한국의 몽골사 연구 30년, 회고와 전망

류병재 한국몽골학회 2021 몽골학 Vol.- No.65

본 연구는 1990년 한·몽 수교 이후 한국의 몽골사 연구 30년간의 연구성과를 검토하고 향후 몽골사 연구 방향을 모색해 보고자 집필되었다. 한국의 몽골사 연구는 순수 몽골사 연구와 고려-몽골 관계사 측면으로 크게 양분된다고 할 수 있다. 이 가운데 칭기스칸과 그의 후예들의 역사인 몽골제국사부터 근현대 몽골인들의 역사를 아우르는 한국의 몽골사 연구성과는 짧은 시기에도 몽골제국사 사료 번역, 연구서 번역 및 전문 연구 등을 통해 양적·질적으로 괄목할만한 성장을 이룬 것을 확인하였다. 향후 한국의 몽골사 연구는 사료 이외에 다양한 자료들을 활용하여 그 연구범위를 확대하고, 고려-몽골 관계사에서 고려사 연구자들과 협업이 필요할 것이다. 또한 현재까지도 한국어 표기에서의 오류 등도 반드시 수정할 필요가 있다. This study was written in order to examine the 30-year research result in South Korea on Mongolian history after the diplomatic relations between South Korea and Mongolia in 1990, and to seek the research direction of Mongolian history henceforth. A research in South Korea on Mongolian history can be considered to be divided largely into the research of focusing on Mongol empire history and the aspect on the history of the Goryeo-Mongol relationship. In the middle of this, the research outcome in South Korea of Mongolian history covering the history of the modern & contemporary Mongolians starting from the Mongol empire history, which is the history of Genghis Khan and his descendants, was confirmed to have achieved remarkable growth quantitatively and qualitatively through translating the historical records of Mongol empire, translating the research documents, and making the professional research even in a short period of time. A future research in South Korea on Mongolian history will expand its research scope through using diverse materials other than historical records and will require the collaboration with Goryeo history researchers in the history of the Goryeo-Mongol relationship. Also, there is a need to certainly correct errors that appear now in Korean notation as for the terms related to Mongolian history.

[Solid information] 중국 내몽골 뉴스

류병재 단국대학교 몽골연구소 2013 Mongolian Survey Vol.3 No.1

미래의 비재래형 에너지자원 천연가스 하이드레이트

류병재 한국에너지협의회 2002 에너지協議會報 Vol.61 No.-

《海都太子令旨碑》를 통해 본 청년기 카이도의 상황

류병재 한국몽골학회 2020 몽골학 Vol.0 No.62

Tai-qing-gong, Luyi County, Henan Province in China is well known as the birthplace of Laozi, the founder of Taoism. In Tai-qing-gong, there is an inscription called 《Qaidu Taizi Lingzhibei(海都太子令旨碑)》, in which the name of Qaidu is recorded. The purpose of this study is to translate and annotate Qaidu’s orders in 《Qaidu Taizi Lingzhibei》 issued by him in 1257 and to examine not only Qaidu’s situation in his youth, but also relationship between Qayaligh, Qaidu’s major base in the Central Asian region, and the interior of China. This study tries to understand the situation of Qaidu by comapring the contents of 《Qaidu Taizi Lingzhibei》 with Chineses historical sources such as 《Yuan-shi》 and Persian historical sources such as 《Jami' at-tavārīkh》. With the analysis of the contents in the insciption, I would like to argue that Qaidu was not a spokeman for “Altan uru”, the authorized nomadic tribe, showing hostility toward Möngke and Kubilai in Tului family, simply because Qaudu was given title of “Taizi”. In Qaidu’s youth, he recognized the authority of Qa’an and controlled Henan Porovince assigned by Qa’an. He was a member of “Altan uru” of Ganghis Khan, which received the bestowment from Qa’an. 현재 중국 하남성(河南省) 녹읍현(鹿邑縣) 태청궁(太淸宮)은 도가(道家)의 창시자인 노자(老子)의 탄생지로 잘 알려져 있다. 이 태청궁 경내에는 ‘카이도(Qaidu, 海都)’라는 인명(人名)이 기록된 《海都太子令旨碑》라는 비문이 있다. 본 연구의 목적은 1257년 카이도가 발령한 《海都太子令旨碑》에 기록된 영지(令旨) 대한 역주작업을 진행하고, 그 내용의 분석을 통해 청년기 카이도의 상황과 당시 그의 주요거점이었던 중앙아시아의 카얄릭(Qayaligh) 지방과 중원 내지와의 관계를 고찰해 보는 것이다. 이 비문 내용을 근거로 청년기 카이도의 상황을 원사(元史) 등의 한문 사료와 집사(集史) 등의 페르시아 자료 등과 비교해 보았다. 이 비문의 분석을 통해 카이도에게 ‘태자(太子)’라는 신분 칭호가 있다고 하여, 그가 멍케와 쿠빌라이 등 톨로이 가문의 사람들과 대립 관계를 세우려던 ‘정통 유목형 황금씨족(Altan Uru)’의 대변인이었을 것이라는 예단(豫斷)은 옳지가 않다. 청년기 카이도는 대칸의 권위를 인정하고, 대칸에게서 배정 받은 현재 중국 하남성 일대의 지역을 장악하고 대칸으로부터의 은사(恩賜)를 받던 칭기스칸의 황금씨족들 가운데 일원이었다.

