The Kamakura Period (1185–1333): Emergence of Military Government: The Bakufu

Abstract

It was not until 1183 that Yoritomo received the official imperial seal of approval to defend it and Japan from the rule of Kiyomori and the Taira Clan. Then it was not until 1184 that the imperial court gave Yoritomo approval to set up a military government or Bakufu in Kyoto. And it was not until 1185, when the Taira had finally been defeated at the Battle of Dannoura, that Yoritomo was able to establish the Bakufu in Kamakura and in the process giving rise to the birth of the Kamakura period. At the heart of the Kamakura was the legacy it left for the future of Japan.

Introduction

The Heian period (794 AD to 1185 AD) was the period in Japanese history prior to the Kamakura period.¹ The Heian period began with the founding of the imperial capital of Kyoto in 794 AD, from which date Japan was under the control of the aristocracy, notably the Fujiwara family.² However, there developed a governance system in which the private institutions controlled by the aristocracy competed with the central government for control of both land and of its people.³ This dual system of governance worked well for the first few centuries, but was severely tested in the twelfth century. In this case, the Office of the Retired Emperor (ORE) worked with the Taira Clan to govern Japan. The Taira Clan were responsible for protecting the land owned by the ORE.⁴ However, in 1156 AD a dispute arose regarding the imperial succession, and while the succession was championed by the Taira Clan, it was opposed by the Minamoto Clan. Thus, it was in 1156 AD that the first battle, the Hogen no ran, occurred between the Taira Clan and the Minamoto Clan. This was followed by another battle in 1160 AD, the Heiji no ran. Both the Hogen no ran and the Heiji no ran were won by the Taira Clan, with the Minamoto Clan defeated. These victories increased the status of the Taira Clan as well as that of their leader Taira Kiyomori who was propelled into the highest echelons of power. Kiyomori would eventually become Prime Minister or Dajodaijin, in this capacity sharing power with the ORE.⁵ Kiyomori also facilitated the marriage of his daughter to the Crown Prince, ensuring that his young grandson would become Emperor.⁶ As Prime Minister, Kiyomori implemented the same policies which had been a success under the Fujiwara.⁷ However, the sharing of power with the ORE ended in 1179 AD when Kiyomori and the Taira Clan became the holders of state power in Japan.⁸ This involved the arrest of the Emperor which resulted in an imperial Prince calling clans opposed to the Taira Clan to rise up and to restore the throne. But in 1179 AD, Minamoto Yoritomo was living in the plain of Kanto, having married Hojo Masako.⁹ Yoritomo know of his noble-military heritage and his descent from a ninth century Emperor.¹⁰ It was not until 1183 AD that Yoritomo received the official imperial seal of approval to defend it and Japan from the rule of Kiyomori and the Taira Clan.¹¹ Then it was not until 1184 AD that the imperial court gave Yoritomo approval to set up a military government or Bakufu in Kyoto. And it was not until 1185 AD, when the Taira had finally been defeated at the Battle of Dannoura, that Yoritomo was able to establish the Bakufu in Kamakura and in the process giving rise to the birth of the Kamakura Period. At the heart of the Kamakura was the legacy it left for the future of Japan. Following the civil war, the Gempei War between the Taira Clan and the Minamoto Clan, Japan was left with a military government which became known as the Shogunate. The imperial court and the Emperor in Kyoto had been reduced to a religious role in Japanese society. In this case, the Kamakura Period left two strands for the future development of Japan.¹² The first strand draws on Japan’s traditional conservative values bound into imperial tradition. The second strand is the reformist agenda of the Shogunate which directly impacts on the first strand. However, Yoritomo as Shogun and the leader of the Bakufu was also able to draw upon the legacy of the Heian Period in which the dual system of governance between the nobility and the central government had arisen.¹³ Yoritomo made use of the Heian Period dual system of governance, by side lining the aristocracy and the Emperor to religious duties in Kyoto while running the country from his powerbase in Kamakura as Shogun. This title, Yoritomo, was bestowed by the imperial court in 1192 AD recognising his authority as head of the Bakufu or military government of Japan. However, while the Bakufu nominally had more power than the imperial court, both systems of power charted their own course until there was a conflict between the two in 1221 AD when the Bakufu finally won its ascendancy over the Emperor and the imperial court.

The aftermath of the Gempei War of 1180 AD to 1185 AD left several problems for the founding father, Minamoto Yoritomo, of the Kamakura Bakufu to solve.¹⁴ The first problem was to bring peace and stability to the country. The second problem was to strike a balance between the needs of the aristocracy in the imperial capital of Kyoto and the needs of the rising class of warriors in Japan’s provinces.¹⁵ The third problem was how to enrich but control the warriors who had helped to facilitate the victory for Yoritomo while achieving a balance with the aristocracy and the imperial court in Kyoto. To achieve a solution to these problems at the same time, Yoritomo devised two key innovative solutions.¹⁶ Firstly, the administrative structure of the country was split in such a way that the imperial court in Kyoto and the Bakufu would have responsibility for managing different areas of interest to the Japanese economy. In this case, the Bakufu would be responsible for its own citizens, whereas the imperial court in Kyoto would be responsible for matters associated with land rights.¹⁷ Furthermore, Bakufu warrior or officer types were either the Shugo or the Jito. The main business of the Bakufu was to resolve legal disputes which revolved around the Jito.¹⁸ In order to achieve a resolution of legal disputes, the Bakufu developed a robust legal system which was to become the second key innovation of the Kamakura period.¹⁹ Legal problems arose with the Jito because while they were administrators for the Bakufu and enjoyed certain privileges income, a home and authority, they were immune from the disciplinary authority of those who administered the land, the Shoen.²⁰ However, the Bakufu would have encouraged lawlessness in the country from its own officials and warriors had it not accepted and adjudicated legal complaints brought against them by offended parties.²¹ Therefore, the application of the principle of impartiality and the utilisation of a robust judicial system represented the cornerstone of governance for the Kamakura Bakufu.²² However, the state of this governance was impacted in 1221 AD with the Jokyu War. This was especially in the context of the dual administrative structure of Kyoto and the Bakufu as well as the judiciary system.²³ Moreover, the Jokyu War also resulted in the unequal distribution of warriors between the west and the east of Japan, and the landowning elite gaining an upper hand over the aristocracy and the imperial court in Kyoto.²⁴ The death of Minamoto Yoritomo led to a decline in the fortunes of the Minamoto clan.²⁵ The third Minamoto Shogun was assassinated and replaced as Regent by a member of the Hojo clan.²⁶ The latter realised that the title of Shogun ‘belonged’ to the Minamoto clan and did not use it but in its place used the title of Regent. In this case, the Shogun was now in between the imperial court and the Regent from the Hojo clan and as a result was a puppet to the Hojo clan who maintained their grip on the Regency until the end of the Kamakura period in 1333 AD.²⁷ The military government of Japan was then under the direct control of the Hojo Regency from 1203 AD to 1333 AD, the period encompassing the years 1274 AD and 1281 AD in which the Mongols of the Yuan dynasty of China tried to invade and conquer Japan.²⁸

