REFERENCES

ADAcHIYbshihiro aEXCL 1986 FV")$ega))refftttvafi-ltJ()LI*VI:t, E:itti'mp}eeigkL Lv(1 (C`NewReligiousMovementsinOkinawa: ACase Study ofSleitenko- Shinmeigfi"). rf'i"'falifFgEI (Religious Studies) 270: 309-33, 2001 rS'igacOUStR..#t e EL74fYfItIJI (Aneestor "brship andSelfldentity tn OkinavL'a). fi' [M : )LV"'[ V(d}gHiHb(ft- (Fukuoka: Kyushu Daigaku Shuppankai). AKAMINEMasanobu altbirkiit'r lgs3 r?tprcb.iei,ea) rpEgpj "lil-la.fi,iiff,,eig'utesmz"Hkutmppaa)kto`D:Fmaelj-es1 ("TheMitnchtisystem

of Kudaka Island, Okinawa: A Preliminary Analysis for the Understanding of Village Cult OrganizationinKudaka"), rEitLthdiZfiJFa] (TVze,JopaneseJbztrnat(lf'Ethnology) 47(4): 336'55.

AKAsAKANorio ifiiW;NLme 2000 rtuO*fiIeQ-NPMNSOeets] (Historyc{f'T7ioughtontheSea:71PieEmergenceof?:4AL4GJI]4Kunio), A(A : /liiiEpm ([[bkyo: Sh6gakukan).

AKIMICHI[[bmoya llkVgtw

"Territorial 1984 Regulation in the Small-Scale Fisheries ofltoman, Okinawa,'] In RUDDT)E, Kenneth and AKIMICHI [[bmoya, eds., Mbritinee lhstitutions in the PPlestern Pacij)e, pp.89'120. 0saka: Na'

tional Museum of Ethnology

NII-Electronic Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

120 HARA To瑚 oaki

． ANKEI Y itji 安 渓 遊 地

・ ・ ー “ 1978 「西 表 島 の 稲作 自然 ヒ ト イ ネ 伝統 的生業 とそ の 変容 を め ぐ っ て 」 （Rice Cultivation in ” Iriomote Island：AStudy on the 〔hraditional Subsistence and lts Transition in lriomote lsland）， ’ − 『季刊 人類学 』 （2uarterl．v journai｛qfAnthropotogy）9（3）；27 101． ー “ ． 1985 「西表 島 の タ ロ イ モ そ の 伝 統 的栽培 法 と利用 法 」 （野 aditiollal Taro C ultivatioll and Utilization

” − in hiomote Island ）． 『農耕 の 技 術』 （Agricuttural Techniques）8： 1 25 ． 一 “ − 1986 「西 表 島 の ヤ マ ノ イ モ 類 そ の 伝 統 的栽 培 法 と利 用 法 」 （［llraditional’Yam Cultivation and Utili

” − zation in Irio血ote Island）， 『南島．史学 』 （Journal OfRyuAlyttan Studies）28 ：22 43 ． 一 “ 1988 「高 い 島と低 い 島 大 正 期 八 重 由 の 稲束 と 灰 の 物 々 交換 」 （lnterchange between High and Lew

” 工sland ： Barter of Paddy and Ash in the Taish6 Era Yaeyama ， Ryukyus ）， 『民族 学 研 究 』 （The ’ − 丿apanese ．み）urnat （るfEti〜η ‘ノ10g｝ウ53（1）：1 30 ． 一 ELAgricult 1989 「酉 表島 の 農耕 文化 在来作物 は ど こ か らきた か 」 （ ，ural Culture in Iriomote Island； ” ’ − Where I）id the 工ndigenous Vegetables Come from？ ）， 『季 「氓 族 学』 （guarter！y丿ournal qブ Eth − nology ）13（3）： 108 22 ． 一 2007 『西 表島 の 農耕文 化 海上 の 道 の 発 ．見 』 （Agricultural Culture in iriomote istαnd ； Di，scovery 〔oゾthe Path 厂 Over the Sea）．東京 ： 法政 大 学 出版局 （恥 kyol H6sei Daigaku Shuppankyoku ）．

ARAI Hakuseki translated by HARADA Nobuo 新井 白石 ， 原 田 禹雄訳 注

1719 〆1996 「南 島志』 （i＞btes on the Southern lslands）．宜野 湾 ： 穃 樹 社 （Ginowan ：Y6jusha ）．

ARAKAK1 Makot ◎ 新 垣 誠 “ ‘ ’ and the Boundary of ∵ 2002 The Uehinanchu Diaspera Nikkei ln HIRABAYASHI ， Lane Ryo ， Akemi − ’ ］RA and es 黷 sHI eds ．エ棚 り ｝Yorids ？＞e ｝v Lives・Globalization and PeOple KIKuMC YANO ， Ja HIRABA ， ， ， ’ − Descent in the Americas and iom Latin America 加 α η ，296 309． Stanfbrd：Stanford OfJapanese プ 抑 ， pp

Universi．ty Press．

ASN Yasushi 浅 井易 t 一 “ 1999 ／近 代 と タ ビ （旅） 沖縄 の 人 々 の 移動 の 研究 へ の 新 た な視角 」 （The Modern Era and Tabi ” （肥ravel ＞：ANew Perspective on the Disp三acement of the Ok 蜘 紐 waRs ），『日本 民 俗 学』 （BuUetin（f’ ・ the Folklore Socieりy ofL1 吻 α η ）220 ： 108 31 ．

BEILLEVAIRE ， Patrick

“ 士om ： − and 1999 Assimilationfrom Within， Appropriationf Without The FolkloreStudies Ethnology

” − of Ryukyu ！Okinawa ．In BREMEN ， Jan van and SHIMIZU Akitoshi， eds ．， Anthropology and Colo − nialism in Asia and Oceania 172 正 ： ， pp ． 96．Richrrond ， SurreyCurzonPress．

BENRENSffA TAICUU 弁 蓮社 袋 中，translated by HA ｝IADA Nobuo 原 田 禹雄 談注 ’ ） the 〜 the in ・ ’u ： ： 160512C 01 『琉 球神 道 記』 （The Account oj may （f Deities RJ udy ），宜野湾 榕 樹社 （Ginowan Y6jusha）． CHAMBERLAIN ， Basil Hall， translated by YAMAGUCHI Eitetsu 山 口 栄鉄編訳

“ 一 ． 1895 ／2 005 『琉球語 の 文 法 と辞典 目 琉語 比 較 の 試み 』 （Essay in Aid ef a Grammar and Dictionary qfthe Luchuan Langztage），那 覇 ：琉 」求新報祉 （Naha ：Ryukyu Shinpδsha ＞． ・ ・ ・ CHOI lntag ， ISHIKAWA Hiroyuki ， MORI Masa ．fumi， and SHIBUYA Ken 崔仁 宅 石 川浩 之 森雅 文 渋 谷研

・ “ − ” 1996 「奄 美 沖縄 は ど う語 り う る か 」 （How Can We Describe Amami Okinawa ？ 〉．『民族 学 研 究 』（The

： − 丿ψ α η a 昭 ，ノbz〃 〃 α ’ofEthnology ）61（3）467 81 ．

CLIFFORD， Ja皿 es ＝ 一 cf ’ wentieth −（ v and ． ： 1988 ThePredicament Cuitiire1 rentur．Ethnography，Literature， Art Cambridge ， MA Har

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

− Okinawan Studies in Japan ， L8792DO7 ユ21

vard University Press．

FABIAN Johannes ，

1983 Time and the Other： How Anthropology， Malces lts Obiect． New York： Columbia University Press，

FuJlsAK1 Yasuhiko 藤 「11奇康 彦 ‘‘ ‘ ’” 「 ユ ・ 1987 沖縄 の タ と 『1 ラ ン ス 』」 （ATheory on Okinawan 跏 α and Trance ），『南 島史学』 （丿b 〃r η α 1 − 0fRyukyuan StUdies）30 ； 1 33 ， FUKUTAAjio 福 ［1ア ジ オ

“ ” 1989 「解説 」 （Notes and Com 皿 entary ）．柳 田 国 男 『柳 田 国 男 全 1 （ln YANAGITA Kunio The 集 』 ， − Complete M ） rkS of ｝｝ANA G／Tg Kttnio Volume I ）， pp ．689 703 ．東 京 ： 筑 摩 書 房 （Tokyo ： Chikuma Shob6），

FuRuNO Kiyoto 古野 清 人 “ ” 1965 「は しが き 」 （Preface）．東京都立 大学南西 諸島研究委員会 （編）『沖縄 の 社会 と宗教』 （ln ］bkyo − Daigaku Nansei Shot6 KenkyU linkai ed ． Society and Religion〔 ．1 2 ： Toritsu ， ， OfRyttkyus），pp ．東 京 平凡 社 （Tbkyo ： Heibohnsha ），

HARA Tomoaki 原 知 章 一 ’ 2000 の ・ 「 へ − 『民 俗 文化 現在 沖縄 与那 国島 の 民俗 」 の ま な ざ し 』 （Dynamics qfFolk Culture： The lnter

・ weaving （ofFotk ， Ofiicial， Popular， and A．cademic Culturein Yonaguni． Okina” a ）。東京 ： 1司成祉 （Tokyo ： D6seisha）．

「 ・コ ー ー ヘ ー ・ 2005a オ キ ナ ワ ン ミ ュ ニ テ ィ か ら ウチ ナ ネ ッ ト ワ ク ハ ワ イ に お け る オ キ ナ ワ ン コ ミ ュ

“ ニ テ ィ の 持続 と 活性 化 に 関す る了備 的 考 察 」 （From Okinawan Co皿 munity to Uchina Network ： ’ A Preliminary Analysis on しhe Maintenance and Revitalization o f Okinawan Community in ’” − Hawai i ）． 『ア ジ ア研 究 』 （4sian Studies）1： 75 104．

「 ・ “ 2005b ハ ワ イ の オ キ ナ ワ ン コ ミ ュ ニ テ ィ と 電 子 メ デ ィ ア 」 （Okinawan Community and Electronic ’ ” ・ 一 ー Media in Hawai i）．飯 田 卓 原知 章 （編）『電 子 メ デ ．イ ア を飼 い な らす 異文化 を橋渡す フ ィ ル

ド の 座 and eds ） 研 究 視 』 （ln IIDA Taku HARA Tomoaki ， ．，1 omestieating ElectronicMedia： A ／％ w − ）ective ofCross − Fietd Stwdies ．163 80 ． ： せ か ： Persi Cultural ）， pp 東 京 り 書 房 （Tokyo SerikaShob6），

HATA Nobuyuki 端 信行 一 1978 「サ ン ゴ 礁海 域 に お け る磯 漁 の 実 態 調 査 中 間報 告 （1） 石 垣 市 登 野城地 区漁 民社 会 の 若 干 の 分析 」

‘tPreliminary （ Report on the Dive Fishing Technique in Okinawa （1）：A Sociological Analysis of

’ ” a s at 立 Fishermen Community Tonoshiro， lshigakiCity）．『国 民族 学博物館研 究報 告 』 （Builetin ・ （〜flthe National Museum qfEthnotog γ）3（3）；520 34 ，

HESHIKI Yoshiharu 平 敷令治

・ ‘［ ” 1975 「民 族学 民 俗 学 」 （Ethnology and Folklore Studjes）．沖縄 県教 育 委 員 会 （編 ）『沖 縄 県 史 第

