오르혼 옛 튀르크語 비문과 한반도인의 옛 이름- 퀼 테긴 碑와 빌게 카간 碑에 나타나는 ‘Bökli’ 해석
A New Interpretation of “Bökli” in Orkhon Stone Inscriptions as the Ancient Name of a Korean Country: A Critical Reflection on Iwasa Seiichiro’s 貊句麗 Mök(kü)li Theory from the Perspective of Old Korean-Turkic
0
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The stone monuments found in Orkhon, Mongolia, that are dedicated toKül Tegin (闕特勤) and to Bilge Qaghan mention in their Old Turkicinscriptions several countries/peoples who should come from thedirection of the sun rising to offer condolences after the Turk qaghansBumïn and Istämi had passed away in the mid-sixth century. Thefourth or fifth line in the south side of the two inscriptions eachmention the country/people “Bökli čölg(i)l” before Tabgač (China). Theeighth line in each inscription also mentions “Bökli” Qaghan as thetarget of the Turks’ military expeditions in the seventh century, whenthey were under Chinese rule. Vilhelm Thomsen, who first succeeded indeciphering the Old Turkic inscriptions, and W. Radloff, who publishedthe atlas and texts of the stone inscriptions, interpreted the people as a“strong Steppe people” or as “Bökli people from far” without locatingthem. The Japanese scholar Iwasa Seiichirō (岩佐精一郞), taking note ofthe exchange of [m] and [b] in Old Turkic, interpreted 貊句麗mök(kü)li>bök(kü)li. Elaborating the geographical topos and theexpansion of 高句麗 and its conflicts and contacts with Turks from thesixth century on, he concluded that Bökli people should be 高句麗. His assertion gained momentum from an interesting finding in the Tibetandocument “Pelliot tibétan 1283,” which prompted J. Bacot, G. Clauson,L. Ligeti, and Moriyasu Takao (森安孝夫) to assume further that thepeople east of 奚, as “Mug-lig,” should be the same people whom theChinese called Ke’u-li 高句麗. The word Bökli continues to invite new interpretations. This paperexamines Iwasa’s assertion that mök(kü)li may have changed intobök(kü)li. The linguistic findings of Thomsen (Samlede Afhandlinger III)and Talat Tekin (Turkish Gramma), that m-b exchange happens withnasal [n] or in a single geographic name, that of the Chinese mountain(貪漫山 Tarman-Tarban), allow us to come to the preliminaryconclusion that we should find new, more plausible explanations thanthat of Iwasa, who neglected such linguistic findings. This paper offerstwo alternatives for explaining bök(kö)li: 1) either bök of Old Türkic“bök” (stark mächtig, Radloff, 1895, p. 140) and Kö(ü)li from the name高句麗 Kao-(ko)li with vocal harmonization; or 2) Bök from 밝, 발, 박which means the brightness of the sun, and the later part “köli” from句麗, 溝漊, 句麗 (kuru, kuri), meaning castles. Taking into consideration the Turks’ practice of calling Chinese asTabgač 拓拔 regardless of the dynastic changes, such as Wei, Sui, andTang, this paper also treats the possibility of such inertia for namingthe people(s) on or near the Korean peninsula as inscribed in the Turks’stone monuments, as bök(kö)li. For Turks, the most important peoplename of Chinese as rulers appears repeatedly inscribed as Tabgač 拓拔in the Turks’ inscriptions. Comparing bök(kö)li with Tabgač 拓拔, thispaper notes with caution that “bök(kö)li” need not designate only thekingdom of 高句麗, but “bök(kö)li” might also designate kingdoms ordynasties on or near the Korean peninsula whose old people/country names contain 밝 박, as reflected in bök(kü)li in the Orkhon inscriptionsaccording to the Old Turkish pronunciation, with 밝/발 as reflected in渤海.
