본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

17세기 초 朝鮮의 이원적 對女眞 교섭과 ‘藩胡規例’

Joseon's Dualistic Relations with Jurchen Tribes and Quotation of the Boundary Jurchen Regulations in Early Seventeenth Century

장정수
명청사학회 (The Society For Ming-Qing Historical Studies)|2020.10|명청사연구 (Journal of Ming-Qing Historical Studies)|제54호|pp. 177-226|DOI 10.31329/jmhs.2020..54.006

1

조회

0

다운로드

9

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

藩胡深處胡職牒祿俸建州女眞누르하치건주여진이원적 교섭번호심처호번호규례훌룬부잔타이직첩녹봉二元的關係藩胡規例忽溫奴兒哈赤布占泰
주제분류역사학

초록

This article dealt with Joseon’s dualistic policy toward Jianzhou Jurchen and Hūlun in the early 17th century. Joseon’s policy toward the Jurchens was composed of two different notions. The Hard-line policy and the appeasement Policy. By combining these policies, Joseon tried to stabilize the border land. To this end it was essential to recruit Jurchens who lived on the outskirts together and Joseon sought to secure friendly forces by providing A letter of Bestowing Title and feudal allowance to the Jurchens who paid their respect. As a result, around the 16th century, there were ‘Joseon-friendly Jurchens’ called Boundary Jurchens on the marginal area, who were perceived as fences against Deep-dwelling Jurchens that resided outside in another realm. Joseon's policy toward Jurchen changed with the emergence of powerful Jurchen tribes from the late 16th to early 17th centuries. As Jianzhou Jurchen and Hūlun, who were considered Deep-dwelling Jurchens, attempted to establish relations with Joseon, conflicts arose over the attribution of Boundary Jurchens that served as a kind of “buffer zone.” Joseon seek mediation from the Ming Dynasty in order to gain authority over Boundary Jurchens. However, by taking Nurhaci's side in the Liaodong Public Offices of the Ming Dynasty, the concept of Boundary Jurchens no longer existed on the periphery of Joseon. Joseon, who faced the border with Jianzhou Jurchen and Hūlun due to the loss of Boundary Jurchens, was forced to promote friendship with them. Using the ordinances of the Boundary Jurchens, A letter of Bestowing Title and feudal allowance were given to Jianzhou Jurchen and Hūlun. In doing so, Joseon was able to Justify their action as the loose rein policy. Although the two-way negotiation with Jianzhou Jurchen and Hūlun lasted for a relatively short period of time, it was distinctly different from the previous foreign policy toward Jurchen in that it was a mutual relationship. Furthermore, Joseon supported Hūlun behind the scenes and tried to prevent the expansion of Jianzhou Jurchen. However, when Jianzhou Jurchen integrate Hūlun in 1613, the dualistic policy toward Jurchen based on the ‘Boundary Jurchens Regulations’ was dissolved. Nurhaci of Jianzhou Jurchen virtually unified the Jurchens and built up a Jurchen State, Later Jin. Joseon’s foreign policy toward Jurchen, which was based on ‘Boundary Jurchens Rules’ had an important meaning. It was a link leading to relationship setting with The Later Jin and also a step toward establishing relations with Qing in the upcoming future.

Abstract

This article dealt with Joseon’s dualistic policy toward Jianzhou Jurchen and Hūlun in the early 17th century. Joseon’s policy toward the Jurchens was composed of two different notions. The Hard-line policy and the appeasement Policy. By combining these policies, Joseon tried to stabilize the border land. To this end it was essential to recruit Jurchens who lived on the outskirts together and Joseon sought to secure friendly forces by providing A letter of Bestowing Title and feudal allowance to the Jurchens who paid their respect. As a result, around the 16th century, there were ‘Joseon-friendly Jurchens’ called Boundary Jurchens on the marginal area, who were perceived as fences against Deep-dwelling Jurchens that resided outside in another realm. Joseon's policy toward Jurchen changed with the emergence of powerful Jurchen tribes from the late 16th to early 17th centuries. As Jianzhou Jurchen and Hūlun, who were considered Deep-dwelling Jurchens, attempted to establish relations with Joseon, conflicts arose over the attribution of Boundary Jurchens that served as a kind of “buffer zone.” Joseon seek mediation from the Ming Dynasty in order to gain authority over Boundary Jurchens. However, by taking Nurhaci's side in the Liaodong Public Offices of the Ming Dynasty, the concept of Boundary Jurchens no longer existed on the periphery of Joseon. Joseon, who faced the border with Jianzhou Jurchen and Hūlun due to the loss of Boundary Jurchens, was forced to promote friendship with them. Using the ordinances of the Boundary Jurchens, A letter of Bestowing Title and feudal allowance were given to Jianzhou Jurchen and Hūlun. In doing so, Joseon was able to Justify their action as the loose rein policy. Although the two-way negotiation with Jianzhou Jurchen and Hūlun lasted for a relatively short period of time, it was distinctly different from the previous foreign policy toward Jurchen in that it was a mutual relationship. Furthermore, Joseon supported Hūlun behind the scenes and tried to prevent the expansion of Jianzhou Jurchen. However, when Jianzhou Jurchen integrate Hūlun in 1613, the dualistic policy toward Jurchen based on the ‘Boundary Jurchens Regulations’ was dissolved. Nurhaci of Jianzhou Jurchen virtually unified the Jurchens and built up a Jurchen State, Later Jin. Joseon’s foreign policy toward Jurchen, which was based on ‘Boundary Jurchens Rules’ had an important meaning. It was a link leading to relationship setting with The Later Jin and also a step toward establishing relations with Qing in the upcoming future.

