여몽 관계의 성격과 동아시아의 국제관계 - 중국 학계의 '책봉과 조공' 관계 연구의 한계와 문제점을 중심으로 = Characteristics of the Relationship between Goryeo and the Mongols, and the International Order in East Asia: The Limits of “Investiture-Tribute” Relations in Studies on China

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The appearance of the Mongol Empire brought great changes in the East Asian international order, to a degree not found in earlier history.
The unitary rule of the Mongols required a complete revision of the Confucian proprieties referring to “investiture-tribute” that had been recognized as the existing East Asian international order. The external frame of “investiture-tribute” was accepted in the Great Mongol Empire period, but it has intrinsic differences in the sense of “tribute and investiture” recognized as the global order the Chinese perceive.
Chinese scholars such as Pu Baichen, Huang Songjun, and others interpret the diplomatic relations between Goryeo and the Mongols as the cruelest example of “tribute and investiture” relations. They argue that the “investiture-tribute” system was considered to be crueler than that of other Chinese dynasties and the essence of “investiture-tribute”was actualized by the Mongols when the “investiture-tribute” system of the Mongols was applied to Goryeo, emphasizing the fact that the Mongols were the original Chinese dynasty in order to strengthen their logic. However, this logic made a mistake in stretching the meaning of the true nature of the “investiture-tribute” system and overlooking the nomadic attributes and aims.
The diplomatic relations between Goryeo and Mongol have important issues to be interpreted only as a simple “investiture-tribute” system.
First, the brotherhood alliance of the two nations was based on the anda system of the Mongols, which was the nomadic order in the background of the equality, and completely different from tribute based upon the premise of inequality according to the Confucian order. The preferential goal of the Mongols before the war with the Jin Dynasty was the establishment of friendly relations with Goryeo and the surrounding nations. Therefore, the Mongols did not request tribute of Goryeo upon the establishment of the brotherhood alliance. Rather, the fact that Goryeo attempted to provide a certain amount of tribute based upon prior examples of East Asian international relations cannot be stretched for its meaning and described as “tribute.” This enabled the Mongols to change according to the later situation, but the brotherhood alliance itself was not a relationship formed under the premise of “the tribute system.”Second, even though the Great Mongol Empire borrowed the external frame of Chinese system for “investiture-tribute,” the diplomatic relations between the two countries cannot be explained only through “investiture-tribute.” In particular, the fact that the king of Goryeo had dual positions as a monarch and as a son-in-law of the imperial family shows that it was not a relationship for a power doctrine, but the actual relationship. The dual position of the Goryeo king was connected as an opportunity provided to participate in the overall politics of the Great Mongol Empire. The king of Goryeo could discuss major national issues from the selection of the Khan to foreign expeditions and the right of succession for the next ruler, and could prepare the chance to analyze the future state of affairs by grasping internal trends at the Mongols’imperial court.
Third, the Great Mongol Empire’s requests to Goryeo for tribute were noticeably reduced after the inter-marriage. In other words, the requisition of goods to Goryeo was reduced, the size and the frequency of the bestowed goods were increased and the general offerings were increased. This is verified as very different from the insistence of China that the typical tribute was conducted through forced request of tribute and acceptance.
Therefore, the relations between the two countries went through a diverse range of changes according to the practical necessities of each country, rather than through a unitary system. If explaining the relations of the two countries formed and changed as the result of complicated mutual reactions,...

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김한규, "한중관계사" 아르케 1999

2 국사편찬위원회, "한국사-고려후기의 사회와 대외관계 20" 경기도, 국사편찬위원회 1994

3 김순자, "한국 중세 한중관계사" 혜안 1998

4 윤은숙, "쿠빌라이와 고려" 역사문제연구소 (90) : 334-355, 2010

5 라시드 앗딘, "칸의 후예들" 사계절출판사 2005

6 라시드 앗딘, "칭기스칸기" 사계절출판사 2003

7 민경준, "중국번속이론과 허상" 동북아역사재단 2010

8 이개석, "정통론과 13-14세기 동아시아 역사서술" 대구사학회 88 : 67-96, 2007

9 윤영인, "위태로운 변경" 동북아역사재단 2009

10 김당택, "원간섭하의 고려정치사" 일조각 1998

11 이개석, "여몽관계사 연구의 새로운 관점-통혼관계를 중심으로, In 13-14세기동아시아와 高麗-高麗 大元관계의 성격 탐구" 경북대학교 한중교류연구원 2009