The Gempei War and the Beginnings of the Shogunate

The transition from the late Heian period (794 AD to 1185 AD) to the Kamakura period saw an increase in the denigration and diffusion of centralised political authority away from the imperial court and the military government to the warrior class.²⁹ In contrast to the governance processes unleashed in the Kamakura period, from earlier times in Japan’s history since the time of the Yamato confederation, the opposite has been true. In other words, the power associated with governance in Japan had always been more centralised.³⁰ Moreover, the same is also true of China, where there was a shift away from a diffused power governance model to a centralised governance model as the country transitioned from Chou polity to Ch’in and Han dynasties.³¹ In ancient China the shift from Shang rule to that of the Chou occurred at about 1000 BC.³² At this time, religion and government were so intertwined that they were indistinguishable.³³ After 200 years of the Chou conquest, a feudal polity emerged in which religious and political authority became feudalised.³⁴ In Chou China, the political authority of the ruler lay on a religious foundation; and it was this which enabled feudalism to be strong.³⁵ The relationship between the Chou ruler and his kinsmen, the feudal lords, was also of a religious nature based on the worship of the ancestor.³⁶ Ch’in rule following that of the Chou lasted only until 207 BC.³⁷ Following Ch’in rule, the Han dynasty became the first to implement a universal legal system which was to have a long-term impact on Chinese civilisation.³⁸ It was during the Han dynasty that written contracts not only had moral but also legal significance.³⁹ The Han policies and regulations continued to be impacted by Ch’in regulations.⁴⁰ The last 200 years of Han rule witnessed the continuing development of institutions of the law as well as the increase in the influence of noble families.⁴¹ A similar situation would arise in Heian period Japan, when the rise of the nobility and the Taira Clan would throw Japan into a civil war, from which a powerful military government would emerge.

The Gempei War, Japan’s civil war, began in 1180 AD due to the increasing autocratic rule of the Taira Clan leader, Kiyomori, and because the leader of the opposing warrior-based clan, Minamoto Yoritomo, believed that a prince who could have become Emperor was left out of the succession.⁴²

The Heike Monogatari is a twelfth century Japanese poem which tells the story of the battle of the Gempei War between the aristocratic Taira Clan and the warrior like Minamoto clan.⁴³ It was originally written at around the time of the Jokyu War of 1221 AD.⁴⁴ However, over the course of time, several variants of the text emerged.⁴⁵ The first and oldest of these variants was written in the Kambun style and was very similar to Chinese script, being written between 1218 AD and 1221 AD.⁴⁶ The second variant, the Yashiro Heike Monogatari, written between 1242 AD and 1300 AD was written in Japanese, but with Chinese characters from the katakana phonetic script.⁴⁷ The third variant is known as the Kamakura Heike text, written in Japanese using the Katakana script between 1300 AD and 1340 AD.⁴⁸ The Kamakura Heike text is an expanded and more detailed account of the Heike written just before 1221 AD.⁴⁹ However, the best variant of the Heike Monogatari is the last one, the Kakuichi text of 1371 AD because it integrates aspects of the second Yashiro version and the third Kamakura version of the Heike text.⁵⁰ By comparing passages of script between the different versions, it is possible to develop a very good appreciation of the development of warrior ethics over time.⁵¹ Moreover, in some way it provides a guide for the development of Japanese society in subsequent years.⁵² The narrative of the Heike Monogatari of the battles which took place during the Gempei War and the descriptions of the conduct and behaviour of the warriors would serve as a benchmark for them until the twentieth century.⁵³ However, whether the depiction of the battles in the Heike Monogatari is a true and accurate reflection of the actual battles is unknown.⁵⁴ Nevertheless, the commonly found values of the period such as loyalty to one’s lord, sacrificing one’s life for that of the lord and dying rather than surrendering in the face of a superior foe are all reflected in the narrative of the Heike Monogatari.⁵⁵

The Gempei War from 1180 AD to 1185 AD changed the nature of the role of the bushi or samurai in Japan.⁵⁶ Moreover, the result of the war impacted on the nature of the political economy of Japan for the consecutive centuries.⁵⁷ This is because warriors or samurai from a common class had risen above the ruling aristocracy to establish a feudalistic society based on a manorial system.⁵⁸ This overturned an aristocratic, centrally administered society which had begun following the Taika Reforms of 645 AD.⁵⁹ The feudalistic society which emerged as a result of the establishment of the Kamakura Bakufu in 1185 AD lasted until the Meiji restoration of 1868 AD. During the intervening time period, while the fundamentals of feudalism remained unchanged, it developed and matured before going into terminal decline in the time leading up to and beyond the beginning of the Meiji Period in 1868 AD.⁶⁰ However, the development of the Japanese Navy born from the competition between Russia and Great Britain for control of the Pacific brought feudalism to an end.⁶¹ This was because a strong and modern navy could not be developed without strong central control by government as opposed to the decentralisation of feudalism.⁶² The continuance of feudalism would not allow for the establishment of a strong and modern Japanese navy for a number of reasons. Firstly, decentralised control would mean that local lords would continue to hold the loyalty of men. Secondly, a feudal existence would tie these men to a lift as tenant farmers and thus depriving the navy of the manpower it would need. Therefore, there was an urgent need to abolish feudalism not only to build a strong and modern navy but also to build a strong centralised nation state which did not have any divided loyalties.⁶³ Thus, the feudalistic society with its roots in the emergence of the Kamakura Bakufu several centuries before the Meiji Restoration was brought to an end by it.

