目的　地方紙における遺族の自己申告型死亡記事の記載事項を集計し，その地域での死亡やそれに伴う儀式の実態を明らかにするとともに，死亡記事のデータベースとしての利点と問題点を明らかにする。

方法　栃木の地方紙である下野新聞の自己申告型死亡記事「おくやみ」欄に掲載された2011～2015年の栃木県内の死亡者全員のデータを集計解析し，一部の結果は人口動態統計と比較した。観察項目は掲載年月日，市町村，住所の表示（市町村名のみ，町名・字まで，番地まで含めた詳細な住所），氏名，性別，死亡年月日，死因，死亡時年齢，通夜・告別式などの名称，通夜などの年月日，告別式などの年月日，喪主と喪主の死亡者との続柄の情報である。

結果　観察期間中の掲載死亡者数は69,793人で，同時期の人口動態統計による死亡者数の67.6%であった。人口動態統計と比較した掲載割合は男女で差がなく，小児期には掲載割合が低く，10歳代で高く，20歳台で低下し，以降は年齢とともに上昇していた。市町別の掲載割合は宇都宮市や小山市など都市化が進んだ地域では低く，県東部や北部で高い市町がみられた。最も掲載割合が高かったのは茂木町（88.0%），低かったのは野木町（38.0%）であった。死亡日から通夜や告別式などの日数から，東京などで起こっている火葬場の供給不足に起因する火葬待ち現象は起こっていないことが判明した。六曜の友引の日の告別式はほとんどなく，今後，高齢者の増加に伴う死者の増加によって火葬場の供給不足が起こった場合には，告別式と火葬を切り離して友引に火葬を行うことも解決策の1つと考えられた。死亡者の子供，死亡者の両親，死亡者の子供の配偶者が喪主の場合には，喪主は男の方が多いことが判明した。老衰，自殺，他殺の解析から，掲載された死因の妥当性は低いことが示された。

結論　栃木県の地方紙である下野新聞の自己申告型死亡記事「おくやみ」欄の5年分の観察を行い，実態を明らかにした。約3分の2に死亡が掲載されており，データベースとしての使用に一定の価値があると考えられたが，記載された死因の妥当性は低いことが判明した。

抄録全体を表示

In the materials of the 3rd year festival, the 10th anniversary of TAKI Daikiti, 34 stakeholders were noted, 15 of whom were officials of the Temporary Army Building Department. The iron fence established at the Three Year Festival was removed.

抄録全体を表示

 Yagasaki Zentaro has already conducted a series of research on Izyuin Kanetune. In these researches, it became clear about the late life when Izyuin was active as the Suki-mono, but the footsteps of the first half of "modern engineers" are not yet clear. In addition, Yagasaki used "Koikokaishin-roku" of Kuroda Tengai and "Meiji-kako-tyo" when showing Izyuin, but there are also multiple other records and articles of interviews with him. Therefore, this paper presented the report on Izyuin by Yagasaki, and examined the matters in the first half when Izyuin was active in the government and business circles, in particular, the purpose is to clarify the relationship between the Doboku-kentiku-gumi, the Nihon-doboku-kaisya and Izyuin. The Doboku-kentiku-gumi was also known as the construction of the Rokumeikan designed by Condor. The following points were clarified, focusing on the first half when Izyuin was active in government and business circles.

 Izyuin built the Zisin-no-ma in a residence in Kagoshima as a teenager. He also constructed a steam bath for six days and was dispatched to Edo as the reward. In 1868 at Bosin-no-eki, he served as the military detective in Edo, and he was dispatched to Oshu, then he sent the injured to Yokohama and bought the weapon. Izyuin worked as the Goyo-kakari of Kanagawa Prefectural from May to November 1868, and once returned to Kagosima, he moved to Tokyo again and opened a kimono store. His work at the Miyauchi Office was from 1871 to 1872 and his service to the Navy was from around 1872 to 1887, and work at the Ministry of Industry until around the end of 1878. After he retired from the government, he belonged to the Doboku-youtasi-gumi and built the Rokumeikan. Izyuin who was closely related to Ookura Kihachi through the Doboku-youtasi-gumi, took office as Tokyo resident accountant when the Nihon-doboku-kaisya was established in 1887. And Izyuin was also related to the Sangu-tetudou-kaisya, Iris Co., Dai-Nihon-seihun, Tokyo-gekizo-kaisya and so on. As the diplomat, he sold arms to the Army at Okuragumi in 1889-94. As his houses, Nakahashi-Suzuki-cho, Shibata-cho 8-chome, Shiba-Isarako-tei, Sakyragawa-tei, Kamakura's villa in later years, and the residence of Shiba Park which was the end of the land are newly confirmed.

抄録全体を表示

The Tokugawas established the School Fuchu (Shizuoka) Gakumonjo in Suruga in the autumn of 1868 as their major undertaking after the debacle of the Shogunate. In straitened circumstances they found a gleam of light in educa-tion for their future.
Gohachiro Namura was the head of the professors of English at this school. Unfortunately, however, we seldom come across his name as such in the litera-ture concerning the school. Instead, the name of Taizo Namura, who has nothing to do with the school, is often seen as a professor at the school. There are cases where Taizo's personal history is mistaken for Gohachiro's, or, vice versa.
In this paper, the causes of this confusion are discussed, and personal his-tories of Gohachiro and Taizo are presented. Gohachiro was a son of Hachiemon Namura, a very able official Dutch interpreter at Nagasaki. Taizo is said to have become a stepson of Hachiemon. Both Gohachiro and Taizo learnd Dutch and worked as Dutch intepreters at Nagasaki in the beginning, and they learned English and other foreign languages in addition, which made them indispensa-ble persons for modernization of Japan.
Gohachiro was one of the Japanese who studied and taught English earliest in Japan : he was one of the compilers of an English and Japanese dictionary, 1851-1854 (uncompleted), the second English and Japanese dictionary compiled in Japan. He was one of the interpreters when the Treaty of Peace and Amity was signed between the United States and Japan in 1854. He served as the chief interpreter of the first Japanese embassy to the United States in 1860, and also of the Japanese embassy to Russia in 1866.
Taizo was known for his ability in French. He was appointed an interpreter for a group of French technical instructors and workers for the construction of an iron foundary in Yokohama in 1862. He went to France to work for an International Exhibition at Paris in 1867, which Japan took part in for the first time. After the Restoration of 1868 he was employed by the new government at Nagasaki, where he taught French at a language institute transmitted to the new government. He entered the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tokyo in 1869. He moved to the Ministry of Justice in 1872. He was appointed as an Acting President of the Supreme Court in 1892, and as a member of the House of Peers in 1894. One of his most important contribution was, perhaps, the introduction of French law into Japan, serving as an interpreter and assistant for a famous French professor in law, Dr. Gustave Emile Boissonade de Fontarabie (1825-1910).
The confusion between Gohachiro and Taizo was originated in a simple mistake in a paper published in 1917, where the author wrote “Gohachiro (Taizo) Namura”, in his judgement that Taizo must have been Gohachiro's later name. Then, another authour, in his book published in 1934, noted just “Taizo Namura” in the list of professors at the school. Because this book is one of the basic books in the field, the confusion has been handed down to many other authors.

抄録全体を表示