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
Ch'in(秦) and Han(漢) empires ruled their realms by applying a centralizing system of commanderies(郡) and prefectures(縣), based on the household systems. Through active military campaigns and threats, these unified Chinese empires tried to expand their system of commanderies and prefectures over neighboring tribes, while subordinating submissive tribal lords as kings(王) or lords(候). But the control of the empires through the commanderies and prefectures system grounded on agricultural society could not be put through, when it went beyond agricultural society into nomadic society. As a consequence, the East Asian world order in Han times was divided into “civilized(華)” China and “barbarian(夷)” neighbors, with semi-civilized (thus pro-Chinese) tribal chiefs granted Chinese titles as outside subjects.
The commanderies and prefectures system aimed at integrating neighboring peoples into the Chinese world order showed signs of weakness as early as at the time of Emperor Wu Di(武帝), who marshaled national resources and manpower to achieve an ambitious goal of “great integration(大一統)”, but had to announce an edict of Lun Tai(輸臺) focusing on agriculture rather than pacification of West Asia toward the end of his reign. Furthermore, the weakness was clearly shown in the abandonment of Four Han Commanderies in Korea and southern Manchuria as well as the subsequent occupation of Liao-dong(遼東) region by the Gong-sun family(公孫氏). To overcome such weakness, Han adopted a new system of control which recognized customs and practices of neighboring peoples under the names of “vassal state(屬國)” or “regional overseer(部都尉).” The result was the appearance of a seemingly integrated Chinese world order with emperor at apex incorporating chieftains of surrounding peoples.
Needless to say, the establishment of an integrated Chinese world order was unilateral enterprise by the Chinese of Ch'in and Han empires. Still, it is also true that there existed some positive responses to it, especially among “eastern barbarian tribes(東夷族)” in Liao-dong region and Korean peninsula. Considering the fact that some tribe leaders accepted costumes of Han court despite their rejection of vassal position, and that Han(韓) tribal chiefs in Korea were zealous for obtaining Chinese seals and costumes, the Chinese enterprise to create an integrated world order promoted cultural dependency and political engagement among neighboring peoples.
It seems quite plausible for neighboring peoples to join this integrated Chinese world order, when they were able to import advanced culture and at the same time get guarantee for local political stability. Conversely, if they were left with no benefits, then they might well have little interest in joining the Chinese world order. Therefore, it is quite inevitable that neighboring peoples disassociated themselves with the Chinese world order after the collapse of later Han empire, because advanced Chinese culture itself could not guarantee what they pursued in political way. Thus, it can be said that to the eyes of neighboring peoples, the value for maintaining the Chinese world order was lost. Moreover, Chinese imperial titles conferred on neighboring kings and lords, which hitherto had served continued relations with Han empire lost their value with the collapse of the empire and the subsequent chaotic international situation III East Asia until the reunification of China by Sui(隋) and T'ang(唐) in the sixth century.
It is notable that disassociation or alienation from the Chinese world order on the part of neighboring peoples started at the very time when they completed import of culture and institution like law codes(律令) needed to build their centralized ancient state. Moreover, considering that such alienation was intense at the time of domestic division and disintegration in China, the Chinese world order had little practical influence on relation between Chinese empires and neighboring states. No matter what supported the Chinese world order, the commanderies and prefectures system or the system of granting titles, neighboring states were willing to adapt to the order, unless they felt they had ability to overturn it. Thus, it seems that Chinese empires and neighboring states had different dreams under the same house built either on the commanderies and prefectures system or on the system of granting titles.
The commanderies and prefectures system aimed at integrating neighboring peoples into the Chinese world order showed signs of weakness as early as at the time of Emperor Wu Di(武帝), who marshaled national resources and manpower to achieve an ambitious goal of “great integration(大一統)”, but had to announce an edict of Lun Tai(輸臺) focusing on agriculture rather than pacification of West Asia toward the end of his reign. Furthermore, the weakness was clearly shown in the abandonment of Four Han Commanderies in Korea and southern Manchuria as well as the subsequent occupation of Liao-dong(遼東) region by the Gong-sun family(公孫氏). To overcome such weakness, Han adopted a new system of control which recognized customs and practices of neighboring peoples under the names of “vassal state(屬國)” or “regional overseer(部都尉).” The result was the appearance of a seemingly integrated Chinese world order with emperor at apex incorporating chieftains of surrounding peoples.
