City, Culture and Society 3 (2012) 1–8

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

City, Culture and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /ccs

Introduction

The Urban History of Osaka

Introduction

In this special issue, we examine the city of Osaka, anurban area with a long history. Focusing on a range ofthemes, this volume attempts to reconstruct the historicalworld of Osaka’s ‘‘urban lower classes’’ (toshi kaso). Theauthors who have contributed articles have taken specialcare to explain the perspectives and methods that they haveemployed in support of their analyses. In addition, manyconsider the significance of the topics that they address ina comparative historical context.

During the early modern period, Osaka was a ‘‘mega-castle town’’ (kyodai jokamachi), which at its peak had apopulation of 400,000. It was second only to Edo, whichhad approximately one million inhabitants. In contrast toEdo, which was a center of political power, Osaka was amajor economic center.1 Although the two cities differed incharacter, both Edo and Osaka were subdivided into neigh-borhood-level administrative units known as cho, whichfunctioned as the basic unit of community life for city resi-dents. The dramatic advancement in research on the earlymodern city that took place in the 1980s involved anenhanced focus on the cho and its fundamental component,the townhouse (machiyashiki).2 In this article, I will beginby tracing the development of historical research on earlymodern Japanese cities and describing the basic methods em-ployed by Japanese urban historians. I will then introduce therange of perspectives from which the articles in this specialissue examine Osaka’s urban history. Lastly, I will briefly sur-vey the history of the city itself. Such an analysis should helpto indicate the place of each of the themes examined in thisspecial issue in Osaka’s broader historical development.

The traditional city and urban social structure

Until the 1950s, much of the historical research onpre-modern Japanese cities attempted to elucidate the placeof the city in Japanese history according to the standard ofEurope’s autonomous ‘‘free cities.’’ In addition, the analyticalmethods employed in many early studies were limited todata collection and classification. Urban historians whostudied the early modern period began shifting their focus

1877-9166/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2012.06.002

1 After the Meiji Restoration, Edo came to be called Tokyo.2 The term machiyashiki refers both to a dwelling and the land on which it stood. In

Osaka, townhouses were known as ieyashiki.

in the 1960s. They attempted instead to illuminate the struc-tural features of the Japanese feudal system, which, unlikethe Europe’s decentralized feudal system, was characterizedby strong centralization. Much of the research on cities con-ducted during this period focused on the place of the city andits significance within the broader feudal system. While theresearch initiated in the 1960s produced some important re-sults, it failed to sufficiently examine the internal structureof cities and reconstruct the world of the urban masses(Tsukada, 1997). That limitation was only overcome in the1980s, when scholars of urban history once again shifted fo-cus and began to examine the significance of the lives of thepeople who inhabited early modern cities. The work of Yos-hida Nobuyuki, whose primary focus is the mega-castletown of Edo, led that shift. Focusing on the cho and its basiccomponent, the townhouse, Yoshida emphasized the hori-zontal social bonds linking individual townhouse owners(iemochi) and elucidated the relationship between town-house owners and their tenants (tanagari) (Yoshida, 1985[1998]). In addition, he demonstrated the necessity of divid-ing urban tenants into two strata: front-street tenants(omotedanagari) and back-alley tenants (uradanagari) (Yos-hida, 1992A [2000]). Furthermore, through an examinationof the social bonds that the Echigoya Mitsui merchant housedeveloped with members of the city’s day laborer stratum,he elucidated the network of local relations linking largemerchant houses with their servants (hokonin), hiredemployees, and tenants who rented the properties theymanaged (Yoshida, 1980 [1991]).3

During the 1990s, while continuing his work on the net-work of social relations that spread across early modernEdo, Yoshida began working to reconstruct Edo’s ‘‘segmen-tal structure’’ (bunsetsu kozo) in its entirety. Accordingly, heattempted to elucidate the internal structure of the city’swarrior estates, shrines and temple complexes, markets,and entertainment districts (Yoshida, 1998).

Although my own research focused initially on earlymodern status society, by examining the almsgiving rela-tionships that developed between licensed beggars andtownspeople, I was able to develop a methodology forunderstanding the whole of early modern society in terms

3 Both servants and hired employees who worked at large merchant shops, such asthe Echigoya Mitsui merchant house, can be divided into two categories: those whoworked in the shop front (tanaomote) and those who worked in the kitchen area(daidokorokata).

