Read/Search this Article
In many studies of manorial-maps, historical and semiotic approaches have been employed. However, many contexts, such as the political, economic and cultural circumstance and people's spatial cognition in the period when manorial-maps were made and used should be taken into consideration. Moreover, even manorial-maps themselves could be a context for others.The purpose of this paper is to analyze the expressions and descriptions of Manorial-Maps relating to Saidaiji Temple. These maps have usually been investigated individually, but this paper employs a contextual approach to determine how each map, especially Souron Ezu (dispute map), functioned and related to other maps within the group.Saidaiji owns or owned at least fifteen maps drawn in medieval and early modern times. This paper deals with ten of them which were drawn at the end of the thirteenth century and related to the disputes between Saidaiji and Akishinodera Temple. The ten maps can be categorized into three groups; Souron Ezu (maps 1-3), Shikichizu (ownership maps. maps 6-10) and Keihoku Handenzu (manorial-maps based on ancient cadastral maps. maps 4 and 5).Saidaiji and Akishinodera conflicted with each other on three occasions over the ownership of woodlands and irrigation systems. The second dispute happened in 1299, when Akishinodera tried to occupy woodlands and irrigation ponds and lasted eight years. The maps were drawn for presentation to the court in order to prove ownership. In the event, the maps made by Saidaiji were judged to be correct. About ten years later, Akishinodera caused the third dispute by burning the houses around Saidaiji and violating the woodlands of Saidaiji. Saidaiji accused Akishinodera over it.As for Souron Ezu, map 1, which was made by Akishinodera for the second dispute, contains special drawing methods for trees and directions. They show the insistence of Akishinodera on land ownership. Map 2 was drawn and made additional drawings by Saidaiji to report the invasion of Akishinodera in the third dispute. Map 3 was made to reconfirm the land ownership of the area after the disputes.Shikichizu were made to show the extent of Saidaiji's grounds and lands before the disputes, to which some of them were likely to be related. Map 7 has some descriptions which seem to have been added later, so it must have been used to assist Saidaiji's insistence in the process of disputes. Map 8 is supposed to have been a draft of map 7. Map 9 has also many descriptions relating to the third dispute (1316-1317) and it might have been made in the process of the dispute and attached to the documents for the court hearing.Keihoku Handenzu were originally made to certificate the exchange of the lands between Saidaiji and Akishinodera. The meaning of lines drawn in different colors seems to be associated with the disputes. Map 4 was made by Saidaiji, and map 5 was a transcribed version by Akishinodera., but there are some differences in coloring and drawing methods. It turned out that map 5 was referred to and some descriptions were added in the process of the second dispute.In conclusion, each of the maps is closely interrelated. Map 1 and map 7 had an especially great influence on the other maps in the disputes. Saidaiji and Akishinodera strategically used the different maps for the disputes, even when one case followed another.This paper attempts to analyze Saidaiji Manorial-Maps not only from the dual perspective of mapmaking and maps themselves, but also via the various contexts.