速檀阿力王與羽奴思汗關系辨正

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 동국사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 동국사학 / 50권
· 저자명 : 姚?

목차

Ⅰ. 土魯番速檀阿力王與羽奴思汗關系問題的提出
Ⅱ. 羽奴思汗的生活區域
Ⅲ. 中外文獻中羽奴思的比對
Ⅳ. 土魯番速檀阿力王與羽奴思汗非爲一人
Ⅴ. 羽奴思之子阿黑麻引發的問題
Ⅵ. 結論
[中文提要]
[Abstract]
[참고문헌]

초록

明代吐魯番硏究中有兩位非常重要的人曆史人物：土魯番速檀阿力王、羽奴思汗。在漢文文獻中，前者是曾任吐魯番統治者，幷首次占領明朝哈密衛，此後，明朝雖屢有恢複，但哈密仍多次被吐魯番占領，幷最終爲明朝棄之不顧。羽奴思汗則更多出現在非漢文文獻中，尤其是「拉失德史」對羽奴思汗有大量而詳細的記載。學界多數觀點認爲二者爲同一人。但實際上，二人有諸多不相符合之?。 本文。本文首先廓淸了「拉失德史」所述羽奴思汗的活動地域，然後厘淸了漢文文獻中的"羽奴思"，?些是「拉失德史」所載之羽奴思，而?些不是。通過比對曆史文獻發現，速檀阿力王與羽奴思汗的活動區域與時間幷不一致，不可能是同一人。然而，漢文文獻中速檀阿力王之子與「拉失德史」中羽奴思之子同爲"速檀阿黑麻"的情況，是辨明工作不可回避的問題。通過比對史料，本文發現，羽奴思汗與漢文文獻中的?一人--“?西速檀阿力”?可能是同一人，而”?西速檀阿力"與"土魯番速檀阿力王"不可能爲同一人。 通過分析"速檀阿力王"、"羽奴思汗"與?西速檀阿力的關系，本文認定：羽奴思汗不是速檀阿力王，而是?西速檀阿力。明代誤將"吐魯番速檀阿力王"??"?西速檀阿力"，幷作出了"速檀阿力王"之子爲"速檀阿黑麻"的錯誤記錄。後世學者據則此進一步誤以爲"速檀阿力王"卽"羽奴思汗"。

영어초록

In Turfan of Ming Dynasty, there were two very significant figures: Turfan Sultan Ali and Yunus Khan. The former, in Chinese materials, was one of the ruler of Turfan and under his domination, Turfan occupied Hami for the first time. Afterwards, although Ming Dynasty recovered Hami for several times, Turfan still occupied Hami repeatedly until Ming Dynasty abandoned Hami eventually. contrarily, Yunus Khan was more recorded by non-Chinese materials, especially "A History of the Moghuls - Tarikh-i-Rashidi." Nowadays, many scholars viewed the two person as the same one. But, in fact, there were so many contradictions between those two persons.
This paper discovered Yunus`s activity territories described by A History of the Moghuls - Tarikh-i-Rashidi, and then clarified that which Yunus in Chinese materials was the one in A History of the Moghuls - Tarikh-i-Rashidi and which was not. By comparing the materials, this paper found that Sultan Ali`s activity territories were not Yunus Khan`s, so they could not be the same person. However, there was a problem could not be avoid that the son of Ali and the son of Yunus was such the same one in the materials. Also by comparing materials, this paper found that Yunus Khan would be another person in Chinese materirals whose name was "Yixi Sultan Ali" and the later could not be Turfan Sultan Ali. Through analyzing the relationship between "Turfan Sultan Ali", "Yunus Khan" and "Yixi Sultan Ali", this paper believed that Yunus Khan was not Turfan Sultan Ali but Yixi Sultan Ali. Because Ming Dynasty thought Turfan Sultan Ali as Yixi Sultan Ali and regarded "Sultan Ahmed" as the son of Turfan Sultan Ali incorrectly. and then, modern scholars misread Turfan Sultan Ali as Yunus Khan.

참고자료

· 없음