TO THE CASES OF OTHER COUNTRIES

MAIN CONCERNS OF JAPANESE GEOGRAPHERS FOR CHRISTALLER S THESIS WITH REFERENCE

TO THE CASES OF OTHER COUNTRIES

Yuuji TATSuOKA

Abstract This paper examines in what contexts Christaller s thesis was introduced into Japanese geography． The main findings are summarized as follows：1）Central place studies in the narrower sense underwent little development except for several pioneering works by Yoshio Watanabe， so that more or less systematic introduction was rather late after Christaller became well−known；2）his ideas have been instrumental in studies on functional regions and their hierarchical relationships， while substantial contribution was little in the studies of the tributary area of cities， where frequent references to his name were made；3）before the mid−sixties location theory research had little to do with central place studies， though the translation of his book was done by a location theorist．

1．Introduction

  The field of central place study has many facets in the tradition of settlement geography and economic geography． H owever， the theme in its narrower sense is that of verificationラrefinement， or modification of Christaller s original thesis， or that of integrating it with other theories or models． Thus critical investigation of the contexts of introduction of his ideas is required in the historical research on central place studies．

  Unlike material innovations， intellectual innovations seem to proceed in the process of repeated re−invention （Rogers，1981， pp．499−501）from one group to another． This suggests that the study of transfering of a scientific thesis has to take into account fully the background of each group． In other words， each group has its own research tradition within which they interpret a new idea， when it became accepted． Besides this process by itself diversifying the interpretations of this idea among groups， the existence of plural routes of transference， consisting of groups with their respective traditions and concerns，

multiplies the diversity。 Thus， the examination has to take into account this diversity and

compare the various interpretations among groups on purpose to reveal with what

concerns each group had accepted it， and what results their concerns brOught upon both

the development of the thesis itself and their research tradition． In the case of transfering

Christaller s ideas into Japanese geography， many groups participated in this process other than those in Japan・At least four sets of groups， geographers in Germany， Britain，

America and N orthern Europe， deserve to be mentioned， though the last one must have been much less influential because of limited circulation of their works in Japan． Many

relevant problems may be taken up：how each group interpreted Christaller；what concerns they had；and to what degree their concern corresponded to those of Japanese geographers． ThiS preparatory research restricts the subject matter to the following：

   1）As regards the contexts of Japanese geographers， only when ， by whom ， and from what stance of the introduction are examined．

   2）The secondary origins of the diffusion are limited to some prominent works by German， British， and American scholars， and the characteristics of their interpretation are touched upon slightly． Possible connections of Japanese geographers with

geographers in other countries and scholars in other disciplines are also omitted． It must be noted that Japanese national planning in the prewar period had strong ties with that of N azi Germany． For example， many reference materials， including L6sch s book， were brought in and studied at the Ministry of the Interior（Keizaichirigakkai，1984， pp．244−

245）．Eiyo Ishikawa， a city planner， offered a schema of hierarchical system of seikatsuken （spheres of living）in his book（Ishikawa，1942）， in which human activities were classified into five types from daily to annual；each type of activity had its own sphere of living as its spatial expression， which overlapped the others to become a structure of nation． This system resembled Christaller s schema on the administrative principle（k＝7）． Ishikawa tested his schema at Kanto Province and used it for his proposed planning of Tohoku Province．

   3）The period examined is ten or fifteen years， from the early 1950s to mid 1960s． It is rather difficult to measure the degree of acceptance of Christaller s ideas accurately，

mainly because of the variety of positions taken， as will be discussed in Chapter 4． Except for the publication of the Japanese translation of Christaller（1933） s text in 1969， there are no events conspicuous enough to be used for dividing the process into several phases．

Even some of the early references to him had already lookedupon his thesis as well−

known． This suggests that before fomlal communication took it up， informal ones promoted the circulation to some degree． In spite of these circumstances， increasing papers devoted to central place studies in the late sixties could be an indication of a new stage． Consequently， only the works before that period are investigated here．

  4）Any kind of report， that is， original article， review， or textbook， which refers to Christaller is the object of this study regardless of the field to which the report belongs．

Popularized theses in textbooks generally have little in common with polished ones of students on the frontiers． Nevertheless， since the popular ones are likely to condition the direction of study because of their function as starting points for newcomers， they also should be examined． Inspection of them， further， reveals the features of the popularizers themselves， which is another purpose of diffusion studies about intellectual innovations

