@article{oai:rekihaku.repo.nii.ac.jp:00002172,
 author = {新谷, 尚紀 and Shintani, Takanori},
 journal = {国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告, Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History},
 month = {Feb},
 note = {application/pdf, 本稿は日本各地の葬送習俗の中に見出される地域差が発信している情報とは何かという問題に取り組んでみたものである。それは長い伝承の過程で起こった変遷の跡を示す歴史情報であると同時にその中にも息長く伝承され継承されている部分が存在するということを示している情報である。柳田國男が創生し提唱した日本民俗学の比較研究法とはその変遷と継承の二つを読み取ろうとしたものであったが,戦後のとくに1980年代以降の民俗学関係者の間ではそれが理解されずむしろ全否定されて個別事例研究が主張される動きがあった。それは柳田が創生した日本民俗学の独創性を否定するものであり,そこからは文化人類学や社会学との差異など学術的な自らの位置を明示できないという懸念すべき状況が生じてきている。日本民俗学の独創性を継承発展させるためには柳田の説いた視点と方法への正確な理解と新たな方法論的な研磨と開拓そして研究実践とが必要不可欠であり,民俗学は名実ともに folklore フォークロアではなく traditionology トラデシショノロジイ(伝承分析学)と名乗るべきである。日本各地の葬送習俗の伝承の中に見出される地域差,たとえば葬送の作業の中心的な担当者が血縁的関係者か地縁的関係者かという点での事例ごとの差異が発信している情報とは何か,それは,古代中世は基本的に血縁的関係者が中心であったが,近世の村落社会の中で形成された相互扶助の社会関係の中で,地縁的関係者が関与協力する方式が形成されてきたという歴史,その変遷の段階差を示す情報と読み取ることができる。本稿1は別稿2とともに今回の共同研究の成果として提出するものであり,1950年代半ばから70年代半ばの高度経済成長期以降の葬儀の変化の中心が葬儀業者の分担部分の増大化にあるとみて現代近未来の葬儀が無縁中心へと動いている変化を確認した。つまり,葬儀担当者の「血縁・地縁・無縁」という歴史的な三波展開論である。そしてそのような長い葬儀の変遷史の中でも変わることなく通貫しているのはいずれの時代にあっても基本的に生の密着関係が同時に死の密着関係へと作用して血縁関係者が葬儀の基本的な担い手とみなされるという事実である。近年の「家族葬」の増加という動向もそれを表わす一つの歴史上の現象としてとらえることができる。, This article discusses the issue of what information is found in differences in funeral customs between regions in Japan. That is historical information to trace shifts during transmission from generation to generation as well as to prove some consistency and continuity over time in spite of the transition. In order to grasp this change and continuity, Kunio Yanagida proposed and advocated a comparative study approach in Japanese folklore; however, most folklorists in the post-World War II period, especially after the 1980s, completely neglected this approach and explored individual cases without understanding his intention. This trend denied the originality of the Japanese folklore originated by Yanagida, which led to a problematic situation where it could neither distinguish itself from cultural anthropology or sociology nor establish itself as an independent academic discipline. In order to preserve and develop originality of Japanese folklore, it is crucial to accurately understand Yanagida's perspectives and methodologies, newly develop and refine them, and apply them to practical studies. In other words, this academic discipline should be established as traditionology in name and reality rather than as folklore. For example, differences in traditional funeral customs between regions in Japan include information of who is chiefly responsible for organizing funerals, either blood relations or locality group members. This information shows the history of the shift from a system based on blood relations in the ancient and medieval world to a system based on locality groups established through social relationships of mutual cooperation and surveillance in the early modern village world, as well as differences between the stages of the change. This Paper I, as well as Paper II, is issued as part of the collaborative research, revealing that one of the major changes in funeral customs after the high economic growth period, from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s, was the increasing involvement of funeral directors. This is considered as an early sign that funeral services is changing to involve third parties in the present and near future. In brief, these trends show a historical three-stage transition in people responsible for organizing funerals: from blood relations to locality groups and to third parties. However, in spite of these changes over time, there is certain continuity in funeral rites: that is a timeless fact that, in principle, blood relations are considered as key people in funeral services because close relationships in this world form close relationships in the world to come. This is also evidenced by another historical phenomenon: the recent increase in family funeral services.},
 pages = {9--62},
 title = {葬送習俗の民俗変化1 : 血縁・地縁・無縁},
 volume = {191},
 year = {2015},
 yomi = {シンタニ, タカノリ}
}