http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Yi Kae (검색결과 20 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
李介奭 한국몽골학회 2002 몽골학 Vol.0 No.12
From the Biography in Yuan-shin 元史 and his epitaph written by Wang Ppan 王盤 in the san-yuan-xian-zhi, we can find out some critical facts concerning Guyuk khan and the phase of the Khanate in the Yeke Mongol Ulus in 1240s. In 1244 Hao He-shang ba-tu went to su-weng-tu 宿甕都 and visit the temporary ordu of Guyuk there. he ordered Hao He-shang ba-tu to conscribe soldiers and to subjugate western part of Sichuan. And the latter fought in Sichuan in 1245. By 1244 Guyuk came to the ordu of his mother, Toregene Khatun, and has helped her to rule the Empire. This is contrary to the popular view that Guyuk did not concern himself with the government under the regency of his mother. When Hao He-shang ba-tu visited again the ordu of Yesu Mungke in gan-xia 感匣 in 1249, the successor of Chaghatai arbitrarily elevated Wan-hu-bu 萬戶府 to Hedong-beilu xing-sheng 河東北路行省 and exempted completely its payment such as taxes and levies to vanjing-xingtai, apparatus of the central government located in the northern China. It also shows us that under the regency of Oghul Khamish the provinces had been unsuccessfully controlled. At last in this paper I discussed a few cases concerning historio-geographical themes. I concluded that gan-xia 感匣 in the epitaph could be assumed khulja, the place which is in the northern bank of the river Ili, city of Ining 伊寧市. And I also guessed that the su-weng-tu 宿甕都 in the biography is the same site as the sumen-tu 宿免都 in the epitaph or the sume-tur 宿滅禿里 in the Yuan shi located in the place near the upper waters of River Ongin, which flows from the southern bottom of the Hangai ranges.
-
-
-
-
-
이개석(Yi Kae-Seok) 한국사학회 2007 史學硏究 Vol.- No.88
이 연구는 13-14세기 元-麗關係에 대한 지금까지의 연구를 검토하여 大元-고려관계의 성격을 살피고, 이를 바탕으로 유용한 분석틀에 대한 나름의 견해를 보탠 것이다. 초기 일본학자들이 주축이 되어 연구한 麗元關係 연구는 몽골의 한반도 침략과 東征期間 주둔군의 고려에 대한 정치적 간섭 등 역사 사실에 대한 실증적 검토가 중심이었고, 해방 후 국내 연구자들에 의해 수행된 많지 않은 연구 역시 몽골 침략에 대한 항쟁과 貢女ㆍ宦官의 징발 등 침략세력에 의한 인적ㆍ물적 수탈에 대한 실증적 연구에 치중하였기 때문에 麗元關係에 대한 인식은 정복과 피정복 틀에서 벗어나지 못했다. 여원관계사 연구에 새로운 패러다임을 제시한 것은 1960년대 초 고병익 선생의 연구였다. 그것은 고려에 대한 몽골의 중심적 지배기관인 정동 행성을 연구함으로써 여원관계의 실상과 내속관계를 집약적으로 살필 수 있는 지표를 제공하였고, 또 六事라는 지표를 통해 대몽골국과 주변의 피정복지역의 관계를 비교ㆍ검토함으로써, 고려에 대한 원조 지배의 특수한 성격에 대한 비교사적 이해를 비로소 가능하게 했다. 1970년대 이후 연구 환경의 변화로 국내 학계의 여원관계 연구는 양적으로 비약적인 발전을 보였으나, 기존 연구의 한계를 극복할 수 있는 새로운 분석틀은 1990년대 초까지 제시되지 못했다. 물론 같은 기간 동안 대만학자인 蕭啓慶이 몽골 황실과 고려왕실 사이의 혼인관계 연구를 통해 여원관계 이해를 위한 또 하나의 새로운 분석틀을 제공하였던 바, 그는 몽골 공주가 諸王에 비견되는 지위를 가지고 고려국왕과 고려를 共治하였다고 보았다. 하지만 이상의 연구는 유목적 전통이 스며있는 대몽골국의 권력구조와 정복지역 지배의 성격에 대한 배려가 부족하였고, 몽골의 침략과 지배가 지속되는 동안 발생할 수 있는 여원관계의 질적 변화 등을 살필 수 있는 분석틀(지표)을 고안하는 데에는 이르지 못했다. 그러나 1990년대 중반 이후 이익주의 世祖舊制論과 森平雅彦의 高麗王府論, 그리고 장동익이 정동행성연구에 시기구분을 도입함으로써 大몽골국과 고려 사이의 관계를 보다 다각적이고, 보다 장기적인 변화 속에서 분석할 수 있게 되었다. 특히 森平雅彦의 연구는 종래 지배-피지배의 틀에 스며있는 몽골적 특성을 고려하지 않았던 여원관계 연구의 한계를 극복하는데 결정적 기여를 하였고, 대몽고국-고려관계사 연구의 새로운 지평을 열었다. 또 최근 김호동 교수 역시 치밀한 분석을 통해 몽골 세계사 내의 여원관계의 위상과 의미를 새롭게 음미하였으며, 그 결과 고려사 연구자의 취약점으로 지적된 여원관계사 이해의 몽골 세계사적 기초를 튼튼히 다졌다는 점에서 이 분야 연구의 질적 비약을 예고하고 있다. 