• 1 Pierre François Souyri, The World Turned Upside Down: Medieval Japanese Society, New York, Columbia (...)
• 2 Suzanne Gay, The Moneylenders of Late Medieval Kyoto, Honolulu - HI, University of Hawai’i Press, 2 (...)
• 3 Masayoshi Kawachi 河内将芳, Chūsei Kyoto no toshi to shūkyō 中世京都の都市と宗教 (City and Religion in Medieval K (...)
• 4 Matthew Stavros, Kyoto: An Urban History of Japan’s Premodern Capital, Honolulu - HI, University of (...)
• 5 Masayoshi Kawachi 河内将芳, Chūsei Kyoto no toshi to shūkyō 中世京都の都市と宗教 (City and Religion in Medieval K (...)

7Property in Kyoto and in Japan had been owned by multiple persons and institutions with layers of rights over it until the mid-sixteenth century. The neighborhood as a geographical community competed with merchant and artisan networks of commoners living on property partially owned by their noble or institutional patrons. Although neighborhoods came to be defined as all the households and property on both sides of one block of a city street from one intersection to the next, these geographical neighborhoods included properties belonging to these networks and their patrons. Some properties belonged to multiple layers of patrons. Residents paid rent to each of their patrons in return for legal support defending their access to resources, roads and markets, and protecting their dominance in the Kyoto market.1 Artisan and commercial networks were further mixed with the religious network of Lotus sect Hokke shū 法華宗 (also known as the Nichiren sect 日蓮宗) temples that, along with temples of other sects and Shinto shrines, were among the patrons of merchant and artisan networks such as silk weavers, sake brewers, and moneylenders or bankers.2 Members of the faith who belonged to one or another of these temples sometimes lived on, or bought property belonging to the temple, and these members formed a solidarity network spread throughout many Kyoto neighborhoods, particularly in Lower Kyoto (Shimogyō 下京).3 A number of temples in the city, particularly of the Lotus sect, clustered around the neighborhood communities of Lower Kyoto and they provided extra physical and military protection for the neighborhoods because they had their own military forces of warrior monks.4 Members of the religious networks also paid rent or dues to the temples, as proprietors (ryōshu 領主), in exchange for spiritual and physical protection and support, and even fought in the military forces of the temples in various conflicts between religious sects and other networks.5

• 6 Michitaka Kamada 鎌田道隆, Kinsei Kyōto no toshi to minshū 近世京都の都市と民衆 (City and People in Early Modern (...)
• 7 Masayoshi Kawachi 河内将芳, Chūsei Kyoto no toshi to shūkyō 中世京都の都市と宗教 (City and Religion in Medieval K (...)
• 8 Michitaka Kamada 鎌田道隆, Kinsei Kyōto no toshi to minshū 近世京都の都市と民衆 (City and People in Early Modern (...)

8Michitaka Kamada argues that neighborhood communities claimed their shared ownership of property when they refused to pay their rents to the proprietors in 1539 (Tenmon 8).6 Most proprietor patrons had lost the ability to provide benefits to community residents and battles between the Lotus sect and other religious institutions in the early Tenmon era (beginning 1532) burned many homes in Lower Kyoto including those that were not part of the Lotus sect community in 1536 (Tenmon 5).7 Kamada also notes that the first documented record of Kyoto neighborhood groups as political units dates to 1537 (Tenmon 6).8

• 9 Masayoshi Kawachi 河内将芳, Chūsei Kyoto no toshi to shūkyō 中世京都の都市と宗 (City and Religion in Medieval Ky (...)
• 10 Michitaka Kamada 鎌田道隆, Kinsei Kyōto no toshi to minshū 近世京都の都市と民衆 (City and People in Early Modern (...)

9Masayoshi Kawachi argues that the temples and other proprietors retained their claims to the land despite the refusal of the communities to pay their rents or dues. Instead, he argues that Kyoto neighborhood communities developed their solidarity as independent communities during the years 1539-1549 (Tenmon 8-18), based on ownership of floats and control of roles in the major festival of Gion shrine. During that era, the neighborhoods argued that an individual should not be allowed to own property in more than one neighborhood because it was not right that a person should own a stake in more than one float. In 1545 (Tenmon 14), there were battles between neighborhoods over the floats.9 Kamada argues that the neighborhood communities were not defined by the property, but by the resident property owners in their shared stakes in the Gion festival float owned by the neighborhood community. Ownership of property in the neighborhood required also owning a stake in the float and the festival association.10 In other words, property ownership was linked to community membership reflected in the ownership of the floats. However, many new neighborhoods were later incorporated as Kyoto was rebuilt and expanded, but many of the newer neighborhoods did not own Gion festival floats.

