Maritime institutions in the Western Pacific

Citation preview

Senri Ethnological Studies No. 17

CLASS SEPSERIAL

MARITIME INSTITUTIONS

IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

Edited by

Kenneth RUDDLE

and Tomoya AKIMICHI

cnfttBYS pfixJLJ IsioneO noGibaM • nienoosiW Io teoTlS 013*3 H ivv .no?. s •J

National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka 1984 ’** ''

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements Introduction by

Kenneth Ruddle and Tomoya Akimichi ...................

Arne Kalland

Sea Tenure in Tokugawa Japan: The Case of Fukuoka Domain ............................................................... 11

Tomoya Akimichi and Kenneth Ruddle

The Historical Development of Territorial Rights and Fishery Regulations in Okinawan Inshore Waters ................................ 37

Tomoya Akimichi

1

Territorial Regulation in the Small-Scale Fisheries of Itoman, Okinawa........................................................... 89

Ryutaro Ohtsuka and Yukio Kuchikura

The Comparative Ecology of Subsistence and Commercial Fishing in Southwestern Japan, with Special Reference to Maritime Institutions.121

Yukiko Kada

The Evolution of Joint Fisheries Rights and Village Community Structure on Lake Biwa, Japan........................................................................................ 137

Yoshiaki Matsuda and Yoshiyuki Kaneda

The Seven Greatest Fisheries Incidents in Japan....... 159

Teruji Sakiyama

. *•< ' Fisheries Cooperatives in Southeast Asia, an Institutional.,Fer^pective .................................................... 183

Ken-Ichi Sudo

Social Organization and Types of Sea Tenure in Micronesia ........................................................................... 203

Stephen Davis

Aboriginal Claims to Coastal Waters in NorthEastern Arnhem Land, Northern Australia ............... 231

R. E. Johannes and J. W. MacFarlane

TraditionalSea Rights in theTorresStraitlslands, with Emphasis on Murray Island ................................... 253

Nicholas V. C. Polunin

Do Traditional Marine “Reserves” Conserve? A View of Indonesian and New Guinean Evidence....... 267

Richard B. Pollnac

Investigating Territorial Use Rights among Fishermen............................. 285

John C. Cordell

Defending Customary Inshore Sea Rights....................301

About the Contributors ....................................................................................................... 327

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This issue of Senri Ethnological Studies presents the proceedings of the Seventh International Ethnological Symposium on the theme of “Maritime Institutions in the Western Pacific,” which was held at the National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka and at KyUzesOr Lake Biwa, from 1-8 November, 1983. We express our sincere gratitude to the Taniguchi Fouridation and to its Executive Director, Mr. Toyosaburo Taniguchi, for the generous financial support which made this symposium possible. The organizing committee of the symposium consisted of Dr. Tadao Umesao, Director-General of the National Museum of Ethnology, Professors Takao Sofue, Mikiharu Itoh, Keiji Iwata, Kyuzo Kato and Komei Sasaki of the Museum, together with Mr. Akio Hata, Chief Administrative Officer, and Professor George Ohshima of Kwansei-Gakuin University. The planning committee was composed of Mr. Hiroshi Isomura, Head of the General Affairs Section, and Professors Tomoya Akimichi, Ichiro Ito, Kenneth Ruddle, Ken-ichi Sudo and Shigeharu Tanabe, of the Museum, together with Miss Eiko Yuasa, President, and Mr. Hidejiro Uji, Chief Planning Officer, of the Senri Office of the Japan Ethnological Foundation. We are grateful to Dr. Tatsuo Kira, Director of the Lake Biwa Research Institute and to Professor George Ohshima for presenting special slide lectures at KyQzeso. Our thanks are also due to Professor Ohshima for his unstinting support during planning for the symposium, as well as to Professor Toru Ishimitsu, of Kobe University, for his enthusiastic participation during the sessions. We are also indebted to several persons who conscientiously assisted both in the smooth running of the symposium and in the preparation of this volume: to Mrs. Hiroko Suzumura, of the Senri Office of the Japan Ethnological Foundation, Mr. Tsutomu Watase, Research Liaison Officer, National Museum of Ethnology, Mr. Teruhisa Komatsu, Miss Harumi Morimoto, Miss Mutsumi Nakatsugawa, Miss Sachiko Sakurai and Miss Yuko Okuda for their hard work both before and during the event; to Miss Izumi Miyoshi who cheerfully typed the final versions of the manuscripts; and to Miss Izumi Kume who guided us through the printing maze.

KENNETH RUDDLE and TOMOYA AKIMICHI, Osaka, July 1984.

The blackberries this particular autumn were nearly over and in any case the bushes that grew within a mile of the village—which was called Bottom, perhaps because it lay at the foot of the red rocks—had been stripped bone-bare. When the gang had gathered at the rendezvous Pete made a revolutionary proposal—that they should enter a new terri­ tory in search of fruit. Number One said disapprovingly, ‘We’ve never done that before.’ He was in all ways a conservative child. He had small deep-sunk eyes like holes in stone made by the dropping of water, and there was practically no hair on his head and that gave him the air of a shrivelled old man. ‘We’ll get into trouble,’ Liz said, ‘if we do.* ‘Nobody need know,’ Pete said, ‘so long as we take the oath.’ The village by long custom claimed that the land belonging to it ex­ tended in a semi-circle three miles deep from the last cottage—even though the last cottage was a ruin of which only the foundations remained. Of the sea too they reckoned to own the water for a larger, more ill-defined area that extended some twelve miles out to sea. This claim, on the occasion when they encountered the boats from beyond the headland, nearly caused a conflict. It was Pete’s father who made peace by pointing towards the clouds which had begun to mass over the horizon, one cloud in particular of enormous black menace, so that both parties turned in agreement towards the land, and the fishermen from the village beyond the headland never sailed again so far from their home. (Fishing was always done in grey overcast weather or in fine blue clear weather, or even during moonless nights, when the stars were sufficiently obscured; it was only when the shape of the clouds could be discerned that by general consent fishing stopped.) ‘But suppose we meet someone?’ Number Two asked. ‘How could we?’ Pete said.

Graham Greene, “A Discovery in the Woods,” A Sense of Reality. Penguin Books (1981: 95).

Senri Ethnological Studies 3 7 1984

INTRODUCTION

Kenneth Ruddle and Tomoya Akimichi National Museum of Ethnology

Not uncommonly, human adaptation to the maritime environment is portrayed as one of the more extreme of human attainments. This is certainly true in some regions, but to generalize this notion worldwide is to overstate a case that has in large part been based on misconceptions. People whose livelihood derives either in part or entirely from maritime pursuits, and especially fishermen, are undeniably faced with a more hazardous environment compared with those who make their living by other occupations. Most of the physical hazards and biological uncertainties faced by fishermen are too familiar to require reiteration here, as, by and large, are the socio-economic adversities that confront them. Similarly, many formal and informal institutions and mechanisms that communities have devised to cope with such prob­ lems are also relatively well-known.

But the tenurial relationships of fishermen to the resource .areas that they exploit and their rights to the resources themselves are not^o well-known and deserve immediate, in-depth and interdisciplinary attention, since their uncertain, weak or contested tenurial status is one of the principal diificulties-encountered by small-scale fishermen in many parts of the world, as two recent reviews, demonstrate [Acheson 1981; Emmerson 1980]. The ways in which fishermen .perceive, define, delimit, *‘own” and defend their rights to inshore fishing grounds—or their “sea tenure”—is one of the most significant “discoveries” to emerge from the last ten years of research in maritime anthropology. Systems of sea tenure range in type from the ownership of specific sites by individuals, families, clans or other extended kin groups, through rural and urban peasant populations, to the complex legal constructs of societies such as Japan and the U.S.A., with a highly integrated, modem and industrial fisheries sector. Mixtures of ownership types are also common. Although ti-aditional systems of sea tenure constitute an exciting new field for social scientists and may provide viable alternative models for, fisheries planners and administrators, clearly*they are nothing new to fishermen, since, although sea tenure

assumes many different guises, the functioning of at least 'minimal concepts of ownership is a near universal phenomenon in the wide range' of societies in which people depend on the natural resources of inshore waters. Hitherto, understanding of traditional systems of inshore sea tenure was ham­ pered by the dominant Western theories of fish as a common property resource, that

1

K. Ruddle and T. Akimichi

2 ™io,,

A«.r4™ » W«.m “““"XX.

regarded as the epitome of a common prop has the exclusive rights to them an

prevented from using them,

y

arises, since it is in the

er

o

Thus, it is postulated, fishermen s co p best interests of the individ^l “^7°

j

pppppmic terms over-fishing, and over-capitalization in the

„bat is necessary " Xie a cLequence outlined by Christy

to maximize profits from the in us ry

„ py^allh in Ocean Fisheries.

‘he com

The intellectual under^nnings

resources were provided by Hugo in 1635. Subsequently, Grotius’

maximum capability, tomorrow will be

V^pVor

because what he abstains from caught by a competitor today. In the eventual crash of the resource, industry through excessive

—

ro i

,

{The Freedom of the Seas} norioXthe -‘Freedom of the Seas.”

amenable to occupation it could

became the basis for the prevailing W

Basically, his thesis was that bei^use

belong to nobody. inherent nature, the sea fcould be p

p^^^p^^p by John Selden,

^opgrty.

Further, because of its

common purpose with its simultaneous ends Thus “Freedom of the

exclusionary maritime Pohhyjg years later, who, generalizing That was countered by John Selden, g ry-.u^aters for private use, from Roman laws that pefiilitt^ X bomdaries to be fixed in maritime waters, pointed to certain consttucts that ena pp^ij satisfy all users by

SeX—tS":

bAraiKe thev soon came to suit

resources.

distant waters, the concept of an “Open limited space available to small-scale.

property nature of fisheries. Although plausible in deeper and Sea” becomes far less tenable m t e re

iv

represent a physical

;X,“= ———

Introduction

3

operate also render the free access concept less tenable. In the first place, inshore fishing communities in many parts of the tropics are small and, not uncommonly, both physically distant and socially removed by socio-economic status from the larger regional and,national society. More often than not, they are composed of kin groups, clansmen and the like who must seek their livelihood in part from a restricted geographical area and from a potentially vulnerable biomass. They are thus more likely than the larger society to maintain concepts of “locally controlled

inshore seas.” Further, perhaps the majority of small-scale fishermen worldwide are parttimers, in other words farmer-fishermen, although this is changing almost everywhere under the forces of modernization. This, of course, may be interpre^d functionally as a risk-spreading device, but it also surely evolved from the ^eed-l^secure dietary complements, although, as in many places, .this could also be ensured via trading among occupational specialists. Regardless of the cause, viewing their occupation patterns holistically as being composed of sets of economically and nutritionally complementary activities, it would seem that such part-tipie fishermen are less likely to dichotomize their resource space into an “ownable land component and an inherently “unownable marine component.” Especially for communities in the tropics, jvhere many coral reef fish stocks are relatively iminobile, logic dictates that inshore waters are but an extension of the land to which they have tenure, nothing more and nothing less. This, however, cannot be argued so forcefully for seasonally migratory stocks. At first sight to most Westerners “sea tenure” would appear to be a contra­ diction in terms, since the ownership of marine space-or, schools of migratory fish, for example, is inherently difficult and as such not embraced by conventional scientific and legal conceptions of what is “ownable.” Thus it came as something of a surprise to Western fisheries administrators searching for a means to limit entry to fisheries to discover, and possibly find a blueprint.in, not only the highly elaborate regulations controlling Japanese inshore fisheries but also the rather large number of Western and non-Westem societies that have (or had,-vsince many have succumbed to Western intrusion) some form of proprietary rights to places where fish, habitually congregate. Whereas in some societies fishery resources are a common property resource in the true sense of the term, there is now widespread evidence in that many widely diverse societies scattered throughout the world access rights to fish are controlled and fishing territories are not available to all. It is now widely appreciated that fishermen claim specific observable territories which can be defined by visual triangulation, landmarks, underwater topography, and such surface “seamarks” as the color of water, pattern of waves and other natural

phenomena. Use rights may be granted to certain locations, specific seasons, par­ ticular species or specific gear. Other forms of sea tenure are less concrete but nevertheless functionally effective, and include such concepts as exclusion mecha­ nisms, first-comer’s rights, and the like. Despite being binding on social behavior, traditional sea tenure is largely

K. Ruddle and T. Akimichi 4

• f .1 illirit or covert. Certain systems of traditional law prevented Xfishtag"aXrontoted resource conservation

of oceanic resources, has furt imnipmentation of the new legislation Law of the Sea,” or traditional sea tennre. jJ^,kers will have a major impact on ms ore wa ers w j^^isions that will determine in many countries are now consideringi ] P Y legislation will have the future allocation of fishing rights. Cermmly, any such^^

to take into account preexisting an nature of small-scale fishermen, because of the major "^XXtte « uXure, the future of mentioned above, reinforced by the tenurial

fishermen is in jeopardy worldwide,

“Xand Ze misconceptions generally form the basis on

Australia, the marginal seas well as Melanesia, systems of

X“" ,h“ —

bj«.

