<論説>ローカル・ヒストリーと共同体 : 山梨県内市町村史における恩賜林記述をめぐって

Abstract

自治体史の序文には、住民を共同体の成員へと組み入れる意図がしばしば見受けられる。過去の共有により成立する「記憶の共同体」がここから立ち上げられているとすれば、自治体史は住民の共同性を支えるメディアなのだろうか。 山梨県の「恩賜林」は、小物成地から官有地、御料地、県有地へと、明治期に所有を転々とした林野である。本稿はこれに関する市町村史の歴史叙述を事例とし、ローカル・ヒストリーのもつ共同体構築志向の内実を検討した。二つの事例地域からは、「記憶の共同体」の設定にそれぞれの地域事情が反映されていることが明らかになった。全県の市町村史からは、実質的な「記憶の共同体」が市町村の領域よりも小さいもの、市町村の領域と一致するもの、全県にまで拡大されたものの三類型が得られ、本文中の歴史叙述に注目するとき、自治体史から立ち上げられる「記憶の共同体」は自治体の領域に必ずしも一致しないことが示された。

This study deals with local history books published by local governments in Japan. They portray the history of people who lived in the local area from the distant past to present. Bellah has called those who share the same understanding of the past a "community of memory." Fujii considers these local history books as a medium by which such "communities of memory" are created. However, we have to keep in mind that today's local government entities and their geographical expanses are not super-historical ones, but were first established in the Meiji era and then reconstituted on several occasions. Therefore, a single local government entity may include several historical units which may have had different experiences of the past. This problem is similar to that in the narration of national histories. The author's aim is to reconsider those local history books and "community of Memory" by focusing on the grammatical subject used in written histories. Mayors often contribute prefaces to local history books that read something like this: "We citizens owe what we are today to our ancestors' effort. We must remember them and follow in their footsteps in order to achieve further development of our city." The subject here is wareware shimin, "we citizens, " who are linked to the innumerable people who had lived in same area in the past. Abiko points out that modern Japanese local government entities have faced several crises, such as the foundation of local government system and the setting of new administrative boundaries in the early Meiji era, and the consolidation of village shrines or common properties at the end of Meiji era. We can use these facts as the subject matter to examine whether local history books really guarantee the unity of people today and bind them in a "community of memory." The author investigated 69 local history books produced by local governments in Yamanashi prefecture which were published from the 1950's to 2006, focusing on how changes in the ownership of local common land are described. In 1889, almost all the local common forest land (iriaiyama) in Yamanashi prefecture were incorporated into imperial forest lands. The prefecture suffered two terrible floods at the end of Meiji Era, which resulted in the presentation of imperial forests to the prefecture in 1911 as onshirin (imperially granted forest). As a result, the forests now belong to the prefecture, but responsibility for local management and daily protection has been left to local fellowships. Because these groups are organized on the basis of old customs concerned with common land usage, the fellowships do not necessarily correspond with today's local-government boundaries. Thus we must consider these units as well as local government entities. The following are the results of this research. In several local history books, these facts are described in contrasting ways. Some state appreciation for the emperor's compassion, whereas other blame the Imperial Property Office's (Goryokyoku) neglect of proper management of the forests for causing terrible flood damage. The fellowship of the Nembagaharayama district in Takane Town is an example of the former, and that of the Kitafuji area, where the fellowship has a relationship with three local governments, Fujiyoshida City, Yamanakako Village, Oshino Village, is an example of the latter. Takane Town's history, published in 1989, uses "the people of Yamanashi Prefecture, " "the people of Takane Town" and "local fellowship" as grammatical subjects without any indication of discord, and the subject "our ancestors" truly refers to the ancestors common to the three groups. This reflects the cooperative relationship between the prefecture and town and fellowship in Nembagahara district at the time concerning the development of the onshirin as a tourist spot. In the Kitafuji area, the fellowship's management of the land was partly taken over by the Japanese Army in 1936, and this area is now managed by the Seif- Defense Forces. This created complex relationships in the area. Oshino Village's history, published in 1989, uses "the people of the Shibokusa district" as the grammatical subject to stress their inherent right, independent of not only the prefecture, but also of another former village that now constitutes part of present-day Oshino Village, and ten other former villages linked to the fellowship (including seven former villages now a part of Fujiyoshida City, and three former villages now incorporated into Yamanakako Village). From the description of onshirin, we discover three different types of relationships between local history and "the community of memory." In the first type, "the community of memory" corresponds to the local government's territory. This is what Fujii had presumed, but is not seen anywhere, except in the case of Narusawa Village. In the second type, the actual "community of memory" is narrower than the geographic jurisdiction, as in the case of Oshino Village. In the third type, the actual "community of memory" is larger than the territory, as in the case of Takane Town. This type was the most common of those in the prefecture.