Abstract
The number of communities of the East and West Tonami County, Toyama Prefecture, produced as the result of the amalgamation of cities and villages, which was carried out in the Showa Era, was just in accord with that of the “Gun-go-System” (the system of counties and villages which was put in operation in the 8th century).
Before the “Gun-go-system” was put in operation, 40-60 natural villages are supposed to have existed in the area, but under the Ritsuryo Constitution they were organized to twelve administrative villages. Afterwards, however, as the Ritsuryo Constitution gets loose, changes were introduced. The number of villages had grown up to more than 700 just before the reorganization of communities in 1889. And as its result, the whole area was organized to 81 towns and villages. Today, however, it is again to be organized to 12 cities, towns and villages.
These changes of cities, towns and villages reveals the conflict between the substantive and the formal area, as J. A. Quinn points out. In order to establish local administrative organization, adequate units are required, into which political powers can easily permeate. Thus arise so-called formal areas. But actual communities bring about residential segregation of inhabitants independent of the political order, and expand their cultural areas. Thus grow so-called substantive areas, which proceed the formal areas.
How these two were adjusted to each other in our Middle Age under the Ritsuryo Constitution? What kind of investigation were made on this point in the process of amalgamation in the Showa Era? This note is intended to make some analysis on the materials about these points.
The natural villages under the “Gun-go system” as substantive areas were homogenious in their construction, and their cultural areas were quite narrow. So the transformation to the formal areas could be performed quite mechanically on the basis of numbers of households. Fifty households formed a unit administrative village.
But the case of the amalgamation performed in the Showa Era is not so simple. The population of the cities, towns and villages themselves are much heterogenious because of the coniplex socio-economic construction. That is, the economic construction had to transform from one which depend chiefly on the pre-modern agricultural production to capitalistic agricultural, commercial and industrial enterprise. Thus the natural and industrial conditions of communities gradually fixed the regional order and the substantive areas are being formed. The social construction on the other hand changed also. The development of communication induced the contact areas of people to expand and various social groups to be formed to the extent that they destroy the formal areas organized in 1889.
Under these conditions the recent amalgamation project was set forth, and new formal areas are established. But to what extent are they adjusted to the substantive areas? In order to answer this question, I present such data as the industrial population, population mobility, commercial areas, ownership of houses and so on.
