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
- 동양사학회 동양사학연구 東洋史學硏究 第156輯
- 발행연도
- 2021.9
- 수록면
- 1 - 58 (58page)
- DOI
- 10.17856/jahs.2021.9.156.001
이용수
이 논문의 연구 히스토리 (2)
- 이 논문의 후속연구가 궁금하신가요?
- 연관 학술논문 또는 학술발표를 통해 보다 발전된 연구결과를 확인하실 수 있습니다.
- 이 논문의 연구 히스토리 확인하기
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This paper analyzes the universal existence of thieves and their survival to consider the nature of imperial power and administrative system under Mongol rule in the 13th to 14th centuries. In a broad sense, thieves were largely divided into robbers and thieves, the latter of which included brigandage, piracy, arson and tomb theft, activities categorized as robberies.
Since the Chinggis Qan era (r. 1206–27), thieves have been “co-existent” in imperial societies, crossing into and beyond the political and legal boundaries of the Mongol empire. Incidents of thievery broke out and then quickly increased amidst daily crises such as war, disasters, taxation, and military conscription. They existed in cities, including capitals, while boundaries, forests and seas provided advantageous places for bandits to hide and gather. In particular, pirates were a group that appeared in East Asian history when the Yuan dynasty expanded travel by sea from Jiangnan to the winter capital of Dadu (present Beijing). This had political effects.
Thieves were subject to prohibition and punishment. The punishment against thieves and robbers was mitigated and subdivided from capital punishment to retaliation punishment, and even into five punishments, from Chinggis Qan to Ayurbarwada Qa’an (r. 1311–20). Arrest of bandits was the responsibility of local officials and archers. Officials and people in charge of arresting thieves and bandits were called qulaɤančis in Mongolian. In the interrogations and trials of bandits, a joint hearing and trial was undertaken following a Mongolian legal tradition called ǰarqu.
However, it was not easy to arrest and remove bandits. Officials were often wary of arresting thieves thanks to officials’ vacancy, old and ill incumbents, fear, the geographic and topographic conditions of mountains and waters, and the neglect of duties. Some officials made peace with the bandits, released them and colluded with them. Local populations often married or colluded with coastal people and seamen, making it difficult for the government to distinguish pirates. Some government officials and local people shifted their embezzlement, laziness and infliction of injury to thieves or bandits in order to conceal or relieve their own crimes.
Above all, the amnesty of the great Qan helped to spark the generation of banditry. In a way, bandits were rivals in the struggle with the great Qan to protect the poor and refugees for reasons of charity and virtue. From another angle, the lax punishment and administration, which exemplify the empire’s limitations, constituted part of the foundation of the “Pax Mongolica,” or Mongol Peace.
In short, thieves were symptomatic of the limitations of Mongol power, as both a product and a reflection of the Mongols and the economic system they created. Bandits created administrative burdens on the empire, but they clearly enjoyed and supported their activities, as they traveled continually back and forth between illegal and legal domains. The real weapons of survival to thieves were their agility, flexibility in collusion with government and religions, the art of stealing, and knowledge and technology of seas and ships.
Since the Chinggis Qan era (r. 1206–27), thieves have been “co-existent” in imperial societies, crossing into and beyond the political and legal boundaries of the Mongol empire. Incidents of thievery broke out and then quickly increased amidst daily crises such as war, disasters, taxation, and military conscription. They existed in cities, including capitals, while boundaries, forests and seas provided advantageous places for bandits to hide and gather. In particular, pirates were a group that appeared in East Asian history when the Yuan dynasty expanded travel by sea from Jiangnan to the winter capital of Dadu (present Beijing). This had political effects.
Thieves were subject to prohibition and punishment. The punishment against thieves and robbers was mitigated and subdivided from capital punishment to retaliation punishment, and even into five punishments, from Chinggis Qan to Ayurbarwada Qa’an (r. 1311–20). Arrest of bandits was the responsibility of local officials and archers. Officials and people in charge of arresting thieves and bandits were called qulaɤančis in Mongolian. In the interrogations and trials of bandits, a joint hearing and trial was undertaken following a Mongolian legal tradition called ǰarqu.