^^,^ted conservation ethic develonment than elsewhere.

t

S„„poW»i Wiy i. *•

==555x=—=■" •”’* —“»=“ Z™hS‘“5===^ .«■ »“•“ •—

Introduction

5

munities. And, more importantly, most such studies of fishermen concern their activities on land and not at sea!' In part this can be attributed to the methodological and operational problems inherent in studying such societies and partly it is a socio­ logical difficulty. In large part, too, it is also a function of national priorities where developing countries, for very cogent reasons of the lar^e constituency, have directed their national development efforts mainly at agriculturalists. This, in turn, has had

an impact on the topics studied by scholars. This dearth of fishing community studies is to be regretted for two reasons. First, from the narrower academic point of view, the contribution of studies of fishing communities to the theoretical development of rural studies and more particularly to “peasant studies” has been little, and this despite the pioneering leadership of Firth’s [1946] classic study of a Malay peasant fishing village in which he showed forcefully that fishermen are quintessential peasants. The scant literature supports this contention in such important respects as their elaborate risk-sharing institutions, competitive factionalism, multiple and complex client-patron relationships, and dependence on and vulnerabiUty to uncontrollable external factors of the larger society, and in particular their dependence on external markets [Alexander 1982]. The

exclusion of fishing communities from one widely accepted definition of peasant societies [Shanin 1973] is all the more unacceptable when it is realized that part-time fishermen—i.e., farmer-fishermen—constitute the majority of those engaged in fishing

in most developing countries. Of equal importance, is that this relative lack of anthropological studies of fishing communities has fundamental policy implications, particularly since the declaration of 200 nm jurisdictional limits under the Law of the Sea has renewed interest in marine affairs. In the rush to exploit national advantages mandated under the Law in the international arena, there is the likelihood that governments in their ignorance of true conditions in—as opposed to distorted pictures based on a few days haphazard survey “research” rather than in-depth study—and lack of empathy with fishing communities, will bar^in away the patrimony of the small-scale fishermen to obtain favorable conditions in-other areas. The result of that.'combmed with the single-minded pursuit of economic solutions to local fisheries problems, is that, in all likelihood, already poor fishing communities will become further impoverished in the absence of in-depth and thorough studies of such basic institu­ tions as, inter alia, traditional concepts of sea tenure, resource ownership and conservation and catch distribution, as well as a thorough understanding of the extremely complex linkages between fishing communities and other users of resources and space, both in the marine environment and onshore. In some areas, systems of sea tenure are fast disappearing under the pressures that are increasingly impinging on the world’s nearshore waters and fisheries. If not intensively studied soon, the opportunity to examine on a worldwide basis a phenomenon that is still scarcely known will be irretrievably lost. Increasingly, it is now being asked if the norms and institutions developed by systems of traditional sea tenure to control access and fishing procedures could form a practical basis for

K. Ruddle and T. Aklmichi 6

and biological approaches [Emmerson 1980].

J3Ss:fi«22Sss stimulate further research on sea tenure in

ere

lacunae

r "'Xore Xu^rsymposium also aimed to provide discussed above, through p -ludicnces of the hitherto little-known

done in other parts/of the world [cf. Cowell (ed.) n.d., Ruddle The tat six papers in this volume examine various aspects of Japanese sea tenure,

a complex system which evolved from deep histori,^!that

and Akimichi n.d.].

“jk" L—..

„«»rirtr»v that Ions history.

"X' "X

continuity of village fisheries traditions and administration. ^construction Whereas analysis of contemporary documents permits a defied

Introduction

7

interpersonal behavior among fishermen. Akimichi’s detailed study of ambushi net fishermen in the Naha area of Okinawa Prefecture is an attempt to overcome this problem. It assumes that the strong continuity in the formal elements of fisheries tradition is mirrored in present-day intra-community decision-making processes and problem-solving, as well as in the fishermen’s territorial and inter­ personal behavior, and thus will reflect fairly closely its historical counterparts.

As Akimichi demonstrates, consideration of the formal elements yields only a partial understanding of a system of -sea tenure. Fuller elucidation requires that it be complemented by analysis of the territorial and related behavior of the individual fishing units. The detailed study of ambushi fishery thus in this sense complements the paper by Akimichi and Ruddle on the historical development of territorial rights and fishery regulations in Okinawa. Again making Use of the wealth of historical documents available to the student of Japanese fisheries; Akimichi and Ruddle trace the history of Okinawan fisheries regulations and fishing territories from feudal times until 1974. They also demonstrate the administration of fisheries by national and prefectural governments as well as by the local Fisheries Cooperative Association. A third paper, that by Ohtsuka and Kuchikura, also examines fisheries in the RyUkyU Islands and compares the subsistence fishery of the isolated Tokara Islands, in the north of the chain, with the commercial fisheries in the Yaeyama archipelago, in the southern part of Okinawa Prefecture, and with Kudaka (Island, off the coast of the

Okinawa Island. The authors hypothesize that systems of sea tenure emerge from pressures introduced by the commercialization of d fishery. The paper by Matsuda and Kaneda completes the group on Japan. Drawing on a large number of detailed case studies published in Japanese by Kaneda, the authors discuss the so-called “Seven Greatest Fisheries Incidents” in Japanese coastal waters. Although many of these incidents originated in feudal times, this paper basically

sheds light on the processes of conflict resolution, reconciliation and management

in modern Japanese fisheries. Whereas in Japan the poverty of small-scale fishermen and their exploitative relationships with middlemen and other-intermediaries is now mostly a thing of the past and modernization of the fishing fleets is now basically complete nationwide, the fisheries sector in Southeast Asia is reminiscent of former times in Japanese fisheries. Although conditions differ according to country, throughout much of the region fisheries are still in the throes of modernization, and formal institutions for their governance remain in the formative stage. Further, extremely little is known about traditional systems of sea tenure in Southeast Asia, since virtually no research has been done there on the topic. Largely as a consequence of inter-sectoral in­ compatibilities and over-exploitation of fish resources by the modernized sub-sector, small-scale, traditional fishermen in Southeast Asia are now in a serious socio­ economic situation. The paper by Sakiyama analyses the causes of this condition and discusses the role that fisheries cooperative institutions can play in ameliorating it. In distinct contrast to Southeast Asia, maritime institutions in Oceania, especially sea tenure and traditional maritime knowledge, are relatively well-documented.

K. Ruddle and T. Akimichi

8

spirit comes from the sea at oirin, w Access rights n this that the boundaries of elan estates eneompass trac s o s^a

=W=ias5= ==x;;-££H:Saa:=: attention was traditionally give

tenure

He contends that

Of eonhlet that Intenslhed as resources became economically valuable.

and sea tenure are

Melanesia, Japan, Alaska and the Pacific Northwest of the U.S.A.

bibliography "olo^ of Fishing.

in An.,.ra,o,o,y 10: 275-316.

Alexander. Paul and Feasant Society. Canberra: 1982 5ri Lankan Fishermen: Rural Capitalism Australian National University. Christy. Francis T. Jr. and A. Scott Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins 1965 The Common Wealth in Ocean Fisheries. University Press. Cordell, John C. (ed.) and Territoriality in the World of nd A Sea of Small Boats: Customary Law Inshore FMg. Stanford: Stanford University Press (.n press).

Introduction

9

Emmerson, Donald R. 1980 Rethinking Artisanal I'isheries Development: Western Concepts, Asian Experi­ ences. Washington D. C.: World Bank. Firth. Raymond 1946 Malay Fishermen: Their Peasant Economy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. Grotius. Hugo 1609 Mare Liberum (The Freedom of the Seas'). Translated by R. V. D. Magoffin (1916). New York: Oxford University Press.

Johannes. R. E. . . . • > 1978 Traditional Marine Conservation Methods in Oceania and their Demise. An­ nual Review of Ecology and Systematics 9: 349-364. Ruddle, Kenneth and Tomoya Akimichi / n. d. Sea Tenure in Japan and the Southwestern Ryukyus. In J. C. Cordell (ed.). A Sea of Small Boats: Customary Law and Territoriality in the World of Inshore Fishing, Stanford: Stanford University Press (in press). Ruddle. Kenneth and R. E. Johannes (eds.) n. d. The Traditional Management of Coastal Systems in Asia and the Pacific. Jakarta: UNESCO (in press). Selden, John 1935 Mare Clausum (On the Dominion or Ownership of the Sea). Translated by M. Nedham (1652). London: William Du-Gard, for the Council of State.

Shanin, Teodor 1973 Introduction. In T. Shanin (ed.). Peasants and Peasant Societies, Harraondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd., pp. 11-19.

Senri Ethnological Studies 17 1984

Sea Tenure in Tokugawa Japan; Ihe Case of Fukuoka Domain

Arne Kalland Oslo University

One of the outstanding features of sea tenure in Japan during the Tokugawa Period was that the sea was regarded as part of the fiefs of the feudal lords, in the same way as was the land. Fishing villages thus only received access to the sea through payment of rents or taxes to the lord. These dues were originally of two kinds: provision of part of the catch to the lord; and the performance of corvee {kako). Additional taxes were levied on such equipment as boats and nets. The strong connection between access to the sea and payment of dues made it of the utmost importance to define the territories of each fishing village as well as the accompanying duties. Usufruct of these territories was established, and trespassers were either punished or, through special arrangements, paid a certain share to the owners of the territory. Access to a territory did not give the holders unlimited rights to exploit it. Like the Japan of today there were several kinds of rights; licenses were needed for large-scale operations in addition to territorial rights. Special licenses were also needed to catch whales and to dive for abalone, and these rights were frequently given to outsiders against payment of fees. Seasons were another consideration. A rather complex situation emerged where a fishing village had different rights in several territories. The main objective of this paper is to trace and describe the development of this complexity by using primary sources, i.e., documents available in Fukuoka Prefecture. Attention is also given to the internal organization of the villages though, naturally, this aspect is less well-documented. Access to capital is discussed, since access to the sea is meaningless if fishing operations cannot be funded.

