Occupational Obligation in Household Register and Status

TAG:  registers 

Published Time: -

Filetype: pdf

Filesize: 83285

- 1 - Occupational Obligation in Household Register and Status Son Byeong-gyu* 1. Perspectives of Occupational Obligation and Status During Joseon period, occupational obligation as registered in household
register. More precisely, it signified legislative status in the form of occupational obligation of the household registers.11 Here 'in the form of
occupational obligation' indicates source of taxation that original household
registers does not include. Legislative status is defined as status determined
in official records that differs from socio-economic classes or status. These
two perspectives should examine occupational obligation in the household
registers. National taxation = occupational obligation as national acquisition system made it principle to levy taxes on individual person,1) Writing
occupational obligation on the household register reflect the principle. In
Goryeo period, land distribution was based on the occupational obligation 1 ) Son Byeong-gyu, “Hojeogdaejang jigyeokgijae yangsang gwa uimi (Aspects and Significations of Registration of Occupational Obligations in Household Register)”, Yeoksa wa Hyeonsil no. 40 2) People began to perform national obligations at 16 as adult and were exempted at sixty as ‘noyeo.’ Local bureaus reported population registered in household registers to the ministry of finance every
year. Requisition of military obligation was based on household registers. See History of Goryeo. Book
Ji no.33, food and money 2, Section of household registers. In this paper, the term ‘national obligation’
is exchangeable with ‘occupational obligation.’ Sometimes occupational obligation is perceived as
occupation and obligation respectively. Because officials can be regarded as one of occupational
obligations. Early inquiry on this relation is Kim Seok-hyeong, “Joseon chogi Gungnyeokpyeonseongui 1. Perspectives of Occupational Obligation and Status 2. Occupational Obligation in the Household Register 1) Occupational Obligation in Consolidated Total Numbers 2) Type of Registration in the Main Text of Household Register 3 Does Status Change ? - 2 - unit household. In other words, as ‘household’ unit arranged population on the household register, 1)taxes were imposed on delegate1). This principle of taxation was also true in the definition of making
household registers in the late Joseon dynasty. In 1655, the way to define
household appeared in the Ogajagtongsamog. One of the instances is as
follows. Household should be registered serially. Lower class (slaves) should be
recorded one space below the master or his relatives. After names of
obligations recorded on each household, numbers of male, temporal
responsibility, occupation, (whether artisan or no occupation) age and transference must be registered. .1) It was rule in Goryeo period that representative occupation of the household
should be recorded. Rather it was a rule of comprehensive records that prior to making household registers1). This rule did not appear in late Joseon.
There were additional records of members of household. Often occupational Gijo” (The Basis of Making Military Obligation in Early Joseon) Jindanhakbo no.14, 1941 3) “The King Chungseon ascended the throne and commanded. Firstly, precedent kings had established rules on the square land. Every square land should be distributed equally to every occupation for
sources of everyday living of people and national budget. Ownerless land should be provided to
everyone who performed occupational obligations and established household for national obligations.”
We can infer that people were obliged to perform national obligations and imposed each occupational
obligation in return for the rights of cultivation and receipt.
4) Jeong Jinyeong, “18?19 segi hojeokdaejang Hogu girok ui geomto” (Examination of Registration of households in household registers in 18 th -19 th century)Daedongmunhwa Yeongu no. 39, 2001,12 ; Kim Geon-tae, “Joseon hugi ui ingupaak silsang gwa geu seonggyeok (The reality and character of counting
population in late Joseon)” Daedongmunhwa Yeongu no.39, 2001, 12. 5) Sukjongsillok , 1st year 26 th September. 6) It is regarded as tonggisamok in the legal documents. - 3 - obligation was omitted. Sometimes status of commoner or lower class
record as shown in household registers in this time. However various registrations, more or less, related with system of
acquisition of occupational obligation was entitled to be named as
occupational obligation. In fact, regulations defined the registrations as jigmyeong, yeogmyeong, or jigyeok. 1) What we should notice is these
records does not include demarcation of any social classes but status
distinctions. Land distribution to people occupational obligation ceased in early Joseon period1), acquisition on occupational obligation became different from on
land. Different from household registers of China, household registers in
Joseon period had signs of acquisition on occupational obligation and land acquisition did not appear1). We can discern non-class character of occupational obligation in this
juncture. Provision of the land as inriuijeon, hanryangjeon, jigjeon to Local dominant
class such as local officials and bureaucracies was privileges.
