淸 乾隆年間 八旗漢軍 出旗 정책의 樣相과 그 영향 ― 出旗 허용 정책과 出旗 강제 정책의 분석을 중심으로 ―

황해윤 명청사학회 2017 명청사연구 Vol.0 No.47

본 논문은 乾隆 年間에 실시된 八旗漢軍 出旗 정책을 출기 허용 정책과 출기 강제 정책으로 나눈 뒤 그 영향을 분석한 글이다. 이와 관련된 기존 연구는 크게 세 가지 문제점이 있다. 첫째, 출기한 한군 기인의 수를 부정확하게 산출한 채 그 영향을 논하였다. 둘째, 출기 정책의 목표ㆍ시행 대상ㆍ실시 방법이 상이했던 출기 허용 정책과 출기 강제 정책 간의 차이에 주목하지 않았다. 셋째, 출기 정책의 실시를 전후하여 팔기한군에 발생한 변화를 살펴보는 데 주의를 기울이지 않았다. 이에 본 논문은 팔기한군 출기 정책과 관련된 정확한 통계를 바탕으로 각각의 출기 정책을 세분하여 그 영향을 밝히는 데 주안점을 두었다. 논의의 범주는 八旗 내 漢人 출신 기인 중 八旗漢軍 旗籍에 속한 자로 국한하였다. 순치~옹정 연간, 漢軍 旗人의 수가 지나치게 증가하여 官兵으로 복무하지 못하는 閑散 旗人의 수가 늘어났다. 기인의 경우 문무 관원이나 팔기 관병으로 근무하는 것 외에 다른 직업을 가질 수 없었다. 이로 인해 팔기한군 내 閑散 기인의 증가는 한군 기인의 생계 문제로 직결되었다. 건륭제는 이 문제를 해결하기위한 방안으로 한군 기인의 수 자체를 줄이는 방식을 택했다. 이후 건륭 말까지 京師와 駐防에서 팔기한군을 대상으로 출기 허용 혹은 출기 강제 정책이 시행되었다. 일반적으로 청이 중국 통일 전쟁을 수행한 기간에는 팔기한군이 비교적 높은 대우를 받은 것으로 알려져 왔다. 그러나 淸初부터 팔기한군의 지위는 팔기만주ㆍ팔기몽고ㆍ팔기한군 중 가장 낮았다. 이는 팔기한군의 몫으로 할당된 문무관원ㆍ팔기관병 직의 수가 그 규모에 비해 현격히 적었던 것을 통해 확인된다. 이러한 상황 속에서 인구 과잉 문제가 가장 심각했던 팔기한군을 대상으로 출기 정책이 시행된 것은 一見 자연스럽다. 단 청이 入關하기 이전부터 팔기에 속했던 한군 기인은 일반 한군 기인에 비해 우대를 받았다는 사실에 주목해야한다. 入關 한군 중에서도 엘리트 계층에 속한 자는 팔기만주나 팔기몽고 소속 엘리트 기인과 유사한 대우를 받았다. 팔기한군 내부의 이러한 계층 차이는 출기 허용 대상을 선정하는 데 영향을 미쳤다. 건륭 7년(1742)부터는 출기 허용 정책이 실시되었다. 이 정책은 팔기한군 내부의 인구 과잉 문제를 해결하기위해 기획되었으며 실시 초기에는 京師에서만 시행되었으나 후에 內地 駐防까지 확대되었다. 옹정 8년(1730과 건륭 3년(1738) 팔기한군의 兵額을 일부 늘려 일자리를 추가로 마련하기도 하였다. 하지만 한군 기인의 인구 증가 속도를 따라잡는 데는 역부족이었다. 출기 허용 정책은 자발적 출기를 허용하는 방식으로 진행되었으며 강제성은 없었다. 또 각 단계별로 출기를 허용하는 자와 불허하는 자를 별도로 규정하였다. 출기 허용 대상을 규정하는 조항이 건륭 55년(1790)까지 개정되는 것으로 보았을 때 중단되지 않고 지속적으로 실시된 것을 알 수 있다. 정책의 주된 대상은 팔기한군 내 하급 관병이나 閑散 기인이었다. 入關 漢軍의 후손은 정책이 최초로 실시된 이후 20년 간 출기가 불허되었다. 입관 한군 내에서도 팔기한군 내 니루를 세습해온 집안 출신은 본인이 원하는 경우에도 출기할 수 없었다. 이 정책으로 출기된 한군 기인의 수를 정확히 파악할 수는 없다. 다만 건륭 연간의 팔기한군 출기 정책을 통틀어 한군 기인의 규모가 약 60% 감소하였을 것으로 추산되고,... The present study divides the Chinese-martial bannermen expulsion policies implemented during the reign of the Qianlong Emperor(1735-96) into the withdrawal permission policy and the forced expulsion policy and analyzes their effects. Based on accurate statistics related to the Chinese-martial bannermen expulsion policies, it focuses on breaking down and elucidating the effects of each expulsion policy. The scope of discussions is limited to those on Chinese-martial bannermen household registers from among Chinese-martial Bannermen in the Eight Banners. In general, the Chinese-martial bannermen are known to have received a comparatively favorable treatment during the Qing Dynasty’s engagement in wars to unify China. From the early years of the dynasty, however, the Chinese-martial bannermen were far lower in status than the Manchu Eight Bannermen and the Mongol Eight Bannermen. This is confirmed by the fact that the numbers of both civil and military officials and posts of Eight Banner officers and soldiers allocated to the Chinese-martial bannermen were disproportionately small. Amidst such a situation, it