However, it was not easy to arrest and remove bandits. Officials were often wary of arresting thieves thanks to officials’ vacancy, old and ill incumbents, fear, the geographic and topographic conditions of mountains and waters, and the neglect of duties. Some officials made peace with the bandits, released them and colluded with them. Local populations often married or colluded with coastal people and seamen, making it difficult for the government to distinguish pirates. Some government officials and local people shifted their embezzlement, laziness and infliction of injury to thieves or bandits in order to conceal or relieve their own crimes.
Above all, the amnesty of the great Qan helped to spark the generation of banditry. In a way, bandits were rivals in the struggle with the great Qan to protect the poor and refugees for reasons of charity and virtue. From another angle, the lax punishment and administration, which exemplify the empire’s limitations, constituted part of the foundation of the “Pax Mongolica,” or Mongol Peace.
In short, thieves were symptomatic of the limitations of Mongol power, as both a product and a reflection of the Mongols and the economic system they created. Bandits created administrative burdens on the empire, but they clearly enjoyed and supported their activities, as they traveled continually back and forth between illegal and legal domains. The real weapons of survival to thieves were their agility, flexibility in collusion with government and religions, the art of stealing, and knowledge and technology of seas and ships.
목차
머리말
Ⅰ. 도적의 활동 무대와 다면성
Ⅱ. 捕盜의 법률과 행정
Ⅲ. 도적의 표상: 제국의 위기 혹은 팍스 몽골리카?
맺음말
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (80)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
고려에 下嫁해 온 몽골공주들의 정치적 위치와 고려-몽골 관계: 齊國大長公主의 사례를 중심으로
이화사학연구
2017 .01
-
햐쿠타 나오키(百田尙樹)의 『영원한 제로(永遠の0)』와 『해적이라 불린 사나이(海賊とよばれた男)』고찰
일본문화학보
2018 .08
-
몽골 복속기 立省論의 구성 과정과 맥락: 초기의 立省 관련 논의를 중심으로
역사학보
2021 .12
-
몽원 제국 시기 ‘종교’의 정의에 대한 재검토 - 유대인, 白雲宗, 儒人의 비교를 중심으로 -
동양사학연구
2019 .09
-
『이재난고』 속의 도둑과 군도담
남도문화연구
2015 .12
-
Personal Trajectories and National History: Why the Goryeo People Went to the Mongol Empire and How They Lived There
THE REVIEW OF KOREAN STUDIES
2024 .12
-
網絡盜墓小說對古代盜墓敘事的繼承與發展― 以《鬼吹燈》和《盜墓筆記》爲例
중국소설논총
2018 .01
-
18세기 국문장편소설 <완월회맹연>의 몽골 인식 -포스트 팍스 몽골리카 시기 조선의 몽골에 대한 서사적 기억
고소설연구
2018 .01
-
‘적성(赤城)’으로 글쓰기
이화어문논집
2019 .01
-
고전소설 속 도적의 형상화 양상과 그 의미
어문론총
2017 .09
-
『朴通事』에 나타난 ‘玉黃子 유고’와‘虎剌賓 유외엿’에 대한 연구
어문연구(語文硏究)
2018 .01
-
고려-몽골(원) 관계사 연구를 위한 노력과 종합적 시각의 모색
역사학보
2025 .03
-
주역 몽괘(蒙卦)의 상징과 교육적 의미
동양고전연구
2015 .01
-
Japanese Pirates and Rural Communities in Late Goryeo
Journal of Northeast Asian History
2019 .12
-
몽골제국의 붕괴와 고려-명의 유산 상속분쟁
역사비평
2017 .11
-
발몽(發蒙)하려고
월간에세이
2019 .09
-
Rethinking Trade Between Europe and the Mongol Realm During the Pax Mongolica
서양중세사연구
2019 .01
-
몽골제국의 ‘울루스 체제’의 형성
동양사학연구
2015 .06
-
고등학교 『동아시아사』 교과서의 몽골제국부분 서술에 대한 검토
대구사학
2022 .08
-
中国的蒙元时期丝绸之路研究
동양학
2019 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0