본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

秦 · 漢時代의 士伍와 庶人

A study for Shi Wu(士伍) and Shu Ren(庶人) of Qin(秦) and Han(漢)Dynastics

2

조회

0

다운로드

21

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류역사학

초록

Through the Sui HuDi Qin Bamboo Manuscripts 睡虎地秦簡which was exhibited on late 1970s, we could find out a lot about the characteristic of Qin 秦 Dynastics’s slave and a person who have the noble title. From the book, we found about Shi Wu士伍 and also the actual condition of subordinate people which I will talk about on my dissertation. The research was based on Qin legal text秦律. It described about Shi Wu 士伍that they were treated very importantly but by thelegal text of year 2二年律令, we could find more about them. Especially, On the legal text of year2 has contents about Shy Ren 庶人. Recently, Mr. Joong Hyuk Im 任仲爀defined the Characteristic and the general idea about Shi Wu and Shu Ren that Qin秦 and Han’s漢 rank of nobility is "the system that was converged into Shi Wu士伍". However, I felt that we should face this problem from different point of view. Particularly, Mr. Joong Hyuk Im 任仲爀understands the Shu Ren 庶人by a part of ‘the system’but I think there is a limitation to grasp of characteristic and its transitionby his point of view. The legal text of year 2二年律令 call the common people as Gong Zu公卒, Shi Wu士伍 or Shu Ren庶人. Common people did not have noble title. Shi Wu 士伍and Shu Ren 庶人were part of common people but they had difference by the law. Shi Wu 士伍used to live in Li Wu里伍 but they do not have an official post or a noble title. They were just an ordinary adult men who had their name on a family register. Shy Ren 庶人people were lower class than Shi Wu 士伍. From the legal text of year 2 二年律令, we can find many facts that we did not know before such as a regulation about heredity of noble title. People were restricted on giving amount of farm land and house by grade of noble title. A high rank of noble title could have their wealth until second generation or even third generation. However, the amounts of wealth that they had were decreased gradually except of Che Hou徹侯 and Guan Nei Hou 關內侯. Through the generation their rank was demoted to a lower rank and became a Shi Wu士伍. Si Kou司寇 and Yin Guan 隱官people who are the lower than Shi Wu 士伍can ascend their statue to be a Shi Wu士伍 by the second generation. Mr. Sinaichikou 椎名一雄concludes, Shu Ren庶人 does not serve on military service and the corvee. Shu Ren庶人 from Qin and Han’slegal 秦漢律was described as a criminal or slave who got released and deprived their noble title. Mr. Sinaichikou椎名一雄 talks about similarity between Jia Men假門, Ni Lü逆旅, Zhui Xu贅壻, Hou Fu後父 and Shu Ren庶人 of Sui Hu Di Qin Bamboo Manuscripts睡虎地秦簡. They can not form a family and they do not have right to have farm lands and houses. They also can not be an employee from anywhere. However, from Qin and Han’slegal秦漢律 it describes that Shu Ren庶人 does get farm lands and houses, and they can even form a family. On the book ‘the legal text of year 2 二年律令’, only Shu Ren庶人 is not mentioned on the social position which can be a Shi Wu士伍. The legal text of year 2 二年律令 describe that even son of Si Kou司寇 and Yin Guan隱官 who are on lower position than Shu Ren庶人 can be a right to Shi Wu士伍 not Shu Ren庶人. In connection, we should be take notice of the Law of Shu Ren庶人律 on a family law in the legal text of year 2 二年律令 戶律. This law of Shu Ren庶人律 can be analyzed as a law which is only about Shu Ren庶人. From that I think that Shu Ren庶人is just Shu Ren庶人 not Shi Wu 士伍. We can not identify when people become a Shu Ren庶人 or Shi Wu士伍after the deprivation of noble title but from the book Qin and Han’s legal秦漢律, if slave or criminal get liberated, they all become a Shu Ren庶人. Qin and Han’s legal秦漢律 also describes that if the criminal gets released, they do not become a Shi Wu士伍 which is a common people, but become a Shu Ren庶人 which is a level below than Shi Wu士伍. The similar substance of Shi Wu士伍 from the above is existing on the grave which was founded from west side in Qinshihuang秦始皇. It is written that a person who has noble title is resting there. People