is seemingly natural for expulsion policies to have been implemented on the Chinese-martial bannermen, for whom the problem of overpopulation was the gravest. However, it must be noted that Chinese-martial bannermen belonging to the Eight Banners even before the Qing Dynasty’s entry through Shanhai Pass to conquer Beijing were treated better than other, ordinary Chinese-martial bannermen. Even out of Chinese-martial bannermen who had thus passed Shanhai Pass, those from the elite class received treatment similar to elite Bannermen belonging to the Manchu Eight Bannermen and the Mongol Eight Bannermen. Such class differences among the Chinese-martial bannermen affected the selection of those who would be allowed to leave the Eight Banners. Starting in the 7th year of the Qianlong Emperor’s reign (1742), the withdrawal permission policy was implemented. Planned to resolve the problem of overpopulation among the Chinese-martial bannermen, this policy was implemented only in the capital at first but subsequently expanded to Garrisons in China proper also. In the 8th year of the Yongzheng Emperor’s reign(1722-35) and the 3rd year of the Qianlong Emperor’s reign (1738), the number of troops assigned to the Chinese-martial bannermen was partly increased in order to create additional jobs as well. However, such measures were inadequate for accommodating the rate of population increase among Chinese-martial bannermen. The withdrawal permission policy was implemented by allowing voluntary withdrawal and did not involve coercion. In addition, those to whom withdrawal would be allowed and those to whom it would be prohibited were separately regulated at each stage. Judging from the fact that clauses regulating the objects of permission to withdraw were revised up to the 55th year of the Qianlong Emperor’s reign (1790), it is clear that this policy was implemented continuously without interruption. The main objects of the policy were low-ranking officers and soldiers and idle Bannermen from among the Chinese-martial bannermen. Descendents of Chinese-martial bannermen who had entered through Shanhai Pass were barred from withdrawal for 20 years following the initial implementation of this policy. Out of Chinese-martial bannermen who had entered through Shanhai Pass, those from families who had successively inherited niru in the Chinese-martial bannermen could not withdraw even if they wished to. It is impossible to grasp the exact number of Chinese-martial bannermen who were expulsed because of this policy. However, the number of Chinese-martial bannermen is estimated to have decreased by approximately 60% throughout the period in which the Chinese-martial bannermen expulsion policies were implemented under the Qianlong Emperor, half of whom would have left as an effect of the forced expulsion policy. Consequently, appr...

