P.D. Shapinsky
In contrast to an earlier tendency to focus on warriors as individuals, today, warriors are
understood in terms of groups: as war bands and corporate families with ties to territory.
Jeffrey Mass saw the Kamakura period as marking the beginning of medieval warrior society
through the proliferation of new warrior- family surnames derived from the local place name
of a homeland—contrasting with the Heian era, when warriors more commonly self- identified
using central noble names (such as Taira, Minamoto, or Fujiwara).^10
Historians have long accepted the idea that warriors took on military service as a family obli-
gation, which enabled some warrior kin groups to become centers of political, economic, and
cultural power. Recognition by others that one bore a surname became, in the medieval period,
a sign of samurai house identity, a symbol of status, obligations owed to the state, and honors
accruing to the family. “Family” in this context may be broadly interpreted as a unit of descent
consisting of a male–female bond, children, and connected bloodlines, focused on the transgen-
erational transfer of property. Scholars define such groups in an expansive context as “clans” or
“leagues” (ichimon), or more narrowly as “family” or “houses” (ie). Belief in a common ancestral
deity (ujigami) or oaths of common cause (ikki keiyaku) strengthened ties. Historians also tend to
agree that family allegiance did not necessarily determine political allegiance. For much of the
medieval period, members of extended kin groups would align themselves with competing fac-
tions in order to ensure survival of at least part of the group. Wet nurse–child bonds also had
considerable potential for challenging kin relations.^11
In the late thirteenth century, inheritance patterns began to shift from partible distributions
to devisal of assets to a single male heir (sōryō), who became responsible for all family obligations
and privileges. One effect of both partible inheritance practices early in the Kamakura period and
the unitary inheritance practices emerging by the late thirteenth century was considerable fric-
tion among siblings, who might either contest the main heir’s claims or leave to form branch
families (shoshi). Authorities and kin groups alike saw considerable value in the perpetuation of
corporate family groups, empowering adoption as a potent tool of succession.^12
Warrior lordship under the Kamakura shogunate
To emphasize the importance of its warrior retainers, and to ensure access to manpower and provi-
sions, Kamakura designated those warrior families who elected to follow the regime’s founder,
Minamoto Yoritomo, as gokenin (“honorable housemen”).^13 Gokenin hereditarily performed an
array of services for the shogunate and used their status to justify claims to territory. Other warriors
could hold most sorts of estate titles, but only gokenin could be appointed to one or both of two
positions controlled by the shogunate: shugo (“provincial constables” or “military governors”) and
jitō (“land stewards”), located on public lands and private estates. Appointees often designated rela-
tives or agents to actually reside in the provinces as deputies. While gokenin were once seen exclu-
sively as Kamakura vassals, more recent studies highlight the degree to which tax collecting and
guard duty brought warriors into cooperative relationships with other proprietors.^14
Kamakura appointed one shugo to each province across Japan. Shugo appointees were typically
warriors with homelands in eastern Japan. Their responsibilities included peacekeeping,
organizing and overseeing the housemen of the province, and carrying out law enforcement
functions, particularly in cases of violent crimes—like piracy or mountain banditry—that spilled
across territorial borders. Shugo often attempted to use their peacekeeping functions in order to
expand their influence, and sought to control strategic positions in provinces either directly or
through incorporation of jitō into their personal vassal bands. Among such strategic sites were
entrepôts linking domestic and foreign trade routes. The shogunate restrained shugo by enforcing
the immunity of estates from outside interference (funyūken), and other measures.^15