칭기스 칸의 子弟分封에 대한 재검토 -- 《集史》 〈千戶一覽〉의 분석을 중심으로 --

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

본 논문은 14세기 초두 페르시아의 역사가 라시드 앗 딘이 저술한 『集史』라는 역사서에 기술된 칭기스 칸의 子弟分封에 관한 기사 즉 <千戶一覽>을 비판적으로 검토한 것이다. 이것은 지금까지 다수의 학자들에 의해 王室의 秘記인 『金冊』에 의거한 것으로 여겨져 매우 신빙성이 높은 것으로 평가받아 왔지만, 사실은 궁중의 귀족들을 대상으로 探問하고 아울러 『金冊』이라는 이름으로 總稱되는 여러 종류의 秘禁의 原始資料들을 활용함으로써 칭기스 칸 사망(1227) 당시 천호제의 原像을 ？復元？한 것이었다는 사실을 밝혀내었다.
동시에 칭기스 칸의 末子 톨루이가 부친이 남긴 군대 129개 천호의 절대 다수를 점하는 중앙 울루스의 101개 천호를 모두 상속받았다는 <千戶一覽>의 기록도 그대로 받아들이기 어렵다는 사실도 논증해 내었다. 즉 이는 末子相續이 ？몽골인의 관습？이라는 톨루이 가문의 주장에 근거한 것인데, 이같은 末子相續權은 칭기스 칸 자신이 남긴 法令인 ？야사？에서조차 年齡？系譜的인 階序에 比例하는 상속을 규정하고 있다는 점, 또 당시의 여러 가지 구체적인 사례들이 家權에 관한 한 末子보다는 長子가 더 우선권을 갖고 있었다는 점을 고려할 때 그대로 받아들이기 힘들다는 사실을 입증했다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

(1) ？The Register of Chiliarchies？ appended at the end of ？D？st？n-i Ch？ng？z Kh？n？ in Rash？d ad-D？n？s J？mi` at-tav？r？kh has been considered highly authentic because it was regarded to be based on Altan Daftar, the primary source on the rise and the career of Chinggis Khan, which had been preserved in the archives of the Il Khans but now lost. However, his own statements at the beginning of the ？Register？ as well as our comparison with the informations found in the ？Chapter on Tribes？ unequivocally show the fact that the ？Register？ is the result of the ？reconstruction？ by Rash？d ad-D？n. The source of his informations were basically two: one was Altan Daftar and the other was his own research. And he acknowledged that he could not confirm many commanders of chiliarchies ？because of the length of time and the remoteness of distance？.
(2) The incompleteness of the ？reconstruction？ is also evidenced by the comparison of the ？Register？ with the ？List of Chiliarchs？ in the section 202 of the Secret History of the Mongols. After the formation of 95 chiliarchies in 1206 as asserted by the Secret History there was a continuous increase of the number of chiliarchies: 10 chiliarchies of keshig army, 4 chiliarchies of the Oirats, 20 chiliarchies of the Qitans and the Jurchens, 10 chiliarchies of the Ba？arins, etc. So the total number of chiliarchies would have well exceeded 140 in 1227 when Chinggis Khan died. Moreover, the comparison of the commander of chiliarchies both in J？mi` at-tav？r？kh and the Secret History reveals the fact that almost 50 persons who were recorded in the latter were missing in the former. This omission can be the result of the insufficiency of informations on the part of Rash？d ad-D？n and of the massive execution of the pro-？gedeid commanders after the enthronement of M？ngke.
(3) The assertion of J？mi` at-tav？r？kh that 101 out of 129 chiliarchies were given to Tolui at the death of Chinggis Khan is also extremely doubtful. We cannot find anywehre in this Persian work the expression that Chinggis Khan actually ？gave？ 101 chiliarchies. It is merely stated that they ？were inherited by？ or ？came to belong to？ Tolui. The basis of this assertion, according to Rash？d ad-D？n, was of course ？the old Mongol custom？ of ultimogeniture. However, an article in the jasaq or y？s？ attributed to Chinggis Khan himself stipulated that the amount of inheritance should correspond to the seniority. Of course, it was the Mongol custom that the last remnants of deceased parents？ households and property were inherited by the youngest son called otchigin. Therefore, in 1227 when the empire was still in the stage of making, it is possible that the confusion between the state property and the private property arose among the Chinggisids. Nonetheless, informations in Shu`ab-i panjg？na and Mu`izz al-ans？b suggest that Tolui already had received, as recorded in the Secret History, 5 chiliarchies (1 Mangghuts, 1 Jalayirs, 1 Sunits and 2 Suldus) around 1207.