琿春 旗地의 소유와 운영, 1879-1931

윤 욱(Yoon, Wook) 연세대학교 국학연구원 2018 동방학지 Vol.184 No.-

This work describes the unique changes that bannermen’s land(qidi) in Hunchun underwent from the late Qing era to the Japanese imperialist invasion by analyzing archival materials on Hunchun. Most previous researchers have held that as Han Chinese people poured into Manchuria in the late Qing period, they took over bannermen’s land plots in Manchuria, and bannermen were mostly reduced to tenants or farmhands. In Hunchun, however, despite the arrival of the Han Chinese and Koreans, the immigrants barely stripped the bannermen of their land. After the fall of the Qing dynasty, the lands owned by the Eight Banners were confiscated and sold by the succeeding Republican government. However, the Hunchun bannermen could easily recover their land. Moreover, the funds from the sales of the Eight Banners’ land plots were also invested in the Hunchun bannermen’s education and employment, so that they were able to enjoy the benefits. Moreover, the school land(xuetian) that was introduced to support the Hunchun bannermen’s education in the late Qing period continued to be managed by them and was expanded during the Republican era. It greatly fostered bannermen students’ education and helped them to find teaching positions in Hunchun after their graduation. Thus, the crisis of the Hunchun bannermen’s land only started after the Japanese colonialist authorities began to buy the land with the help of Korean-Chinese people in the mid-1920s. This research demonstrates that a more accurate understanding of the history of bannermen’s lands can only be based on a concrete analysis of various examples of bannermen’s lands in various locations. 이 글은 琿春 지방의 당안사료를 분석하여 淸末부터 만주사변이 발생하기 직전까지 훈춘의 기지가 겪었던 독특한 변화를 묘사하고 있다. 종래의 연구자들은 청말 民人이 만주지역으로 진출하면서 이곳에 있던 旗地가 民戶에게 이전되고 旗人은 雇農, 貧農으로 몰락했다고 주장하지만 훈춘에서는 民人, 朝鮮人이 유입되었음에도 불구하고 旗人들의 旗地 소유권은 별다른 침해를 받지 않았다. 旗人들의 생활터전이었던 훈춘평야는 旗丁墾區로 지정되고 외지인의 개간이 금지되었다. 이방인에 의한 開荒은 주변지역에 한정되었다. 뿐만아니라 旗人은 황무지의 개간에도 적극 참여함으로서 오히려 旗地를 확장시켰다. 청조가 멸망한 후에 駐防의 재산이었던 隨缺地, 八旗官地, 官荒 등은 민국정부에 의해 관물로 지정되어 수용되고 매각되었지만 旗人들은 매각되는 旗産을 승계하는데 유리한 위치에 있었다. 旗産의 처분으로 생긴 재산도 旗生의 遊學, 旗人을 위한 공장의 설치 등으로 용도가 지정되었고 훈춘의 기인들은 실질적으로 그 혜택을 입었다. 특히, 청말부터 旗人의 교육을 위해 등장하는 學田은 민국시기에 더욱 확대되었고 계속 旗人에 의해 관리되었으며 旗人자제의 교육과 사회진출을 위한 재원이 되었다. 琿春에서 旗地의 위기는 民人 등 이주민이 아니라 日帝에 의해 찾아왔다. 일제가 법적으로 토지매매에 하자가 없는 입적한 조선인을 앞세워 토지를 고가로 매입하면서 대량의 旗地가 조선인들의 손을 거쳐 日帝에게 넘어갔다. 뿐만 아니라 일제는 조선인 권익 보호를 빌미로 국경지역에서 旗地를 침탈했다. 본 연구는 다양한 지역의 旗地에 대한 구체적인 사례연구를 진행함으로서 旗地의 실상에 더욱 가깝게 접근할 수 있음을 보여주고 있다.

청말(1907∼1911) 길림성의 旗地 정돈과 旗人 생계의 도모

이지영 동양사학회 2020 東洋史學硏究 Vol.152 No.-

In this paper, we looked at how Jilin province worked to ensure the livelihood of the Bannermen through the reform of Banner system in the early 20th century. It was land that Jilin province relied on for the livelihood of 400 thousand bannermen. In carrying out the banner system reform, Jilin province focused on enabling bannermen to rely on themselves by settling them down on land. The Qing dynasty also emphasized giving out equal amount of land to each bannermen since 1907. However, except for the San-xing(三姓) area, there were few places in Jilin where there were enough land to be distributed. Since much of the banner-land in Jilin were already occupied by the Han people, it was close to impossible to distribute land to bannermen in every part of the region. As a result, the Jilin province changed their policy from distributing banner-land itself to banner-men to providing banner-men with the cost of living, using the fund raised from the banner-land. In the early phase of the reform, the local government focused on measuring land and imposing land tax, but from the end of 1910, they preferred earning big amount of money by selling out banner-land. In the process, people who had been tenant farmers for a long time were forced to purchase land, causing complaints from them. This shows that the Qing dynasty sacrificed the Han Chinese to make a living for the Bannermen. Such works of Banner-land management as measuring land, imposing land tax, and selling out banner-land ostensibly meant to attract money from the Han Chinese to ensure the livelihood of the Manchus, while promoting the elimination of discrimination between Manchus and Han. The Qing dynasty’s logic that such reforms of Banner system can be achieved only when the livelihood of the Bannermen is guaranteed first has made the banner system reform and the harmony between Manchus and Han a long way off.