were even died because of the hard laboring. There was any chance that a person who has noble title could have reduction. The reason why Shi Wu 士伍does not have similar economic level is many reasons. Shi Wu士伍 from high social level through the generation and a son who became Shi Wu士伍 from low social classes through the generation are difference. Obviously the son of a high rank of noble title willbe economically stronger because their parents will give them farm land, houses, cows or even slave. If Shi Wu士伍from a high rank of noble title get married with someone who is economically strong they will be more stronger on their economic. There is big difference between having a wealthy wife’s and not having them. Therefore, every Shi Wu士伍 can not have same economical background. The system of Qin and Han’s rank of nobility was intended to make people becoming a Shi Wu士伍. However, there was serious gap between rich and poor. It is very hard to find the character of Shu Ren庶人. MR. Sinaichikou椎名一雄 said that Shu Ren庶人 is similar to the Qi Koe Shi七科讁 people who were excepted in military service and the corvee. However, I think that Shu Ren庶人 and Qi Ke Shi七科讁 are different. Actually, I think that Shu Zi庶子 from Shang Ju Shu Jing Nei 商君書 境內is more similar to the Shu Ren庶人. From Shang Jun Shu Jing Nei 商君書 境內, we can find out that if someone catches an enemy they get certain amount of farm land, house and also a Shu Zi庶子. There is a detailed matter about giving farm land and house even on the a family law in the legal text of year 2 二年律令 戶律. From Shang Jun Shu Jing Nei商君書境內, I noticed that Shu Zi庶子 was described as a person who have not noble title. The legal text of year 2 二年律令 was written that there is Gong Zu公卒, Shi Wu士伍 and Shu Ren庶人 who are common people who do not have noble title. Among them Gong Zu公卒 and Shi Wu士伍had to service in military and the corvee. Therefore Shu Ren庶人 was the only social class who could be labored. On the age law in the legal text of year 2二年律令 傅律 does not mention about Shu Ren庶人. As the noble title was higher, they had more farm land or house so they needed many slave to work for them. I think Shu Zi庶子 did not have a noble title and it was a Shu Ren庶人. The thing that they provided a laboring to a person who has noble title was a sign that Shu Ren庶人 was the corvee of a person under Jing Tian Zhi 井田制. His owner makes his slaves to be free, that does not mean that they will be free forever. If they do make a problem or do crime they are going to slave. Therefore even though the owner frees his slave to go and the slave becomes a Si Shu 私屬or a Shu Ren 庶人, it was conditionally free. The thing is even though the owner let the slave become a Shu Ren庶人, the slave is still belongs to the owner. More interesting thing is if the slave becomes a Si Shu私屬 or a Shu Ren庶人, they weredischarged with a laboring and paying head tax. This is same case with that Shu Ren庶人 who are excluded from the age law in legal text of year 2二年律令 傅律 and Shu Ren庶人 who was excepted from the corvee and military service. Many researchers think that on the period of Han Wen Ti 漢文帝, the rank of nobility from Qin and Han’s legal秦漢律 which was represent Sui Hi Di Qin Bamboo Manuscripts睡虎地秦簡 or the legal text of year 2 二年律令 become useless. End of the year 13 of Han Wen Ti 漢文帝, the sanction was reformed the criminal law to the imprisonment for a definite term from imprisonment for life such as Cheng Dan Chong城旦舂, Gui Xin Bai Qin 鬼薪白粲and Li Chen Qie 隸臣妾. They also abrogate the Rou Xing肉刑. I would like to think that on the year 13 of Han Wen Ti漢文帝 declare about the break down of rank of nobility and land system. When many slave in government employ was released to Shu Ren庶人, when imprisonment for life was changed to the imprisonment for a definite term, lots of Shu Ren庶人 was appeared. The system that was converged into Shi Wu士伍, and the rank of nobility of Qin and Han were collapsed. The connection between a slave and a criminal is two faces of coin. However, after the reform of criminal law of Han Wen Ti漢文帝 year 13 a slave and a criminal changed perfectly different.

