지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Balhae kingdom(渤海國) was a country that was formed by multi ethnic groups and among those multi ethnic groups, the people of Koguryo(高句麗) origin and Malgal(靺鞨) origin constituted the majority of the Balhae people. The remaining issue is which of those two ethnisities the leading and central ethnic group in Balhae was. Concerning the origin of the royal family, the house of Dae (大氏). Xitangshu(新唐書) and Jiutangshu (舊唐書) transmit different stories respectively, and these two different stories have been parallelled so far in the understanding of this issue. In this process, several hypothesis have been suggested, in which the articles concerned in two historical documents are synthesised.
One of the examples is that Daejoyoung (大祚榮) was described as Gaolibiezhong(or Kyryo Byeoljong, 高麗別種) in Jiutangshu (舊唐書), and biezhong(Byeoljong, 別種) here means a group that was ethnically different from the Koguryo people but politically subordinate to it. It has been also argued that if so, Gaoli Biezhong (or Koryo Byeoljong, 高麗別種) in Jiutangshu corresponds to the historical record in Xin Tangshu, in which the Daejoyoung group originally belongs to Sokmal malgal (粟末靺鞨) and is politically subordinate to Koguryo(高句麗). However, this hypothesis does not coincide with the substantial examples of Biezhong (or Byeoljong) used in this period. Biezhong( Byeoljong,別種) means Zhi pai(or Jipa, 支派) or Bie pai (or Byeolpa, 別派), a group of a branch.
The second hypothesis is to synthesise the two different stories concerning the origin of the Daejoyoung(大祚榮) group in an eclectic way. This is called the hypothesis of Yemaecmalgal (濊貊靺鞨). Malgal(靺鞨), which has been found in historical documents, and can be actually divided into two Malgal (靺鞨) groups, that is to say, Yilouxi(or Uplugye malgal, ?婁系 靺鞨) and Yemaecgye malgal (濊貊系 靺鞨). Sokmalmalgal (粟末靺鞨) and Baeksanmalgal (白山靺鞨) belonged to Yemaecmalgal (濊貊靺鞨) and they became Balhaemalgal (渤海靺鞨). This hypothesis argues that Yemaecjok(濊貊族) and Malgaljok(靺鞨族) are originally the same, because Malgal (靺鞨) resided in the place of Yemaec (濊貊), such as Buyeo, Dongye and Okjeo. This argument, however, ignores the historical fact of the migration of peoples and attempts to connect directly the two historical records that have temporal gaps with each other and to understand them statically. Therefore, the substantial admissibility of evidence of this hypothesis cannot be accepted.
The third hypothesis about the constitution of people in Balhae and its central leading ethnic group is the fusion of ethnic groups, that is, the supposition of 'Balhae-ite'(渤海人) as the central group to lead Balhae.
In fact, after the fall of Balhae, the people were clearly divided into Balhae-ite(渤海人) and Jurchen-ite(女眞人). Balhae-ite was the existence differentiated from Jurchen-ite in social and cultural aspects and even in terms of consciousness. In this respect, Balhae-ite existed as an ethnic group. Then the question raised is when this Balhae-ite was formed and how its ethnic genealogy and character can be grasped. For this question, there is a perspective to see this Balhae-ite as succeeding Sokmalmalgal(粟末靺鞨) or Koguryo-ite (高句麗人). In this case, this argument asserts that Bahae was a state of Sokmalmalgal(粟末靺鞨) or Koguryo-ite and its character is laid on the extension of that prior to the establishment of Balhae.
This is a non-historical understanding that fails to grasp the character of Balhae dynamically and furthermore, it lacks any substantial evidence to support it. It has been proven by written documents that a part of the Malgal tribe as well as the Koguryo people participated in the establishment of Balhae and this fact is also supported by archaeological research.
The only problem is which ethnic group of Koguryo played a central role in the fusion of the two ethnic groups and what extents its fusion progressed in social and regional aspects.
This question can be resolved by detailed examinations of the material cultures of each region drawn from archaeological excavations in the future. For this, it is of necessity to grasp the detailed situation by archaeological excavations carried out within the old territory of Balhae and to accumulate data incessantly.
In fact, the question of which ethnic group led Balhae is not only one of substantial evidence, but also of historical consciousness. This is proved by the fact that each country claims completely different arguments about this sensitive question following its own research history.
Instead of being absorbed by one-sided nationalism, having a well-balanced historical consciousness is the key factor to progress in further research.
One of the examples is that Daejoyoung (大祚榮) was described as Gaolibiezhong(or Kyryo Byeoljong, 高麗別種) in Jiutangshu (舊唐書), and biezhong(Byeoljong, 別種) here means a group that was ethnically different from the Koguryo people but politically subordinate to it. It has been also argued that if so, Gaoli Biezhong (or Koryo Byeoljong, 高麗別種) in Jiutangshu corresponds to the historical record in Xin Tangshu, in which the Daejoyoung group originally belongs to Sokmal malgal (粟末靺鞨) and is politically subordinate to Koguryo(高句麗). However, this hypothesis does not coincide with the substantial examples of Biezhong (or Byeoljong) used in this period. Biezhong( Byeoljong,別種) means Zhi pai(or Jipa, 支派) or Bie pai (or Byeolpa, 別派), a group of a branch.
