This article deals with the nature and social relationship of "Bully Groups" (ta-hang 打行 and chiao-fu 脚夫) in prefecture, county, market cities and towns. Ta-hang as a group were controlled by a leader who employed their forces in private disputes, guarding plaintiffs or defendants in a court case, and robbed peasants of their crops and handicraft products which the latter carried in to sell at market towns (chen 鎮). In such work they were employed by a wide range of people, but their strongest permanent ties were to the urban elites or "men of influence at the prefectural county level" (i.e. gentry 郷紳). Since such influential people were closely connected with prefectural and county administration, their tie with urban "Bully Groups", was that of protector-client, master-sarvant relationship. But these "Bully Groups" had their own means of finding work and did not completely rely upon urban elites. By the mid-Ch'ing period these ta-hang that appeared in the late Ming period had cesased to function as bullies employed by other people and had turned into organised gangsters. Chiao-fu were carriers employed in shipping and discharging at marriage and funeral ceremonies. In the early Ch'ing period such carrier groups were able to demand exorbitant prices for their services through the use of violence. On account of such abuses "men of influence at the market town level" who dominated urban society by providing money for bridges, buildings etc., took the lead in exercising control over these unruly chiao-fu. For example men of influence in Chiang-wan chen 江湾鎮 attributed the abuses of chiao-fu to their semi-unemployed state, and raised funds from the propertied class in the market town to provide them with allowances. The growth of urban "Bully Groups" was based on the following two preconditions ; first, class- differentiation of the peasntry, and second, their having a means of living in a city. The second condition was fulfilled by the growth of commerce and increase in number of landowners who lived in prefectural or county capitals.

抄録全体を表示

Various travelling records reveal that the Mongolian nomads worship a kind of construction called "oboga". This construction consists of (1) an accumulated stone or earth mound base, (2) a bundle of willow boughs sticked in the base mound and (3) a flag pole. In an ordinary case, oboga is built up in a tableland that has a fine view. The sites of oboga may be briefly classified into such three types as (1) the sacred place, (2) the compound of temple, and (3) the ordinary pasture. Those obogas which are built up in the pasture are recognized as the objects of worship of the nomads, as a rule. Those obogas that are in the pasture are classified as the oboga of hosigu (旗), of somo (佐), and of ail (a family), and each has its festival in early summer every year. The festival consists of such divine services in narrow meaning as the sutra chanting, the offering of sacrifice, and the worship, and such festivities as the wrestling, the horse-race and the feast. Observing the construction of oboga and the form of the festival, we can say that it is clear that this is an old traditional custom of the nomads. On the other hand, however, such old customs as blood sacrifice, Cumys ceremony etc. that are recognized as the form of worship peculiar to shamanism are not seen among the nomads in view. The most important difference between the customs of shamanists and those of the Mongolian nomads is found in the sorts of gods that they deify. While shamanists, as historical records tell, deified those gods in the Heaven, the Earth and those in the Kingdom of Spirits, the Mongolian nomads are worshipping the oboga as a land-god or a dragon-god. The faith in the dragon-god, being not proper to the Mongols, is seen, as an example, in the case of Kou-lung (句竜), the sub-god of the shrine in ancient China. This dragon-god was believed as a god of fertility among the people who were under the agricultural culture. The faith in dragon-god might have been introduced to the nomads by the good offices of the horse the horse which has played an important role in the religious life of nomadic people from the ancient days. At the same time, it may be recognized that the dragon-god has become the land-god of the nomads through the fusion between the dragon-god and the land-owner-god, the worship of which once widely spread among the peoples of the North-east Asia. Land-owner-gods worship was borme down among historical peoples by that of the gods of shamanism, because they were originally non-shamanic ones. On the other hand, the word "oboga" is hardly found in the literature before the Hua-I-I-Yu (華夷訳語) compiled by Huo-Yuan-Chieh (火原潔) in Ming Dynasty. Even in that book, the author translated "oboga" simply as " " (mound) not giving any religious meaning. Among the present Mongolian nomads, however, oboga is no other than the object of religious service and first of all it puts one in mind of a stone mount instead of a mud one. Such difference between the ideas as mentioned above, together with the custom of worship of the land-god, may tell the fact that the time of formation of oboga as one of the object of worship was in the age after the spread of Lamaism in the Ming Dynasty. It will be also mentionable that the oboga construction is believed as the sign of an occupation by a group of people as the god of "place", and the festival plays an important role in strengthening the co-operative spirit among the community. A rich family whose mode of living may be rather frugal, consumes a great deal of goods in the time of festival. This means to keep up appearance and to gain reputation among the members of community. From such custom we may understand the type of their economy of consumption. For the nomads, the festival is a year end of the calendar of their economic and working life, too. tival is a year end of the calendar of their economic life and productive labours.

抄録全体を表示

本論は, 台湾において最も人気の高い<神々>のうちの一つである王爺の分析を通して, 台湾の漢民族の霊魂観の構造的特徴及びそれらと台湾の歴史的社会的背景との関係を検証する。本論で王爺を取り上げたのは, 王爺の分析が, 台湾の漢民族の世界観の特色を理解するのに役立つと考えられるからである。王爺は, 従来台湾人の民俗分類概念といわれてきた3種の霊的存在-<神>, <鬼>, <祖先>-では捉えきれない。その問題点は, 従来の見方があまりに静態的であったために, 霊的存在の変化の可能性やその過程を説明しきれない点にあったといえる。本論では, このような視点の下に, まず従来の王爺研究をふり返る。そして, これらの文献資料及び筆者の調査した王爺信仰及び「迎王」儀礼を通して, 王爺にみられる霊魂の内的構造を分析する。更に, 「王爺」の<鬼>から<神>への変化が, 台湾の歴史的環境のなかで生み出されてきたことを明らかにする。

抄録全体を表示