The sixteenth centurybefore, and whether the former was epitomized by the figure of the shugo or the daimyō.^18 He
concludes that the field largely concurs on the existence of a system of single rulership at all levels
of the polity (isshiki shihai- ron), rather than overlapping layers of control of the sort that
predominated within the classical and early medieval shōen system.
The second part of Yominaosu turns to social history—or more accurately, to local- level
institutional history. Nishijima Tarō begins the section by illuminating the history of local
lordship and the rise of the independent kokujin lords that formed the retainer corps of the sengoku
daimyō.^19 He contends that this local stratum of power holds the key to understanding the means
by which daimyō expanded their authority.
The last two chapters in the section cover more readily recognizable topics of social history.
Shimizu Katsuyuki argues that social history only began to attract significant academic attention
in Japan during the 1980s and 1990s, and remains an underdeveloped approach to Sengoku
studies.^20 Here Shimizu makes a welcome nod to comparative history and methodology,
categorizing a number of European sociological methodologies or schools organized by country,
and listing which Japanese scholars have followed each school. Shimizu also characterizes social
history as the great bridge in Sengoku studies, by which scholars have been able to pursue
collaborative research with historians dealing with other eras, such as the Edo period, and move
beyond the questions of the ties between rulers and ruled that characterized the legal history of
the 1980s, to take up topics as diverse as the availability of information, famines, demographics,
human trafficking, and village history. Social history, according to Shimizu, thus represents the
freest or most flexible of the fields of study in Sengoku history, offering the possibility of
international or interdisciplinary investigation, and also the greatest breadth in terms of temporal
scope of eras evaluated. Despite the effort Shimizu dedicates to tracking the sub- field (and his
own obvious interest in it) he describes with regret how the “word” shakai- shi (social history) is a
“term” that he no longer hears uttered, suggesting that despite its value and underdeveloped
nature, interest by field historians has moved on.^21
And finally, Mieda Akiko offers an analysis of status systems, and of groups at the bottom of
the social hierarchy.^22 In parallel to Shimizu’s views, Mieda believes that the heyday of this vein
of social history was the 1970s and 1980s, and that it lost vitality from the 1990s onward. Part of
the reason for this, she argues, is a lack of agreement on even what should be discussed, as
definitions for social classes vary significantly. Mieda suggests that due to these problems, there
remains fundamentally little explanation of the differences between groups in lower status
persons from the Kamakura period through to the Sengoku era.
Despite a comparatively cold reception among some segments of the academic community
(owing in part, perhaps, to the conspicuous absence of senior historians contributing to the
project), Muromachi Sengoku-ki kenkyū o yominaosu symbolizes the continued interest in the field,
and provides a valuable portal into recent Japanese scholarship.^23 As Ikegami Hiroko described in
2013, not only do professional historians still flock to the field, but a new boom has begun as
rekijo (young women, often in their teens, who are interested in the image—rather than the
reality—of Sengoku figures) also scoop up many of the publications in Japan’s bookstores.
Ikegami and other scholars compare Prime Minister Abe Shinzō’s use of power to that of Nobu-
naga, noting that even the realm of modern politics cannot escape the reach of Sengoku studies.
Landmark studies on the sixteenth century
Few historians of premodern Japan can come close to matching the impact on the field as a whole
made by John W. Hall. I have already discussed his role in reevaluating the use of the feudal para-
digm, but in addition to being an extremely productive researcher, Hall mentored a number of