지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The relationship between the Korean kingdom of Koguryo and China during the Sui and Tang dynasties presently represents the most glaring discrepancy in historical perspectives between Korea and China. The memory of Koguryo's defeat of successive invasions by Sui and Tang became a source of pride whenever historical circumstances demanded that Koreans fight a foreign power. But for the Chinese descendents of the Sui and Tang, the dynasties' disastrous defeats was a past that was best forgotten, choosing to emphasize Koguryo's eventual downfall to Tang forces instead.
After the 1980's, a new historical understanding began to emerge concerning Koguryo in the Chinese historical academia. Scholars advocated a perspective on Koguryo-Chinese relations very different from those of the past. The established view of the Koguryo-Chinese war as a foreign war, a war between two different peoples (Korean and Chinese), began changing. The opinion that Sui and Tang did not launch an 'invasion' of Koguryo, that Koguryo was not fighting off foreign invaders, that the wars between them were not interstate wars at all, is gaining wider currency.
Diverse approach on relations on Koguryo-Sui/Tang relations has disappeared, replaced by apologetic opinions of Sui and Tang, such as Koguryo suffered more than the defeated Sui during the latter's invasion or that Taizong of Tang regretted not his defeat at the hands of Koguryo but rather the death of his minister, which require stretches of logic. Such opinions go so far as to state that while Koguryo may have warred with the Sui and Tang, she remained subservient as a vassal for a longer period, and that war between them were 'exceptional' events. It all leads to the conclusion that Koguryo was fated to be absorbed into and 'unified' by SuilTang China, emphasizing that most of Koguryo's populace were assimilated into China and became a part of the extended Chinese nation.
A purview of the developments in research in China reveal a movement away from studying China as a multiethnic nation, with research based on the heavily biased perspective of Chinese dynasties are becoming more prevalent. Needless to say, academic research stressing one's opinion at the expense of the other cannot produce accurate historical thinking.
The question of whether Koguryo is pan of Chinese history or not, when entertained from the standpoint of Koguryo itself, can only produce an answer that it is not the same country as the Sui and Tang.
The problems with unilateral claims of the Chinese academia run into even greater problems when the issue is expanded and viewed from the context of global history.
The war between Koguryo and Sui, and subsequently with the Tang, are not 'local' conflict of two hostile countries, but rather an international conflagration involving every nation and tribe making up the East Asian world order at the time. Khitan and Malgal played a significant role in the Koguryo-Sui War of 598, the same role performed by the Turks in the Koguryo-Sui Wear of 612, followed by the Xueyantuo in the 645 war between Koguryo and Tang, Tiele in 661-662 Koguryo-Tang conflict, and finally, Shilla, Tibet, and the Turks all took part in the final showdown between Koguryo and Tang in 667-8 AD, considering these conflicts vital to their own interests. The nomadic tribes located to the north of both Koguryo and China remained a critical variable in their mortal conflict.
As the Chinese academia has assigned to war between Koguryo and Sui/Tang a status of internecine conflict within a single nation, they have neglected analysis of the great war thar engulfed East Asia in its entirety from the perspective of international politics. Thus it is necessary that a comprehensive study of the effects of Koguryo-Sui/Tang Wars hand upon the history of East Asia.
The fact that Chinese scholars of the 20th century bitterly criticized 'emperor-centric' records produced as a result of the class ideology of feudalism stands in glaring contradiction to tile utilization of the same imperial records and emperors' correspondences as instruments of Chinese nationalism.
A Chinese academia that is reviving past history based on their traditional, blatantly discriminatory China-Barbarian Dichotomy (huayi:華夷) that are diseased remains of imperialistic histories of the 19th century rather than universality and equality of humankind, actually represents a devolution and corruption of the study of history.
A past viewed through the narrow historical ideology, and a future viewed with the same flawed perspective, can lead to nothing more than a gigantic obstacle to true progress of human community.
After the 1980's, a new historical understanding began to emerge concerning Koguryo in the Chinese historical academia. Scholars advocated a perspective on Koguryo-Chinese relations very different from those of the past. The established view of the Koguryo-Chinese war as a foreign war, a war between two different peoples (Korean and Chinese), began changing. The opinion that Sui and Tang did not launch an 'invasion' of Koguryo, that Koguryo was not fighting off foreign invaders, that the wars between them were not interstate wars at all, is gaining wider currency.
Diverse approach on relations on Koguryo-Sui/Tang relations has disappeared, replaced by apologetic opinions of Sui and Tang, such as Koguryo suffered more than the defeated Sui during the latter's invasion or that Taizong of Tang regretted not his defeat at the hands of Koguryo but rather the death of his minister, which require stretches of logic. Such opinions go so far as to state that while Koguryo may have warred with the Sui and Tang, she remained subservient as a vassal for a longer period, and that war between them were 'exceptional' events. It all leads to the conclusion that Koguryo was fated to be absorbed into and 'unified' by SuilTang China, emphasizing that most of Koguryo's populace were assimilated into China and became a part of the extended Chinese nation.