5 巻 文化 1 』 （In Okinawaken Ky6iku Iinkai， ed ．， Histony’ ofOkinawa Prqfectttre， Votume5 ， Cufture − ／ ．671 734 ． ： Naha ： ）， pp 那 覇 沖縄 県教 育 委員 会 （ Okinawaken Ky6iku linkai）． HIGA Masao 比 嘉政夫 “ 1967 ！1983 「琉 球 の 祭 祀 と世 界 観 をめ ぐ る 問題 」 （Some lssues in Ritual and Symbolic WorldView in ” ・ Ryukyu ）． 『沖縄 の 門 中 と 村落 祭 祀 』 （lnAMunchti and valage Rituals in Okinaw α ）， pp ．141 7 ．東京 ； 一 ’ 三 書房 （Tokyo ： San ichi Shob6）． ’ ー・ ’ 1983 『沖 縄 の 門 中 と 村 落 祭 祀 』 （Munc hdi and Viglage Rituals in Okinewa ）．東 京 ：ニ 書房 （Tokyo ： San i¢ hi Shob6）．

一 ’ 1987 『女 性優 位 と男 系原 理 沖 縄 の 民 俗 社 会構 造 』 （Spiritual 1redominance of PVome〃 a 〃 d Principles on the

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

122 HARA Tomoaki

’ ’ Male Line’ Sbucture ofbolk Society in Okinawa），東京 ； 凱風社 （Tokyo ： GaifOsha），

“ ” 1996 「琉 球 列 島文 化研 究 の 新 視角 」 （A New Angle for the Study of Ryukyuan Culture）．『民族 学研 − 究』 （Tlte Jα Panese Journal qfEthnotogy）61（3）： 437 48 ．

1999 『沖縄 か ら ア ジ ア が 見 え る 』 （Looking at Asia Throttgh Okinan，a ）．東 京 ；岩 波 書店 （Tokyo ： Iwanami Shoten）．

HIGA Masao （ed ．） 比 嘉 政 夫 〔編 ）

− 1993 『環 中国海 の 民俗 と文化 1 海洋 ．文化論』 （The Folk Cultttres（oゾtheAreas around the CircumChinaSea ’ Volume ／， Essayh on Oceanic Cugtures）．東 京 ： 凱風 社 （Tokyo ； Gai佩 sha ），

’ HIGASHION NA Kanjun 朿 恩 宗内寛惇

： − ユ925 『琉 球 人 名 考 』 （AStudy on R］，ukyuan Pensonal Names ）．東京 ： 郷 土 研 究 村、（Tokyo Ky6do Ken ky亘sha ）．

HOK ，4MA Shuzen （ed ．） 外 聞守善 （編）

1971 『沖縄 文化論叢 第 4 巻 文学編』 （The Selected MorkS on Okinawan Culture Volurne 4． Literature）．東

京 ： 平 凡 社 （Tokyo ； Heibonsha ）．

1972 『沖縄 文化 論 叢 第 5 巻 言語 編 』 （The Selected Morks on Okinmvan Cuiture Volume 5， Langzfage）．東

京 ； 平 凡 杜 （Tokyo ： Heibonsha）．

IcHIKAWA Mitsuo 市川 光雄 “ − 1978 「宮 占群 島大 神 島 に お け る 漁撈 活 動 」 （Fishing Activities in Ogami Island of the Miyako Is

” ・ ・ ・ 理 ・ ln 1ands ）．加 藤 泰安 中尾 佐 助 梅 棹 忠 夫 （編 ）『探検 地 民族 誌』 （ KATO Taian， NAKAo Sasuke ， − and UMESAO Tadao ， eds ．， Explorα tion， Geography， andEthnographJ 」）， pp ，495 533．東京 1 中央公 論社 （Tokyo ： ChO6 K6ronsha ），

IHA Fuyfi 伊波普猷 “ ” − 1911！1974 「古琉 球 」 （Ancient Ryukyu ）．「伊波 普 猷全 集 第 1 巻 』 （Tlie Complete rvorky offHA Fwyu ’ − V） tume i）， pp ．1 418 ．躯京 ： 平 凡社 （Tokyoi Heibon ．g ha ）． “ ” 1911！1975 「琉 球 史 の 趨 勢 1 （The Trend in Ryukyuan History）． 『伊波 普 猷 全 集 第 7 巻』 （The − σo ηΨ 勧 8 恥 廊 q〆7翩 F 配頂 防 伽 zθ 7），pp ．5 14，東 京 ； 平凡 社 （Tokyo ； Heibonsha）． ’ 1922 『古琉球 の 政治 』（The Poiities in Aneient RyulO ，u ）．東京 ； 郷土 研 究社 （Tokyo ：Ky6do KenkyUsha ）． IJICill Sadaka 伊 地知 貞馨

「 187711973 『沖縄志 』 （Notes on Okinawa ），東 京 ： 国書刊行 会 （ibkyo ； Kokug ． ho KaDk6kai ）．

IKEGAMI ％ shimasa 池上 良止 一 ・ ・ 1992 『民俗 宗 教 と救 い 津 軽 沖縄 の 民 間巫 者』 （Folk Religien and Sαlvation．Shamanic Praetitioners in ， Zsugaiw and Okina｝t a ）．京 都 ： 淡交 社 （Kyoto ：Tank6sha ）， INouE Masamichi 井 E雅 道 一 ー ー 1998 「海 上 ヘ リ 基 地 問 題 と 目 本 人 類 学 沖 縄 県 名 護 市 辺 野 古 で の フ ィ ル ド ワ ク の 覚 え 書 き 」 ‘ （Offshore Base lssues and Japanese Anthropology： Notes from the Field in Henoko ， Nago City，

” ’ ’ ’ ・ Okinawa ）． 『現 代 思想 』 （La Revue de la Pensee d AuJourd hui）26 （7）： 228 44 ． ー 一 “ 2002 「グ ロ バ ル 化 の な か の 『沖縄 イ ニ シ ア テ ィ ブ』論 争 記 憶、ア イ デ ン テ ィ テ ィ 、基 地 問題 」 （The ‘ ’ Debate Over Okinawa lnitiative in the Age of Globalization； Collective Memor ｝ Identity， and

” ・ Base P ・ ・ blems ）． r思 想』 （Tli・ ught ）933 ：246 67 ． “‘ ’ − 2004a We Are Okinawans But of a Different Kind ： New ！Old Social Movements and the U ．S， Mili

” − tary in Okinawa．CttrrentAnthropology 45（1）： 85 104． 一 ‘‘ 一 2004b 「当事 者 の 共 同 体 、権 力 、市民 の 公 共 空 間 流川論 の 新 し い 階梯 と 沖 縄 基 地 問題 」 （The Com

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

− Okinawan Studies irl Japan，1879 2007 123

− munity of Sublects， the Power ， and the PublicSphere of Citizens：ANew Stage of the Theory ” and Discourse ofAppropriation and the U ，S． Base Problems in Okinawa ），『民 族学研 究』 （The − Japanese JOZtrnal qfEthnolog．v）68 （4）： 534 54 ． ’ ’ ・’ ・ 2007 0kincava and the LLS． Military： ldentity Mak ing in the Age qズ Globatization． New Y6rk ： Columbia Uni

versity Press． ．．一一 ISHIDA Eiichir6 石 田英 郎 一 “ ” 1950 「沖 縄研 究 の 成 と問題 巻 の こ とば （ tudies and 。 果 頭 」 Ryukyuan S ， Achievements Problems ） ” 『民族 学研 究 』 （防 ε 如 仞 ε記 ノournal ofL thnoiogy ）15 （2）： 1． ISHIZUKI Kaori 石 附馨 一 一一 ‘c ” “ 2002 ヤ マ トン チ ュ 嫁試 論 現代沖縄 の 生 活者 た ち を考 え る た め に 」 （Observations on Mainlander

‘ ’ ” ’ ： the Wives Who Are Member5 in Contemporary Okinawan Life？ ），「H 本 民 俗 学』（BcrUetin（？f the ’ − Folklore Soc ieりy qプ」＠ α 〃 ）231 ：67 96 ， IT6 Mikiharu 伊藤 幹治 − 一 1962 196311974 『稲作 儀 礼 の 研 究 日 琉 同租論 の 再 検討』 qStudy on Rice Rites： Rethinking粥 翻 糎

D δsoron ）．東京 ： 而立 書房 （Tokyo ： Jiritsu Shob6）．

1980 『沖 縄 の 宗 教 人 類 学 』 （肋 Anthropotogical Study on Okinawan Religien）．東 京 ： 弘 文 堂 （Tokyo ： K6bund6 ）．

2002 r柳 田 国 男 と 文 化 ナ シ ョ ナ リ ズ ム 』 （）A ）VAGIT ／4 Ktt｝7io and Cutturat Arationalism），東 京 ： 岩 波 書 店

（Tc）kyo：Iwanami Shoten）．

IT6 Mikiharu and WAFr．asrABE Yoshio 伊藤幹 治 ・渡 邊欣 雄

“ ” 1986 「南西諸 島 （民 間信 仰 ）」 （The Nansei Is！ands ： Folk Rehgion 〉．口本 民族 学会 （編 ） 『凵 本 の 民 〜 ’ 族 学 1964 1983 』 （ln Nihon Minzoku Gakkai ed ． The Japanese Ethnology 1964−／983） ．180 6． ， ， ， pp

東京 ： 弘文 堂 （Tokyo ：K6bund6 ）．

KASAHARA Masaharu 笠原 政 治

一 “ 1974 「琉球 八 重 rlrの 伝 統 的 家屋 そ の 方 位 と平 血形 式 に 関す る覚 善 」 （A Note on the Construction of ” ． − Houses in Yaeyama lslands， Southern Ryukyus ）、 『民族学研 究』 （77he Japanese jot｛rnal 〔〜1Eth − noiog ア）39 （2）： ］76 90 ． 一 “ ・ 1975 「琉 球 的 系譜観 とそ の 変質過程 八 重 1．［1島II與社 会に お け る親族体系 の 理 解 の た め に 」 （The 職 ans ” f（）rmation of Ryukyuan ldeas on Genealogy ： Understanding the Kinship SyStem in Yaeyama ）， ’ − 『社』 （A （〜uarterlJ 1ヒecord θ n SocialAnthropology）8； 1 50， 一 “ 1977 「出 自 と 社 会 過 程 沖 縄 に お け る 「門 中 」 簇 生 の 周 辺 ．1 （Descent and Social Process：Fleurishing

” ・ of ル 苑‘ηc 緬 in Okinawa ）． 『社 会 人類 学 年 報 』 C4nnual Report ofSocia ／Anthropology） 3： 99 126． “ − 1989a 「 の 舳 耀 緬 ［ a 沖縄離 島社会 門 中再 考」 （RethinkingAncestorOrientedGroupings （ ）inTonaki， ” Small Island Community of Okinawa ）． 「目本 民俗学』 （Bulletin of the Folklore Socieりy ofJapan） 178 ： 1−26 ． “ ” 1989b 「沖縄 の 祖先祭祀 」 （Ancestor Worship in Okinawa ）．渡邊欣雄 （編〉『環 中国海 の 民 俗 と 文 化

’ − 3 祖．先祭 祀 』 （ln WATAN ABE Yoshio ， ed ．， The Fotk Cuttures of the Areas around the CirciimChina − ” EsscO；s on Ancestor Morship ． ， ： okyo ： ， Sea3， ）， pp 65 94 東 京 凱風 社 （1 GaifUsha）

