중국 사서 수록 고구려 관계기사의 이해와 새로운 접근의 가능성

Abstract

In studies of early Goguryeo history, when examining the relationship between Xuantu Commandery(玄菟郡) and Goguryeo, it is essential to actively draw on the research achievements in ancient Chinese history regarding the modes of control exercised by Han dynasty border commanderies and the operational methods of frontier military organizations. For example, the case of a name register(名籍) found in the bamboo slip(簡牘) documents of the four commanderies in Hexi(河西) indicates that a register purportedly supervised by a Goguryeo county magistrate could not have functioned as a household register(戶籍) but must have served a specific purpose. Furthermore, the appearance in records related to Xuanty Commandery as 塞 and 障尉, along with the existence of beacon lines(烽燧線), demonstrates that the military administrative organization of the border army composed of the capital garrison officer(都尉), subordinate officials(候官), departmental officers(部), and signal towers(燧) was also established in Xuantu Commandery. Recent studies on the history of the Five Hu(胡) and Sixteen Kingdoms period have moved beyond the conventional research environment which relied on secondary sources such as the Book of Jin (『晉書』) and the Zizhi Tongjian (『資治通鑑』) to grasp the overall picture of the national histories compiled by the various states of that era. In so far as the succession relationships among these official histories are revealed, the Goguryeo related accounts contained therein may prove instrumental in furthering our understanding. The fact that Goguryeo and the chinese dynasties exchanged investiture(冊封) and tribute(朝貢) is a key factor in assessing the foreign policies that both sides deployed. However, alongside this insight, it is imperative to examine the process of diplomatic development. Within the brief account of “sending envoys to pay tribute”(遣使朝貢) is implicitly contained a detailed diplomatic procedure including the inspection of border regions after the Goguryeo envoy’s entry, the reporting to the central government, the granting of permission to enter the capital, and the presentation of formal memorials(表文 奉呈). In texts such as the Goryeogi (『高麗記』), the account concerning Yoksal(褥薩) is the compiler’s interpretation of an unfamiliar Goguryeo administrative system understood through his own conceptual framework and expressed in his own terminology. In particular, the phrase “柵州都督兼摠兵馬” is formulated in a manner similar to that found in the official records of Tang generals. In this regard, the meaning should not be interpreted as implying that the authority to command troops was vested in the office of Chaikseong Yuksal(柵城褥薩); rather, it indicates that his primary position was Chaikseong Yuksal, with an additional title of “General of the Troops”(摠兵馬) conferred upon him to command an expeditionary force. Although the Liang Tangshu(兩唐書) and the Zizhi Tongjian (『資 治通鑑』) are the principal official histories employed in studies of Goguryeo-Tang relations, caution is warranted in their use. This is because the compilers deliberately omitted details regarding the progression of events, thereby distorting the factual record. Such issues are particularly evident in the accounts of the war of 645; it is necessary to strip away the propagandistic narrative of “evervictorious”( 常勝) as portrayed by these sources and to uncover the concealed reality.