• 11 Yasuo Takahashi 高橋康夫, “Kyōto no toshi kōzō: Sengoku ki wo chūshin ni” 京都の都市構造―戦国期を中心に (“The Urban S (...)
• 12 Masayoshi Kawachi 河内将芳, Chūsei Kyoto no toshi to shūkyō 中世京都の都市と宗教 (City and Religion in Medieval K (...)
• 13 Michitaka Kamada 鎌田道隆, Kinsei Kyōto no toshi to minshū 近世京都の都市と民衆 (City and People in Early Modern (...)

10During the century of war in Japan beginning with the Ōnin battles (1467-1477; Ōnin 1-Bunmei 9) fought in the city streets of Kyoto, which destroyed large parts of the city, the geographical neighborhoods became important as units of defense. Particularly after the Lotus sect war (1532-1536; Tenmon 1-5), these block neighborhoods built thick walls and wooden gates to control entry and access to the neighborhoods. Gradually, they developed closer cohesion and solidarity than the occupational and religious networks their residents belonged to as they organized, forming neighborhood groups managed by representatives for mutual defense.11 Kawachi agreed with Tatsusaburō Hayashiya and Kunizō Akiyama that the neighborhood groups formed the basis for townspeople self-governance.12 Kamada, however, argues that the institutions for self-governance did not develop until Kyoto had firmly submitted to warrior rule. Instead, he argues that the neighborhood communities only agreed to cooperate for mutual defense, but did not go further than that.13

• 14 Suzanne Gay, The Moneylenders of Late Medieval Kyoto, Honolulu - HI, University of Hawai’i Press, 2 (...)
• 15 Mary Elizabeth Berry, The Culture of Civil War in Kyoto, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of Ca (...)

11When the warlord Oda Nobunaga 織田信長 (1534-1582) took military control of Kyoto in 1568 (Eiroku 11), he negotiated with the neighborhood communities, strengthening their solidarity and community identities. Nobunaga also used the political authority he established to pronounce all markets and roads free and open access, and to dissolve the exclusive commercial networks and brotherhoods. This was an increasingly common policy of many warlord magnates in Japan at the time, to promote trade, gain the support of commoners in the territories they controlled, and weaken the authority of political rivals.14 For Kyoto townspeople, this meant that from 1573 (Tenshō 1), they officially no longer needed to pay dues or taxes to their patrons, but they still were expected to pay rent to proprietors on the property they bought and lived on, implying they bought one layer of ownership rights, but not all. Nobunaga, however, also announced a temporary suspension of this rent, removing the power of other authorities and taking their place. However, Kyoto townspeople had already begun to reject the authority of their patrons to collect taxes from them in 1539 (Tenmon 8), as noted above, because these patrons had increasingly been unable to provide the protections and advantages they had in the past.15

• 16 Matthew Stavros, Kyoto: An Urban History of Japan’s Premodern Capital, Honolulu - HI, University of (...)

12Nobunaga was assassinated in 1582 (Tenshō 10), and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Nobunaga’s lieutenant, took power after avenging Nobunaga’s assassination. Although he began with a continuation of Nobunaga’s policies, respecting traditional authority, in 1585 (Tenshō 13) he arranged to be adopted into the Konoe 近衛 branch of the Fujiwara 藤原 family that had long served as imperial regents. Hideyoshi then claimed the title kampaku 関白, or regent for an adult emperor, and began a total reconstruction and reformation of the city thereafter. He cleared the old streets and added new streets that reconfigured the old grid, splitting the squares in half to form rectangles long on the north-south axis, and built a mounded wall around the city with stands of bamboo planted along the top.16 Of course, this also meant the creation of many new neighborhoods.

• 17 Michitaka Kamada 鎌田道隆, Kinsei Kyōto no toshi to minshū 近世京都の都市と民衆 (City and People in Early Modern (...)