一 “‘ ’ 1996 「〈池 問民 族 考 〉 宮 古 島 II與文 化 の 個 性 と文 化 的 個性 の 強調 」 （We ， the Ikema Island People：

” ’ Cultural Uniquenesg． and ldentity at the Miyako lslands ）．『沖 縄 文化 研 究 』 （Studies in Okinrman − Cuttttre）22：497 565 ．

KATO Sang ・ 加藤 ．三 吾

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

124 HARA 歌〕moaki

・ 1906 1907 ！1975 『琉 球 の 研 究』 C4 Stwdy on Ryukyu），東 京 ； 未 来 社 （Tokyo ； Miraisha），

KAWABATA Maki 川 端牧 一 “ 1998 「民俗 知 識 で 彩 られ る 魚 沖縄県糸満 の 女性 に よ る 魚販売 の 事 例 か ら」 （Hsh Colored with Folk

” Knowledge ； ACase of Fish Mongers in Ito皿 an ， Okinawa ）． 『エ コ ソ フ ィ ア 』 （Ecosophia）2 ： 87・／01．

KINJO Ch6ei 金 城朝永 一 “ ユ950a 「沖縄 研 究 史 沖縄研 究 の 人 とそ の 業 績 」 （A History of Ryukyuan Studies： Those Who Studied ” ’ ・ on Ryukyu and Their Works ）． 『民族 学 研 究』 （The Japanese Journal ojEthnology）15 （2）：2 14 ． “ ’ ” 「 ： 1950h 編集後記 」（Editors Postscript）．『民族学研 究』 （The ／Oρane ，ye Joevrnal〔ofEthnology ）15（2）148． kSHABA Eijun 喜捨場永 殉 ． ユ924 『八 重 山民 謡誌』 （Records Ojlheyama Folk Song．y）．東 京 ： 郷 土研 究社 （Tokyo ： Ky6do Kenkyifsha）． ・ KITAHARA Atsushi and AWA Morishige 北原 淳 室和守 茂 ・ ・ 一 2001 『沖縄 の 家 門 中 村 落 』 （le， Mbイnchti， and 酬 6 in Okinawa）．東 京 ： 第 書 房 （Tokyo ： Daiichi Shob6），

KOBAYASHI Kayo 小林 香代 ’ 一 エ ー ’ − 2001 『演者 た ち の 共 同体 東 京 イ サ シ ン カ を め ぐ る 民 族誌 的 説 明』 qCommttniO of Dancing Per ・ formers、An Ethnographic Account on Tokyo Eisa Shinka）．東 京 ： 風 間書 房 （Tokyo：Kazama Shob6）． KOMATSU Kaori 小 松 か お り 一 2007 『沖縄 の 市場 文化 誌 シ シ マ チ の 技 法 と新 商 品 か ら見 る沖縄 の 現在 』 （Ethnography ofa Pubiic Retail ー ー Market in Contemρorary Okinawa ； Skills（qゾMeat Packers andNew Merchandise）．那 覇 ： ボ ダ イ ン タ

（Naha ：Border lnk），

KUBO Noritada 窪徳 忠 一 1981 『中 国 ．文化 と 南島』 （（：hinese CuUure and the Sottthem lslands），東 京 ： 第 書房 （Tokyo ： Daiichi Shob6）． 一 1989 『沖縄 の 民間信仰 中国 か らみ た』 （Folk Religion in Okina｝va ： its Relationship ）vith Chinese Religion）．

那 覇 ： ひ るぎ社 （Naha ： Hirugisha ）．

KUBO Noritada （ed ．） 窪 徳 忠 （編 ） 一 ’ 1971 『沖縄 の 習 俗 と信 仰 中国 との 比 較研 究 』 （Custom and Belief in Okinewa ’ Comparative Studies（ゾ − Okinawa and China）．東 京 ： 東京 大学 東 洋 文化 研 究 所 （Tokyo ： Toky 。 Daigaku T6y6 Bunka Ken kyUjo）， 一 1978 『沖縄 の 外 来宗 教 そ の 受 容 と変容 』 （The Reception and Transformation q々 め 繽 gη Religions in Olcinawa）．東 京 ： 弘 文 堂 （Tokyo ： K6bund δ） ’ 1990 『沖縄 の 風 水』 （Feng Shui in Okinawa ）．東 京 ： 平 河 出版 社 （Tokyo ： Hirakawa Shuppansha ）， KuMAKuRA Fumiko 熊倉文 子 一 “ − 1998 「海 を歩 く女 た ち 沖縄 県久 高島 に お け る 海 浜 採集活動」 （Women WaLking on the Sea ： Gath

” ering Aetivities at Seashore in Kudaka Island， Okinawa ）．篠原徹 （編）『現代民俗学 の 視点 1

民 の In SHINOHARA T6ru ed ， Contemporary Perspeetives in Folklore Stttdies 1 Folk Tech− 俗 技術』 （ ， ， ， ・ nology ）， pp ．192 216 ．東京 ： 朝倉 書店 （Tbkyo ：Asakura Shoten），

KUPER ， Adam − 1988 ： Thefnvention（）fPriJnitiveSoeiety’ Tンan ミformation qf an Jllusion．1．ondon Routledge．

K 頭 Gakkai Reng6 Amami Oshima Ky6d6 Ch6sa Iinkai（ed ，） 九 学会 連 合 奄 美大 1島共 同調査 委 員会 （編） 一 ・ ’ 一 1959 『奄 美 自然 と 文 化 』 （Amami ．．VatttrL and Culture），東 京 ； 目 本 学術 振 興 会 （Tokyo ： Nihon Gaku

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

− OkinaWan Studies in Japan ，1879 2007 125

jutsu Shink6kai）．

KyU Gakkai Reng6 Okinawa Ch6sa linkai（ed ．） 九 学 会連 合 沖 縄 調 査委 員 会 （編）

一 ・ ・ ’ 1976 『沖 縄 白然 文化 社 会』 （Okincnva’ Nattfre， Culture， andSociety ）．東 京 ： 弘 文堂 （rokyo： K6bund6 ）． LEE Jinyoung 李金眞榮

． 一 “ 1995 「沖縄 に お ける伝統 の 創造 の 局面 「門 中」 と系 図 の 生 成 を 中心 に 」 （A Case of lnvention of ” Tradition in Okinawa ： Making of 漁 η ご癬 and Genealogical Record ）． 『沖縄 民俗 研 究』 （The ’ − 丿burnal ofOkinaw an Fotklore Studies）15： 11 30． 一 MABUCHI T6ichi 馬淵 東

“ ” 195511974 狆 縄 先島の オ ナ リ神 （二 ）」 （0 呶 〃 g α祕 in the Sakishima lslands， Okinawa 2 ）． 『馬 淵 一 ’ − 東 著作集 3 』 （The Merks of MdBU αHI T6ichi Fo lume 3）， pp ．123 45 ，東 京 ：社 会 思 想 社 （［［bky． o ： Shakai Shis6sha）．

“ ” 1964 of the ． 且an ed ． R Culture and Soeiety SpiritualPredominance Sister In SMITH ，A ， ， ．yuk，yuan ， − pp ．79 91 ． Honolulu：University of Hawaii Press． “ 1968 Tc）ward the Reconstruction of Ryukyuan Cosmologジ In Fotk Retigion and Mortdvien・ in the − Southwestern P σc のc ， pp ．119 40 ． Tokyo ： The Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies， Keio University． 一 MABUCHI T6ichi and OG 鰤 憤 丁6ru 馬 淵 東 ・小 川 徹

“ ” 一 ・ 1971 「解 説 i （Notes and Commentary ）．馬 淵東 小 川 徹 （編）『沖縄文 化 論 叢 第 3 巻 民俗 編

H 』 （ln MABUCHI T6ichi and OGAWA T6ru， eds ，，伽 θ Selected〃Vorks on Okinawan Culture V」 tume 3， − Fotlt Culture II ）， pp ．1 55，東京 ： 平 凡 社 （Tokyo ； Heibonsha）． 一．．・ MABucHI T δichi and OGA 〜鴨 T6rl1 （eds ．） 馬 淵 ．東 小 川 徹 （編＞

1971 『沖縄 文化 論叢 第 3 巻 民 俗 編 H 』 （The Selected PVorks on OkinaM ，an Cevlture Velume 3．∫Folk Culture

∬ ），東 京 ： 平凡 社 （Tokyo ： Heibonsha ）， ー ー マ レ キ マ ス translated MARETZKI ， Thomas ッ ， ト by TAKAHASHIT6ichiand MIYARATakahiro 高 一 橋 統 ・宮 良 高 弘 訳 「 “ ／962 第 二 次世 界大 戦 後 の 米 国人 類 学者 に よ る 琉 球研 究 」 （Postwar Study of the Ryukyu lslands by ・ ” American Anthropologists with Bibliography 1944 1962 ． ThelJapanese ， ） 『民族 学研 究』 （ Journal 』 − qfEthnology）27（1）； 97 102， MATSUI Hiroko， HORIKE Kazuya ， and OHASHI Hideshi

“ ‘ ’ − − 1980 Rorschach Responses of Okinawan Shamans Yuta∵ Tbholtu Psychologica Folia 39 （1 4）：61 78 ．

MATSUI Takeshi 松 井健 ’ 1983 『自然認 識 の 人類学』 （AnthrOpogogy of” ews on Nature）．東 京 ： ど うぶ っ 社 （Tokyo： D6butsusha）．

“ ” ： ’ ， 1987 Research on the Ryukyus Progress and Problems．C urrentAnthro ρologr 28 （4）；S94． ー ・ ー 1989 『琉 球 の ニ ュ エ ス ノ グ ラ フ ィ 』 （A［evv ．EthnographJ， ofR．vztdyu ）．京 都 ：人 文 書院 （Kyoto ： Jinbun Shoin）． ー一・ 一 ・ ・ “ ／998 「マ イ ナ サ ブ シ ス テ ン ス の 世界 民 俗世 界 に お け る 労働 自然 身体 」 （World of Minor

” ： and ． の ユ SubsistenceLabor， Nature ， Body in FolkSociety） 篠 原 徹 （編 ） 『現代 民俗 学 視 点 民

’ 俗 の 技術 』 （ 正儡 ed C ・ ntemp ・ ra ・ f ersp ・ctives in Fotktore Stttdies 1 Fotk Technot− In SHINO TOru ， 。 y ， ・ 「 ogy ）， pp ．247 68 ．東 京 ： 朝倉書 店 （rokyo ：Asakura Shoten）， MATSUI Takeshi （ed ．） 松井 健 （編 ）

2000 『自然観 の 人類 学 』 C4nthropology〔frVature） Vaews）．宜 野 湾 ： 榕 樹 書林 （Ginowan ：Y6ju Shorin）． 一 2002 『開発 と環境 の 文 化 学 沖縄地域社会変動 の 諸契機』 （CttltUral Studies on Develo ρment and Envi一

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

］26 HARA Tomoaki

’ ・・ nment ’ Triggers qf Sociat Changes in Okinavvan Local Communities）．宜 yf湾 ： 榕樹書林 （Gin ・wan ；

