射田の制度的考察 : 律令軍団制とのかかわりにおいて
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
The Shaden referred to in this paper indicates the rice fields established to support financially archery training in the Gundan (軍団) corps all over Japan under the Ritsu-ryo (律令) system. Shaden also had two other meanings ; one was the rice fields that supported archery training in Wefu (衛府), the ancient royal guards, and the other was rice fields providing resources for Taisha (大射), archery ceremony at the Court. Financial matters concerning Gundan are little known and the problems surrounding Shaden (射田) may suggest something about the character of Gundan, though the fields were limited in size. Shaden were set up in every Gun (郡) all over Japan and were of the same size. Early Shaden are assumed to have been managed by the leaders of Gun. These facts suggest that the Shaden system began when every Hyo (評), the former name of Gun, had its own corps under the system of Kiyomigahara-ryo (浄御原令) in the late 7th century. The Gundan system was established in the 8th century. Formal connection between Gun and Gundan was forbidden, and the Gun was responsible for the Shaden. This may seem strange, but I think this fact shows us the way the central goverment controlled the corps over the whole country. Kokushi (国司), the provincial governors sent from the central goverment, could not rule over their regions and corps without the support of local leaders, but at the same time the government wished to prevent the local leaders from gaining power in the corps made up of local men. The Kokushi depended on the Gun for finances including military expenses, and maintained the right of managing the corps by standing between the officially mutually unrelated Gun and corps, and controlling the pipeline between them. Therefore, although the government depended upon the local clans for military power until the Ritsu-ryo system was formed, the corps (Gundan) in the 8th century, rather than possesing the military characteristics of local clans, were Organized as part of the Ritsu-ryo state.
- 財団法人史学会の論文
- 1980-02-20