The Minamoto clan had emerged as the dominant clan in Japan as a result of the war, hailing from its eastern provinces or Kanto region.⁶⁴ The eastern part of the Japanese archipelago had always been home to people possibly tougher than they were in the rest of Japan. This may be why it was disengaged from the rest of Japan and why in the latter part of the twelfth century the Kamakura Bakufu came to be established there allowing for the divorce of power and authority from its symbolism in Kyoto.⁶⁵ But the rise of the Minamoto Clan had been due to its military success in the Early Nine Years War and the Late Three Years War.⁶⁶ The military fame the Minamoto Clan gained from their victories won respect from local warlords in the Eastern provinces, who duly gave their land to the Clan which in the process became its retainers.⁶⁷ But the Eastern provinces were far from the centre of political power in the imperial capital of Kyoto. However, at the same time, the Taira clan had become more closely aligned with the kuge or the court nobility.⁶⁸ The leader of the Taira clan, Taira Kiyomori, was not only the grandfather of the Emperor Antoku, but he also held high ministerial office.⁶⁹ In fact when Taira Kiyomori was appointed Prime Minister to the imperial court, relatives and retainers were also given government posts, with the Taira Clan going on to possess estates across half of Japan in Kanto and in the Western provinces.⁷⁰ Kanto and the Western provinces were also closer to the centre of political power in Kyoto, giving the Taira Clan an advantage over the Minamoto Clan. In this case, the Taira Clan could call on their military forces more quickly than the Minamoto Clan to impose their will on Kyoto and thus Japan. However, the House of Taira, the Heike, was defeated at the Battle of Dannoura by the House of Minamoto in March or April 1185 AD.⁷¹ The warriors of the Minamoto Clan were simply stronger than those of the Taira Clan. It was at the Battle of Dannoura that the nine-year-old Emperor Antoku was killed, reportedly because his grand-mother, sensing defeat for the Heike, drowned herself and her grandson.⁷² Moreover, samurai loyal to the Emperor who did not take their own lives were thrown into the sea by the Genji.⁷³ On the other hand, one theory suggests that the Heike forces which survived the Battle of Dannoura fled in many different directions because Heike settlements were later to be found in different parts of Japan.⁷⁴ However, it may also be the case that the remnants of the Taira Clan fled to settle on the Amami Gunto islands, the islands facing Japan from Okinawa.⁷⁵ Nevertheless, the Amami Islands have only been part of Japan since the seventeenth century, and before this, the islands were a part of the Ryukyu Kingdom, which had its own king and paid tribute to China.⁷⁶ Before the Battle of Dannoura, the Heike forces, samurai, wives, children and their servants had fled, taking all of their valuables, from the imperial capital of Kyoto to Dannoura via Yashima.⁷⁷ The Heike ships at Dannoura were not only seaworthy but also had a large capacity for carrying passengers and cargo.⁷⁸ The Heike ships were needed for trade with China, and Taira Kiyomori, the leader of the Heike, had intended to develop trade links with China by moving the capital from Kyoto to Hyogo.⁷⁹ However, this was not to be. But it was one of the reasons which drove more warriors to fight for the Minamoto Clan than the Tiara Clan.⁸⁰ This is because trade with China had given Japan a trade surplus and the inflow of coins from China to Japan was high. As a result, prices were being driven up in Japan making the cost of living for warriors also very high. It was because of this that the warriors opposed increased trade with China and the relocation of the capital from Kyoto to Hyogo. Another reason why more warriors joined the Minamoto Clan than the Tiara Clan was that the latter offered warriors firmer tenures which followed them, in comparison to the less favourable court preferment offered by the Tiara Clan.⁸¹ Therefore, the success of the Minamoto Clan against the Tiara Clan in the war of 1181 AD to 1185 AD was due to increased warrior support for the reasons outlined than for any other factor. The civil war of 1181 AD to 1185 AD between the Minamoto Clan and the Taira Clan followed defeats for the former by the latter in 1156 AD and 1160 AD.⁸² The Battle of Dannoura was important in the context that it ended the age of the courtiers and established the age of the military under the Shogun lasting in some form until the Meiji restoration of 1868 AD.⁸³

The most prominent samurai or bushi families were descended from the kuge and in some cases from royal princes.⁸⁴ In the traditional Japan of the time, the younger sons of the aristocracy did not stand to gain wealth through family inheritances as this was solely a vehicle for enriching the eldest son. Therefore, the only way in which the younger sons of the aristocracy could better themselves economically was in the provinces, far from the court, where they could live as part of the landed gentry while at the same time maintaining a local militia for the protection of themselves and their property.⁸⁵ The local militia were needed to contain attacks by rebellious local chieftains, pirates and the indigenous Ainu.⁸⁶ As such overtime, the landed gentry became the samurai or the bushi. When the bushi were required to perform guard duty in the imperial capital, they were looked down upon by the kuge as rural rustics. This pattern of behaviour remained true until the Gempei War by which, through their victory over the kuge under the leadership of Minamoto Yoritomo, the bushi or the samurai gained political power and cultural influence.⁸⁷ The Gempei War was essentially a conflict which started in 1180 between the Taira Clan and a coalition of samurai families from the Kanto region, eastern Japan, under the leadership of Minamoto Yoritomo.⁸⁸ Life at the imperial court did not change as much as a result of the defeat of the kuge in the Gempei War. Nevertheless, the big change was that the balance of political power had shifted away from the kuge to the samurai. Yoritomo established his warrior government or Bakufu at his stronghold of Kamakura on Japan’s east coast.⁸⁹ One of the policy features of the first Bakufu government was that it tried to ensure that the simple life of the provincial bushi or samurai, which had made the outcome of the Gempei War in their favour, was maintained.⁹⁰ In this case, the Bakufu under Yoritomo established a set of laws, which later became codified into a legal code, which placed constraints on the daily life of the bushi.⁹¹ To a large extent the codification of laws to control the bushi formed the cornerstone of the stability and the peace of the Tokugawa period.⁹² Moreover, the laws which regulated the behaviour of the samurai and which later became codified also fully reflected the teachings of Confucius and Mencius over time.⁹³ As a result, a system of ethics known as the Bushido developed between the sixteenth and the twentieth centuries. The Bushido system of ethics simply reflects the ways in which a noble warrior should behave, exhibiting filial piety and loyalty.⁹⁴ Parts of the Bushido system of ethics were codified into feudal law during the Tokugawa period.⁹⁵ Over time the daily lives of the samurai and the kuge had become separated.⁹⁶ And the downfall of the Taira clan may have been because of their attempts to bring the samurai and the kuge closer together.⁹⁷ However, the Bakufu would be brought to an end eventually in 1868 AD by a coalition of forces which included low-ranking samurai, the kuge and the prominent western clans with the financial support of the rich merchants of Osaka and Kyoto.⁹⁸