몽골과 중국의 경제·외교적 변화양상에 관한 시론적 연구 - 양국 간 조약 및 의정서를 중심으로-

류병재,송병구 한국몽골학회 2019 몽골학 Vol.0 No.59

The purpose of this study is to analyze domestic and foreign background that Mongolia and China confronted at that time and to attempt an exploratory analysis on which influence these treaties and protocols had upon the development in the two nations through examining about diverse treaties(條約) and protocols(議定書) that were established between Mongolia and China. Both Mongolia and China formed diplomatic ties on October 16, 1949, and then signed “Border Treaty between the People's Republic of China and the Mongolian People's Republic” in Beijing on December 26 of the same year. Protocols for rail connection and operation were signed such as Protocol for the Construction of Railways, which was created among three parties of China, Mongolia and the Soviet Union(Union of Soviet Socialist Republic) in 1952, and “Protocol for a Border Railway between China and Mongolia” in 1955. Both Mongolia and China comes to begin a substantial bilateral exchange starting with the operation of railroad, which passes over it, along with the border that came to be definite through the border treaty and the railway protocol after forming amity in 1949. The bilateral relationship was made official ties on the basis of "good neighbourly" relations in 1949, was temporarily cut off diplomatic relations between the two countries due to the escalation of a dispute between China and the Soviet Union in the 1960s and to following the Soviet Union by the Mongolian People's Republic, and then was ever restored according to the improvement in the relationship between China and the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. Both Mongolia and China formed "Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between the People's Republic of China and the Mongolian People's Republic" in 1994, and developed into “good-neighbor and mutual trust partnership” in 2003. The two countries developed into “strategic partnership[战略伙伴关系, стратегийн түншлэлийн харилцаа]” in 2011. Especially, Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to Mongolia in August of 2014 leads to the elevation to “Complete strategic partnership[全面战略伙伴关系, Иж бүрэн стратегийн түншлэлийн харилцаа]” in the two nations, thereby celebrating the 70th anniversary of diplomatic ties in 2019. However, in the economic aspect, the bilateral relationship is in a situation that Mongolian economy relies excessively upon China. China is No. 1 trading partner of Mongolia. Its trade scale tends to grow year after year. This study is an exploratory research for a general analysis on Mongolia-China relationship. Diplomatic relations for 70 years between Mongolia and China are examined focusing on treaties and protocols out of research materials between the two nations. In particular, it looks into which role it played in the current relationship between Mongolia and China while confirming what the bilateral exchange was begun through the border treaty from the establishment of diplomatic ties, and verifying which ones were included in the treaties and agreements at that time.