Abstract
The stone monuments found in Orkhon, Mongolia, that are dedicated toKül Tegin (闕特勤) and to Bilge Qaghan mention in their Old Turkicinscriptions several countries/peoples who should come from thedirection of the sun rising to offer condolences after the Turk qaghansBumïn and Istämi had passed away in the mid-sixth century. Thefourth or fifth line in the south side of the two inscriptions eachmention the country/people “Bökli čölg(i)l” before Tabgač (China). Theeighth line in each inscription also mentions “Bökli” Qaghan as thetarget of the Turks’ military expeditions in the seventh century, whenthey were under Chinese rule. Vilhelm Thomsen, who first succeeded indeciphering the Old Turkic inscriptions, and W. Radloff, who publishedthe atlas and texts of the stone inscriptions, interpreted the people as a“strong Steppe people” or as “Bökli people from far” without locatingthem. The Japanese scholar Iwasa Seiichirō (岩佐精一郞), taking note ofthe exchange of [m] and [b] in Old Turkic, interpreted 貊句麗mök(kü)li>bök(kü)li. Elaborating the geographical topos and theexpansion of 高句麗 and its conflicts and contacts with Turks from thesixth century on, he concluded that Bökli people should be 高句麗. His assertion gained momentum from an interesting finding in the Tibetandocument “Pelliot tibétan 1283,” which prompted J. Bacot, G. Clauson,L. Ligeti, and Moriyasu Takao (森安孝夫) to assume further that thepeople east of 奚, as “Mug-lig,” should be the same people whom theChinese called Ke’u-li 高句麗. The word Bökli continues to invite new interpretations. This paperexamines Iwasa’s assertion that mök(kü)li may have changed intobök(kü)li. The linguistic findings of Thomsen (Samlede Afhandlinger III)and Talat Tekin (Turkish Gramma), that m-b exchange happens withnasal [n] or in a single geographic name, that of the Chinese mountain(貪漫山 Tarman-Tarban), allow us to come to the preliminaryconclusion that we should find new, more plausible explanations thanthat of Iwasa, who neglected such linguistic findings. This paper offerstwo alternatives for explaining bök(kö)li: 1) either bök of Old Türkic“bök” (stark mächtig, Radloff, 1895, p. 140) and Kö(ü)li from the name高句麗 Kao-(ko)li with vocal harmonization; or 2) Bök from 밝, 발, 박which means the brightness of the sun, and the later part “köli” from句麗, 溝漊, 句麗 (kuru, kuri), meaning castles. Taking into consideration the Turks’ practice of calling Chinese asTabgač 拓拔 regardless of the dynastic changes, such as Wei, Sui, andTang, this paper also treats the possibility of such inertia for namingthe people(s) on or near the Korean peninsula as inscribed in the Turks’stone monuments, as bök(kö)li. For Turks, the most important peoplename of Chinese as rulers appears repeatedly inscribed as Tabgač 拓拔in the Turks’ inscriptions. Comparing bök(kö)li with Tabgač 拓拔, thispaper notes with caution that “bök(kö)li” need not designate only thekingdom of 高句麗, but “bök(kö)li” might also designate kingdoms ordynasties on or near the Korean peninsula whose old people/country names contain 밝 박, as reflected in bök(kü)li in the Orkhon inscriptionsaccording to the Old Turkish pronunciation, with 밝/발 as reflected in渤海.
참고문헌 (54)
- "『舊唐書』 列傳第144上 突厥上, 列傳第144下 突厥下, 卷194上 突厥,, 卷195下 北狄 渤海靺鞨, 卷198 高昌, 卷198 焉耆, 卷199上, 卷199下, 列傳第149下 北狄", ~
- "『南齊書』 卷58 列傳第39 蠻 東南夷 高麗傳", ~
- "『北史』 卷94 勿吉", ~
- "『三國史記』 高句麗 本紀", ~
- "『隋書』 東夷傳 高麗條 卷3 煬帝紀, 卷81 百濟", ~
- "『新唐書』 卷219 列傳第144 北狄 渤海靺鞨, 卷220 列傳第145 東夷", ~
- "『魏書』 卷100 勿吉", ~
- "『資治通鑑』 卷136 齊紀, 卷191, 卷192", ~