Jokyu War and Kamakura Institutions

In 1221 AD, the imperial forces of the retired Emperor Gotoba attempted to take back power from the Kamakura Bakufu in what became known as the Shokyu no ran conflict.⁹⁹ However, the Bakufu were able to react quickly in order to defeat the imperial forces.¹⁰⁰ Once defeated a proportion of the defeated imperial forces moved to Kyushu, to where the Bakufu deported its undesirables.¹⁰¹ This reflects that lack of a mandate for the Bakufu’s political grip on Kyushu which was not as strong as it was in other parts of Japan.¹⁰² It was from the shores of northern Kyushu that Japanese raids were launched against southern Korean ports in 1223 AD. The trigger for this was a shortage of food which had resulted from a drought in the summer of 1222 AD.¹⁰³ However, no such raids had occurred during the Heian period. The reason is that following the suspension of missions to Tang China in 894 AD, the Japanese had lost knowledge about seafaring and were unable to navigate the seas.¹⁰⁴ Nevertheless, by the twelfth century AD, the Japanese were acquiring knowledge on ship building techniques and sea navigation from the Chinese Song merchants who had travelled from China to Japan to trade.¹⁰⁵ It was from the year 973 AD that Song merchants had begun to make voyages to Japan.¹⁰⁶ At this time, Japanese shipping technology was primitive, such that the Japanese temples which sent missions to the Chinese imperial court had to rely on Chinese and Korean merchant ships for transport.¹⁰⁷ The Koreans also helped the Japanese to develop sea going vessels which could not only carry more cargo but which could also be steered more easily.¹⁰⁸Furthermore, during the Heian period, many Korean emigrants who had left the Korean peninsula were highly educated and were thus able to facilitate technology transfer between Korea and the Japanese mainland.¹⁰⁹

The international sea trade of China had expanded rapidly from the Tang to the Song periods. ¹¹⁰ Through this process of the expansion of sea trade, the port of Quanzhou in Fujian province became a centre in which goods from other parts of the world could be found. The incentive for the people of Fujian to turn to the sea to make their living was because the province is mountainous and thus the land is not suitable for intensive agriculture.¹¹¹ As a result, the people of Fujian province became very proficient at ship building, especially during the Song period.¹¹² The Ryukyu Islands, near Japan, were also deficient in natural resources such that the people living there also had to resort to international trade to sustain their economy.¹¹³ However, it was not until 1372 AD that the newly established Ming Dynasty had formal diplomatic relations with one of the kingdoms of Okinawa which is one of the islands forming the Ryukyu oceanic archipelago. The starting point for these chains of islands is located below Kyushu, which is a south facing island of the Japanese mainland.¹¹⁴ The Ming court provided the Ryukyu islanders with cash, goods, ships and ship repair facilities in exchange for the foreign merchandise which they would bring back to the Ming court in return.¹¹⁵

The renaissance in Japanese seafaring in the twelfth century occurred at an opportune time when the warriors of southern Korea were fighting the Mongols from conquering their lands especially between the period 1218 AD and 1260 AD.¹¹⁶ The use of fighting men to fight the Mongols in Korea meant that there would be less resistance from there to Japanese raiders.¹¹⁷ In the transition from the Heian Period to the Kamakura Period, the Japanese people had been through devastating civil wars through which they had lost the moral and social values of the former period, becoming more aggressive and footloose in the context of the latter period.¹¹⁸ In this case, ordinary peasants and fishermen joined roaming leaderless warriors in pursuing lawless activities, in the face of a Bakufu which was unable to restrain them in Kyushu at least. Further economic difficulties towards the end of the Kamakura period, under the regency of Hojo Yasutoki and his successors, led to the coastal residents of Japan turning to marauding southern Korean ports. These economic difficulties were caused by the growing indebtedness of Kamakura military retainers in the Kanto plain, unfavourable climatic conditions causing famine as well as disease and epidemics.¹¹⁹ At the same time, the Daimyos of the Bakufu were imposing heavy taxes on the peasants and expecting payment in coins.¹²⁰ This would have imposed sufficient economic pressure on the peasants for them to take up marauding. The policies of the Bakufu were in the hands of Hojo Regent who maintained power and authority, which would have been in the hands of the Shogun, by appointing Hojo family members to the key governmental posts.¹²¹ The Shogun had become a puppet in the hands of the Hojo Regent and, after 1219 AD, even ceased to be a member of the Minamoto family.¹²² Having crushed the imperial prerogative to regain power in 1221 AD, the Hojo Regent through the Bakufu established its own authority by implementing the Joei Code in 1232 AD.¹²³ This structure of governance defined the duties of the stewards and the military governors who had been appointed to administrate the confiscated lands of the imperial court following the war of 1221 AD.¹²⁴ The Joei Code was in itself the codification of the laws relating to the behaviour of the warrior.¹²⁵ However, while the focus of the Joei Code was impartial dispute resolution, mainly land disputes, it was based only on a few regulations.¹²⁶ When these regulations were not sufficient to resolve a dispute, the fall back solution was to use common sense.¹²⁷ The first written laws in Japan had been the Taika Reform of 646 AD and the Taiho Code of 702 AD.¹²⁸ By the tenth century AD, these laws had homogenised into a set of unwritten Japanese law.¹²⁹ However, while the laws of the Taika Reform of 646 AD and the Taiho Code of 702 AD were Chinese laws in origin but adapted to Japanese needs, the Joei Code of 1232 AD embodied the spirit of Japanese feudalism.¹³⁰ Moreover, the laws of the Shogunate which followed the Kamakura period in the Muromachi period and the later Tokugawa period reflected the Joei Code of 1232 AD.¹³¹ Moreover, land disputes were just as prevalent in the Muromachi period and the Tokugawa period as it was in the Kamakura period.¹³² The Joei Code proved to be distinctly Japanese because it formed the institutional basis of the Bakufu military government.¹³³ In this way, the Joei Code was distinct from the T’ang Chinese influences on Japanese legal code of the Nara and Heian periods.¹³⁴

In twelfth and thirteenth century Japan, economic life was organised through institutions such as the shoen system of land holding.¹³⁵ In fact the most common form of property ownership in Japan was known as the shoen and can literally mean ‘estate’.¹³⁶ The Ritsuryo system was used to create the shoen through legal means.¹³⁷ Nengu (rent) was received by shoen landowners from the shoen as a form of profit.¹³⁸ However, the collection of nengu did not correlate with any obligation of the shoen landowner to either protect the residents or manage the holdings.¹³⁹ Furthermore, with regard to nengu collection, the shoen landowner had no right of enforcement.¹⁴⁰ In this case, the collection of the nengu relied upon the enforcement powers of the Ritsuryo government.¹⁴¹ The Ritsuryo economy depended on the Ritsuryo legal system which was drawn from the Legalist and Confucian traditions of Tang China.¹⁴² Moreover, the Ritsuryo economy extended from the start of the tenth century to the middle of the seventh century, the period encompassing the Taika reform.¹⁴³ The latter involved more centralised and bureaucratic control of the nascent Japanese state through rule of the Emperor which was very similar to the nature of governance in China.¹⁴⁴ So, at the time there was the imitation of Chinese political institutions by the Japanese.¹⁴⁵

