Y. SAMURAI, <i>Formation of Vietnamese ‘Traditional’ Villages; Historical Development of Communal Land in Northern Vietnam</i>

Abstract

This is the first book about a long-debated theme, the Vietnamese “traditional” village with communal land, written in Japanese. The author criticizes most of the preceding researches, including that of Scott and Popkin, which drew a conclusion without examining historical materials of pre-modern period. For the first time in the world he made full use of many materials written in classical Chinese, which had been brought from EFEO to Toyo Bunko. He combines newly-developed approaches of area studies with orthodox socio-economic history.This book consists of 12 chapters and can be divided in 5 parts. The first part (Introduction) points out that Vietnamese cong dien (lit. public land) had first appeared in historical materials in the 15th century and that they are not vestiges of the “Asiatic Agricultural Community” of the Dong Son period. Instead the author insists that cong dien in the 15th century is comparable with the forced cultivation system under a landlord which often appeared in medieval East & Southeast Asian rice-cultivation areas.The second part (Chap. 1, 2) analyzes both the regulation of land redistribution (Hong Duc Quan dien le) and village rule of the 15th century state. It reveals that cong dien were state-owned lands and that village communities of that period were under strong control of the state.The third part (Chap. 3, 4) analyzes both socio-economic historical conditions in the early 18th century and new regulation of land redistribution (Vinh Thinh Quan dien le). The author reveals two points: 1) Cong dien were often transformed to tu dien (lit. private land) through the growth of intermediary exploitation and great-landownership; 2) In opposition to such trends, village communities tended to control their cong dien autonomously.The fourth part (Chap. 5-8) analyzes both agricultural disasters, famine, flights of peasants in the Le period and early 19th century cadastres. The author shows that: 1) By the 18th century, North-Vietnamese agricultural developments had reached their limits and there were frequent occurrences of agricultural disasters under political instability. As a result, newly-developed areas of fifth lunar month rice were ruined while peasants based on the more stable tenth lunar month rice absorbed abandoned lands of the former to strengthen their stability; 2) We can affirm the emergence of autonomous villages which were dependent on tenth lunar month rice. It is suggested that peasants of fifth lunar month rice were cut off from village communities to become vagabonds.The fifth part (Chap. 9-11) reveals that the “centralized” or “reactionary” Nguyen dynasty could not control villages which had already become autonomous. The author proposes that: 1) The central government could not control cong dien through new regulations of redistribution issued by Emperor Gia Long and Minh Mang; 2) Village communities with cong dien as communal land had already developed as French colonialists found out later.