Nobi
members of the slave class in Goryeo and Joseon; lowest rank in medieval Korean society; considered chattel, and could be bought, sold, or gifted
Nobi were members of the slave class during the Korean dynasties of Goryeo and Joseon. Legally, they held the lowest rank in medieval Korean society. Nobi were sometimes considered property or chattel, and could be bought, sold, or gifted. Nobi constituted more than 30% of the population at its peak in the middle of the Joseon dynasty.
Classification and status
Nobi were divided into two categories: kongnobi(state-owned slaves), or sanobi(privately owned slaves). The general path for one to become a nobi was through heredity. The children of a mixed-status marriage between commoners and nobi usually inherited the status of the inferior social class. Non-resident nobi were registered officially as independent family units and possessed their own houses, families, land, and fortunes. However, nobi were not allowed to bequeath their property, and their property reverted to their owners upon death. They were allowed to own property, but did not have the rights to it.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Nobi” as members of the slave class in Goryeo and Joseon; lowest rank in medieval Korean society; considered chattel, and could be bought, sold, or gifted. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the history & society register because the source frames it as members of the slave class in Goryeo and Joseon; lowest rank in medieval Korean society; considered chattel, and could be bought, sold, or gifted. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Chronology, provenance and viewpoint should be read together before a broad social or political interpretation is accepted. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 24, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q1146808. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
Later summaries often reconcile disputed chronology or motive more neatly than the contemporary record permits. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Nobi”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Nobi primary sources, Nobi archive and Nobi research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Nobi”?
- Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
- Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Nobi” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.