2 Introduction / City, Culture and Society 3 (2012) 1–8

of the ‘‘composition and stratification’’ (fukugo to juso) ofvarious self-regulating status groups (Tsukada, 1985[1987]). While Yoshida analyzed Edo’s licensed beggars interms of their connection with the various functions per-formed by the cho and from the perspective of the MitsuiHouse as one of the various groups that maintained a clientrelationship with the House’s kitchen, I examined the rela-tionship between beggars and townspeople from theperspective of the beggars themselves. While my assertionsregarding the composition and stratification of socialgroups were influenced by Yoshida’s research, they alsoinfluenced his assertions regarding the segmental structureof cities. The interplay between our two sets of ideas servedto deepen scholarly understanding of the social structure ofearly modern Japanese cities.

While elucidating Edo’s segmental urban structure,Yoshida simultaneously attempted to understand the placeof the early modern city in relation to the contemporarycity. In his research, he compared the character of the earlymodern city with that of the globalizing and increasinglyhomogenous contemporary city. Taking hints from thestages of urban developed outlined by Lewis Mumford inhis book, The Culture of Cities, Yoshida developed the con-cept of ‘‘the traditional city’’ to define his research on earlymodern Edo’s urban social structure (Yoshida, 1992B). Incontrast to the contemporary city, which originatedin North America during the final quarter of the nineteenthcentury and covered the globe by the second half of thetwentieth, Yoshida identifies ‘‘the traditional city’’ as onedisplaying unique features developed in the context of aspecific historical culture. Furthermore, he defines themodern city as a transitional urban form, which emergedduring the industrial revolution and was shaped by linger-ing vestiges of the traditional city, ultimately developinginto contemporary cities.

Furthermore, Yoshida argues that during the pre-global-ization stage the traditional city gave birth to a diverserange of urban models, which were cultivated in variousregional contexts around the globe and were products ofthe unique historical worlds from which they emerged.According to Yoshida, in Japan, traditional cities can bedivided into two basic types: capital cities, which were con-structed during the classical period and influenced byChinese models, and castle towns, which formed acrossthe Japanese archipelago between the sixteenth and eigh-teenth centuries. Moreover, Yoshida identifies the castletown as the primary urban model linking traditionalJapanese cities with those of the contemporary era.

Taking up the problems raised by Professor Yoshida, Icarried out research on early modern Osaka’s urban socialhistory. Even in contemporary cities, which are character-ized by an increasing homogeneity when people attemptto establish a basis of collective survival, I believe it is nec-essary to consider the features of the contemporary citythat first took shape in the traditional city. This specialissue was conceived with the above methods of urban his-torical analysis in mind. Of course each of the authors whocontributed articles utilizes these differently, introducingunique perspectives and methodologies. For example,Daniel Botsman’s article analyzes the significance of theperspectives and methodologies mentioned above whenthey are deployed in a comparative historical context.

The historical development of urban osaka

As I noted above, Yoshida Nobuyuki designated theChinese-influenced capital city and the castle town as thetwo primary types of traditional Japanese cities. Notably,Japan’s ancient capital cities did not simply develop intocontemporary cities. Rather, as Yoshida argues, they de-clined and in some cases ceased to exist. In contrast, thecastle town, which combined the various urban forms thatemerged during the medieval period, became the nucleusof the modern city. Professor Yoshida examined both typesof traditional city by considering their relationship with thecontemporary city. During the seventh and eight centuries,the Osaka region was host to one of Japan’s best-knownancient capitals, Naniwanomiya. However, during the ninthcentury, Naniwanomiya entered a period of rapid decline. Itwas eventually abandoned, and over time became buriedunderground. Naniwanomiya’s precise location was un-known until it was discovered during an excavation con-ducted after the Second World War. Therefore, the originof the contemporary city of Osaka lies not with Nani-wanomiya. Rather, it can be traced to the castle and sur-rounding castle town constructed by Toyotomi Hideyoshiduring the late sixteenth century. In short, the Osaka areawas ‘‘home’’ to both types of traditional Japanese city: theancient Chinese-style capital and castle town. Therefore,it represents an ideal case where a comparative approachto the analysis of urban models can be applied (Tsukada,2002).

Even after the decline of the ancient city of Nani-wanomiya, it is not the case that all forms of urbanizationdisappeared from the Osaka region. For example, urbanizedcommunities developed at Watanabe Bay around themouth of the O River (Okawa) and in the vicinity of Shi-tennoji, a large-scale temple complex purportedly estab-lished by Prince Shotoku. By the end of the medievalperiod, an urbanized Pure Land Buddhist community hadformed in the immediate vicinity of Shitennoji Temple. NikiHiroshi’s article analyzes that urbanized space, beginningwith an examination of its formation in the classical period.In addition, it analyzes the mode of existence of the pre-ponderance of poor people that gathered in that space dur-ing the medieval period.

