In his discussion of fishing villages in Chikuzen province, Kalland provides an almost dizzying degree of detail about Tokugawa era fishing techniques and equipment, what kinds of fish were caught, and how they were used or prepared, and also about the complexities of economic logistics, tax structures, and regulations pertaining to fishing in Chikuzen. This book is surely a profoundly valuable resource for anyone studying Tokugawa period fishing villages, fishing, and the like, for the incredible level of detail he provides on a wide variety of aspects of fishing life. And, as such, it really fleshes out our picture of Tokugawa Japan, covering a very significant yet often overlooked sector, beyond the cities, beyond the samurai & townsmen, beyond even the agricultural peasantry.
However, for my particular project, since the Ryukyuan missions merely passed through these villages, I think Dusinberre’s brief Edo period chapter may be more directly applicable than Kalland’s entire book; in that brief chapter, Dusinberre mentions more about Korean missions, where they stayed while in Kaminoseki, how many houses they took up, and other key aspects of the logistics and burden of reception of these embassies than Kalland does in his entire book, mentioning next to nothing about inns, the harbor/port reception of any kind of official visitors, or the urban side of fishing villages otherwise. Kalland’s book is immensely valuable for one thing – for those interested in fishing villages – but I wish there existed an equally detailed, extensive, book on commercial port villages, more directly connected into networks of trade and travel.
That said, the one chapter on corvée labor (kako) could prove rather useful for my project, as Tokugawa systems of corvée – how people were called up, what types of tasks they contributed to – remain among the lacunae of my knowledge. Here, Kalland reveals that among the chief types of labor villagers in coastal villages were obliged to provide was, simply, the contribution of their boats and their labor for the transportation of officials and their associated cargoes. Though Kalland only speaks specifically of Fukuoka domain, it is easy to imagine, or extrapolate, that similar systems probably prevailed in other domains throughout much of the realm. Suddenly, we get a much clearer idea of how sankin kōtai missions, and Korean and Ryukyuan embassies, as well as any number of other official travels, were conducted: through considerable official appropriation of villagers’ boats and bodies. The numbers Kalland provides are a bit difficult to wrap one’s head around; that the reception of the 1748 Korean mission cost Chikuzen villages somewhere in the range of 120,000 man-hours worth of time/effort certainly makes an impression, suggesting the incredible magnitude of the corvée burden, but it does not give such a graspable, understandable, impression of the impact upon an individual fisherman, or upon a village. Still, combined with the figures and information given by Dusinberre as to how many houses in Kaminoseki and neighboring villages were taken up by Korean missions, we are able to begin to get some sense of the scale of the imposition.
Okinawan fishing boats on display at the Okinawa Prefectural Museum. Probably somewhat different from what they would have used in Chikuzen, but this is the closest thing I happen to have among my own photos.
Kalland’s focus on Chikuzen province (or Fukuoka han), however, presents some challenges. As demonstrated by numerous scholars, Mark Ravina in particular, Tokugawa period domains functioned in some important ways like (semi-)independent countries, and varied dramatically in their policies and political, economic, and societal structures and functionings. Thus, it is difficult to know how much of what Kalland shares here can actually be taken to be indicative of economic structures, etc., in any other province. Where the likes of Roberts, Sakai, McClain, and Dusinberre, writing on Tosa, Satsuma, Kanazawa, and Kaminoseki respectively, are to one extent or another clear about how their respective cases are indicative examples or atypical exceptions, Kalland’s engagement with this issue is lacking. He is neither sufficiently explicit about how or why Fukuoka might be an exceptionally distinctive case (as Satsuma would be in a variety of prominent respects), nor explicitly argues that his findings should be taken as applicable to the rest of the archipelago, leaving the question open and vague. As he describes, in many Chikuzen villages, fishermen did not actually own their own equipment, but used equipment owned by an amimoto, an entrepreneur who basically did the investment into the equipment and kept a good share of the return; or fishermen entered into net cooperatives, sharing the costs of the equipment. Did these amimoto and net cooperatives function similarly in other provinces? Did they even exist? Even without going into detail about other provinces, Kalland might have at least discussed whether anything he detailed was or was not typical for the archipelago as a whole. Was the domainal administration of Fukuoka more or less regulatory than in other provinces? Were tax rates particularly high, or particularly low? Were amimoto or net cooperatives particularly powerful or numerous, more so than in other provinces? And if so, why? What about Fukuoka’s location, or about the wealth/prestige of the Kuroda, made economic, social, and political structures regarding fishing exceptional, or typical? This sort of approach, as discussed to one extent or another by Sakai, Roberts, Ravina, and Dusinberre, would have dramatically enhanced the accessibility and usefulness of Kalland’s text.
Echoing my comments on Dusinberre and Amino, however, Kalland’s emphasis on fishing villages, and his arguments against seeing Tokugawa Japan as merely a dichotomy between urban merchants and rural farmers, are of great value in combating a conception which ignores coastal & maritime activities entirely.