The shoen hierarchy of land tenure in the late Heian period (794 AD to 1185 AD) consisted of, from bottom to top, the shomin (cultivators), the ryoshu, shoke or shokan (managers) and then the ryoke and the honke.¹⁴⁶ However, the structure of the traditional shoen system of land tenure was changed following the Jokyu War in 1221 AD by Minamoto Yoritomo, the founder of the Kamakura Bakufu.¹⁴⁷ Yoritomo added an additional layer to the shoen hierarchy by creating the roles of military governor (Shugo) and the military estate steward (Jito).¹⁴⁸ The Jito and Shugo were the key elements of the Kamakura Bakufu’s links with the Japanese country side as well as forming the backbone of Kamakura civil administration.¹⁴⁹ Before establishing the Shugo and the Jito as the key elements of his administrative structure, Yoritomo had established the Samurai Dokoro in 1180 AD to perform a similar function, though it was geographically limited due to the extent of the Kamakura regime at that time. The Jito were sent in large numbers to ‘colonise’ western and central Japan, the locations of the uprising, from Kanto and Kamakura.¹⁵⁰ However, even after the revolt, the Bakufu respected the imperial court’s traditional authority over shoen who were not warriors as well as over land tax.¹⁵¹ Nevertheless, even before the revolt, the Bakufu also respected Heian institutions such as the prestige of the imperial court and its control over tax lands and the non-warrior shoen.¹⁵² But following the revolt, the Bakufu made changes to the Heian system to increase its control and to maintain the stability of Japan. The new shoen hierarchical layer and roles were created in order to manage the land confiscated from the nobles and warriors who had rebelled against the Kamakura Bakufu in the Jokyu War of 1221 AD.¹⁵³ This represented a shift towards a feudalistic structure in which those who worked the land did so for the benefit of the warrior-nobility. Furthermore, the appointment of the Shugo and the Jito to manage privately owned land was intended by the Kamakura Bakufu to be additional support to the political authority and land rights of the private landlords and not as a mechanism to replace them.¹⁵⁴ However, in reality the Jito were doing more than they were remitted to do by the Kamakura Bakufu in terms of just maintaining the flow of income and services to the private land owner.¹⁵⁵ Nevertheless, the Jito system was also used to reward the vassals of the Kamakura Bakufu such as the Gokenin, or the independent military lords.¹⁵⁶ The latter who owed their allegiance to Yoritomo and the Bakufu because of the political and economic benefits would gain from the relationship.¹⁵⁷ In addition to the Gokenin, the Kamakura Bakufu also had lower ranking retainer relationships with the Zoshiki and the Bugyonin.¹⁵⁸ Both were of common origins and worked with Yoritomo from the start of his rule in 1180 AD.¹⁵⁹ Another major difference between the Gokenin and the Zoshiki and the Bugyonin was that the latter two did not own land and depended for their incomes on the treasury of the Shogun.¹⁶⁰ Yoritomo would use the Zoshiki and the Bugyonin to place pressure on the vassals of the Kamakura regime to protect regime interests, to transport tribute from vassals to the regime and finally as a surveillance network.¹⁶¹ Through this network, Yoritomo was able to control the Gokenin to ensure that Kamakura, the Shogun and the Bakufu were the centre of political authority in Japan. However, the Shoguns who followed Yoritomo were less successful at restraining the independence of the Gokenin who took advantage of their Jito role to achieve greater freedom from the Bakufu.¹⁶² This may have been because the power of the Shogun had been supplanted by the Hojo Regent who was supposed to guide him.¹⁶³ On the other hand, Yoritomo had developed a network of governance which allowed him to govern outside the imperial framework, establishing the political legitimacy of the Kamakura Bakufu by being able to do so. But greater control of Japan meant that the Kamakura Bakufu and Yoritomo had to give the Gokenin greater local autonomy to manage their lands and people.¹⁶⁴ Therefore, Yoritomo and the Kamakura Bakufu were never able to fully control Japan. Moreover, even though the power of the imperial court was waning in the ascendancy of the Kamakura Bakufu, the court aristocracy and religious institutions maintained their political influence as well as land tenures in central and western Japan.¹⁶⁵ Furthermore, religious institutions were interested in having a stable income from their land holdings. In this case, these religious institutions were interested in efficient rent collection, land cultivation and the maintenance of records.¹⁶⁶