Historian Ito Tsuyoshi’s research has examined Hideyo-shi’s construction of the city of Osaka in the late sixteenthcentury (Ito, 1987). According to Ito, Hideyoshi’s originalplan called for the construction of the city southward fromOsaka Castle in order to connect it with the urbanized com-munity that already existed in the vicinity of ShitennojiTemple and the large city of Sakai. After the constructionof the castle’s outermost sections was completed in 1598,Hideyoshi’s original plan was expanded to include the Sen-ba area, which was located to the west of Osaka Castle(Uchida, 1989). Originally, Hideyoshi called for the con-struction of the city on top of the elevated Uemachi Plateau.However, because the western side of the plateau was com-posed of damp marshland, Hideyoshi was forced to con-struct a canal to improve drainage. The earth that wasremoved from the ground in order to construct the canalwas then used to expand the face of the plateau and in-crease the amount of land available for construction. Thecanal constructed by Hideyoshi came to play a vital role

4 NonomuraIchinoshin is listed in chart two as a chief councilor under the nameKawamura Ikki-no-kami.

Introduction / City, Culture and Society 3 (2012) 1–8 3

in the city’s transportation network. The actual work ofconstruction was funded and executed by wealthy com-moners (Ito, 1987). In addition, residents from the Fushimiand Hirano areas were relocated en masse to the newlyurbanized areas constructed to the south and west of thecastle.

By the mid-seventeenth century, early modern Osaka’s‘‘three districts’’ (Sango) were almost completely formed(Refer to Map 1) (Uehata, 1999). In the process, nearbyvillages were integrated into the newly formed city and or-ganized as cho. For example, the village of Mitsutera wasincorporated into the city and came to be known as Mit-suteracho. AsIto has pointed out, the preexisting order ofthe villages that were integrated into the city significantlyinfluenced the social and political order that took shapein those communities as they became classified as cho.However, as Uehata Hiroshi recently demonstrated, someof the villagers who became townspeople following theintegration of their communities into the city continuedto live as farmers and maintained clan-based bonds intothe second half of the seventeenth century (Uehata,1999). Despite Ito and Uehata’s contributions, additionalresearch on Osaka’s formation is still necessary.

The segmental structure of urban Osaka

Scholars have long asserted that early modern Japan’scastle towns were partitioned into status-based residentialzones, including (1) warrior compounds where feudal lordsand their retainers lived, (2) shrine and temple complexeswhich contained Buddhist and Shinto religious institutions,(3) commoner quarters where townspeople lived, and, onthe periphery of those areas, (4) outcaste and beggar en-claves. However, if one closely examines the everyday livesof urban residents, the character of the social groups theyformed, and the interrelationships between those groups,the insufficiency of the above description quickly becomesapparent.

While there is already a significant body of research onEdo, including the pioneering work of Yoshida Nobuyuki,scholars are now in the process of composing a similarlycomprehensive body of research about Osaka’s urban his-tory. In the following section, I would like to briefly intro-duce the major early modern social groups that inhabitedOsaka, including warriors, religious affiliates, townspeople,outcastes, and beggars.

The warrior status group

The Tokugawa shogunate, which was based in Edo,directly ruled the city of Osaka. Leading city officials,including the castellan and castle guards, were dispatchedby the shogunate to supervise security and defense. Inaddition, the warrior authorities in Edo appointed citygovernors (machibugyo, also translated as ‘‘city magis-trates’’) to oversee Osaka’s civil administration and judicialaffairs. All of these individuals were members of the war-rior status group. The majority worked in official adminis-trative institutions and lived in compounds immediatelyto the west and south of Osaka Castle. Early modern offi-cials governed on the basis of two linked principles:bureaucracy and hierarchy. That fact becomes apparentwhen one examines the lists of officials (yakuroku) that

were compiled each year by the warrior government inEdo (Tsukada, 2002, Map 2). For example, in the list thatwas compiled in 1861, the names of Osaka’s eastern citymagistrate, Kawamura Ikki-no-kami, and western citymagistrate, Kusumi Sado-no-kami, are listed together withthe names of other city officials, including chief counselors,administrators, representatives, inspectors, and secretaries.Those functionaries were not local employees of the Osakacity magistrate’s office. Rather, they traveled from Edo witheach new magistrate selected to serve in Osaka. Further-more, the position of city magistrate is distinct from thatof the modern-day mayor, which is performed by a specificindividual. In contrast, it was an official duty performed bysmall-scale warrior retainers directly subordinate to theTokugawa house, including Kawamura, who received anannual rice stipend of 300 tawara (approx. 18,000 kg), andKusumi, who received an annual stipend of 500 koku(approx. 75,000 kg). Although most of the retainers whowere appointed to serve as city magistrate received annualstipends of approximately 1500 koku (approx. 225,000 kg),some received as much as 3000 koku (450,000 kg), whileother received as little as 300 tawara. The reason that sti-pend amounts varied so widely stems directly from the factthat retainers with small domains and few vassals were attimes appointed to serve as city magistrate. Lacking theeconomic resources to provide a sufficient number of func-tionaries to fulfill the duties required of the magistrate,such retainers had to hire officials upon arrival in Osaka.This in turn created the need for a permanent class of ‘‘hiredfunctionaries,’’ who bounced from one retainer to the next.Nonomura Jihei and Nonomura Ichinoshin, both of whomhistorian Miyachi Masato first researched, represent aclassic example of this phenomenon (Miyachi, 1999).4

