高句麗 柵城 遺址 三考 = The Reconsideration on Koguryo Zhancheng Relics

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In 1985, the author published “the Reconsideration on Koguryo Zhacheng Relics”(高句麗柵城遺址). He denied the relics of Hunchun Baliancheng(琿春八連城) of today’s our country, that is, Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu(渤海東京龍原府) [it is called Zhachengfu(柵城府)]. At the same time he negated the traditional opinion of the academe that was affirmed to correspond to Koguryo Zhacheng Relics. And he newly put forward the view that the relics of Koguryo Zhacheng would be built, Chengzishanshancheng(城子山山城) was combined with Tuchengcuntucheng(土城村土城) (Later Xingangucheng (興安古城) was attached).
After that Fang Xuefeng(方學鳳) and Li Zongxun(李宗勛), and so on, professors denied that the author’s view and protested that Koguryo Zhacheng Relics belonged to the Wentehebucheng(溫特赫部 城) near Hunchun Baliancheng.
It appears that this kind of different view that we produced, of course, would be able to have all kinds of reasons. However, among them the most important reason that we believed is that if we have different understanding about the related to the record of events of Xintangshu Balhae biography(新唐書∙渤海傳), it seems as if we had different understanding of being affiliated with the region of Beiwoju(北沃沮). Setting out from the view, the article will bring forward the author’s preliminary opinion related to two problems, focusing on the latest article of Prof. Fang Xuefeng and Prof. Li Zongxun, and I’m going to discuss it with many readers myself.
一．Fang Xuefeng(方學鳳)：After Reading the Investigation about the Location of“ Koguryo Zhacheng”(高句麗柵城)
The author has ever pointed out in the reconsideration on Koguryo Zhacheng relics that it is necessary for him to analyse that in Xintangshu Balhae biography there is such a sentence that the place where Huimo(濊貊) lived once was Dongjing, and said it was Longyuanfu, and said that it was also called Zhanchengfu“( 濊貊故地爲東京, 曰龍原府, 亦曰柵城府”). In fact, it was why the place where Huimo lived once didn’t conform it, and so, of course, it would be replaced with the old site of Beiwoju. Therefore, the sentence mentioned above should be written“ the place where Beiwoju lived once was Dongjing, and said it was Longyuanfu, and said that it was also called Zhachengfu. The author recognizes that it was right that the old Site of Koguryo Zhacheng should be found not only inside the jurisdiction of Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu but also in the wider region (including the place where Beiwoju lived once), which was its groundwork. However, Prof. Fang claims that it was naturally and rationally formed becacuse the region of today’s Yanbian(延邊) was the place where Huimo lived once, the statements mentioned above in Xintangshu Balhae biography completely conformed the historical fact. And it was appropriate contents. The former name of Huimo had been formed before Beiwoju occupied it. According to his advice, Prof. Fang claims that the first half of Xintangshu Balhae biography(the place where Huimo<Beiwoju> lived once was ongjing) was neglected and while only be based on the last part (Dongjing, and said it was Longyuanfu, and said that it was also called Zhachengfu, the relics of Koguryo Zhacheng must be discovered inside the jurisdiction of Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu(Now it is the jurisdiction of Hunchun(琿春), without discovering outside the jurisdiction of Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu). Prof. Fang’s opinion does not conform with the matter of history. As a result, the jurisdiction of Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu(Now it is Hunchun is not the place where Huimo lived once. Obviously, that is why it is the place where Beiwoju lived once. The fact is that the historical materials of ancient books, which the old name of Huimo can be proved before Beiwoju occupied it, don’t exist anywhere. Prof. Fang recognizes that according to the analysis of the record of e...

