白族과 ‘白蠻’

정면(Jeong, Myeon) 동북아시아문화학회 2012 동북아 문화연구 Vol.1 No.33

In this paper, I examined the history of Baizu that the Brief History presented. PRC created Baizu as one the 55 ethnic minority nations, as it “nationalized” all the people living within its territorial boundary. And it constructed the narrative of the “ethnic history” of Baizu, while it constructed the grand narrative of the history of the unified, multinational “zhonghua minzu.” There are two major problems in the historical narrative of Baizu, thus constructed. First, the genealogy of the ancestors of Baizu constructed by PRC lacks sufficient historical evidence to prove it. Second, the politically-driven ethnic classification project by PRC produced ethnic minority nation, which does not have their own territory and Baizu was one of them. Because of this, the history of Baizu, who historically lived mixed with other ethnic groups together in Yunnan, cannot help but becoming a part of the larger Yunnan history, rather than constituting a history of an ethnic group. Then, what would be a historically sensible way to write a history of ethnic minorities in Yunnan, who have not transformed themselves into a modern nation? What I would like to suggest is, first, to abandon the construction of the history of Baizu as an ethnic group. I also suggest to distinguish Yunnan from China (zhongguo) as a unit of historical writing, and thus to cut the relationship between the Baizu history and the larger history of the unified, multitethnic “zhonghua minzu.” The narrative of the Chinese history (history of Zhongguo), which takes the PRC’s current territorial boundary as the unit of historical narrative, lacks historical objectivity. Names for historical communities survive, because they have been used by those who have lived in the communities as well as by other historical communities. Members of a certain historical community occupy distinctive historical space and share common historical experience. And their historical experience is mainly informed by political changes that affected the space that the historical community occupies. If one constructs the history of “Yunnan” as a distinctive historical space and community, which could be distinguished from the historical “China” (zhongguo), one may be able to construct the history of the people of Yunnan in its fullest sense.

‘巴氐’ 李氏 幕府와 成漢 정권의 성립 ― 『十六國春秋輯補』 「蜀錄」 1 李特傳 (下) 및 「蜀錄」2 李流傳 譯注

鄭勉 ( Jeong Myeon ) 중국사학회 2023 中國史硏究 Vol.- No.145

This paper has conducted a commentary and translation on the 'Biography on Li-te' and the 'Biography on Li-liu.' In Chapter 2, by translating the latter part of the 'Biography on Li-te,' we could grasp the composition and characteristics of Li-te's forces. In Chapter 3, by translating 'Biography on Li-liu,' we understood these groups' activities before the Chenghan Kingdom's establishment. In the Ba-Shu (巴蜀) region, the 'migrant soldiers from the six counties' (六郡 流民) acclaimed Li-te (李特) as their leader. In 302 AD, Li-te declared himself as the 'Governor of Yizhou, Commander-in-Chief of Liang and Yi States, Grand General, and Supreme Commander'. This declaration was the typical manner in which many rebellious forces in various regions proclaimed their leaders at the time, and this format closely resembled the provincial governance structure of the Western Jin Empire (西晉). This phenomenon reflected the changes in the imperial governance system that had evolved since the Later Han (後漢) period. Specifically, as the centralized control of the emperor became challenging, and the decentralization of his authority became inevitable, this dispersed power adopted the form of 'ennobled officials' and coexisted with the emperor's authority. In a decentralized realm, emphasizing military power was natural and maximized the utility of the general's position and the military base (幕府). The trend of a general holding a civil post, whether as a provincial governor (州刺史) or a county magistrate (郡太守), became widespread. This trend embodies the 'Mufu System' (幕府體制; Feudal Lord System).