While working in Osaka, hired functionaries received botha stipend from the retainer they served and a salary fromthe city coffers. Moreover, the salary they received whiletheir employer was serving as city magistrate was signifi-cantly higher than the salary they received when he wasemployed in other official positions.

The Osaka city magistrate directly governed two prov-inces: Settsu and Kawachi. In addition, during the eigh-teenth century, the magistrate came to control judicialaffairs in two additional provinces, Izumi and Harima,and gained the authority to decide monetary disputesinvolving parties from Settsu, Kawachi, Izumi, or Harimaprovinces, as well as parties from provinces located furtherto the west. Therefore, it is essential to note the broadgeographic scope of the city magistrate’s administrativeand judicial authority (Tsukada, 1996).

The lords of major western domains maintained largedomainal depots (kurayashiki) in Osaka, which they usedas a base from which to sell off the annual rice taxes(nengumai) that they collected from their subjects. Manydepots were located in Osaka’s Nakanoshima district. Re-cent research has revealed that domainal depots performeda diverse range functions not limited to the sale of rice(Morishita 2001; Tsukada, 1996, 2006). First, in terms ofcommodity distribution, they handled the sale of a rangeof domainal goods in addition to rice; thus they played akey role in the administration of domainal monopolies

Map 1. Tsukada Takashi. Kinseiosaka no toshishakai, p. 3. ‘‘Shinsenzohoosakaoezu (Jokyo4)’’ This map is held by the Osaka Prefectural History Museum.

4 Introduction / City, Culture and Society 3 (2012) 1–8

and dispensation of commodities subject to monopoly con-trol. Second, they also played an important role in urbansociety. For example, by functioning as a conduit linkingthe city of Osaka with regional domains, domainal depotsmade it possible for the city magistrate to exercise hisbroad ranging administrative and judicial powers. How-ever, at the same time, depots emerged as a focal point ofmany of the problems concerning thousands of domainalservants employed in the city each year. Third, it is alsoimportant to mention the spatial features of Osaka’s doma-inal depots. The city’s depots were similar to Edo’s warriorcompounds in that they were enclosed spaces surroundedby walls and external tenement rows. However, they weremuch smaller in scale and included on-site storehouses anda small inlet for boats carrying rice and other goods. Arange of actors, including officials from the city magis-trate’s office, depot managers, storehouse administrators,clerks, financiers, and porters, maintained relationshipswith domainal depots. In addition, depot officials managedon-site rental housing, which they leased to private ten-ants. This in turn intimately linked the city’s domainaldepots to Osaka’s urban lower classes.

Religious practitioners

Generally, the temples of early modern Japan’s castletowns can be divided into two types: neighborhood templesand large-scale temple complexes. In the case of early mod-ern Osaka, only the Pure Land Buddhist sect was permittedto operate neighborhood temples inside the city (Ito, 1992).Although Osaka’s largest and best-known temple complexwas Shitennoji Temple, similar types of religious complexescould also be found at Ikutama and Tenma Shrines (Yama-saki, 2012). The grounds of many large-scale shrines andtemples also played host to a wide range of commercialestablishments, including market stalls, teahouses, andperformance tents. Kanda Yutsuki addresses this aspect inpart in her article.

In addition, a wide array of religious mendicants, includ-ing Sh�ugendo ascetics, beggar monks, Pure Land Buddhistitinerants, shamanic priests, and itinerant Shinto practitio-ners, lived in the city and gathered alms (Tsukada, 2007).Focusing on Osaka’s beggar monks, a group of Buddhistmendicants who were organized under the authority ofKyoto’s Kurama Temple, Yoshida Nobuyuki elucidates both

Map 2. Tsukada Takashi. Kinseiosaka no toshishakai, p. 5. ‘‘Bunky�ugannnenoyakuroku (Front/Back).’’ This map is held by the Osaka Prefectural History Museum.