Y6ju Shorin）． 一 ’ 2004 『沖 縄 列 島 シ マ の 自然 と伝 統 の ゆ く え』 （The R ．yttkyt｛ Archilpelago： The Revival（ofTradition， Facing ’ ’ ： the Contradictionsbetw een ：Vatute and l）evelopment ），東京 ： 東京 大 学出 版会 （Tokyo Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai ）， 一 MATSUMURA Keiiehir6 松村k 郎 一 ・ “ − 2000 「共 同 放牧 を め ぐ る 資源利 用 と ．ヒ地 所有 沖縄県 黒 島 の 組 合 牧場 の 事 例 か ら」 （Resource Use − and Land Rights in Group Ranching： ACase Study of the Cooperative Stock Farm in Ku − roshima ． エ コ ソ フ ア Ecoso ： 100 19 ． ， Okinawa ） 『 ィ 』 （ ρhia）6

MATSUZONO Makio 松 園 万 亀 雄

“ ’： 1970 「座 間味 島 の 門 申組 織 」 （”funchti Organization of Zama 皿 i lsland， Okinawa ）． 『H 本 民俗 学』 − （But！etin 〔ゾ’1〜θ Foliclore Soc／8 ｛y qズノap α n ）71 ： 1 28 ， ・ “ 1972 「沖縄 の 位牌祭 祀そ の 他 の 「貰行 に み ら れ る祖先観 と 血 縁観 に つ い て ．1 （ldeas on Ancestor and

” Genealogy in Worshipping Ancestral Tablets and Other Custo皿 s in Okinawa ），古 野 清 入 教授 一 古 希 記 念会 （編 ）『現代 諸民 族 の 宗 教 と 文 化 社 会 人類 学 的 研 ．究 』 （ln Furuno Kiyoto Ky6ju Koki

） Kinenkai， eds ．， Reiigien and Culture Among ContempoFaty ieoples ！ Social Anthrvpologi（／al Essays）， − pp ．269 96 ．東 京 ： 社 会思 想 祉 （Tokyo ： Shakai Shis6sha）．

MITA Maki 三 田 牧

一 “ 2004 「糸満 漁 師、海を 読む 生 活 の 文脈 に お け る 『人 々 の 知 識 』一… （An Itoman Fi8herman Who Reads ’ ” the Sea ： Peoples Knowledge in the Context of Everyday Life）． 『民族学研 究』 （7加 如 砌 ar ε − ．Journal cfEthnology ）68 （4）： 465 86 ． ． 一 2006 「漁 師は い か に海 を読 み 、漁 場 を拓 く か 沖縄 県 糸満 にお け る海 の 埋 め 立 て と漁 場利 用 の 変遷 」 “ （How a Fisherman Reads and Develops Fishing Spots： Landfill of the Sea and Transition of ” − エ コ ソ フ ．イ ； theFishingSpotsin Itoman ， Okinawa ）． 『 ア 』 CEcosOρhia）］．8 81．94 ．

MIYANAGA Masamori 宮 良当壮 ． ： 1925MIYARA『沖縄 の 人形 芝 居 』 （The Pupρet Theater qfOkinawa）．東 京 ：郷」二研 究社 Gbkyo Ky6dQ Kenky αsha ），

Takahiro 宮 良高弘 “ ” 1973 「沖縄 ．文化研 究 の 成果 」 （Achievements of the Studies in Okinawan Culture ）． 「現代の エ ス プ ’ ’ ’ ’ リ （沖縄 の 伝統 文 化）．1 （L esprit d Atvotird hui’ 5Pecial lssue on Traditional Culture qズOkina｝va ）72 ： 14・30．

’ ・ MIYARA Takahiro and YA ］y1AS HITA Kin ichi 宮 良 高弘 ・山 下欣 “ ” 1994 「沖 縄 の 民 俗研 究 史 」 （History of Folklere Studies in Okinawa ）．瀬川 清子 ・植 松 明 石 （編 ）『H ー 「 本 民 俗学 の エ ソ セ ン ス 日 本民俗学 の 成 立 と 展 開 増補版』 （In SEGAWA Kiyoko and UE ）4A rSU

Akashi ， eds ．， The Essence qブ．Jai）anese Fotktore Studies： Estab／ishment and Devetopment qf Japanese ’ − ぺ P olklone Expanded Edition 419 ： り か ん ： Stztdies， ）， pp ， 63．東京 社 （Tokyo Perikansha）．

MIYATA Noboru 宮 田 登 ’ 1977MORITA『民 俗 宗教論 の 課題 』 （Current lshues in Studie．s in Follc Retigion）．東 京 ； 末 来 社 （Toky o ：Miraisha）．

’ Shin ya 森 田 真也 一 “ 1997 「観 光 と 『伝 統 文化 』 の 意識 化 沖 縄県 竹 冨 島 の 事 例 か ら」 （Tourism and the Consciousness of ” ’ ［Evadition： An Exa 皿 ple from Taketomi Is］and jn Okinawa ）． 『日本民 俗学』 （BuUetin qf the ． ・ ： − FolklOFe ∫ocie り q 〆Ja ρan ）209 33 65 ，

d‘ ” ・ 一 2002 「南 島 と ア ジ ア 」 （The SoutheTn lslands and Asia ），小松 和 彦 関 敏 （編 ） 『新 し い 民俗 学 へ

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

− Okinawan Studiesin Japan，1879 20e7 127

一 野 の 学 問 の た め の レ ッ ス ン 26 』 （In KOMA 器 U Kazuhiko and SEKI Kazutoshi， eds ．，7b呶 雇 梅 w

” ・ i olklore Studies’ the Field−Oriented Disciptine ．298 310 ． ： せ り か Tokyo ： 26 Lessonsfor ）， pp 東京 書房 （ Serika Shob6）， 一 “ 2003 「観 光 客 に と っ て の 祭 礼 、地 域 に と っ て の 祭礼 沖縄 竹 富 島 の 種 子 取祭 か ら」 （Festival for − Tourists and Festival f（）r Local People： A Case of Tanedori Festival in Taketomi Island， Oki ” nawa ）．岩本通 弥 （編）『現代 民 俗誌 の 地平 3 記 憶 （ln IW へMOTO Michiya ed ． New Horizons 』 ， ， ’ ・ in ContemJ）o ｝a ｝：v Ethnographic MorkS in Folkiore Studie，g 3， Co〃6α ’v θ 娩 脚 πy ）， pp ．178 203．朝倉書店 （Tokyo ：Asakura Shoten）．

MURAI Osamu 村井 紀 ー 一 』 ！ ロ の 1992 2004 『南 島イ デ オ ギ 発 生 柳 田 国 男 と植 民地 主 義 新版 』 （TheEmergenceqf1V砌 ∫δ 娩 o ’og ソr ’ YAIVn Gl TA Kunio and Colonialis〃n ， New Edition）．東京 ： 岩波書店 （Tokyo ： lwanami Shoten）． ・ MuRATAKE Seiiehi 村 武精 “ ” − 1964 Dualism in the Southern Ryukyus ，Archivfur Votkerkunde 19 ； 120 8． ‘” 「 ・ ： 1966 南西 諸 島 琉 球 奄 美 の 社 会 人 類学 」 （The Nansei lslands Socia］ Anthropological Studies in ” Ryukyu andAmanli ）．日 本 民族 学 会 （編 ）『日本 民族 の 回 顧 と展 望 ln Nihon Minzoku Gakkai 学 』（ ， − ed ．， Review and Prospect qf．Japanese Ethnology）， pp ，194 218 ．東 京 ： 財 団法 人民族 学 振 興 会 くTokyo ； Zaidanh6jin Minzokugaku Shink6kai ）． ・ ・ 一 ・ ’ 共 ， 1975 『神 同 体 豊穣 沖縄 民 俗論 』 （Deities，Community， andFei tilib： A Stuめy on Okinawan F olk Culture）， 東 京 ： 未 来 仕 （Tokyo ： Miraisha）． 一 ー ． 1984 『祭 祀 空 間 の 構 造 社 会 人類 学 ノ ト』（A SocialAnthrt！ρθ logical StttdJ， on the Struciure（of RituaJ Space ）．

東 京 ： 東 京 大 学 出版 会 （Tokyo ：Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai ）， ． NA 工TO Naoki 内藤 直樹 一 一 ユ999 「「産 業 と し て の 漁業』 に お い て 人 自然 関係 は希 薄 化 し た か 沖縄 県 久 高 島 に お け る パ ヤ オ を利 “ − 用 した マ グ ロ 漁 の 事 例 か ら 」 （Human Nature Relationship in Modern Fishery as an Industry： ” The Case of Kudaka Island ， the Okinawan Archipelago ）． 『エ コ ソ フ ィ ア 』 （Ecos 〔）i）hia）4 ： ・ 100 18．

「 一一 “ − 2003 個人 の こ こ ろみ が ささえ る生 業 変容 沖縄 県久 高島 に お け る 生業活動 の 変遷 の 過程 か ら 」 （T廠 ns ” formation of Subsistence Through lndividual Effort in Kudaka lsland， Okinawa ）．篠原 徹 （編）

『現 代 民俗 誌 の 地 平 1 越 SHINOHARA T6ru ed ． New Horizons in Co 〃 ∫8 or α ， Ethno − 境』 （ ， ， 贋ρ κL ’ − graphie 肋 廊 in Folklore Stttdie．y 1， Csossing the Border）， pp ．191 220．朝倉 吾店 （Tokyo ： Asakura Shoten）．

NAKAMURA Jun 中村 淳

「 一 “ ‘ ’ 1997 日本 人 類学 の 「ま な ざ し 』 『観 察』と 『モ ニ タ リ ン グ』」 （The Gazc of Japanese Anthropology； ” ’ Observation and Monitoring ）． 『科学技 術史』 （The Jqpanese Journa ！jb” the Histon．v qfScience and − Z．echnotogy ）1：81 105 ． NAKAMURA Seiji 中村 誠 司 「 “ ” ・ ・ 1999 沖縄 の 字 誌 づ く り」 （Publication of 飆 3 々l in Okinawa ）．新妻 二 男 内 田 ・「亅 （編）『都 市 農

村 関係 の 地域社会論 』 （ln NizuMA Futao and UCHIDA Tsukasa eds ． Regiomal Studie．s in Urban − ， ， − Rura／Relationship． ）， pp ．89 99．東京 ： 創風 桂 （Tokyo ；S6frtsha）．

NAKANE Chie 中根 千枝

「 “ ” 1962 南 西 諸 島 の 社会組 織 序論 」 （Social Organization ofthe Ryukyu Islands， lntroduction）．『民 − 族 学 研 究 』 （The Japanese Joz｛rnal 〔qfEthnology）27（1）： 1 6 ，

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

L28 HAEA Tomoaki

「 ・ ・Ll i ・ ・ “ 1973 沖縄 本土 国 朝鮮 の 同族 門中の 比 較 」 （A Comparative Study of 1）δzo ん〃 and 磁 σπ 飯 in

” 一 Okinawa ， Mainland Japan ， and Korea ）．日 本 民族 学会 （編 ） 『沖縄 の 民族 学的研 究 民俗 社会 と ’ ed ． Ethnological Studies in Okinavva． Folk and − 世 界 像 』 （ln Nihon Minzoku Gakkai ， ， Society World − vie ｝v ）， pp273 302 ．東京 ： 財 団法 人 民 族学振 興会 （Tokyo ：Zaidanh6jin Minzokugaku Shink5kai）．