INTRODUCTION Pre-modem institutions to limit access to fishing grounds and to control the territorial behavior of fishermen have lately been reported from a number of societies. Fishermen around the world often have clear concepts of fishing rights, but such concepts have seldom found their way into the codified laws of the nation-states, and some in cases have been directly opposed by law-makers [c/. Acheson 1979]. Japan provides one of the few examples where traditional fishing rights have, to 11

A. Kalland

12

a large extent been recognized by the authorities and encoded into formal a situation that dates back to the Tokugawa Period (1603-1867), if not earto.

,

A feature of feudal societies like the Tokugawa regime is preoccupation w status.

The duties of subjects vis-a-vis the authorities were laid do™ in

,

T chall limit discussion to the situation in Fukuoka Domain. tashore waters were allocated to coastal villages for their exclusive use m return for corX labor apd payment of taxes. Strong limitations were thus imposed on

“Xl"p^Zs

mtemion to what went on inside villages and village sea m " Rules to regulate the behavior of fishermen within these — were nonetheless undoubtedly made. A village’s entire ternto^' " J well-suited for fishing,and there might have been compeution for ‘"e be . We know that the fishermen tried to solve this problem before W W II by ‘‘'' With 1.75,households per boat, there must have been about 2.6 persons per boat. Most of the simple technologies required threeperson crews, according to a manuscript describing the fishing technologies in Fukuoka in 1878 [Nishinihon Bunka Kyokai (ed.) 1982]. For this reason, and probably because not all sons of fishermen started to fish at the age of fifteen, many boat-owners were forced to hire farmers to crew their boats.This was particularly so in net fishing. Thus to obtain a full crew could, even for the simpler technologies,

have been a constraint on acquiring boats. Small Nets Small nets which could be operated from one or a couple of ordinary fishing boats received little attention from the authorities, except for taxation purposes. Such nets included a large number of gill nets, set nets, drift nets and traps, among

others. / The authorities were silent about licenses for the small nets, but nonetheless there is ample evidence that licenses of some sort were needed. These were issued locally, in the villages, in the form of written agreements verified and signed by the village leadership. In this capacity the leadership held extensive control over fishing activities and the fishermen, and many sought to monopolize particular fisheries.

The case of Jinoshima illuminates some of the factors involved. The village headman and his lineage played a central role in the fisheries of Jinoshima. He had four fishing boats in 1776, the monopoly of yellowtail and sand lance nets and interests in a number of other nets, besides operating a drinking DocuMENTNo.5]and56boatsml875[FuKUOKA-KEN1875]. Nishinoura was obvious­ ly a very hierarchically organized village. Takata Shigehiro, who has done extensive research on the fishing villages in that part of Fukuoka, also claims that Nishinoura was and still is special (pers, comm.). 14) This is based on the following assumptions: (1) A mean household size of 5; (2) that 62.3 percent of the male population was between 15 and 60 years of age (this was the percentage for Fukuma, Tsuyazaki, Katsuura, KSnominato, and Oshima in 1871 [Imabayashi Document No. 127]); and a sex ratio of 1.0. The actual ratio was 1.34 men for each women in 1718; 1.25 in 1770; 1.18 in 1822; and 1.01 in 1875 [Kalland and Pedersen 1984]. 15) Among the best sources for analyzing crew composition in Fukuoka during he Tokugawa Period are temple records {kakocho). From one entry in ShingQ we thus know that two men from the farming village of Minato accompanied a ShingU boat-owner in 1869 when the boat was wrecked by strong winds and all three drowned [Sainen-Ji KakochO, date 1869-9-10].

Sea Tenure in Tokugawa Japan

25

establishment [Nakayama Document]. Nevertheless, he was unable to prevent the decentralization process during the nineteenth century. His defeat is best illustrated through the sand lance fishery. The headman started to operate a two-boat sand lance net {niso-kanagi-amiy in 1794, and with a branch household virtually monopolized such nets until 1835. In a written agreement signed by the villagers in 1799 it was stated that no other person in the village could use sand lance nets [Nakayama Document].

The sand lance fishery in Fukuoka expanded dramatically from the 1830s, and became one of the most important fisheries in the domain. A new net that could be operated from only one boat appeared in the villages near Jinoshima. This net was cheaper and thus more accessible to the ordinary fishermen. In 1835 the villagers, led by one of the village elders, proposed that eight new one-bodt sand lance nets be established, against the headman’s wishes. The case was brought to the district headman for mediation and a compromise was reached, when five such nets were allowed. Although a written agreement was made banning the further introduction of these new nets, another three nets wefe introduced only three years later. The headman argued against the new nets, not for ecological reasons, but because of the labor shortage that might occur. The fishermen promised to secure the headman’s crew before they used the new nets, but he nevertheless had to employ people from as far as Hiroshima, more than 200 kin to the east. These workers had to be accommodated and fed, and net-owners incurred new debts during periods of poor fishing, as in 1839. Several net-owners allegedly failed to repay their loans and there were indications of over-capitalization in this fishery. Despite this the number of nets increased, and by 1875 numbered 23 [Fukuoka-Ken 1875].

One is often impressed by the-power of village headmen, who are frequently depicted as absolute rulers [cf. Yamaoka 1974]. If might therefore seem surprising that the headman of Jinoshima was defeated so easily. One reason was that the written agreements carried little weight, as thT^were not legally recognized. The feudal authorities did not encourage monopolization of fisheries by a few capitalists, and had in fact issued edicts against such behavior [Fukuoka-Ken 1963b]. Moreover, there were important checks on the influence and power of the village headman. He was supervised by the district headman to whom villagers could, and did, make direct contact. Further, there were factions at work inside many villages. Internally the village headman’s influence \Vas countered by that of the village elders, the heads of the neighborhood groups and the fishermen’s representatives (s5dai}. All these elements contributed to the democratization of fisheries, which, by 1855 in Jinoshima, had proceeded t‘o the point that it was proposed to abandon the restrictions that existed on small-scale fishing for a number of species. X/arge Nets

The authorities showed a much greater interest in large nets, which included

A. Kalland

26 Table 1.

Large-Scale Netting in Fukuoka in 1875

Type

Japanese name

sardine net Spanish mackerel net large stationary net tuna net sea bream net mullet net square mackerel net horse mackerel net barracuda net

iwashi-ami sawara-ami oshiki-ami maguro-ami tai-ami bora-makase-ami hachida fiiroshiki saba-ami aji-hiki-ami kamasu-ami

boats

crew size

3 4 4 10 9 4 19 12 6

32+ 34 12 na 37 42 50 50 36

Source-. Nishinihon Bunka KyOkai (ed.) 1982 Table Note'. It is not known whether all these nets were regarded as “large” by the Tokugawa authorities.

those for tuna {maguro-ami}, large sardine nets {iwashi-ami}, nets called oshiki-ami, and probably sea bream nets (tai-ami), which for tax purposes were classified as nets of medium size.^®> All required many boats and large crews (Table 1). Such nets were obviously of great importance to any village, since the capital investment could be huge and the returns considerable. The sardine fishery ranked as the single most important^ fishery in Fukuoka during the Tokugawa Period, probably followed by sea bream netting. The authorities therefore took particular interest in these nets and tried to control their licensing. Permission to use such nets rested with the magistrate, although the district headmen had to undertake most of the paperwork involved. In an edict issued in 1772 it was ordered that petitions for permission to use large nets should first be sent to the district headman. He should discuss the matter with the leaders of nets in the other nearby fishing villages to ascertain that there was no objection [Fukuoka-Ken 1963b]. This procedure was followed during the rest of the period under consideration. When Ainoshima received permission to use a tuna net for another five years, in 1830, all villages in the district were consulted and none raised objections [Akashi Documents Nos. 179,239, 328,363]. The same happened when Shikanoshima received its permission two years later [Akashi Document No. 243A-q. Not all petitions met the same response. When Jinoshima wanted to operate a tuna net, in 1840, it was recognized as being detrimental to yellowtail netting in the village. This problem was resolved by the payment of compensation. Opposition was stronger from the neighboring village of Kanezaki and as a consequence the decision was at least delayed [Nakayama Document]. .One argument used by Kanezaki was that in the past the tuna net had harmed their own line fishing fqr 16) In the 1780s the nets were divided into three categories: Large nets included oshiki-ami and sardine nets, medium-sized nets included sea bream nets, yellowtail nets (buri-ami), and dragnets (jibiki-ami), whereas small nets included sand lance nets and set nets. The tax (unjogin) was 1 kanmon, 600 mon, and 300 mon, respectively [Fukuoka-Ken 1963b].

Sea Tenure in Tokugawa Japan

27

squid and mackerel, and would undoubtedly do so in the future. The stationary net allegedly interrupted the migration of the fish, which then failed to reach Kanezaki. Similar arguments were used against Oronoshima, a small island about 25 km oifthe coast. In 1768 it obtained a permit for sea bream netting [Chikuho Suisan Kumiai 1917] but other villages later experienced poor catches of sea bream and so tried in vain to stop the netting at Oronoshima [Shibata Documents Nos. 12, 80, 96]. Thus in 1790, when Oronoshima petitioned for a license to use a sardine net, the other villages agreed to protest. Sardine nets at Oronoshima, they argued, would scatter the sardine and force it to greater depths '[Shibata Documents Nos. 13. 80]. The edict of 1772 also stated that large nets should benefit all the inhabitants of a fishing village and not only individual capitalists. 'Special considerations were therefore given to cooperative nets, and the owners of private nets had to pay fees (uragin) to the village for inconveniences caused. The fee was in addition to the much smaller tax (unjogin) and a “donation” (sw«5A:)'paid to the authorities. It was often set at 10 percent of the catch and was divided between the households in the village.

privatization of fishing grounds

(AJ/RO)

I have attempted to demonstrate how the interest and influence of the authorities increased from the very simple technologies, where no permits were needed, via small

nets, where the villagers themselves with occasional assistance from the district headmen tried to work out agreements over licensing, to large-scale nets, where the feudal authorities were in firm control. This also represents a graduation from cheap equipment used by generalist fishermen who had a little capital invested in a range of different gear, to .the expensive equipment used by the specialists who invested heavily in a few chosen fisheries [Smith4983]. Although most fishermen had the means to participate as generalists, only afew had the resources to,develop into specialists. In Jinoshima most could afford hook-and-line-fishing wherpas the headman managed to monopolize the expensive yellowtail nets. His monopoly of the sand lance netting broke down, however, when new and'cheaper nets were in­ troduced in the 1830s. Habara [1954] points out that with the more capital intensive technologies, which only a handful of entrepreneurs could afford, there was a tendency toward 17) Not all large nets were owned by capitalists. Through the accounts of the ura-tamegin fund it is possible to indentify four categories of net-owners [Kalland 1983c, 1984]: 1. The whole village owned the net cooperatively; 2. The village leaders borrowed money on behalf of the village; 3. Successful fishermen borrowed individually or together; and 4. Village leaders and merchants or^nired their own nets operated by hired fishermen. These were the often notorious amimoto (net-owners).

