D. Taranczewski
36 On the shōen–tato–gunji complex, see Toda Yoshimi, Nihon ryōshusei, 116–165.
37 A comprehensive discussion of the fumyō system appears in Toda Yoshimi, Nihon ryōshusei, 242–277.
38 The role of the homestead (entaku, entakuchi, yashiki) as one of the decisive factors, or the core, for the
formation of medieval shoryō and local ryōshu as a new system of rule over land and people was examined
systematically by Toda Yoshimi, Nihon ryōshusei, 74–113. Later his theories were referred to as “taku no
ronri [the logic of the house]” in the academic discourse, e.g., by Ishii Susumu, Chūsei bushidan, 113–149,
or in Detlev Taranczewski, Lokale Grundherrschaft und Ackerbau in der Kamakura- Zeit – dargestellt anhand
des Nitta no shō in der Provinz Kōzuke Study of Nitta no Shō in Kōzuke Province, especially pp. 172–206, a case
study on Nitta no shō. The question of whether this discourse was influenced by discussions among
European medievalists would be worthy of research.
39 On the concept and socioeconomic structure of zaichi ryōshu (“local lord”) and the related concept of
shōen ryōshu (“lord of a shōen”), Toda’s scholarship is still an indispensable reading (see Nihon ryōshusei,
especially pp. 192–240). Detlev Taranczewski, “Some Aspects of Local Rule in Medieval Japan” may
also be useful. On immigrants of middle and lower court nobility origin in general, see Aoki Kazuo,
Kodai gōzoku. The history of the Kantō offers many examples of biographies of this kind. Case studies
on the northern Kantō include Minegishi Sumio, “Tōgoku bushi no kiban, Kōzuke no kuni Nitta no
shō”; Friday, The First Samurai; and Taranczewski, Lokale Grundherrschaft.
40 Social conflicts can be observed in various dimensions and social layers, from with contradictions of dif-
ferent social roles played by one person to clashes between large numbers of people. We can look on the
history of social conflicts from two perspectives: On the one hand, as special approach to historical
research, and on the other hand, as part of a current of historical political discourse. As a rule, the latter
serves as an igniting spark to the former, but it takes some time until such discourse finds expression in
historical research. The basic assumption of such an approach is that a feasible method to explain the
developmental dynamism of societies lies in analyzing its conflicts. Classic authors representing this
approach in the early twentieth century include the sociologists Georg Simmel and Max Weber. After
World War II, research on social conflict—in recent as well as in historical societies—flourished not only
in Japan, but also in the USA and in Europe—the 1960s and the 1970s were a Golden Age for that topic.
Authorities in this field include the political sociologists Lewis A. Coser and Ralf Dahrendorf, who
played important roles in the transnational intellectual discourse on social conflict. Their work is still a
useful introductory reading for the theoretical and methodological framework, even for students of Jap-
anese history. All these authors have been translated into Japanese and had a long- lasting effect on research
and on scientific terminology in Japan. It would be a valuable research project in its own right to analyze
the circumstances under which discourses of social conflict unfolded, and to examine the interactions of
social change, discourses, and historical research. Two other forerunners of historical research on the
topic, Karl Marx and the congenial Friedrich Engels, traditionally played an exceptional role in the study
of historical social conflict in Japan. Subjects like “the history of class struggles” (kaikyū tōsō shi) or “peo-
ple’s history” (minshūshi) represented important fields of research. “People’s history” forms a particularly
important field of historiography. The eleven volumes of Kadowaki Teiji et al., Nihon minshū no rekishi
are a vivid introduction to research in this field from ancient times to the present. Especially relevant to
our discussion are the first two volumes (Kadowaki Teiji and Amakasu Ken, Minshū shi no kigen; and
Inagaki Yasuhiko and Toda Yoshimi, Doikki to nairan). Sakamoto Shōzō, Nihon ōchō kokka, 197–222;
Sekkan jidai, 290–320; and Abe Takeshi, Sekkan seiji, 153–219 offer introductions with stress on the polit-
ical and financial aspects of the provinces. An overview of water conflicts with some theoretical reflec-
tions on social conflict appears in Detlev Taranczewski, “Streit um Wasser: Konflikt und Kooperation in
der japanischen Reisbauerngesellschaft operation in Japanese Rice- Cultivating Society.”
41 For a comprehensive study on Masakado in English language with a critical review of the related histori-
ography see Friday, The First Samurai. For Shōmonki, the literary account of Masakado’s rebellion, we
have Judith N. Rabinovitch, Shomonki: The Story of Masakado’s Rebellion. For a general account of the
topic in Japanese, see Fukuda Toyohiko, Taira no Masakado no ran. For a broader framework of social
conflicts or movements including the rebellion of Fujiwara Sumitomo around the Inland Sea at the same
time, Hayashi Rokurō, Kodai makki no hanran: sōzoku to kaizoku is a useful introduction.
42 For the Owari conflict see Abe Takeshi, Owari no kuni gebumi no kenkyū; Abe Takeshi, Sekkan seiji,
153–219; Abe Takeshi, Owari no kuni gebumi chūkai; and Verschuer, Charlotte von, “Life of Commoners
in the Provinces: The Owari no gebumi of 988” and “Water Management in Japan in the 8th
Century.”
43 In the background of these decrees, we can suppose fierce conflicts among the central elites, and between
them and the formal ritsuryō bureaucracy for access to economic resources. One of the fundamental