Abstract

Through the Sui HuDi Qin Bamboo Manuscripts 睡虎地秦簡which was exhibited on late 1970s, we could find out a lot about the characteristic of Qin 秦 Dynastics’s slave and a person who have the noble title. From the book, we found about Shi Wu士伍 and also the actual condition of subordinate people which I will talk about on my dissertation. The research was based on Qin legal text秦律. It described about Shi Wu 士伍that they were treated very importantly but by thelegal text of year 2二年律令, we could find more about them. Especially, On the legal text of year2 has contents about Shy Ren 庶人. Recently, Mr. Joong Hyuk Im 任仲爀defined the Characteristic and the general idea about Shi Wu and Shu Ren that Qin秦 and Han’s漢 rank of nobility is "the system that was converged into Shi Wu士伍". However, I felt that we should face this problem from different point of view. Particularly, Mr. Joong Hyuk Im 任仲爀understands the Shu Ren 庶人by a part of ‘the system’but I think there is a limitation to grasp of characteristic and its transitionby his point of view. The legal text of year 2二年律令 call the common people as Gong Zu公卒, Shi Wu士伍 or Shu Ren庶人. Common people did not have noble title. Shi Wu 士伍and Shu Ren 庶人were part of common people but they had difference by the law. Shi Wu 士伍used to live in Li Wu里伍 but they do not have an official post or a noble title. They were just an ordinary adult men who had their name on a family register. Shy Ren 庶人people were lower class than Shi Wu 士伍. From the legal text of year 2 二年律令, we can find many facts that we did not know before such as a regulation about heredity of noble title. People were restricted on giving amount of farm land and house by grade of noble title. A high rank of noble title could have their wealth until second generation or even third generation. However, the amounts of wealth that they had were decreased gradually except of Che Hou徹侯 and Guan Nei Hou 關內侯. Through the generation their rank was demoted to a lower rank and became a Shi Wu士伍. Si Kou司寇 and Yin Guan 隱官people who are the lower than Shi Wu 士伍can ascend their statue to be a Shi Wu士伍 by the second generation. Mr. Sinaichikou 椎名一雄concludes, Shu Ren庶人 does not serve on military service and the corvee. Shu Ren庶人 from Qin and Han’slegal 秦漢律was described as a criminal or slave who got released and deprived their noble title. Mr. Sinaichikou椎名一雄 talks about similarity between Jia Men假門, Ni Lü逆旅, Zhui Xu贅壻, Hou Fu後父 and Shu Ren庶人 of Sui Hu Di Qin Bamboo Manuscripts睡虎地秦簡. They can not form a family and they do not have right to have farm lands and houses. They also can not be an employee from anywhere. However, from Qin and Han’slegal秦漢律 it describes that Shu Ren庶人 does get farm lands and houses, and they can even form a family. On the book ‘the legal text of year 2 二年律令’, only Shu Ren庶人 is not mentioned on the social position which can be a Shi Wu士伍. The legal text of year 2 二年律令 describe that even son of Si Kou司寇 and Yin Guan隱官 who are on lower position than Shu Ren庶人 can be a right to Shi Wu士伍 not Shu Ren庶人. In connection, we should be take notice of the Law of Shu Ren庶人律 on a family law in the legal text of year 2 二年律令 戶律. This law of Shu Ren庶人律 can be analyzed as a law which is only about Shu Ren庶人. From that I think that Shu Ren庶人is just Shu Ren庶人 not Shi Wu 士伍. We can not identify when people become a Shu Ren庶人 or Shi Wu士伍after the deprivation of noble title but from the book Qin and Han’s legal秦漢律, if slave or criminal get liberated, they all become a Shu Ren庶人. Qin and Han’s legal秦漢律 also describes that if the criminal gets released, they do not become a Shi Wu士伍 which is a common people, but become a Shu Ren庶人 which is a level below than Shi Wu士伍. The similar substance of Shi Wu士伍 from the above is existing on the grave which was founded from west side in Qinshihuang秦始皇. It is written that a person who has noble title is resting there. People were even died because of the hard laboring. There was any chance that a person who has noble title could