Extermination of land distribution deprived occupational obligation of
privileges and all people who has occupational obligation was targeted as a
source of revenue. In early Joseon period, official and private slaves students could be 7) “Those who change titles of occupation after issuing an identity tag, are punished according to samok of
household registers.” (year 1675) Sugyojimnok. When wrong title of occupational obligation and name are used in an identity tag, there would be a penalty of 100 times flogging and three year banishment…So far samok of household registers.
(1687year)” Sinsugyojimnok Hojeon
8) Miyajima Hiroshi, 1990 Chousen Tochi Chiyousajigyoushino Kenkyu (A Study of History of land investigation in Joseon), Tokyodaigaku Touyou Bunka Kenkyushyohoukoku, Chap.2 Li choyou
Shidain okeru shu senkendekitoloshikeino denkaikahi 9 ) Lee Young-hun, 1993.12.”Chousen zenki ?miyoudai no kosekinitsuiteno hikaku teki kento (Comparative study of household register between Early Josen and Ming dynasty) ” Higashi Asia
sensei kokuka to shakai keizai hakakushino shiten kara aoki shoten ( Despotic nation in East Asia and - 4 - summoned as irregular troops at inevitable accidents.1) It is possible to
record slaves and reserve persons in the household registers. Individual status in the household registers standardized in the national
acquisition system of occupational obligation. It is another question what
was the relation of legislative status with social classes. So far most of investigation on occupational obligation tried to figure out
changes of status and late Joseon society by classifying occupational
obligation. They interpreted records of occupational obligations into social
classes such as Yangban, commoner and slaves and produce statistics of household register year.1) Shigata Hiroshi who recognized value of household registers firstly suggested this method. .1) Especially, He inferred increase of Yangban and transformation of lower
class into commoner after 18th century by classifying people exempted
from military obligation ' Yuhak' into Yangban and slaves lower class into
lower class. Afterwards due to critics that particular names of occupational obligations
such as Yuhak, Hyangri does not match social classes, he invented its society and economics –from the perspective of comparison) 10) Kitamura Akimi “Lichou Shoki kokuyakuseido hokou no seiritsuni tsuite (Concerning establishing protective law of system of national obligation in early Joseon)” Chousenshi kenkyukai ronbunshu
30,1992 11 ) See following articles detailed studies on occupational obligations. Dakeda Sechio, 1991 “Gakushuyindai shiyojouno Danseonghyeon hojeokdaejang dosono imi (Significance of household
registers of Danseong prefecture reserved in Gakushuin University)” Chousen koukino
Gyeongsangdo Danseong hyeon niokeru shakai doutai no kenkyu (1) Gakushuyindaikaku Toyou
bunka kenkyusho Choushi Kenkeu houkoku 27; Jeong Du-hui, “Joseon hugi hojeok yeongu ui
hyeonhwang gwa gwaje,” (Current affairs and problems in studying household register in late
Joseon) Hangugsa Yeongu, no.101, 1998. No Young-gu, “hojeogdaejang yeongu hyeonhwang gwa
jeonsanhwa ui illye” (Current affairs and an example of making digital data in studying household
register) Daedongmunhwa Yeongu no.39, 2001. 12) Siho Hiroshi, “Lichou jinkouni kansuru shinbun kaikyuubetsude kaisatsu” (An investigation into population of Joseon from the standpoint of class-status) Collected papers of law school in Keijo
teigoku university, no.10, 1938. - 5 - additional method to create and specify the classification by referring to a
designation of wives and women, occupational obligations of father, grandfather, grandfather-in-law, great grand father.1) However, Shigata Horoshi's methods14 that equate legislative record of
occupational obligation with socio-economic classes and household register
reflect social reality has been employed. Where does this misconception that legislative status
politico-administratively determined such as occupational obligation was
equated with social classes at that tome -vaguely apprehended- come from? Did he think the fact that besides occupational obligation various records
were shown household registers exemplified its authenticity as records of
social classes? It has self-contradictory assumption that occupational
obligation was provided to due social classes even though occupational
obligation acquisition system was reflected in the household registers. Now we should reconsider how household registers reflect occupational
obligation acquisition system 'legislatively'. For this, we should carefully
examine every title of occupational obligations. Bearing in mind the
differences between legislative statue and social classes, we are going to
examine statistics around occupational obligations as a source of revenue 13) Choe Seung-hui, “Joseon hugi yuhak haksaeng ui sinbunsajeok uimi (Status Significance of Yahak student in late Joseon)” Guksagwan nonchong 1, 1989. Lee Jun-gu, “Joseon hugi yangban sinbun
idonge gwanhan yeongu (sang)-danseongjangjeokeul jungsimeuro, (A Study of status changes of
Ynagban in late Joseon –main emphasis on documents of Danseong)” Yeoksahakbo no. 96,1983 1985.
