Changes

Still, loose as the category of "''akutô''" may be, the phenomenon reflects the relative lawlessness at a local level prevalent under the [[Kamakura shogunate]], which was unable to effectively exert its power down to the local level.

Still, loose as the category of "''akutô''" may be, the phenomenon reflects the relative lawlessness at a local level prevalent under the [[Kamakura shogunate]], which was unable to effectively exert its power down to the local level.

Though the term appears in documents as early as the Nara period, and as late as the Muromachi period, ''akutô'' activities in the Kamakura period can be said to have focused around Kyoto and Kyushu, in the period immediately following the [[Jokyu War|Jôkyû War]] of [[1221]]. It was after this date that the Kamakura shogunate extended its administrative authority to the west, establishing the post of ''[[Rokuhara Tandai]]'' in Kyoto, that of ''[[Chinzei Bugyo|Chinzei Bugyô]]'' or ''Kyushu Tandai'' already in place. ''[[Jito|Jitô]]'' were installed to govern and administer territories (''[[shoen|shôen]]'') on behalf of the shogunate, often displacing the former stewards of the territory, known as the ''[[gesu]]''.

Though the term appears in documents as early as the Nara period, and as late as the Muromachi period, ''akutô'' activities in the Kamakura period can be said to have focused around Kyoto and Kyushu, in the period immediately following the [[Jokyu War|Jôkyû War]] of [[1221]]. It was after this date that the Kamakura shogunate extended its administrative authority to the west, establishing the post of ''[[Rokuhara Tandai]]'' in Kyoto, that of ''[[Chinzei Bugyo|Chinzei Bugyô]]'' or ''Kyushu Tandai'' already in place. ''[[Jito|Jitô]]'' were installed to govern and administer territories (''[[shoen|shôen]]'') on behalf of the shogunate, often displacing the former stewards of the territory, known as the ''[[gesu]]''.

Thus it was that incidents such as that of 1227, at Toyokuni estate in [[Yamato province]], occurred. The ''gesu'', a man by the name of Yukisue, had been dispossessed of his authority over this estate when a ''jitô'' was appointed by the shogunate. After trying and failing to regain his authority through the proper legal means, the ''gesu'' and a core of his officials led a band of roughly three hundred men in destroying homes, lighting fires, and forcibly expelling the new ''jitô'' from the land. The ''jitô'' of course filed a formal complaint, but the ''akutô'' managed to fight off the official forces sent from Rokuhara. Similar incidents occurred across the country. In some cases, the shogunate, persuaded by the arguments of the dispossessed former official, would remove the new ''jitô'' and restore the ''gesu'' to his position; this did not happen in the case of Toyokuni.

It was not only the old landholders, seeking to regain their land, who clashed with ''shôen'' managers and came to be labeled ''akutô''. Due to new policies and other economic shifts, including the rise of the buying and selling of land rights (''shiki''), others came into local wealth and power and clashed with regional authorities. These clashes, between those who sought to amass local power, and those with wealth or authority on a slightly larger scale, were particularly numerous in the Kinai region around the capital, as the ''shôen'' themselves were more numerous, and connections to political authorities and economic developments more strongly felt.

 

==Prominent Akutô bands and incidents==

An incident which took place in 1227, at Toyokuni estate in [[Yamato province]], serves as an example of a clash between a ''gesu'' and the ''jitô'' appointed to replace him as steward of the estate, who dubbed the former, and his compatriots, "''akutô''." The ''gesu'', a man by the name of Yukisue, had been dispossessed of his authority over this estate when a ''jitô'' was appointed by the shogunate. After trying and failing to regain his authority through the proper legal means, the ''gesu'' and a core of his officials led a band of roughly three hundred men in destroying homes, lighting fires, and forcibly expelling the new ''jitô'' from the land. The ''jitô'' of course filed a formal complaint, but the ''akutô'' managed to fight off the official forces sent from Rokuhara. Similar incidents occurred across the country. In some cases, the shogunate, persuaded by the arguments of the dispossessed former official, would remove the new ''jitô'' and restore the ''gesu'' to his position; this did not happen in the case of Toyokuni.

 

A clash between the Ôe family and [[Todaiji|Tôdaiji]], which controlled the Kuroda estate in [[Iga province]], arose in the wake of economic and policy shifts surrounding ''shiki'' (land rights). The Ôe served as ''gesu'' on this estate, and held rights over the land, for six successive generations, and were branded ''akutô'' on a number of occasions, in connection with incidents ranging from the [[Heian period]] down through the middle of the 14th century. The family amassed some small measure of local wealth and power over the generations, administering the lands, overseeing economic activities, and generally looking out for the temple's interests on the estate.

''Akutô'' are explicitly mentioned by that term in the ''[[Goseibai shikimoku]]'', a set of laws issued in [[1232]], though under that edict they are equated with mere thieves, various other crimes or types of criminals apparently not coming under the jurisdiction of the nationwide shogunate government. These other crimes associated with the ''akutô'', including piracy, night raiding, and violent theft were placed under the jurisdiction of the provincial governors (''[[shugo]]'').

At some point in the 1270s, however, Ôe Kiyosada was accused by the temple of obstructing the payment of certain taxes and other annual dues (''[[nengu]]''), and of various violent deeds besides. He and a number of his associates were exiled from the territory. His son, Ôe Yasusada, however, recovered his ancestral rights to the estate (''gesu shiki'') by 1300. Though he and other members of his line caused much trouble for Tôdaiji over the centuries, it would seem that the temple was forced to rely upon the Ôe in this manner, on account of the family's local prestige and power.

==References==

==References==

*Harrington, Lorraine F. "Social Control and the Significance of Akutô." in Mass, Jeffrey (ed.). ''Court and Bakufu in Japan: Essays in Kamakura History''. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1982. pp221-250.

*Harrington, Lorraine F. "Social Control and the Significance of Akutô." in Mass, Jeffrey (ed.). ''Court and Bakufu in Japan: Essays in Kamakura History''. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1982. pp221-250.

[[Category:Kamakura Period]]

[[Category:Kamakura Period]]

[[Category:Terminology]]

[[Category:Terminology]]