（Murakami，1964）．

2．The Thesis of Christaller

  Christaller s ideas on central places was， in principle， formulated in his Die 26η吻彪η Orte in Sde ddeutSchland（Christaller，1933）， and some attempts（Beavon，1977；Hayashi，

1986）have been made at logical reconstruction of this book， as weU as special attention to the dynamic analysis（Preston，1983，1986）． However， no small alterations had been made by himself on his arguments after the publishing of his book， though the works above mentioned proffered small attention to them． Some of these alterations were such peripheral modifications as on the population of central places and their complementary regions， but they do not represent all． Besides the attempt at realization of the model，

Christaller introduced new assumptions and transferred the focal point of arguments．

Even through these changes， of course， the disposition to planning−orientation was maintained． Together with the plurality of intermediary groups and the diversity of the contexts of receivers， this affair of alterations prompted multiple interpretations． At the same time， however， these differences among his papers enable the inference about the materials on which each student relied for his discussion． Thus brief accounts of Christaller s thesis are provided；pointing out these alterations．

  The task brought up in Christaller（1933）was the formulation of laws which determine the number， sizes， and distribution of towns ． Reading town as central place，

he accomplished this purpose， with the supplying principle and the range of goods，

especially their upper limit， as the most fundamental Concepts． Although the superiority of the supplying principle may be in part due to the concept of central place itself， this superiority is indicated by the two remarks：the arrangement of central places of the lowest order on the other two principles， traffic and administrative， is the same as that on the supplying principle；the requisition（of supplying principle）of covering the whole area with a minimum possible number of central places is met on those principles． On the basis of this principle， the shapes and sizes of complementary regions and the hierarchy of central places（and their regions）are deduced from the concept of the upper limit of the range under the tacit condition of uniform passability of the area， while taking into no account the lower limit of the range．

   Although he considered the transformation of this system under the influences of many factors， the examination was limited to local situations of at most， two or three towns． He seems to have had little interest in the overall figure of deviation from the norm．

  After 1933， papers he published were by no means small in number， but few are cited frequently． The four papers of 1938，1950a，1950b，1962 are taken up and examined together here， because of the papers having some features in common． Firstly， the concept of the range of goods apPears only in his 1938 paper， though this paper also gives no substantial connotation of it． In spite of his emphasis upon the hierarchy of central places being not arbitrary but legitimate， the mechanism of emergence of the hierarchy is not clear． Secondly， the 1950a and 1962 papers treat equally of the three principles and presented the polished schemata of the central place system according to each principle，

with the series of the number of central places respectively， for the first time． Thirdly，

three papers after the war maintain the reality of the hierarchies， furnishing abundant

instances， and seek to integrate the three systems of central places． However， the procedure of integration is not logical and the results led have differences， in part．

Fourthly， the complementary region is scarcely touched upon in the postwar papers． This may be also a result of realization of the model． Fifthly， in the 1938 paper three postulations about the area are stated explicitly：the complete homogeneity［gleichartig］

and evenness， the completely uniform ［gleichmassig］ distribution of population， and the overall passability． The later papers have no rigid statements such as these except an expression of pure area in the 1950a paper． Besides the￠ondition on transportation，

the necessity of these additional presuppositions seems unclear． Finally， population assigned to each rank of central place and its complementary region has fallen gradually from the 1933 text to the 1962 paper， also giving no reason．

3・Early Interpretations in Germany， Britain and America

  In Germany， naturally in a sense， there were no papers introducing Christaller s thesis at that time． Those concerned with his arguments were more empirical and critical ones．

Bobek（1938）was one of the earliest responses to it． He criticized Christaller for identifying central place with city． Pointing out that the thesis was a location theory of central functions， he argued that these functions should not be treated in a lump in Christaller s manner． In contrast to Bobek， Neef（1950）dealt with the whole theory and offered evidence in disproof of the arrangement and the rank order of central places． He also criticized the concept of the range of goods．