- "『冊府元龜』 卷45 帝王部 謀略, 卷117 帝王部 親征第2, 卷119 帝王部·選將, 卷366 將帥部·機略第六, 卷373 將帥部, 卷384 將帥部·褒異第十, 卷396 將帥部, 卷 420 將帥部, 卷986 外臣部, 卷986 外臣部·征討第五, 卷1000 外臣部·讎怨", ~
- 梁柱東, "古歌硏究" (1977), 일조각
- 이기문, "국어 語彙史 연구" (1991), 동아출판사
- 이기백, "국어사 개설" (1985), 탑출판사
- 丁載勳, "突厥 第二帝國時期〈682-745〉 톤유쿠크이 役割과 그 位相 : <톤유쿠크 碑文>의 分析을 중심으로", 석사, 동양사학, pp.1993
- 金毓黻, "東北通史, 國立東北大學硏究室叢書" (1971), 樂天出版社
- 鄭張尙芳, "上古音系" (2003), 上海敎育出版社
- 趙評春, "渤海國名源考辨", 學習與探索 (1987)
- モンゴル國現存遺跡·碑文調查硏究報告, "森安孝夫", 中央ユ一ラシア學硏究會, ~ (1993)
- 룩 콴텐, "유목민족 제국사" (1988), 민음사
- 르네 그루쎄, "유목제국사" (2010)
- Talat Tekin, "突厥비문연구" (2008), 제이엔씨
- Talat Tekin, "돌궐어 문법" (2012), 한국학술정보
- "美術資料 34" (1984)[URL]
- 金元龍, "고대 한국과 西域", 美術資料, 34 (1984), 국립중앙박물관
- 노태돈, "고구려 渤海人과 內陸아시아 住民과의 交涉에 관한 一考察", 대동문화연구, 23, 성균관대학교 대동문화 연구원
- 禹悳燦, "突厥史上에 나타난 몇몇 問題點에 關한 硏究", 한국중동학회논총, (16) (1995)
- 우덕찬, "고대 튀르크 비문에 전하는 종족명 타타비(Tatabi)에 대한 연구", 역사와 경계, 33(1) (1997)
- 우덕찬, "6-7세기 고구려와 중앙아시아 교섭에 관한 연구", 한국중동학회논총, 24(2), pp.237~252 (2004), 한국중동학회
- 李藤龍, "廣開土王碑文, In 碧史 李佑成교수 정년퇴직기념논총" (1990), 창작과비평사
- 丁載勳, "위구르 遊牧帝國時期(744~840) 古代 튀르크 碑文의 硏究와 展望", 歷史學報, (160) (1998)
- 岩佐精一郞, "古突厥碑文のbökli及びPar Purumに就いて, In 岩佐精一郞遺稿" (1936)
- Barthold, W., "12 Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Türken Mittelasiens" (1935)
- Chavannes, Edourd, "Dokuments sur les Tou-Kieu (Turks) Occidentaux" (1900)
- Clauson, Sir Gerard, "An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth- Century Turkish" (1972), Oxford University Press
- von Gabain, Annemarie, "Alttürkische Grammatik" (1941)
- Giraud, René, "L’Empire des Turcs Célestes les Règnes d’Elterich Qapghan et Bilge", pp.680~734 (1960), Contribution a l’histoire des Turcs d’Asie Centrale
- Grousset, René, "The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia: A History of Central Asia" (2010), Rutger University Press
- Малов, C. E., "Памятники ДpєвнєтюpckoйПиcъмєности Тєкcты и Ис слoдoвлия" (1951)
- Orkun, H. N., "Eski Türk Yazitlari , Istanbul, I: 1936; II: 1938; III: 1940; IV: 1941" (1936)
- Радлов, В. В., "Атлас древностей Монголии" (1982)
- Radloff, W., "Die alttürkischen Inschriften der Mongolei" (1895)
- Shiratori, Kurakichi, "Die Chinesische Inschrift auf dem Gedenkstein des K’üe-T’e-K’in am Orkhon übersetzt und erläutert" (1899)
- Sinor, Denis, "Introduction à l’étude de l’Eurasie centrale" (1963), O. Harrassowitz
- Tekin, Talât, "Orhon Türkçesi Grammeri" (2000)
- Tekin, Talât, "Orhon Yazıtlaı , Kül Tigin, Bilge Kagan, Tunukuk" (2003)
- Thomsen, V., "Inscriptions de l’Orkhon déchiffrées" (1896)
- Thomsen, V., "Samlede Afhandlinger III" (1922), Copenhagen
- Bang, W., "Zu den Kök Türk-Inschriften der Mongolei", T‘oung Pao, 7 (1896)
- Donner, O., "Wörterverzeichniss zu den Inscriptions de l’Énisseï", MSFOe, 4 (1894)
- Marquart, J., "Historische Glossen zu den alltürkischen Inschriften", Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes (WZKM), 12 (1898)
- Radloff, W., "Arbeiten der Orchon Expedition: Atlas der Alterthümer der Mongolei" (1892)
- Schlegel, Gustav, "La stèle funéraire de Tegin Giogh et ses copistes et traducture chinois, russes et allemands", Mémoire de la Société Finno- Ougrienne (MSFOu), 3 (1892)
- Thomsen, V., "Déchiffrement des inscriptions de l’Orchon et de l’Iénisséi. Notice preliminaire, In Bulletin de l’Acadmie Royale des Sciences et des Lettres de Danemark" (1893)
- Tryjarski, "Die alttürkischen Runen-Inskripten in den Arbeiten der letzten Jahre Befunde und kritische Übersicht", Altorientalische Forschungen, 8 (1981)
- Inscriptions de l’Iénisséi, "reculles et publiées par la Société Finlandaise d’ Achéologie", ~ (1889)