‘大寺’창건과 百濟ㆍ倭의 교섭
On the founding of ‘grand temples’ and trade between Baekje and Wa
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
King Mu founded Mireuksa and Jeseoksa in order to strengthen his royal authority. The two temples had three things in common. Firstly, both of them were constructed in Iksan. Secondly, Mireuksa was founded in 639 when Jeseoksa was destroyed. Finally, they were the biggest temples, i.e. ‘grand temples,’ in Baekje Dynasty. The engraved writing of a sarira casket in Mireuksa suggests that in 639, royal authority decreased while the authority of Sataek increased. There is high probability that Jeseoksa was destroyed by groups such as Sataek who tried to check royal authority and were expelled to Wa after King Euija came to the throne. Although King Mu constructed a kingdom and a ‘grand temple’ in Iksan, the new capital, not in Buyeo, in order to establish a new royal authority-centered ruling system, his royal authority weakened in the process, and he came to lose hegemony to construct Mireuksa. However, he restored his royal authority by reconstructing Jeseoksa. In 639, the Emperor of Wa founded a temple for the first time, and named it Kudara no odera. The temple was built on the riverside of Kudaragawa, not in Asuka which was the political center, because of the hostility against Soganouji. It was the biggest temple of the age, bigger than Asukadera, and its wooden pagoda was unprecedently composed of nine stories. Having learned that Soganouji enlarged its power by using the differentiation strategy of accepting Baekje buddhism and founding Asukadera, the emperor named the temple Baekje, emphasizing that he was pro-Baekje. That is, Emperor Jomei founded the grand temple for the same reason that King Mu strengthened his power by constructing a grand temple, which can be understood as the result of trade between Wa and Baekje.
Abstract
King Mu founded Mireuksa and Jeseoksa in order to strengthen his royal authority. The two temples had three things in common. Firstly, both of them were constructed in Iksan. Secondly, Mireuksa was founded in 639 when Jeseoksa was destroyed. Finally, they were the biggest temples, i.e. ‘grand temples,’ in Baekje Dynasty. The engraved writing of a sarira casket in Mireuksa suggests that in 639, royal authority decreased while the authority of Sataek increased. There is high probability that Jeseoksa was destroyed by groups such as Sataek who tried to check royal authority and were expelled to Wa after King Euija came to the throne. Although King Mu constructed a kingdom and a ‘grand temple’ in Iksan, the new capital, not in Buyeo, in order to establish a new royal authority-centered ruling system, his royal authority weakened in the process, and he came to lose hegemony to construct Mireuksa. However, he restored his royal authority by reconstructing Jeseoksa. In 639, the Emperor of Wa founded a temple for the first time, and named it Kudara no odera. The temple was built on the riverside of Kudaragawa, not in Asuka which was the