결론적으로 이 글은 기존의 국내외 연구에 보이는 속국론과 간섭론의 문제점, 중국적 개념의 부용관계 등 인식상의 문제점과 森平雅彦의 고려왕부론과 投下論이 가지는 무단적 관점을 비판하고, 김호동 교수의 최근 연구의 문제점을 음미하여, 麗元關係 분석을 위한 새로운 패러다임으로서, 1) 정동행성, 2) 부마고려국왕의 왕부, 3) 世祖舊制라는 세 가지 축과 시기에 따른 大元-高麗 관계의 변화를 복합적으로 고려하고, 왕위 계승자와 관료의 在元宿衛 등 사회문화적 통로와 詔令 등 법제적 수단에 의한 지배의 측면을 고려할 것을 제의하였다. This essay reviews previous studies on the Yuan-Koryo relations in the 13th and the 14th century, and offers some personal views on this basis. Most Japanese scholars, who played a leading role in the study on the Yuan-Koryo relations in the pre-1945 period, focused on such historical facts as the Mongol invasion of the Korean peninsula and the Mongol intervention in Koryo politics during the Mongol invasion of Japan. A few studies by Korean scholars in the post-1945 period also concentrated on factual scrutiny of Koryo resistance against the Mongol invasion and the Mongol exploitation of Koryo's human and material resources. As a result, historical comprehension could not go beyond the framework of conquerors and the conquered. In the early 1960s, Koh Byong-ik 高柄翊 introduced a new paradigm by investigating the Mongol administrative apparatus in Koryo (‘Zhengdongxingsheng’, the Branch Central Secretariat for Koryo 征東行省). By employing this useful framework and six obligations ('liu shi' 六事), he offered a systemic analysis, thus upgrading our understanding of Mongol domination over Koryo and making it possible to compare this case with other cases of center-periphery relationship under Mongol domination. On the other hand, scholars in China, Taiwan, and Korea studied the marriage ties between the Mongol imperial house and the Koryo royal house, and Xiao Qi-qing 蕭啓慶 showed how the linkage between the Mongol princess and the Koryo king as a prince consort ('fu-ma' 駙馬) affected Mongol-Koryo relations, thus providing another perspective. These studies, however, had inherent limitations. For one thing, they lacked a proper understanding of the power structure and the ruling patterns of the great Mongol empire (Yeke Mongol ulus) which originated from its nomadic traditions. For another, they overlooked or oversimplified the changes in the Mongol-Koryo relationship from the time of Mongol invasion through its prolonged domination. Recent studies made remarkable contributions. Lee Ik-joo 李益柱 showed how Khubilai Khan allowed Koryo to observe its own laws and customs 'shizu-jiuzhi' 世祖舊制; Morihira Masahiko 森平雅彦 elucidated how the princely administration (wang-fu 王府) of the Koryo king worked; Chang Dong-ik 張東翼 offered a scheme of periodization and a perspective for change. And lastly Kim Ho-dong 金浩東 projected the Mongol-Koryo relations onto the screen of the Yeke Mongol Ulus, which was segregated and turned into the several ulus interdependent in 1260. These studies enabled us to comprehend the relationship between the great Mongol empire and Koryo from the 13th to the 14th century from diversified perspectives and in a much more systematic manner. Most remarkable were the studies by Morihira Masahiko. Previous studies in the Mongol-Koryo relations overlooked the fact that Koryo kingship was thoroughly embodied the Mongol apparatus of domination and subordination. In this sense, his study made a decisive contribution by overcoming this limitation. Also significant was professor Kim's work, which opened a new horizon of the study on the Mongol-Koryo relations. To sum up, this review article pointed out the drawbacks of conceptual frameworks employed by previous studies such as subordination-intervention and the Chinese idea of vassal state, warned against Procrustean applications of Morihira's thesis ('wang-fu' 王府 Koryo king's princely administration and 'tou-xia' 投下 Appanage). At last this review scrutinized the new horizon presented by Kim Ho-dong and proposed to study the changes in Koryo-Mongol relations over time--with a new paradigm(e.g. a combination of these three key concepts--the Branch Central Secretariat for Koryo ‘Zhengdong-xingsheng’, the princely administration 王府 of the Koryo king as an Prince Consort 'fu-ma' , and Khubilai's toleration of Koryo's indigenous institutions 'shizu-jiuzhi'). It goes without saying that hereafter new approaches have to inquire into the other facets such as socioc