13Hideyoshi also ordered the religious institutions to submit their documents claiming control of property in both the city and its hinterland for cadastral surveys, and he demanded the same of imperial court nobles. In 1590 (Tenshō 18), he ordered rural village land to be substituted for property in the city for the religious institutions and 45 imperial court nobles, who drew lots for who got what. The temples and shrines were also required to move away from Lower Kyoto and relocate primarily along the eastern and northern edges of the city. In 1591 (Tenshō 19), with no remaining layered claims over the neighborhood properties of Kyoto townspeople, Hideyoshi declared all residents permanently exempt from paying proprietor rent (jishi sen eitai menjo rei 地子銭永代免除令). City residents were now primarily represented by the aldermen (chō toshiyori 町年寄) of the neighborhoods in upper and lower Kyoto, under only the authority of Hideyoshi.17

• 18 Michitaka Kamada 鎌田道隆, Kinsei Kyōto no toshi to minshū 近世京都の都市と民衆 (City and People in Early Modern (...)

14There is a general consensus among Japanese scholars that this edict confirmed the proprietary rights of the neighborhood communities.18 However, there is debate over the interpretation of these rights. The neighborhood communities consisted of the property owners. Although many households leased property in their resident neighborhoods, the renters were not considered true members of the community. All scholars agree on this. But did the property rights lie with the community as a whole as joint ownership, or with the individual owners who formed the community? This question is much debated and there is no consensus on this matter.

• 19 Katsuya Seta 瀬田勝哉, “Kinsei toshi seiritsu shi josetsu: Kyōto ni okeru tochi shoyū wo megutte” 近世都市成 (...)
• 20 Michitaka Kamada 鎌田道隆, Kinsei Kyōto no toshi to minshū 近世京都の都市と民衆 (City and People in Early Modern (...)
• 21 Kunizō Akiyama 秋山國三, Ken Nakamura 仲村研, Kyōto chō no kenkyū 京都町の研究 (Research on Kyoto Neighborhoods) (...)

15Katsuya Seta argued that property rights depended on community membership and “owners” essentially only owned the buildings on the property, not the property itself, because property rights lay with the community.19 Kamada also argued that Kyoto neighborhood communities shared ownership of property. When owners bought or sold property in a neighborhood, the transaction had to have the approval of the community, so residences were both individually owned and owned as part of the community.20 Akiyama and Ken Nakamura studied the ordinances of a number of neighborhoods, primarily concerning the sale of neighborhood property, the oldest produced in 1583 (Tenshō 11), while others they examined were compiled 1594-1596 (Bunroku 3 – Keichō 1). When an individual bought property in a neighborhood, the buyer paid ten per cent of the price to the community and also hosted a party of introduction. Since this was the same amount that previously would have been paid to the proprietor, they argue that the community had become the proprietor. However, Akiyama and Nakamura concluded that this amounted to a sales tax on real property because the buyer was essentially buying into the community.21

• 22 Mamoru Ogawa 小川保, “Hideyoshi no ‘Kyōto dai kaizō’: mibun betsu ni kyojū chi bunri” 秀吉の “京都大改造”－身分別に (...)
• 23 Ryōichi Yasukuni 安国良一, “Chō to ie yashiki baibai: hitsuyō na zen chōnin no gōi hoshō to tomoni chōy (...)

16Despite these claims that the property was jointly owned by the community, there is no sign that it was treated as community commons. Moreover, Mamoru Ogawa points out that, even though Kyoto grew again to a large city, some of the residents were farmers owning small fields as part of their neighborhood property.22 Ryōichi Yasukuni argues that owning a house included owning the land the house was on. Neighborhood communities were concerned that a member would sell a field or garden to a resident of the neighborhood behind them and the community would lose claim to that land. Neighborhood ordinances of the seventeenth century include a provision against selling the land behind a house (ie no uraji 家の裏地). Buying property in a neighborhood meant joining a neighborhood community as a townsperson. The sale of property in a neighborhood also represented change in community membership, so the communities typically required a recommendation from another neighborhood resident, that would be discussed by the neighborhood council, and recognition of the sale by all the residents. If the buyer did not meet neighborhood requirements, he was disqualified, and the objection of even one resident owner could block the sale. If the sale were recognized, a contract of sale called a sale ticket (baiken 売券) was issued by the neighborhood. This sale ticket was kept as proof of ownership, as there was no registry recording the transfer of ownership. Agreement by all members of the community was the final insurance that the sale would not be challenged and the sales tax paid to the community, as noted above, finalized the sale.23 In a sense, this served as a registration fee.

• 24 Michitaka Kamada 鎌田道隆, Kinsei Kyōto no toshi to minshū 近世京都の都市と民衆 (City and People in Early Modern (...)