「?龍顔碑」를 통해 본 5세기 雲南 '西?’ 세력의 성격

鄭勉(Jeong Myeon) 중국고중세사학회 2007 중국고중세사연구 Vol.18 No.-

唐代 ‘南中’ 지역과 ‘西爨’

鄭勉(Jeong Myeon) 동양사학회 2010 東洋史學硏究 Vol.110 No.-

‘중국적 세계질서’와 古代 雲南

鄭勉(Jeong, Myeon) 동양사학회 2016 東洋史學硏究 Vol.135 No.-

This article explores how ancient “Chinese world order”, or “East Asian world order” was operated in Yunnan, located in the borderland between East and Southeast Asia; how Yunnan participated in Chinese world order there. This article argues that Yunnan participated in the ancient Chinese world order from the second century BC to the tenth century. For the most part during the period, Yunnan was located outside the traditional boundary of China, but had constantly engaged with Chinese state. It even became a part of Chinese empire for a certain period. This regions was integrated into Chinese world order through the operations of Chinese institutions, such as “frontier commandaries” and “mofu” systems, as well as “tribute-investiture” relations. Yet, as Nanzhao, a regional state existed in Yunnan from 738 to 902, expanded into northern Myanmar and its vicinities since mid-eighth century, Yunnan started to participate in the Southeast Asian world order. In the ninth century, the king of Nanzhao called himself “Pyu-shin” and “Maharaja” and functioned as a regional hegemon there. However, the expansion of Nanzhao did not mean the expansion of “East Asian world” into mainland Southeast Asia, because it participated in different regional world order, as it expanded there. Therefore, while for instance Goguryeo and the regional tributary system operated by it constituted a part of East Asian world order, Nanzhao and the regional world order operated by it were not a part of it. Indeed, Nanzhao constituted a borderland between the Chinese world and the world of Sanskrit. Therefore, Nanzhao state’s simultaneous participation in these two different worlds reveals the multilayered and interlocked operations of the multiple ancient “world” systems. Yet, from the viewpoint of rulers of Nanzhao, it may have been that “China,” “Tibet,” and “India,” and Pyu states were mere elements that constituted their own regional world order centered around Yunnan.

雲南의 諸葛亮

정면(Jeong, Myeon) 역사문화학회 2018 지방사와 지방문화 Vol.21 No.1

이 연구는 225년에 일어난 諸葛亮의 南蠻 정벌과 그것이 만들어 낸 ‘가짜’ 역사 및 유적과의 관련성에 대한 검토이다. 특히 ‘七縱七擒’의 무대가 시간의 흐름에 따라 서쪽으로 점차 확대되어 간 현상에 주목하였다. 기존 연구를 토대로 제갈량의 남정 노선과 雲南지역에 퍼져있는 제갈량 관련 전설 및 유적에 관하여 검토하였다. 아울러 운남 서부지역과 미얀마 지역으로 관련 전설이 확산되는 역사적 계기로서 南詔國의 존재를 지목하고, 그 관련 기록과 그 연결 지점들을 살펴보았다. 현재의 雲南 保山 지역은 3세기 중반 이후 14세기 후반 明王朝가 진출할 때까지 중국 국가의 행정적 힘이 직접적으로 닿지 못하였다. 그러나 9세기 초반의 기록은 이 지역에 제갈량의 이름을 붙인 城과 제갈량을 제사하는 사당이 존재했음을 전하고 있다. 이 잃어버린 고리를 이어주는 것이 남조국과 大理國의 역사이다. 남조국이 성립하기 이전 따리 지역에는 제갈량의 남정을 자신들의 ‘역사’의 일부로 활용하는 세력이 존재하였다.『張氏國史』로 대표되는 세력이었다. 『紀古滇說集』에 채록된 제갈량 남정 관련 기록의 원본은 이들에 의해 만들어졌을지도 모른다. 그리고 자신의 관할 지역에서 諸葛武侯城의 명칭을 사용하고, 그를 숭배하는 祠堂을 유지시킨 남조국의 지배 집단도 이러한 ‘역사’ 서술체계를 용인하였을 것으로 보인다. 남조국의 개창자는 張樂進求가 주재하는 ‘鐵柱祭祀’에 참여하였으며, 『기고전설집』은 장락진구가 그에게 ‘禪讓’했다고 적었다. 특히 8세기 후반 永昌(현 保山) 지역에 진출하여 개발을 시작한 南詔王室의 입장에서 남만 정벌에 성공한 ‘제갈량’의 역사적 권위가 필요했는지도 모른다. 역사는 전설을 만들고, 전설은 다시 새로운 역사를 만들어내는 데 기여한 셈이다. This study examines how and by whom the ‘fake’ history and relics regarding Zhuge Liang’s Southern Campaign, which historically occurred in 225 AD, were created and became prevalent in current Yunnan and Myanmar areas. Special attention is given to the phenomenon of the shifting locations of ‘The Seven Captures of Meng Huo(七縱七擒).’ The event arguably happened during the Campaign in the Eastern part of Yunnan, but the location of the event gradually moved towards the western part of Yunnan and even further west of modern day Myanmar as time passed. Reviewing existing studies, this research first examines that the actual expedition routes of Zhuge Liang is incongruent with the legends and relics related to his campaign in the Yunnan area. In fact, although the current Baoshan area in Western Yunnan enjoyed autonomy with little interference from the Chinese states between the mid-3rd and the late 14th century, records of a castle and shrines dedicated to Zhuge Liang as evidence of Zhuge’s conquest of the region began to appear from as early as the 9th century. Considering that the main arena of Zhuge’s campaign was limited in Eastern Yunnan, such relics and legend in Baoshan had little historical ground and is no more than a “fake” history. My study highlights the role played by the Nanzhao (738~937) and Dali (937~1253) Kingdoms in creating such legends and relics in the Baoshan area as an effort to legitimize their power over the region. Even before the establishment of the Nanzhao Kingdom, Zhang lineage, the local power elites of Bai(白) tribe, celebrated Zhuge’s Southern Campaign as part of their ‘history’ in the Dali area by publishing ‘Zhangshi guoshi(張氏國史)’. In the book, they asserted that Zhuge selected Zhang lineage as the ruler of the region. It is even possible that they were responsible for creating the original legend of Zhuge Liang’s Southern Campaign in Baoshan, which first appeared in Ji gudian shuoji(紀古滇說集). Such narrative was actively employed by the royal family of Nanzhao kingdom, who named Zhuge Wuhou(諸葛武侯) castle and maintained the shrine that worshiped Zhuge. In fact, Xinuluo (细奴逻),the founder of the kingdom, allegedly participated in the “ritual ceremony for the iron pillar(鐵柱祭祀)” organized by Zhang Lejinqiu(張樂進求), the last ruler of Bai(白) tribe before Nanzhao kingdom. Jigudianshuoji even argued that Zhang Lejinqiu voluntarily passed his throneto Xinuluo. In doing so, the Nanzhao royal family utilized the “aura” of Zhuge Liang, who successfully conquered the Yunnan area with virtue to strengthen/legitimize their newly established power over the Baoshan area. History created legends, and legends contributed to the creation of a new history.

