REFERENCES

1. Brundage James. The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession. Vol.l. Canonists, civilians and courts. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2008. 610 p.

2. Craig Thomas. Thomae Craigi de Riccarton Jus Feudale. Lipsiae: apud J.W. Gleditsch et filium, 1716. 851 p.

3. Davies John. “A discovery of the true cause why Ireland was never brought under obedience of England” in Historical Tracts of Sir John Davies, Attorney general of Ireland and Speaker of the House of Commons in Ireland. Dublin: printed for W. Porter, 1787. P. 1–227.

4. Duck Arthur. De YUsage et de YAutorite du Droit Civil Dans les Etats des Princes Chretiens. Traduit du Latin. Paris: au Palais, 1689. 470 p.

5. Dugdale William. Dugdale Origines Juridiciales, or, Historical Memorials od the English laws, courts of Justice.. Inns of court and Chancery. London: printed for Ch. Wilkinson, 1680.490 p.

6. Fulbecke William. A Parallel or Conference of the Civil Law, the Canon Law and the Common Law in this Realme of England. London: printed by A. Islip, 1601–1602. 109 p.

7. Gentili Alberico. Alherici Gentilis De Armis Romanis Lihri Duo. Hanoviae: apud Guilielmi Antonii. 1612. 360 p.

8. Horn Norbert. “Romisches Recht als Gemeineuropeisches Recht bei Artur Duck” in Studien zur Europaischen Rechtsgeschichte. Frankfurt: W. Wilhelm, 1972. S. 171–180.

9. Marzec Lukasz. “Artur Duck, De Usu et Authoritate Juris Civilis Romanorum in Regno Galliarum. Przeglądbazybibliograficznej”, Zeszyty prawnicze 8.1 (2008). S. 141–150.

10. Marzec Lukasz. “De Usu et Authoritate Juris Civilis Romanorum – podrz^dna rozprawa czy dzielo swiatowej romanistyki?”, Zeszyty prawnicze 6.1 (2006). S. 145–157.

11. Marzec Lukasz.. „Prawo rzymskie w dawnej Anglii w swietle pogl^dów Artura Ducka”, Zeszyty prawnicze 6.2 (2006). S. 117–136.

12. Palamarchuk Anastasija, Fyodorov Sergej. Antikwarnyj diskurs w rannestuartowskoj Anglii. Sankt-Peterburg: Aleteia Publ., 2013. 210 p. (in Russian)

13. Palamarchuk Anastasija. ’’Tsiwilisty w rannestuartowskoj Anglii. Yuridicheskaja korporatsija w poiskah natsionalnoj identichnosti”, Vestnik Sankt-peterburgskogo universiteta. Serija 2, Istorija 4 (2012). P. 60–68. (in Russian)

14. Palamarchuk Anastasija. Tsiwilnoe prawo w rannestuartowskoj Anglii: instituty i idei. Sankt-Peterburg: Aleteia Publv 2015. 312 p. (in Russian)

15. Ridley Thomas. A View of the Civile and Ecclesiastical Law. London: Printed by Adam Islip, 1607.563 р.

16. Santos Fransisco Andres. “’Jus commune’ vs ‘Common law’ en el siglo XVII: el caso de Arthur Duck”, Anuario dafacultade de dereito da universidade da coruna 7 (2003). P. 63–104.

17. Wijffels Alain. “Arthur Duck et le ius commune européen”, Revue ďhistoire desfacultés de droit etde la science juridique 10–11 (1990). P. 193–22.

Peng Lijing

This paper is a brief account of the construction of the ethnic identity of the Hmong, or in modern Mandarin ‘Miao* in pre-modern historical narratives. The research area is West Hunan (see Map l[120]), where the special historical and geographical environment bespoke the long-term conflicts between minority ethnic groups and dominant imperial forces.

In this paper, I will argue that a close examination of the historical documents does not support the view that the Hmong ethnic group was from the beginning a distinctive unity from other ancient Southern ethnic groups, but suggests that the people known as the Hmong today started to distinguish their ethnicity from the others only since around the 14th century. Furthermore, I also propose that the crystallization of the Hmong ethnic identity and the concept of nation was catalyzed by a series of wars in Ming and Qing dynasties (from the 14th to the 19th century) between central government and local communities.

Map 1. Location of West Hunan (yellow) within Hunan Province of China

In this paper, when the term ‘the Han’ is referred to, it does not denote the current Han ethnic group (or Han Zu 汉族) in the modern Chinese nation. It refers to a vaguely defined criterion in differentiating ancient Chinese people. Before the twentieth century, in the very long imperial history, ‘the Han’ roughly refers to those who conformed to Confucian morality and at the same time traced their sovereignty to the ancient Huaxia Chinese (华夏)[121]. Other ethnic groups, including the Hmong, are regarded as different from the Han. This Hmong ethnicity research also gives us a perspective about the construction of current Chinese nationalism. The current Chinese nationalist ideology traces its legitimacy to the ancient Han identity. And 'the Han’ had never been a well-defined community; they were defined by their relations with non-Han people. In other words, we only know the meaning of being 'the Han’ by looking into the demarcation and categorization of non-Han people in every historical epoch, and how these people are imagined today through historical narratives[122]. In some dynasties the sovereignty went to non-Han rulers. For example, in the Qing dynasty, the rulers were Manchu. However, the expansion of central government’s power to the Southern area was still justified by Confucian politico-moral theory. The Hmong s ethnic identity was constructed both by the central government and by local South-western communities, signifying both sides’ political and economic interests[123].

In the next part I will give a very brief introduction about the earliest historical narratives.

As early as Han and Jin Dynasties (202 BC–420 AD), the peoples living along the vales and glens of areas in south-western China around today’s Hunan Province (see Map 1) were already designated by the mainstream Huaxia Chinese people as Ba or Man (巴人, 蛮人). It was thought by the Huaxia Chinese that among these alien tribes, those who inhabited the northern half were descendents of Lin Jun (廪君, a heroic ancestor), while those in the southern half descended from Pan Hu (盘瓠). Pan Hu was a mythological figure with canine features, or being a divine hound himself. Ancient Chinese myths tell that he was given the hand of the daughter of Emperor Gao Xin (高辛帝), who belongs to the mainstream Huaxia Chinese, and from that couple were derived all the barbarian tribes in the mountains. After the 3-rd century AD, the success of expansion of Han culture ensured the Han authority in economic, political and cultural aspects in the South[124]; and the pattern of expansion was formed: Non-Han people were assimilated into the Han culture mainly through the acknowledgement of political administration of central imperial government, leaving the mountainous areas and settling in plains; while the resistants were forced to move to deeper mountains[125]. During the Nanbei Dynasties period (420–589 AD), many Huaxia Chinese fled southward from their homeland in Northern China and occupied the plains; and the ‘descendents of Pan Hu’ at this time referred more clearly to the mountain tribes in Western Hunan[126]. Researchers generally considered them to be speakers of language(s) mainly of the Miao-Yao (Hmong-Mien) language family and a few of the Tai-Kadai family and the Tibetan-Burmese branch of Sino-Tibetan.