“Joseon hugi ui eobyu eommu wa geu jiwi,” Jindanhakbo no.60, Gye Seung-beom, “Joseon hugi
danseongjibang hyeopcheon ihunam gagyeui jingnyeok gwa sinbun,”(Taxation and Status in Lee
Hunam’s genealogy in Danseong prefecture) Gomunseo Yeongu no.3. Im Hak-seong, “Joseon hugi
sanobi ui sinbunbyeondongsange gwanhan iryeongu -17-19segi danseonghojeokui saryebunseok,”(A
Study of Status Changes of Private Slaves in late Joseon) Inhasahak, no.2, 1997. “Joseon hugi
Pyeongmingamunui junhogureul tonghaeseo bon sinbunbyeondong yangsang,” (Aspect of Status
Changes in family of Commoners in late Joseon), Hangukhak Yeongu, no.8, 1995. 14 'Doisang (consolidated total number) or Dochong refers to total numbers of households and
occupational obligations in the prefectures and counties in the concerned year. Local officials in counties
and prefectures responsible for making household registry were expected to insert Doisang at the end of
collected household registry in the village. - 6 - and titles of officials, degree of official rank and titles of studies such as
yuhak gyosaeng.

2. Occupational Obligation in the Household registers 1) Occupational Obligation in Consolidated total numbers Local administrative bureau made household registers every three years in
administrative unit. At the end of the records, the section of 'Doisang' was
prepared for statistics of the family units and occupational obligation
covering the whole counties and prefectures. National wide statistics of
central government was founded on the section consolidated total numbers of the records. 1) However, critics suggested that family sum and personal sum in consolidated total numbers were determined relatively 1)(indication of
increase and decrease from standard year), and then numbers of household
in the main text were determined. Correlations between occupational
obligations in military obligation of consolidated total numbers and main
text and national military policy and local management of military 15) This statistics is recognized total sum of occupational obligation of counties and prefectures reported to the central government. It was reflected in the Yangyeoksilchong and Hoyeokchongsu made in the mid
and late 17 th century by policies of population and occupational services. . 16) Kim Geon-tae, “Joseon hugi ingupaak silsang gwa geu seonggyeok,”(Reality and Character of counting p o p u l a t i o n i n l a t e J o s e o n ) D a e d o n g m u n h w a y e o n g u n o . 3 .