In addition to establishing the Shugo and the Jito as the central elements of the Kamakura Bakufu’s civil administration, Yoritomo also established the ‘House Chancellery’ or Mandokoro and the ‘Board of Enquiry’ or the Monchuju.¹⁶⁷ Through the auspices of the Mandokoro, Yoritomo was able to issue decrees to the people in the same way it had been done in the Heian Period by the Fujiwara and the ORE.¹⁶⁸ On the other hand, the Monchuju formed the framework of the Kamakura Bakufu’s legal system.¹⁶⁹ However, in order to better understand the extent of institutional development in the Kamakura period, it is important to consider not only political, economic and social changes but also religious ones.¹⁷⁰ In this case, Buddhism became a religion accessible to the masses, the peasants, farmers and the warriors rather than being a religion of the aristocracy as it was during the Heian period and beyond.¹⁷¹ Therefore, it has become possible to recognise the ‘New Buddhism’ of the Kamakura period with the ‘Old Buddhism’ of the Heian and the Nara periods.¹⁷² However, the subtle difference between the ‘Old Buddhism’ and the ‘New Buddhism’ lies with the fact that the latter is associated with five sects and five founders associated with twelfth and thirteenth century Japan.¹⁷³ The five founders associated with the ‘New Buddhism’ of the Kamakura period began their careers as Tendai monks in an environment in which Hongaku thought was popular.¹⁷⁴ Hongaku thought is thought which is reflective of that of the Buddha.¹⁷⁵ The evidence for the impact of Hongaku thought on the contextual thinking of the five founders in terms of religion is based on similarities between Hongaku thought and their thought.¹⁷⁶ These similarities included the importance of faith, the universal accessibility to Buddhism for people from all walks of life and the chance for saving the souls of even the most evil people.¹⁷⁷ The feature of Tendai Hongaku thought which allowed it to align itself very closely with the Kamakura identity of the lowly warrior being able to govern over the aristocracy was the ideal that everyone was capable of achieving enlightenment.¹⁷⁸ There is also some relationship between Buddhist ethics and the code of conduct of the warrior. This is discoursed in the ‘Heike Monogatari’, an epic poem written around the time of the end of the Heian period and the beginning of the Kamakura period between the twelfth and the thirteenth centuries.¹⁷⁹ The ‘Heike Monogatari’ is an epic poem which chronicles the battles between the Minamoto Clan and the Tiara Clan culminating in the defeat of the latter by the former and the start of the Kamakura period in 1185. The leader of the Tiara Clan, Kiyomori, is evil in the poem. And the code of conduct depicted in the poem deviates from that in real life.¹⁸⁰ For example, in real life, the warrior is expected to show loyalty to his lord, benevolence, loyalty, wisdom, courage and a disdain for saving one’s own life.¹⁸¹ But in the poem there is some interpretation as to the extent of the warrior’s loyalty to the lord, which should be more reflective of real life when circumstances change, then the loyalty of the warrior may also change. Another feature of the ‘Heike Monogatari’ is that it favours the Buddhism associated with the ‘Greater Vehicle’ which was more prevalent in China and Japan than the Buddhism of the ‘Lesser Vehicle’ which focuses on the idea of the historical Buddha rather than on a religious ideology being prevalent in a country such as Sri Lanka.¹⁸² The Buddhism of the ‘Greater Vehicle’ associates itself with the worship of the half-Buddhas or Bodhisattvas , which are seen to allow all of humanity to achieve salvation.¹⁸³ However, the Amidist Sect which was prominent at the time of the writing of the ‘Heike Monogatari’ believed that man was too evil and corrupt to get off the wheel of life.¹⁸⁴ The Sect believed that the only way out of this situation and to attain salvation was to pray to the Amida Buddha and to sincerely request salvation at the time of death.¹⁸⁵ But, ultimately karma also plays a role in salvation, and it is the bad karma brought upon the Taira Clan by the deeds of its leader Kiyomori, for example imprisoning the Emperor, which led to its downfall at the hands of the Minamoto Clan.

Contemporary China: The Song and the Yuan Dynasty and the Shogunate

The Kamakura period (1185 AD to 1333 AD) encompasses the periods of the Song Dynasty (960 AD to 1279 AD) and the Yuan Dynasty (1271 AD–1368 AD) of China. The changes which were taking place in Song Dynasty China facilitated cultural and economic exchanges between Japan and China.¹⁸⁶ Moreover, in traditional regional China, temples and shrines played a key role in the daily lives of people.¹⁸⁷ The same was also true in Japan. The level of cultural and economic exchanges between Japan and China increased as did trade during the Song Dynasty. Prior to the Song period, the system of trade which was characteristic of China’s economic engagement with other states was tributary trade.¹⁸⁸ In this case, tributary trade fulfilled two purposes which included the facilitation of international trade and the maintenance of a world order under the hegemony of China and its imperial court. Tribute was paid by vassal states to the Chinese imperial court in terms of goods, with the imperial court sending to the vassal states goods of perhaps a higher value.¹⁸⁹ The vassal states paid tribute to the imperial court out of fear that the imperial court would resort to force to take the vassal state itself through the use of its bigger army and navy.¹⁹⁰ However, by the time of the Song Dynasty, China’s power had shifted politically and economically from the north of the country to its south and south-east.¹⁹¹ This geographical shift was towards the open sea. Therefore, there was now no longer a reliance on the silk road for trade but a shift towards maritime trade from ports on the coastal regions. These ports included Guangzhou, Quanzhou, Xiamen, Fuzhou and Hangzhou, ports which would be forcibly opened as treaty ports in the nineteenth century by the Europeans ¹⁹² There were significant shipping innovations which occurred in the Song period.¹⁹³ These innovations allowed for more efficient sailing and better and bigger ships to be built. But although China produced twice as much pig iron in 1078 AD as did England in the seventeenth century,¹⁹⁴ ships were for the most part still made from wood. However, it was just not innovations in shipping which favoured increased maritime trade. In this case, Song Dynasty policies also favoured the growth of Chinese trade with the then known world. In fact, the Song state was surrounded by hostile states and therefore needed revenues to maintain a strong military presence. These revenues could not be reliant on agriculture because not enough revenue would be raised. The required levels of revenue could only be raised through growing international maritime trade. Song merchant and navy ships navigated sea routes to Africa, the Middle East, South Asia and to India. ¹⁹⁵ The trade of porcelain, silk and tea with the Middle East and precious woods, Tung oil and spices in the east was lucrative.¹⁹⁶ Therefore, Song Dynasty policies focused on increasing China’s trade with the rest of the world and on increasing productivity within the Song economy.¹⁹⁷ The policies implemented by the Song government to increase productivity and trade included the provisioning of the infrastructure necessary for trade such as ports and warehouses, liberal tax policies to incentivise merchants, career advancement for officials and institutions to document and monitor trade as well as to collect tax efficiently.¹⁹⁸ Increased maritime trade resulted in the tax revenues of the imperial court quadrupling between the latter part of the eleventh century and the mid-twelfth century.¹⁹⁹

It was during the Song Dynasty that coins from China began to flow into Japan.²⁰⁰ Moreover, it was during the Song Dynasty that there occurred several financial innovations which eased the way in which payment could be made for goods and services.²⁰¹ Promissory notes such as the Yanyin, Jiaoyin and Chayin, whose value was guaranteed by either precious metals or expensive goods, were used as a means of payment.²⁰² Similarly, the Huizi represented paper notes.²⁰³ The value of the Huizi was also founded on currency reserves which were precious metals rather than low value bronze coins.²⁰⁴ Nevertheless, Sichuan silver was used as the reserve to support the value of the paper money used there, the Qianyin.²⁰⁵ The Huizi became the common currency used for trade in Song Dynasty China by the mid-twelfth century, retaining its nominal value for in excess of six decades.²⁰⁶ The promissory notes and paper money used to facilitate trade were in addition to the use of bronze coins and other precious metals.²⁰⁷ Song merchants were able to benefit financially by using promissory notes and paper money to engage in long distance trade because they did not incur the transactions costs associated with having to transport large amounts of low worth coins.²⁰⁸ The growth in the types of the means of payment was necessary because of the dramatic increase in urban consumption during the Song period.²⁰⁹ This increase in urban consumption also facilitated the expansion of markets in Song Dynasty China.²¹⁰ However, in the move from the Song Dynasty to the Ming Dynasty, the state lost its control over the issuance of paper money.²¹¹ The result was that people began to lose their trust in the value of paper money.²¹² This, in combination with the reluctance of the state to issue coins in large quantities, resulted in silver being predominant in terms of value.²¹³