NAKATATE K6 （ed ．） 中楯 興 （編 ）

） 1987 『H 本 に お け る海洋民 の 総合研 究 ヒ巻』 （ACom ρrehensive Study on Maritime 1 eople in Japan ， the

First Volume）．福 岡 ： 九 州 大学出版 会 （Fukuoka ： Kyushu Daigaku Shuppankai ）． ， 1989 『目 本 にお け る海 洋 民 の 総 合 研 究 下 巻』 qComprehensive StudJ on Maritime Peopie in Japan ， the

Second Voiume），福 岡 ： 九 州大学 出版会 （Fukuoka ： Kyushu Daigaku Shuppankai ）． NEEDHAM ， RDdney （ed ．）

1971 Rethinking Kinship andiVfarriage ． London ：Tavistock．

Nihon Minzoku Gakkai （ed ．） 日 本民族学会 （編） 一一 1973 『沖縄 の 民 族 学的研 究 民俗社会 と世界像』 （Ethn ・ t・ gical Studies in Okinawa ： F ・ lk Society α nd

VVorldview），東京 ； 財 団法 人 民族 学 振興 会 （Tokyo ： Zaidanh6jin Minzokugaku Shink6kai）． ・ NISH エMasahiko and HARA Takehiko （eds ．） 西 成 彦 原 毅 彦 （編 ） 一 2003 『複 数 の 沖縄 デ ィ ア ス ポ ラ か ら希望 へ 』 （Multiple Okinawa！ From Diaspora to Uope）．京者ll： 人 文 書 院 （Kyoto ； Jinbun Shoin）．

NISHIMuRA Hidemi 西 村秀 三 ’ ‘ ” 「 P／．［ “ 1993 『門 1化 』論 」 （ADiscussion on 罐 ‘η 凶 勲 ゴ ）．『沖縄民俗 研 究』 （The Journal of Okinawan Fo lklore − Studies）13： 33 62．

NOGUOHI Takenori 野 凵 武徳 “ ” 1976 「沖縄 を舞台 と し た 民 俗 学 と 民 族 学 」 （Okinawan Studies in Folklore and Ethnology 〉． 『社会 − 人類学 年報』 （Annual Report OfSocialAnthropology）2i 40 61， 1987 『漂海 民 の 人類 学』 （Anth”opolegy q〃＞bmadic Peopte on the Sea ）．東 京 ： 弘 文堂 （Tokyo ： K6bund6 ）． OB 衄 ASHI Tary6 大 林太良

“ 1973 「琉 球 神 話 と周 囲諸民族神 話 との 比較 」 （AComparative Study ofMyths of the Ryukyuan People

” 一 and the Neighboring People ）．日 本民 族学会 （編）『沖縄 の 民 族 学的研究 民 俗社会 と世界像』 （ln − Nihon Minzoku Gakkai ， ed ，， Ethnotogieal Studies in Okinawa； Fotk Society and Mortdvieiv）， pp ．303

419 ．東 京 ； 財団 法人 民 族学振 興会 （Tokyo ： Zaidanh6jin Minzokugaku Shinkδkai＞．

ODA Makoto 小 田 ・兄

一 ・ ‘“ 一 ’ 1987 「沖縄 の 『門 中化』 と知 識 の 不 均 衡 配 分 沖縄 本 島北 部 塩屋 の 事 例 考 察 」 （漁 ’70 縅 皿 aking and ” Disequilibrium Distribution of Knowledge in an Okinawan Village）． 『民 族 学研 究 』 （The ’ ・ Japanese．ノburnal qfE thnology ）51（4）： 344 74． 一 “ 1996 「『伝統 の 創 出』 と し て の 門 中化 沖縄 の ユ タ問題 と も うひ と つ の 想像 の 共 同 体 」 （Formation of

Mt ｛nchti as Invention of Tradition； Problems on Yuta in Okinawa and Alternative I皿 agined − Communit ジ）． 『日本 常 民文 化紀 要 』 （Bulletin qfJapanese Folk Cbllture）19 ： 113 54 ． OGAWA T6ru 小 川 徹 “ 一 1971 「沖縄 民 俗杜 会 に お け る 門 中 仮説 的 総 括 」 （AHypothetical Summarizationon 、V 襯 納 諏 in

” ・ Okinawa ）． 『日本 民 俗 学』 （Bulletin ofthe Folklore Society（ofJapan ）74；1 10， ’ 一 ・ OGo Kin ichi and MlyARA Takahiro 大 胡欽 宮 良高弘

“‘ ” ’ ’ ’ ’ 「 エ 1973 は じ め に 」 （lntroduction）．『現代 の ス プ リ （沖縄 の 伝 統 文 化）』 （L esprit d A uJ ourd hui； Special

JSStie on Traditional Cukure ofOkinawev ）72 ：13 ．

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

− Okinawan Studies in Japan ，1879 2007 129

OGUMA Eiji 小 熊英 二 一 ・ ・ ・ 1998 『〈日 本入〉 の 境界 沖縄 ア イ ヌ 台湾 朝 鮮 植民 地 支配 か ら復 帰 運 動 ま で 』 （The Boundaries ’ げ 伽 加 α η ε5 ε 」 Oinnawa ， Ainu， Taiwan， and Korea ，加 〃 〜 Cotoniat Rute to the Reversion ．ifovement），東

’ 京 ： 新曜社 （Tokyo ： Shiny6sha ）． OHASHI Hideshi 大橋 英寿 一 “ 1978 「沖 縄 にお け る shaman （ユ タ〉の 生 態 と機能 ハ ン ジ場面観察 に よ る client の 事例研究 」 （A Social ” Psychological Study on Shamanism in the Okinawan lslands； Case Analysis of Clients）， 『東 ’ 北大学文学部研 究年 報 』 （The Annt｛at Reports ofthe Faculty（fArth） andLetters ． Tohokev Universi4，）28： 201−46，

“ 「 一 1980 沖縄 にお け る shaman 〈ユ タ〉の 成巫 過 程 社会心 理 学的接近 」 （lnitiati。 n Processof Okinawan

” Shamans ｝伽 ：Social Psychological Approach ． The Annztal RepoFts ， ） 『東北 大 学文 学部研究年報』 （ − ofthe FaCt｛lty〔qfArts andLetters ， Tohoku University）30；231 80． “ 「 ーマ ニ 一ユ ． ； 1982 沖 縄 シ ャ ズ ム の 歴 史 タ 禁 圧 の 諸相 と背景 」 （Hist ory of Okinawan Sha 皿 anism The

” Aspects and Background of the Suppression of ｝Yuta ）． 『東 北 大 学文学部 研 究年 報 』 （The Annual ’ − Re ρOffts qfthe Facuity（fArts〜 andLetters ， Tokoku b niversity ）32： 106 41 ， 一 ー “ 1984 「信 仰 治療 と現代 医 療 の 機 能 関連 沖縄 シ ャ マ ニ ズ ム へ の 社 会 心理 学 的接近 J （The Functional − Relationship Between the Faith Healing and MOdern Medicine ： ASocial Psychologieal Ap

” proach to Okinawan Shamanis 皿 ）．『東北大学文学部研 究年報』 （The Annual Reports（ofthe Faculty − ofA 「ts andLetters ， Tohoku University）34： 128 210． ー ’ 1998 「沖縄 シ ャ マ ニ ズ ム の 社 会 心琿 学 的 研 究 』 C4 Social Psychologicai Stucly（of Oinnawan Shamanism）．

東 京 ： 弘 ．文 堂 （Tokyo ； K6bund6 ）．

OHASHI Hideshi， SAKuMICHI Shunsuke， and HORIKE Kazuya ‘［ ” 1984 ASocial Psychological Study of Okinawan Shamanism （1）： Approach and Some Findings． 『 卩 Tohoku Psychologica Folia 43 （1 4）：66 79 ， ・ 一 ・ ・ 一 OKA Masao ， ISHIDA Eiichir6， EGAMI Namio ， and Y 岨 ATA khir6 岡 正 雄 石 田 英 郎 江 上 波夫 八 幡 郎 一 1．949 ！1958 『日本 民族 の 起 源 対 談 と討論』 （The Origins ofthe Japanese People： Dialogue andDiscussion ）． 東京 ： 平 凡 社 （Tekyo ：Hiebonsha）． Okinawa Shakai Gakkai （ed ．） 沖縄杜会学会 （編） ， 1986 『沖縄 社 会研 究 』 （ノburnal OfOkinawan Socie4｝）No ．1．

1987 『沖縄社会研 究』（Journal ofOkinawan Socieり・）No ．2 ． ・ OMOTO Norio and NOGUCHI Takenori 大本憲夫 野 口 武徳

一 “ 1978 「地 方別 調 査 研 究 の 現 況 沖縄 県 」 （The Present State of Folklore Research in Prefeetures， ” − Okinawa Prefecture）． 『日本 民俗学』 （Bulletin ofthe ∫Folktore Society ofJapan ）117： 34 48．

ORIKuCHI Shinobu 折 口 信 夫 ’ 192911995a 『折 口 信夫 全集 1 古代研 究 （国文 学篇）』 （The Complete M ） rks of（）RIKUCHI Shinobu Volume

I Ancient Studies，Japanese Literature）．東 京 ： 中央 公 論 社 （Tokyo： Ch 面 K6ronsha）， ’ 192911995b 『折 口 信 夫 全集 2 古代 研 究 （民俗 学 篇 1 ）』 （The Complete Vao”kS Oj （）RIKUCHi Shinobu

Volume 2 rincient Studies，Fotklore Studies 1）．東京 ； 中央 公 論社 （Tokyo ： Ch 面 K6ronsha ）． ’ 193011995 『折 口 信 夫全 集 3 古代研究 （民 俗学篇 2 ）』 （Tlie Complete georks Of（）RIKUCHI ・Shinobu Volume

3AneientStudies ． ．Folklore Studies 2）．東京 ： 中央 公 論社 （Tokyo ： ChU6 K6ronsha ）．

OTA Yoshinobu

“ ” 1991 Cultural Authenticity as Entropic Metanarrative 二 ACase f面 m Ryukyuan Studies．Central

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

130 Hr A Tbmoaki

− Issues in Anthropology 9（1）：87 94 ． 一 1992 「文化 の 流 用 （Appropriation），あ る い は 発 生 の 物語 へ む けて 柳宗悦 と 論争 の 〈場〉と し て の 言語 」

“ （Appropriation of Culture， or Toward a Narrative of Emergence ： YANAGI Muneyoshi and

” Language as a Contested Field）． 『北海 道 東海 大 学 紀 要 人 文 社 会 科 学 系 』 （Hokkziido Tokai ・ University Bu 〃etin ， Humanities and Social Sciences）5 ：77 98． 一 “ 1993 「文化 の 客体化 観 光を とお し た文 化 と ア イデ ン テ ィ テ ィ の 創造 」 （Objectification of Culture：

” The Creation of Culture and ldentity in the Tourist World ）．『民族 学 研 究』 （The Japanese Journat ’ ・ qfEthnology）57（4）： 383 410，

“ 1997 Appropriat血 g Media ， Resisting Power ： Representa 七ions of Hybrid Identities in Okinawan

” ・ and eds Betveeen Resistα nce and Revolution Jut− Popular Culture．In FOX ， Richard Orin STARN ．， ．（ − tural Politics andSociat Protest， pp ．145 80． New Brunswick ， NJ ：Rutgers University Press． OTO Tokihiko 大藤 時彦