   In the United Kingdom， empirical researches of central places were performed in the tradition of rural studies． Only the introduction by Dickinson（1948）is taken up here． His first mention to Christaller was probably in the 1938 paper， albeit there were only several lines which provided little information upon the thesis， While Christaller read cities as central places and argued their distribution and so forth， Dickinson treated the function of regional center as only one of many functions of a city， and introduced Christaller s thesis in terms of a center of a region． This made his statements more realistic but at the same time Iimited his understanding of Christaller． The following characteristics are pointed out：Firstly， he postulated the hierarchy of cities beforehand， on the basis of the degree of concentration of centralized services． He did not explain the emergence of the hierarchy， because he made no mention of the range of goods． Secondly， there were substantial explanations about the three principles， but they were made in an insignificant way， especially on the supplying principle． Thirdly， although the hierarchical order of cities was mentioned， the hierarchical relationship of tributary areas were not． Fourthly， the sequence of the numbers of central places in each rank is lacking． Finally， corresponding to his stance， he equated central places with locations of SerViCe aCtiVitieS．

  There is little doubt that central place studies were much affected by Berry s works，

not only in America but also throughout the world． It would be sufficient to devote

attention to the fact that he， introducing the concept of threshold， deduced a different

system from that of Christaller（Berry and Garrison，1958）． More notice shall be taken

here of the United States in the pre−Berrian period．

  Ullman（1941）is said to be the first full， clear， systematic statement of central place theory in English （Harris，1977）， though the wel1−known mistake he（and Harris）made in the Figure in Harris and Ullman（1945）calls the level of his understanding into question． In addition， some remarks can be made about his introduction． Firstly， only providing a hypothesis that normally the larger the city， the larger is the tributary area C he made no statement about the mechanism of emergence of hierarchy．

Conversely， he did not introduce the range of goods ． Secondly， hierarchical relationship of cities or their tributary areas seemed not to be a theme of importance， rather a city and its tributary area constituting the focal point of discussion． Thirdly， the system of central places was constructed exclusively on the basis of the supplying principle，

without mentioning the principles at al1． Transportation and political organization were treated rather slightly as distorting factors． Fourthly， the numbers on the Table l of his paper and his stress on the uniformity of the land imply that he relied on Christaller

（1938）rather than on the text（Christaller，1933）， which interestingly suggests where Ullman s interests were． Finally， he put emphasis on the connection of Christaller with ThUnen．

   Those features are in common with the descriptions by Wehrwin（1942）and Trewartha（1943）． They commonly discussed urban−rural problems rather than central places themselves． In contrast to them was Brush（1953）． As his title shows he paid more attention to the hierarchical order， besides other points， and provided fairly satisfactory presentation for the first time in English， probably． Through these and other works Christaller had become considered famous by 1954， when／lmeri°can Geography was published；more than one page was devoted to introducing Christaller there（Kohn，1954）．

4．The Introduction into Japanese Geography

  Christaller and his work were known to some Japanese geographers already in the prewar period（Takeuchi and Masai，1986， p．61 and p．300）． But his first appearance on Japanese literature was in 1951（Kiuchi，1951）， though he was cited only as a classifier of the sizes of cities． Frequent and steady references went on from the midイifties，

simultaneously in some fields． Under three headings this movement is examined．

Systematic introduction

   Except Ishimizu（1957a）and Morikawa（1962，1966）， few systematic or formal introductions were made and they fell behind other kinds of introductions slightly．

Although Berry was mentioned in those papers after 1960， his contribution to reformulation failed to be given attention． Moreover some papers proceeded Berry．

Thus， it can be thought that the systematic understanding of Christaller in Japan was in great demand almost simultaneously with other countries， of course， not necessarily independently， though the influence of Berry prompted this movement later on．

  Mainly based upon Christaller（1933）， they lacked， like the introduction in foreign

cases， the concept of the range of goods， the series of the nurnber of central places and

