詳細検索結果
以下の条件での結果を表示する: 検索条件を変更
クエリ検索: "ホンタイジ" 称号
17件中 1-17の結果を表示しています
  • 前野 利衣
    内陸アジア史研究
    2015年 30 巻 118-119
    発行日: 2015/03/31
    公開日: 2017/10/10
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 呉 國聖
    内陸アジア史研究
    2015年 30 巻 119-120
    発行日: 2015/03/31
    公開日: 2017/10/10
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 宮脇 淳子
    史学雑誌
    1991年 100 巻 1 号 36-73,157-156
    発行日: 1991/01/20
    公開日: 2017/11/29
    ジャーナル フリー
    The Mongol Empire, which was built by Chinggis Khan through his unification of the nomadic peoples of Central Eurasia in the early thirteenth century, in the same way as the great nomadic empires that preceded it, split up into four major states due to internal conflicts among its rulers in the latter half of the same century. Its successor states also either fell or split up further during the middle of the following century. A difference of major importance, however, between the Mongol Empire and its predecessors was that the Central Eurasian nomads never forgot the glorious name of Chinggis Khan even after the split and the fall of its successor states. In the later nomadic society people's minds were long conditioned by the unwritten law that only those having Chinggis Khan's blood in their veins were entitled to khanship. The Oyirad, a group of people who held sway over Mongolia for some time after the fall of the Mongol Yuan dynasty in China, are known to Westerners as the Kalmyks or the Western Mongols. They were called 'aliens (qari)' by the Mongols proper, or the descendants of the Yuan loyalists who reunited in the late fifteenth century. No male descendant of Chinggis Khan was to be found among chiefs of the groups making up the Oyirad. Still they produced such famous chiefs as Guusi Khan and Galdan Bosoqtu Khan in the seventeenth century. When and through what process was khanship born in the Oyirad? Who was it that legitimized such a title? Early in the seventeenth century, the Oyirad tribes succeeded in destroying a Mongol khan who had been their overlord and freed themselves from their former tributary obligations to the Mongols. Now they wished to have their own khan and obtained permission to do so from the Fifth Dalai Lama, the supreme leader of the Dge lugs pa Sect of Tibetan Buddhism, a faith which they had zealously embraced. Yet, even the Oyirad had not lost their traditional respect for Chinggis Khan, which enabled only Guusi Khan of the Xosud tribe and his descendants to assume the title of khan, since they supposedly could date their ancestry back to Josi Qasar, a younger brother of Chinggis Khan. Among the sovereigns of the so-called Zun Γar 'Empire' that grew powerful in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to become the last of equestrian nomadic empires in Central Asian histofy, only Galdan, whose mother was a daughter of Guusi Khan of the Xosud, was granted khanship by the Dalai Lama. All others held only the title of xong tayizi, which meant a viceroy under a khan among the Mongols. Thus there never was a 'Zun Γar Khanate'.
  • 宮脇 淳子
    史学雑誌
    1981年 90 巻 10 号 1520-1543,1616-
    発行日: 1981/10/20
    公開日: 2017/10/05
    ジャーナル フリー
    Much attention has been drawn to the history of the West-Mongolian Dorben Oriyad from the early 17th century when they first appeared as the Kalmyks in Russian sources to the end of the same century when they were united under Galdan of the Jun Γar (Dzungars). The first to discuss the subject in Japan was Masao MORI, who, in the early 1950's, quoted Pallas, Howorth and Baddeley and corrected their errors. He was followed by Akira HANEDA, Hidehiro OKADA, Zuiho YAMAGUCHI and Hiroshi WAKAMATSU. Especially WAKAMATSU gives a consistent description of the history of the so-called "Dzungar Khanate" from its supposed founder Qara Qula down through Baratur Qong Tayiji, Sengge and Galdan who established a kingdom of integrated Oyirad tribes. Therefore his work has since been regarded as a standard reference for Japanese students of the history of that period. Mainly basing himself on Russian documents, WAKAMATSU argued that Qara Qula of the Dzungars had already been the leader of all the Dorben Oyirad as early as in the beginning of the 17th century, and that the Dzungar leadership as such was further strengthened at the time of his son Baratur Qong Tayiji. This view, which is derived from the old views of Pallas and Zlatkin, however, is found to be contrary to historical facts that are deduced from a closer examination of the Russian documents and Mongolian sources. It turns out that the Dzungar chiefs previous to Galdan were never supreme leaders of the Dorben Oyirad. For example, Mongolian sources reveal that in the days of Qara Qula it was Bayibaras Qaran of Qosud that led the Oyirad campaigns against the Qalqa Mongols. Bogatyr' Talai Taisha, who figured as the head Taisha of the Kalmyks of 1616 in Russian documents and was identified by Pallas with Baratur Qong Tayiji, is actually Dalai Tayisi of the Dorbed. Baibagish, a chief murdered in the internal disturbances of the