“ ” 1950 「日 本民俗学 と 沖縄研 究 」 （Japanese Volskunde and Ryukyuan Studies）．『民族 学研 究 』 （The ’ − 丿itpanese Journal qfEthnology）15（2）： 86 91， 一 “ 1965 「日本 民俗 学 にお け る沖 縄 研 究 史 とく に柳 田 国男 の 位置 づ け と展 望 」 （History of Studies on ” Okinawa in the Folklore of Japan：Especially the Position and View of YANAGITA Kunio ）．東 京

者1≦立 大 学南 西 諸島研究会 （編）『沖縄 の 社会 と宗教』 （In Tokyo Toritsu Daigaku Nansei Shoti ’ − ed ． Society and Religion〔 Ryukyus ．5 24 ． ： Tbkyo ： K6bund6 ． KenkyO Iinkai， ， ゾ ），pp 東京 弘 文 堂 （ ） “ ” 1966 「南西諸 島 民 間信 仰 」 （The Nansei lslands：Folk Religion〉．日 本民 族学会 （編）『日 本民族学 の 回顧 と 展 望 』 （In Nihon Minzoku Gakkai ， ed ．， Review and Prospect Of Japanese Ethnotogy）， pp ． ・ 219 27 ．東 京 ： 財 団法 人 民 族学振 興会 （Tokyo ： Zaidanh6jin Minzokugaku Shink6kai），

OTO Tokihiko and OGAWA T6ru （eds ．） 大 藤 時彦 ・小 川 徹 （編 ）

1971 『沖縄 文 化論叢 第 2 巻 民俗 編 1 』 （The Selected MorkS on Okinawan Culture ”，iume 2， Folk Culture

D ．東 京 ： 平 凡 社 （Tokyo ： Heibonsha）． SAKIMA K6ei 佐 喜 真 興英

1922 『南島説話』 （Tales ofthe Southern lslands）．東京 ： 郷 土 研 究礼 （Tokyo ：Ky δdo Kenkytisha）．

1925SAKUMICHI 『シ マ の 話 』 （Storiesfrom a va〃age Communi4 コ）．東京 ： 郷 t 研究社 （Tokyo ： Ky6do Kenkyasha ）．

and TOYAMA Nobuya Shunsuke ， OHASHI Hideshi，HORIKE Hiroko， “ l984 A Social Psychological Study of Okinawan Shamanism （II）： An Investigation of the − Health Seeking Process in the Tmditional Society Under the lnfiltration of Modern Western ” − − Culture． T・ h・ k・ Psychotogica Folia 43 （1 4）：80 90 ．

SAKURAI Tokutar6 桜井 徳 太 郎 ー ’ 1973 の シ マ ニ ズ ム 巫 の 生 Okin ω van 『沖縄 ャ 民 間 女 態 と機 能 』 （ Shamanihm ； Livesand Functions（？f

’ Shamanistic ”omen ），東京 ： 弘 ．文 堂 （Tokyo ：K6bund6 ）． SASAKI K6kan 佐 々 木宏 幹 ー ー ー ’ 1980 『シ ャ マ ニ ズ ム エ ク ス タ シ と憑依 の 文化 』 CShamanism； Culture ofEestasy andPossession ）．東 京 ： 中央 公 論社 （Tokyo ： ChO6 K6ronsha）．

シ ーマ ニ ズ ム の ： 1984 『 ャ 人 類 学 』 （AnthroρologJ ofSha 〃nanisni ）．東京 ； 弘 文堂 （Tokyo K6bund6 ）． SAS AKI K6mei 佐 々 木 高 明

“ ‘ ’ ” 1976 「南島にお け る畑 作 農 耕 技術 の 伝 統 」 （Tradition of Swidden Agriculture）．九学会連合沖縄調 一 ・ ・ 査 委 員会 （編 ）『沖縄 自然 文 化 社会』 （ln Kya Gakkai Reng60kinawa Ch6sa Iinkai， ed ．， − OkinavtJa’ Nature， Culture， and Society）， pp ．25 40．東 京 ： 弘 文 堂 （Tokyo ： K6bund6 ）．

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

− Okinawan Studies in Japan ，1879 2007 131

SASAKI Ytiji（ed ．） 佐 々 木 雄 司 （編 ）

1984 『沖縄 の 文 化 と精神 衛 生』 （Okinawan Cuiture and Mental 〃 balth），東 京 ： 弘文 堂 （Tokyo ：K6bund6 ）． SASAMORI Gisuke 笹 森儀 助 一 1894〆1982 『南 嶋探 験 琉 球漫遊記』 （Exploration げ 細 Southern IsJands f ）．東京 ： 平 凡 社 （Tokyo ： Heibonsha）．

二 ： 189411983 『南嶋探験 琉球漫 遊記』 （Explorationqブthe SouthernIslands2 ）．東京 ： 平 凡 社 （Tokyo Heibonsha），

SATO Takehiro 佐藤 壮 広 一 “ 2007 「巫 者 の 平和 学 沖縄 の 霊 的感 受 性 と 『死 をふ ま え た 平和 の 知 』」 （The Irenology of Shamanic ” Practitioners：Susceptibility of the War Dead and Mind for Peace in Okinawa ）．川村 邦光 （編）

『憑 依 の 近 代 と ポ リ テ ィ ク ス （ln KAWAMURA Kuni 皿 itsu ed ． The Modernity and ofPos − 』 ， ， Politics − se ．ysion ．179 ： ： ）， pp 95 ．東京 青 弓社 （Tokyo SeikyUsha）．

ScHNEIDER， David M ． ’ 1984A Critique qfthe Study（ofKinship ． Ann Arbor ：The University of Michigan Press．

SEKIMOTO Teruo 関本照 夫

‘tSelves 2003 and Others in Japanese Anthropologジ In SHIMIZU Akitoshi and Jan van BREMEN ， eds ，，

Urartime Japanese Anthropotogy in Asia and the Pacgfic （Senri Ethnological Studies No ．65） ， ， pp ・ 131 42 ． Osaka：National Museum of Ethnology． SHIBUYYA Ken 渋谷研

「 一 一 “ − 1992 対 峙す る 神 々 宗教的職能者間 の 対立 と共 存を め ぐ る 考察 」 （AFew Kinds of Gods in Oki − − nawan Society： Some Aspects of Con 且ict and Coexistence Among Folk Religious Practitio ” ’ − ners ）． 『民族 学研 究』 （窃 e 抑 仞 65 θ ノ磁 厂η α’（OfEthnology）56（4）： 361 84．

SHIMABUKURO Genshichi 島袋 源 七 ． ’ ユ929 の ： 『山原 土俗 』 （Folk Customs qfYanbaru ）．東 京 ： 郷 ［1研 究 社 （Vokyo Ky6do Kenky ｛isha）． SHINZATO Keiji（ed ．） 新里 恵 二 （編 ） ’ 1972 ユ 歴 『沖縄 文 化 論叢 第 巻 史 編 』 （The SelectedrVorkSon Oinnawan CuttureV」 lume ／，History）．東

京 ： 平 凡社 （Tokyo： Heibonsha），

SHIoTsuKI Ry6ko 塩 月 亮子

「 ーマ ニ ズ ー ・ 2002 表 象 と し て の シ ャ ム 沖縄 の 映 画 と文 学に み るアイ デ ン テ ィ テ ィ ポ リテ ィ ッ ク ス 」 “ − （Shamanism as a Representation： Iden七ity Politics in Films and Literature of Okinawa， Ja ” yL ・ 折 ．’ ： − pan ）． 『口 す 』 （Philosophy）107 1 20， SHIROTA Chika 城 田 愛

一 ・ ー “ 2000 「踊 り繋 が る人 び と ハ ワ イ に お け る オ キ ナ ワ ン エ イ サ の 舞台 か ら」 （Networking Through ’” Dancing ： A Case of Okinawan Eisj in Hawai i ）．福井 勝 義 （編 ） 『講座 人 間 と環 境 8 近 所 づ き

あ い の 風景 』 （ln FUKUI Katsuyoshi ，ed ．，Collected Essa．vs on Human and EnviFonment V」lume 8， − IVeighbor Com anionship ．59 89． ： Tekyo ： ！y ρ ）， pp 東 京 昭和 堂 （ Sh6wad6）．

ShUritsu Hawai Daigaku H6rei S6kan Hensan linkai（ed ．） 州 立 ハ ワ イ 大学 宝 玲 叢刊 編 纂 委 員会 （監修 ）

1981 「江 戸期琉球物資料 集覧』全 4 巻 （The Collection ofHistoricat Materials on Ryu ！yu in the Edo Period， 4 701umes）．東 京 ； 本 邦 書籍 （Tokyo ：Honp6 Shoseki）． SMITH ， AIIan H ．（ed ．）

1964 RyuiO，uan C 〃魏 厂8 砌 4 ∫oc 絏 y詔 5〃 n 剛 ． Honolulu ： University of Hawaii Press． ’ 一 SUD6 Ken ichi 須藤健

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

132 HARA Tomo ＆ ki

一 1978 「サ ン ゴ 礁 海 域 に お け る 磯 漁 の 実 態 調 査 中聞 報 告 （2 ） 石 垣 市登 野 城 地 区 漁 民 の 潜 水漁法 」 “ （Preliminary Report on the Dive Fishing Technique in Okinawa （2）： Culture and Techniques

of Coral Reef Fishing at Tenoshiro Ishigaki Cit ） 立 民 族 学 専物館 研 究 報 告』 （Bulletin（） the ， ジ 『国 「 f

： − ハlationatルfuseum ofEthnolog ｝こ）3（3）535 56．

TAKAESu Yoshihide 高 江 洲 義 英

‘‘ ’ ” 1980 「沖縄 にお け る ユ タ巫 女信 仰 」 （｝uta Cult in Okinawa ）． 『社会精神 医学』 （Sociat Psychiatry）3 ：

33 −9．

TAKAHASHI Soyo lL石橋そ よ 一 “ 2004 「沖縄 ・佐 良 浜 に お け る 素 潜 り漁 師 の 漁 場 認識 漁 場 を め ぐ る 「地 図 」 を 手 が か り と し て 」 （The

Folk Knowledge of Fishing Grounds of the Diver Fishermen in Sarahama ， Okinawa ： With ‘ ” Specific Per鉛 rmances to Fishing Activities and the MAP Drawn by a Fisherlnan ）． 「エ コ ソ フ ー ィ ア 』 （Ecosophia）14：10ユ 19、

TAKAKuwA Fumiko 高桑 史子 “ 1978 「民 族学 か らみ た 沖縄研究 の 概観 とそ の 展 望 ．j （Recent Ethnological Studies on Okinawai An ” ’ − Overview ）． 『南 島 史学』 Cfournal qfRytikyuan Studies）11 ：9 22 ． 一 “ 1979 「八重 11．1鳩 間 島 にお け る信仰 体 系 と系譜 観 の 変化 過疎化 社会 に お ける 信仰 生活 の 実態 」 （The

Transformation of the Belief System and Ideas on Genealogy in Hatomoa Island， Yaeyama； − ” Conte皿 porary Religious Life in an Under PopulateCl Area ）．『社』 （A euarter！y Record on Social − Anthropoiogly）10（314）： 57 100． 一 一 一 “ 1982 「八 重 山 島嶼 社 会 に お け る 系 譜 意 識 の 変 化 過 疎化 に よ る 社会 変 容 の 側 面 」 （Genealogical