《상국도감태부묘지명(上國都監太傅墓志銘)》에 보이는 ‘신라(新羅)’와 거란문자 ‘sh-ul-ó-úr’ 관계 일고찰

류병재 한국몽골학회 2020 몽골학 Vol.0 No.63

This study carried out Yeokju(譯註, translate and annotate) on the Chinese-language cemetery name dubbed 《Shang-guo-dou-jian-taifu Epitaph(上國都監太傅墓志銘)》 that is exhibited in the Chinese National Ancient-Writing Exhibition Hall on the third floor of the National Museum at MINZU UNIVERSITY OF CHINA(中央民族大学) in Beijing. The rubbing of an inscription(拓本) for the epitaph with Khitan large script(契丹大字)(《Heun-deuk-eun-tae-bu epitaph[痕得隐太傅墓志]》), which is presumed to be likely the same tomb occupant(墓主), is also displayed simultaneously. However, the real thing in these two rubbed copies cannot be currently known its whereabouts. Based on the contents of the rubbed copies, we can confirm that these two epitaphs were set up on May 28th(五月二十八日) in the 10th year of Eungryeok(應曆十年, Year in 960) during the reign of King Mokjong(穆宗) in the Liao Dynasty as the earliest era among epitaphs with Khitan large script that have been found so far. The epitaph with Khitan large script and the epitaph with Chinese character exist at the same time. But these two epitaph contents are not perfectly corresponded. Through the work of analyzing Yeokju(譯註, translate and annotate) in 《Shang-guo-dou-jian-taifu epitaph(上國都監太傅墓志銘)》, we could check a tomb occupant’s public service experience and merit based on the epitaph with Chinese character. These details were comparatively analyzed through Liao-shi(遼史). Also, the attempt was progressed for trying to compare Khitan large script, which corresponds to “Silla” of appearing in the texts, by searching it in the epitaph with Khitan large script(《Heun-deuk-eun-tae-bu epitaph[痕得隐太傅墓志]》). According to the prior research of Aisin Gioro Ulhichun(愛新覺羅 烏拉熙春), the epitaph with Khitan large script is being considered to be formed the mainstream by primarily recording a tomb occupant(墓主)’s ancestors and family members. And the epitaph with Khitan large script is being claimed that the Khitan large script of corresponding to ‘Silla’ is ‘Sulwur.’ Nevertheless, it was verified to be unreasonable to conclude that his assertion is right when comparing the epitaph with the previous Khitan large script and the epitaph with the relevant Khitan large script. A fact was verified to still require diverse comparative researches along with the excavation of more materials in order to accurately decode Khitan large script. 본 논문은 중국 북경 중앙민족대학 민족박물관 3층 중국민족고문자전시실에 전시되어 있는 《상국도감태부묘지명(上國都監太傅墓志銘)》이라는 한문 묘지명에 대한 역주를 수행하였다. 동일한 묘주(墓主)일 것으로 추정하는 거란대자 묘지명(《痕得隐太傅墓志》)의 탁본도 동시에 전시되어 있다. 그러나 이 두 탁본의 실물은 현재 그 행방을 알 수 없다. 우리는 탁본의 내용을 토대로 이 두 비문이 현재까지 발견된 거란대자 묘지 가운데 가장 이른 시대로 요나라 목종(穆宗) 응력10년(應曆十年, 960년) 5월 28일(五月二十八日)에 세워졌다는 것을 확인할 수 있다. 거란대자 묘지와 한문비문이 동시에 존재하지만 이 두 묘지 내용이 완벽하게 대응되지는 않는다. 우리는《상국도감태부묘지명(上國都監太傅墓志銘)》의 역주분석 작업을 통해 한문 묘지명에는 묘주의 관직 경력과 공훈을 확인할 수 있었다. 이 내용을 遼史를 통해 비교분석하였다. 또한 그 내용에 등장하는 “신라”에 대응하는 거란대자를 거란대자 묘지명《痕得隐太傅墓志》에서 찾아 비교하려는 시도를 진행해 보았다. 愛新覺羅 烏拉熙春의 선행 연구에 따르면, 거란대자 묘지명에는 주로 묘주(墓主)의 선조와 가족들의 기록이 주를 이루고 있다고 보고 있다. 그리고 거란대자 묘지명에는 ‘신라’에 대응하는 거란대자가 ‘Sulwur’라고 주장하고 있다. 그러나 이전의 거란대자 묘지명의 해당 거란대자와 비교해 볼 때 그의 주장이 옳다고 결론짓기는 무리임을 확인하였다. 정확한 거란대자 해독을 위해서는 여전히 더 많은 자료 발굴과 다양한 비교 연구가 필요하다는 사실을 확인하였다.

[솔리드 인포메이션] 중국 내몽골

류병재 단국대학교 몽골연구소 2011 Mongolian Survey Vol.1 No.1

카이도 휘하의 제왕(諸王)과 대신(大臣)

