<御嶽>祭祀の主導者 : 沖縄の神役組織に関する一問題点

抄録

If TORIGOE'S reconstruction of Okinawan religious history is correct, when a ritual is performed at present at an "utaki" (sacred grove), the dominant role must be performed by a "nuru" priestess. The purpose of this essay is to reconsider that part of TORIGOE'S thesis by means of an example taken from northern Okinawa. Field work was carried out from June to October 1973 in the villages of Nakao, Oyakawa. Taira, and Kawakami in the rural outskirts of Nago City. The chief priestess of Nakao village known locally as the "Nakao Nuru" also acts as chief priestess for the other three villages. In dealing with this case, therefore, the author decided to treat all four villages as the Nakao nuru's "cult area". In Kawakami village there is a priestess who ranks next below the Nakao nuru known as the "Kawakami nuru". The existence of the "Kawakami nuru" complicates the analysis of this case to a certain extent ; however, other than this one point, the factors involved are the same as in other areas. Although we refer to these four villages as being in the Nakao nuru's "cult area", she does not preside over all of the annual village rites in all four of the villages. For this reason, the author focused on the Nakao nuru's pattern of participation in various annual village rites, and classified them into the following five categories. 1) Rites which in Nakao village are presided over by the Nakao nuru, but which are presided over by other priestesses in the other villages. 2) Rites in which the entire cult area is divided into two sections, one section taken care of by the Nakao nuru, the other by the Kawakami nuru. 3) Rites in which the Nakao and Kawakami nurus jointly preside over in sequence at the ritual sites (kami-asagi) in each of the four villages. 4) Rites in which participants from all four villages are assembled at one place, and presided over by the Nakao nuru. 5) Rites in which priestesses from outside the cult area assemble at ritual sites within the area, and are performed jointly with this cult area's priestesses. In this "cult area" TORIGOE'S thesis finds no support when re-examined in light of each of these five categories. There are two possible reasons why TORIGOE'S thesis does not fit the facts in this case. First, he relied mainly upon historical material (ryukyu-koku yuraiki) when working-out his reconstruction. Secondly, nuru, at the present time, may roughly be divided into two general types ; one type of nuru is responsible for a single-village "cult area", the other type of nuru Is responsible for a multi village "cult area". But TORIGOE does not distinguish between the two different types. This second point is a crucial pillar without which TORIGOE'S reconstruction cannot stand. However, not only TORIGOE'S, but almost all scholarly writings on this subject up to the present time have made the same mistake. Which ritual specialist presides over ceremonies at the village "utaki" (sacred grove) is a fundamental aspect of the village cult in the mainland Okinawa island group. If the two different types of nuru are not distinguished, further research on mainland Okinawa cult organization will be hopelessly confused. Future researth should necessarily be based upon this distinction between the two nuru types, and should be concerned with the roles and status of the various priestesses.