지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 한국역사연구회 역사와현실 역사와 현실 제111호
- 발행연도
- 2019.3
- 수록면
- 183 - 219 (37page)
- DOI
- 10.35865/YWH.2019.03.111.183
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
So far, almost all references to ‘lands’ in historical texts have been interpreted as referring to ‘agricultural lands,’ by scholars in the field of premodern economic history. But another examination of those references reveals that they not only referred to agricultural lands but also regions or territories. Also, references to ‘land size(large or small)’ with regard to promotion or demotion of local Gun/Hyeon units’ titles(Eubho, 邑號) seem to have meant the size of the region under administrative jurisdiction of a particular Gun or Hyeon. The size of a region was also perceived as a matter connected with the number of households living in it. In other words, when a region was considered ‘large’ enough to be promoted, it not only meant that the region was large enough physically but also that it had enough households inside it to warrant a promotion. From such perspective, the land and household were no separate issues.
Elevation or demotion in title would not only affect the political status of the local unit. It also led to either increase or decrease in the region’s size and number of population. This also brings the issue of ‘tribute taxes’ into question. Size of obligatory tributes demanded from regions was determined by the region’s status or rank. Whenever a region was divided by a change in its title, the entire dynamic of production -including tribute taxes- would change. This means the change in local titles would have led to either aggravation or easing of a particular region’s burden of submitting taxes. It also explains why Joseon local population would react nervously to changes in titles of their own areas.
Economic historical studies of the Joseon period’s early half have so far focused upon explaining how ‘lands’ were incorporated into the taxation structure(composed of Three main areas: land tax, labor service and tributes), yet this kind of effort may have been oversimplifying the reality of the time. Tribute demands of the government were distributed across the country, according to not only the individual local units’ “land sizes” demonstrated by their agricultural productive capabilities, forrest resources and water supply, alongside their handcraft manufacturing infrastructure, but also the number of “households” which represented the amount of workforce individual regions could deliver at the command of the government. These aspects should be more explored in the future.
Elevation or demotion in title would not only affect the political status of the local unit. It also led to either increase or decrease in the region’s size and number of population. This also brings the issue of ‘tribute taxes’ into question. Size of obligatory tributes demanded from regions was determined by the region’s status or rank. Whenever a region was divided by a change in its title, the entire dynamic of production -including tribute taxes- would change. This means the change in local titles would have led to either aggravation or easing of a particular region’s burden of submitting taxes. It also explains why Joseon local population would react nervously to changes in titles of their own areas.
Economic historical studies of the Joseon period’s early half have so far focused upon explaining how ‘lands’ were incorporated into the taxation structure(composed of Three main areas: land tax, labor service and tributes), yet this kind of effort may have been oversimplifying the reality of the time. Tribute demands of the government were distributed across the country, according to not only the individual local units’ “land sizes” demonstrated by their agricultural productive capabilities, forrest resources and water supply, alongside their handcraft manufacturing infrastructure, but also the number of “households” which represented the amount of workforce individual regions could deliver at the command of the government. These aspects should be more explored in the future.
목차
머리말
1. 조선 전기 ‘토지’ 용례의 검토
2. 군현의 공액 분정과 ‘토지’
맺음말
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (11)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
고려 말 조선 초 재정 구조의 연속성과 공납제 운영
역사비평
2017 .08
-
중국의 도시화와 공공토지 사유화
역사비평
2016 .08
-
量田史의 재검토― 벽사 이우성의 사적 토지소유론과 관련해서
대동문화연구
2023 .03
-
For Whom the Line is Drawn: Korean Indigenous Conceptions of Boundary in the 19th Century and Changes in the Colonial Period
Korea Journal
2020 .12
-
한말 명례궁장토의 운영과 국가의 소유권 정리 : 충청남도 아산군 이서면 우평 명례궁장토를 중심으로
한국민족문화
2015 .05
-
韓中 두 나라의 異國人假面戱와 ‘貢物 바치기’에 대한 비교 고찰
중국문학
2017 .01
-
전통, 제국과 금본위제—T. S. 엘리엇의 로이즈 은행 근무
T. S. 엘리엇연구
2023 .01
-
소용돌이 속에서 만난 엘리엇과 포우
T. S. 엘리엇연구
2024 .01
-
고려 중~후기 수령관의 증치(增置)와 고을 읍격(邑格) 및 관격(官格) 변화의 역사성 - 경상도와 전라도 지역의 분석을 중심으로 -
역사와현실
2021 .06
-
1859~72년 장단(長湍) 상도면(上道面) 소지(所志)를 통해 본 조선 후기 부세 소송의 성격
사림
2024 .04
-
19세기 말∼20세기 초 정부의 호구 파악과 관리
사학연구
2024 .06
-
일제강점기 평택지역 경제의 근대적 진로 - 외압주도 경제의 역기능 -
한국민족운동사연구
2016 .01
-
태조~세종대 호등제의 변천과 공물 분정
사학연구
2016 .09
-
『贄』목관과『延喜式』의 贄 비교
일본문화학보
2020 .02
-
매체적 관점에서의 한국근대시 시제(詩題) 연구 -개화기시가에서 근대 자유시 이전까지-
한국언어문학
2015 .01
-
개항 후 분원 공인과 공가에 대한 연구(1883∼1895)
한국사연구
2016 .09
-
대한제국기 김가진의 충주지역 토지 소유와 의의
한국독립운동사연구
2017 .05
-
3년 1공인가, 4년 1공인가 - 고려-명 관계에서 歲貢 빈도와 『명태조실록』의 조작 -
한국사학보
2022 .02
-
갑오정권의 농업정책
이화사학연구
2016 .01
-
1920년대 조선의 군제(郡制) 논의와 조선총독부의 ‘군도제(郡島制)’ 구상
역사와현실
2025 .03
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2019-911-000526802