Kalmyks in the 1620's who was regarded as a son of Qara Qula by WAKAMATSU and Zlatkin, was nobody but Bayibaras Qaran of the Qosud. Also doubtful is the theory of Zlatkin, who thinks that the "Dzungar Khanate" was established in 1635, the year in which Baratur, the son of Qara Qula, assumed the title of Qong Tayiji. The supreme leader of the Dorben Oyirad at that time was Guusi Qaran, a younger brother of the murdered Bayibaras. We may safely conclude that a Dzungar Khanate did not come into existence until the time when Galdan who had succeeded Sengge, attacked Vcirtu cecen Qaran of the Qosud, took over his subjects and assumed the title of the Qaran of the Dorben Oyirad in 1676. The root of the misconception by Pallas, Zlatkin and WAKAMATSU lies in their projecting the images of the later Dzungar Khans back to the times of the still disunited Oyirad of the 17th century.
  • 鈴木 開
    史学雑誌
    2014年 123 巻 8 号 1435-1470
    発行日: 2014/08/20
    公開日: 2017/07/31
    ジャーナル フリー
    Diplomatic relations between the Jeoson and Qing Dynasties were first established in 1637, marking the most important event in the history of the Korea's foreign relations to date. However, the circumstances leading up to that event have still not been made sufficiently clear. This article takes up the 1627 Chongmyo 丁卯 War, which marked the Qing Dynasty's first invasion of Korea as the starting point in the process by which diplomatic relations between the two countries were established. First, the author examines the relations between the Jeoson Dynasty and the Jurchen Kingdom of Aisin Gurun, the Qing Dynasty's predecessor, leading up to the 1627 invasion. Although the Jeoson government at the time had emphasized friendly relations with the former Ming Dynasty, it also was planning to dispatch envoys to Aisin Gurun in order to resume diplomatic negotiations. However, Aisin Gurun, out of intimidation by the forces of Ming General Mao Wen-Long 毛文竜 and a serious famine, decided to launch an invasion of Korea. The attack was thwarted by internal strife within the Aisin Gurun ranks over lack of preparedness in their military operations, and the disorganization also posed difficulties in suing for peace. The author then turns to diplomatic relations in the wake of the Chongmyo War. Due to differences in perception that arose between Hong Taiji, who remained in the Aisin Gurun capital of Shenyang, and Amin, the commander in chief at the front, two different peace treaties were concluded with Korea, one at Kanghwa, the other at Pyongyang. The Jeoson Dynasty chose ally to itself with Aisin Gurun based on the former treaty, since it agreed with Hong Taiji that this treaty did not specify the political superiority or advantage of either party. The author ends the article with an examination of the first dispatch of envoys by the two states based on the Kanghwa Treaty. He concludes that the extremely proactive attitude shown by the Jeoson government resulted in the withdrawal of the Aisin Gurun army from Uiju on the northern border. Furthermore, in the peace negotiations there were no discussions of exchanging tributary gifts on a regular basis or opening trading posts on the border, indicating an agreement far different from setting up mutual relations of friendship between the two states. From that time on such fluidity characterizing Jeoson-Aisin Gurun relations would continue to a certain extent, which is directly attributable to the vagueness of the peace treaty concluded after the Chongmyo War.
  • 杉山 清彦
    史学雑誌
    1998年 107 巻 7 号 1255-1292,1410-
    発行日: 1998/07/20
    公開日: 2017/11/30
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 萩原 守
    内陸アジア史研究
    2008年 23 巻 165-173
    発行日: 2008/03/31
    公開日: 2017/10/10
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 楠木 賢道
    史学雑誌
    1993年 102 巻 5 号 930-934
    発行日: 1993/05/20
    公開日: 2017/11/29
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 岡 洋樹
    史学雑誌
    1992年 101 巻 5 号 916-920
    発行日: 1992/05/20
    公開日: 2017/11/29
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 中国の烈士陵園を中心に
    高山 陽子
    地域研究
    2014年 14 巻 2 号 43-58
    発行日: 2014年
    公開日: 2021/11/30
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 長沼 秀幸
    内陸アジア史研究
    2015年 30 巻 77-85
    発行日: 2015/03/31
    公開日: 2017/10/10
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 中島 楽章
    社会経済史学
    2011年 76 巻 4 号 501-524
    発行日: 2011/02/25
    公開日: 2017/07/18
    ジャーナル オープンアクセス
    明清時代の貿易秩序を「朝貢貿易システム」として概括する見解に対し,近年では明初の朝貢体制にかわり,16世紀から「互市体制」が成長していったことが主張されている。本稿では14世紀末から16世紀末にいたる東アジア貿易秩序の変容と再編のプロセスを,6つの時期に分けて,海域・内陸アジアの双方について包括的に検討してみたい。14世紀末に成立した明朝の朝貢体制のもとでは,対外通商は明朝と周辺諸国との朝貢貿易に一元化され,民間貿易は禁止されていた。こうした朝貢体制は,15世紀初頭に最大限に達するが,15世紀中期からはしだいに動揺し,海域・内陸周縁地帯では,朝貢貿易の枠外に広州湾や粛州での「互市」が成長していく。16世紀中期までには,モンゴルや倭寇の略奪や密貿易の拡大により,朝貢貿易体制はほぼ破綻し,1570年前後には,明朝は華人海商の東南アジア渡航と,モンゴルとの互市を公認する。こうした貿易秩序の再編は,ポルトガルやスペインの新航路開拓による海外銀の流入とも連動して,多様な通商ルートが併存するあらたな貿易秩序,「1570年システム」が形成されたのである。
  • エンケホルワ, 夏目 欣昇, 濱田 晋一, 麓 和善
    日本建築学会計画系論文集
    2021年 86 巻 790 号 2755-2766
    発行日: 2021/12/01
    公開日: 2021/12/01
    ジャーナル フリー

