AN ATTEMPT TO CLASSIFY NEWLY ADOPTED NAMES OF TOWNS AND VILLAGES AMALGAMATED IN 1889 IN JAPAN

Abstract

In 1889, the twenty-second year of Meiji, the Japanese Government amalgamated its 71, 314 towns and villages into thirty-nine cities and 15, 820 towns and villages on a nation-wide scale, which could safely be called the first administrative reorganization in Modern Japan. The author intends is to classify the newly adopted names of towns and villages from the viewpoint of historical geography. Compared with the considerable number of treatises on the names given to Oaza (i. e., towns and villages before the amalgamation), no notable studies concerning the new names have been made public. That is why the author believes this treaties would be helpful and meaningful. It is fortunate that all the historical records of the amalgamation are still preserved in perfect condition in those fifteen prefectures: Ibaraki, Saitama, Chiba, Niigata, Ishikawa, Nagano, Shizuoka, Shiga, Osaka, Hyogo, Nara, Hiroshima, Yamaguchi, Fukuoka and Kumamoto. The study here presented I hopes, will make clear how new names were given to a total of 4, 041 towns and villages inn those prefectures. At the first stage, the author tried to classify all these name into the following twelve groups, Groups A to L: Group A: Historical Names Common to Larger Districts: a group of names taken from the time-honoured appellations given to Go or Sho (i. e., village-clusters in the Edo Era). Croup B: Names of Centers of a District: a group of names derived from the most famous former town or village name in the area concerned. Group C: Compound Names: this group is subdivided into two kinds, C1 and C2. C1: a group of eclectic names blended out of all the names of the amalgamated munici- palities. C2: a group of eclectic names using only the names of the more distinguished former towns or villages among those involved. Group D: Link Names: this group also contains two kinds, D1 and D2. D1: a group of names merely combining mechanically all the names of the former ton us or villages involved. D2: a group of names combining the names of some of the bigger and more noted mu-nicipalities among those involved. Group E: Names Based on Natural Features: a group of names incorporating the appellation of a well-known mountain, beach, river, island, lake, etc. in the area. Group F: Names Based on Shrines or Temples: a group of names bearing the appel-lation of a historically famous Shinto shrine or Buddhist temple in the area. Group G: Names Based on Historical Relics: a group of names taken from among local historical sites such as graves, ruins of a palace or castle, barrier checkpoints, etc.. Group H: Topographical Names: a group of names representing topographical fea-tures of the former town and villages involved. Group I: Smaller District Names: a group of names given to a small but well-known part of the area. Group J: Made-Up Names: this group has four subdivisions, J1 to J4. J1: a group of names made up with no regard for the former name or any regional feature. J2: a group of names implying slight regard for the regional features. J3: a group of names made up synthetically but implying some consideration of general appellations remaining from ancient times, including the former municipalities. J4: a group of names made up artificially but with some regional historical charac-teristics. Group K: a group of names impossible to classify. Group L: a group of names with no records of the naming process. The second part of the authors study leads to six necessary conditions in giving a name to a new administrative region. These conditions are: 1. That all inhabitants of the area should agree to the name which woulb be adopted. 2. That the history and tradition of the area should be reflected in the given name.