17Kamada argues that the neighborhoods were not independent units of government within the city. Instead, beginning with Hideyoshi and continuing with the Tokugawa regime, warrior government depended upon the neighborhoods being equal to each other, and autonomous units in the urban political hierarchy. In the late sixteenth century, however, there were great differences in the internal political organization of the neighborhoods, with some having an alderman and their own legal codes or rules, and others depending on better organized neighborhoods to represent them to higher authorities. Some neighborhoods also had a group of elders serving as an administrative council. In 1615 (Genna 1), the Kyoto deputy (Kyoto shoshidai 京都所司代) issued edicts that were circulated and had to be signed by the five councilors (go nin tsutsu 五人ツツ) that the warrior regime expected represented each neighborhood. Tetsuya Sugimori also notes these developments.24

• 25 Kunizō Akiyama 秋山國三, Ken Nakamura 仲村研, Kyōto chō no kenkyū 京都町の研究 (Research on Kyoto Neighborhoods) (...)
• 26 Kunizō Akiyama 秋山國三, Ken Nakamura 仲村研, Kyōto chō no kenkyū 京都町の研究 (Research on Kyoto Neighborhoods) (...)

18Due to the number five, Akiyama and Nakamura interpreted the five councilors as being five-household joint responsibility group leaders. However, Kyoto had a ten-household system by order of a 1603 (Keichō 8) edict, and this did not change to a five-household system until 1644 (Kanei 21),25 so the five councilors were unlikely to have been five-household group leaders in 1615 (Genna 1). In the joint responsibility system, all households in the group, whether ten households or five, were liable for any legal trouble that any member of any of the households caused. If one committed a crime, they were all punished. In Kyoto, only the households living on property they owned were counted as members of these groups. The landlords were further responsible for the actions of their tenants and these differences were reflected in the documents required to buy or to rent property. For buyers, it was required to have one guarantor recommend and stand as surety in case of any trouble, and for each renter the required number of such guarantors was two.26 Although the Tokugawa regime expected each neighborhood to have an alderman (chō toshiyori 町年寄), a secretary to keep and organize the calendar of regular events (gyōji 行事), and three others for a total of five, not all neighborhoods had this much organization. Later, a majority of neighborhoods had an administration made up of an alderman and a council of two to four five-household joint responsibility group leaders.

• 27 Michitaka Kamada 鎌田道隆, Kinsei Kyōto no toshi to minshū 近世京都の都市と民衆 (City and People in Early Modern (...)

19In a broad sense, control of who owned property in a neighborhood was shared with the neighborhood community, which was comprised of the owner households. Thus, buying property in a neighborhood also meant buying into the community, so that owning property was rather like owning shares in a corporate unit. At the same time, there is no evidence in the research literature that neighborhood property was available for common use, so that it can also be argued that the neighborhood community owned the property simply because the community consisted only of the property owners. Moreover, the community needed to oversee who joined the community because of the joint responsibility system. Indeed, the 1615 (Genna 1) edict required the community to reject individuals who refused to join a responsibility group, even if the individual owned property.27 That order essentially imposed on the neighborhood communities the legal obligation to oversee who joined their communities. The remaining sections examine the primary data from Kyoto neighborhoods under the Tokugawa regime to understand what happened to property when the owners died without heirs. The answer to this question is clearly tied to the rights of neighborhood communities over the property in their communities, or the rights that community members exerted to protect the community, so this investigation may also reveal the relations of ownership.

• 28 Munehiro Itō 伊藤宗裕, “Chō gumi to jiji” 町組と自治 (“Neighborhood Groups and Self Government”), in Daigaku (...)

20The sources for this study were all created or compiled during the period of the Tokugawa regime (1603-1868 Kichō 8 – Meiji 1), when the neighborhood administrations were incorporated as autonomous units in the city government of Kyoto. Each neighborhood was part of a neighborhood group with a representative from each neighborhood serving on the group council, each group choosing a representative to serve on the city councils of upper and lower Kyoto, each with one representative interacting and negotiating with the officials appointed by the Tokugawa warrior government.28

• 29 They are also called population registers in the research literature, but the Kyoto surveys only re (...)
• 30 Most households used a house name because commoners were generally prohibited from using surnames, (...)