28

A. Kalland

privatization of fishing grounds. Many nets, particularly stationary ones, required large areas and obstructed other fisheries. Fishing grounds {ajiro} which were a pre­ condition to utilize nets and licenses, had therefore to be allocated for such nets, often against payment of compensation in the form of & fee {uragin). In this way affluent net-owners gradually acquired prescriptive rights, to certain places within the fishing territory of the .village. These rights could, like licenses, be sold, mortgaged or inherited. To avoid disputes later, it was usually stated in mortgage and sale contracts for nets whether licenses and fishing grounds were included ;n the trans­ actions. /The operation of large .nets required certain preconditions. First, there, must be species that can be profitably caught by them. Foremost among these were whale, tuna and sardine, and to a lesser degree sea bream, mullet, horse mackerel and yeUQwtail. Species like squid, octopus, grunt, rock cod and ray,, together with shells,and seaweeds, were,less suited for large-scale operations, and remained in the

hands of the gener?ilists. .Second, the shoreline topography,, must be suitable. Nets -that were hauled ashore, like the sardine netspr^quired extensive sandy beaches, whereas tuna nets were invariably set at rocky grounds off cliffs. Even though those requirements were met, large nets were not necessarily oper­ ated. In small fishing villa^^th little ^ponomic differentiation capital wa? often

the limiting factor, and frequently such villages leased their territories and licenses to outsiders. Villages with rich merchants who could become‘net-owners were the most likely places where large-scale nets would be utilized. This was'accompanied by further economic stratification and unequal access to the* fishing grounds.- The existence of merchants was again a function of the total resources available in the region, including nearby agricultural cdmmunities which both served as markets for fishing village tfaders and supplied 'agricultural products for shipment on their trading ships as well as supplying raw matetials'for local industries like jake-brewing, oil and soy sauce maling and the like, tvhifch were often found in fishing villages. To un’derstand- fully the privatization process of’ fishing grounds it ds therefore necessary to look beyond the fisheries and take a’more regional approach.^®) FISHING DISPUTES

The privatization of fishing grounds and monopolization of gear caused many bitter conflicts, but they-are relatively-podrly recorded in Fukuoka since they were dShally internal to the village and did ‘not attract the attention of the authorities. The same holds true for the day-to-day competition on the fishing grounds.is) Moreover, at least involuntary collusipn obviously occurred 'owing to poor marking,

18) See Kalland [1983b] for an account of.the economicToundation of a merchant house­ hold in Shingu. n19) Fishermen in Shingu can still remember fights between management units, particularly in'the important sardine netting, and such occurrences were probably quite .common [Kalland 1981b].

Sea Tenure in Tokugawa Japan

29

night fishing when visibility was-rediiced, and so forth. Such incidents took place also between villages on common fishing territories [cf. Yamazaki Document No. 66]. Disputes within fishing villages were of several kjnds, of which those over licens­ ing and the allocation of private fishing grounds-were the most serious. They had wide social and political implications as their outcome, to a large extent decided whether affluent leaders could monopolize the fishing grounds, and in this way build a strong base for political influence and power, or whether, the fishing grounds should be open to all,, with a more egalitarian society as the-result. The dispute over the sand lance nets in Jinoshima is but one example how, a headman’s influence gradually declined.Where there were several licenses for the same gear license-holders formed groups (nakama} to defend their common interests against outsiders and to regulate the fisheries among them. It was not always easy to exclude newcomers, however, as the case of the sand lance nets in Jinoshima demonstrates. In Hakozaki village the 11 originafusers of set nets (tate-ami) failed to preserve their monopoly early in the 19th century, and'had to accept first 60 and later 80 netsj since, in general, the op­ eration of other gear was so poor that the objections,of the original nakama could not be upheld. Village headmen from the fishing villages of Hiro and,Fukuma were

brought in' to mediate together with the district headman [Yamazaki Document No. 71.2®)

There were many conflicts hnd rivalries within fishing villages* but when confronted by outsiders the communities were usually united. Disputes betweeri

villages A^-ere of at least three kinds: over boundaries, rights to common fishing and the licensing,of. large nets. I Disputes over the definition ofdishing territories were frequent in the formative years of the Tokugawa Period. The mOst dramatic, case .was the fight between Katsuura.and Tsuyazaki, Which ended with the execution of the leaders of theJatter. As these conflicts struck at the very roots of the-feudal structure the authoritiess had to react vigorously and often violently. What many fishermen and village leaders regarded as poaching {mitsuryo} was a much more epipmon problem, but is was poorly recorded upless done systematically, probably with th? aim of acquiring prescriptive rights to qommon fishing in the Waters of neighboring villages. Adjustments to the regulations^ covering corp mon fishing were desired for a number of reasons, such as changes in the relative abundance of species, introduction of new technologies and uneven demographic development in the-Villages. It was often the larger villagfes that pCfietrdted'into the territories of their smaller neighbors. ‘ Kanezaki seems, to have done just' this vis-^-vU Vindshima. Kanezaki, with a population of 1200-1400 against Jinoshima’s 400-500, had a large number of female 20) Whether they were brought in. to mediate because any.ofahe village leaders was involved in the struggle, is not known. One village eldfer was a license-holder in 1776, but it is not known whether this was still the case in 1831.

30

A. Kalland

divers who operated far from home during the summer months?^’ This gave an impetus to the village economy, which grew too large for its fishing territories. Its expansion must be seen in this light. Kanezaki’s poaching in the waters of Jinoshima reached a peak in 1834-35, when they illegally netted sand lance, yellowtail and surf perch (tanago). These actions were followed by imprisonment and exposure at the pillory of leading persons from Kanezaki together with negotiations between the two villages in which the district headman and village headmen from four other fishing villages (Ainoshima, Tsuyazaki, KSnominato and Eguchi) participated. Kanezaki’s right to use sea bream nets was confirmed, but they had to lower their nets after the Jinoshima fisher­ men had done so. They obtained the right to fish with two yellowtail nets (yazu-ami)

a-day, but surf perch nets were prohibited. Jinoshima continued, however, to complain about poaching by fishermen from Kanezaki, despite this settlement

[Nakayama Document]. The disputes between Nata and Hakozaki arose partly over the rights to common fishing in Hakata Bay and partly over their perception of exclusive terri­ tories. The bay was a common fishing territory shared by Nata, Hakozaki, Hakata, Fukuoka and Meinohama, but in 1742 Nata agreed that their rights extended only to catching sardine and octopus, since the village had exclusive territories outside the bay [Yamazaki Document No. 6]. Nevertheless, in 1751 and 1753 Nata fisher­ men were caught netting young sea bass (seigo), allegedly believing it was sardine [Fukuoka-Ken 1963b]: bullhead (kajika) in 1794, sinde they thought it silly not to catch a big school that otherwise would have escaped [Fukuoka-Ken 1963b], and using long line to catch half-beaks i^sayori) in 1866 [Fukuoka-Ken 1963b].

Disputes over territorial rights were part of the struggle to expand at the expense of the neighbors, which existed'in the bay as a consequence of common fishing and the lack of clearly defined sea territory boundaries between the villages. Did the common fishing rights also include all the beaches in the bay, or did each village exclusively control parts of the beach? The quarrel between Nata and Hakozaki over such issues predates the Tokugawa Period. In 1576 Nata obstructed fishermen from Hakozaki. They complained bitterly and retaliated justifying their fishing near Nata with ancient rights to fish anywhere in Hakata Bay in return for having guided the Regent JingQ on her military expedition to Korea.^s’ In addition, Hakozaki regularly provided the nearby and important Kashii shrine with fish [Yamazaki Document No. 1].**’ 21) They made seasonal migrations to most areas of Chikuzen Province and moreover to Iki, Tsushima, Nagato, Iwami and Oki [Fukuoka-Ken 1943; Kalland 1983a]. 22) The authorities wanted Hakozaki to allow the fishermen from Nata to catch species other than those defined in 1742 against payment of fees, but Hakozaki was strongly opposed to such an arrangement. 23) According to Nihon shoki she conquered Korea in A.D. 200, but A.D. 369 has long been regarded as a more probable date. It is, of course, more than doubtful whether this conquest occurred at all and it is more likely that the invasion was the other way around,

Sea Tenure in Tokugawa Japan

31

In 1655 the roles were reversed when Hakozaki interrupted the sardine netting of Nata fishermen. The Hakozaki net-leaders {amigashird) promised never to enter Nata again, thus admitting the existence of an exclusive territory for this village [Fukuoka-Ken 1963b]. But, of course, the extensiveness of Nata’s territory re­ mained unsettled and new fights erupted only fourteen years later, when Nata confiscated sardine taken by Hakozaki fishermen [Fukuoka-Ken 1963b]. To Hakozaki it was of great importance to be able to haul sardine nets on the beaches near Nata as that below their own settlement was too shallow. Hakozaki was, moreover, exposed to the northerly and westerly winds which prevailed during the winter sardine^fishery. This conflict thus included some of the same elements as the fight between Katsuura and Tsuyazaki, namely the crucial access to suitable sandy beaches. '

But there were other reasons for fishing disputes. Economic considerations were important in the daily competition on the fishing grounds. The fishermen of Fukuoka Domain caught fish for a commercial market, and piere existed fish markets run by wholesalers in most fishing villages. Fishermen were encouraged to work hard and catch as much as possible. Individual competition was unavoidable and part of the game, but competition should not force anybody out of business. Everybody should have a fair chance to earn a livelihood by fishing, and consider­ ations were therefore taken to preserve fish stocks. Most disputes were ecologically justified. Resource depletion was an argument frequently employed against licensing new nets and^new rights to common fishing. Frequently it was also argued that nets set at certain places would scatter the fish and make them inaccessible to the fishermen. This argument was used both by Nishinoura against Oronoshima and Kanezaki against Jinoshima. The question remains whether these ecological considerations were well-founded or whether declining catches were caused by other factors. Be it as it may, the important thing is that both villagers and the authorities were convinced that fish was a limited resource, and so they were prepared to implement regulations to prevent over-exploitation. Beside restricting fishing through licensing, many shallows were defined as fish sanctuaries which sometimes were considered sacred. Fish there belonged to the gods [Sakurada 1933], and there were sanctions against fishing.25)

i.e., from Korea to Japan. (See Ledyard [1975] for an outline of this view.) There are no references either in Nihon shoki or in Kojiki to Hakozaki’s involvement in this case, but she is enshrined both at the Kashii shrine and at the Hakozaki Hachiman shrine where her famous son. Emperor Ojin, is also enshrined. In the Hakozaki document she is called Seibo Daibosatsu (Holy Mother),Recording to Kaibara Ekken a name she received since she was the mother of Emperor Ojin [Fukuoka-Ken 1943]. 24) The Hakozaki fishermen donated fish and sea cucumber for the "two seasonal festivals," for the hassaku festival and on the 15th day of the eighth month. Beside this they gave fish once a month to the priests of the shrine. 25) See [Imabayashi Document No. 646] for a note dating from about 1700 from the village headman of Tsuyazaki to his colleague in Fukuma, protesting Fukuma’s fishing at a sanctuary. '

A. Kalland

32

Protests against new licenses were sometimes also based on the fear of labor shortage. There was a general shortage of workers in Fukuoka during the second half of the Tokugawa Period, the population having been dramatically reduced by the severe famine of 1732-33, from which it failed to recover [Kalland and Pedersen 1984]. This'labor shortage was real also in the fishing villages and Jinoshima was forced to import fishermen from Hiroshima to crew the sand lance boats. The net- and boat-owners had thus to compete for labor, and this improved the bargaining postion of the propertyless fishermen and reduced the influence of the rich. A final reason for opposing new licenses within a village was the distribution of rent paid for common fishing. Such rents were conceptualized as compensation for inconvenience caused to the “host” village. For example, the rents paid to fish sand lance in the neighboring village were often distributed only among the sand lance net operators in the host village. When an operator had a monopoly in the sand lance fishery, as did the headman of Jinoshima, prior to 1835, he could receive the whole amount. To him it was much more profitable to keep the monopoly and let fisher­ men from other villages do common fishing rather than letting co-villagers take the fish as well as part of the rent.

f

CONCLUSIONS The seas surrounding Japan abound in many different species of great value. Fisheries in these waters have therefore long been much more varied than was the case in northwestern North America, for example, where the .salmon was all im­ portant, or in the North Atlantic, where until recently attention was mostly directed toward cod and herring. The many species have different equipment require­ ments, resulting in the employment of a bewildering variety of fishing gear. These conditions characterized the sea tenure system as it developed during the Tokugawa Period.