18세기 전반 八旗 소속 太監의 추방형 처결 방식과 그 의미 ― 旗人 안건 처결 구조와의 비교를 중심으로 ―

황해윤 명청사학회 2026 명청사연구 Vol.- No.65

This article examines the sentencing practices applied to eunuchs belonging to the Eight Banners in the early eighteenth century and analyzes their implications for understanding the penal order of Qing banner society. Existing scholarship on Qing eunuchs has mainly focused on their political influence, institutional organization, recruitment, and everyday activities within the palace. Relatively little attention, however, has been paid to the legal status of eunuchs within the banner system or to the way their criminal cases were handled in relation to the principle of Avoiding Banishment after Committing Offences granted to bannermen. This study therefore asks whether eunuchs affiliated with the Eight Banners were punished according to the same legal principles applied to bannermen when they committed crimes punishable by banishment. To address this question, the article first examines the principle of Avoiding Banishment after Committing Offences in Qing law and reviews how this principle operated in judicial practice during the early eighteenth century. Under Qing law, bannermen were in principle exempt from punishments involving banishment, such as penal servitude, exile, or military banishment, and these penalties were commonly commuted to cangue and whipping. Nevertheless, depending on the gravity of the crime, actual banishment could still be imposed. The article then examines the institutional position of eunuchs within the Qing palace and the banner system. Drawing on previous studies of the Qing eunuch institution together with banner household-registration materials, this study demonstrates that eunuchs were incorporated into the banner system rather than existing solely as palace servants. Their affiliation with the banners, however, does not automatically mean that their criminal cases were treated identically to those of other bannermen. This issue can only be clarified through the analysis of concrete judicial cases. The core of the article therefore analyzes a series of eunuch criminal cases from the Kangxi and Yongzheng reigns preserved in Manchu palace memorials. These cases show that eunuchs were frequently punished according to a sentencing logic similar to that applied to bannermen. In many instances, punishments that would ordinarily involve banishment were commuted to cangue and whipping, reflecting the operation of the principle of Avoiding Banishment after Committing Offences. At the same time, the cases also reveal that this commutation was not absolute. Depending on the nature and severity of the offense, actual banishment could still be imposed. The sentencing of eunuchs therefore operated within a framework shaped simultaneously by palace discipline, banner status, and imperial judicial authority. This article argues that eunuch criminal cases reveal that the principle of Avoiding Banishment after Committing Offences was not merely a privilege designed to preserve banner military manpower. Because eunuchs, although affiliated with the banner system, were not military personnel, their cases demonstrate that the logic behind this principle also involved the Qing state's effort to manage and retain human resources embedded within the banner order while maintaining legal discipline through selective enforcement of banishment. In this sense, eunuch cases provide important evidence not only for understanding the punishment of a special palace group but also for reconstructing the broader principles governing banner punishment in the early eighteenth century. Because bannermen’s criminal cases from this period are relatively scarce, the study of eunuch cases offers a valuable perspective for understanding how the principle of Avoiding Banishment after Committing Offences actually operated in practice. Finally, this study focuses on the early eighteenth century and does not claim that the same sentencing structure remained unchanged throughout the Qing dynasty. Rather, it provides a historicall...

淸의 北京 遷都와 만주의 北京 移住

박민수 명청사학회 2019 명청사연구 Vol.0 No.51

Even before “Entering the Pass,” the Manchus enforced a strict segregation policy separating the Manchus and Hans. This policy continued even after the Manchus moved their capital to Beijing. Dorgon inherited the Ming Beijing city structure – divided into an inner city and outer city – and utilized this pre-existing structure to separate the Manchus and Hans. Even though the Qing court introduced some policies to compensate the economic losses of the Han civilians who were forced to move, there was no denying that the migration of the bannermen and stabilizing their life took higher priority. One of the most visible but misunderstood policies that signified the segregation of the Manchus and Hans was the Manchu enclosure policy (quandi 圈地). The newly established banner-land around Beijing served two purposes; first is being the spoils of war that the Qing distributed as rewards to the banenrmen; second is being the economic base for the newly settled bannermen. As a result of this enclosure policy, the Han civilians were pushed away from the capital, while the location of the newly immigrated bannermen was concentrated near Beijing. The policy of enclosure reached its height in the fourth year of the Shunzhi era (1647), indicating the movement of the bannermen to Beijing gradually increased over time, but also more or less was concluded by this time. After this, the Qing court officially prohibited any further acts of enclosure, but the prohibition alone did not totally eliminate the practice of enclosure. In practice, civilian lands continued to be subject to enclosure. The enclosed lands were the economic basis for the bannermen, and therefore the practice continued. As we have seen, the enclosure policy was an inevitable policy that the Manchus needed to settle and secure their rule over the new territory; it served as the economic basis that enabled the continuous conquest of the Manchus; it was a realization of the policy of the Manchus and Hans segregation.