Table l Main concerns of Japanese geographers for Christaller

The aspects in which Hier一 Hier一 Dis・ Ar・ Cen一 Refer・ Refer． Other Mere Refer・

each literature refers archy archy ^tribu． _range・ ^trali・ ence ence ^{o 垂盾撃獅狽 refer・ ence to}

to Christaller of of tion ment ^{ty to to} ence other

cent．  o r91㎝ ^{of of} L6sch ^criti・ to him litera・

Place cent． cent． ^{●Clsm or the} ture

隔

place place ^thesis

Suizu（ 55） ○ ○ ○ BDN

Kiuchi（ 58） ○ △ △ ABD

Suizu（ 58） ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ABDN

Kobayashi（ 59） ○ AB

Nishimura（ 59） △ D

Suizu（ 59） ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ BDN

A ^{Yamazumi（ 59） △ △ △}

Takano（ 59／60） ○ △ ○ △ △ ABDN

Naritaぐ61） ○

Ishimizu（ 62） ○ △ ○ ○ ABDN

Yabuuchi（ 64） ○ ○ ○ ○ ABD

Nishimura（ 65） ○ T

Saito（ 65） △ D

Kiuchiぐ51） ○ ABDN

Yajima（ 54） ○ ABD

Tsujimura（ 55） ○ ABD

Kiuchi and

Nishikawa（ 55） ○ ABD

Yajima（ 56） ○ ABD

Ishikawa（ 57） △ A

B ^{Kiji（ 57） ○} D

Kiuchi（ 57a） ○

Kiuchi（ 57b） ○

Kurematsu（ 57a） ○ ABD

Kurematsu（ 57b） ○ △ D

Suizu（ 57） ○ D

Tanioka（ 57） △ △ ABD

Yajima（ 57） ○

Suizuぐ64） ○ ○ △ ○ ABD

The aspects in which Hier一 Hier一 Dis一 Ar． Cen一 Refer・ Refer・ Other Mere ^Refer一

each literature refers archy archy ^tribu一 「ange・ trali一 ence ence ^{・ oOlnts refer・ ence to}

to Christaller of of tion ment ^{ty to to} ence other

cent． ^● 窒?№撃盾 of of L6sch ^criti・ toh㎞ ^litera一 place cent． cent． ^o blsm ^{or the ture}

place place thesis

Suizu（ 54） ○ _△ ○ ○ BD

Watanabe（ 54） ○ ○ A B

Watanabe（ 55） ○ A B

Suizu（ 56） ○ D

Ishimizu（ 57b） ○

Watanabe（ 59） ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ A B

C Watanabe（ 60） ○ ○ T A B

Morikawa（ 61a） ○ ○ ABDN

Morikawa（ 61b） ○ ○ T

Kurematsu（ 62） ○ AD

Takano（ 63） △ △ T A B

Tanabe（ 64） ○

Hattori（ 65） ○ △ T ABD

A：

BCO

｢，，

T

Reviews or nonempirical articles（not including those which made systematic introduc−

tions）．

Books or articles in books．

Articles of empirical studies．

denotes that the literature contains more or less expository descriptions， except in the penultimate Column．

denotes that the literature only makes references to the aspects．

in the column of Other points means the theme of delimiting the tributary areas of central places．

The last column shows whether or not the literature has other references；A， B， D， and N mean American， British， German， and N orthern European literature， respectively． Those of other countries are， if cited， neglected．

the dynamic aspects． These were in part， due to the aims of the papers being to inform general trends of the study rather than to explain Christaller s original ideas in detail．

Other kinds of introduction

  Under this heading is included more miscellaneous and fragmented information on

Christaller in articles， reviews or textbooks， some of which are difficult to be separated

clearly from empirical studies． Table l summarized these works around main points，

  At this early stage of development， two fields had to do with the idea of central place：

the study on tributary areas of cities or rural−urban relationships， which were in the framework of traditional urban（settlement）geography；and the（evolutionary）study on functional regions． In．consequence， the references were made on the points directly related to those concerns：1）the spatial pattem of cities， which was， as Watanabe（1975）

noted， on the extension of traditional， morphological concern；2）the sizes of the complementary areas and the measurement of centrality， though the latter point， one of traditional problems， frequently lacked his name；3）the hierarchical relationships of

（complementary）regions， to which little importance was attached in other countries as mentioned above， though the mechanism of their emergence argued by Christaller was not considered in Japan， either．

  Another crucial point is that the connection with the location studies were weak， as is shown in the scarce concurrence of L6sch in Table 1． This is true not only from the side of urban geographer but also from the side of location theorists． For example， in spite of the development of location studies in 1950s， no references to Christaller were made in their papers． And Kasuga and Kaneda（1967）argued the necessity to study his thesis．

