J. Kurashige
other major figures in the field of Japanese history including Harold Bolitho, Harry Harootu-
nian, and Jeffrey Mass. Hall also contributed to the field by describing the difficulties facing stu-
dents of medieval history when attempting to understand the concepts and terms used in the
scholarship. His “Terms and Concepts in Japanese Medieval History” still serves as an excellent
guide when translating Japanese sources into English. Although Hall’s original contributions to
Sengoku studies slowed during the 1980s, he crafted an article on the Muromachi shogunate in
the original Cambridge History of Japan series, which he co- edited.^24 The chapter foreshadowed
trends that came to dominate subsequent Japanese- language historiography, as he described the
need to view even the central government as an entity with multiple regional elements or char-
acteristics, and thus highlighted the importance of integrating both center and periphery.
By the mid- 1980s, the mantle of leading Sengoku- era historian had been assumed by Mary
Elizabeth Berry. Her first book, Hideyoshi, focused on the second of the three late sixteenth-
century unifiers, and the extent to which the legacy of this single man transformed the political
order of Sengoku Japan. Berry’s approach was, however, not a return to the “Great Man in
History” line favored by earlier generations of historians. Rather, she argued that Hideyoshi
forged a federalist order of daimyō, which she defines as “a union of semi- autonomous domains
under an overseer of common interest.” This focus on daimyō governance fit her work solidly
within the institutional historiography that dominated the 1980s.^25
Berry continued to define the field of Sengoku political history in the early 1990s, with her
second book, The Culture of Civil War in Kyoto, a masterwork that defies simple classification.
Working against a background of the Ōnin War (1467–1477) and the political struggles among
the shugo- daimyō factions, Berry deftly interwove descriptions of the ideologies and cultures
of the capital into the narrative. Her descriptions of guilds and common folk offer a window into
the economy and society of the Sengoku world as well.^26
Late twentieth- century understanding of the Sengoku era outside Japan was also enhanced by
translations of the contributions of Japanese researchers. The work of Nagahara Keiji, who men-
tored a new generation of historians in Japan, including Ike Susumu and Ikegami Hiroko, is par-
ticularly important. Published during the 1980s and 1990s, Nagahara’s scholarship is notable not
only for its brilliant conclusions but also for its strong internal logic and clarity of thought. While
his research dealt primarily with the institutions of daimyō government, including the declining
shōen system and the emerging chigyō system of direct land ownership, in which land rents and
taxes were collected in cash or rice depending upon the area, Nagahara also explored such diverse
topics as the origin of the eta and hinin outcastes, the idea of the kōgi or public authority, and the
lives of Sengoku peasants.^27
In the twenty- first century, an increasing number of junior historians vie for leadership of the
field of political and institutional history. The work of this new generation of scholars—“unifiers”
of premodern Japanese historiography if you will—explores political history from both the
center and periphery, and represents a shift toward an increasingly balanced narrative that is
more representative of the underlying historical realities.^28 David Spafford’s work, described
above, especially merits attention on this front, as he turns away from the traditionally unifier-
centric narrative and emphasizes the regional variation along the road toward political
centralization.
Paralleling the work of these historians focusing exclusively on Japan are the interregional
studies from Korea specialists, such as Kenneth Robinson, who examines topics like Korean-
Japanese trade and warfare, helping to create a more interdisciplinary and diverse field.^29 Whether
or not one subscribes to Amino Yoshihiko’s paradigm of a united premodern Asian cultural
sphere, the large number of archaeological trade goods found across Japan demonstrate that we
cannot ignore Japan’s ties to the continent.^30 Comparative studies of politics paralleling