have reduction. The reason why Shi Wu 士伍does not have similar economic level is many reasons. Shi Wu士伍 from high social level through the generation and a son who became Shi Wu士伍 from low social classes through the generation are difference. Obviously the son of a high rank of noble title willbe economically stronger because their parents will give them farm land, houses, cows or even slave. If Shi Wu士伍from a high rank of noble title get married with someone who is economically strong they will be more stronger on their economic. There is big difference between having a wealthy wife’s and not having them. Therefore, every Shi Wu士伍 can not have same economical background. The system of Qin and Han’s rank of nobility was intended to make people becoming a Shi Wu士伍. However, there was serious gap between rich and poor. It is very hard to find the character of Shu Ren庶人. MR. Sinaichikou椎名一雄 said that Shu Ren庶人 is similar to the Qi Koe Shi七科讁 people who were excepted in military service and the corvee. However, I think that Shu Ren庶人 and Qi Ke Shi七科讁 are different. Actually, I think that Shu Zi庶子 from Shang Ju Shu Jing Nei 商君書 境內is more similar to the Shu Ren庶人. From Shang Jun Shu Jing Nei 商君書 境內, we can find out that if someone catches an enemy they get certain amount of farm land, house and also a Shu Zi庶子. There is a detailed matter about giving farm land and house even on the a family law in the legal text of year 2 二年律令 戶律. From Shang Jun Shu Jing Nei商君書境內, I noticed that Shu Zi庶子 was described as a person who have not noble title. The legal text of year 2 二年律令 was written that there is Gong Zu公卒, Shi Wu士伍 and Shu Ren庶人 who are common people who do not have noble title. Among them Gong Zu公卒 and Shi Wu士伍had to service in military and the corvee. Therefore Shu Ren庶人 was the only social class who could be labored. On the age law in the legal text of year 2二年律令 傅律 does not mention about Shu Ren庶人. As the noble title was higher, they had more farm land or house so they needed many slave to work for them. I think Shu Zi庶子 did not have a noble title and it was a Shu Ren庶人. The thing that they provided a laboring to a person who has noble title was a sign that Shu Ren庶人 was the corvee of a person under Jing Tian Zhi 井田制. His owner makes his slaves to be free, that does not mean that they will be free forever. If they do make a problem or do crime they are going to slave. Therefore even though the owner frees his slave to go and the slave becomes a Si Shu 私屬or a Shu Ren 庶人, it was conditionally free. The thing is even though the owner let the slave become a Shu Ren庶人, the slave is still belongs to the owner. More interesting thing is if the slave becomes a Si Shu私屬 or a Shu Ren庶人, they weredischarged with a laboring and paying head tax. This is same case with that Shu Ren庶人 who are excluded from the age law in legal text of year 2二年律令 傅律 and Shu Ren庶人 who was excepted from the corvee and military service. Many researchers think that on the period of Han Wen Ti 漢文帝, the rank of nobility from Qin and Han’s legal秦漢律 which was represent Sui Hi Di Qin Bamboo Manuscripts睡虎地秦簡 or the legal text of year 2 二年律令 become useless. End of the year 13 of Han Wen Ti 漢文帝, the sanction was reformed the criminal law to the imprisonment for a definite term from imprisonment for life such as Cheng Dan Chong城旦舂, Gui Xin Bai Qin 鬼薪白粲and Li Chen Qie 隸臣妾. They also abrogate the Rou Xing肉刑. I would like to think that on the year 13 of Han Wen Ti漢文帝 declare about the break down of rank of nobility and land system. When many slave in government employ was released to Shu Ren庶人, when imprisonment for life was changed to the imprisonment for a definite term, lots of Shu Ren庶人 was appeared. The system that was converged into Shi Wu士伍, and the rank of nobility of Qin and Han were collapsed. The connection between a slave and a criminal is two faces of coin. However, after the reform of criminal law of Han Wen Ti漢文帝 year 13 a slave and a criminal changed perfectly different.