Empirical studies

  At the beginning of this paper， the central place study in the narrower sense was defined as those directly related to Christaller s thesis． But this definition is still too loose to examine the studies in those days， since there were multi−purpose as well as traditional ones． If only works purely directed to Christaller s thesis are to be counted，

some works by Watanabe are qualified． Thus the main concerns of empirical studies are not so different from those of works discussed above．

  The foregoing examination revealed that the introduction of Christaller s ideas into Japanese geography was performed with somewhat different concerns． More inspection of the causes， effects and ramifications of these differences will provide deeper insights into this process．

Acknowledgment

  This paper is dedicated to the late Professor Yoshio Watanabe． The author is indebted to Associate Professor Akinobu Terasaka and Associate Professor Yoshio Sugiura，

Department of Geography， Tokyo Metropolitan University， for their kind advice and encouragement during this study．

References Cited

Beavon， K．（1977）：Central Place 7腕θoη ノ1 Reinteapウretation． Longman， N．Y．，157p，

Berry， B．J．L． and Garrison， W．（1958）：Recent developments of central place theory． Papers and

  Proceedings（ゾ the∬〜egional Science Associa tio n，4，107−120．

Bobek， H．（1938）：Uber einige funktionelle Stadttypen und ihre Beziehungen zum Lande． Co〃zptes   1〜endms du Co㎎7as Intemational de Ge ograPhie／l msterda〃z 1938， コ駐 IZ Sect．、乙乙ra，88−102．

Brush， J．（1953）：The hierarchy of central places in Southwestern Wisconsin． Geogr．1〜ev．43，380−

  402．

Christaller， W．（1933）：Dゴθ2entralen Orte in SaddeutSchland Eine O konomisch−geograPhtSche   Untersuchung tiber die Gesetz〃ntssigkeit derレ erbreitung und Entwiclelung der Siedlungen〃zit   sta dtischen Funletionen．（reprint ed． Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft， Darmstadt，1968，

  331S．）．

    （1938）：Rapports fonctionnels entre les agglom6rations urbaines et les campagnes． Co〃zptes   1〜endzts伽Coηg殖s Inteアnational de G60g吻hie Amsterda〃z 1938， T． II， Sect． IIIa，123−138．

    （1950a）：Das GrundgerUst der raumlichen Ordnung in Europa：die Systeme der europtiischen   zentralen Orte． Fmnlefzarter Geogr． Hefte，1，96S．

    （1950b）：Wesen und Arten sozialraumlicher Landschaftseinheiten und ihre Darstellung auf   der Karte 1：200000． Beγz励彪．2． deutsch． Landesk．，7，357−367．

    （1962）：Die Hierarchie der Stadte． Lund Studies in Gθ㎎・7． Ser．、B，24，3−11．

Dickinson， R．E（1938）：The Economic Regions of Germany． Geogr．1〜ev．，28，609−626．

    （1947）：City，1〜egion， and 1〜egionalis〃z・ ・4 Geo9「aPhical Coπ魏゜∂ution to Hu zan Eco logy   RKP， London，327p．

Harris， C．D．（1977）：Patterns of Cities． In Eyre， J．D．（ed．） A Man／br All Regions．・The   Coπ魏 butions｛ゾEdward Ullman to Oθρg吻勿 二Univ． North Carolina Dept． Geogr． Studies in  Geogr．，11，66−79．

    and Ullman， E．（1945）：The Nature of Cities．！lnn．、4m． Aca。」Pol． So6． Sci．，242，7−17． In  Mayer， H． and Kohn， C．（eds．）（1972） Readings in乙lrban Geograp勿 ， Univ． Chicago Pr．，

 Chicago，277−296．

Hattori， K．（1965）：Concerning central places and tributary areas within Tokyo． Geogr． Rev．

 ノ4≠）an，38，162−178．＊＊

Hayashi， N．（1986）：Chzcshinchi Riron Kenleyu（ Central．Place 7物ωη1〜esearch］． Taimeido， T okyo，

 694P．＊

Ishikawa， Eikiti（1957）：Nosonshakai no kenkyu・ho（Methods of rural studies）． In Fujioka， K．（ed．）

   7in bunchirigaleu−kenleyuho（Methodology q〆Human Gθρ8・勿勿り ，Asakurashoten， Tokyo，157−

  162．＊

Ishikawa， Eiyo（1942）：Koleudo Keikaku（National Land Planning，♪． Kawadeshobo， Tokyo，247p．＊

