@article{oai:rekihaku.repo.nii.ac.jp:00001583,
 author = {林, 淳 and Hayashi, Makoto},
 journal = {国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告, Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {application/pdf, 神子の歴史社会的な存在形態を考えようとした場合、神田より子、西田かほるの先駆的な仕事を踏まえ、さらなる議論を展開する必要がある。西田は、近世において神子の本所がなぜできなかったのかという根本的な問いを発している。この問いは、九〇年代以降に盛んになった近世の民間宗教者の家職をめぐる研究史の虚をついたものである。西田は、「本所を持たない神子は、みずからの宗教活動を幕府から保証されるために、みずからの夫や父、よりいえば男性の所属する宗教各派の編成を受けてゆくことになるのである」、「イエによって職が継承されるという近世社会のあり方」と指摘した。これに対して、東北地方において神子の重厚なフィールド調査を重ねてきた神田は、修験系の神子の儀礼を論述する中で、西田説をとりあげて「神子は元来本所がないから、修験ともイエの論理で結びしていたとする西田かほるの論はあたらない」と批判している。この問題は、同じ神子と呼ばれたものの社会的存在形態が、地域的にも時代的にも多様で振幅をふくむものであり、一般化の危険を示唆している。
本稿は、神事舞太夫と梓神子の教団形成をたどり、神子の分類を試みるものである。彼らの頭役であった田村家は、配下が夫婦で活動することを義務付けていた。梓神子が他の系列の男性と婚姻を結ぶことは禁じた。東北の神子や田村家配下の梓神子は、師匠の家に住み込み、作法を叩き込まれて、一人前になるため訓練された点で共通していた。その意味ではプロフェショナルであり、より高度な技法を身につけていた専門職といえる。それに対して土御門家配下、吉田家配下の神子は、本所に対して貢納料を支払って、自らが行っている活動を継続させようとした。そこでは本所は、神子が何をやっているのかに関して関知しなかったと思われる。神田が紹介した東北の神子が、自らの檀那場を保有して、経済的にも自立した存在であったが、田村家配下の梓神子は、男性（神事舞太夫）のもとで統率されて、キャラバンを組んで共同で営業を行っていた。両者の間には、大きな違いは歴然とあった。近世以降の神子を研究する場合、再生産の仕組みや檀那場の所有に注目しつつ、地域性の違いを繰り込む作業が必要となる。, When considering sociohistorical forms of miko it is necessary to develop additional arguments drawing on the pioneering work of Yoriko Kanda and Kaoru Nishida. Nishida posed the fundamental question of why miko were not affiliated with a particular head of a religious sect in the Early Modern period. This question surprised researchers studying the occupations of religious practitioners in the Early Modern period, an area of study that has become popular since the 1990s. Nishida noted that “to have their religious activities guaranteed by the shogunate, miko, who were not affiliated with a particular head, had to become part of the organization of a religious sect to which their husband or father, in other words, a man, belonged.” She also observed that “in Early Modern society occupations were inherited by households”. In contrast, when discussing the rituals of miko with shugen (mountain asceticism) affiliations, Yoriko Kanda, who has conducted extensive fieldwork in the Tohoku region, criticized Nishida by saying, “since miko essentially are not affiliated to heads, Nishida's theory, which uses the argument of the household system to make conclusions about either shugen or miko, is not applicable.” This question hints at the danger of generalization given that the social forms of others also called miko are diverse in both terms of geographical region and historical period.
This paper traces the formation of orders of sacred dance masters (shinjimai-dayu) and azusa miko in an attempt to classify miko. In the institution headed by Tamura, which led these practitioners, it was compulsory for followers to work as couples. Azusa miko were prohibited from marrying men with other affiliations. Both miko in Tohoku and azusa miko, who were followers of Tamura, lived in their master's house where they received thorough training so that they became proficient practitioners. In this sense, they were professionals who acquired advanced skills. In contrast, miko who were followers of Tsuchimikado or Yoshida paid a fee to the head where they were based so that they could continue with their activities. It would appear that the heads were not concerned with what these miko did. While the miko in Tohoku studied by Kanda had their own territories called “dannaba” and were also economically independent, azusa miko, who were followers of Tamura, were under the control of men (sacred dance masters) and formed caravans with men with whom they carried out their activities. The huge difference between these two types of miko is unmistakable. When investigating miko from the Early Modern period onwards, such studies need to take account of regional characteristics while paying attention to the system of reproduction and the possession of territories.},
 pages = {43--55},
 title = {梓神子と神事舞太夫（第Ⅰ部　論考 / 1. 民間宗教の中・近世から近代へ）},
 volume = {142},
 year = {2008},
 yomi = {ハヤシ, マコト}
}