Introduction / City, Culture and Society 3 (2012) 1–8 5

their religious features and character as itinerant perform-ers (Yoshida, 1999). While the various groups of religiousmendicants residing in Osaka were organized under theauthority of a specific temple or religious organization,the social conditions of each group was virtually the sameand there was significant intermingling between thesegroups.

The commoner status group

On map one, the area that is covered with a chessboard-like grid is comprised almost entirely of the city’scommoner districts, which were populated by persons ofcommoner status. In Osaka, there were approximately

620 neighborhood-level communal organizations knownas cho and a wide variety of guild-like monopoly tradeorganizations known as nakama, which were formed by lo-cal merchants and artisans. The city’s chowere grouped intothree large districts (sango): Kita district (250 cho), Minamidistrict (261 cho), and Tenma district (109 cho) (Tsukada,2002). In recent years, scholars have begun to elucidatethe internal features of Osaka’s cho (Tsukada, 2006). Earlymodern cho were self-governing organizations that wereformed by landowners living on either side of a sharedstreet and had their own internal rules and regulations. Inaddition to dwellings and shops, many local landownersalso managed rental housing. Although rental housing canbe divided into two distinct types—front-street dwellings

6 Introduction / City, Culture and Society 3 (2012) 1–8

from which tenants could also operate street-front shops,and back-alley tenements which were located off the streetand served only as dwellings—all tenants, regardless of thetype of dwelling in which they lived, were largely prohib-ited from participating in the administration of the cho.

As for early modern Osaka’s trade associations, new re-search is currently being conducted on a number of organi-zations, including the pharmaceutical brokers’ guild, whichhandled the sale of imported medicines, and on the city’ssake brewers’ guild (Watanabe, 2006; Yahisa 2001 and2003). In addition, scholars have completed detailed stud-ies of the guilds formed by wholesalers and dealers whoconducted business at Osaka’s dried fish and produce mar-kets (Hara 1996, 2000, 2001, 2007; Yagi 2004, 2007). In thisspecial issue, Yagi Shigeru’s article examines traders whoengaged in the exchange of fruits and vegetables. Also,MorishitaToru’s article analyzes the role played by Osaka’sstevedores and porters in the circulation and distribution ofgoods. Stevedores and porters played a key role in thetransportation of the rice levies collected around Japaneach year. In that sense they were of vital importance tothe city’s domainal depots.

As mentioned above, artisans also formed guilds. Theconstruction of urban warrior estates, temple complexes,large-scale merchant houses, and back-alley tenementscreated a massive demand in large cities for skilledconstruction workers. Consequently, in the early modernperiod, the most common type of artisan was the carpenter.The carpenters of western Japan’s Kinai region were orga-nized under the authority of Kyoto-based carpenter boss,the Nakai House, and formed local trade associations. Inthis special issue, Tani Naoki’s article examines the historyof Osaka’s carpenters, focusing particularly on their organi-zational structure. In addition, construction workers whoperformed a more general set of duties known as tetsudai(or tobiin Edo) also formed a guild-like organization thatwas organized under the authority of Shitennoji Temple.The history of Osaka’s tetsudai is examined in detail inTaketani Yoshiyuki’s article. Together with the servantsemployed by the city’s samurai and merchant houses, ste-vedores and construction laborers formed part of a distinctsocial stratum, known as the hiyoso(day laborer stratum),whose members survived by selling their labor power.The members of the hiyoso, who lacked a permanent homeof their own and sold their labor in exchange for a wage,and the members of the back-alley tenement stratum,who had a home and controlled a small amount of capital,represent the two main constituent elements of early mod-ern Japan’s urban lower class (Yoshida, 1984 [1998]).

While early modern Osaka’s cho organizations and itsguilds were complexly linked within urban society, I lacksufficient space here to discuss their relationships. Rather,I briefly mention one example that concerns both the earlycho and the guilds (Nishimura, 2001): when a personrented a dwelling from a local landowner in one of Osaka’scho, it was necessary to provide a guarantor (hoshonin).Accordingly, a stratum of merchants appeared who actedas guarantors in exchange for payment. In 1732, an associ-ation of 53 professional guarantors received official recog-nition from the city magistrate’s office. At the same time,all brokers unaffiliated with that association were prohib-ited from acting as guarantors in exchange for money.

Thereafter, when an individual attempted to rent a dwell-ing from one of the city’s landowners, they were requiredto hire one of those 53 officially recognized guarantors.As this example indicates, various types of status-basedgroups, including guilds and cho organizations, overlappedin a complex manner inside the city of Osaka. In addition,Osaka’s guarantor association established temporary hous-ing for persons who were seeking vacancies and had no-where to stay in the city. An analysis of the type ofindividuals who stayed in the temporary dwellings oper-ated by the guarantor association reveals the instabilityfaced by many tenants who lived in the city’s back-alleytenements. The vital role that the city’s guarantors playedin brokering rental housing for prospective tenants madeit possible for them to earn a living (Tsukada, 2005). In thatsense, they performed a function akin to that of the mod-ern-day real estate agent.

