詳細検索結果
以下の条件での結果を表示する:
全文: "富山城" 備前国
3件中 1-3の結果を表示しています
  • 竹井 英文
    史学雑誌
    2011年 120 巻 5 号 723-727
    発行日: 2011/05/20
    公開日: 2017/12/01
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 岡山県下における古庭園の成立とその経済的背景
    伊藤 照秋, 福山 泰次
    造園雑誌
    1972年 36 巻 3 号 3-9
    発行日: 1972/03/20
    公開日: 2011/07/19
    ジャーナル フリー
    1. Most of landlords' (Shôya) and merchants' gardens were made in the latter term of Edo period.
    2. A few of antique gardens are distributed in the northern part of Okayama prefecture and the other, especially landlord and marchants' gardens of Edo period, are distributed in the southern part.
    3. These tendencies were caused the following reasons; some of farmers developed new regions of the southern part of Okayama prefecture, and they had been having a financial power as a new landlord class, comparing with an old powerless landlord class, and made most of gardens.
    4. In the Mimasaka district, the northern part of Okayama prefecture, only an old landlord class exist and they had no financial power as big as making gardens.
  • 川村 博忠
    人文地理
    1998年 50 巻 5 号 425-448
    発行日: 1998/10/28
    公開日: 2009/04/28
    ジャーナル フリー
    Today, there exist two types of the Nihonsouzu (General maps of Japan) of the early Edo era which seem to have been compiled by the Edo Shogunate. For certain reasons, we refer to the kind stored at the Hasuike Library of the Saga Prefectural Library as Type A, and that at the National Diet Library as Type B. The latter has been well known from comparatively early times and explained over years as the general map of Japan being descended from the“Keicho Nihonzu”, which was originally drawn on the basis of the Keicho Kuniezu.
    This author has previously insisted that the above mentioned, commonly accepted theory should be revised, and that this map ought to be called“Kanei Nihonzu”based on the fact that province figures of the Type B Nihonzu do not always coincide with those of several Keicho Kuniezu when compared. Furthermore, it has exceptionally detailed land name descriptions for the Shimabara Peninsula in Kyushu, and therefore it could have been produced after the Revolt of Shimabara. Though the author's view is generally accepted, there are some opposing views preventing it from reaching complete recognition. As to the other Type A Nihonzu, nothing decisive is known about its establishment, but the author assumes that Type A is older than Type B based on their figures and content. However some say that Type A is newer than Type B because it is superior in the forms of both the Tsugaru and Shimokita Peninsulas embracing Mutsu Bay located at the northern end of Japan.
    Feeling responsible for having caused controversies over the Nihonsozu of the early Edo era, the author made a special presentation at the 1993 conference to clarify this problem, but failed to write any paper about it. However, later on, three other pieces of information related to the present problem were discovered; 1) another Type B Nihonzu, only one of which had been known to exist until then, was found to exist in the Ikedake Library at the Okayama University Annex Library and to have a list of Kokudaka (amounts of crop yield) in each province which were omitted in the map at the National Diet Library. Also the lord names shown with tags pasted on the castle locations were different from those on the map at the National Diet Library; 2) several maps of entire Kyushu which have exactly the same figures as the Kyushu part of Type A Nihonzu were found to exist; and 3) as the overall Kuniezu which had been offered by local patrolmen to the Shogunate in 1633 was confirmed to exist, it became necessary to compare it with the figures of both Type A and B Nihonzu. Under these circumstances, the author would like to clarify these considerations on the Nihonsozu of the early Edo era, while reporting the results of the studies carried out subsequently.
    When the Kokudaka of various provinces on Type A and B are compared for each province, a difference between the two types is found in 15 out of 68 provinces nationwide. The overall tendency is that the Kokudaka indicated in Type B are larger than those in Type A. While the Kokudaka on Type A are exactly the same as those cited on the Keicho Kuniezu for both the existing Suo and Nagato provinces, there is a slight difference between the two for provinces like Hizen, Chikuzen, and Settsu. So far as this comparison goes, it comes to light that Type A is older than Type B.
    While such places as Morioka in Mutsu and Shingu in Kii are illustrated as castle towns in both Type A and B Nihonzu, Marugame in Sanuki is not. The castles in Morioka and Shingu were built in 1633, whereas Marugame castle, which had been deserted, was reconstructed by Ieharu Yamazaki in 1641. Judging from this, it can be assumed that both Type A and B maps were drawn between 1633∼1641.
feedback
Top