참고문헌 (62)

  1. "宣祖實錄", ~
  2. "光海君日記", ~
  3. "仁祖實錄", ~
  4. "明神宗實錄", ~
  5. "淸太祖實錄", ~
  6. 김주원, "滿文老檔" (2019), 서울대학교 출판문화원
  7. 고려대 민족문화연구원 만주실록 역주회, "滿洲實錄" (2014), 소명출판
  8. 備邊司, "謄錄類抄 (各司謄錄64~66)" (1992), 國史編纂委員會
  9. 承文院, "事大文軌 (임진왜란사료총서: 對明外交)" (2002), 국립진주박물관
  10. 承文院, "吏文謄錄", 장서각, k2-3497, ~
  11. 程開祜, "籌遼碩畫 (國立北平圖書館善本叢書15-58)" (1937), 國立北平圖書館
  12. 尹 昉, "啓本謄錄", 규장각, 古4255-17-3, ~
  13. 李民寏, "紫巖集 (韓國文集叢刊82)" (1988), 민족문화추진회
  14. 張 晩, "洛西集 (韓國文集叢刊續15)" (2006), 민족문화추진회
  15. 국사편찬위원회, "한국사 29" (1995), 국사편찬위원회
  16. 김종원, "근세 동아시아관계사 연구" (1999), 혜안
  17. 동북아역사재단, "중국 역사학계의 청사연구 동향-한국 관련 분야를 중심으로" (2009), 동북아역사재단
  18. 柳在城, "丙子胡亂史" (1986), 國防部戰史編纂委員會
  19. 朴元熇, "明初朝鮮關係史硏究" (2002), 一潮閣
  20. 박정민, "조선시대 여진인 내조 연구" (2015), 景仁文化社
  21. 徐炳國, "宣祖時代 女直交涉史硏究" (1970), 敎文社
  22. 이훈, "만주족 이야기 : 만주의 눈으로 청 제국사를 새로 읽다" (2018), 너머북스
  23. 李仁榮, "韓國滿洲關係史의 硏究" (1954), 乙酉文化社
  24. 최소자, "명청시대 중･한관계사 연구" (1997), 이화여자대학교 출판부
  25. 한명기, "임진왜란과 한중관계" (1999), 역사비평사
  26. 한성주, "조선시대 藩胡 연구" (2018), 景仁文化社
  27. 한성주, "조선전기 수직여진인 연구" (2011), 景仁文化社
  28. 金九鎭, "朝鮮前期 對女眞關係와 女眞社會의 實態", 東洋學, 14 (1984)
  29. 金九鎭, "13C~17C女眞 社會의 硏究: 金 滅亡 以後 淸 建國 以前까지 女眞社會의 組織을 中心으로", 박사, 사학, pp.1989
  30. 金聲均, "朝鮮中期의 對滿關係", 白山學報, 24 (1978)
  31. 金世容, "宣祖朝 尼湯介亂 硏究", 박사, pp.2016
  32. 김순남, "조선 中宗代의 북방 野人 驅逐", 조선시대사학보, (54), pp.53~88 (2010), 조선시대사학회
  33. 김순남, "조선전기 5진 藩胡 동향의 추이", 역사와 실학, (46), pp.71~101 (2011), 역사실학회
  34. 김순남, "조선전기 滿浦鎭과 滿浦僉使", 사학연구, (97), pp.49~82 (2010), 한국사학회
  35. 남의현, "16～17세기 豆滿江 邊境地帶 女眞의 성장과 국제질서의 변화― 瓦爾喀 등 女眞族 통합과정을 중심으로 ―", 명청사연구, (41), pp.67~106 (2014), 명청사학회[DOI]
  36. 盧基植, "滿洲의 興起와 東아시아 秩序의 變動", 中國史硏究, 16 (2001)
  37. 박정민, "누르하치의 두만강 유역 진출과 조선의 藩胡 상실", 인문과학연구, (43), pp.179~206 (2014), 인문과학연구소
  38. 박정민, "溫河衛의 세력확대와 조선의 대응", 만주연구, (28), pp.179~205 (2019), 만주학회[DOI]
  39. 박정민, "임진왜란 이전 온하위의 거주지 검토", 역사와 현실, (109), pp.305~338 (2018), 한국역사연구회[DOI]
  40. 박정민, "임진왜란과 여진인 ‘來朝’의 종언", 만주연구, (18), pp.7~34 (2014), 만주학회[DOI]
  41. 박정민, "조선 중기 武將 최호의 북방 활동", 백산학보, (105), pp.79~105 (2016), 백산학회
  42. 徐炳國, "宣祖 二十五年頃의 建州女眞", 白山學報, 9 (1970)
  43. 徐炳國, "朝鮮前期 對女眞關係史", 國史館論叢, 14 (1990)
  44. 이병도, "광해군의 대후금 정책", 국사상의 제 문제, 1 (1959)
  45. 이재경, "명종~선조대 압록강 방면 여진족 집단들과 조선", 한국문화, (83), pp.265~307 (2018), 규장각한국학연구원[DOI]
  46. 장정수, "16세기 말~17세기 초 朝鮮과 建州女眞의 배후 교섭과 申忠一의 역할", 한국인물사연구, (25), pp.133~183 (2016), (사)한국인물사연구회
  47. 장정수, "병자호란 이전 조선의 對後金(淸) 방어전략의 수립 과정과 그 실상", 조선시대사학보, (81), pp.49~108 (2017), 조선시대사학회
  48. 장정수, "선조대 對女眞 방어전략의 변화 과정과 의미", 조선시대사학보, (67), pp.169~213 (2013), 조선시대사학회
  49. 장정수, "선조대 말 여진 번호 로툰(老土)의 건주여진 귀부와 조선의 대응", 조선시대사학보, (78), pp.7~49 (2016), 조선시대사학회
  50. 장정수, "宣祖代 末 朝鮮의 對明 ‘虜情’ 보고와 그 여파", 명청사연구, (51), pp.55~132 (2019), 명청사학회[DOI]
  51. 정다함, "朝鮮初期 野人과 對馬島에 대한 藩籬 · 藩屛 認識의 형성과 敬差官의 파견", 동방학지, (141), pp.221~266 (2008), 국학연구원
  52. 崔韶子, "胡亂과 朝鮮의 對明･淸關係의 變遷", 梨大史苑, 12 (1975)
  53. 崔豪鈞, "조선중기 對女眞관계의 연구", 박사, 국사, pp.1995
  54. 한성주, "누르하치의 두만강 유역 번호 침탈과 조선의 대응 고찰", 만주연구, (22), pp.127~163 (2016), 만주학회[DOI]
  55. 의 침입 양상, "역사와경계", 2016, 271~300, pp.부산경남사학회
  56. 한성주, "조선전기 두만강유역 ‘女眞 藩籬･藩胡’의 형성과 성격", 韓國史學報, (41), pp.163~201 (2010), 고려사학회
  57. 한성주, "胡差 小弄耳를 통해서 본 조선․여진 관계의 변화", 조선시대사학보, (82), pp.147~190 (2017), 조선시대사학회
  58. 한성주, "임진왜란 전후 女眞 藩胡의 朝鮮 침구 양상과 조선의 대응 분석", 동양사학연구, (132), pp.101~145 (2015), 동양사학회[DOI]
  59. 稻葉岩吉, "光海君時代の滿鮮關係" (1933), 大阪屋號書店
  60. 三田村泰助, "淸朝前史の硏究" (1972), 東洋史硏究會
  61. Adam Bohnet, "Debating Tumen Valley Jurchens during the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries", Korean Studies, 39 (2015)
  62. Ferdinand D. Lessing, "Mongolian-English Dictionary" (1960), University of California Press