The members of the city’s guilds owned licenses, orkabu. Significantly, there were various types of licenses.First, there were licenses that were issued in large quanti-ties on the assumption that their holders would lease themto third party business operators, which was the case forteahouses, restaurants, and bathhouse licenses (Tsukada,1996). Such licenses were fundamentally different from asecond type of license, namely those that were granted tothe members of existing guilds in order to guarantee themonopoly rights of guild members over a specific trade.In many cases, the first type of license was issued in con-junction with the development of a newly-opened tract ofland in an effort to encourage local prosperity and eco-nomic activity. In other cases, such licenses were issuedto developers as a form of financial assistance. In the caseof newly-opened land tracts, the authorities also gavedevelopers and residents the right to stage performancesand sumo wrestling bouts. Consequently, many newly-opened tracts of land also served as entertainment districtswhere licensed teahouses and performance tents were per-mitted to operate.

The outcaste (Eta) and beggar (Hinin) status groups

Socially stigmatized groups of outcastes and beggarswere forced to live in residential enclaves located on theperiphery of the early modern city. Persons of outcaste sta-tus lived in a community known as Watanabe Village, whichwas located just south of the city limits (Tsukada, 1994[2006]). Under the direction of the city magistrate’s office,members of Osaka’s outcaste status group performed arange of official duties, including changing the leather facingon the drums at Osaka Castle, disposing of human corpsesand animal carcasses, and administering punishments.Although Watanabe Village was officially classified as a vil-lage, it was internally divided into six cho. Moreover, the vil-lage’s population included a large number of influentialmerchants who supervised the distribution of leather goods.Over time, the village itself emerged as Western Japan’s keydistribution center for cow and horse skins. During the firsthalf of the 19th century, 70,000–100,000 cow and horseskins were sent to Watanabe Village each year. Furthermore,merchants in Watanabe Village handled the sale of horseand cowhides sent from Fukuoka Domain, and cowhides im-ported via Tsushima Domain from the Korean peninsula.

Introduction / City, Culture and Society 3 (2012) 1–8 7

Members of the beggar, or hinin, status group firstemerged as homeless panhandlers. However, their charac-ter underwent a major transformation over time. Theyformed a fraternal organization and obtained the right tolive in four designated residential enclaves, or kaito, locatedalong the city periphery (Tsukada, 2001). In the process,they secured a genealogy linking their history with thatof Shitennoji Temple and Prince Shotoku. The transforma-tion that Osaka’s beggars experienced was closely linkedto the duties they performed under the direction of policeofficials from the city magistrate’s office. Also, membersof the city’s beggar fraternity were hired to serve as watch-men in each of the city’s cho. In exchange for working aswatchmen in specific cho, they secured the exclusive rightto collect alms in that cho (see Tsukada Takashi’s articlein this collection). Here again, we can see the interminglingof different status groups.

When attempting to elucidate the social structure of theearly modern city, it is essential to work through this com-plex intermingling. When one focuses specifically on thatintermingling, previously obscured marginal status groupsand phenomena rise to the surface. Presently, the key taskfacing scholars of the early modern city is elucidating thenetwork of relations linking the various groups that inhab-ited the city in its entirety.

Conclusion—Osaka’s emergence as a modern city

During the process of national modernization initiatedin the Meiji period, the traditional city of Osaka also under-went a period of rapid modernization (Saga, 2008). Withthe collapse of the Tokugawa shogunate, Osaka Castle andthe surrounding warrior compounds were transformed intomilitary facilities and armaments factories. In addition,government institutions and corporate buildings were con-structed in place of the city’s domainal depots. In contrast,Osaka’s temple complexes and commoner districts contin-ued to serve as spaces in which city residents spent theirdaily lives. Accordingly, the process of modernizationmoved forward far less abruptly in such areas.

In addition, urbanized ‘‘town villages’’ (machimura), suchas Tennoji, Namba, and Kizu Villages, developed just out-side the early modern city limits. Like the city’s residentialdistricts, such communities were internally divided intocho. On Osaka’s periphery, the process of urbanization ad-vanced in a form whereby industrial zones containing bothlarge factory complexes and small-scale household work-shops intermingled with residential zones. At the sametime, the reclamation and development of lands on Osaka’searly modern coast formed another focal point of urbaniza-tion during the early stages of the modern period. Large-scale urbanization along Osaka’s periphery was also linkedwith several extensions of the city limits.

