본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

淸代 貴州省 錦屛縣 淸水江流域 소수민족사회의 共山연구 ― 『淸水江文書』의 加池寨 共山기재문서를 중심으로 ―

A Study on Public Mountains(共山) of Minority Society in Qingshui River Basin, Jinping County of Guizhou Province during the Qing period — Focusing on documents with ‘Public Mountains’ of Jiachi Village(加池寨) in Documents of Qingshui River —

0

조회

0

다운로드

5

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류역사학

초록

Public Mountains(共山) are a unique way of owning mountains that can be confirmed in the folk documents of the minority societies in the Qingshui River basin of Jinping County, Southeast Guizhou Province. Public Mountain refers to a specific mountain area jointly owned and operated by two or more owners, who, in addition to a large number of individuals, maybe a kinship group, an organization within a village, or even an entire village. Public Mountain was a customary expression for which the use of the term was not determined by law, and the names for Public Mountain were also not unified. For this reason, at that time, the minority societies in the Qingshui River basin described these mountain areas as Public Mountain. However, it can be seen that various names such as Lineage Mountain(公山) or Zhong Mountain(衆山, Mountain land owned by many people) were used depending on the form of ownership or expression. Public Mountains seem to have continued to increase over time in the mid and late Qing periods. During Emperor Guangxu, the number of records of Public Mountain peaked, and the terminology for these mountains land was also gradually unified into Public Mountain. Due to this, Zhong Mountain, which was not much different from the existing Public Mountain, was gradually absorbed into Public Mountain, and the stated quantity decreased. On the contrary, it can be seen that Lineage Mountain, which stands out for its ownership centered on lineage organizations, continues to increase the number of stated quantities along with the inflow, diffusion, and development of lineage culture as the times pass. However, since the names of Public Mountains were not unified and remained at the customary level, several mixed and transitional expressions between the names can be identified in the process. Also, Public Mountains are a unique mountain land with both private and public nature. Individuals could own a part of these specific mountain areas in the form of “Shares.” Basically, individual property rights could be exercised on these Shares. However, in reality, such private ownership was only conducted under a very limited structure. In addition, the management of the mountains was carried out by many people, and the profits after logging were also distributed by their ownership interests. Due to these characteristics, the ownership structure of Public Mountains became increasingly complicated. However, The Public Mountains formed in the long-term nature of forestry and the difficult environment of forest management improved the stability of production ownership while strengthening mutual solidarity between owners. In particular, the minority society in the Qingshui River basin was an “acquaintance society” with very high reliability among its members. This social characteristic, which is closed to outsiders and has a solid bond between members, helped form a mountain ownership method such as Public Mountains. In addition, despite the closed ownership structure of Public Mountains, it seems that the sale of Public Mountains was often carried out. Public Mountains were sold for extremely personal reasons but were also sold due to the group's demand to which they belonged. The reason for the sale of Public Mountain Shares informed the various socio-economic problems that people experienced at the time and, at the same time, served as a basis for enabling the survival of individuals and communities through the disposal of common property. In addition, the owners of the Public Mountains tried to manage Public Mountains efficiently and stably by imposing fines or preparing monitoring costs for violations of regulations. However, conflicts between individuals or groups were unavoidable as many of the interests of each owner were involved in Public Mountains. In this case, disputes were settled through arbitration among villagers or transferring land to religious facilities. In other words, it can be said that Public Mountains were the result of the efforts of the minority community in the lower Qingshui River, Jinping County, to manage the large mountainous area more safely and efficiently. Fundamentally, it can be said that there was considerable trust or sense of solidarity among mountain landowners in the fundamental background of such a unique ownership and management method that could continue for hundreds of years. Also, lineage culture strengthened the bond between members, which could be loose, by enclosing it within the fence of blood ties. In particular, it is worth not that the lineage culture was combined with the existing Public Mountain system of the minority society to form Lineage Mountain, owned by blood-related groups. In addition, as this type of land ownership spread in the minority societies, the socio-economic foundation centered on Public Mountains in these societies was strengthened, and it made a significant contribution to achieving a high level of social cohesion centered on lineage organizations.