- 7 - obligation1). That is to say, assessment by central government nothing but
being borrowed from consolidated total numbers. Records firstly in the consolidated total numbers appeared in late 17 century
in the household register. Since 1678, we can discern various titles of
occupational obligations and each statistics in the consolidated total
numbers of Danseong household registers. As total sum of titles of
occupational obligation amounted to personal sum, population registered in
the household registers came to have their own occupational titles in the
consolidated total numbers. Section of 'consolidated total numbers' was a
form of registering occupational obligation in the household registers. It
was intended conforming and systemizing scheme for figuring out people
by the government. Display of titles of occupation and system of record in consolidated total
numbers altered a little bit. Let us examine it in terms of governmental
policy of military obligation, legal definition of status and occupational
obligation’s correspondence to the social class Concerning governmental policy of military obligation, classification of
military obligation status that belongs to central troops 'Gyeongsagunmun,'
local classification of military obligation status that belongs to gamyeong,
su, byeongyeong, jinyeong appeared in the household registers. Firstly, numbers of occupational obligation in central and local bureaus
increased from late 17th century to early 18th century and afterwards
decreased and were stagnant in late 18th century. Second, after mid-18th century numbers sharply increases with emergence
of "assigned to town." Third, during late 17th and early 18th century persons performed additional
military obligation and distinction in military obligation between noble 17 ) Son Byeong-gyu, ”Hojeokdaejang jingnyeongnan ui gunnyeokgijaewa doisang ui tonggye,”(Consolidated total numbers of registration of military obligations in the section of - 8 - class and commoner vanished. It was closely related with policy of military
obligation in post 17th century. After late 17th century, government attempted to ensure numbers of male
person as a source of military obligation (age 15-60) and establish a fixed numbers on the classification of obligation status1). This policy was put
into practice until the publication of yagyeoksilcheong in 1740. This book
declared unchanging fixed numbers in the classification of obligation status
for preventing decrease in numbers. First things observed in the
consolidated total numbers accompanied with unchanging fixed numbers in
the classification of military obligation status Recorded numbers of classified military obligation in Yagyeoksilcheong
and town record 'Guncheong' was almost the same with records in
consolidated total numbers. It was also true for household registers of Daegu and Oenyang.1) In the documents on military obligation of counties and prefectures in 19th
century, almost numbers of classified military obligation of central troops was equal to that of consolidated total numbers.1) From mid-18th century to
19th century, the fact that numbers of classified military obligation was
fixed was reflected in consolidated total numbers. Again we can understand
consolidated total numbers reflected governmental policy of military
obligation. occupational obligations in household register), Daedongmunhwa Yeongu, no.39, Dec.2001. 18 ) Jeong Yeon-sik, “Joseon hugi yeokchong ui unnyeong gwa yangyeok byeontong” (Uses of consolidated total numbers and Changes of obligations in late Joseon) Ph.D. dissertation of Seoul
National University.1993. Son Byeong-gyu, “18 segi yangyeokjeongchak gwa jibang ui gunnyeok
unnyeong,” (Policy of Obligations and Uses of military obligations in local area in 18 th century), Gunsa, no.39, 1999. 19 ) Son Byeong-gyu, “Hojeokdaejang jingnyeongnan ui gunnyeokgijaewa doisangui tonggye,” (Registration of Military obligations in the section of occupational obligations of household register
and Consolidated total number), Daedongmunhwa Yeongu no.39, 2001,12. 20) Gurumunan Book.3 See also Song Yangseop, “18.19-segi danseonghyeon ui gunnyeokpaak gwa
unyeong,” (Counting and Management of Occupational Obligations in Danseong prefectures during 18 th and 19 th centuries), Daedongmunhwa Yeongu, no.40, 2002.6. - 9 - However, numbers belong to the town increased after mid-18th centuries
whereas numbers belong to central and local bureau was fixed. 'Belonging to the town‘ implies human resources for managing local budget
including Yagbo Jijangbo for purchasing presenting materials. Local acquisition turned into a sort of military obligation in the process of classification of military obligation. 1) We can certify it in the documents on local budget 'Saryeo' in 19th century.
Until early 19th century, 'belonging to the town' increased in the
consolidated total numbers. This fact implies that central government
gradually admits local bureau’s revenue. Meanwhile, fixation of numbers in military obligation was comprehensive
control of taxation by government by prohibit arbitrary calculation of numbers 'Samosok' and combining obligation1) Because taxation was
effective when each military obligation was imposed on each person.
Combining obligations seems disappear in early 18th centuries. But there
was still another combining obligation imposed on personal slaves. In military obligation of consolidated total numbers, there were marks of
commoner and slaves on each military obligation. Military obligation on
personal slaves appeared in sorts of obligations of 'belonging to the town' and local counties under local troops1). However, distinction between commoner and slaves disappeared in
mid-18th century and number of military obligations on personal slaves was
added to statistics of military obligation. In consolidated total numbers of 21) Son Byeong-gyu, “Joseon hugi sangjujibang ui yeoksuchwicheje wa geu unnyeong,” (Systems of Calculations and Uses on obligations of Sangju areas in late Joseon), Yeoksa wa hyeonsil no.38. 2000 22) “Gakomungunbyangjikjeonggeumdan samok” Bibyeonsadeungnok book43, Sugjong 15 th year, January 22 nd . 23) Registration of occupational serviceman as private slaves in the household register cannot be found Sanum household register in 1606 and household register of Ulsan prefecture in 1672. - 10 - household registers, principle approved in early Joseon that abolishment of
distinctions of commoner and slaves and imposing military obligation on
commoners revived. But it does not necessarily mean that they did not discern slaves status at all.