The second hypothesis is to synthesise the two different stories concerning the origin of the Daejoyoung(大祚榮) group in an eclectic way. This is called the hypothesis of Yemaecmalgal (濊貊靺鞨). Malgal(靺鞨), which has been found in historical documents, and can be actually divided into two Malgal (靺鞨) groups, that is to say, Yilouxi(or Uplugye malgal, ?婁系 靺鞨) and Yemaecgye malgal (濊貊系 靺鞨). Sokmalmalgal (粟末靺鞨) and Baeksanmalgal (白山靺鞨) belonged to Yemaecmalgal (濊貊靺鞨) and they became Balhaemalgal (渤海靺鞨). This hypothesis argues that Yemaecjok(濊貊族) and Malgaljok(靺鞨族) are originally the same, because Malgal (靺鞨) resided in the place of Yemaec (濊貊), such as Buyeo, Dongye and Okjeo. This argument, however, ignores the historical fact of the migration of peoples and attempts to connect directly the two historical records that have temporal gaps with each other and to understand them statically. Therefore, the substantial admissibility of evidence of this hypothesis cannot be accepted.
The third hypothesis about the constitution of people in Balhae and its central leading ethnic group is the fusion of ethnic groups, that is, the supposition of 'Balhae-ite'(渤海人) as the central group to lead Balhae.
In fact, after the fall of Balhae, the people were clearly divided into Balhae-ite(渤海人) and Jurchen-ite(女眞人). Balhae-ite was the existence differentiated from Jurchen-ite in social and cultural aspects and even in terms of consciousness. In this respect, Balhae-ite existed as an ethnic group. Then the question raised is when this Balhae-ite was formed and how its ethnic genealogy and character can be grasped. For this question, there is a perspective to see this Balhae-ite as succeeding Sokmalmalgal(粟末靺鞨) or Koguryo-ite (高句麗人). In this case, this argument asserts that Bahae was a state of Sokmalmalgal(粟末靺鞨) or Koguryo-ite and its character is laid on the extension of that prior to the establishment of Balhae.
This is a non-historical understanding that fails to grasp the character of Balhae dynamically and furthermore, it lacks any substantial evidence to support it. It has been proven by written documents that a part of the Malgal tribe as well as the Koguryo people participated in the establishment of Balhae and this fact is also supported by archaeological research.
The only problem is which ethnic group of Koguryo played a central role in the fusion of the two ethnic groups and what extents its fusion progressed in social and regional aspects.
This question can be resolved by detailed examinations of the material cultures of each region drawn from archaeological excavations in the future. For this, it is of necessity to grasp the detailed situation by archaeological excavations carried out within the old territory of Balhae and to accumulate data incessantly.
In fact, the question of which ethnic group led Balhae is not only one of substantial evidence, but also of historical consciousness. This is proved by the fact that each country claims completely different arguments about this sensitive question following its own research history.
Instead of being absorbed by one-sided nationalism, having a well-balanced historical consciousness is the key factor to progress in further research.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. ‘고려別種’의 실체
Ⅲ. 濊貊靺鞨論
Ⅳ. ‘渤海族’은 존재했나
Ⅴ. 맺음말
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
발해 정치사의 연구 현황과 과제
한국사연구
2003 .09
-
발해의 대외관계사연구의 현황과 과제
한국사연구
2003 .09
-
발해 문화사의 연구 현황과 과제
한국사연구
2003 .09
-
The results and meanings of the excavations of Balhae Sites in Russian Primorye
고구려발해연구
2010 .11
-
8세기 중엽 渤海와 日本의 關係
한국고대사연구
2002 .03
-
10~14세기 ‘발해인’ 정체성의 변질과 진화
한국사연구
2019 .03
-
고고학을 통해서 본 발해 건축문화의 정체성
고구려발해연구
2007 .12
-
중국의 발해사왜곡논리와 대응방안
한국사학보
2013 .05
-
몽골국 내 발해 고고유적
동북아역사논총
2011 .03
-
발해문자의 성립과 문자론적 특징
언어과학연구
2008 .12
-
北宋의 宰相 劉摯의 출신 지역을 통해 본 地名으로서의 渤海
역사학연구
2020 .01
-
발해의 등주공격을 통해 본 국제동맹과 외교
역사와 세계
2013 .12
-
海東盛國 渤海朝 樂舞의 文化史的 探索
동방한문학
2013 .01
-
연해주 발해시기의 유적 분포와 발해의 동북지역 영역문제
고구려발해연구
2011 .07
-
8세기 발해·일본간의 사신 왕래와 외교 현안
고구려발해연구
2011 .11
-
渤海國과 契丹(遼) 關係史의 硏究爭點과 向後 課題
중국사연구
2017 .01
-
渤海의 天下觀연구 : 高句麗와의 連繫性을 중심으로
고구려발해연구
2008 .11
-
북방지역 種族의 繼承關係 검토 : 靺鞨 · 女眞 · 滿洲族을 중심으로
고구려발해연구
2014 .11
-
일본소재 발해 유적ㆍ유물의 종합적 검토
한국사학보
2010 .11
-
나의 발해사 연구
한국고대사연구
2015 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0100-2009-911-018289720