Ishimizu， T．（1957a）：Toshi no kaisoteki haichi（Hierarchical arrangement of cities）．

  Toshi〃zondとzi，48，347−355，1029−1037．＊

    （1957b）：Preferability in daily trips from rural settlements to urban centers in the Aizu   Basin：aconsideration of spatial relationships of the settlements． Geogr． Rev．ノiZpαn，30，1108−

  1117．＊＊

    （1960／1961）：The urban central function and its spatial features． Me〃z． Ehi〃zθUniv， Sec．1V，

 3，157−169；4，39−66．＊＊

    （1962）：Some reflections and prospects on the studies of urban function and of urban regions，

 with special reference to a functional approach． The Hu〃z． Geogr．（万〃zbun・Chin ），14，280−

  298．＊＊

Kasuga， S， and Kaneda， S．（1967）：Ricchiron， Ricchiseisaku（Location Theory Research and   Location Policy）． In Keizaichirigakkai（ed．） Kei2aichin galeu no Seika to Kadai（Progress and  Problems in Econo〃zic GeograPh）りno．2 ；Taimeido，7【b勿o，28−40．＊

Keizaichirigakkai（ed．）（1984）：κ厩詔ゴ61蕗㎏α肋no Seiha如Kadai（Progress and Proble〃zs in   ．Economic Geograp勿りno．3． Taimeido， Tokyo，307p．＊

Kiji， S．（1957）：Shoken（Trade Area）． In Kiuchi， S．， Fujioka， K．， and Yajima， N．（eds．） Shurahu

  Ch〃igaleu 1（∂2α（Se ttle〃zent Geograph）りvol．2 ；Asakurashoten， Tokyo，309−314．＊

Kiuchi， S．（1951）：Urban Geography．°The Structure and DeveloP〃zent（ゾUrban∠4 reas and Thei「

 Hin彪rlands． Kokonshoin， Tokyo，385p．＊

    （1954）：Toshi（City）． Jn Kiuchi， S．（ed．） linko Shuraku Chirigaku 66ρg㎎ρ勿（ゾPopulation  and S厩♂θ〃zent） ， Asakurashoten， Tokyo，129−180．＊

    （1957a）：Toshi（City）． In Kiuchi， S．， Fujioka， K．， and Yajima， N．（eds．） Shuraku C痂π知々〃

 κ02α（Settle〃zent Geograp1リリvol．1 ， Asakurashoten， Tokyo，24−41。＊

    （1957b）：Shisei（Municipal organization）． In Kiuchi， S．， Fujioka， K．， and Yajima， N．（eds．）

   Shuraku Ch〃igaku 1（∂za（Settle〃zent Geography）vol．1 ， Asakurashoten， Tokyo，344−361．＊

    （1958）：Chirigaku kara mita rijon（Geographical region）． Tos〃mondai，49，601−612．＊

    and Nishikawa，0．（1955）：Chiikiron（Regional concept）． In Tsujimura， T．（ed．）℃砺γ忽肋   Honshitsuron（The Nature q〆Geog吻勿り ， Asakurashoten， Tokyo，129−180．＊

Kobayashi， H．（1959）：Kenkozo gainen no saikento（Reexamination of the concept of zonal  structure）． The Hu〃z． Gθρg2r． ai〃zbun−Ch〃の，11，67−69，＊

Kohn， C．（1954）：Settlement Geography． In James， P．E． and Jones， C．F．（eds．） ノl merican Geogrmphy   Invent（）リァand ProSpect ， Syracuse Univ． Pr．，124−141．

Kurematsu， S．（1957a）：Shakaichirigaku kenkyushi（History of the study of social geography）． In   Fuj ioka， K．（ed．） ッ勿ゐ襯6雇η 89aku 1（enfeyu−ho （Methodo logy qズ Human Geograph）ゾ ，  Asakurashoten， Tokyo，48−59．＊

    （1957b）：Sonraku shakai no chiriteki kozo（Geographical structure of rural community）． In   Kitamura， T．（ed．） SonrakU Shakai Cぬゴη で Geog吻勿q〆、S厩 θ初θ初and Society） ， Taimeido，

  Tokyo，47−62．＊

    （1962）：Mechanism and laws of metropolitanization−a study of Nara Basin and Hanshin   Metropolitan Area−． Geogr． Rev．ノklpan，35，541−569．＊＊