Monetisation facilitated the re-establishment of markets and economic activity to increase.²¹⁴ Nevertheless, markets were prevalent in Japan between 650 AD and 800 AD but became less visible between the ninth and the eleventh centuries.²¹⁵ The ensuing demonetisation of the Japanese economy may have occurred because of the increasing scarcity of copper from which coins had been made.²¹⁶ This may help to understand why the economy returned to barter trade, but demonetisation may not explain why markets also disappeared.²¹⁷ But in the twelfth century as the pace of monetisation continued, markets began to appear throughout Japan and commercial activity increased.²¹⁸ However, although the pace of monetisation increased in Japan, towards the end of the Heian Period and the early Kamakura Period, the Bakufu stopped the circulation of new Song copper coins in a bid to prevent inflation.²¹⁹ Nevertheless, in 1226 the Bakufu replaced cloth as the standard measure of value with copper coinage, and in 1242, a Japanese merchant vessel returned from Song China with a cargo of copper coins equivalent in volume and value to the annual minting of copper coins in China.²²⁰ Thus, monetisation and the increased commercial activity in Song China had a causal impact on the economy of Bakufu economy.²²¹ But the significant outflow of copper coinage between Song China and Japan was causing deflationary pressures which led the Song government to ban the export of copper coinage to Japan.²²² The export of rice from Japan to Song China as exchange for copper coins may have also reduced the amount of rice in Japan for consumption.²²³ However, despite these problems through the Hojo Regency and towards the late Kamakura Period of the early fourteenth century, commercial activity in Bakufu Japan increased significantly.²²⁴ As such Kamakura, the seat of the Bakufu, would become the destination for many Chinese goods whose trail from Song China to Kamakura would pass a transport network which encompassed the port of Hakata, the Seto Inland Sea and Kyoto.²²⁵

The expansion of markets in Japan may have been due to the diffusion of the increased economic activity from Song Dynasty China, which, as discussed earlier, was experiencing increasing monetisation, increasing commercialisation and market expansion. However, trade between China and Japan had existed and continued to do so even when official ties between the two countries were severed in the late ninth century AD at a time during which the T’ang Dynasty was declining rapidly.²²⁶ In this case, Japanese merchants continued to trade with China from the port of Hakata on Kyushu; and the imperial court maintained soldiers there to control the import trade and to ensure that the aristocracy of Kyoto could still have access to luxury goods.²²⁷ As the Taira Clan was rising to prominence in the late Heian Period and when Taira Kiyomori seized power after 1159 AD, they monopolised the lucrative private merchant trade between China and Japan.²²⁸ At the same time that the Song lost territory in northern China due to invaders, having to move their capital from Kaifeng in the north to Hangchow in the south, the Taira were gaining an upper hand in the control of Japanese trade.²²⁹ However, Song Dynasty China was very different from T’ang Dynasty China from which the Japanese had based their reforms a few hundred years earlier.²³⁰ Despite being surrounded by hostile states, the Song civilisation of southern China was innovative and highly commercial, perhaps representing the height of Chinese civilisation at the time.²³¹ The increase in commercial activity led to rising incomes with access to more food leading to an increase in population. This was due to an agricultural revolution in which a combination of efficient irrigation and the use of a high yielding variety of rice, originally from what is now Vietnam, allowed for more crops to be produced.²³² Thus, because the population grew quite dramatically under the Song, the Song represented a period in which there was a rapid growth and expansion of cities. The closer contact between peoples and increasing incomes would mean that there would be a growth in innovation. Scholarly activity also increased with the development of philosophy, art, religion and the printing of books.²³³ During the time of the Southern Song, 1127 AD to 1279 AD, Zen monks would write poetry and read canonical texts in different monasteries.²³⁴ In fact, the Japanese Five Mountains Zen institution developed through the collaboration of Chinese and Japanese Zen monks, with the Chinese Zen monks having the biggest influence having been active in the latter part of the Song Dynasty period.²³⁵ The Japanese monk’s favourite religious works were by the Chinese Zen monk Ching-sou Chu-chien (1164 AD to 1246 AD).²³⁶ Moreover, Chinese monks not only visited Japan during the Kamakura period but also enjoyed the patronage of the Kamakura Bakufu.²³⁷ The Five Mountains Zen institution consisted of the state-sponsored 300 monasteries and the 3000 sub-temples in Japan which emerged in the early part of the Kamakura Period as a result of the introduction of Zen teachings into Japan from China by Chinese monks.²³⁸ The Five Mountains Zen institution then reached its peak through the Gozan system with the support of the Shoguns of the Ashikaga Period through the fourteenth century and the first part of the fifteenth century.²³⁹ One of the legacies left behind by the medieval Kamakura Five Mountains Zen institution was its literature, the Gozan Bungaku, which consisted of poetry written in Chinese by Japanese monks.²⁴⁰ However, in addition to religious works, other texts dealing with the organisation and the policies of the Bakufu were also written by its officials.²⁴¹ The most famous of these works was the ‘Azuma Kagami’ which means ‘The Mirror of Eastern Japan’.²⁴² This was a partly historical documentation of the emergence of the Kamakura Bakufu from the raising of his army by Yoritomo to overthrow the power of the Taira Clan to 1226 AD.²⁴³ The objective of writing the ‘Azuma Kagami’ as a historical study of past achievements was to use it as the basis for future planning.²⁴⁴ However, while the ‘Azuma Kagami’ covers everything from religious practice, the economy, the literature to the arts and customs and tastes at Kamakura, it does not consider any of these factors in the imperial capital of Kyoto.²⁴⁵

As discussed previously, during the period encompassing the Southern Song, there were also innovations in ship building and in navigation. Whereas during the T’ang dynasty Arabs and Persians sailed in their ships to China, in the Song Dynasty, ships were built in China which were not only very big, but also had waterproof compartments, stern post rudders to allow the ship to change direction, several masts and movable sails to enable changing wind direction and power to be easily harnessed as the ships engine.²⁴⁶ Song navigation of ships was also the most advanced for its time, incorporating the use of the magnetic compass, star charts and up to date knowledge of sea currents and the directions and seasonality of the winds.²⁴⁷ Commercialisation and trade between Song China and Japan facilitated the diffusion of scholarly and cultural knowledge and technical innovation from Song China to Japan.²⁴⁸ The growth of scholarly activity in religion, philosophy, history, geography and medicine in Song China in association with printing resulted in book production in large volumes.²⁴⁹ As a result of the cultural contact between Japan and Song China, the aristocracy of the late Heian Period in Japan believed that having large numbers of printed Chinese books in their possession represented a status symbol. This diffusion of knowledge was greatly facilitated by the Song desire to increase trade not only with Japan but with other regions, and the Taira clan’s monopoly on trade in Japan.²⁵⁰ However, although the Song was actively promoting trade with the specific purpose of increasing tax revenues for the state, trade was hindered because of the Song activity of requisitioning merchant ships for military purposes.²⁵¹

