日本家族为何收养继承人？

National Diet Library, “Sumitomo Tomoito,” Portraits of Modern Japanese Historical Figures. His Tokudaiji background, departure from legal studies and adoption in 1892, succession in 1893, inherited name, and representative role. This is a Meiji-period case, not evidence that Tokugawa adoption regulations continued unchanged. https://www.ndl.go.jp/portrait/e/datas/405/

Aoi Okada and Satomi Kurosu, “Succession and the Death of the Household Head in Early Modern Japan: A Case Study of a Northeastern Village, 1720–1870,” Continuity and Change 13, no. 1 (1998), pp. 143–166, DOI 10.1017/S0268416098003099. The publisher's public introductory extract describes household responsibilities and regional variation; the authors' university research record summarizes female headship and the vulnerability of landless households. The complete article was not consulted. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/continuity-and-change/article/abs/succession-and-the-death-of-the-household-head-in-early-modern-japan-a-case-study-of-a-northeastern-village-17201870/2F15881815C8F711A36A91E81F7EF604 ; https://pure.teikyo.jp/en/publications/succession-and-the-death-of-the-household-head-in-early-modern-ja/

National Archives of Japan, “Emergency Adoption Requests,” Hatamoto and Gokenin II, item 19, Tamon Yagura Documents, call numbers 多000695 and 多000678. The two petitions, succession requirements, and the 1651 relaxation with initial age restrictions. The archive's conjecture that the applicants may already have died is not presented in the essay as an established fact. https://www.archives.go.jp/exhibition/digital/hatamotogokenin2/contents/19.html

Satomi Kurosu and Emiko Ochiai, “Adoption as an Heirship Strategy under Demographic Constraints: A Case from Nineteenth-Century Japan,” Journal of Family History 20, no. 3 (1995), pp. 261–288, DOI 10.1177/036319909502000303. Public abstract and accessible explanatory notes, especially notes 3, 9, and 15–18. The 2,057 households are the study's South Tama sample, not a nationwide count. The full article was not consulted; the examples contrasting possible sending and receiving households explain the mechanism rather than reconstruct named families from its data. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/036319909502000303

Satomi Kurosu, “Adoption and Family Reproduction in Early Modern Japan,” The Economic Review 64, no. 1 (2013), pp. 1–12, DOI 10.15057/25877, public abstract in Hitotsubashi University's repository. Adult and son-in-law adoption, socioeconomic differences, and the timing of adoption in relation to women's circumstances in two northeastern villages. The full PDF could not be consulted; no numerical rate or individual motive is inferred beyond the abstract. https://hit-u.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/2040455

Sōma City Digital Museum, “The Testament of Sōma Daizen-no-suke Yoshitane.” The municipal description connects the 1651 testament and the relaxation of deathbed-adoption restrictions with house extinctions and masterless warriors. Used for that context, not to treat one testament as the sole cause of shogunal reform. https://www.city.soma.fukushima.jp/digital/Cultural_guide/city_designation/3458.html

National Diet Library, “Matsudaira Sadanobu,” The World of Book Ownership Stamps. His descent from Yoshimune, adoption into the Shirakawa house in 1774, and inheritance in 1783. His later prominence is distinguished from evidence about the criteria governing all adoptions. https://www.ndl.go.jp/zoshoin/collection/24.html

Ray A. Moore, “Adoption and Samurai Mobility in Tokugawa Japan,” The Journal of Asian Studies 29, no. 3 (1970), pp. 617–632, DOI 10.2307/2943247. Public abstract, reporting research on four domains. Its findings qualify a meritocratic account without establishing that social mobility was absent in all regions or classes. The complete article was not consulted. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-asian-studies/article/abs/adoption-and-samurai-mobility-in-tokugawa-japan/E0470D07758DBA60004772DB9C23DB68

Sumitomo Group Public Affairs Committee, “Niihama: Part 2,” section on Iba Teigo. The corporate historical account attributes the remembered reassurance to Shunsui Sumitomo, edited and published by Hōsenkai. The episode is paraphrased with its retrospective character explicit; the site's broader praise of its managers is not adopted as an independent assessment. https://www.sumitomo.gr.jp/english/history/history_tour/niihama_02/index.html

John Clark D'Amico, “Business Organization in Early Modern Japan,” Enterprise & Society, published online June 15, 2026, pp. 1–31, DOI 10.1017/eso.2026.10131. The accessible full-text section “The Nakai and the Fictive Household Partnership Model,” especially the account of the Sendai store's 1769 formation and managerial organization. Used as a counterexample to equating household names, kinship, and management, not as evidence that ordinary adoptive relationships were fictitious. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/enterprise-and-society/article/business-organization-in-early-modern-japan/DA37C3401765162A04E135F6DBB5A598

Yuzuru Kumon, “Adoption, Inheritance, and Wealth Inequality in Pre-industrial Japan and Western Europe,” The Journal of Economic History 85, no. 1 (2025), pp. 250–286, DOI 10.1017/S0022050724000524. Public abstract, used narrowly for the association of adoption and retention of land in village censuses dated 1637–1872. The essay does not extend the author's comparative argument into a general claim about Japanese equality or European family life. The full article was not consulted. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/abs/adoption-inheritance-and-wealth-inequality-in-preindustrial-japan-and-western-europe/21C27A6BF5FBEB829DE78893594275D5