류병재 한국몽골학회 2014 몽골학 Vol.0 No.39

The historic consciousness on Mongol world empire needs to be looked the direct view as saying of having overlooked ‘globality and totality’ that the Mongol empire has in the wake of having emphasized only ‘disruptiveness among individual khanate states’. The Mongolian Plateau, which was unified in 1206 by Chinggis Khan, and Mongol world empire, which was established by its descendants, are expanded the territory through the continuous conquest war. Thus, it has been believed as if being a historical fact as saying that even the relationship among ‘Chinggisid Altan uruγ’ just became estranged gradually. ‘The division theory of the Mongol empire’, saying that the Mongol empire was driven to the whirlpool of the division once again by the chaos in the process of transferring the throne of the Great Khan(Qa’an) from the Ögödei’s family to the Tului's family following the death of Chinggis Khan and by the emergence of ‘anti-Qubilai group’ of being represented as Qaidu even if a fight for the throne of the Great Khan between Arigh Böke and Qubilai in the Tului’s family seemed to come to a close as Qubilai’s victory in 1264, has become a big obstacle to the right historic recognition on the Mongol Empire. Accordingly, this study tried to examine by dividing the figures, who had formed direct and indirect relationship in the camp under the command of Qaidu, by Ulus in each. It looked at a situation, in which the figures under the command of Qaidu meet and part because of these people’s origins, political situation in those days, and interests, through the data of Persia and the record of historical materials in Chinese character. The figures of the Jochi ulus, especially, Qonichi and others of the Orda ulus played a great role in the early growth of Qaidu. The figures of the Chagatai ulus were either devoted under the command of Qaidu after the leadership of Central Asia following the death of Baraq handed over to Qaidu, or left for the camp of Qubilai as the Great Khan following this. The figures of the Ögödei ulus gathered together focusing on Qaidu in order to restore their Ulus that vanished into nothing, and then strived to re-build Ögödei ulus in Central Asia. It examined the figures of the Tului ulus that there are also people who obeyed by coming themselves to the camp of Qaidu in the wake of disharmony with Qubilai, but there were people as well who returned again to the camp of Qubilai following the passage of the certain period. It confirmed that even some of the Amīrs and the generals yielded submission by coming themselves to the camp of Qaidu due to being afraid of being reprimanded the failure in military operation, but had been included in the camp of Qaidu going after Chinggisid princes whom they follow. Through Persian and historical materials in Chinese character, the Chinggisid princes, Amīrs and generals who had served him under the command the camp of Qaidu can be considered not to have obeyed or done military operation by coming by themselves to the camp of Qaidu just for the purpose so-called ‘the overthrow of Shih Tsu(世祖) in Yuan(元), the hanisized Chinese Emperor who had been believed as of being the existing orthodoxy. A little much deeper research needs to be progressed. Yet, it confirmed that Qaidu and the figures under his command didn’t meet and part only as the Ögödei’s family, which did fight against Qubilai of the Tului’s family that had usurped the throne of the Great Khan, or as ‘a leader and a member of the traditionally nomadic group’ that stands up to the hanisized(漢化) Yuan dynasty(元朝) . Through analyzing these people’s origins, it confirmed that there were also people who shared political line and activity with him all through the period of Qaidu's activity and that there were quite a number of people, too, who surrendered to the side of Qubilai by calculating their political line, a political change in the Mongol Empire...

[학술답사] 북방유목문화의 고도(古都)를 찾아서

류병재 단국대학교 몽골연구소 2012 Mongolian Survey Vol.2 No.1

카이도의 최후 激戰地 연구

류병재 한국몽골학회 2018 몽골학 Vol.0 No.55

The purpose of this study is to historically research into where the combat branch was exactly between Qaidu(海都) and Da Yuan(大元) Ulus military, which took place at the Altai Mountains in the eighth lunar month in 1301. This researcher tried to generally reconstruct a historical situation in those days through a documentary research and an on-site survey in addition to where the last ferocious battlefield of Qaidu is located at Altai Mountains through the primary exploration in July 2013 and the secondary local field survey of Altai in Mongolia in July 2016. It directly performed a field survey on place names, which were confirmed through a documentary historical-source research, exactly examined many terrain features and locations in those places, and then strived to historically investigate correctly into whether all of “region(地域)ㆍhistorical source(史料)ㆍhistorical fact(史實)” are consistent. These primary and secondary field surveys were performed an investigation into the locally place names and terrain features of which he informed, in addition to the evidence of a native old villager of Kazakh named ‘Temerzan Babakhan’. Synthetically analyzing through this, its historical region is comparatively determined as the whole area of Delüün Sum in Bayan-ölgii Aimag of the current Mongolian country. In other words, based on the center of Delüün Sum, it is consistent in “鐵堅古ㆍ迭怯里古ㆍ帖堅古 = Tegelkū” with Delüün uul(Дэлүүн уул; in Mongolian), “合剌合塔ㆍ哈剌答 = Qarāltū” with Qar qad(Хар хад; in Mongolian), and “兀兒禿 = Urtu” with Urt salaa(Урт салаа; in Mongolian) region.