It goes without saying that we would be unable to suf-ficiently understand the structure that ensured the per-petuation of the modern city as well as its historicalsignificance without first understanding the structurethat ensured the perpetuation of the pre-modern city ofOsaka. However, we lack the space in this special issueto examine modern Osaka’s historical development inits entirety. For more on Osaka’s ‘‘town villages,’’ pleaserefer to Saga Ashita’s article, which also focuses onOsaka’s urban lower classes.

In addition, John Porter’s article analyzes the transfor-mation of Osaka’s impoverished Nagamachi district, anarea in which specially licensed flophouses known as kichi-n’yado were heavily concentrated. Persons officially classi-fied under the early modern population registrationsystem as ‘‘unregistered’’ (mushuku karaninbetsu) weregiven express permission to seek shelter in Nagamachi’sflophouses. In addition to the above analyses, which focuson the transformation of early modern Osaka’s urban lowerclasses in the aftermath of the Meiji Restoration, Jeff Hanes’article examines the administrative policies pursued bycity authorities towards the city’s rapidly expanding lowerclasses during the modern industrialization process.

Unless we consider the process of urban historical devel-opment examined above and the experiences of the peoplewho lived through it, it is unlikely that a solution will befound to the social problems confronting the contemporarycity of Osaka. Even in the contemporary city, which ismarked by a growing homogeneity, cultural traits firstdeveloped in the traditional city have proven difficult toerase because residents are forced to take them into ac-count when attempting to construct a shared basis ofsurvival.

References

Hara, Naofumi (1996). Ichiba to nakama. Rekishigaku kenky�u, 690.Hara, Naofumi (2000). Matsumae tonya. In Nobuyuki Yoshida (Ed.), Kinsei no

mibuntekish�uen 4: akinai no ba to shakai. Tokyo: Yoshikawa kobunkan.Hara, Naofumi (2001). Hakodate sanbutsu kaisho to Osaka gyohi ichiba. In Takashi

Tsukada & Nobuyuki Yoshida (Eds.), Kinsei Osaka no toshi k�ukan to shakai kozo.Tokyo: Yamakawa shuppansha.

Hara, Naofumi (2007). Akinai ga musubu hitobito: j�usosuru nakama to ichiba. InNaofumi Hara (Ed.), Mibunteki sh�uen to kinsei shakai 3: akinai ga musubu hitobito.Tokyo: Yoshikawa kobunkan.

Ito Tsuyoshi. (1987). Kinsei Osaka seiritsu shiron. Seikatsushi kenky�usho.Ito, Tsuyoshi (1992). Kinseitoshi to ji’in. In Nobuyuki Yoshida (Ed.), Nihon no kinsei

9: toshi no jidai. Tokyo: Ch�uo koronsha.Miyachi, Masato (1999). Bakumatsu hatamoto yoninron. In Bakumatsu ishinki no

shakaiteki seijishi kenky�u. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.Morishita, Toru (2001). Hagi han kurayashiki to Osaka shich�u. In Takashi Tsukada &

Nobuyuki Yoshida (Eds.), Kinsei Osaka no toshi k�ukan to shakai kozo. Tokyo:Yamakawa shuppansha.

Nishimura, Kazue (2001). Kinsei Osaka Sango ie ukenin nakama ni tsuite. In TakashiTsukada & Nobuyuki Yoshida (Eds.), Kinsei Osaka no toshi k�ukan to shakai kozo.Tokyo: Yamakawa shuppansha.

Saga, Ashita (2008). Kindai Osaka no toshi shakai kozo. Tokyo: Nihon keizaihyoronsha.

Tsukada Takashi. (1985). Shakai sh�udan o megutte. Rekishigaku kenky�u 548. Alsoreproduced in Tsukada Takashi (1987) Kinsei Nihon mibunsei no kenky�u. Kobe:Hyogo burakumondaikenky�usho.

Tsukada Takashi. (1994). Mibunsei shakai no kaitai: Osaka Watanabemura=Nishihama no jirei kara. Rekishihyoron 527. Also reproduced in TsukadaTakashi (2006). Kinsei Osaka no toshi shakai. Tokyo: Yamakawakobunkan.

Tsukada Takashi. (1996). Kinsei no toshi shakaishi: Osaka o ch�ushinni. Tokyo: Aokishoten.

Tsukada, Takashi (1997). Toshi shakai no bunsetsuteki ha’aku: Yoshiwara o jirei ni.In Kinsei mibunsei to sh�uen shakai. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.