-
이개석(Yi, Kae-Seok) 한국사학사학회 2008 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.18
This essay critically reviews recent historical accounts of the Great Mongol Empire by historians in Japan, China, Korea and Mongolia. Its main theme is how their nationalistic accounts distort the salient features of the Yeke Mongol Ulus. Although nationalist historiography can contribute to national integration and nation building, especially of former colonies, it also instills expansionism. Recent revival of strong national sentiments in East Asia seems to make this issue more relevant. Japanese historians pioneered modern scholarship in Mongol history in the first half of the 20th century. They developed the framework of the Great Mongol Empire by releasing it from the narrow frame of the Yuan dynasty. In the second half, they enhanced their scholarship with archeological excavations and use of relevant historical literature in Persian. However, they seem to approach the Yuan from the Persian perspective, relegating this central Ulus to a regional one in East Asia. In the first half of the 20th century, Chinese historians actively studied the Mongol history, heavily relying on their historical records. Then there followed a long intermission caused by the Cultural Revolution. Since the 1980s, a new generation of historians revived Mongol historiography, but with a twist. They approach it from Chinese perspective, portraying the Yuan as a Chinese dynasty founded by an ethnic minority, not as part of the Yeke Mongol Ulus stretching all over Eurasia. Korean historians can be divided into two groups. In the last two decades or so, there emerged a handful of specialist in Mongol history, improving Korean scholarship remarkably. They regard the Great Mongol Empire as the history of all the ethnic groups involved, not as the monopoly of a particular nationality. Specialists in Korean history, on the other hand, are preoccupied with the Yuan-Koryo relations and show little interest in the unique Mongol system of ulus. In Mongolia itself, historiography changed over time. In the 1920s, men of letters pioneered national historiography in the wake of the socialist revolution, but they were purged in the 1930s. Since the 1950s, a new generation of Soviet- educated historians rewrote the Mongol history along socialist internationalism. Since the 1990's, the taboos on nationalism and the national hero Chinggis Khan were lifted, and we can see a surge of nationalist historiography and Chinggis Khan cult. However, it 'nationalized' the history of the Mongol steppes, sucking up all the activities of various ethnic groups there over two thousand yeast past.
-
-
여몽형제맹약(麗蒙兄弟盟約)과 초기 여몽관계(麗蒙關係) 성격: 사료의 재검토(再檢討)를 중심으로
이개석 ( Kae Seok Yi ) 대구사학회 2010 대구사학 Vol.101 No.-
本文着重探討了1219年兄弟盟約成立與互之後的1230年代蒙古侵略和高麗抗戰過程中建立的高麗與蒙古國的關系。爲此, 主要通過史料的重新檢討分析了盟約的成立過程和性格問題。通過分析得出的結論, 如下: 第一. 1219年l月建立的麗蒙兄弟盟約是始于1218年蒙古派到定州的使節的講和要求, 幷其內容是助軍、輸粮、納貢、國王入朝。東眞和蒙古的關系也處于麗蒙關系類似的情況。根据《趙沖慕志銘》和兪升旦的《回東夏國書》, 認爲万顔子淵的軍隊屬于幇助蒙古的江東城戰役而被動用的助軍, 而不是聯合軍。第二. 繞着在麗蒙兄弟盟約的建立過程中的幹赤斤王家和高麗的關系, 認爲他是代替成吉思汗留守 (監國)權力, 所以兩者的關系蒙古國和新附屬國的關系。再次, 目前一此論者主張的幹赤斤兀魯思起到了東方經略的창口的角色, 高麗征伐時調動幹赤斤 麾下兵力、高麗是屬于幹赤斤兀魯思的等的說法是缺乏說服力的。征伐高麗時大部分調動了木華黎麾下的軍隊、1231年以後也是如此。第三、1231年的蒙古侵略後、以往的麗蒙關係重新調整、但這是1219年麗蒙兄弟盟約的基礎上附加了一些高麗的內屬國的義務、包括質子等。因此、後者是前者的恢復和繼承。但是、由于1232年高輿武臣政權遷都江華鳥、幷拒絶了國王親朝、高麗和蒙古沒法重新設定兩者的關系。第四. 如何理解麗蒙兄弟盟約的性質、高麗和蒙古國的理解方式完全不同。蒙古理解爲兀魯思和汗國之間的屬國關係、意味着高麗要承但蒙古要求的一切義務。所以、他們要求國王的親朝和過分的剝奪。輿此相反、高麗理解爲兩者的關系屬輿根据傳統的中國天下觀的事大關系。所以、直至1260年高麗從忽必烈得到 `不改風土` 和 `冊封` 的條件爲止、期間高麗一直沒有改變自己的看法和要求。
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