Abstract

Public Mountains(共山) are a unique way of owning mountains that can be confirmed in the folk documents of the minority societies in the Qingshui River basin of Jinping County, Southeast Guizhou Province. Public Mountain refers to a specific mountain area jointly owned and operated by two or more owners, who, in addition to a large number of individuals, maybe a kinship group, an organization within a village, or even an entire village. Public Mountain was a customary expression for which the use of the term was not determined by law, and the names for Public Mountain were also not unified. For this reason, at that time, the minority societies in the Qingshui River basin described these mountain areas as Public Mountain. However, it can be seen that various names such as Lineage Mountain(公山) or Zhong Mountain(衆山, Mountain land owned by many people) were used depending on the form of ownership or expression. Public Mountains seem to have continued to increase over time in the mid and late Qing periods. During Emperor Guangxu, the number of records of Public Mountain peaked, and the terminology for these mountains land was also gradually unified into Public Mountain. Due to this, Zhong Mountain, which was not much different from the existing Public Mountain, was gradually absorbed into Public Mountain, and the stated quantity decreased. On the contrary, it can be seen that Lineage Mountain, which stands out for its ownership centered on lineage organizations, continues to increase the number of stated quantities along with the inflow, diffusion, and development of lineage culture as the times pass. However, since the names of Public Mountains were not unified and remained at the customary level, several mixed and transitional expressions between the names can be identified in the process. Also, Public Mountains are a unique mountain land with both private and public nature. Individuals could own a part of these specific mountain areas in the form of “Shares.” Basically, individual property rights could be exercised on these Shares. However, in reality, such private ownership was only conducted under a very limited structure. In addition, the management of the mountains was carried out by many people, and the profits after logging were also distributed by their ownership interests. Due to these characteristics, the ownership structure of Public Mountains became increasingly complicated. However, The Public Mountains formed in the long-term nature of forestry and the difficult environment of forest management improved the stability of production ownership while strengthening mutual solidarity between owners. In particular, the minority society in the Qingshui River basin was an “acquaintance society” with very high reliability among its members. This social characteristic, which is closed to outsiders and has a solid bond between members, helped form a mountain ownership method such as Public Mountains. In addition, despite the closed ownership structure of Public Mountains, it seems that the sale of Public Mountains was often carried out. Public Mountains were sold for extremely personal reasons but were also sold due to the group's demand to which they belonged. The reason for the sale of Public Mountain Shares informed the various socio-economic problems that people experienced at the time and, at the same time, served as a basis for enabling the survival of individuals and communities through the disposal of common property. In addition, the owners of the Public Mountains tried to manage Public Mountains efficiently and stably by imposing fines or preparing monitoring costs for violations of regulations. However, conflicts between individuals or groups were unavoidable as many of the interests of each owner were involved in Public Mountains. In this case, disputes were settled through arbitration among villagers or transferring land to religious facilities. In other words, it can be said that Public Mountains were the result of the efforts of the minority community in the lower Qingshui River, Jinping County, to manage the large mountainous area more safely and efficiently. Fundamentally, it can be said that there was considerable trust or sense of solidarity among mountain landowners in the fundamental background of such a unique ownership and management method that could continue for hundreds of years. Also, lineage culture strengthened the bond between members, which could be loose, by enclosing it within the fence of blood ties. In particular, it is worth not that the lineage culture was combined with the existing Public Mountain system of the minority society to form Lineage Mountain, owned by blood-related groups. In addition, as this type of land ownership spread in the minority societies, the socio-economic foundation centered on Public Mountains in these societies was strengthened, and it made a significant contribution to achieving a high level of social cohesion centered on lineage organizations.

참고문헌 (50)