The system of sea tenure was designed to meet several demands. First, regu­ lations were made to stabilize the situation along the coast and to define duties vis-d-vis the ruling class. In this process fixed fishing territories were established and allocated to all fishing villages. Second, regulations were made to protect resources frqm over-fishing through a restrictive policy of licensing and .recognition of fish sanctuaries. Third, the authorities tried to prevent a few indi\iidual capitalists from monopolizing fishing rights and the means of production. Many species were most easily caught by small management units with little invested capital. There was little Sanger that merchants

and others would try to monopolize such fishing, particularly when the authorities during the last hundred years of the Tokugawa Period furnished cheap credit for fishing boat construction. The danger of monopoly increased with the size of operations, and edicts were issued that special consideration be given to cooperative nets. With the largest nets the feudal authorities moved in as the licensing agent.

Sea Tenure in Tokugawa Japan

33

In these fisheries the merchants were welcome to invest their capital, against payment of fees. The co-existence of small and large-scale management Units provided not only for an efficient exploitation of a number of species, but also flexibility in the fisheries. Fishermen who most of the year operated from their own small boats participated on the-large nets of the merchants during the seasonal sardine and tuna fisheries, thus securing for themselves extended fishing seasons and firmer economic bases. Much can be said against the system of sea tenure in the Tokugawa Period, and the cynic can argue that the authorities’ considerations for the fishermen stemmed from their desire for corvee labor. Maybe so, but there are many indications of a democratization process, at least in Fukuoka, toward the end of the TokugUwa Period, a process that was reversed during the Meiji Era (1868-1912) despite the implementation of the 1901 Fisheries Law.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This essay forms part of a study of socio-edonomic conditions in the fishing villages in Chikuzen Province during the Tokugawa Period. It has been made possible through a grant from the Japan Foundation (1979-80) and later through grants from the Norwegian Research Council for Science and the Humanities. I also wish to extend my gratitude to Ms. Matsuzaki Fujiko and Ms. Takasaki Tomi for letting me freely borrow their valuable documents and to the Nishinihon Bunka KySkai and the Shingu Fishing Cooperative for allowing me to use their facilities. Komonjo o yomukai, EtO Akihiko, Nakamura Masao, Yasukawa Iwao, and Takata Shigehiro have kindly assisted me with interpreting the handwritten documents'on which this essay is based. BIBLIOGRAPHY

UNPUBLISHED SOURCES Akashi Documents Fukuoka-Ken (?I[^M) 1875 (.Geographical Description of Fukuoka Prefecture.) Imabayashi Documents Kaneuchi Documents Kuroda-Kb Documents Matsuda Documents Nakayama Document Nata Imabayashi Documents Sainen-Ji Kakocho Shibata Documents Shingu-Ura Gyogyo Kumiai 1902 f ItWJ ('Application for permission to establish ShinguUra's Fishing Association.)

34

A. Kalland

Ura-Kiroku (WI3^) Yamasaka Documents Yamazaki Documents

PUBLISHED SOURCES Acheson, James M. 1979 Variations in Traditional Inshore Fishing Rights in Maine Lobstering Commu­ nities. In Raoul Andersen (ed.), North Atlantic Maritime Cultures, The Hague: Mouton, pp: 253-276. Aral Fiji 1970 {The Fishing Villages of the Early Modern Period. Tokyo: YoshikawakObunkan.) Befu, Harumi 1980 Political Ecology of Fishing in Japan: Techno-Environmental Impact of Indus­ trialization in the Inland Sea. Research in Economic Anthropology 3: 323-347. Berkes, Firket 1983 A Critique of the "Tragedy of the Commons" Paradigm. Paper presented at the Xlth ICAES, Quebec City. Chikuho Suisan Kumiai 1917 (Description of the Coast of Chikuho. Tokyo: Bunkenshuppan.) Fukuoka-Ken 1935 (Documents about the History of Fukuoka Prefecture vol. 5. Fukuoka: Fukuoka-Ken.)1943 (Documents about the History of Fpkuoka Prefecture, 2nd series, vol. 4 The Description of Chikuzen Province, by Kaibara Ekken. Fukuoka: Fukuoka-Ken.) 1963a (The History of Fukuoka Prefecture, vol. 2, part 1. Fukuoka: Fukuoka-Ken.) 1963b (The History of Fukuoka Prefklure, vol. 2. part 2. Fukuoka; Fukuoka-Ken.) Habara, Yukichi 1954 (The Economic History of Japanese Fishe­ ries, Ndl. 1. Tokyo: Iwanamishoten.) Hardin, Garrett 1968 The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162: 1243-1248. Hidemura, Senzo et al., (eds.) 1978 (The Digest of Hakata Port, vol. 3. Fukuoka: Nishinihon Bunka Kyokai) Kalland, Arne 1981a The Coastal Villages during the Tokugawa Period: The Case of Chikuzen Province. In Masahiko Inadomi and Arne Kalland (eds.), Proceedings of the First Nordic Symposium in Japanology, Oslo: East Asian Institute, 'Oc^ casional Papers No. 3, pp. 25-34. 1981b Shingu—A Study of a Japanese Fishing Community. London: Curzon Press Ltd.

Sea Tenure in Tokugawa Japan

35

1983a In Search of the Abalone: The’History of the Ama in Northern Kyushu, Japan. Paper presented’at the Xlth ICAES, Quebec City. 5^93-i36m No closed season was imposed on this use-of pantataka during the First Period. Lift Netting Another netting technique peculiar to Okinawa, and which employs a combi­ nation of diving and driving to frighten the fish over the net, is lift netting, which is now used in Okinawan waters exclusively to provide live bait for the bonito fishery. Formerly, lift-netting was also specified in the registration documents for catching round herring {Spratelloides spp.), kibinagO Qt sururu. During the First Period lift netting was licensed to only 8 FCAs, 6 of which were in Yaeyama, 1 in Miyako, and r(Nakijin) on Okinawa Island. This closely reflects the distribution of the bonito fishery in'those^days. All the FCAs in Yaeyama remained licensed for this fishery during the" Second Period, but the number on Okinawa expanded nine-fold over the first period. This, of course, reflected the growth into the bonito industry during the intervening years. In the Third Period all the Yaeyama FCAs remained licensed for lift netting, as did those for Miyako and eight of the previously licensed Okinawa Island FCAs. Kume and Tonaki Island FCAs were newly licensed and the geographical distribution of the Okinawa Island licensed FCAs changed somewhat. In Yaeyama waters, for example, where the lift net is used only in the bonito bait fishery, the live bait fishery operates from early April until mid-September, i.e., coincident with the bonito fishing season. It employs two variants of the lift

8) Hence the onomatopoeic name, which denotes the sound of slapping the water with hands. 9) These were the Minatogawa, Misato, Katsuren, Yonagusuku, Ishikawa, Haneji, Ogimi, Motobu, Nago and Yomitan FCAs.

64

T. Akimichi and K. Ruddle

(blanket) net {shiki-ami [Jpn.]), the ushie system and the hirukuji system. The former is employed from April-late-July, the target species being unii and shiraumi {Apogon spp.). Hirukuji is employed from early-June until mid-September to take sanera (juvenile spp.).

Gill Netting Gill nets, which can be operated by one or two men from a small boat, have long been widely used in the coralline environments of Okinawa. During the First Period 85 percent of the FCAs were registered for gill netting, a figure which increased to 92 percent and included all FCAs except Miyako by 1964 (Second Period), and to 96 percent in the Third Period, with only the Yonaguni FCA, which is distinguished by its exceptionally small fringing reef area, not registering for gill net operations. In the last two periods “gill netting” as an undifferentiated rubric appears in the registration documents, whereas in the First Period gill netting for reef fish, for needlefish, for fusiliers and sardine; for flying fish (Exocoetidae), for drummers (Sciaenidae) and emperors, for kotioshiro (Clupeidae), and for squid and spiny lobster (PanuUrus spp.) are all 'distinguished separately, thereby allocating different net mesh sizes to different localities within the inshore waters. In the First Period gill netting for reef fish was registered by every FCA in the Yaeyama and Miyako groups, and for all the dependent islands off the Okinawa mainland except Tonaki, Kudaka and Henza-Takahanari. On Okinawa Island most registrations were for FCAs in the south and southeast, apart from that for Kunigami, in the northernmost part of the island.^®’ Thus in the First Period the types of gill net and sea areas exploited by this technique were most widely diversified in the territory of the Minatogawa FCA, followed by those of the Osato and Kunigami FCAs. The majority of the FCAs were little differentiated in terms of gill netting, and targeted their efforts on a wide range of reef fish. During the First Period, most FCAs permitted the use of giU nets to take mis­ cellaneous reef fish throughout the yedr. Exceptional were three FCAs in the Miyako group (Nishihara, Hisaraatsu and Tarama) which limited their use to the period February 1 through July 31. More detailed open season regulations were applied to gill nets aimed at specific'types offish: those for flying fish wfere limited to winter (November 1-April 30) by Kunigami and Minatogawa FCAs, whereas le FCA limited them to the summer season (April I-August 31); those for spiny lobster and squid were sometimes permitted all year, as by Minatogawa and le FCAs, yet elsewhere they could be employed only from late-summer through early-spring 10) Registrations for gill netting of needlefish were made by Kunigami, Osato and Mitanogawa FCAs; those for taking flying fish in waters outside the reef were made by Kunigami. le and Minatogawa FCAs; Nago, Itoman. and Chinen FCAs together with a private operator in the Naha area on Okinawa Island, plus the Ikemae FCA in the Miyako group registered those for gill netting fusiliers and sardines; Chinen FCA was registered to take drummers and emperors. Haneji FCA Clupeidae, and Shimoda, Minatogawa, Kin and Ikei FCAs squid and spiny lobster, using gill nets.

r

Territorial Rights and Fishery Regulations

65

(August l-April 30), as in the territories of Itoman and Shimoda FCAs. The permitted seasons for using gill nets to catch half-beaks (Hemirhamphidae) and needlefish also exhibit a mixed pattern, being allowed all-year-round by some FCAs, limited to the winter season by others, and permitted only in the summer by yet others. Closing of gill netting activities reflects the present restriction throughout the prefecture, where the use of trammel gill nets is now prohibited from May to October, when fish caught in the net would rapidly spoil owing to the high temperatures of the shallow waters during the summer. Most gill net operators continue to exploit areas inside the reef, especially rela­ tively shallow areas near the shore as well as along the inner margin of the reef. In both these habitats they take a variety of reef fish.' In the former these include, principally, silver biddies (Gerres spp.), garfish, half-beaks, sea bream (Sparidae), and rabbitfish. The main target of gill nets set along the inner reef margin are surgeonfish and unicomfish (Acanthuridae), wrasses (Labridae), parrotfish, rabbitfish, trevally (Carangidae), and rock-cod {Epinephelus spp.). The latter group also constitutes the principal target of gill nets set in the deeper reef channels. Gill nets set near river mouths aiin to catch silver-biddi6s' and mullet {Mugil spp.).

