The Alimentary Tables of Veleia and Ligures Baebiani provide us with most important information on landholding conditions in Italy during the early Empire. Many scholars who have investigated these tables conclude that they, especially the Baebian Table, testify to the survival of small holdings, though they indicate the development of latifundia as well. But in the Table of Baebiani, the landowners don't register all of their estates. The data in this table is therefore not as instructive as is often thought. We should examine the landholding conditions mainly through the analysis of the Table of Veleia. My conclusion regarding landholding distribution is as follows. (1)In the Table of Veleia six large landowners (including one who appears only as a neighbour) are found. They seem to have possessed the larger part of the land in this district. (2)At least sixty or seventy medium-sized landowners (including at least twenty or thirty neighbours) form the middle class. (3)More than a hundred and fifty who do not register their estates and appear only as neighbours, perhaps together with those who never appear in this table, form a large group of small-owners. The estates of wealthy landowners composed of many component fundi each of which was made up from a few smaller fundi. The component fundi are in many cases contiguous. Therefore an estate of a wealthy landowner was either a single integrated estate or consisted of groups of contiguous component fundi. This landholding situation has already been seen in the Alimentary Tables and is in accordance with evidence provided by the agrimensores and Younger Pliny. The landowners of this period endeavoured to integrate their estates, through such incidental opportunities as inheritance or purchase. These efforts, however, did not lead to large-scale cultivation. Their estates were probably divided into small or medium size parcels of land.
The Shaden referred to in this paper indicates the rice fields established to support financially archery training in the Gundan (軍団) corps all over Japan under the Ritsu-ryo (律令) system. Shaden also had two other meanings ; one was the rice fields that supported archery training in Wefu (衛府), the ancient royal guards, and the other was rice fields providing resources for Taisha (大射), archery ceremony at the Court. Financial matters concerning Gundan are little known and the problems surrounding Shaden (射田) may suggest something about the character of Gundan, though the fields were limited in size. Shaden were set up in every Gun (郡) all over Japan and were of the same size. Early Shaden are assumed to have been managed by the leaders of Gun. These facts suggest that the Shaden system began when every Hyo (評), the former name of Gun, had its own corps under the system of Kiyomigahara-ryo (浄御原令) in the late 7th century. The Gundan system was established in the 8th century. Formal connection between Gun and Gundan was forbidden, and the Gun was responsible for the Shaden. This may seem strange, but I think this fact shows us the way the central goverment controlled the corps over the whole country. Kokushi (国司), the provincial governors sent from the central goverment, could not rule over their regions and corps without the support of local leaders, but at the same time the government wished to prevent the local leaders from gaining power in the corps made up of local men. The Kokushi depended on the Gun for finances including military expenses, and maintained the right of managing the corps by standing between the officially mutually unrelated Gun and corps, and controlling the pipeline between them. Therefore, although the government depended upon the local clans for military power until the Ritsu-ryo system was formed, the corps (Gundan) in the 8th century, rather than possesing the military characteristics of local clans, were Organized as part of the Ritsu-ryo state.
In this essay the author attempts to make a contribution to the history of outcastes in Japan and, in doing so, to the present day burakumin liberation movement by exploring hinin-shuku in the kinai region under the control of the temple, Saidaiji, during the late Kamakura period. Hinin-shuku in medieval Japan were small pariah settlements organized by temples and shrines through operatives called chori. These shuku were located within larger way stations at important points along transportation routes in the Kinai, and provided an important source of non-agricultural labor ranging from simple portage to various defiling occupations like animal slaughter and burial services. By re-examing available documents concerning hinin-shuku, the author criticizes the position held by Oyama Kyohei that these shuku were controlled under the authority of the shugo in the Kinai provinces, and therefore ultimately under the Imperial prerogative (Amino Yoshihiko's position). As opposed to the management of these settlements by such religious organizations as Kofukuji and Gion shrine, in which hinin residents were organized into guild (za) formations, Saidaiji, through the leadership of two monks, Eison and Ninsho, carried out its control under the guise of almsgiving (segyo) and the offering of salvation through the beliefs surrounding monjushuri, the Bodhisattva of Supreme Wisdom. As his main conclusion the author argues that there was a close relationship between the Kamakura Bakufu and Saidaiji, and, therefore, in a certain sense through this relationship Bakufu domination of hinin-shuku was realized.