23The third source is a digitalized database created from the individual faith surveys, called shūmon ninbetsu aratame chō.29 (宗門人別改帳), compiled annually in the eighth month and listing every resident of the neighborhood in his or her household of residence and in relation to the head of household. These listings record the Buddhist sect each individual belonged to with the name and address of their temple of registration as well as the birth province, name, age, and relation to head of household, including servants, apprentices and management employees living in the households of their employers. The head of each household is identified with the house name (yagō 屋号) or very rarely the surname used by the household. The surveys also provide residential information such as the name and address of the landlord, if the household rented, leased the land, or boarded.30 The ages recorded in these surveys represent the calendar year of life, such as 1st year for age 1, instead of time elapsed from birth, as is common in Western documents. Many surveys provide some limited information regarding some individuals who appear between surveys in the form of notes added by the neighborhood administration to help them compile the survey for the following year. These notes provide incomplete, but valuable information regarding deaths, moves, adoptions, and other events.

• 33 Sayoshi Katsura 桂佐義 et al., “Kenchi aratame chō” 検地改帳 (“Property Investigation Register”), Meiwa 4 (...)

27The record for the property on page 32 of the register begins with the farmer named Seibei who transmitted it to his son-in-law Ichibei. The property then passed to Ichibei’s widow Chō, Seibei’s daughter. In the 7th lunar month of 1732 (Kyōhō 17), Chō sold the property for 430 monme of silver to Kiya Matahei, who sold it to the neighborhood community in the eighth lunar month of 1743 (Kanpō 3) for 500 monme. Three months later, in the eleventh lunar month, Murakami Hikouyemon bought the property for 430 monme. On the last day of the eleventh lunar month of 1749 (Kanen 2), however, Hikouyemon left home and disappeared without telling anyone where he was. After an investigation, the neighborhood community claimed the property and all remaining assets, then sold everything in the fifth lunar month of 1750 (Kanen 3) to Masuya Mohei, who still owned it in 1767, when this register was compiled.33

• 34 Mary Louise Nagata, “Name Changing Patterns and the Stem Family in Early Modern Japan: Shimomoriya. (...)

28Although we cannot know if Murakami Hikouyemon died without heir, the property was left abandoned without knowledge of the fate of the owner. Murakami may have died, or simply run away for whatever reason. Note that Murakami was the person who bought the property from the community in 1743 (Kanpō 3), and he used a surname Murakami 村上, implying an elite status associated with either the warrior class or the imperial nobility since commoners were rarely allowed to use surnames.34 In any case, the neighborhood community apparently claimed the property and sold it. One possibility is that claiming the property and selling it to a new owner protected the community from any liability for any trouble Murakami Hikouyemon may have gotten into by the joint responsibility system. By claiming the property and selling it to another person, they could deny responsibility for Murakami’s actions.

• 35 Mary Louise Nagata, “Provisions for Care and Neighborhood Funds in Early Modern Kyoto”, in Margarid (...)

29There are no other cases of abandoned property listed in this register and no recorded deaths without heirs, but there were some instances in which owners sold their property to the neighborhood community, like the example of Kiya Matahei above. When an owner needed ready cash, he could borrow from the neighborhood treasury, but he could also sell his property to the neighborhood community.35 Selling the property to the community also implies that there were private ownership rights to sell. In every case in which this neighborhood community gained full ownership of a property, it was sold to a new owner soon after. The individual faith surveys also reveal many neighborhoods in which the neighborhood community is often listed as one of the landlords for rental households, so clearly some neighborhoods rented out property that came to be owned by the community until they could sell it.

• 36 Kiyoshi Hamano 浜野潔, Kinsei Kyōto no rekishi jinkōgaku teki kenkyū 近世京都の歴史人口学的研究 (Research on the Hi (...)

31There are many transmission wills in the document collections of Kyoto neighborhoods. More precisely, these documents have the title yuzurijō no koto (譲状之事), meaning “document for ceding property”. Various scholars have tried to analyze these documents as wills, but have found that the “heirs” named in the wills often did not appear as head of household on the property.36 Using the wills written in a neighborhood for which there are population surveys available, both written during the period 1843-1868, allows for better analysis of the wills and their significance. We can observe the composition of the household, the age and gender of any relevant parties present in the household, the presence or absence of parties mentioned in the wills, and the timing for when the wills were written, as well as what happened to the property over time.

• 37 Michitaka Kamada 鎌田道隆, “Chōnin no jidai 町人の時代 (“The Townspeople Era”), in Tatsusaburō Hayashiya 林屋辰 (...)