《閒窓錄夢》에 나타난 旗人들의 공연문화

최형섭 한국중국소설학회 2022 中國小說論叢 Vol.67 No.-

The purpose of this study is to examine the performance cultures of Bannermen in the mid-late Qing Dynasty, focusing on Mu Qixian’s Xianchuanglumeng. First of all, Cheongdae Gisaengs regularly did it in each stateI got a lesson and a letter. First of all, Bannermen of Qing dynasty regularly received money and rice needed to live from the state. Therefore, they were able to enjoy a variety of cultural life because they were equipped with economic conditions to some extent and had time to spare. The rise of culture and art in Beijing during the Qing Dynasty is closely related to the emergence of these unique Bannermen class. Next, the performance culture enjoyed by Bannermen can be largely divided into zidishu(子弟書), drama, puppet play and shibuxian(十不閑). Through Xianchuanglumeng, we can get a comparatively detailed understanding of Shi Yukun(石玉崑), performer of traditional talking-singing arts that was very popular in the year of Emperor Daoguang. Bannermen enjoyed various theatrical performances for the purpose of entertaining guests and for the purpose of refreshing themselves. Puppet play was a performing art suitable for families with women and children. It is presumed that Shibuxian was mainly traditional talking-singing arts to be popular with older women. Lastly, Beijing in the Qing dynasty can be broadly divided into three spaces: the Forbidden City and the Imperial City as the political center, the inner city as the military base, and the outer city as the commercial and entertainment area. At that time, Qianmen street was a bustling commercial area and entertainment district where bar, tea houses, theater etc. were concentrated. In particular, Dazhalan street could be counted as the distance of performing arts at that time. Therefore, Mu Qixian, who lived in the western part of the inner city, went out of the castle gate to the outer city, watched the performances all day, and then returned home in the evening. Through the discussion so far, it is possible to understand the specific circumstances of the performance cultures life of Bannermen in the mid-late Qing dynasty. 본 연구는 穆齊賢의 《閒窓錄夢》을 중심으로 청대 중후기 旗人들의 공연문화를 살펴보려는 목적을 가지고 있다. 우선, 청대 기인들은 국가로부터 정기적으로 俸祿과 俸米를 받아 생활하였다. 그래서 그들은 어느 정도 경제적 여건을 갖추고 있었고, 시간적 여유도 있어 다양한 문화생활을 즐길 수 있었다. 청대 북경의 문화 예술의 흥성은 이들 독특한 기인 계층의 출현과 밀접한 관련이 있다. 다음으로, 기인들이 즐겼던 공연문화는 크게 子弟書, 戲劇, 木偶戱와 十不閑으로 구분해 볼 수 있다. 《한창록몽》을 통해 우리는 도광 연간에 큰 인기를 끌었던 설서 예인 石玉崑에 관해 비교적 상세히 파악할 수 있다. 기인들은 기분 전환할 목적으로, 손님을 접대하기 위한 목적으로 다양한 희곡 공연을 즐겼다. 목우회는 여성과 아이들을 동반하여 가족 단위로 보기에 적합한 공연 예술이었다. 十不閑은 주로 나이 든 여성들에게 인기가 있던 설창 예술이었을 것으로 추정된다. 마지막으로, 청대 북경은 크게 정치의 중심지인 자금성과 황성, 군대 주둔지인 내성, 상업과 오락 지역인 외성, 이렇게 세 개의 공간으로 구분할 수 있다. 당시 前門大街는 번화한 상업 지역이자 酒樓, 茶館, 戱園 등이 밀집되어 있는 유흥의 중심지로, 특히 大柵欗은 당시 공연예술의 거리로 꼽을 수 있다. 그래서 內城의 西城 지역에 거주하던 목제현은 성문을 나가 외성으로 가서 하루종일 공연을 보다가 저녁에 집으로 돌아오는 방식으로 공연을 관람하였다. 이러한 논의를 통해 청대 중후기 旗人들의 공연문화 생활의 구체적인 정황들을 이해할 수 있다.