     Since BC, cities have been constructed on the Mongolian Plateau with the establishment of dynasties, but most turned to ruins. However, the Tibetan Buddhist temples built after the 16th century, which are an indispensable element in the process of Mongolians settling down from nomadic life, have been relatively well preserved in Inner Mongolia. These temples are considered the epitome of the Mongolian economy, culture, art, and construction technology of the time. Therefore, there is great value and significance in researching them systematically. Interestingly, these temples originated from Inner Mongolia, the southern part of Mongolia. The architectural design of these temples has been largely influenced by Chinese and Tibetan temple architecture and is therefore considered an important sample for studying temple architecture in both Mongolia and East Asia. Yet, there is still no systematic study on this subject. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to study the arrangement plan, which is the most important aspect in the design and first stage of temple construction of Inner Mongolian Tibetan Buddhist temples.

     In this study, 30 well-preserved temples, that were constructed between the end of the Northern Yuan Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty were selected as the object of this research. Firstly, the temples were divided into different levels according to the historical background of the temples. Further, the temple buildings were also classified based on their functions. Lastly, the arrangement plan has been modeled, which was also classified into a series of different types to further clarify the characteristics of the arrangement of the Inner Mongolian Buddhist temples.

     Results-wise, this study suggests that these temples could be divided into three levels: Province Level, League Level, and Banner Level. Furthermore, there were 56 kinds of temple buildings among these 30 temples, which were divided into 3 types according to their functions. In accordance with the main buildings among the 56 classifications, the arrangement form of the temple has shown to be divided into Integrated Type and Separated Type. Importantly, Integrated Type could be divided into more detailed types like Symmetric Type and Asymmetric Type. The characteristic arrangement plans of these temples in different regions have been clearly found through a comparative analysis of each level’s temple arrangement of various types. Surprisingly, the reason behind the characteristics has been initially discovered during this study.

     In conclusion, this study presents a classification of arrangement characteristics of Buddhist temples of Inner Mongolia, based on arrangement plans in a variety of temples in Inner Mongolia. Finally, this research also provides a foundation for further studies on Mongolian temple architecture.