Less commonly these nets are set outside the reef, at depths of 2-7 m in the surf zone, where their principal target species are surgeonfish, unicomfish, trevally, parrotfish and drummers. Special registrations'were also made in Okinawan waters for fixed gill nets and drive-in gill nets. During the First and Second Periods these were made for the former to take the migratory sardine. In the First Period they were made by 9 FCAs, or 21 percent of the total.It is noteworthy that all registrations for the fixed gill netting of this sardine were issued for the East China Sea side of the prefect ture, indicating that the fish migrated along the route of the Kuroshio. By the Second Period, registration for fixed gill netting of'sardine were made only by Nakijin and Nago FCAs, on Okinawa Island, and by the Third Period this special registration was no longer applied as a separate category. ^Only three registrations for fixed gill netting for trevally were made; one in the First Period to Itoman FCA and two in the Second Period to Nakijin and Nago. Again, by the Third Period’this special category

of gill net was no longer specified through separate registration. During the First Period two registrations for drive-in gill -nets were made, one by Haneji FCA for mullet, and the other by Itoman FCA for cuttlefish {Sepia spp.) and squid. None were specified in the later periods. Fixed Nets Fixed netting is another traditional technique widely employed by Okinawan inshore fishermen. Two types of small-scale fixed net are used; one, known locally as ambushi (Fig. 13), is fixed overnight and retrieved the next day [see Akimichi this vol.], and the other, kogatateichi-ami, is semi-pennanently fixed in place for. up 11) These were Ogimi, Nakijin and Yomitan-Uken on Okinawa Island; Ikei and Kume in the East China Sea; and Miyako, Bcemae, Tarama and Minna FCAs in the Miyako group. None was registered for the Yaeyama archipelago.

66

T. Akimichi and K. Ruddle

Figure 13. Fixed Net (ambushi) Source: [Okinawa Dakyakka-Jiten KankO Jimukyoku 1983] to six months, although inspected and emptied daily. Both are mainly employed ii^ide the reef in sandy and grassy shallows near the shore to take trevally, silverbiddies, half-beaks, parrotfish, squid, rabbitfish and cuttlefish as they ascend to the shallows for feeding at high tide. During the First Period, 59 percent of the FCAs were registered to operate ambushi to take reef fish. AU FCAs in Yaeyama were so registered, whereas none were in the Miyako group. On Okinawa Island all FCAs except Kunigarni, le, Onna, Itoman and Osato registered for fixed netting, as did all those on the dependent islands olf the Pacific coast, except Kudaka. Among the East China Sea islands, however, only the Nakazato FCA, on Kume Island, was registered to operate fixed

nets. No seasonal limitations were applied to the use of fixed nets in either this or during the following periods. Fixed nets gradually became more widely used in Okinawa Prefecture such that by the Second Period all FCAs on the main island were registered for ambushi—and Haneji and Motobu could operate the kogatateichi-ami as well—as were Zamami, Tonaki, Ou and Kudaka in the dependent islands, with Tonaki also registered for kogatateichi-ami. In the southern island groups only Hatoma FCA in the Yaeyama archipelago was not registered for any kind of fixed netting, as was the entire Miyako group.

That trend of the increasingly wider use of fixed nets strengthened during the Third Period when all Okinawan FCAs except Yonaguni, in Yaeyama, which lacks suitable habitats for its use, were registered to operate ambushi, including, for the first time, the Miyako FCA. During this Period, also, the kogatateichi-ami became widely registered, permission to operate it being granted to 73 percent (11) of the mam island FCAs, as well as to Zamami-Tokashiki (Kerama Islands), Miyako. and the Yaeyama and Hateruma FCAs.

Beach Seines Beach seine operations, used principally to capture' large shoals of migratory species that enter shallow, sandy bays, as well as for general reef fish, have had a rather chequered history in Okinawa Prefecture, since they require a large number of participants for their successful operation and because their operating efficiency is greatly impaired by the presence of corals. During the First Period only two FCAs, both on Okinawa Island, Awase and Nakagusuku, were registered to operate beach

67

Territorial Rights and Fishery Regulations

seines. Both were permitted to operate year-round, without seasonal restrictions. During the Second Period, however, this technique was registered for 81 percent (13) of the FCAs on the main island (all FCAs except Kunigami, le and Nahachiku) plus Zamami and Kudaka FCAs on the offshore islands. By the Third Period, however, only one such registration was made, by Okinawashi-Haebaru FCA, on the main island. It is important to note that beach seine licenses have been issued only to FCAs on Okinawa Island and Zamami (in the Kcramas) and Kudaka, since other dependent islands lack either a suitable labor force, of, especially in the Yaeyama archipelago and the Miyako group, have inshore waters characterized by high y coralline habitats which strictly limit the number of unimpeded sandy beaches suitable for beach seining. In part, too, it may well have been that the failure of the beach seine to become more popular must be attributed to the preference to employ other technologies that require smaller fishing units ^nd which afford greater individual independence in fishing operations. Also, the capital required for a beach seme operation was high, and perhaps an unduely risky investment in an environment where the threat of damage to the net by corals was an ever-present hazard.

Cast Netting Although relatively widespread during the First Period, cast netting has always been a relatively minor, year-round fishing technique in Okinawa, and one employed principally by part-time fishermen operating in shallow inshore areas within the reef to catch mainly mullet. Cast netting was registered for 55 percent (11) of the FCAs on Okinawa Island, plus Nakazato (Kume Island) and Agum—the latter a relatively poor and remote island inhabited mainly by agriculturahsts-^uring the First Period. One was made during the First Period also by an individual in the Naha area for operating a cast net from a boat in a shallow estuarine area to take mullet [Tamashiro 1915a]. This estuary has now been totally reclaimed. No cast netting registrations appear in the data fdr the Second Period, and nowadays professional fishermen are prohibited from using this technique, which is limited to

recreational fishing only.

—s

Trapping The use of baited, basket-like fish traps inside the reef is another technique traditionally employed without seasonal limitation by Okinawan small-scale fisher­ men. In former times, small, circular basket traps were made of thin bamboo and thread and had a diameter of 60 cm and a depth of 15 cm. They were baited with

seaweed and used in shallow waters, just offshore, to take reef fish. These traps have now virtually disappeared and have been replaced by larger and sturdier devices constructed of heavy gauge wire. These flat-domed wire traps are 1.6 m m diameter and have a depth of 0.5 m, with an entrance at the top. They are baited with the crushed heads and viscera of bonito and placed by divers at depths of 2-9 m over the lagoon floor, and especially in grassy or sandy shallows, and in the shallower reef channels, where they are concealed by a pile of coral rocks or rubble. Surgeonfish,

68

T. Akjmichi and K. Ruddle

urucornfish, wrasses, parrotfish and rabbitfish constitute the principal catches in the former location, whereas rock-cod and sea bream are the main species caught in the reef channels. During the First Period. 35 percent (15) of Okinawan FCAs were registered for fish trapping. All the Yaeyama FCAs except Hatoma and Yonaguni were so registered, but none were in the Miyako group. Trapping registrations were limited to 'five southern FCAs on Okinawa Island (Yomitan-Uken, Ginowan, Shimoda, Roman, Minatogawa and Kin), plus one individual in the Naha area. This tendency was also visible in islands off the-mainland, where trapping was registered for Ikei, Henza-Takahanari, Hamahiga and Tsuken FCAs. No registrations for trapping appear in the documents for the Second Period, whereas all FCAs except Yonaguni were registered for it in the Third Period.

Spear Fishing Spear fishing within the reef, along the inner reef margin and the seaward slope and in the surf zone, by individuals is another old-established and characteristic tech­ nique .employed all-year-round in Okinawan inshore waters. Fishing spots are reached by small boat, after Which the fisherman makes the round of his favorite fishing spots spearing octopus, cuttlefish, reef fish and spiny lobster, as well as hook­ ing turtles and collecting shellfish, should they be spotted during the course of the

mam activity. Okinawan fishing spears consist of a long bamboo shaft with one of several types of steel point attached. During the First Period registrations for spear fishing activities were distinguished according to the principal target. Five categories were recognized; spiny lobster cuttlefish, octopus, prawn and reef fish. In this Period 8 FCAs (19 percent of the totaO were re^stered for lobster-spearing.Similarly, only a few FCAs were specifically registered for prawn-spearing.^^) Registration for spearing octopus, cuttlefish and reef fish was distributed far more widely during the First Period than were those other two. Fifty-five percent of the FCAs were registered for cuttlefish-spearing; 29 (69 percent) for octopus; and 17 (40 percent) for the spearing of assorted fish. In this Period only FCAs on Okinawa Island and its dependent islands were registered for fish spearing, reef fish apparently being an incidental target for spear-fishermen in the Yaeyama and Miyako groups. On the other hand,- most, Yaeyama and Miyako FCAs were regis­ tered for octopus- and cuttlefish-spearing during the First Period. For the Second and Third Periods only spear fishing for spiny lobster is specified

12) riese were Kunigami, le, Nago, Yomitan-Uken and Awase on Okinawa Island, ^d Nakazato on Kume Island. Zamami in the Kerama Islands and Kudaka among the dependent islands of Okinawa. 13) These were Chinen and Katsuren. on the main island; Henza-Takahauari, Hamahiga, Tsuken'and Aguni, among its dependent islands; and the two FCAs of Miyako Island Nishihara and Hisamatsu.

Territorial Rights and Fishery Regulations

69

in the registration documents, although spearing for other species obviously con­ tinued, since it is still widely practised in Okinawan inshore waters. In the Second Period lobster-spearing was registered for all Okinawan FCAs except Ikemae, in the Miyako group. In the Third Period it was registered for 80 percent (20) of the FCAs.i^^ Apart from the spiny lobster, no restrictions of season or size have been applied to the target species of spear-fishermen. Prior to the Second World War no limitations were placed on the taking of lobsters caught by any method. But during the U.S. Administration a minimum size regulation of 18 cm TBL was applied, and lobstering was closed during the period April 1-June 30, which corresponds to the animal’s spawning season. No legal seasonal or size limitations are placed on cuttlefish, but the behavior of this animal empirically limits the spearing season to winter. Spear-fisheries have not been without problems. Formerly, illegal fishing using arsenic as a piscicide was problematical, and was a practise associated with spearing. More recently the legal practise of night-time spearing by flashlight, which takes resting fish, has become common. However, this is now widely recognized as a threat to fish populations.

Turtling

The Green sea turtle {Chelonia mydas) and the Hawksbill turtle {Eretmochelys imbricatd) are nowadays hunted in Okinawan waters. Formerly a third, unidentified species, was also taken. They are taken in three principal locations, off the seaward stope and inside the reef at their feeding and resting sites. The meat is eaten and artifacts made from the shell, and stuffed turtles are prepared for the local tourist trade.