청대 건륭기 만주족의 根本之地 만들기 -京師 旗人의 이주와 만주의 封禁을 중심으로-

이훈 고려대학교 역사연구소 2011 사총 Vol.72 No.-

In the early Qianlong reign, the Eight Banners were bedeviled by economic dislocation and martial declension. To solve these problems, the Qing government decided to relocate the bannermen in Beijing to Manchuria and simultaneously to enforce the policy of closing Manchuria, i.e. fengjing (封禁). Qing specialists have long believed that these two decisions made by the Qianlong emperor were not related each other: the former has been mainly discussed as one of the many economic policies to improve life of the bannermen in the capital, while the latter mostly examined from the perspective of agriculture and land reclamation in Manchuria. In fact, however, these two policies were taken to achieve a same goal, that is, making “Place of Manchu Origins (genben zhi di 根本之地, genben zhong di 根本重地),” by which the Qing government expected to resolve both the serious economic crisis of the bannermen and the steady acculturation of Manchus to Han customs. This policy came to transform the meaning of “Place of Manchu Origins” from a common noun indicating a “very important place” to a proper noun specifying “a fundamentally crucial place for the Manchus.” After the Qianlong reign, Manchuria as the "fundamentally crucial place for the Manchus" became a place for all the bannermen living in both Beijing and Manchuria. It was a place where privileges for bannermen in Manchuria should be protected, population pressure in Beijing (the home for half the entire banner populations in the Qing empire) be resolved, and finally, the Manchu culture and language be preserved.

청대 길림지역의 기인과 토지 개간

김선민 고려대학교 역사연구소 2023 사총 Vol.110 No.-

만주의 농경 개발을 한인의 이주와 관련하여 설명하고, 만주의 발전을 곧 “한화”와 동일시하는 학술적인 전통은 청대 만주의 역사를 이해하는 데에 오랫동안 큰 영향을 끼쳐왔다. 학자들은 내지에서 발달한 정주 농경 중심의 한인 문화를 선진적인 것으로 전제하고 만주의 수렵 채집 활동을 낙후된 것으로 대비해왔다. 또한 청대 만주에서 농경을 비롯한 자연자원의 적극적인 개발은 오랫동안 지체되었고, 19세기에 한인의 이주가 본격화되면서 비로소 만주의 풍부한 자원을 개발하기 시작했다고 여겨져왔다. 그러나 이러한 한화론의 해석은 한인의 주체적 역할을 과도하게 강조하고, 만주의 자연을 적극적으로 개발하고 이용해온 청의 노력을 과소평가해왔다. 농경은 수렵 채집과 함께 만주의 자연에서 핵심적인 영역이었다. 만주에서 기인을 보호하고 부양하기 위해서는 토지 개간과 농경이 전제되어야 했기 때문에 청은 이미 홍타이지 시기부터 만주에서 농경의 중요성을 강조해왔다. 입관 후 황실은 만주에 기인을 주둔시키고 이들의 생계를 부양하기 위해서 토지의 안정적인 경작에 많은 노력을 기울였다. 팔기병정은 만주의 요충지에 주둔하며 황실의 발상지지를 관리하고, 민인은 토지를 경작하여 기인에게 식량을 공급하고, 만주의 산과 강은 불법채취인의 출입을 통제하여 수렵과 채집에 적합한 상태를 유지하게 하는 것이 바로 청대 만주 정책의 핵심이었다. 국가가 기인과 민인, 토지와 삼림을 모두 완벽하게 통제할 때 비로소 기인을 위한 만주근본지지라는 제국의 이상이 완성될 수 있었다. 본고는 건륭-가경년간 길림에서 토지 개간과 농경이 확산되고 기인과 민인의 관계가 재편되는 과정을 분석한다. 특히 『琿春副都統衙門檔』의 자료를 활용하여 기인과 민인의 토지 경작이 훈춘에서 어떻게 진행되었는지 구체적으로 살펴보고 이를 통해 팔기제도와 토지 경작이 청대 만주의 자연환경을 변화시킨 핵심적인 요인이었음을 설명한다. The agricultural development of Manchuria has long been discussed within the context of the immigration of Han commoners. The conventional narrative of Sinicization juxtaposes the advanced Han Chinese civilization, which emerged in sedentary agricultural society in China proper, with the backward lifestyle of hunting and foraging in Manchuria. It also asserts that Qing Manchuria experienced a long delay in exploiting its natural resources, arguing that the economic development of Manchuria only began with the arrival of the Han immigrants. However, such a narrative overemphasizes the agency of Han commoners and downplays the active role that the Qing state played in utilizing and exploiting various natural resources in Manchuria. Along with hunting and foraging, agriculture was one of the key elements of environmental relations in Manchuria. The early Manchu rulers, including Nurhaci and Hong Taiji, made significant efforts to promote agriculture, recognizing that land cultivation was a prerequisite for supporting the military activities of banner soldiers in Manchuria. After moving to Beijing, the Qing court continued to make efforts to support the bannermen stationed in Manchuria by expanding and securing land cultivation. The core of Qing Manchurian policy was to make the bannermen protect the sacred birthplace for the Manchus, allow commoners to cultivate the land to provide food for the bannermen, and keep the rivers and mountains closed off from illegal poachers to preserve it for hunting and foraging. In other words, the Qing state tried to protect Manchuria as an ideal place for the imperial court and bannermen by imposing complete control over both people and nature. This paper explores how land clearing and cultivation was expanded in Qing Manchuria. By analyzing the Hunchun archives, this study shows that it was the banner system and agriculture that caused a transformation of environmental relations in Manchuria.