political center, because of the hostility against Soganouji. It was the biggest temple of the age, bigger than Asukadera, and its wooden pagoda was unprecedently composed of nine stories. Having learned that Soganouji enlarged its power by using the differentiation strategy of accepting Baekje buddhism and founding Asukadera, the emperor named the temple Baekje, emphasizing that he was pro-Baekje. That is, Emperor Jomei founded the grand temple for the same reason that King Mu strengthened his power by constructing a grand temple, which can be understood as the result of trade between Wa and Baekje.
참고문헌 (35)
- 국립문화재연구소, "한중일 고대사지 비교연구(1) -목탑지편-", 국립문화재연구소 학술연구총서, 49, pp.32~59 (2009)
- 국립문화재연구소, "동아시아 고대사지 비교연구(Ⅱ) -금당지편-", 국립문화재연구소 학술연구총서, 54, pp.30~77 (2010)
- 국립부여문화재연구소, "彌勒寺遺蹟發掘調査報告書Ⅱ", 국립부여문화재연구소 학술연구총서, 13, pp.506~572 (1996)
- 국립부여문화재연구소, "帝釋寺址발굴조사보고서I", 국립부여문화재연구소 학술연구총서, 58, pp.229~ (2011)
- 길기태, "帝釋寺 創建의 政治的 背景과 金剛經", 역사와 담론, (56), pp.39~69 (2010), 호서사학회
- 김상현, "미륵사 서탑 사리봉안기의 기초적 검토, In 대발견 사리장엄 미륵사의 재조명", pp.139~140 (2009), 원광대학교 마한백제문화연구소ㆍ백제학회
- 김선기, "益山王宮里傳瓦窯址(帝釋寺廢棄場) 試掘調査報告書, In 박물관학술총서 제23책", pp.227~238 (2006), 원광대학교박물관
- 彌勒寺遺蹟發掘調査報告書I, "문화재관리국 문화재연구소", 487~544 (1989)
- 사재동, "｢武康王傳說｣의 硏究(續)", 百濟硏究, 6, pp.65~ (1975)
- 심상육, "백제시대 인각와에 관한 연구", 석사, 고고학, pp.2005
- 梁銀景, "百濟 帝釋寺址 出土 塑造像의 분석과 木塔址를 통한 奉安原形 추정", 호서고고학, (23), pp.44~81 (2010), 호서고고학회
- 원광대학교 마한백제문화연구소, "益山帝釋寺址試掘調査報告書", 遺蹟調査報告, 36, pp.37~ (1994)
- 이다운, "百濟와 古代日本의 佛敎交涉 ― 사찰 조영사업을 중심으로 ―", 사림, (30), pp.129~151 (2008), 수선사학회
- 이병도, "百濟彌勒寺 創建 年代에 대하여", 馬韓․百濟文化, pp.162~ (1975), 백제문화연구소
- 조경철, "백제 무왕대 神都 건설과 彌勒寺ㆍ帝釋寺 창건", 百濟文化, 39, pp.123~ (2008), 공주대학교 백제문화연구소
- 주경미, "백제의 사리신앙과 미륵사지 출토 사리장엄구, In 대발견 사리장엄 미륵사의 재조명", pp.180~181 (2009), 원광대학교 마한백제문화연구소ㆍ백제학회
- 최완규, "백제사상 익산문화의 정체성, In 대발견 사리장엄 미륵사의 재조명", pp.17~ (2009), 원광대학교 마한백제문화연구소ㆍ백제학회
- 최완규, "百濟 武王代 ‘익산 천도’의 재해석, In 백제 말기 ‘익산 천도’의 諸問題", 익산역사유적지구 세계유산등재추진 국제학술회의, pp.121~ (2011), 전라북도ㆍ익산시ㆍ마한백제문화연구소
- 황수영, "百濟帝釋寺址의 硏究", 百濟硏究, 4, pp.15~ (1973), 충남대학교 백제연구소
- 황수영, "益山の百濟佛敎遺跡, In 崇山朴吉眞博士華甲紀念 韓國佛敎思想史", pp.1196~ (1975)
- 홍윤식, "百濟의 帝釋神仰攷 -益山 帝釋寺址에 對한 信仰的 一考-", 馬韓ㆍ百濟文化, 2, pp.45~54 (1977), 원광대학교 마한ㆍ백제문화연구소
- 홍윤식, "文獻資料를 통해서 본 百濟 武王의 遷都와 史實, In 益山의 先史와 古代文化", pp.318~ (2003), 마한백제문화연구소
- 大橋一章, "百済大寺造営考古", 美術史研究, 19, pp.14~31 (1982), 早稲田大学美術史学会
- 大脇潔, "大安寺1 -百済大寺から大官大寺へ-, In シンポジウム 古代寺院の移建と再建を考える", pp.12~ (1995), 帝塚山考古學硏究所
- 大脇潔, "吉備寺はなかった -京内廿四寺の比定に関連して-, In 奈文研創立40周年紀年論文集", pp.170~171 (1995), 同朋舍出版
- 小沢毅, "吉備池廢寺の発掘調査", 佛教藝術, 235, pp.30~50 (1997), 毎日新聞社
- 小沢毅, "吉備池廢寺の調査 -第81-14ㆍ16次, In 奈良国立文化財硏究所年報", pp.85~92 (1997)
- 小沢毅, "吉備池廢寺と百濟大寺, In 吉備池廢寺をめぐって -百濟大寺はどこか-", pp.1~24, 帝塚山大学考古学研究所
- 佐川正敏, "吉備池廢寺の調査 -第89次, In 奈良国立文化財硏究所年報", pp.58~68 (1998)
- 佐川正敏, "山田寺の創建軒丸瓦, In 古代瓦硏究,Ⅱ-山田寺式軒瓦の成立と展開-", pp.3~17 (2005), 奈良文化財研究所
- 奈良文化財研究所, "大和吉備池廃寺 -百済大寺-", pp.149~235 (2003)
- 西口寿生, "吉備池廢寺の調査, In 奈良国立文化財硏究所年報", pp.65~72 (1999)
- 花谷浩, "斑鳩寺の創建瓦, In 古代瓦硏究 -飛鳥寺の創建から百済大寺の成立まで-", pp.145~ (2000), 奈良國立文化財硏究所
- 百濟大寺 -吉備池廢寺をめぐる問題点-, In 帝塚山大学考古学研究所研究報告, "森郁夫", 帝塚山大学考古学研究所, 142~143 (1998)
- 和田萃, "日本古代の儀礼と祭祀․信仰", pp.5~83 (1995), 塙書房