淸의 北京 遷都와 만주의 北京 移住
From a New Capital to a New Home — The Establishment of the Capital and Manchu Migration in Early Qing Beijing —
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Even before “Entering the Pass,” the Manchus enforced a strict segregation policy separating the Manchus and Hans. This policy continued even after the Manchus moved their capital to Beijing. Dorgon inherited the Ming Beijing city structure – divided into an inner city and outer city – and utilized this pre-existing structure to separate the Manchus and Hans. Even though the Qing court introduced some policies to compensate the economic losses of the Han civilians who were forced to move, there was no denying that the migration of the bannermen and stabilizing their life took higher priority. One of the most visible but misunderstood policies that signified the segregation of the Manchus and Hans was the Manchu enclosure policy (quandi 圈地). The newly established banner-land around Beijing served two purposes; first is being the spoils of war that the Qing distributed as rewards to the banenrmen; second is being the economic base for the newly settled bannermen. As a result of this enclosure policy, the Han civilians were pushed away from the capital, while the location of the newly immigrated bannermen was concentrated near Beijing. The policy of enclosure reached its height in the fourth year of the Shunzhi era (1647), indicating the movement of the bannermen to Beijing gradually increased over time, but also more or less was concluded by this time. After this, the Qing court officially prohibited any further acts of enclosure, but the prohibition alone did not totally eliminate the practice of enclosure. In practice, civilian lands continued to be subject to enclosure. The enclosed lands were the economic basis for the bannermen, and therefore the practice continued. As we have seen, the enclosure policy was an inevitable policy that the Manchus needed to settle and secure their rule over the new territory; it served as the economic basis that enabled the continuous conquest of the Manchus; it was a realization of the policy of the Manchus and Hans segregation.
Abstract
Even before “Entering the Pass,” the Manchus enforced a strict segregation policy separating the Manchus and Hans. This policy continued even after the Manchus moved their capital to Beijing. Dorgon inherited the Ming Beijing city structure – divided into an inner city and outer city – and utilized this pre-existing structure to separate the Manchus and Hans. Even though the Qing court introduced some policies to compensate the economic losses of the Han civilians who were forced to move, there was no denying that the migration of the bannermen and stabilizing their life took higher priority. One of the most visible but misunderstood policies that signified the segregation of the Manchus and Hans was the Manchu enclosure policy (quandi 圈地). The newly established banner-land around Beijing served two purposes; first is being the spoils of war that the Qing distributed as rewards to the banenrmen; second is being the economic base for the newly settled bannermen. As a result of this enclosure policy, the Han civilians were pushed away from the capital, while the location of the newly immigrated bannermen was concentrated near Beijing. The policy of enclosure reached its height in the fourth year of the Shunzhi era (1647), indicating the movement of the bannermen to Beijing gradually increased over time, but also more or less was concluded by this time. After this, the Qing court officially prohibited any further acts of enclosure, but the prohibition alone did not totally eliminate the practice of enclosure. In practice, civilian lands continued to be subject to enclosure. The enclosed lands were the economic basis for the bannermen, and therefore the practice continued. As we have seen, the enclosure policy was an inevitable policy that the Manchus needed to settle and secure their rule over the new territory; it served as the economic basis that enabled the continuous conquest of the Manchus; it was a realization of the policy of the Manchus and Hans segregation.
참고문헌 (37)
- 康熙, "順天府志" (2009), 中華書局
- "內閣大庫檔案", 臺灣中央硏究院歷史語言硏究所 소장, ~
- 滿文老檔硏究會, "滿文老檔』Ⅰ-Ⅶ" (1963), 東洋文庫
- "朝鮮王朝實錄"[URL]
- "淸實錄" (1985), 中華書局
- "聽雨叢談" (1984), 中華書局
- 中國第一歷史檔案館, "淸初內國史院滿文檔案譯編" (1989), 光明日報出版社
- 鄂爾泰, "八旗通志初集" (1985), 東北師範大學出版社
- "皇淸奏議", 續修四庫全書 卷473, ~
- 李洵, "欽定八旗通志" (2002), 吉林文史出版社
- 劉家駒, "淸朝初期的八旗圈地" (1964), 國立臺灣大學文學院
- 劉鳳雲, "北京與江戶 : 17-18世紀的城市空間" (2012), 中國人民大學出版社
- 劉小萌, "淸代北京旗人社會" (2008), 中國社會科學出版社
- 王崗, "北京政治史" (2008), 人民出版社
- 韋慶遠, "淸代的旗地" (1989), 中華書局
- 任桂淳, "淸朝八旗駐防興衰史" (1993), 三聯書店
- 趙令志, "淸前期八旗土地制度硏究" (2001), 民族出版社
- 定宜莊, "近畿五百里-淸代畿輔地區的旗地與莊頭" (2016), 中國社會科學出版社
- 周藤吉之, "淸代東アジア史硏究" (1972), 日本學術振興會
- Frederic Wakeman Jr., "The Great Enterprise: The Manchu Reconstruction of Imperial Order in Seventeenth-Century China" (1985), University of California Press
- Mark C. Elliott, "만주족의 청제국" (2009), 푸른역사
- 박민수, "1644년 山海關 전투와 淸軍의 北京 입성", 중국사연구, (110), pp.103~145 (2017), 중국사학회[DOI]
- 박민수, "首都 北京의 州縣 행정― 明末ㆍ淸初 京縣의 운영을 중심으로 ―", 동양사학연구, (140), pp.369~413 (2017), 동양사학회[DOI]
- 李沅埈, "淸初 旗地 投充人의 성격", 서울大 東洋史學科論集, 30 (2006)
- 조영헌, "원·명·청 시대 首都 북경과 陪都의 변천", 역사학보, (209), pp.63~106 (2011), 역사학회
- 郭松義, "淸代社會變動和京師居住格局的演變", 淸史硏究, 2012(1) (2012)
- 邱源媛, "中國社會科學院歷史硏究所學刊 第九集" (2014), 商務印書館
- 李立民, "淸順治年間"泛濫投充"現象探析", 河北北方學院學報, 2014(2) (2014)
- 宋國强, "淸初圈地芻議", 滿族硏究, 1988(4) (1988)
- 安雙成, "順治朝八旗男丁滿文檔案選譯", 滿學硏究, 1 (1992), 吉林文史出版社
- 王立群, "淸代直隸旗地考述", 黑龍江史志, 2014(5) (2014)
- 華立, "從八旗編査保甲看淸朝"旗民分治"政策的變化", 民族硏究, 1988(5) (1988)
- 谷井陽子, "八旗制度再考(二)-經濟的背景", 天理大學學報, 57(2) (2006)
- 谷井陽子, "明末淸初の社會と文化" (1996), 京都大學人文科學硏究所
- 吳建雍, "東アジアの傳統都市" (2001), 山川出版社
- Gertraude Roth Li, "From Ming to Ch'ing: Conquest, Region, and Continuity in Seventeenth-Century China" (1979), Yale University Press
- Xiangyu Hu, "The Juridical System of the Qing Dynasty in Beijing(1644-1900)", Ph. D., pp.2011