” Reforms in an lsland of Yaeyama ：ACase Study Qf Changing Social Structure）． 『民 族 学研 究』 ’ − （The Japα nese 丿ournal （f， Ethnotog｝！）47 （2）：157 89 ．

TAKARA Kurayoshi 高良倉吉 一 198011989 『新 版 琉 球 の 時 代 大 い な る 歴 史像 を求 め て 』 （The Age of 」くyukyu ’ Exploring Magnificent

’ ： History ofR）tikyu ， New Edition）．那 覇 ： ひ る ぎ社 （Naha Hirugisha）． ・ “ 1996 「琉球史研 究 か ら み た 沖縄 琉球 民 俗研 究 の 課 題 」 （Some Comments from a Historical Point of ’ ” View on the Study of Okinawa Folklore）． 『民 族 学研 究』 （The Japanese Journ α l qf Ethnologソ） 圏 61 （3）： 463 7．

TAKEDA Jun 武 田 淳 一 一 1987 「沖縄 サ ン ゴ 礁 海 域 に お け る漁撈 の 変化 木島南部 の 漁村 を事 例 に し た 生 態 人類 学 的 検討 」 “ （［Eransition of Coral Reef Fishing in Okinawa ： An Ecological Anthropological Study at a ” Fishing Village in the Southern Distriet of Okinawa Island ） 『人 類科学』 C4nthropologicat − Scienees）40 ；81 113 ．

TAKEKAWA Daisuke 竹川 大介 一 ー “ 1996 「沖 縄 糸 満 系漁 民 の 進 取性 と 環 境適応 潜水追 込 漁 ア ギ ヤ の 分 析 を も と に 」 （Enterprising

’ Spirit and Environmental Adaptation of ltoman Fisherfolk：An Analysis of Dive Fishing Agiyd）．

・ ・ ・ の 10 loTo 網 野 善彦 塚 本 学 坪 井 洋 文 宮 田 登 （編 ）『列 島 文化 史 』 （ln AilclNOYoshihiko， TSu ’ Manabu ， TSUBOI Hirofumi， and MlyATA Noboru ， eds ．， Cutturai Hi．s toi）／ of the Japanese Archipeiago − ー ー 10），pp．75 120．東 京 ； 目 本 エ デ ィ タ ス ク ル 出 版部 （Tokyo ： Nihon Editor School Shuppanbu ）． 一 1998 「沖 縄 潜水 追 込 漁 に 関す る 技 術構 造論 自立性 の 高 い 分業制 か ら 創 発 さ れ る 、柔軟 で 複雑な作業 手 “ 順 と そ の 変 容 」 （AStudy on the Dive Fishing ［艶 chnique in Okinawa ：［Eransition of Flexible and ” Complex Work Sequence Based on the Autonomous Division of Labor ）．篠 原 徹 （編 ） 『現 代 民俗

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

− Okinawan Studies in Japan，1879 2007 133

’ ’ ’ の △ 〃n oraO ， Folklofe 1 学 視点 1 民俗 の 技術』（In SHINOH RA T6ru，ed ．i Conte ρ Perhpectivesin Studies， − ． Folk Technology）， pp ．94 117 ，東 京 ： 朝倉書 屠 （Tokyo ：Asakura Shoten）． 一 TANAKA Masakazu 田 中雅 一 ・ ・ ・ ー “ 2006 「旅 が 照 射 す る 沖 縄 戦 二 つ の オ キ ナ ワ バ トル サ イ ト ツ ア を め ぐ っ て 」 （The Battle of

” ・ Okinawa Through Sightseeing： A Study on Okinawa Battle Si七e Tours ）．西井 涼 子 田辺繁 治 一 ・ ・ （編 ）『社 会空 間 の 人類 学 マ テ リ ア リテ ィ 主 体 性 モ ダ ＝ テ ィ 』 （In NISHII Ry6ko and TANABE − Shigeharu eds ．．4nthropology of Sociai Spaces’ Materiality Subjectivity and Moderni ）， ．417 43． ， ， ， ， りy pp 京 都 ： 世界 思 想 社 （Kyoto ： Sekai Shis δsha ）．

TANAKA T6ji 一 “ 2000 「孤 島苦 の 政治学 南 島 研 究 の 射 程 」 （The Politics of 1窃 ’δ勧 ： The Scope of Studies in the ” Southern Islands），柳 田 国男研 究 会 （編）『柳 田 国 男研 究年 報 3 柳 田 国 男 ・民 俗 の 記 述』 （In ． − Yanagita Kunio KenkyUkai ， ed ，，Anmtal Report qfStztdies in T4N4 （71TA Kttnio 3， Description qfFolk − tore）， pp ．165 204，東京 ： 岩 田書院 （Tokyo ：Iwata Shoin）． ’ 一 TANIGAWA Ken ichi（ed ．） 谷 川 健 （編） − 1970 1972 『叢書 わ が 沖縄 』全 7 巻 （Selected Morks， Mv Okinawa 7 Volumes）．東 京 ： 木 耳 社 （Tokyo ： Mokujisha ）． ， 1971 『叢書わが 沖縄 第 3 巻 起 源論争』 （Setected WorkS， My Okina” a Volume 3， Controversy Over the

Ancestry qfthe Okinawan Peopte），東 京 ： 木 耳社 （Tokyo ： Mokujisha ）．

TASHIRO Yasusada 田代 安 定

“ ” 1890 「沖縄県 八 重 山列 島見聞 余録 」 （Notes on the lnhabitants of Yaeyama lslands， Ryukyu ）． 『東 ’ − 京 人類学 会 雑誌 』 （The Bttlletin（oY the Tokyo Anthropotogicat Soeiety）5（52）：308 15 ． “

1894 「八 重 山群 島住 民 ノ 言 語 及 ヒ 宗 教 」 （1．anguage and Religionof the lnhabitantsof Yaeyama

” − Islands ）． 『東 京 人類 学 会雑 誌 』 （The Bulletin of the Tokyo Anthrepologicai Society）9（96）：229 32．

194511977 『沖縄結縄考』 （A Stttdy on Knotted Cords in Okinaiva），東京 ： 至言社 （Tokyo ： Shigensha）． 一 TERASHIMA Hideaki 寺 LilX秀明 一 ．．．一 “ 1977 「久 高 島 の 漁 撈 活動 沖 縄 諸 島 の 沿 岸漁 村 に お け る 生 態人 類 学的研 究 」 （Fishing Activities in − Kudaka Island： An Ecological Anthropological Study at a Fishing Village in the Okinawa Is

” 一 ・ ’ lands ）．伊 谷 純 郎 ・原 了令 三 （編 ）『人類 の 白然誌』（In ITANI Jun ichir6 and HARAKO Reiz5， eds ．， ・ Ecological Studies in Humankind ） ．167 239．東 京 ： 雄 山 閣 出版 （Tokyo ： YOzankaku Shuppan ）． ， pp

Tokyo Toritsu Daigaku Nansei Shot6 Kenkya linkai（ed ．） 東 京 都立大学南 酋諸島研究委員会 （編）

1965 『沖縄 の 社 会 と宗 教』 （Society and Retigion ofRyz ’kyus）．東京 ： 平 凡 社 （Tokyo ：Heibonsha）． 一 TOMIYAMA lchiri 冨 山 郎 一 ‘ ’ 1990 『近 代社 会 と 「沖縄 人 」 「日 本人 」 に な る と い う こ と』 （Modern Japanese Society and Okinawans r ’ Becoming 7apanese）．東京 ： 口本経 済評論社 （Tokyo ： Nihon Keizai Hy6ronsha ）．

“ ‘ ”’ 1994 「国 民 の 誕 生 と『口 本 人 種 』」 （The Birth of a Nation and the Japanese Race ）。『思想』 （Tjiought） − 845： 37 56．

TORII Ryuz6 鳥唐 龍蔵 “ − 1905i1975 「沖縄 本 島 に 居 住 せ し 先 住 民 に 就 い て 」 （On the Pre historic People Dwelt in the Islands of ” − Loochu ）。 『鳥居龍蔵全 集 第 1 巻 』 （The Complete VaorkS（）f TORII Ry uzO V）lume 1 ）， pp ．241 8 ．東

京 ； 朝 日 新聞社 （Tekyo ：Asahi Shinbunsha ）．

TSUHA Takashi 津波 高 志 一．・ ー ， ： ： 1990 『沖縄 社会 民俗 学 ノ ト』 （，d Socialand FotkloriSticStudyon Okinawa）東 京 第 書房 （Tokyo

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

134 H ！llL4 Tomoaki

Daiichi Shob6）． “ 「 マ − ” 1996 対 ヤ トの 文 化 人 類 学 」 （On the Shared Consciousness of Non Yarnato ldentitiy ）． 『民 族 学 ・ 研 究』 （17ie Japanese Journal〔〜fEthnology）61（3）： 449 62． ’ ・ TSUNEMI Jun ichi 常見 純

「 “ 1965 国頭 村 安 波 に お け る 門 中制 度 の 変遷 」 （The Formation and Development of Munchal， a Knship

” ” System in Okinawa ）．東京 都 立 大 学 南西 諸 島研 究 会 （編） 『沖縄 の 社会 と 宗教』（ln Tokyo 1oritsu − Daigaku Nansei Shot6 KenkyO linkai ofRyukytis ： ， ed ．， SocietyandReligion ），pp．25 58．東京 弘文 堂 （Tokyo： K6bund6 ），

UEDA Fujio 上 田不 二 夫

1991 の 一 の Fishenyfolk 『沖縄 海人 糸満漁民 歴 史と生 活 』 （ OズOkinawa： llristo，：y andLtfe ofJtoman Fishenyfolk）．

那覇 ： 沖縄 タイ ム ス 社 （Naha ： Okinawa Taimususha ）、

UEMATsu Akashi （ed ．） 植松 明 石 （編 ）

の 々 − 1991 『環 中国海 民俗 と文 化 2 神 の 祭 祀』 （The Folk Cultures ofthe Areas around the Circum ChinaSea

2，Essays on Religious Ritztals）．東京 ： 凱風 社 （Tokyo ：GaifUsha）．

UENO Kazuo 上 野和 男 “ ” 1983 「奄 美 の 社会構造 」 （The Socia1 Structure of the Amami lslands）． 『現代 の エ ス プ リ （奄美 の ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ − 神 と村）』 （L esprit d AuJ ottrd hui： Speeiai ls．s ue on Deities and Villages oftheAm α mi Jslands）194： 7 23． UMEDA Hideharu 梅 団英 春 ー ー 一 一 2003 「ロ カ ル 、グ ロ バ ル 、も し く は 『ち ゃ ん ぶ る 』 沖 縄観 光 にお け る 文 化 の 多様性 とそ の 真 正

“ ’ 性 をめ ぐる議 論 」 （Local， Global， or ℃ hampuru ：Discussion on the Diversity and Authenticity

” of Culture in the Context of ［［burism in Okinawa ）、橋本 不11也 ・佐 藤 幸男 （編 ）『観光開発 と 文 化