러시아의 남하와 만주 주방의 변화, 1900-1911 - 琿春 駐防의 사례 -

윤욱 효원사학회 2022 역사와 세계 Vol.- No.61

Regarding the relationship between Russia's occupation of Manchuria and the banner cities there after the Boxer Rebellion, previous researches have mainly noted that the impact of the Russian occupation of Manchuria led the Qing empire to abandon military rule in the region and to pursue the reforms that included the full-fledged recruitment of Han Chinese officials and the establishment of a provincial administration system. Some scholars still argue that the turmoil exacerbated the livelihood problems of bannermen in Manchuria. This paper attempts to describe the changes of Manchu banner cities in detail caused not only by the Russian occupation of Manchuria but also by the reforms of the Qing empire to overcome the crisis, with a case study on the banner city in Hunchun using its abundant archival materials. According to this study, first of all, the system in which the office of lieutenant general of Hunchun had been the military, administrative and judicial center of the Hunchun area collapsed. The military strength of the banner city was not rebuilt after the war, and instead civil defense forces, composed primarily of Han Chinese cultivators, played a key role in suppressing bandits and disbanded soldiers. In addition, as the Qing empire introduced measures to expand civilian officials to improve the efficiency of the administration in Manchuria, the status of the banner office of Hunchun was greatly deteriorated since the responsibilities of collecting taxes, managing legal cases, and maintaining social order were transferred from the office of lieutenant general of Hunchun to the Department of Yanji. The deterioration of the status of the banner office reduced the legal and social status of the Hunchun bannermen, while that of the Han Chinese experienced an uplift. In the event of a lawsuit, the Hunchun bannermen were summoned to the Department of Yanji to be judged by Han Chinese officials, so the bannermen could no longer receive the protection of the banner officials. Christians and Russian interpreters who gained prominence after the Boxer Rebellion were almost entirely the Han Chinese. As Russia occupied the Maritime Territory and developed Vladivostok and other maritime towns whose population speedily grew, Hunchun, located on the road to Vladivostok from the eastern part of the Jilin province, became the hub of intermediary trade. Especially after the Russo-Japanese War, as Hunchun's trade with Russia grew by leaps and bounds, Han Chinese merchants enunciated into Hunchun. As the result, the citadel of Hunchun along with its vicinities where wholesale stores and retail shops were densely located, became dominated by the Han Chinese. Hunchun bannermen became concerned when they saw the Han Chinese from the outside behaved arrogantly and became wealthy through trade, but on the other hand, it is believed that this might motivate them to actively participate in the New Policies that the Qing empire carried out in Manchuria. During the period examined here, other banner cities in Manchuria were also experiencing the transfer of military administration to civilian administration or the advance of the Han Chinese merchants due to the advance of Russia to the south, so the changes in the banner society of Hunchun shown in this article provide implications for understanding other banner cities in Manchuria. 1900년 義和團運動 이후 러시아의 만주 점령과 만주 주방과의 관계와 관련하여 기존의 연구는 러시아의 만주 점령으로 인한 충격으로 말미암아 청제국이 이 지역에서 만주족의 군사통치를 지양하고 본격적으로 한족 관료들을 등용하고 내지와 같은 省 체제를 확립하는 개혁을 추진하게 되었으며, 전란으로 인해 旗人들의 생계문제가 더욱 악화되었다는 점에 주목했다. 본 연구는 러시아의 만주점령으로 인한 혼란과 이를 극복하기 위한 청제국의 노력이 실제 주방사회에 일으킨 변화를 琿春 駐防을 사례로 들어 당안 사료를 이용하여 세밀하게 서술하려고 시도했다. 본 연구에 따르면, 우선 훈춘주방아문이 훈춘 일대의 군사적 행정적 사법적 중심이었던 체제가 붕괴했다. 주방의 군사력은 전후 재건되지 못했고, 대신 주로 漢族 墾民으로 구성된 團練이 土匪와 散勇을 진압하는데 핵심적인 역할을 수행했다. 또한 청조정이 만주에서 행정의 효율성을 제고하기 위해 민관을 확대하는 조치를 도입하자 조세의 징수, 법률소송 뿐만 아니라 경찰업무까지 琿春副都統衙門에서 延吉廳으로 이관되면서 훈춘주방아문의 위상이 크게 악화되었다. 주방아문의 위상 악화는 기인들의 법률적, 사회적 지위를 저하시킨 반면, 한인들의 그것은 제고하는 결과를 낳았다. 소송이 발생했을 경우 기인이 연길청에 소환되어 한족 관원에 의해 심판을 받게 됨에 따라 기인들은 더 이상 기관들의 비호를 받을 수 없게 되었다. 의화단 사건 이후 득세하게 된 基督敎 敎人과 러시아어 통역도 거의 대부분 한족이었다. 러시아가 연해주를 차지하고 블라디보스톡 등지를 개발하고 이곳의 인구가 늘어남에 따라 길림성 동부지역에서 블라디보스톡으로 가는 길목에 위치한 훈춘은 중개무역지로 거듭나게 되었다. 특히 러일전쟁 이후 훈춘의 러시아와의 교역이 비약적으로 성장하자 훈춘에 한족 상인들이 쇄도하게 되면서 상점이 밀집한 훈춘성과 그 주위는 한인들이 장악하다시피 하게 된다. 훈춘의 기인들은 외지에서 온 한족이 거만해지고 무역을 통해 부유해지는 것을 보면서 우려감을 갖게 되었지만 한편으로 이는 청제국이 만주에서 수행한 新政改革에 이들이 적극적으로 동참하게 하는 계기로 작용했으리라 여겨진다. 당시 만주의 다른 주방에서도 군정에서 민정으로의 이양이나 러시아의 남하로 인한 한족 상인들의 진출을 경험하고 있었으므로 이 글에서 보이는 훈춘 주방 사회의 변화는 당시 만주의 기타 주방사회를 이해하는데 시사점을 제공하고 있다.

