아프라시압 高句麗 사절에 대한 새 논란 검토 - 高句麗 사신 사행(使行) 부정론에 대한 비판적 고찰(Ⅰ)

Abstract

The Afrasiab wall paintings excavated at Samarkand, Uzbekistan in 1965 have a depiction of two male figures wearing a feathered hairdress, a typical trademark of a Koguri 高句麗 personage which has been received an intense attention of Korean scholars. The date of the scene of the Afrasiab wall painting and the nationality of an envoy with a feathered hat 羽冠 have been the major focus of the debates so far, but since 2000s, the Koguri envoy theory is more generally accepted now. As the date based on the content of the wall painting revealed it was constructed in 650s, the issue of how a Koguri envoy could have reached to Samarkand while the Koguri had a warfare with the Tang China have been widely discussed. Therefore, the international relations among the Koguri, the Tang, and the Turks, and the route to the steppe road as avoiding the Tang territory have been studied in depth. In the meanwhile, a unique argument saying ‘Koguri envoy had never reached to the State of Kang’ came out. The argument is that the Afrasiab wall painting was made by a Samarkand painter who drew it based upon the painting copy of the Tang China, and a Koguri envoy had never reached to Samarkand. This paper proposes the counterargument to that opinion. For the issue of the Samarkand painters using the painting copy of China, the author examined the currently existing painting copies and it turned out that most arguments made a mistake on the date of the production of Chinese painting copies. Most painting copies suggested in the previous studies were the contemporary to the Afrasiab painting or later than the Afrasiab one. Because a painting copy 模本 is used at the time of the production of a painting, the painting based on a painting copy 模寫圖 cannot appear later than the original painting copy 模本. Among Chinese painting copies, the possible ones used for the Afrasiab palace painting are only two, ① Yan Liben 閻立本’s Wanghuitu 王會圖 (640~656) copied from Liang Zhigongtu 職貢圖(Illustration of Envoys Presenting Tribute) ② the scene of the Vimalakirti sutra at Mogao Cave no. 220(642). Thus, those paintings are contemporary to or about 10 years from the Afrasiab painting made in 650s, which make them difficult to be a painting copy of the Afrasiab. In addition, the comparison of a figure on the above mentioned two paintings and the Afrasiab wall painting suggests that besides the feathered hat and the posture of two hands inside a sleeve, there was no common feature. A Koguri figure on a Koguri wall painting drawn by Koguri people and the Afrasiab figure also look similar in a two feathered hat, an elongated face, a circular ended sword, and active trouser. Therefore, the paper reached to the conclusion that the Afrasiab wall painting could not have been drawn without direct observation of a Koguri personage. Because it is more desirable to search the origin of the Afrasiab wall painting not outside the State of Kang 康國 but within the history and culture of the State of Kang, the paper further discussed two Sogdian artworks excavated near Afrasiab and showed that they exhibit the originality of the wall painting composition and painting styles of the Sogdians.