Needless to say, the establishment of an integrated Chinese world order was unilateral enterprise by the Chinese of Ch'in and Han empires. Still, it is also true that there existed some positive responses to it, especially among “eastern barbarian tribes(東夷族)” in Liao-dong region and Korean peninsula. Considering the fact that some tribe leaders accepted costumes of Han court despite their rejection of vassal position, and that Han(韓) tribal chiefs in Korea were zealous for obtaining Chinese seals and costumes, the Chinese enterprise to create an integrated world order promoted cultural dependency and political engagement among neighboring peoples.
It seems quite plausible for neighboring peoples to join this integrated Chinese world order, when they were able to import advanced culture and at the same time get guarantee for local political stability. Conversely, if they were left with no benefits, then they might well have little interest in joining the Chinese world order. Therefore, it is quite inevitable that neighboring peoples disassociated themselves with the Chinese world order after the collapse of later Han empire, because advanced Chinese culture itself could not guarantee what they pursued in political way. Thus, it can be said that to the eyes of neighboring peoples, the value for maintaining the Chinese world order was lost. Moreover, Chinese imperial titles conferred on neighboring kings and lords, which hitherto had served continued relations with Han empire lost their value with the collapse of the empire and the subsequent chaotic international situation III East Asia until the reunification of China by Sui(隋) and T'ang(唐) in the sixth century.
It is notable that disassociation or alienation from the Chinese world order on the part of neighboring peoples started at the very time when they completed import of culture and institution like law codes(律令) needed to build their centralized ancient state. Moreover, considering that such alienation was intense at the time of domestic division and disintegration in China, the Chinese world order had little practical influence on relation between Chinese empires and neighboring states. No matter what supported the Chinese world order, the commanderies and prefectures system or the system of granting titles, neighboring states were willing to adapt to the order, unless they felt they had ability to overturn it. Thus, it seems that Chinese empires and neighboring states had different dreams under the same house built either on the commanderies and prefectures system or on the system of granting titles.
목차
머리말
Ⅰ. ‘大一統’ 諸國의 성립
Ⅱ. 漢人의 流入과 文物의 普及
Ⅲ. 邊郡 秩序의 한계와 新秩序의 모색
맺음말
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
중국사에서의 낙랑군
한국고대사연구
2004 .06
-
鲁迅的遗言和Chinese Characteristics
한국중어중문학회 학술대회 자료집
2015 .11
-
漢代 邊郡의 部都尉
동양사학연구
2004 .09
-
韓國 古代 國家의 形成과 漢字 受容
한국고대사연구
2003 .12
-
漢初 ‘關外郡’의 設置와 그 源流
중국고중세사연구
2015 .11
-
Korea and ‘The Description of the Chinese Empire’
Korea Journal
1966 .10
-
대학 중국어 학습자의 학습동기와 태도에 관한 연구
중국어문논총
2020 .01
-
중국의 확대와 漢族觀
韓國史學史學報
2004 .01
-
조선 후기 고대사 연구와 漢四郡
역사와 담론
2012 .10
-
우리나라의 中國語 敎授法에 나타난 問題點과 解決方案에 관한 硏究
인문학논총
2003 .02
-
2007년 개정 漢文科 敎育課程의 구체적 내용 분석
漢文敎育論集
2007 .01
-
중국어 교육현황 조사 및 분석 연구 : 서울 소재 사설 중국어 학원을 중심으로
중국어문학논집
2017 .02
-
世界汉语敎学与中国文化
중국문화연구
2006 .12
-
한국의 중국어 교육에 대한 반성적 고찰 : ‘실용 중국어’에서 ‘문화 중국어’로
중국어문학논집
2009 .08
-
중국 조선족학교의 ‘학교문화’에 관한 고찰 : 한족학생의 수용
한국민족문화
2015 .05
-
論日語漢字詞的發展曆程及與漢語詞的關系
중국어교육과연구
2008 .11
-
非华人学生学习华人母语教材的汉字教学策略
漢字漢文敎育
2011 .01
-
중국어사와 국어사의 융합연구－근대중국어 어휘의 전파를 중심으로－
중국어문학
2019 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-910-016393533