32There are two neighborhoods called Sanjō Koromodana in the pooled data sample of population surveys. The two neighborhoods are the blocks extending north and south of the intersection of Sanjō and Koromodana streets. The business network called Chikiriya 千切屋 had a major presence in both neighborhoods: seven households in the north block and six households in the south block. Chikiriya’s business was making Buddhist clerical robes and they had been doing this for a very long time. In 1776 (Anei 5), the business published a brief history of the family and business network claiming that long before they had owned as many as 800 shops, but currently they were down to only 60. Moreover, they clearly understood themselves to be an extended business and kin network.37

• 39 Chikiriya Kyūbei elder sister Kuma, (to Sanjō Koromodana minami chō alderman Sōbei, Goningumi counc (...)
• 40 Chikiriya Nobu, (to Sanjō tōri Koromodana Minami chō alderman Yasaburō, Goningumi council and chōjū (...)
• 41 Chikiriya Nobu, (to Sanjō tōri Koromodana Minami chō alderman Yasaburō, Goningumi council and chōjū (...)

34Kyūbei’s sister Kuma also wrote a testimonial dated the same month saying she agreed that the properties should go to Nobu and the neighborhood community, thus ceding her potential ownership to her niece.39 Chikiriya Nobu submitted her transmission will dated 1847 (Kōka 4/8/24) to the neighborhood administration ceding her two properties to her cousin Gombei and the neighborhood community.40 Nobu submitted one more transmission will in 1848, writing that one property will go to her cousin Gombei’s management employee Yohei and the neighborhood community. She describes Yohei as a bekke tedai [別家手代], or a management employee who had moved out to establish a separate branch.41

• 42 The eighth day of the twelfth lunar month of Kōka 3.
• 43 Bundaiya Kau, (to Koromodana Minami alderman Sōbei and the neighborhood representatives), “Yuzurijo (...)

38The surveys for 1843 (Tenpō 14) list Bundaiya Tahei (in his 33rd year) as head of household, living with his mother Kau (61), wife Kuno (22), and son Minnosuke (1), born that year; the survey for 1844 is missing but there is no change to this household in 1845 (Kōka 2). In 1846 (Kōka 3), Tahei is gone and Kau is listed as head with her daughter Kuno and grandson Minnosuke. The first will of the series was written by Kau 1846 (Kōka 3/12/8),42 after the survey was submitted. Kau, now newly head of household, ceded one property she owned to her grandchild Minnosuke and to the neighborhood community upon her death.43 The 1847 (Kōka 4) survey lists Kau living with her daughter Tome and three grandchildren: Minnosuke, now five, Kajinosuke and Take, ages twelve and 21.

• 44 The fourteenth day of the second lunar month of Kaei 1.
• 45 Bundaiya Minnosuke, (to Koromodana Minami alderman Yasubei and the neighborhood representatives), “ (...)
• 46 The 24th day of the fifth lunar month of Kaei 2.
• 47 Bundaiya Tome, (to Koromodana Minami alderman Kihei and the neighborhood representatives), “Yuzurij (...)

39The second will in the series was written 1848 (Kōka 5/2/14)44 by Minnosuke stating that upon his death he would cede the property to his uncle Kohei and aunt Tome.45 The survey for 1848 (Kaei 1) lists Minnosuke (6) living with his cousins Kajinosuke and Take, with Tome identified as Kohei’s wife in the household, but lists Kohei separately as a lodger. Even though Minnosuke would cede the property to Kohei and Tome, Kohei carefully did not join the household outright. He was there as Tome’s husband. Yet, the next will and the survey listing for 1849 (Kaei 2) also reveal that Tome and Minnosuke were both owners. Tome wrote a will in 1849 (Kaei 2/4/24)46 ceding her ownership of the property to her nephew Minnosuke, her son Kajinosuke and daughter Take.47 The survey lists Tome as head of household, with Minnosuke, Kajinosuke, and Take identified as her children even though the will correctly identifies Minnosuke as her nephew. However, this listing is one of many instances that reveal Japanese kin relations to be fluid. Kohei is not included in the listing.

• 48 The fourteenth day of the fifth lunar month of Kaei 5.
• 49 Bundaiya Minnosuke, (to Koromodana Minami alderman Jūsuke and the neighborhood representatives), “Y (...)

40Minnosuke wrote another will 1852 (Kaei 5/5/14),48 this time ceding the property upon his death to his cousins Kajinosuke and Take.49 The survey for 1852 (Kaei 5) lists Minnosuke as head of household at age ten, living with his elder brother Kajinosuke (17) and elder sister Take (25). This is the final will in the series. The household also appears in the survey for 1853 (Kaei 6), with Minnosuke as head of household living with Kajinosuke and Take, now identified as his cousins and guardians (kōkennin 後見人). The household does not appear in the surveys for this neighborhood after 1853 (Kaei 6).