@article{oai:minpaku.repo.nii.ac.jp:00004270,
 author = {中山, 和芳 and Nakayama, Kazuyoshi},
 issue = {3},
 journal = {国立民族学博物館研究報告, Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {In the early 19th-century Pohnpeian and Kosraean societies, there
were many areas of similarities in social and cultural practices. Each
had chiefdom structures denoted by a system of titles. All land was owned
by the paramount chiefs (Nahnmwarki on Pohnpei and Tokosra on
Kosrae). Thier subjects were allowed to use the land, paid tribute in
return, and used respectful language to them.
The Pohnpeian and Kosraean experiences of Western contact in the
19th century were also basically similar. From the 1830s increasing
numbers of whaleships visited the two islands. Pohnpei and Kosrae experienced
a depopulation caused by diseases which foreign ships
brought. In 1852 American Congregational missionaries came to the
two islands to propagate their religion. Later both islands accepted
Christianity.
On Pohnpei Christianity was accommodated into the existing social
and political framework, and Pohnpeians retain their traditional chieftainship
even today. But on Kosrae the acceptance of Christianity
caused the abandonment of the chieftainship. In spite of the seemingly
similar situations in the two islands, the outcome in each case was
markedly different.
The purpose of this paper is to examine why there was such a great
difference between Pohnpei and Kosrae. There are several factors which
influenced processes of change and continuity.
First, although the two societies suffered a decline in population,
Kosrae, because of the smaller size of its population, was more vulnerable
to changes than was Pohnpei. On Kosrae it became difficult to find
an eligible candidate to the paramount chief title.
Second, there were five autonomous chiefdoms on Pohnpei while
Kosrae had a unified polity. On Pohnpei a strong rivalry existed among
the five chiefdoms and each of them often pursued different policies from
the others. Therefore unified action was hard to attain.
Third, Pohnpei was subjected to a far wider range of foreign influences
than Kosrae. On Pohnpei many beachcombers settled. On
Kosrae they were discouraged from remaining on shore after their conflicts
with the Kosraeans. The expulsion of the beachcombers from the
island was possible because of the political centralization of Kosraean
society. Spanish government officials and soldiers, Catholic priests and
German government officials and soldiers came to Pohnpei, but none of
them settled on Kosrae. Therefore, when they stood at the crisis caused
by depopulation and were looking for a new model for their society,
there were many examples on Pohnpei, while the Protestant teachings
were the only one for the Kosraeans.
Fourth, Spanish and German government officials appointed the
Pohnpeian chiefs to the post of native headman to maintain order on the
island. The foreign governments helped Pohnpeian chiefs to maintain
their positions. The Spanish officials were indifferent to Kosrae.
Although the Germans appointed the Kosraen paramount chief to the
post of native headman, it was too late to retain the chieftainship.
The difference in those factors mentioned above caused the
Kosraeans to abandon the chieftainship system and the Pohnpeians to
manage to maintain it. On Kosrae, conversion to Christianity is regarded
as discontinuous change, while on Pohnpei the process of change
since Isokelekel, the first Nahnmwarki, is perceived in terms of cultural
continuity.},
 pages = {633--680},
 title = {首長制とキリスト教 : ミクロネシア，ポーンペイ島とコシャエ島の事例},
 volume = {16},
 year = {1992},
 yomi = {ナカヤマ, カズヨシ}
}