Morikawa， H．（1961a）：Wandelungen des Systems der zentraren Orte in Kumamoto Provinz．

  Geogワr．1〜θzノ．ノ4望りan，34，471−486．＊＊＊

    （1961b）：Ahierarchical system of nodal regions by telephone call method． The Hum． Geogr．

  （π〃zbun−Chin ），13，1−16．榊

    （1962）：Chushinchi kenkyu no keifu ni tsuite（On the genealogy of central Place studies）．

  Kure−chileuκo々0 7セ〃 isei 1く1ソoikuκ6η々ソuhai 1（セηん堕1（砂o，6，1−7．＊

    （1966）：Chushin shuraku（Central settlements）． In Shimomura， H． and Yonekura， J．（eds．）

   Koza Shakaihaκyo伽C雇π 1π（Education（ゾSo磁1 StzUties∫Gθ09吻勿Ill） ，   Yanaharashoten，45−55．＊

Murakami， Y．（1964）：Japan s response to the Darwinism−Outlines in Meiji Era−．・4nn．融郷．

  Co吻α7． Studies q／Cult． r乙1勿ゴo．｛ゾTokyoノ，5，145−183．＊

Narita， K．（1961）：Economic base concept and functional region． The正伽駕． Geogア．（Zimbum−Chiri），

  13，377−400．＊

Neef， E．（1950）：Das Problem der zentralen Orte． Pet． Geogr． Mitt．，94，6−17．

Nishimura， M．（1959）：Toron（Discussion on the Symposium on Kreisf6rmig Structur ）， The   Hu〃z． Geogr．（刀〃z∂un−Chi7i？，11，169−171．＊

    （1965）：Relationship between centrality−index and distance， and the construction of  equilibrium circle． The Hum． Geogr．（万mbun−Chiアの，17，565−586．＊ホ

Preston， R．（1983）：The dynamic component of Christaller s central place theory and the theme of  change in his research． Can． Geogr．，27，4−16．

    （1985）：Christaller s neglected contribution to the study of the evolution of central places．

  Prog， Hu〃z． Gθρgγ．，9，177−193．

Rogers， E．M．（1981）：Inobeshon．Fukyugaku IVyumon K∂mpaenileeshongaleu， S加肋勅勿㎏盈〃，

  BunkOj°inraigaku， Kyoikugaleu kara 多zo （Gkekztsaitelei Bunleaodan tefei ／lpur（）chi （The J apanese

 translation of ℃o〃z〃zunicationρ〆Innovations．・．A Cross−Cultural／lpproach，2nd ed． （1971）

   with an additional chapter for the Japanese version）． Sangyo Noritsu Daigaku Shuppanbu，

   Tokyo，546p．＊

Saito， M．（1965）：Anote on Die zwischen Land und Stadt stehenden Siedlungen defined by   Schwarz． Geogr． Rev．ノ砂αη，38，765−774．＊

Suizu，1．（1954）：Hierarchy and heterogeneity in a region． Studies勿the Hu〃zanities（The／bumal   6ゾthe」Litera2：ソノlssociation（ゾOsaka Ci吃ソ 乙1フ2∫zノθzsゴ顔ノ，5，118−138。＊

     （1955）：Hierarchical ag910meration of the regions． Geogr． Rev．ノ4ψαη，28，274−285．＊＊

     （1956）：The smallest unit of the human region and its population scale． Studies勿the   Hu〃zanities（The／bumaal Oゾthe L露6ηηAssociationのヂOsaha Cゴ砂こimiversit）り，7，971−988．＊

    （1957）：Sonraku ricchiron（Location theory of rural settlement）． In Kitamura， T．（ed．）

   Sonraleu Shakai C痂万（GeographyげSettlement and SocietJゾ ， Taimeido， Tokyo，37−46．＊

    （1958）：Functionalism in a regional concept． Geogr． Rev．ノ砂αη，31，577−590．＊＊

    （1959）：Kenkozoron no sogokankei（Interrelationship of zonal structure）． The Hu〃z． Geogr．

  Ui〃z∂多〃2−chin？，11，165−169．＊

    （1964）：5乃α々認6雇㎏α々z4 no Kihon Mondai（The Funda〃zental Proble〃z8 q〆Social GeograPh）り，