Commercial and cultural exchange with Song China created prosperity for Japan and those who monopolised this exchange. However, by the late twelfth century the vassals of the Kamakura Shogunate were significantly indebted to money lenders such that they were losing their lands.²⁵² To facilitate their high living, the Daimyos needed to spend more and more money, such that they eventually had to resort to borrowing. This affected the capacity of the vassals to contribute to military needs of the Shogunate. This resulted in the Shogunate passing a Debt Relief Law in 1297 AD.²⁵³ The growing indebtedness of the Kamakura vassals may indicate that there was a transition from a ‘gift economy’ to a ‘profit-oriented economy’.²⁵⁴

Conclusion

The shift from the Heian Period to the Kamakura Period represented a major change in the dynamics of Japanese social and political organisation. In this case, this shift represented a shift from an aristocratic society to a feudalistic one with a greater military orientation. Perhaps the seeds of Japanese militarism, which would see it defeat Russia, occupy China and become embroiled in a futile world war in the early part of the twentieth century, were laid in the emergence of the Kamakura period and in periods thereafter. Furthermore, the impact of the transition from an aristocratic to a feudalistic society would have a huge impact on Japanese social, economic and political development for centuries with no major change occurring until the Meiji Restoration of 1868. The political change was represented by a shift away from the centralisation of state power to decentralisation in which the Kamakura Bakufu devolved power to local regional war lords or Daimyos. The social change was due to the implementation of feudalism which featured a class structure composed of samurai, aristocrats, clergy, farmers, peasants, merchants and outcasts in descending order. The merchants were placed at the lower end of this hierarchical order as they were perceived to exist for only making money. With increasing monetisation and the need for coinage by the Bakufu and its Daimyos for paying the samurai and their lavish lifestyles meant that the merchants of Osaka, Kyoto and Edo (Tokyo) became wealthy by acting as intermediaries between farmers and the state apparatus. In effect the merchants ‘converted’ measured quantities of rice into coinage. Increasing trade with China also brought about market expansion in Japan. The regulation of economic activity through dispute resolution became more Japanese with the first indigenous codification of Japanese law with the implementation of the Joei Code in 1232 AD. The Joei Code was different from the Japanese legal codes of the Nara and Heian periods because it was not influenced by Chinese practice of the time. The other structures put in place by Yoritomo at the beginning of the Kamakura period included the Shugo, the Jito, the Mandokoro and the Monchuju. The Shugo conducted the legal affairs of the Bakufu.²⁵⁵ These affairs would include interviewing witnesses, enforcing court orders, calling defendants and announcing court judgements, for example.²⁵⁶ On the other hand, the Jito managed land for its owners with no direct authority over the owner.²⁵⁷ The Mandokoro was used by the Bakufu to issue orders and decrees to the people. While the Monchuju was the structural framework of the legal system of the Kamakura Bakufu.

The rule of the Kamakura Bakufu and the Hojo Regent came to an end in July 1333 AD when the military forces of the Emperor Go-Daigo stormed their stronghold at Kamakura.²⁵⁸ One argument for the demise of the Kamakura Bakufu was that the Mongol invasions of 1274 AD and 1281 AD required significant investment in military capacity and defences by the Bakufu that the Bakufu became weaker.²⁵⁹ However, at the same time it has been noted that as the Kamakura period progressed, the vassals of the Bakufu became more and more indebted. And having used their lands as collateral for the loans from money lenders, inability to pay back the loans meant that the land was forfeited to the money lenders. The loss of their lands deprived the vassal Daimyos of the tax revenue from tenant farmers and agriculture. This would mean that the Daimyos would have been unable to pay the wages of the samurai and, therefore, unable to raise the military forces required by the Bakufu for its defence. Furthermore, the indebtedness of the Bakufu Daimyos meant that unpaid samurai and their other retainers had to find in income by other means. These other means included raiding southern Korean ports. However, the sad state of affairs contrasts with the late Heian Period and the start of the Kamakura Period. In this case, the increasing commercialisation and monetisation which was an economic feature of the contemporary Song civilisation of the time had spill over effects on the Japanese economy of the late Heian and subsequent Kamakura Period. In the late Heian Period, the rise of the Taira Clan in Japan favoured more trade between Song China and Japan. To a great extent, this trade was monopolised by the Taira Clan. In the Kamakura Period, this trade was a feature of the flow of goods from Hakata to Kyoto and then on to Kamakura. Increasing monetisation, through the import of copper coins from China, also became a feature of the Japanese economy. The diffusion of economic activity through trade and monetisation from Song China facilitated the expansion of markets in Kamakura Japan. However, the diffusion effects were not limited to just economic activity. Increasing income levels within certain groups in both countries allowed for increased scholarly activity, particularly in religion and poetry. But the spill over effects occurred from China to Japan. Japanese monks learnt from Chinese monks, and poetry in Japanese monasteries and temples were written in Chinese. However, in addition to religious works and poetry, the Kamakura period also produced other prominent works of Japanese literature. These included the ‘Heike Monogatari’ and the ’Azuma Kagami’. The former is a poem which details the battles between the Minamoto Clan and the Tiara Clan at the end of the Heian Period and the beginning of the Kamakura Period. While the ‘Azuma Kagami’ is a semi-official text written by Bakufu officials which details the structural organisation and the policies of the Bakufu.

The Kamakura Period came to an end in 1333. The Kamakura Bakufu had been weakened by its expenditure and efforts to defend Japan against the Mongol invasions.²⁶⁰ And the Emperor Go-Daigo wanted to take back the sovereign power over Japan of the imperial court from the Shogun and the Bakufu. Once the Kamakura Bakufu had been defeated militarily, the government was transferred back to Kyoto in what became known as the short-lived Kemmu Restoration of 1333 to 1336.²⁶¹ However, this was followed by the establishment of two rival courts in the Nambokucho Era from 1336 to 1392 when one of the Emperor’s generals rebelled. There then followed the ascendancy of the Ashikaga Shoguns from 1392 to 1568, in a period of stability for Japan in the Muromachi or Ashikaga Period.²⁶²