Once before (Sept. ,78) I published a paper on the 'Yamaich-koku' in this periodical, using the following approach. Since the Edo (江戸) period the term 'Yamatai-koku' (邪馬臺国) has been used to refer to Japan during the time it was considered to be under the ultracentralized rule of the Kinki area imperial family (近幾天家). That there was "no centralized rule over the islands of Japan except by the Kinki imperial family" was believed in by Matsushita Kenrin, Motoori Norinaga and others. They changed the name 'Yamaichi-koku' (邪馬壹国) found in the original text of the Sangoku-shi (Chinese History) to 'Yamatai-koku' (邪馬臺国) and associated this name with 'Yamato' (大和), part of the Kinki area. On the other hand Arai Hakuseki applied this changed name Yamatai to 'Yamato' (山門) in Kyushu regardless of why the name had really been changed. So there was a basic fallacy in his theory. I followed a different path calling instead for a corroborative stance : we should try to understand the contemporary Chinese text as a part of the whole book without prejudice. Based on this approach I criticised the historical viewpoint which stresses ultra-centralized rule by the Kinki imperial family. This method of research which looks for corroborative proof also needs to be followed in studying ri (里) (distance), position, etc. as applied to Yamaichi in the third century. The old Japanese images of each century depicted in the official histories of the Sung, Yuan and Tang dynasties (Sungshu (宋書); Sui-shu (隋書), Chiu T'ahg-shu (旧唐書) etc.) of the 5th-7th centuries must also be seen in the same light. As a result of this search for corroboration, it has been shown that the inherited ideas of ultra-centralized rule by the Kinki imperial family were mistaken at their very foundation and that the Japanese islands had a history of pluralistic rule. This paper has been written to show the meaning of this corroborative approach and its rigid application.

抄録全体を表示

Taking a general survey of past research which considers ethnic groups in the Liu-chao 六朝 period, many monographs regard a distinction between Man 蛮 (non-Chinese who live in the middle and south of China) and Han 漢 (Chinese) as a clear matter, however, for the Liu-chao period, this distinction is essentially ambiguous. Of course, there are some scholars who have recognized this ambiguity. However, their attention has been mainly concentrated on the classification of Man and Han, and their attention to the people who fall on the boundary between the two ethnic groups is only secondary. Therefore, their views are dualistic in nature, and they are concerned with the problem of designating ethnic groups as Man or Han. Such a viewpoint makes it very difficult to comprehend Shan-Yue 山越 (ethnic groups in the Sun-Wu 孫呉 Period) and the rebellion in the late Liang 梁 and the early Chen 陳 periods, both of which have great significance in the understanding the history of Liu-chao. To put this inconsistency among scholars in concrete terms, it is a confrontation between the view of Lu Ssu-mieh 呂思勉 and T'ang Chang-ju 唐長孺 who assert that Shan-Yue are Chinese and the view of Kawakatu Yoshio 川勝義雄 who asserts Shan-Yue are not Chinese. There is another confrontation between the view of Chen Yin-ke 陳寅各 who asserts that leaders of the rebellion in the late Liang and the early Chen periods were not Chinese, and the view of Enomoto Ayuchi 榎本あゆち who has refuted Chen Yin-ke's view. In this paper, the author's attention is given to this inconsistency, particulaly the fact that the dualistic classification between Man and Han does not accurately depict the real state of ethnic groups which existed in the Liu-chao period. In order to examine this incosistency in practice, the author takes up the real state of Shan-Yue, investigates in a village called Tung 洞, and describes the conditions of ruling families on the frontier. These empirical results are then linked with the author's understanding of ethnic groups and an explication of provincial territory in the Liu-chao period.

抄録全体を表示