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In 1985, the author published “the Reconsideration on Koguryo Zhacheng Relics”(高句麗柵城遺址). He denied the relics of Hunchun Baliancheng(琿春八連城) of today’s our country, that is, Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu(渤海東京龍原府) [it is called Zhachengfu(柵城府)]. At the same time he negated the traditional opinion of the academe that was affirmed to correspond to Koguryo Zhacheng Relics. And he newly put forward the view that the relics of Koguryo Zhacheng would be built, Chengzishanshancheng(城子山山城) was combined with Tuchengcuntucheng(土城村土城) (Later Xingangucheng (興安古城) was attached).
After that Fang Xuefeng(方學鳳) and Li Zongxun(李宗勛), and so on, professors denied that the author’s view and protested that Koguryo Zhacheng Relics belonged to the Wentehebucheng(溫特赫部 城) near Hunchun Baliancheng.
It appears that this kind of different view that we produced, of course, would be able to have all kinds of reasons. However, among them the most important reason that we believed is that if we have different understanding about the related to the record of events of Xintangshu Balhae biography(新唐書∙渤海傳), it seems as if we had different understanding of being affiliated with the region of Beiwoju(北沃沮). Setting out from the view, the article will bring forward the author’s preliminary opinion related to two problems, focusing on the latest article of Prof. Fang Xuefeng and Prof. Li Zongxun, and I’m going to discuss it with many readers myself.
一．Fang Xuefeng(方學鳳)：After Reading the Investigation about the Location of“ Koguryo Zhacheng”(高句麗柵城)
The author has ever pointed out in the reconsideration on Koguryo Zhacheng relics that it is necessary for him to analyse that in Xintangshu Balhae biography there is such a sentence that the place where Huimo(濊貊) lived once was Dongjing, and said it was Longyuanfu, and said that it was also called Zhanchengfu“( 濊貊故地爲東京, 曰龍原府, 亦曰柵城府”). In fact, it was why the place where Huimo lived once didn’t conform it, and so, of course, it would be replaced with the old site of Beiwoju. Therefore, the sentence mentioned above should be written“ the place where Beiwoju lived once was Dongjing, and said it was Longyuanfu, and said that it was also called Zhachengfu. The author recognizes that it was right that the old Site of Koguryo Zhacheng should be found not only inside the jurisdiction of Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu but also in the wider region (including the place where Beiwoju lived once), which was its groundwork. However, Prof. Fang claims that it was naturally and rationally formed becacuse the region of today’s Yanbian(延邊) was the place where Huimo lived once, the statements mentioned above in Xintangshu Balhae biography completely conformed the historical fact. And it was appropriate contents. The former name of Huimo had been formed before Beiwoju occupied it. According to his advice, Prof. Fang claims that the first half of Xintangshu Balhae biography(the place where Huimo<Beiwoju> lived once was ongjing) was neglected and while only be based on the last part (Dongjing, and said it was Longyuanfu, and said that it was also called Zhachengfu, the relics of Koguryo Zhacheng must be discovered inside the jurisdiction of Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu(Now it is the jurisdiction of Hunchun(琿春), without discovering outside the jurisdiction of Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu). Prof. Fang’s opinion does not conform with the matter of history. As a result, the jurisdiction of Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu(Now it is Hunchun is not the place where Huimo lived once. Obviously, that is why it is the place where Beiwoju lived once. The fact is that the historical materials of ancient books, which the old name of Huimo can be proved before Beiwoju occupied it, don’t exist anywhere. Prof. Fang recognizes that according to the analysis of the record of event...

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 中央民族學院硏究部, "歷代各族傳記論編 第一編" 中華書局 1958

2 연변박물관『연변문화유물략편』집필소조, "연변문화유물략편" 연변인민출판사 1989

3 朴時亨, "발해사" 이론과실천 181-, 1989

4 채태형, "발해 동경룡원부`-`훈춘 팔련성설에 대한 재검토, In 력사과학 제3호" 사회과학출판사 1990

5 사회과학원, "동해안 일대의 발해유적에 대한 연구" 도서출판 중심 211-215, 2002

6 "魏書"

7 方學鳳, "高句麗柵城의 위치에 대한 고찰" 3 : 1998

8 朴眞奭, "高句麗柵城遺址考, In 朝鮮問題硏究叢書 3" 延邊大學朝鮮問題硏究所 1985

9 朴眞奭, "高句麗柵城遺址再考" 1994

10 李宗勳, "高句麗 柵城유적에관한 辨釋, In 고구려 문화의 역사적 의의" 高句麗硏究財團 2005

11 中國社會科學院語言硏究所詞典編輯室, "現代漢語詞典" 商務印書館 1448-, 1980

12 漢城寶文館編輯部, "漢鮮文新玉篇 下卷" 167-,

13 "漢書"

14 "滿洲源流考"

15 金毓黻, "渤海國志長編 下編" 吉林省社會科學戰線雜誌社 1982

16 譚其驤, "東北歷史地理 제1권" 黑龍江人民出版社 414-, 1989

17 "新解明國語辭典 (第二版)" 三省堂 416-, 1979

18 "新唐書"

19 "後漢書"

20 鄭永振, "延邊古代簡史" 延邊大學出版社 43-, 2000

21 "山海經"

22 "吉林通志"

23 "史記"

24 李宗勳, "也談高句麗柵城遺址, In 延邊大學歷史系建立50周年記念史學論叢" 延邊大學出版社 81-90, 1999

25 文物出版社, "中國歷史年代簡表" 文物出版社 47-, 1975

26 國史編纂委員會, "中國正史朝鮮傳" 譯註一 1987

27 "三國志"

28 "三國史記"