  1. 光緖, "中國地方志集成 : 貴州府縣志輯 17" (2006), 巴蜀書社
  2. 羅繞典, "黔南職方紀略" (1974), 成文出版社
  3. 徐家幹, "苗疆聞見錄" (1997), 貴州人民出版社
  4. 錦屏縣政協文史資料委員會, "錦屏碑文選輯" (1997)
  5. 唐立, "貴州苗族林業契約文書彙編:1736-1950年 第1-3卷" (2003), 東京外國語大學國立亞非語言文化研究所
  6. 王宗勳考, "加池四合院文書考釋 卷1-4" (2015), 貴州民族出版社
  7. 張應強, "淸水江文書 第1-3輯" (2011), 廣西師範大學出版社
  8. 엘리너 오스트롬, "공유의 비극을 넘어(공유자원 관리를 위한 제도의 진화)" (2010), 알에이치코리아
  9. 高其才, "錦屏文書與法文化研究" (2017), 中國政法大學出版社
  10. 貴州省編輯組, "侗族社會歷史調査" (2009), 民族出版社
  11. 費孝通, "鄉土中國" (1985), 生活・讀書・新知三聯書店
  12. 傅慧平, "錦屛加池苗寨文書的社會人類學考察" (2019), 知識産權出版社
  13. 徐曉光, "錦屏鄉土社會的法與民間糾紛解決" (2012), 民族出版社
  14. 阿風, "明淸徽州訴訟文書研究" (2016), 上海古籍出版社
  15. 楊軍昌, "淸水江學研究" (2019), 中央民族大學出版社
  16. 楊軍昌, "人口・社會・法制研究 2014年 卷1" (2016), 知識產權出版社
  17. 吳才茂, "民間文書與淸水江地區的社會變遷" (2016), 民族出版社
  18. 尹東海, "思州民俗研究" (2017), 貴州人民出版社
  19. 李世宇, "人口・社會・法制研究2006年卷" (2007), 中國民主法制出版社
  20. 林超民, "方國瑜誕辰一百一十週年紀念文集" (2013), 雲南大學出版社
  21. 張永祥, "苗漢詞典 黔東方言" (1990), 貴州民族出版社
  22. 張齊政, "南嶽寺廟建築與寺廟文化" (1999), 花城出版社
  23. Masayuki Tanimoto, "Public Goods Privision in the Early Modern Economy" (2019), University of California Press
  24. 김홍길, "淸代 서남지역의 목재교역과 소수민족 상인 ― 貴州 錦屛縣 지역을 중심으로 ―", 명청사연구, (32), pp.105~141 (2009), 명청사학회[DOI]
  25. 이승수, "淸代 貴州省 錦屛縣의 少數民族社會와 栽手 ― 淸水江文書의 林業租佃契約을 중심으로 ―", 명청사연구, (49), pp.253~298 (2018), 명청사학회[DOI]
  26. 정지호, "明淸時代 合夥의 經營形態 및 그 特質", 明淸史硏究, 15 (2001)
  27. 정철웅, "淸代 錦屛縣 加池寨의 經濟的 有力層과 少數民族 社會 ― 『淸水江文書』의 加池寨 斷賣 文書를 중심으로 ―(1)", 명청사연구, (52), pp.375~425 (2019), 명청사학회[DOI]
  28. 정철웅, "淸代 錦屛縣 加池寨의 經濟的 有力層과 少數民族 社會 ― 『淸水江文書』의 加池寨 斷賣 文書를 중심으로 ―(2)", 명청사연구, (54), pp.265~307 (2020), 명청사학회[DOI]
  29. 羅雲丹, "從『淸水江文書』看淸代至民國時期淸水江民族地區租佃制度的特徵", 原生態民族文化學刊, 7(4) (2015)
  30. 唐智燕, "淸水江文書疑難雙音詞例釋", 原生態民族文化學刊, 12(6) (2020)
  31. 鄧建鵬, "淸代訴訟費用研究", 淸華大學學報(哲學社會科學版), (3) (2007)
  32. 盤應福, "淸代淸水江下游鄉村社會經濟生活中的“股”研究――基於對帶“股”字樣契約文書的考察", 靑海民族研究, 29(2) (2018)
  33. 盤應福, "慣習、禮法與秩序: 近世淸水江下游地區的“關係淸白”研究――基於對“三類‘淸白’文書”的考察", 青海民族研究, 30(3) (2019)
  34. 範國祖, "淸水江文書漢字記苗音苗語地名整理研究――以加池苗寨土地契約文書爲例", 原生態民族文化學刊, 10(4) (2018)
  35. 王宗勳, "好訟與無訟: 淸代淸水江下游兩種不同權利糾紛解決機制下的區域社會", 貴州大學學報(社會科學版), 34(6) (2016)
  36. 嚴奇巖, "淸水江流域公山管理與經營的生態價値――以碑刻資料爲中心的考察", 中國農史, 37(4) (2018)
  37. 龍澤江, "淸水江文書研究的背景, 意義和價值", 原生態民族文化學刊, 4(3) (2012)
  38. 劉亞男, "從契約文書看淸代淸水江下游地區的倫理經濟", 原生態民族文化學刊, 4(4) (2012)
  39. 李曉娟, "淸水江“淸白”文書的特徵研究", 法制與社會, (4) (2017)
  40. 林芊, "淸水江流域林業經濟制度史研究的幾個問題――淸水江文書・林契研究之二", 貴州大學學報(社會科學版), 34(5) (2016)
  41. 林芊, "淸水江林契反映的“股權”屬性及林地權樣態――淸至民國西南內地邊疆侗苗地區土地關係研究之二", 貴州大學學報(社會科學版), 36(1) (2018)
  42. 林芊, "淸水江林業契約文書中"股"之形式及其特徵", 貴州文史叢刊, (3) (2018)
  43. 林芊, "“三家”“三老家”: 文斗苗寨宗族的生成與擴展――對“淸水江文書”相關契約的考察", 原生態民族文化學刊, 8(4) (2016)
  44. 張明, "淸水江文書中"股"的特殊稱謂, 分配機制及其社會關係", 地域文化研究, (1) (2019)
  45. 張應強, "淸代契約文書中的家族及村落社會生活――貴州省錦屏縣文斗寨個案初探", 廣西民族學院學報, (5) (2005)
  46. 朱蔭貴, "試論淸水江文書中的"股"", 中國經濟史研究, (1) (2015)
  47. 韓亞妮, "淸代淸水江林木種植的“林農角色”研究――以《加池苗寨姜紹烈家山林契約專輯》爲中心", 人口・社會・法制研究, (1) (2014)
  48. 侯文卿, "淸水江流域淸明會會產淺析――以淸水江文書爲中心", 今古文創, (13) (2021)
  49. 相原佳之, "淸代中國における森林政策史の研究", 博士, pp.2009
  50. 王君, "房族・村落・社會: 以淸水江下游加池苗寨的考察爲中心", 博士, pp.2016

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (11건)