一 か の い 南 ら 問 か け』 （In HAsHIMOTO Kazuya and SATO YUkio， eds ．， Tourism Development and − − Cultzire’ 9uestions ftem the Southern Regions）， pp ．83 111 ．京都 ： 世 界 思想 社 （Kyoto ： Sekai Shi s6sha ）． ’ ・ WA rABE Tadayo and IKUTA Shigeru 渡部 忠世 生 田 滋 一 1984 島 の 文 心 ’ 『南 稲作 化 与那国島を中 に』 （Rice CropρingCutturein the SouthernIsiands！ AStudy in 珍 照 群 η ∫鰯 θ 砌 ぬ 東京 ： 法 政 大 学 出版局 （Tokyo： H6sei Daigaku Shuppankyoku ）． WATANABE Masutar5 渡 辺 萬壽太 郎

「 一 “ 1940 琉球 の 同族 団 に つ い て 門 中の 研 究 」 （ASociological Survey on the Kinship Organization ” Known as iVfunchti in the Ryukyu lslands ）． 『民 族 学研 究』 （The Japanese Journal of Ethnotogy） − 6（4）： 60 80 ，

WATANABE Shigetsuna 渡 辺 重 綱

1879 『琉 球 漫録 』 （Travel Reports on ∫Ryulp，u ）．東 京 ： 弘令 社 （Tokyo ： K6reisha）．

WATANABE Yoshio 渡 邊欣雄

の と ’ ’ 1985 『沖縄 社会組織 世界 観』 （Social Organizations and S）mbolic Morldview of Okinawa ）．東 京 ： 新泉 社 （Tokyo ： Shinsensha ）．

‘ ” 1986a 「南 西 諸 島 （社 会構 造 ）」 （The Nansei lslands， Social Structure）．日本 民族 学 会 （編） 『目 本

の 民族 学 1964 〜 1983 』 （In Nihon Minz 。 ku Gakkai ed ． The Japanese Ethnology 1964−1983 ， ， ）， − pp ．173 80 ．東 京 ； 弘 文 堂 （［【bkyo ： K6bund6 ）． 一 一 “ 1986b 民俗的知識 の 動態的研 究 沖縄 の 象 徴 的世 界考 」 （Dynamic Approach to the Study of Fo 豆k 幽 ： ” ・ Knowledge Rethinking the Symbolic World ）． 『国 、∠民 族 学 博物 館 研 究 報 告別 冊 奄 美 沖縄 の ’ ’ 宗 的 世 （Bulletin（） the NationalMuseunr ・ Ethnology 一 教 界』 f 〈 f Special lssue： Ethnologicai Study cf Okina

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

− Okinawan Studie前 rL Japan，1879 2007 135

− wan Folk Retigion）3： 1 36 ， ・ 一 “ 1988a 「風水 思 想 の 世界観研 究 序 説 象徴 空 間 と神 秘力 の 測定法簡介 」 （lntroductory Study on the ” ・ Worldview of Feng Shui ： Symbolic Spaces and the Measure 皿 ent of Mystic Power ）、小 川 正 恭 ・ 渡 邊 欣雄 小 松 和彦 （編 ）『象 徴 と権 力 』 （ln OGAWA Masayasu ， WATANABE Yoshio， and KOMATSU − Kazuhiko ， eds ．， Symboi and Power ）， pp ．77 101 ．東京 ： 弘 文堂 （Tokyo ：K6bund6 ）． 一 “ 1988b 「風水 の 比 較文化 誌 束 ア ジ ア の なか の 沖縄風 水知識考 」 （A Comparative Study on Feng Shui ： ” Okinawan Feng Shui in East Asia ），窪徳 忠先 生 沖 縄調 査 二 〇 年記 念 論 文集 刊 行 委 員会 （編 ）『沖 縄 の 宗 教 と民 俗』 （Kubo Noritada Sensei Okinawa Ch6sa 20nen Kinen RonbunshU Kank6 − 一 1inkai， ed ．，1｛eligion and Folklore OfOkinawa）， pp．587 610．東 京 ： 第 書房 （［［bkyo ：Daiichi Shob6）． 一 199012004 『民俗 知識 論 の 課 題 沖縄 の 知識 人 類学 第 2 版』 （Current Jssues in Sindy ofFolk Knowtedge；

Anthoro ρology ofKnowtedge in Okinawa ， Second Edition）．東京 ： 凱風社 （Tokyo ：GaifUsha）． 1990 『風水 思想 と東 ア ジ ア 』 （Feng Shui Thought andEastAsia ）．京者ll：人 文 書院 （Kyeto ： Jinbun Shoin），

1994 『風 水 気 の 景 観 地 理 学』 （Feng Shui： Landscaρe Geography qfQi）．京 都 ： 人文 書 院 （Kyoto： Jinbun Shoin）．

“ ” ー ・ ー 1996 「沖縄 の 宗教 と 社会 」 （Religi n and Society of Okinawa ）．ヨ ゼ フ ク ラ イ ナ （編）『日本 一 ・ 民族 学 の 現在 1980 年代 か ら 90 年 代 へ 』（ln KREINER ， Josef， ed ．， The CurFent Japanese Ethnology，

・ ’ From the i980s to the 1990s）， pp ．202 23，東 京 ： 新 曜社 （Tokyo ： Shiny6sha ）． “ ” 2003 「沖縄文 化 の 創造」 （The Creation of Okinawan Culture ）， 『ア ジ ア 遊学』 （lntrigzting Asia） 53： − 2 13． 「 WA rANABE Yoshio （ed ．） 渡 邊欣 雄i （編 ） − 1989 『環中国海 の 民俗 と文 化 3 祖先祭 祀』 （The Folk Cultures ofthe Areas around the CircumChina Sea 3，

E∬ 卿 ∫ 仞 肋 o θ∫’07 肺 融 1ρ），東 京 ： 凱 風 社 （Tokyo ：Gaifttsha）， ・ WATANABE Yoshio and MluRA Kunio （eds ．） 渡邊欣 雄 二 浦 國雄 （編） − 1994 『環 中 国海 の 民俗 と文 化 4 風 水論 集』 （The Folk Cultures ofthe Areas around the Cireum China Sea 4，

Essays on Feng Shui）．東京 ： 凱風 社 （Tokyo ： Gaif邑sha ）， YAKABI Osamu 屋 嘉 比 収

一 “ 1999 「古 日本 の 鏡 と し て の 琉 球 柳 田 国 男 と沖 縄研 究 の 枠 組 み ．1 （Ryukyu as a Mirror of Ancient ” Japan ： Kunio Yanagita and the Framework of Okinawan Studies）． 『南 島文化 沖縄 国 際大 学 ’ ’ 南 島 文化 研 究 所 紀 要』 （iVanto Bunka． ’ Bulletin（ofthe Jnstituie qfRyukyuan Cuttare）21 ：45 173 ． ．’ YAMADA Takako 山田孝 f

“ ” 一 1977 「鳩 間島 に お け る 民族 植 物 学 的研 究 」 （AStudy on Ethnobotany in Hatoma Island ）．伊 谷純 ・ ’ 郎 原 子令 三 （編） 『人 類 の 自然誌』 （ln ITANI Jun ichir6 and HARAKO Reiz6， eds ．， Ecological ・ Studies in Humankind）， pp．241 300．東京 ： 雄 山閣 出版 （Tokyo ：Y 亘zankaku Shuppan ）． 一 “ 1984 「沖縄 県、八 重 山 地方 にお け る植物 の 命名 、分 類 、利 用 比 較民族植物 学的考察 」 （Nomenclature ， − − and of ： Classification， Utilization Plants in Yaeyama ， Okinawa ACross Cultural Ethno ” ー − botanical Study ）． 『リ トル ワ ル ド研 究報 告』 （BuUetin qfthe Little Morld）7 ：25 236，

YAMAJI Katsuhiko LI」路勝 彦 一 1968 「沖縄小 離 島村落 に お け る 〈門 中〉形成 の 動態 粟国 島 に お け る 父 系親族体 系 と し て の く門 中〉 の

“ 若 干 の 考 察 」 （Dynamics of 漁 配 廨 Formation；ACase Study of the Patrilineal Kinship System ” 膕 a of ）． 民 研 究 （馳 α 〃 6 ∫θ 』o r η α 脳 一 in Aguni Village， Solitarylsland Okinawa 『 族学 』 7 ゆ 1q〆 − notogy ）33 （1）： 17 31 ．

YANAGITA Kunio 柳 田国 男

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

136 HAB ，A 7［bmoaki

‘「 ” 192511997 「海 南小 記 」 （Brief狂 avel Accounts of the Southern Sea ），『柳 田 國男 全集 第 3 巻 』 （The − Complete MorkS of YdNAGITA Kunio Volume 3）， pp ．231 405．東 京 ： 筑 摩 書 房 （Tokyo ： Chikuma Shob6）．

“ ” 192511998 「南 島研 究 の 現状 」 （The Current Conditions of Studies in the Southern lslands）． 『柳 − 田國 男全集 第 4 巻』 （The Compl εte Morks qf valVA C ∬TA Kunio 殉 伽 η e 4），pp ．78 99．東京 ： 筑 摩書 、房 （Tokyo ： Chikuma Shob6）．

“ ” 193511998 「郷 土 生恬 の 研 究 法 」 （Me 七hods for Studying Village Life）．『柳 田 國男全 集 第 8 巻 』 （The ’ − Complete 肋 廊 TA ？VAGfTd 1（unio ifolttmeδ ．ユ95 368 ． ： Tokyo ： 皿 qf ）， pp 東京 筑 摩 書房 （ Chiku a Shob6）。 “ ” ’ 「 196111997 海 上 の 道 」 （The Path Over the Sea ）．『柳 田國男全 集 第 21 巻』 （Tlie Complete Morks of − TaAIA GITA Kunio 701ume 21）， pp ．377 587．東京 ： 筑 摩 書 房 （Tokyo ：Chikuma Shob6）． YANAGITA Kunio （ed ．） 柳 田 国男 （編 ）

v1．g 1947 『沖縄 文 化叢説 』 （The Coltection ofEssays on Okinawan Culture）．東京 ： 央 公 論 社 （Tokyo； ChU6 K6ronsha）．

YANG Zhao 楊昭 一 一 “ 1989 「祭祀者 の 知 識 をめ ぐ る 考 察 沖 縄東 村 の 調 査 報告 」 （AConsideration About the Knowledge − ” of the Priest：A Report of Field Research Among HigashiVillage in Okinawa lsland ）． 『民族学 − 研 究』 （The Japanese Jburna1 of Ethnology） 54（3）： 330 6． YONAHA Jun 與那 覇潤

一 一 c‘ 2004 「『日琉 同祖 論 』 と 『民族 統 論 』 そ の 系譜 と琉球 の 近 代 」 （The Genealogy of Discourses of ” Comnlon Descent and a Vision of Ethnic Reunion ：Modernity in the Ryukyu lslands）．『日 本思 ’ − 想 史 学』 （丿oumal ofJapanese lnteUectual ifistory） 36 ： 140 58 ， ’ 「 一 “ − − 2006 『民 族 問題 』 の 不在 あ る い は 「琉 球 処 分 』 の 歴 史／ 人 類 学」 （The Non E 皿 ergence of Na

” tionalism； The Historical Anthropology of Ryukyu Annexation ）， 『文 化 人 類 学 』 Uapanese − ．ノburnal ofCulturalAnthropology ）70（4）： 451 72． YOSHIKAWA Hiroya 吉川博 也 一 1984 『与 那 国 島 の 生 態 人 類 学』 （｝bη α 9i纏 駕 砌 ♂ An Ecological Anthropoiogical Study），東 京 ： 「 省 堂 （Tokyo ：Sanseido）．

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service