After mid-18th century, personal slaves not responsible for military
obligation were displayed as Sano Yangyeogno Gogongno and had their
own statistics. It means Sano was no more a class distinction but legislative statue not
responsible for military obligation. . Moreover, various differentiation of Sano defined economic contract legally
and various compensation for responsibility such as 'delivering the labor'
'payment the asset' Personal subordination and economic relations were legally controlled by
government and became a standard to distinguishing legislative status.
Personal slaves could not be free from government's control and military
obligation. Lastly, let us clarify how social classes were reflected in system of
occupational obligation in consolidated total numbers of household
registers. Firstly, officials, donated official, degree of official ranks, students were
displayed before title of military obligation. Attached local bureau follows
attached central bureau. They were registered before the slaves. Second, Women were classified into bunyeo, yangnyeo, gwabu and
gwannyeo and registered before female slaves Bunyeo and gwanyeo might be endowed on women in Yangban. By this we
can infer there was relations between titles of occupational obligation and
social class. So far many inquire have assumed this relation is undutiful. - 11 - However, titles of occupational obligation per personal sum were around 10
percent in late 17th century. It increased up to 35% in early 19th century and decreased down fewer than 30% afterwards.1) We also discover number of Yuma, surely Yang ban class, was fixed to
1000 in late 19th century. Section of consolidated total numbers of titles of
occupational obligation does not count titles of occupational obligation in
household registers. It permitted and prohibits the number according to the
population policy and finally confines itself to a certain number. In
conclusion, occupational obligation was not regarded as social class. Then can main text of household registers that each household has
registered and were collected reflect reality of social class?
2) Type of registration in the main text of household registers Even though titles of occupational obligations in the section of consolidated
total numbers was sum of those registered in the main text of household
registers (The escaped and death was not counted), there were big
differences.) Anyhow, sum of titles of occupational obligation in
consolidated total numbers almost matches population in the main text of
household registers. Numbers of titles of occupational obligations recorded in consolidated total
numbers did not do justice to in household registers. And there were a few
not registered as title of occupational obligation in main text of household
registers‘ . Concerning this problem, previous research thought that due to avoidance to 24) See Household register Danseong prefecture of Gyeongsang province. Consolidated total numbers. Comparison with total sum of occupational obligations in main text of household registers was based
on the date in 1678, 1717, 1759, 1786, 1825, 1864. - 12 - obligations there must be inaccurate registration. They pointed out when
they were recorded in consolidated total numbers; there must an arbitrary intervention.1). That is to say, even though there was a downside in registering the main
text of household registers, it was possible to infer changes of social classes
to household registers. We can find some regulations on wrong registration and real punishment in
the document. However, is it true to consider main text was a result of
wrong registration? . It has been widely accepted that actual population were not recorded but selective numbers of households were recorded in household registers.1) Main text of household register was composed according to its own rule
legitimated in the local level, which differed from regulation of
consolidated total numbers by central government. Let us trace the
significance by comparing statistics of titles of occupational obligations in
consolidated total numbers with in main text of household registers. Considering general differences between main text of household registers
and consolidated total numbers, we must also think degree of differences
may depends on date of registering of household register and sort of
occupational obligation. In some cases, differences were rarely found. Firstly, classifications of military obligation that belongs to central and local
bureaus were similar in numbers in total statistic and main text of household
registers. But in 18th century registrations in the main text decreased.