Tsukada, Takashi (2001). Toshi Osaka to hinin. Tokyo: Yamakawa shuppansha.Tsukada, Takashi (2002). Rekishi no naka no Osaka. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.Tsukada, Takashi (2005). Kinsei koki Osaka ni okeru toshi kaso minsh�u no seikatsu

sekai. In Higashi Ajia kinsei toshi ni okeru shakaiteki ketsugo: shomibun, shokaisono sonzaikeitai. Osaka: Seibundo shuppan.

Tsukada, Takashi (2006). Kyodai toshi Osaka to kurayashiki: fukuoka hankurayashiki o ch�ushin ni. In Kinsei Osaka no toshi shakai. Tokyo: Yoshikawakobunkan.

Tsukada, Takashi (2007). Kanjin sh�ukyosha no heizon to kyogo: machibure otegakari toshite; Shirakawa-ke haika no choshinshoku; Rokusai nenbutsu toSaihoji. In Kinsei Osaka to mibunteki sh�uen. Kyoto: Buraku mondai kenky�usho.

Uchida, Kusuo (1989). Toyotomi Hideyoshi no Osaka kensetsu. In Takashi Sakuma(Ed.), Yomigaeru ch�usei2: Honganji kara Tenkaichi e Osaka. Tokyo: Heibonsha.

Uehata, Harushi (1999). Kinsei shoki no mitsuderacho. Osaka no rekishi, 53.Watanabe, Sachiko (2006). Kinsei Osaka: yakushu no torihiki kozo to shakai sh�udan.

Osaka: Seibundo shuppansha.

8 Introduction / City, Culture and Society 3 (2012) 1–8

Yagi, Shigeru (2004). Kinsei Tenma aomono ichiba no kozo to tenkai. In TakashiTsukada (Ed.), Osaka ni okeru toshi no hatten to kozo. Tokyo: Yamakawashuppansha.

Yagi, Shigeru (2007). Aomono shonin. In Naofumi Hara (Ed.), Mibunteki sh�uen tokinsei shakai 3: akinai ga musubu hitobito. Tokyo: Yoshikawa kobunkan.

Yahisa, Kenji (2001). Kinsei Osaka Sango sh�uzo nakama no kozo. In Takashi Tsukada& Nobuyuki Yoshida (Eds.), Kinsei Osaka no toshi k�ukan to shakai kozo. Tokyo:Yamakawa shuppansha.

Yahisa, Kenji (2003). Kinsei Osaka no sakenakatsugi nakama to sh�uzo nakama.Hisutoria, 183.

Yamasaki, Tatsuhiro (2012). Kinsei Shitennoji ni okeru ji’in shakai kozo no kenky�u.Toshi bunka kenky�u, 14.

Yoshida Nobuyuki. (1980). Segyo to sonohikasegi no mono. In: Hyakusho ikkikenky�ukai (Eds.), Tenpoki no jinmintoso to shakaihenkaku. Tokyo: Azekurashobo.Also reproduced in Yoshida Nobuyuki (1991). Kinsei kyodai toshi no shakai kozo.Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.

Yoshida Nobuyuki. (1984). Nihon kinsei toshi kaso shakai no sonritsu kozo.Rekishigaku kenky�u 534. Also reproduced in Yoshida Nobuyuki (1998) Kinseitoshi shakai to mibun kozo. Tokyo: Yamakawa shuppansha.

Yoshida Nobuyuki. (1985). Chonin to cho. In Reikishigakukenky�ukai andNihonshikenky�ukai (eds.), Kozanihonrekishi 5. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.Also reproduced in Yoshida Nobuyuki (1998). Kinsei toshi shakai to mibun kozo.Tokyo: Yamakawashuppansha.

Yoshida Nobuyuki. (1992). Omotedana to uradana: shonin no sekai, minshu nosekai. In Yoshida Nobuyuki (ed.), Nihon no kinsei 9: toshi no jidai. Tokyo:Ch�uokoronsha. Also reproduced in Yoshida Nobuyuki (2000). Kyodai jokamachiEdo no bunsetsu kozo. Tokyo: Yamakawa shuppansha.

Yoshida, Nobuyuki (1992B). Toshi no kinsei. In Nobuyuki Yoshida (Ed.), Nihon nokinsei 9: toshi no jidai. Tokyo: Ch�uokoronsha.

Yoshida, Nobuyuki (1998). Kinsei toshi shakai to mibun kozo. Tokyo: Yamakawashuppansha.

Yoshida, Nobuyuki (1999). Osaka’s brotherhood of mendicant monks. In James L.McClain & Wakita Osamu (Eds.), Osaka: the Merchants’ capital in TokugawaJapan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Takashi TsukadaGraduate School of Literature and Human Sciences,

Osaka City University, JapanE-mail address: tsukada@lit.osaka-cu.ac.jp

Available online 4 July 2012