참고문헌 (89)

  1. 睡虎地秦墓竹簡整理小組, "睡虎地秦墓竹簡" (1978), 北京: 文物出版社
  2. 張家山二四七號漢墓竹簡整理小組, "張家山漢墓竹簡〔二四七號墓〕(釋文修訂本)" (2006), 北京: 文物出版社
  3. 彭浩, "二年律令與奏讞書—張家山二四七號漢墓出土法律文獻釋讀" (2007), 上海古籍出版社
  4. 三國時代出土文字資料硏究班, "江陵張家山漢墓出土二年律令譯注稿(一)(二)(三)", 東方學報, 76 (2004)
  5. 三國時代出土文字資料硏究班, "江陵張家山漢墓出土二年律令譯注稿(一)(二)(三)", 東方學報, 77 (2005)
  6. 三國時代出土文字資料硏究班, "江陵張家山漢墓出土二年律令譯注稿(一)(二)(三)", 東方學報, 78 (2006)
  7. 冨谷至, "江陵張家山二四七號墓出土漢律令の硏究(論考篇·譯注篇)", pp.1~331, 朋友書店
  8. 好並隆司, "漢代下層庶人の存在形態(二)", 史學雜誌, 82(2), pp.168~170 (1973)
  9. 劉海年, "秦漢“士伍”的身分與階級地位", 文物 (1978)
  10. 秦進才, "秦漢士伍異同考", 中華文史論叢, 1 (1984)
  11. 冨谷至, "秦漢における庶人と士伍․覺書", ~
  12. 谷川道雄, "中國士大夫階級と地域社會との關係についての總合的硏究", 史學雜誌, ~ (1983)
  13. 尹在碩, "秦代 ‘士伍’에 대하여", 慶北史學, 10 (1987)
  14. 周厚强, "秦士伍的身分及其階級屬性辨析", 求索 (1991)
  15. 施偉靑, "也論秦“士伍”的身分", 中國社會經濟史硏究 (1993)
  16. 曹旅寧, "秦漢法律簡牘中的“庶人”身分及法律地位問題", 咸陽師範學院學報, 22(3) (2007)
  17. 施偉靑, "也論秦“士伍”的身分", 中國古代史論叢, ~ (2003)
  18. 任仲爀, "秦漢律의 耐刑 — 士伍로의 수렴 시스템과 관련하여 —", 中國古中世史硏究, ~ (2008)
  19. 王彥輝, "從張家山漢簡看西漢時期私奴婢的社會地位", 東北師大學報(哲學社會科學版) (2003)
  20. 王愛淸, "試論張家山漢簡中的“私屬”", 烏魯木齊職業大學學報, 13(2) (2004)
  21. 王愛淸, "“私屬”新探", 史學月刊 (2007)
  22. 椎名一雄, "張家山漢簡二年律令に見える爵制-庶人の理解を中心として", 鴨台史學, 6 (2006)
  23. 片倉穰, "漢代の士伍", 東方學, 36, pp.~9 (1966)
  24. 임병덕, "秦漢 交替期의 奴婢", 중국고중세사연구, (16), pp.175~226 (2006), 중국고중세사학회
  25. 林炳德, "출토문헌과 漢文帝의 刑制改革", 동양사1, ~ (2007)
  26. 劉海年, "秦漢“士伍”的身分及階級地位", 文物 (1978)
  27. 周厚强, "秦士伍的身分及其階級屬性辨析", 求索, pp.~123 (1991)
  28. 于振波, "從張家山漢簡看漢名田制與唐均田制之異同", 湖南城市學院學報, 26(1), pp.~70 (2005)
  29. 楊振紅, "秦漢“名田宅”說―從張家山漢簡看戰國秦漢的土地制度", 張家山漢簡《二年律令》硏究文集, 141~150 (2007)
  30. 宮宅潔, "秦漢時代の爵と刑罰", 東洋史硏究, 58(4), pp.~653 (2000)
  31. "秦本紀 5", 史記, 5
  32. "景帝紀", 漢書, 5
  33. "淮南衡山濟北王傳 14", 漢書 44
  34. 睡虎地秦墓竹簡整理小組, "秦簡", ~130
  35. 張政烺, "秦律“葆子”釋義", 文史, 9 (1980)
  36. "惠帝紀", 漢書, 2
  37. 三國時代出土文字資料の硏究班, "江陵張家山漢墓出土󰡔二年律令󰡕譯注稿その(一)", 東方學報, 76, pp.~171 (2004), 京都大學人文科學硏究所
  38. 韋昭曰, "漢封功臣, 大者王, 小者侯也", 史記, 17
  39. "秦始皇本紀", 史記, 6
  40. "何武傳", 漢書, 86
  41. "王嘉傳", 漢書, 86
  42. "列傳 16", 宋書, 56
  43. 好並隆司, "漢代下層庶人の存在形態", 史學雜誌, 82(1) (1973)
  44. 堀敏一, "中國における良賤身分制の成立過程", 中國古代の身分制, ~135 (1987)
  45. "龍崗睡虎地秦墓秦簡", pp.163~165 (2001), 北京: 文物出版社
  46. 沈家本, "歷代刑法考 1", pp.385~389 (1985), 北京: 中華書局
