Re: [SCA-JML] On Uji and Clans
- On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Bryant Richards
>Well, it is definitely a confusing topic.
> One part I don't understand, and unfortuantly all your information as great as it was just got me more confused. By the Sengoku period, the period I am playing, it seems that not only has the use of uji fallen out of practice, but in the times that it is used, IE formal occasions, it seems to have become something no longer governed by the Emporer. It has, for lack of a better term, deevolved to mean basicaly what I thought it meant in the first place, simply a clan name. That is probably where alot of my confuion comes from as I have been reading mostly books dealing specificaly with the Sengoku period.
Originally, uji were probably locatives or similar descriptors. They
seem to have described lineage groups of some kind, though it isn't
entirely clear what they were. What seems fairly clear is that the
Yamato Great Kings (what would become the Imperial lineage), as they
attempted to consolidate their power, gathered the reins of these
lineage groups (there is debate as to whether they were really
"clans"). As people were apparently making up lineage groups (and
rankings, titles, etc.) willy-nilly, the rulers made that their sole
From my readings, throughout the Heian period, we see the matters of
the uji becoming more private, and the sub-families become more
independent. Note: Just because they are taking surnames does
not/not mean they are becoming uji. Frankly, outside of the Capital,
"uji" really don't seem to matter.
In the Kamakura period, the bakufu repeated, to an extent, what the
Imperial line had done. Only they didn't control the uji, they
controlled the ie (the houses) of the warrior families.
> So that still leaves the original question unanswered. Even if Uesugi isn't a pre-Heian great clan or Uji (I'll use a captial "Uji" when refering to the Great clan specific term and lower case "uji" when refering simply to a clan as in the case of a warrior clan). Is it not still an uji as it was considered so in the Sengoku period? Meaning simply a warrior clan? And that during the Sungoku period alot of the warrior clans modeled their structure from the bigger Clans and did things the before where only allowed by the Emporer? Also that Uji and Kabane became more or less family names by this time.Well, kabane aren't family names by that time. The use of kabane had
pretty much died out except as honorary titles.
The issue is, I can't confirm that uji would have been used /in
period/ to refer to a warrior household, which we know were called ie.
Also, if you are talking about official registration, then, even if
the name was called an uji, it doesn't mean that it would have been
officially registered as such, for court purposes.
So, you have 2 things you need to prove to overturn the current thinking:
1) Show that "uji" was used to refer to warrior groups /in period/.
2) Show that it meant the same thing as an uji previously.
> Wouldn't it then still fit that "Uesugi no", COULD have been given as a name regardless of if it was an official Uji or not? I guess a modern example is when people name their kids after celebirties, with out that celebs knowledge or permission. Especially since by this point, as said by people other than myself, "no" had become pretty much to mean"no" had always meant that. The issue is that it stopped being used.
> "of, from,etc"
In the Sengoku period, Uesugi Kenshin was Uesugi Kenshin. Not Uesugi
no Kenshin. Likewise, Yamanouchi Uesugi X was just that. This has
/nothing/ to do with whether it is an uji or not.
> And lastly what about as a locative? If I where to say I was born in Uesugi (since it was a place) could I not be Ryujuichiro Uchiyasu of Uesugi, which in Japanese would become Uesugi no Ryujuchiro Uchiyasu?The general rule of thumb: If it is after 1185 (the Gempei Wars) then
you don't use "no". Most serious academics I'm reading don't even
bother using "no" before that unless it is something back in the Nara
period or earlier (where Adzuki no Muraji is different than Adzuki
> And if you read through the Anthony J Bryant site "no" is used on more than just Uji in his examples so is it not easy to see where alot of people playing in the SCA as Japanese would use "no" in there names?"no" has nothing to do with uji. Or at least, the two are not totally
conflated. I think that's where you are running into your problem.
PS: It is generally good form to post either inside or below the
text, when it is overly long--otherwise, those who read in digest form
will have to scroll all the way through the text that you could have
just deleted to begin with. One message isn't much, but like plastic
bottles thrown into a river, enough of them become rather unsightly.
- MODERATOR NOTE - As a courtesy to those members who receive their mail in digest form (and to Kuro-hime's friend Steve the Intergalactic Fruitbat), we ask that you trim anything from previous posts that do not require repetition.
Saionji no Hanae, Pacific Time Zone Moderator
>So, you have 2 things you need to prove to overturn the current thinking:Ok I will work on these
>1) Show that "uji" was used to refer to warrior groups /in period/.
>2) Show that it meant the same thing as an uji previously.
>"no" has nothing to do with uji. Or at least, the two are not totally conflated. I think that's where you are >running into your problem.No this is making more since, atleast to me. I think I was trying to ask about using the "no" in my name, and all I got back was "no because Uesugi is not an Uji" when I was reading a number of things that where just saying that "no" meant "of" and similiar and nothing saying that only the Uji could use "no". Thats where I was getting confused by Solveig's remarks. So basicaly I just need to show in some use of "no" during my time period. I think I understand alot more now so thank you on this.
>"no" had always meant that. The issue is that it stopped being used. In the Sengoku period, Uesugi Kenshin >was Uesugi Kenshin. Not Uesugi no Kenshin. Likewise, Yamanouchi Uesugi X was just that. This hasI had been confused by this too, but it was my understanding that it was Uesugi Kenshin because he was the "leader" therefore he wasn't of the Uesugi clan he WAS the Uesugi clan. Not sure where I read that exactly.
>/nothing/ to do with whether it is an uji or not.
Anyway I have learned alot about this topic. In summary using "no" is simply out of time for Sengoku period, and that it is usable for certain periods. Also that Uji may have used "no" alot but that didn't mean other people couldn't use it. A main focus on if to use "no" or not should be more about the time period and not weither the X in "X no blah balh" is an Uji or not.
I did just now order the book that stated Uesugi as an uji. I will let everyone know what I find out when I get it and read it. It seems to have been coauthered by a Japanese man of the name Dairoku Kikuchi/ Kikuchi Dairoku depending on where you read it. Having trouble finding out much about this man. The sites about him just give a brief summary of his education.
In Honor and Service,
Uesugi no Ryujuichiro Uchiyasu
REPEATED MESSAGE HAS BEEN REMOVED!