Afterwards military obligation decreased more. In 19th century numbers in 25) Inokami Gazuo, 1985, “Lichou kouki Gyeongsangdo Danseong hyeon no shakai hendou. (Social Fluctuations in Danseong prefecture of Gyeongsang Province in Joseon) gakushuyinshigaku 23;
Dakeda Sachio’s above paper 26) Gwon Nae-hyeon, “Joseon hugi hojeok ui jakseong gwajeong e daehan bunseok,” (An Analysis of - 13 - consolidated total numbers also decreased down to those in main text of
household registers. But after mid-19th century, in consolidated total numbers numbers of
military obligation return to members of mid 18th century. Meanwhile,
numbers of 'belonging to the town' matched those in main text or were short.
(Diagram 1) )
Changes in numbers of military obligation correlated with policy of military
obligation in the section of consolidated total numbers closely From late 17th century to mid-18th century, policies of ensuring good
sources and fixation of number of military obligation reflected in the main
text. 1 In late 18th century, whereas numbers of military obligations maintain level
of mid-18th century in consolidated total numbers, they fell short in main
text. procedure of making household register in late Joseon), Daedongmunhwa Yeongu, no. 39, 2001,12. ????? ??? ?? (???? ???? ??) - 14 - This fact was due to fixation of numbers of central and local troops to be
bounded to total sum of counties and prefectures. That is to say, by any
means local bureaus could delivered total sum of military obligations to the
upper bureaus. It became unnecessary to identify numbers of military
obligation in main text of household registers. This tendency became more
evident after mid-19th century. But there was another case in 'belonging to the town.' 'Belonging to the
town' closely related with budget revenue of local bureau in consolidated
total numbers amounted to in main text. Registration in main text in
reference with local budget seemed to play an important role However, in early 19th century, there was a rule that numbers in
classifications of titles of occupational obligation should match those in
main text of household registers. Instead admitting losing character of
military obligation in household registers, a rule had been maintained. It means after late 18th century decrease in number of military obligation in
main text of household registers was rationalized. And there was another
rule in registering of household registers that differed from total sum of
numbers of military obligation in counties and prefectures. Next. Officials, degree of official ranks and Yuhak as students increased
throughout whole period. From late 17th century to early 18th century, there
were little differences between two. The gap became widen until late 18th
century. Numbers in consolidated total numbers outnumbered those in main
text. In early 19th century like military obligation, numbers in consolidated
total numbers were repressed and matched. In mid 19th century, numbers in
main text outnumbered those in consolidated total numbers. (Diagram 2) The fact that total sum of registered person such as officials, degree of - 15 - official ranks, Yuhak matched with statistics in consolidated total numbers
from late 17th century to early 18 century prove that intention of central
government policy on population were practiced in the main text of
household registers in this period. If government tried to impose title of
occupational obligation to perceived Yangban, it was party successful. What we should notice is that, however, whereas there was increase titles of
occupational obligation in consolidated total numbers, main text could not
outnumbered to consolidated total numbers. Until late 18th century, finally
the gap grew. It means if increase of titles of occupational obligation in the main text
reflected real increase of Yangban, central government admitted more
increases. In fact, institutional condition for registers occupational
obligation besides Yangban were mature and deepened. There can be an argument that less registration in main text than
consolidated total numbers was caused by the rule that titles of occupational
obligation under age 15 were not recorded. This argument seems to gain the strength from the fact that in 1786, biggest
discrepancies found, only 10 children were recorded in consolidated total
numbers among young people around 330. But Among unregistered young
people, children and brothers of occupational obligation persons were 100.
Where can we get 200 remains? Occupational obligation in that main text of household register might have
another principle from consolidated total numbers. One of them was occupational obligations were imposed by the unit of household.1) Moreover many records of temporal exemption such as Yuhak should pay
price. 27) Kim Geon-tae, “Joseon hugi ho ui guseong gwa hojeong unnyeong,”(Composition of households and Uses of household policies in late Joseon), Daedongmunhwa Yeongu , no. 40, 2002,6. - 16 - In fact, those not Yangban were allowed to get title occupational obligation.
But there were also difficulties and institutional limitation on this. However, why did records of occupational obligation increase?
Occupational obligations of Yangban that had benefit in return were
unobtainable. Whereas later times it becomes formal records of Yangban,
other classes got this formalism as a sign of Yangban. Changes in total sum
showed this way of records was encouraged until late 18th century but some
measures were taken against to do this in 19th century.