  Taimeido， Tokyo，248p．＊

Takano， F．（1959／1960）：Toshiken kenkyu josetsu（Introduction to the study of the tributary area   of city）． C雇㎏π々z6 Hokoku（A ichi Gakugei Daigaleu Chinigakhαi），13，1−7；15＆16，18−25．＊

    （1963）：Astudy on the regional structure of city−region pattern：an example of Tokai   District， Central Japan． Geogr．1〜ev．ノ4ψαη，36，57−67．＊＊

Takeuchi， K and Masai， M．（1986）：Experiences cゾSiXteen Senior Geographers． Kokonshoin，

  Tokyo，378p．＊

Tanabe， H．（1964）：La grandeur des communes（Machi et mura administratifs）a 1 Epoque de Meiji   au Japon．7フ2e Hu〃z． Geogr．（万〃zbun−Chin ），16，382−407．＊＊＊＊

Tanioka， T．（1957）：Shurakuchirigaku Kenkyushi（History of the Study of Settlement   Geography）． In Fuj ioka， K．（ed．） ッinbunchirigaku 1（伽々物ぬo （Methodo l∂gy of Hu〃zan   Geograph）ゾ ， Asakurashoten， Tokyo，19−29．＊

Trewartha， G．（1943）：The unincorporated hamlet：one element of the American settlement fabric．

  ノ4nn．∠4ssoc．ノ1〃zer． GeogrL，33，32−81．

Tsujimura， T．（1955）：Keikanron （Landscape Study）． In Tsujimura， T．（ed．） ℃hirigaleu   HonshitSuron（The Natureρ〆GeographJゾ ， Asakurashoten， Tokyo，209−244．＊

Ullman， E・（1941）：Atheory of location for cities．ノlmer．ノbur． Soc．，46，853−864．

Watanabe， Y．（1954）：The service pattern in the Shinjo Basin， Yamagata Prefecture−a research   in a less populated basin in Japan−． Sci．1〜eptS． Toholeu Univ．7th．、Ser．，3，77−90．

    （1955）：The central hierarchy in Fukushima Prefecture：astudy of types of rural service   st「uctu「e・Sci・1〜ePts． Toholeu 乙Tniv．7th Ser．，4，25−46．

    （1959）：Astudy of a type of service pattern in a basin， the Yokote Basin−an example of   central pattern under topographic control−． Sci．1〜eptS． Tohoku こfniv．7th、Ser．，8，68−87．

    （1960）：The trade areas in the central part of Iwate Prefecture−a study on the hierarchy of   central places viewed from rural buying habits． Sci．地ρお． Tohoku乙Tniv．7th． Ser．，9，25−39．

    （1975）：Some notes on the research methodology in a field of Japanese geography−on the   empirical study of the formation of Japanese cities based on central place concept． Geogr．

  1〜el）孟s・ Tokソo ノレletroPolitan 乙1勿ゴzノ．，10，1−24．

Yabuuchi， Y．（1964）：On the theory of central place in preference to the methodology of economic  geography・Studies in the・Hu〃annities（The／burnal（ゾ〃ie Literairy Association of Osalea City   こfniversity♪，8，834−853．＊

Yajima， N．（1954）：Shuraku chiri kenkyu no seika to sono keiko（Progress and trend in settlement

 geography）． In Kiuchi， S．（ed．） Yinleo Shuraku Chirigaku （Geography （ゾ PoPulation and

 Settlemeηt） ， Asakurashoten， Tokyo，16−26．＊

    （1956）：Sθ彦tle〃zθ刎gθog吻勿． Kokonshoin， Tokyo，394p．＊

    （1957）：Sonraku（Rural settlement）． In Kiuchi， S， Fujioka， K， and Yajima， N．（eds．） Shuraku   Chirigaku 1（∂2a（Se ttle〃zent geogrmph）りvo l．1 二Asakurashoten， Tokyo，レ24．＊

Yamazumi， H．（1959）：Ken．kozo to chiikiruikei（Zonal structure and regional types）． The Hum．

  Geogr．（万〃zbun・Chin ？，11，155−158．＊

（＊in Japanese，＊＊in Japanese with English abstract，＊＊＊in Japanese with German abstract，＊＊＊＊

in Japanese with French abstract）