12 윤은숙, "몽골제국의 만주지배사-옷치긴 왕가의 만주 경영과 이성계의 조선 건국" 소나무 2010

13 김호동, "몽골제국과 고려" 2007

14 박환영, "몽골비사에 보여지는 가족과 친족의 민속학적 연구" 한국몽골학회 (20) : 215-230, 2006

15 유원수, "몽골비사" 사계절 2006

16 주채혁, "몽골-고려사 연구의 재검토-몽골-고려사의 성격문제" 국사편찬위원회 8 : 1989

17 주채혁, "몽골-고려사 연구의 재검토-몽골 고려 전쟁사연구의 시각문제" 8 : 1989

18 박원길, "대원제국의 고려출신 황후 다마시리－카톤(Damashiri-Khatun)" 한국몽골학회 0 (0): 205-225, 2008

19 장동익, "고려후기 외교사 연구" 일조각 1994

20 이명미, "고려원왕실통혼의 정치적 의미" 서울대학교 국사학과 49 : 2003

21 신채식, "고려와 송의 외교관계, In 한중 외교관계와 조공책봉" 고구려연구재단 2005

22 森平雅彦, "高麗王家とモンゴル皇族の通婚關係に關する覺書" 67 (67): 2008

23 盧啓鉉, "高麗外交史" 甲寅出版社 1994

24 沈載錫, "高麗國王冊封硏究" 혜안 2002

25 "高麗史節要" 亞細亞文化社 1973

26 "高麗史" 亞細亞文化社 1972

27 이익주, "高麗·元關係의 構造에 대한 硏究-소위 ‘世祖舊制’의 분석을 중심으로" 서울대학교 국사학과 36 : 1996

28 이익주, "高麗-몽골(元) 관계에서 보이는 冊封-朝貢關係 요소의 探究, In 13-14세기 동아시아와 高麗-高麗 大元관계의 성격 탐구_" 경북대학교 한중교류연구원 2009

29 李益柱, "高麗 對蒙抗爭期 講和論의 硏究" 151 : 1996

30 김한규, "遼東史" 문학과 지성사 2004

31 정선용, "趙沖의 對蒙交涉과 그 政治的 意味 -崔忠獻政權과 國王의 관계에 주목하여-" 진단학회 (93) : 111-144, 2002

32 박경자, "貢女 출신 高麗女人들의 삶" 호서사학회 (55) : 33-64, 2010

33 여원관계사연구팀, "譯註元高麗紀事" 선인 2008

34 朴延華, "試論元麗兩國政治聯姻關係" 37 (37): 2004

35 馬偉, "試論13世紀後期忽必烈對麗,日政策及其反應" 23 : 2005

36 孟廣耀, "蒙古民族通史" 內蒙古大學出版社 2002

37 金浩東, "蒙古帝國의 形成과 展開, In 講座 중국사 Ⅲ" 지식산업사 1989

38 孟古托力, "蒙元與高麗關係述論" 64 : 2000

39 陳得藝, "蒙元史硏究叢稿" 人民出版社 2005

40 屠寄, "蒙兀兒史記" 上海古籍出版社 1989

41 李奎報, "東國李相國集" 一潮閣 2000

42 高柄翊, "東亞交涉史의 硏究" 서울대학교출판부 1970

43 李雲泉, "朝貢制度史論-中國古代對外關係體制硏究" 新華出版社 2004

44 周良霄, "忽必烈" 吉林敎育出版社 1986

45 權衡, "庚申外史" 藝文印書館 1965

46 강재광, "崔竩政權의 對蒙和議論 수용과 崔氏政權의 崩壞" 한국중세사학회 (28) : 521-556, 2010

47 이개석, "大蒙古國-高麗 關係 연구의 재검토" 한국사학회 (88) : 39-92, 2007

48 蕭啓慶, "元高麗關係中的王室婚姻與强權政治, In 內北國而外中國: 蒙元史硏究" 中華書局 2007

49 薛磊, "元朝與高麗政治關係中的重要人物-高麗忠宣王王璋" 25 (25): 2004

50 韓儒林, "元朝史" 人民出版社 1986

51 標點校勘本, "元史" 中華書局 1997

52 周良霄, "元史" 上海人民出版社 2004

53 付百臣, "中朝歷代朝貢制度硏究" 吉林人民出版社 2009

54 黃松筠, "中國古代藩屬制度硏究" 吉林人民出版社 2008

55 中國北方民族關係史編寫組, "中國北方民族關係史" 中國社會科學出版社 1987

56 Ч.Содбилэг, "Монголын Их Юан упсын Түүх" Бемби Сан улаанбатар 2010

57 Монгол улсын шинжлэх ухааны академи түүхийн хүрээлэн, "Монголулсын Түүх" дэд боть, АДМОН 2004

58 Ч.Аръяасүрэн, "Монгол Ёс Заншлын Дунд Тайлбар Толъ" Хүүхийн Хэвлэлийн Газар 1991

59 Martin, H. Desmond, "The Rise Of Chingis Khan And His Conquest of North China" 虹橋書店, 合興彩色印刷有限公司 1950

60 Fairbank, John K, "A Preliminary Framework, In The Chinese World Order" 1968

61 이강한, "13~14세기 고려-원 교역의 전개와 성격" 서울대학교 대학원 2007

62 윤영인, "10-13세기 동북아시아 多元的 國際秩序에서의 冊封과 盟約" 동양사학회 (101) : 187-224, 2007