During the First Period turtling was separately registered. All the FCAs of the Miyako group and all those of the Yaeyama archipelago except Hatoma engaged in this activity. Registration was also made afjhat time by the Pacific coast dependent islands of Okinawa Island—Kudaka, Hehza-Takahanari, Hamahiga and Tsuken—as well as by Roman, Katsuren and Ginowan FCAs on the main island. Turtling was not specifically registered in the other two periods, and now occurs mostly as an activity incidental to spear fishing. Conservation of turtles is now a matter of worldwide concern, but even during the First Period seasonal restrictions were placed on turtling in Okinawan waters. They applied especially to the Hawksbill turtle, which it was prohibited to take during the period May 1-July 31, their spawning season. At present a size restriction based on plastron length is strictly enforced (Table 6).

14) Those not registered are Ishikawa and Kin, of the main island, Tarama, in the Miyako group, and Hateruma, Yonaguni and Nakano-Ukan in the Yaeyama archipelago. 15) Most of the turtle and turtle-shell artifacts entering the contemporary Okinawan tomist trade are imported from the Philippines.

o

Table 6. Size Limitations on the Exploitation of Marine Fauna in Okinawa Prefecture during the First and Third Periods ANIMAL Scientific Name

English Common Name

SIZE LIMIT

Japanese Common Name

Pinctada margaritifera

Black-lipped pearl shell

kurochPgai

Criterion Min. total shell width

Pieria {Magnavicula) penguin

Large-winged pearl shell

mabegai

Ditto

Lunatica marmorata

Green turban

yakogai

Teclus maximus

Button shell

takasegai

Min. dia. of outer margin of shell aperture Min. dia. of shell aperture

Button shell

hirosegai

Ditto

pyratnis

. Min. height of outer margin of shell aperture Min. length of plastron

Size (cm) Third Period First Period^) 10.7

10.0

NONE

10.0

6.1

6.0

6.1

6.0

6.1

6.0

3.0

3.0

15.0

25.0

Turbo shell

chosen sazae

Eretmochelys imbricata

Hawksbill turtle

taimai

Panulirus spp.

Spiny lobster

iseebi

Min. length

NONE

18.0

Laticauda semifasciata

Sea snake

erabu-unagi

Min, length

NONE

60.0

Caesio spp.

Fusiliers

takasago

Min. length

NONE

Sources: NOrinsuisaxshO [1938] for the First Period; Okinawa-Ken [1981] for the Third Period. Table Notes: 1) Converted and rounded from traditional measures. 2) Except when used for live bait.

9.2«

T. A kimichi and K. R uddle

Marmarostoma argyrostoma

Territorial Rights and Fishery Regulations

71

Dugong Netting

During the First Period dugong {Dugong dugong) netting was registered as a separate activity undertaken all-year-round only in the inshore waters of Okinawa Island, in the territories of the Itoman and Katsuren FCAs, and for HenzaTakahanari, Hamahiga and Tsuken FCAs on the Pacific coast dependent islands. Dugong were usually netted in the grassy shallows, close inshore, where the animal feeds. The dugong fishery is now extinct in Okinawa, but in former times was important since the meat and skin were items in the China tribute-trade, as well as being a local delicacy [Noshomusho 1889]

Squid Jigging Trolling for squid is undertaken by individual fishermen on winter nights on the sea surface just outside the reef. Compared with the other fishing activities, squid •OKINAWA ISLAND

•DEPENDENT ISLANDS------- MIYAKO---------- YAEYAMA—

Figure 14. Benthos Open.for Collection during the First Period (1907-1940)

T. Akimxchi and K. Ruddle

72

jigging is a relatively recent development in Okinawa. During the First Period only four FCAs had specifically registered for this activity.^®’ No registration was made for squid jigging as a separate activity in the later Periods.

Collection of Benthos

Historically, because of prohibitions on fishing, per se, and owing to the demand for tribute goods, collection of benthos was the most important sector among the Okinawan fisheries. Collecting has always been important in the Miyako group largely because of its extensive reef area and because of the wide range of species available there. Shellfish collecting was also important because it could be easily and inexpensively undertaken by part-time farmer-fishermen as well as by children and older people.

Figure IS. Benthos Open for Collection during the Third Period (1974—1980) 16) Two on Okinawa Island, Kunigami and Nago, and two on the dependent islands. Nakazato (Kume Island) and Zamamf (Kerama Islands).

Territorial Rights and Fishery Regulations

73

The main items collected, some of which remain of economic importance today, have included sponge, sea cucumber, sea urchin, sea snake {Laticaiida semifasciata), a wide range of shellfish, and numerous species of seaweed (Figs. 14 and 15). Al­ though the collection of benthos remains important in Okinawa Prefecture, the range of items collected has diminished, partly as a consequence of changing economic demand and partially because of over-collection combined with the impact of shore­ based pollution and land reclamation. Many fishermen still take part in this activity but increasingly collecting is becoming either a specialized activity or a side-activity of specialists in other techniques, especially spear-fishermen. Collection of benthos is undertaken in various habitats. Seaweeds, sea urchin and sea cucumber are obtained from shallow, nearshore areas, although habitats are diverse, according to species [Noshomusho 1889], whereas most shellfish are excavated from the inner reef margin, the seaward slope and the reef flat, as well as from coralline habitats dispersed throughout the lagoon. Sea snakes are captured by hand when they congregate for spawning in rocky areas.

Sea Cucumber (Holothuria spp. and Stichopus spp.) Historically, the collection .of sea cucumber was of the utmost importance since it was an essential tribute commodity sent to China. During the First Period 61 percent (27) of the FCAs were permitted to collect sea cucumber.^” The importance of sea cucumber collection remained undiminished during the Second Period, although the China tribute-trade ‘had long since ceased, when all Okinawan FCAs except Ikemae, in the Miyako group, were registered for its collection. By the Third Period, however, sea cucumber collection had seriously declined, and only 24 percent (6) FCAs were permitted to collect it.^®) Seasonal regulations have not been applied to the collection Of sea cucumberduring the periods studied. However, the locations in which collection is undertaken differ according to species, as does the market price [Noshomusho Suisankyoku 1889]. Sea cucumber is generally collectedrin the summer season. The only regu­ lation applied to this item was a minimum weight limit of 130 g per specimen, imposed during the U.S. Administration.

Sea Urchin (Tripneustes gratilld)

Sea urchin collection has been registered in all three periods and its importance has increased gradually during'that time. In the First Period 12 FCAs, or 27 percent 17) These included 12 on Okinawa Island (Ogimi, Nakijin, Nago, Haneji, Ginowan, Itoman, Chinen, Osato, Katsuren, Awase and Nakagusuku); Iheya, Tonaki, Nakazato (Kume Island) and Tokashiki (Kerama Islands) of the East China Sea dependent islands; Kudaka, Henza-Takahanari, Hamahiga and Tsuken, or all the Pacific coast dependent island FCAs; all the FCAs of the Miyako group, and Ishigaki and Hateruma FCAs in the Yaeyama archipelago. 18) These were the Okinawashi, Haebaru, Yonabaru, Sashiki, Nakagusuku and Chinen FCAs on Okinawa Island, and the Tonaki, Miyako and Yaeyama FCAs.

74

T. Aklmichi and K. Ruddle

of the total, were registered for sea urchin collectionjw’ During the Second Period all FCAs except Ikemae, in the Miyako group, were registered to collect it and in the Third Period all except Hateruma, Yonaguni and Nakano-Ukan, in the Yaeyama archipelago, were permitted to engage in sea urchin collection. Harvesting of sea urchin has not been subject to size of seasonal limitations during the periods studied, although empirically its harvest season is governed by the seasonal increase of its ovarian contents. Sponge During the First Period sponge collection was registered as a separate but minor activity, engaged in by only four FCAs (Hisamatsu, Tarama and Minna in the Miyako group and Ishigaki in the Yaeyama archipelago), all in the southern islands of the Prefecture. Those from the Miyako group were recognized as the best quality P'TOshOmusho 1889]. Thereafter, sponge collection does not appear as a separate Item in the registration documents and is no longer undertaken in Okinawa. No regulations have ever been applied to sponge collection, apart from the prohibition on collecting live specimens, imposed during the period of U.S. Administration.

Sea Snake {Laticauda semifasciata} Only during the First Period was the sea snake specifically registered as a sepa­ rate item for collection. With the exception of Nakazato FCA, on Kume Island, Kudaka FCA and Hateruma FCA, in the Yaeyamas, which collected sea snakes, this item was limited to the Miyako group, where all the FCAs were permitted to

engage in this activity. No seasonal limitation has ever been applied to the collection of sea snakes; but it is prohibited to capture specimens of less than 60 cm in overall length. Formerly smoked sea snake, used as a medicine, was an important export item. Nowadays it is used locally for the same purposes. Shellfish

Shellfish comprise a major element in the collection of benthos during all three Periods, although the number of species specified in the registration documents has decreased since the First Period. The widest range of shellfish has historically been collected in the Miyako group and in the Yaeyama archipelago. In none of the three periods have seasonal regulations been applied to the collection of shellfish. However, because of the spawning migration of, chosen sazae and yakogai, which during the hot summer months retreat to deeper waters' from their normal habitats on the seaward slope and the outer reef flat, their col-' lection in the Yaeyama archipelago was effectively limited to the period JanuaryMarch, prior to the recent introduction of air compressors that permit divers to collect

19) These were 6 FCAs on Okinawa Island (Ogimi, Nakijin, Yomitan-Uken, Shimoda, Awase and Nakagusuku), one (Tonaki) in the dependent islands, four in the Miyako group CNishihara, Hisamatsu, Tarama and Minna) and one (Hateruma) in Yaeyama.

Territorial Rights and Fishery Regulations

75

benthos at far greater depths than in former times [NoshOmusho 1889]. But, in contrast, minimum size restrictions on collectable items have been enforced on shellfish since the earliest Meiji regulations were promulgated. In this manner, the economically important black-lipped pearl shell {Pinctada margaritifera}, yakogai, takasegai, hirosegai and chosen sazae have been conserved. It is noteworthy that those minimum size restrictions have practically remained unchanged over the past century (Table 6). Among the 20 species of shellfish specifically registered during the three Periods, five have remained as main target items until the present: takasegai, hirosegai, chosen sazae, yakogai and shakogai. i

Takasegai {Tectus niloticus} and Hirosegai (T. pyramis} During the First Period takasegai was collected by 84 percent of the FCAs of Okinawa Island,by those on all the dependent islands except Aguni, and by every FCA in the Miyako group and the Yaeyama archipelago. During the Second Period its collection was registered by all FCAs except Ikemae (Miyako group); and in the Third Period it was registered by all except Yonabaru-Sashiki-Nakagusuku FCA on Okinawa Island, and the Yonaguni FCA in Yaeyama. The collection of hirosegai has almost the same history as does takasegai, since, apart from a few minor differences, the collection of both shells is permitted to the same FCAs.’^’ »

Chosen sazae or chogai {Marmarostoma argyrostoma) Chosen sazae collection has remained important and has been specifically registered in all three periods. ^2)

20) All except Onna, Osato and Nakagusuku. 21) On Okinawa Island, during the First Period, Katsuren FCA was not registered for hirosegai, as were the three FCAs not licensed for takasegai. On the dependent islands four FCAs registered for takasegai were not registered to collect hirosegai (Iheya, HenzaTakahanari, Hamahiga and Tsuken), in addition to Aguni, which was registered for neither. H/rose^af-coUecting was permitted to all the FCAs of Miyako and Yaeyama. By the Second Period, Airose^aj-collection had become registered by all FCAs except Ikemae (Miyako group), but by the Third Period registration for its collection had not been made by Yonabaru-Sashiki-Nakagusuku FCAs and Chatan FCA, on Okinawa Island, or by Yonaguni, in Yaeyama. 22) In the First Period 62 percent (13) of the FCAs on Okinawa Island were permitted to collect chdsen sazae (those not permitted to do so were Ogimi, Onna, Roman, Osato, Katsuren. Awase and Nakagusuku). Six of the dependent island FCAs, Aguni, Nakazato (Kume Island, Tokashiki (Kerama Islands), Ikei, Tsuken and Kudaka were registered for its collection, whereas all of the Yaeyama FCAs and all except Tarama and Minna of the Miyako group FCAs were permitted to collect chdsen sazae. During the Second Period all FCAs except Ikemae (Miyako group) could collect this item, and in the Third Period its collection was open to all except Yonabaru-Sashiki-Nakagusuku FCAs, on the main island, and Yonaguni, in Yaeyama.