  • 秋山 徹
    史学雑誌
    2010年 119 巻 8 号 1339-1373
    発行日: 2010/08/20
    公開日: 2017/12/01
    ジャーナル フリー
    The purpose of this paper is to investigate how the Russian Empire established its rule over the Kyrgyz nomads by analyzing the activities of Kyrgyz tribal chieftains, "manaps", and the circumstances faced by them. The formation of the rule of the Russian Empire over the Kyrgyz nomads was a dynamic process in which the eastward migration of the Kyrgyz nomads, who after the collapse of the Jungarian Empire sought to obtain new pasture lands, interacted with the military expansion of the Russian Empire toward the heart of Central Asia and which was even more complicated by the presence of other neighboring powers. The Russian Empire opened up direct relations with the Kyrgyz nomads when it took an arbitrator's role in the Kazakh-Kyrgyz frictions of the late 1840's. The Russian Empire eventually came to see manaps as mediators with the local population. From the end of the 1850's, when the Russian Empire activated its efforts toward the conquest of Central Asia, the Kyrgyz nomads were put in a borderline position facing closely interwoven issues of the military expansion and the governance mechanism establishment. The Russian Empire sorted manaps out based on their loyalty and reliability and tied the selected ones up to the local military governance mechanisms. Moreover, the Russian Empire built a hierarchy among the manaps by introducing the institution of appointed senior manaps ("starshii manap"). In such a situation the manaps managed to extend their power and expand their pastures by not only emphasizing their own military exploits in the conquest wars but also by exaggerating the questionability of loyalty of their rival manaps-thus in both cases utilizing the factor of presence of the neighboring powers. Such policy of the Russian Empire and strategies used by the manaps continued even after the establishment of the governor-generalship of Turkestan in 1867. The Temporary Statute of 1867, which in principle was aimed at dismantling the "tribal principle" including the authority of the tribal leaders, was flexibly utilized by the local colonial authorities for the purpose of setting up the hierarchy and selecting the able manaps who might be useful for establishing and exercising the Russian imperial rule over the Kyrgyz nomads and conducting further military expansion. On the other side, some of the manaps sought the office of the volost headmen ("volostnoi up-ravitel") to strengthen their power, while others purposely turned down the offered position in order to avoid restrictions implied by the post and retain their freedom of maneuver. Among these latter manaps, there appeared such influential figures as Shabdan who expanded their influence by skillfully making use of the multitiered structure of the governance system involving the Russian colonial officials.
  • 内陸アジア史研究
    2016年 31 巻 225-245
    発行日: 2016/03/31
    公開日: 2017/05/26
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 内陸アジア史研究
    2016年 31 巻 197-223
    発行日: 2016/03/31
    公開日: 2017/05/26
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 萩原 守, 額定 其労
    法制史研究
    2015年 64 巻 171-211,en11
    発行日: 2015/03/30
    公開日: 2021/03/20
    ジャーナル フリー

     故島田正郎氏が切り開いた北アジア法史という研究分野の内、モンゴル法制史は、欧米、日本、モンゴル、中国領の内モンゴル等各地で、現在最も盛んに研究の行われている分野である。この研究動向の原稿では、モンゴル法制史の主要な諸研究を「通史的研究」、「モンゴル帝国期」、「北元時代」、「清代のモンゴル」、「一九一一年以降のモンゴル」という五章に分けて紹介・論評していく。
     まず「通史的研究」としては、ロシアのリャザノフスキー氏がモンゴル法制史を初めて通史にまとめ、大きな功績を残したが、彼自身は現地語で書かれた法制史料を自ら読解しておらず、既にその研究上の価値は決して高くない。一方、上記の島田氏は漢文法制史料を精査し、特に清朝治下での蒙古例の全体像を解明した功績が光るにもかかわらず、満蒙文史料や欧文の研究を参照する事がなかったため、欧米での研究とすれ違いに終わり、残念ながら知名度が低い。
     「モンゴル帝国期」については、チンギスハーンの定めた法典『大ヤサ』が、成文法として本当に存在していたのかどうかが、最近の焦点となっている。「北元時代」に関しては、いくつもの蒙文法典原本が文献学的に研究されているが、法制史的研究がなされているのは、『ハルハジロム』のみである。「清代のモンゴル」については、ロシア人の始めた研究を日本人、内外モンゴルのモンゴル人、欧米人の研究者たちが受け継いで、蒙古例法典、裁判制度ともに、盛んに研究が発表され、日進月歩の状態である。「一九一一年以降のモンゴル」に関しては、内外モンゴルの研究者を中心に研究が始まってはいるが、なお、盛んとは言えない状況である。
     今後は、各時代とも、文献学的な研究に加えて、より法学的特徴を持つ研究が求められるであろう。

feedback
Top