德川时代，谁能砍树？

Online materials consulted 16 September 2026. These are histories of particular institutions and regions, not a single nationwide forest code. Historical uses are distinguished from the contemporary technical specifications and promotional claims on some institutional websites.

1. [1]

   Forestry Agency, Chūbu Regional Forest Office, “木曽の木工品” (Woodcraft of Kiso), opening paragraph. It describes much of Kiso as 明山, accessible to residents for everyday materials other than reserved trees. This does not establish unrestricted access for every outsider or permission to harvest every species. https://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/chubu/kiso/morigatari/mokkouhin.html

   返回引用 ↑
2. [2]

   Forestry Agency, “木曽の森林の歴史,” historical discussion of castle supply and downstream transport toward Nishikori and Atsuta–Shirotori, followed by shipment to urban markets. No original timber accounts, reconstructed cargo, or measured transport costs are supplied. https://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/chubu/kiso/morigatari/rekishi.html

   返回引用 ↑
3. [3]

   Forestry Agency, Tōhoku Regional Forest Office, “秋田の林業の歴史,” section 3, “秋田藩による保護政策（江戸時代）.” Used for castle-town, mining, official, and commercial demand and the stated pressure after the 1657 Edo fire. The webpage's large retrospective timber estimates are not used. https://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/tohoku/introduction/gaiyou_kyoku/nibetu/3_rekishi/index.html

   返回引用 ↑
4. [4]

   Forestry Agency, Kiso forest history, URL in note 2, paragraphs distinguishing 巣山, 留山, and the five reserved tree species. Used as an institutional historical synthesis. The familiar “one tree, one head” saying is not treated as an automatically imposed sentence or a description of all forest offenses. Area protection and species protection are kept separate.

   返回引用 ↑
5. [5]

   Aoki Takeshi, “The Role of Villagers in Domain and State Forest Management: Japan's Path from Tokugawa Period to the Early Twentieth Century,” in Public Goods Provision in the Early Modern Economy: Comparative Perspectives from Japan, China, and Europe (University of California Press, 2019), pp. 255–275, especially pp. 257–258, section “Villagers' Roles in Domain Forestry in Tokugawa Japan”; DOI 10.1525/luminos.63.n. Relevant sections read in the available full-text HTML reproduction, not the entire book or the archival records cited in the chapter. Garbled numerical strings in that reproduction are not used. The Akita request is reported through Aoki's research, not turned into evidence of universal permission or successful enforcement. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330402946_The_Role_of_Villagers_in_Domain_and_State_Forest_Management_Japan%27s_Path_from_Tokugawa_Period_to_the_Early_Twentieth_Century

   返回引用 ↑
6. [6]

   Gotō Masato (後藤正人), “享保13年、下総国香取、同海上郡下の入会紛争—幕府評定所の入会裁判（3）—,” Iriai Rinya Kenkyū 40 (2020): 78–82, DOI 10.32192/forestcommons.40.0_78, especially §3, pp. 80–81. The published account and transcription were read in the PDF's extracted text; page-image retrieval failed, and no visual interpretation is claimed. The second case concerns five villages in what is now Chōshi. The settlement preserves the distinction between rejecting exclusive embankment control, not reopening long-tolerated planting, and prohibiting new planting. This was shared forage land, not a mature timber plantation. Earlier source-edition and calendar inconsistencies elsewhere in the article are not used. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/forestcommons/40/0/40_78/_pdf/-char/ja

   返回引用 ↑
7. [7]

   林野厅秋田历史，第3节，网址见注3。本文保留1666年的限制措施与资源继续减少的情况；政策公布后，资源耗损仍未结束。

   返回引用 ↑
8. [8]

   Haga Kazuki and Katō Morihiro (芳賀和樹・加藤衛拡), “19世紀の秋田藩林政改革と近代への継承,” Journal of Forest Economics 58, no. 1 (2012): 14–26, DOI 10.20818/jfe.58.1_14. Published Japanese abstract read, not the full paper. It supports unified administration, rotation cutting, surveys, and accumulated knowledge among personnel and villages. The following explanation of a cutting sequence is conceptual; no unexamined cycle length, inventory, or sustained-yield result is attributed to the study. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jfe/58/1/58_KJ00007979240/_article/-char/ja

   返回引用 ↑
9. [9]

   Japanese Forest Society, Forestry Heritage no. 13, “吉野林業,” recognition record, especially its concluding description of dense planting, repeated thinning, long rotations, leased-ground forestry, and the yamamori system. Its listed historical forestry manuals were not themselves read, and present-day planting densities are not projected unchanged onto the Edo period. https://www.forestry.jp/forestryheritage/2014-3098/

   返回引用 ↑
10. [10]

    Nara Prefecture, “奈良の木のストーリー,” historical sections labeled “1500年代” and “1720年代,” on timber marketing, sales of thinnings, and barrel material. See these sections alongside the professional heritage record in note 9. Technical and commercial connections are retained without adopting the page's superlatives, universal consumer preferences, or its later attribution of the whole tradition to a single celebrated individual. https://www.pref.nara.lg.jp/site/naranoki/story/

    返回引用 ↑
11. [11]

    Nara Prefecture, “現代の山主ふたりに聞く！『山を守る』ための新しい林業のカタチ,” interview, especially Okahashi Kiyochika's explanation of historical financing and the emergence of local stewardship. This is attributed modern retrospective testimony, not an original Tokugawa agreement; the interview's modern fee arrangements are not treated as Edo-period rates. The analysis separates the ability to finance a crop from the ability to manage it. https://www.pref.nara.lg.jp/site/naranoki/magazine/know/yamanushi.html

    返回引用 ↑