Changes

[[Tokugawa Ieyasu]], the first Tokugawa shogun, officially acknowledged 185 domains in the early 17th century; by the mid-18th century, the number of domains stabilized around 260, but the total number of distinct domains that existed at one time or another over the course of the Edo period exceeds 540.<ref name=kodansha>"Han." ''Encyclopedia of Japan''. Kodansha.</ref>

[[Tokugawa Ieyasu]], the first Tokugawa shogun, officially acknowledged 185 domains in the early 17th century; by the mid-18th century, the number of domains stabilized around 260, but the total number of distinct domains that existed at one time or another over the course of the Edo period exceeds 540.<ref name=kodansha>"Han." ''Encyclopedia of Japan''. Kodansha.</ref>

Though many ''daimyô'' continued to hold their ancestral territory as their ''han'', in theory all ''han'' were fiefs granted by the shogunate. The shogunate reserved the right to give and take away lands from ''daimyô'', and often made use of this power, reassigning a given territory to a different samurai clan, and assigning the former lords of that territory to a different domain elsewhere in the archipelago, or simply denying them a territory entirely. This occurred particularly frequently in the first fifty years or so of Tokugawa control, with 281 instances of clans being moved from one domain to another, and 213 instances of clans losing ''daimyô'' status, and their domains, entirely during that fifty-year period. The latter was most often due to the absence of an heir; though shogunate policies were relaxed later on, initially, deathbed adoptions were not permitted.<ref>Schirokauer, et al. ''A Brief History of Japanese Civilization'', Wadsworth Cengage (2013), 131.</ref> These attainders, reductions, and transfers were disproportionately felt by the ''fudai daimyô'', who represented roughly half the ''daimyô'' but who experienced 75% of attainders and 90% of transfers after 1700. Only twice after 1650 did the shogunate attempt to reduce the territory of a ''tozama daimyô'': once in [[1664]], when the [[Uesugi clan]] of [[Yonezawa han]] had no heir, and once in [[1866]] as punishment for [[Choshu han|Chôshû han's]] involvement in the [[Kinmon Rebellion]]; the latter never came through, however, as the shogunate fell before it could implement the reduction.<ref>Ravina, 21.</ref>

Though many ''daimyô'' continued to hold their ancestral territory as their ''han'', in theory all ''han'' were fiefs granted by the shogunate. The shogunate reserved the right to give and take away lands from ''daimyô'', and often made use of this power, reassigning a given territory to a different samurai clan, and assigning the former lords of that territory to a different domain elsewhere in the archipelago, or simply denying them a territory entirely. This occurred particularly frequently in the first fifty years or so of Tokugawa control, with 281 instances of clans being moved from one domain to another, and 213 instances of clans losing ''daimyô'' status, and their domains, entirely during that fifty-year period. The latter was most often due to the absence of an heir; though shogunate policies were relaxed later on, initially, deathbed adoptions were not permitted.<ref>Schirokauer, et al. ''A Brief History of Japanese Civilization'', Wadsworth Cengage (2013), 131.</ref> The feudal bond was a personal one, between lord and vassal as individuals, not between the lord and his vassal's heir, nor between households, at least in theory, on one level. This was tempered, however, by the belief in patrimonial authority, that an enfeoffment was part of a household's patrimony, something to be passed down from generation to generation within the ''[[ie]]''. Other cases of attainder were due to lords being accused of rudeness, insubordination, or other sorts of violations of propriety or competence; roughly one-third of attainders in this fifty-year period were the result of this sort of personal failing on the part of the ''daimyô''. The emphasis here is on the personal bond between the shogun and his vassal, and on the personal behavior of the vassal. Only a very small number of cases of attainder, between three and twelve percent depending on definitions, were due to violations of policy, law, or administrative procedure.<ref>[[Mark Ravina]], ''Land and Lordship in Early Modern Japan'', Stanford University Press (1999), 36-37.</ref>

The power or status of each ''han'' (and of their ''daimyô'') was determined by its ''[[kokudaka]]'', normally a measure of agricultural or commercial production in units of ''[[koku]]''; in some cases, domains were assigned a ''kokudaka'' out of proportion to their agricultural production, in recognition of their importance strategically, diplomatically, or otherwise. The smallest domains, by definition, had a ''kokudaka'' of at least 10,000 ''koku'', while the largest, [[Kaga domain]], boasted a ''kokudaka'' of 1,000,000 ''koku''. The vast majority of domains were closer to the lower end of this range, and only a handful of domains were assessed in the hundreds of thousands of ''koku''. The largest of these domains were exceptionally large, however, with Kaga's ''kokudaka'' being only 1/4 that of the shogunate itself, and the territories of [[Satsuma han|Satsuma]], [[Choshu han|Chôshû]], and Kaga combined being home to fully 1/12th of Japan's population in the 1860s, even taking into account the millions who lived in Edo, Osaka, and Kyoto.<ref>Mark Ravina, ''Land and Lordship in Early Modern Japan'', Stanford University Press (1999), 17.</ref>

 

The power or status of each ''han'' (and of their ''daimyô'') was determined by its ''[[kokudaka]]'', normally a measure of agricultural or commercial production in units of ''[[koku]]''; in some cases, domains were assigned a ''kokudaka'' out of proportion to their agricultural production, in recognition of their importance strategically, diplomatically, or otherwise. The smallest domains, by definition, had a ''kokudaka'' of at least 10,000 ''koku'', while the largest, [[Kaga domain]], boasted a ''kokudaka'' of 1,000,000 ''koku''. The vast majority of domains were closer to the lower end of this range, and only a handful of domains were assessed in the hundreds of thousands of ''koku''. The largest of these domains were exceptionally large, however, with Kaga's ''kokudaka'' being only 1/4 that of the shogunate itself, and the territories of [[Satsuma han|Satsuma]], [[Choshu han|Chôshû]], and Kaga combined being home to fully 1/12th of Japan's population in the 1860s, even taking into account the millions who lived in Edo, Osaka, and Kyoto.<ref>Ravina, ''Land and Lordship'', 17.</ref>

It is important to remember that the ''kokudaka'' represents the ''total'' officially assessed agricultural output of the territory; it includes the vast proportion of that production which is simply consumed by the population, and thus is not a direct indicator of the extent of the wealth of the ''daimyô'' or of domain finances. The ''kokudaka'' also excludes a lot of production which for one reason or another is not officially recorded; for this reason, the ''kokudaka'' cannot be taken as a direct reflection of the actual amount of food or wealth available within the domain.<ref>And, further, the ''kokudaka'' divided by population can therefore not be taken as an accurate reflection of how much food, per capita, subjects of that domain had to eat on average. Most peasants, on average, can be assumed to have been producing, or otherwise obtaining, more rice or other grain than was reflected in the ''kokudaka''.</ref>

It is important to remember that the ''kokudaka'' represents the ''total'' officially assessed agricultural output of the territory; it includes the vast proportion of that production which is simply consumed by the population, and thus is not a direct indicator of the extent of the wealth of the ''daimyô'' or of domain finances. The ''kokudaka'' also excludes a lot of production which for one reason or another is not officially recorded; for this reason, the ''kokudaka'' cannot be taken as a direct reflection of the actual amount of food or wealth available within the domain.<ref>And, further, the ''kokudaka'' divided by population can therefore not be taken as an accurate reflection of how much food, per capita, subjects of that domain had to eat on average. Most peasants, on average, can be assumed to have been producing, or otherwise obtaining, more rice or other grain than was reflected in the ''kokudaka''.</ref>