76

T. Akimichi and K. Ruddle

Yakogai (Lunatia marmoratd) Qn. Okinawa Island during the First Period, yakogai collection was permitted in the territories of only five FCAs (26 percent)?’> Collection of this shellfish was more important in the dependent islands and in the two southern island groups?^) Permission to collect this shellfish is not indicated separately in the documents for the Second Period, whereas in the Third Period it recurs.’®’

Shakogai (Tridacnidae) • Similarly, collection of this shellfish had a wide distribution during the First Period.’®’ Again, this is not listed as a separate item in the documents of the Second Period, but by the Third Period virtually all FCAs were permitted to engage in shakogai collection.’” Koyasugai or takaragai (Cypraeidae) Apart from the two southern island groups, in former times, as is indicated by the documents for the First Period, koyasugai was widely collected in Okinawa, and particularly by the FCAs of the dependent islands.’®’

Miscellaneous shellfish

Ten additional species of shellfish that were specifically registered for collection during the First and Third periods are included in this category. The FCAs of the Miyako group accounted for the collection of the majority of these, and generally one, or at most two, or these miscellaneous species was collected by a few other FCAs. None of this category was specifically registered during the Second Period. 23) There were Kunigami, le, Yomitan-Nagahama, Itoman and Kin. 24) In the former the FCAs of Ikei, Iheya, Nakazato (Kume Island), Zamami (Kerama Islands), Henza-Takahanari, Hamahiga and Tsuken were permitted to collect yakogai', as were all those of the Miyako and Yaeyama groups, except Hatoma, in the latter. 25) le, Nago, Haneji, Nakijin, Motobu, Nago, Chinen and Naha-Urasoe FCAs being permitted to collect yakogai off the main island, as were Tonaki and Kume FCAs among the dependent islands, and all of those in the Miyako and Yaeyama groups, except Yonaguni, of the latter. 26) On Okinawa Island 47 percent (9) FCAs were permitted to collect shakogai (Kunigami, Ogimi, Haneji, Yomitan-Nagahama, Yomitan-Uken, Ginowan, Kin, Chinen and Nakagusuku), as were 45 percent (5) in the dependent islands (Zamami, HenzaTakahanari, Hamahiga, Kudaka and Tsuken). All FCAs in the Miyako group could collect it as coxild four of the seven in Yaeyama archipelago, Ishigaki, Aragusuku, Hatoma and Hateruma. 27) The only exceptions being Katsuren, Yonagusuku and Yomitan, on Okinawa Island, and Yonaguni as well as in the Nakano-Ufcan area of Yaeyama FCA. 28) There, 72 percent (8) engaged in its collection, the only exceptions being Ikei, Tonaki and Aguni FCAs. On the main island its collection was registered by Kunigami, Haneji. Ogimi and Ginowan Yomitan-Nagahama, Yomitan-Uken and Kin FCAs, or 81 percent of the total. In the Miyako group Ikemae and Hisamatsu FCAs were permitted to collect koyasugai, as was Ishigaki among the Yaeyama FCAs.

Territorial Rights and Fishery Regulations

77

During the First Period permission was granted for the collection of the following miscellaneous shellfish: terajyagai (unidentified)kurochogai or kuroshinjyugai or shinjyugai (Pinctada margaritifera, black-lipped pearl shell) horagai {Charonia tritonis, trumpet shell);®’-’ mabegai (Pteria penguin, large-winged pearl shell);®®’ and kanmurigai (unidentified)?®’ In the Third Period permission was given for collecting makakigai (unidenti­ fied);®*’ for fudegai {Mitra spp.);®®’ for hamaguri (Meretrix spp.);®” for kuchibirugai (unidentified) and mabegai',and for kurochogai.^^'i Seaweed Harvkting. During the First Period some seaweeds could be harvested only in specific seasons whereas for others harvesting could be done year-round. Kaininso {Digened simplex) and kirinsai {Eucheuma muricatum) fall into the latter category whereas all others were registered as- seasonal. Harvestable in the summer season were hondawara {Sargassum spp.) (May 1-October 31) and futomoz'uku {Tinocladia crassd) (March 1July 31). Seaweeds that were open for harvesting in the winter season were hanafunori {Gloiopeltis complanata) (October 1-May 1), igisu {Ceramium kondoi) (January 1-June 30), aonori {Enteromorpha spp.) (November 1-May 31) and hitoegusa or aosa {Monostroma nitidimi) (generally November-May 31, but occasionally February 1May 31 or March 1-April 30). Later the U.S. Administration prohibited the up­ rooting of kirinsai during harvesting and closed the harvest of kaininso and kirinsai during the period December 1 through July 31. Present-day harvesting seasons are

short and strictly regulated by a seaweed harvesting sub-committee in mo^t FCAs.

The harvesting of various kinds of seaweed has also long been a major fisheries activity in Okinawan waters. Among the 15 species that have been open to harvest­ ing during the three periods, three have been, or still are, of principal importance: kaininso, hitoegusa and mozuku {Nemacystus decipiens). During the First Period 89 percent (all but three) of the Okinawan FCAs were permitted to harvest kaininso.^^^ 29) By Kunigami and Yomitan-Nagahama F6A5, on Okinawa Island, by Nakazato (Kume Island) and Zamami (Kerama Islands) in the dependent islands, and by all the FCAs of the Miyako group. 30) By Itoman, Kin, Haneji and Ginowan FCAs, on Okinawa, Hamahiga, in the Pacific coast dependent islands, by all Miyako FCAs except Ikemae and Irabu, and by all Yaeyama FCAs apart from Taketomi and Yonaguni. 31) By only Yomitan Nagahama FCA on the main island and all Miyako group FCAs. 32) By all Miyako FCAs, except Ikemae, and by Yonaguni FCA, in the Yaeyamas. 33) Collected only by Ikemae FCA, Miyako. 34) To the Nago, Haneji, Nakijin, Motobu, and Chatan FCAs of Okinawa Island and to Kume Island FCA. 35) To the Yaeyama FCA. 36) To the Miyako and Yaeyama FCAs. 37) To the Miyako FCA. 38) To the Yaeyama FCA 39) Those not harvesting it were Onna and Osato FCAs, on Okinawa Island, Kudaka and Aguni among the dependent island FCAs, and Hateruma FCA in the Yaeyamas.

78

T. Akimichi and K. Ruddle

In the Second Period all FCAs except Ikemae, in the Miyako group, were permitted to collect it. However, by the Third Period kaininso collection had seriously declined and only 48 percent (12) of all the FCAs were permitted to harvest it.'*‘’> Hitoegusa was not specified as harvestable until the Third Period, when 80 percent (20) of all Okinawan FCAs were permitted to take it,«» Similarly, harvesting of mozuku was specified separately only in the Third Period. Mozuku, too, is harvested by 88 percent (22) of all the Prefecture’s FCAs.«> Several miscellaneous seaweeds of local importance, particularly on the East China Sea coast of Okinawa Island, and to a lesser extent in Yaeyama waters, appear in the documents for the First and Third periods. In the First Period the most widely harvested of these was kirinsai, also known as Ryukyu tsunomata, which was'harvested by 11 (26 percent) of the FCAs in the First Period.^) During the Third Period, harvesting of kirinsai was' limited to only three FCAs, Miyako, Yaeyama and Hateruma, the latter two in the Yaeyama archipelago. Other mis­ cellaneous seaweeds harvested during the First Period were: amanori {Porphyra spp.);«) hondawara {Sargassum spp.);«) hanafunori (Gloiopehis complanatay,^^^ igisu {Ceramium kondoiy’,^'’'> futomozuku (Tinocladia crassd)’,*^'> aonori (Enteromorpha spp.);«’ and aosa {Monostroma nitidum}.^’>y In the Third Period the only other miscellaneous weed not separately specified in earlier periods that was open for harvesting was sennarizuta (Caulerpa racemosd), harvested only by Miyako FCA.

THE CONTEMPORARY ROLE OF OKINAWA PREFECTURE IN FISHERIES ADMINISTRATION In Okinawa, as in all other Japanese Prefectures, detailed regulations to control

40) These were Nago, Haneji. Nakijin, Motobu, Ishikawa. Kin. Katsuren, Yonagusuku Okinawashi and Haebaru FCAs, on Okinawa Island, Tonaki and Kume among the dependent island FCAs, and Miyako and Yaeyama FCAs in the two southern island groups. 41) Those not so engaged are Chinen, Chatan and Naha-Urasoe FCAs, on Okinawa Island and Yonaguni in the Yaeyamas. 42) Those not doing so are Yomitan FCA, on Okinawa Island, and Yonaguni in the Yaeyama archipelago. 43) These were Ogimi, Nakijin, le, Nago, Haneji, Ginowan and Shimoda-FCAs, on Okinawa Island, Nakazato (Kume Island) and Tokashiki (Kerama Islands), in the East China Sea dependent islands, and Kohama and Hateruma FCAs, in the Yaeyama archipelago. 44) Harvested only by Kumigami FCA, on Okinawa. 45) By Ogimi, Nakijin, Haneji, Yomitan-Uken, Ginowan and Chinen FCAs, all on Okinawa. 46) Harvested only on Okinawa Island by Ogimi, Nakijin, le and Nago FCAs. 47) By Ogimi, Nakijin, Nago and Shimoda FCAs, on Okinawa, and by Tonaki FCA in the Kerama Islands. 48) By Ogimi, le, Nago. Ginowan and Shimoda FCAs. 49) Harvested only by le FCA. 50) Harvested only by le FCA on Okinawa Island, but also by Ishigaki, Aragusuku, Kohama and Hateruma FCAs in the Yaeyama archipelago.

Territorial Rights and Fishery Regulations

79

fishery operations and to ensure the conservation and rational exploitation of living aquatic resources are established, as appropriate to local conditions, by the local ofBce of the Fisheries Agency. Essentially, such.regulations define closed seasons and other limitations for the various fisheries, control-the kinds of gear and methods that may be employed by professional fishermen as well as those specifically for sport or recreational fishing, establish the minimum exploitable sizes of particular marine animals, specify closed areas for the purpose of resource conservation, and set various “associated” rules. In Okinawa the following regulations established by the prefec­ ture govern fisheries [Okinawa-Ken 1981].

Complete Prohibitions i Neither turtle eggs of any species nor corals of the Orders Sclefactinia, Gorgonacea, and Stolonifera may be collected in Okinawa Prefecture, nor may they be owned, processed, or sold if they originate from prefectural waters. Size Limitations

In the interests of resource conservation, the exploitation, together with the keeping and sale of their products, of specific marine animals is prohibited if establish­ ed minimum size requirements are not met (Table 6). Harvesting of seedstock for aquaculture is excepted, provided it is specifically licensed by the Governor.

Closed Areas