사학부(史學部) : 남소(南詔)와 당(唐)의 경계, 그리고 동아시아 세계질서

정면 ( Myeon Jeong ) 韓國中國學會 2009 중국학보 Vol.60 No.-

하나의 국경, 두 장의 역사지도

정면(Jeong Myeon) 서강대학교 인문과학연구소 2018 서강인문논총 Vol.0 No.53

이 글에서는 두 장의 역사지도를 통해 청 말부터 민국 시기까지 운남 지역과 미얀마 사이 북부 변계 지역에서 여러 갈래의 ‘미정계선’이 형성되고, 이후 현재의 국경으로 획정되는 과정을 살펴보았다. 중화인민공화국은 신생 미얀마와의 정치·외교적 관계를 고려하여, 청대 이래의 ‘전통관습선’을 선택하였다. 이는 고려공산 산맥의 분수령을 경계로 채택한 것으로, 현재 중국과 인도 사이 국경선의 기초를 이루고 있는 ‘맥마흔선’과 맥을 같이한다. 이에 반해 대만[중화민국]은 국민정부 시기 활발한 감계 활동을 통해 주장하게 된 국경선 이른바 ‘윤명덕선’을 지지하며, 역사지도에 표기하고 있다. 이는 자신들의 정치적 정통성과 관련된 조치라 생각된다. 결국 현재의 정치적 이해관계가 역사적 기억의 선택을 달리하게 만들었고, 그것이 역사지도에 그대로 노정된 셈이다. This article examines the two historical maps to explore the transformation of “disputed boundary” between Yunnan and the northern Myanmar into official boundary in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In order to maintain better political and diplomatic relations with the new Myanmar government, the PRC government has selected as the official boundary the customary border that had been recognized since the Qing period. Following the watershed of Gaoligongshan Mountain Range, the line is almost identical with the McMahon Line, a line that laid the foundation of the modern Sino-Indian border. Meanwhile, the ROC government in Taiwan has adopted the “Yinmingde (尹明德) line” and put it in the their historical atlas. The Republican government came up with this line through numerous field investigations from 1920s to 1940s. The ROC government believes that supporting the “Yinmingde line” is crucial for the maintenance of their political legitimacy. Therefore, the two historical atlases of the Yunnan-northern Myanmar border show how the two Chinese governments espouse different historical memories, dictated by their diverging political interests.