청대 건륭기 만주족의 근본지지(根本之地) 만들기 -경사(京師) 기인(旗人)의 이주와 만주의 봉금(封禁)을 중심으로-

이훈 ( Hun Lee ) 고려대학교 역사연구소 2011 사총 Vol.72 No.-

In the early Qianlong reign, the Eight Banners were bedeviled by economic dislocation and martial declension. To solve these problems, the Qing government decided to relocate the bannermen in Beijing to Manchuria and simultaneously to enforce the policy of closing Manchuria, i.e. fengjin (封禁). Qing specialists have long believed that these two decisions made by the Qianlong emperor were not related each other: the former has been mainly discussed as one of the many economic policies to improve life of the bannermen in the capital, while the latter mostly examined from the perspective of agriculture and land reclamation in Manchuria. In fact, however, these two policies were taken to achieve a same goal, that is, making Place of Manchu Origins (genben zhi di 根本之地, genben zhong di 根本重地), by which the Qing government expected to resolve both the serious economic crisis of the bannermen and the steady acculturation of Manchus to Han customs. This policy came to transform the meaning of Place of Manchu Origins from a common noun indicating a very important place to a proper noun specifying a fundamentally crucial place for the Manchus. After the Qianlong reign, Manchuria as the fundamentally crucial place for the Manchus became a place for all the bannermen living in both Beijing and Manchuria. It was a place where privileges for bannermen in Manchuria should be protected, population pressure in Beijing (the home for half the entire banner populations in the Qing empire) be resolved, and finally, the Manchu culture and language be preserved.