ERNEST (Toyo Bunko E-Resource Network Storage) / 東洋文庫リポジトリ
Not a member yet
7151 research outputs found
Sort by
Between the Angkor and Post-Angkor Periods: Identifying the Gap between Inscriptions and Chronicles
Get PDFThere is a blank period of contemporary historical materials between the Angkor and the post-Angkor periods. The well-known history of this period, from the 14th century to the 16th century, had been edited from the Dynasty Chronicles compiled after the end of the 18th century, inscriptions of the early 14th century and the late 16th century, and Portuguese or Spanish records. The parts not described in those texts have been filled with imagination. In this paper, we reexamine the inscriptions from the 14th to the 17th century and the earlier versions of the Dynasty Chronicles, to ascertain which data were cast aside, which story was derived from guesses when constructing the accepted Cambodian history, and to identify what is definitely written in the above historical materials.
The results. 1) The fact that the Angkor Kings do not appear in the Dynasty Chronicles or modern inscriptions suggests the possibility that historical records were not inherited through the blank period. 2) In the late 16th-century inscriptions, the Angkorian sites are given the qualifier “of old Cambodia.” In addition, the King’s inscription refers to the builders of those foundations as “the ancestors of the King,” indicating a recognition that his own royalty was to be traced back to that era. The statements that many “old” statues and buildings were “restored” and that recovering “the old prosperity” through the spread of Buddhism was desirable suggest that there might have been major destruction and confusion, or there might have been a time when Buddhist statues were left unattended. 3) In modern inscriptions, the title of kamrateṅ was not attached to the King’s name but put after the words symbolizing Buddhism. Moreover, a 16th-century inscription contains the word varman in the King’s name. These suggest the possibility that classical knowledge had been handed down to the society’s upper class. 4) The lack of donations of lands and personnel, which were seen in inscriptions up to the 14th century, and the fact that the words prefixed to people’s names to indicate their sex and social status had changed before the 16th century, suggest the structure of society and the economy transformed during the interim period. However, as the gap period lasts as long as two centuries, rapid changes should not necessarily be assumed.journal articl
Representation of Place-Names of Goguryeo in Chinese Characters of the History of the Three Kingdoms of Korea “Monographs of Geography”: Comparative Research Related to the Japanese Language（Part VI）
Get PDFjournal articl
Laws Regulating Human Trafficking in Qing Mongolia
Get PDFThe Qing administration established regulations about human trafficking in the Menggu li or laws exclusively applicable to ordinary Mongols. These are (1) a law enacted in 1683, (2) a law enacted in 1772, and (3) a law enacted in 1839 and revised in 1843. An examination of the relevant provisions in the Chinese, Mongolian, and Manchu versions shows that (1) prohibited selling commoners and making them slaves, wives, concubines, or descendants and that (2) and (3) obstructing the performance of state corvée labor by selling commoners. These laws restricted the human trafficking of commoners, only allowing the trafficking of slaves within the same banner. These provisions also appeared in the laws enacted by Bogd Khan’s regime in 1918, after the Mongolian declaration of independence.However, as seen in a collective family suicide caused by a woman Dasiǰid in the final years of the Qianlong, neither the Qing authorities nor the emperor condemned the trafficking of commoners if they were being sold by their parents, local lords, or officials within the same banner. In another incident which came to light in 1799, commoners and slaves were sold to Guangjuesi, a Tibetan Buddhist temple, in Urad Rear Banner of Ulaančab League. The sold commoners were merely returned, and the penalties imposed on the banner and league leaders by the Board of Frontier Affairs and the Jiaqing Emperor were extremely lenient. Trade in commoners in Qing Mongolia was subject to legal restrictions, but in practice was tacitly tolerated as long as it did not cross banner borders.journal articl