  47. 裘錫圭, "戰國時代社會性質試探", 中國古史論集, ~ (1981)
  48. 曹旅寧, "從里耶秦簡看秦的法律制度", 秦文化論叢, 11, pp.277~278 (2004), 西安: 三秦出版社
  49. 曹旅寧, "張家山漢簡《亡律》考", 張家山漢律硏究, ~151 (2005)
  50. 이성규, "秦의 身分秩序 構造", 東洋史學硏究, 23, pp.~63 (1986)
  51. 湖南省文物考古硏究所, "湖南龍山里耶戰國-秦代古城一號井發掘簡報", 文物 (2003)
  52. 湖南省文物考古硏究所, "湘西里耶秦代簡牘選釋", 中國歷史文物 (2003)
  53. "里耶發掘報告" (2007), 岳麓書社
  54. 李成珪, "秦의 土地制度와 齊民支配", 전해종박사화갑기념 史學論叢, ~ (1979)
  55. 宮宅潔, "《二年律令》硏究の射程―新出法制史料と前漢文帝期硏究の現狀―", 史林, 89(1), pp.~71 (2006)
  56. 임중혁, "秦漢律의 벌금형", 중국고중세사연구, 15(15), pp.1~50 (2006), 중국고중세사학회
  57. 始皇陵秦俑坑考古發掘隊, "秦始皇陵西側趙背村秦刑徒墓", 文物 (1982)
  58. 冨谷至, "秦漢二十等爵制と刑罰の減免", 前近代中國の刑罰, ~ (1996)
  59. 湖南省文物考古硏究所, "湘西里耶秦代簡牘選擇", 中國歷史文物, pp.~17 (2003)
  60. 王彦輝, "《二年律令․戶律》與高祖五年詔書的關系", 先秦․秦漢史, pp.~65 (2007)
  61. 王彦輝, "論張家山漢簡中的軍功名田宅制度", 東北師大学报 (2004)
  62. "高帝紀 1", 漢書, 1, pp.~54
  63. 高亨, "商君書注譯", pp.~145 (1974), 北京, 中華書局
  64. Bennett.H.S, "Rents and Services", Life on English Manor, ~ (1947)
  65. 楊振紅, "秦漢“名田宅制”說―從張家山漢簡看戰國秦漢的土地制度", 中國史研究 (2003)
  66. 中國社會科學院簡帛硏究中心, "張家山漢簡《二年律令》硏究文集", ~140 (2007)
  67. "简帛研究网站"[URL]
  68. "王莽傳", 漢書, 99, pp.~4111
  69. 藤家禮之助, "王莽の奴婢政策と赤眉の亂", 東海大學紀要, 22, pp.~2 (1975)
  70. 林炳德, "秦․漢 奴婢의 性格", 五松李公範敎授停年紀念 東洋史論叢, ~102 (1993)
  71. 王彦輝, "從張家山漢簡看西漢時期私奴婢的社會地位", 秦漢史論叢, 9, pp.~244 (2004), 三秦出版社
  72. 尹在碩, "睡虎地秦簡和張家山漢簡反映的秦漢時期後子制和家系繼承", 中國歷史文物, pp.~40 (2003)
  73. 王煥林, "里耶秦簡校詁", pp.106~107 (2007), 北京: 中國文聯出版社
  74. "貨殖列傳", 史記, 129, pp.~3261
  75. 박기수, "사료로 읽는 중국 고대 사회경제사", ~ (2005)
  76. "食貨志上", 漢書, 24, pp.~1132
  77. 藏知非, "西漢授田制度與田稅徵收方式新論", 考古 (2003)
  78. 張金光, "秦制硏究", pp.112~113 (2004), 上海古籍出版社
  79. 賈麗英, "漢代“名田宅制”與“田宅逾制”論說", 史學月刊 (2007)
  80. "簡帛研究網站"[URL]
  81. 于振波, "張家山漢简中的名田制及其在漢代的實施情况", 中国史研究 (2004)
  82. 朱紹侯, "論漢代的名田(授田)制及其破壞", 張家山漢簡《二年律令》硏究文集, ~185
  83. "簡帛研究網站"[URL]
  84. 王彦輝, "論張家山漢簡中的軍功名田宅制度", 東北師大學報 (2004)
  85. 中國社會科學院簡帛硏究中心, "張家山漢簡《二年律令》硏究文集", 171~172 (2007)
  86. "刑法志", 漢書, 23
  87. 宮宅潔, "有期勞役刑體系の形成―《二年律令》に見える漢初の勞役刑を手がかりにして―", 東方學報, 78 (2006)
  88. 李成珪, "秦·漢의 형벌체계의 再檢討―雲夢秦簡과 <二年律令>의 司寇를 중심으로―", 동양사학연구, 85, pp.1~74 (2003), 동양사학회
  89. "魏書 4", 三國志, 4

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (13건)