관련 논문AI추천

명종~선조대 압록강 방면 여진족 집단들과 조선이재경규장각한국학연구원 · 한국문화2018 · 제83호宣祖代 末 朝鮮의 對明 ‘虜情’ 보고와 그 여파장정수명청사학회 · 명청사연구2019 · 제51호명말 요동 변경지역을 둘러싼 명-후금-조선의 삼각관계김선민중국사학회 · 중국사연구2008 · 제55호A Reinterpretation of Chosŏn-Qing Foreign Relations through an Analysis of Chosŏn and Later Jin Bilateral Relations장정수, Yuh, Leighanne동아시아학술원 · Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies2023 · 제23권 제1호조선 세조대 ‘女眞 和解事’에 대한 연구 - 申叔舟의 파견을 중심으로 -한성주동북아역사재단 · 동북아역사논총2012 · 제38호임진왜란과 여진인 ‘來朝’의 종언박정민만주학회 · 만주연구2014 · 제18호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)

15세기 명･티무르제국 간의 조공무역과 인도양 교역 네트워크 ― 중국 문헌자료에 나타난 세계화의 단상 ―한지선pp. 1-38海澄 개항과 새로운 교역망의 형성채경수pp. 39-791594년 福建巡撫 許孚遠의 呂宋 사신단 파견 ― ‘7명의 중국관원’ 파견의 전말 ―남민구pp. 81-109明初 洪武年間 주자학적 지배 체제와 불교이미정pp. 111-134청대 강남 농민의 소득 구조 ― 송대와의 비교를 중심으로 ―홍성화pp. 135-175
원문 보기