3. Does status change? Records of occupational obligation showed us additional registration of
name of woman and occupational obligation of sajo in the household
registers. Women appeared in the household registers were slaves and children.
Otherwise, terms ssi, seong, sosa were employed after surname. The title ssi
that often employed in the title of married woman of Yangban could be a sign of distinction with title of lower class.1) It is the same case that in consolidated total numbers titles bunyeo, gwabu 28) Lee Jun-gu, Joseon hugi sinbun jingnyeok byeondong Yeongu (A Study of Changes in Status and Obligations in late Joseon), Iljogak, 1992. In household registers, wives whose husband had same title of occupational obligation often had different names. Lee Jun-gu sees this case expresses status difference of same title of occupational
obligation. That is to say, it is an attempt to distinguish man’s status by wife’s status with an
assumption that woman’s name normally takes after her father’s status. (Occupational obligation in
sajo) But this way of registration could be fakes as a ladder to higher status. But if so, it is invalid to
assume that woman’s name takes after father’s status. Moreover, we cannot know man’s social class
and status. - 17 - are distinguished from yangnyeo, gwanyeo in their status. Bunyeo in
consolidated total numbers could not be found in the household registers.
Instead title ssi was employed in the household registers. Examining changes of numbers of Bunyeo and Ssi, we can see similar
results from students. So to speak, there was gradual increase in numbers of women who
employed ssi. However, from late 17th to early 18th century, consolidated
total numbers and household registers shared almost common in numbers.
Afterwards bunyeo outnumbered. But in 19th century, reversed in 18th
century, number of bunyeo decreased. There are resulted from gradual convergence of officials, degree of official
ranks and title of male occupational obligation ' Yuhak', title of wife and
woman and many occupational obligations simultaneously or spasmodically.
1)Form of records meant to apply only to Yangban spread to other classes. Increase of slaves in 19th century can be explained by maintenance of the
record form. Record form in early Joseon period as a prototype of Yangban household registers, had title of husband, wife, children and slaves.1) Equipped with record of occupational obligation, titles of woman and slaves,
increase of this type of household registers explain increase of slaves. Far
from reality of social class, legistrative records established legal status. Yangban was often implied not one of social class but more legistrative status.1) In late 18th century. Documents showed that magistrate reported 29) Kim Gyeong-nan, “Danseong hojeok e natanan yeoseonghoju ui gijaesiltae wa seonggyeok,” (Facts and Characters of Women appears as a host in the household register of Danseong prefecture), Yeoksa wa
hyeonsil, no. 41, 2001,9. 30) Gyeonggukdaejeon, Hogusik
`

31) Son Byeong-gyu, “18-segi Yangyeok Jeongchaek gwa Jibang ui kunyeok Unyeong.”( Policy of Adult
obligations and Uses of military obligations in local area in 18 th century), Gunsa no.39. 1999. - 18 - 'without household of Yangban and slaves, there are few responsible for
military obligation.' It had background of fixed sum of military obligation in
the counties and prefectures after mid 18th century. ‘Here 'household of Yangban did not mean privileged class but had the
form of Yangban household registers. In 19th century decreases of
occupational obligation in consolidated total numbers were resulted from
measure of central government. But in main text of household registers,
local bureaus might take advantage of increase of household of Yangban Increase of household of Yangban was recognized in late 19th centuries.
Magistrate of Sangju in 1880 who tried to levy taxes on dry good for
military obligation Yangban household and commoner household separately,
complained that lower people pretended to be household of yangban by borrowing the title of yuhak.1) Therefore he differentiates responsibility
according to time they pretended to be Yuhak. It was actual recognition of
transformation into household of Yangban. Before asking above question, we firstly clarify what kind of idea of status
we have. When it comes to legislative statues, there were continuity in
members with changes in numbers and real contents. But it was possible to
make various statues for the purpose of legislative level. When it comes
status as social stratification, it is hard to trace changes in the household
registers. Some might notice changes in the interminglement between status in the
household register and social class. However, this assertion should assume
homogeneity of static social class. Firstly we distinguish legislative with social class status. Then we should
examine correlations and reality between two. Furthermore basing on this,
we can infer self-diffusion and changes of perception. The question 'does 32) Sangju Sarye 1885. - 19 - status changes' must be pursuit in this way.