A purview of the developments in research in China reveal a movement away from studying China as a multiethnic nation, with research based on the heavily biased perspective of Chinese dynasties are becoming more prevalent. Needless to say, academic research stressing one's opinion at the expense of the other cannot produce accurate historical thinking.
The question of whether Koguryo is pan of Chinese history or not, when entertained from the standpoint of Koguryo itself, can only produce an answer that it is not the same country as the Sui and Tang.
The problems with unilateral claims of the Chinese academia run into even greater problems when the issue is expanded and viewed from the context of global history.
The war between Koguryo and Sui, and subsequently with the Tang, are not 'local' conflict of two hostile countries, but rather an international conflagration involving every nation and tribe making up the East Asian world order at the time. Khitan and Malgal played a significant role in the Koguryo-Sui War of 598, the same role performed by the Turks in the Koguryo-Sui Wear of 612, followed by the Xueyantuo in the 645 war between Koguryo and Tang, Tiele in 661-662 Koguryo-Tang conflict, and finally, Shilla, Tibet, and the Turks all took part in the final showdown between Koguryo and Tang in 667-8 AD, considering these conflicts vital to their own interests. The nomadic tribes located to the north of both Koguryo and China remained a critical variable in their mortal conflict.
As the Chinese academia has assigned to war between Koguryo and Sui/Tang a status of internecine conflict within a single nation, they have neglected analysis of the great war thar engulfed East Asia in its entirety from the perspective of international politics. Thus it is necessary that a comprehensive study of the effects of Koguryo-Sui/Tang Wars hand upon the history of East Asia.
The fact that Chinese scholars of the 20th century bitterly criticized 'emperor-centric' records produced as a result of the class ideology of feudalism stands in glaring contradiction to tile utilization of the same imperial records and emperors' correspondences as instruments of Chinese nationalism.
A Chinese academia that is reviving past history based on their traditional, blatantly discriminatory China-Barbarian Dichotomy (huayi:華夷) that are diseased remains of imperialistic histories of the 19th century rather than universality and equality of humankind, actually represents a devolution and corruption of the study of history.
A past viewed through the narrow historical ideology, and a future viewed with the same flawed perspective, can lead to nothing more than a gigantic obstacle to true progress of human community.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 고구려, 수ㆍ당 관계에 관한 중화인민공화국 학계의 연구사
Ⅲ. 중화인민공화국 연구자들의 침탈논리에 대한 비판
Ⅳ. 고구려, 수 당 국제대전의 성격과 북방 제국의 역할
Ⅴ. 요약 및 결론
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
中國學界의 高句麗 對隋ㆍ唐 70年戰爭 認識의 批判的 檢討
한국고대사연구
2004 .03
-
중화인민공화국 학계의 고구려 유민 연구 검토
고구려발해연구
2007 .12
-
高句麗史
성곡논총
1997 .07
-
韓國 史書에 나타난 高句麗의 正體性
고구려발해연구
2004 .12
-
612년 여 · 수 전쟁과 고구려의 첩보전
민족문화
2007 .12
-
4~5세기 고구려에 유입된 중국계 인물의 동향-문헌자료를 중심으로-
한국고대사연구
2003 .12
-
6~7세기 고구려와 백제의 상호관계
고구려발해연구
2005 .09
-
隋唐시기 高句麗 遠征과 儀禮
역사와 담론
2012 .04
-
北方民族史에서 본 高句麗의 正體性 : 鮮卑, 契丹, 柔然을 중심으로
고구려발해연구
2004 .12
-
고구려와 북방민족의 관계에 대한 중화인민공화국 학계의 견해
고구려발해연구
2007 .12
-
中國 內 高句麗遺蹟에서 出土된 高句麗土器 硏究
중국사연구
2007 .01
-
中國學界의 高句麗 對外關係史 硏究現況
한국고대사연구
2003 .09
-
2次 高句麗 - 唐 戰爭(661-662)의 進行 過程과 意義
민족문화
2004 .12
-
高麗의 高句麗 繼承意識
고구려발해연구
2004 .12
-
高句麗와 隋ㆍ唐戰爭의 性格에 關한 解析 : 東北工程과 關聯하여
고구려발해연구
2004 .12
-
고구려 발해의 상관성 연구와 과제
고구려발해연구
2008 .07
-
고구려 中期天下觀의 推移
고구려발해연구
2008 .03
-
唐代 高句麗 표기 기피현상 : 隋唐 墓誌銘의 國名 표기 분석을 중심으로
동북아역사논총
2012 .12
-
고구려와 고대중국의 전쟁 : 西漢에서 西晉까지 국제정치사적 관점을 중심으로
고구려발해연구
2006 .09
-
墓誌로 본 在唐 高句麗 遺民의 祖先意識의 變化
대구사학
2010 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-911-019496592