영웅과 매국노 사이 - 杜文秀를 둘러싼 기억 경쟁

정면(Jeong, Myeon) 동북아시아문화학회 2020 동북아 문화연구 Vol.1 No.63

This article is about Competing Memory over the Panthay Rebellion(1856-1874). In the Yunnan(雲南) region at the end of the Qing Dynasty, there were frequent conflicts of interest between the Elites of Hui people(回民) and Han Chinese Elites, and officials of the Qing Dynasty, who intervened in the process, frequently chose to slaughter the Hui people. In 1856, five years after the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom movement, a popular revolt led by Du Wen-xiu(杜文秀) broke out. These forces soon took control of the western part of Yunnan. And he ruled the western part of Yunnan around Dali(大理) for 18 years. But in 1872, the revolt was suppressed by Chen Yu-ying(岑毓英), a Qing Dynasty official from Zhuang People(壯族). The Qing army carried out a massive massacre of the Hui people of Yunnan area. Since the establishment of the People"s Republic of China, there has been a debate on the nature of this revolt, one claiming was a regime that represents the interests of merchants and landowners, and the other claiming was a peasant revolutionary regime. On the other hand, the following story spread. Du Wen-xiu, the leader of the revolt, built an independent Muslim country(Sultanate) with the support of the United Kingdom, and after the military campaign against the Kunming failed in 1869, he sent a delegation to the United Kingdom to dedicate the Yunnan region to become a servant and asked for military assistance in return. For this reason, in the official history of Chinese history, Du Wen-xiu began to be remembered as a traitor. Some scholars argued against it, but it was not enough. The insanity of the Cultural Revolution wiped out the debate itself, and the 1975 massacre of the Hui people of the Shadian region of Yunnan took place. After the Cultural Revolution, the debate became active again, and Du Wen-xiu regained some honor. Especially in the Yunnan region, Du Wen-xiu became a “ethnic” hero whom the Hui people are proud of, and the controversy has almost disappeared since the mid-1990s. But since 2001, the independence movement in the Uighur region of the Xinjiang(Easter Turk) has reinforced the interpretation of history that criticizes Du Wen-xiu as a national traitor. And this became explicit in the process of scholars of Zhuang People glorifying the hero of Zhuang People, Cen Yu-ying. In the end, this unnerved the Hui people historians who had memories of the massacre twice, and led many papers to be published between 2009 and 2010, which opposed the claim that Du Wen-xiu tried to sell the country.

‘그려지는 것들’과 ‘그리지 않는 것들’

정면(Jeong, Myeon) 역사학회 2013 역사학보 Vol.0 No.218

This paper analyzes maps for ancient Korean history in some popular history books. In particular, it addresses how the maps represent their historical contexts by using elements such as points, lines, and polygons. First, some maps represent historical facts that are unrelated to the historical period that their texts describe. Many maps about ancient Korean history mark the northern borderline of contemporary Korea. In those maps, Mountain Baekdu-san is depicted as a marker of the borderline along with the Amnok-kang (Yalu) River and the Tuman-gang (Tumen) River. Second, in showing the territories of and relationships among ancient states, the maps assume the preexisting ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ of the national history of Korea. They depict wars between the three states in the Korean Peninsular as ‘family feuds’ and exchanges among ancient states occur only outside the Peninsular. Third, some maps leave out things that are supposed to be there. For example, many maps do not mark the Malgal (or Mohe; 靺鞨) and the Wae (or Wa; 倭) even though some Malgals prospered with the development of the Koguryo(高句麗) State. This essay finds that the ‘desire’ to embody the history of a nation determines what to depict and what not to depict in the maps in the ancient Korean history books for children and young adults.