발해의 귀속 문제는 발해사만의 문제가 아니라 발해를 정점으로 하는 일련의 역사 전개를 어떻게 이해하는가 하는 논쟁의 접점을 이루고 있다. 중국은 肅愼, 挹婁, 勿吉, 靺鞨을 滿族의 선조로 규정하고 渤海建國으로 이 지역에 대한 지배권을 확보하였으며 발해를 거쳐 女眞으로 이어져 왔다고 주장하고 있어 古朝鮮-高句麗-渤海로 이어지는 한국의 고대 북방 이해와는 확연하게 대비되기 때문이다. 이러한 문제의식 하에 이 글은 발해 귀속 논리의 저변을 형성할 수 있는‘북방 고토 의식’에 초점을 두고 그것의 형성과 변화 과정을 검토하였다. 우선 논의의 전제로 발해 귀속 논리를 중국의 영토계승적 관점과 한국의 역사계승적 관점으로 대별하고, 전자를 보완하는 논리로서 종족계승과 후자를 보완하는 논리로서 고토계승의 논리가 융합되어 있음을 입론화하였다. 아울러 북방 고토 의식이 역사계승의 관점을 확대하는 순방향적으로만 전개된 것이 아니므로 다양한 성격의 논리가 시기별로 어떻게 작동하면서 북방 고토 의식을 변화시켜 왔는가를 주요 사서에 기술된 고조선, 고구려, 발해 관련 기술을 통해 검토하였다. 발해 멸망 이후 조선 전기에 이르기까지 북방 고토 의식은 소극적이었다. 고토계승은 당대의 영역 내에서만 한정되고 고대 북방의 역사는 탈각되었다. 그럼에도 불구하고 부분적으로는 발해 고토에 대한 관심이 표출되기도 하였지만 이는 한국사로서가 아닌 한국사 흐름에 영향을 미친 인근국 내지는 고구려의 고토가 있었던 지역의 역사라는 애매한 지점에서만 존재하고 있었다. 16세기에 이르면 북방 고토 의식은 새로운 양상을 맞이한다. 韓百謙이 東國地理志에서 언급한 이른바‘南自南北自北’인식의 영향으로 고구려사를 적극적으로 인식하고 이에 부수한 발해를 재조명해 나가기 시작한다. 고토계승은 당대 영역을 넘어서 확장되었지만 발해를 역사계승의 맥락에 연계시키지는 않았다. 이 글에서는 선행연구의 평가와 달리 李種徽의 東史또한 이러한 입장에 있는 것으로 파악하였다. 高句麗와 渤海모두 本紀가 아닌 世家에서 처리하고 있으며 箕子로부터 高句麗, 渤海로의 연계가 分節的계승이라는 점에서 여전히 미완의 역사계승으로 볼 수밖에 없다고 판단했기 때문이다. 18세기 중반부터 19세기는 1712년 정계에 대한 비판에 따른 先春領說, 分界江說등이 부각되고 韓致奫·韓鎭書에 이르는 지리고증의 성과가 축적되면서 다양한 북방 고토 의식이 형성되어 나갔다. 특히 廢四郡復置등 현실 문제에 적극적이었으나 북방 고대에 대해서는 소극적이었던 丁若鏞과 현실 문제에는 소극적이지만 고대북방에 대한 적극적인 인식을 견지한 金正浩는 대조를 이루고 있다. 이 시기에 이르면 북방고토의 확대라는 관념적 역사계승 의식과, 청과의 긴장 속에서 실지 회복이라는 영토 의식을 양 축으로 하는 스팩트럼 속에서 제각각 자신의 입론 지점을 찾아 다양한 논의를 재조정하고 있었다.

The question of title to Balhae is not only the matter of Balhae history, but also the point in dispute about how a series of history developments are understood related to Balhae as a focus. China provides that Suksin(肅愼), Uproo(挹婁), Mulgil(勿吉) and Margal(靺鞨) are ancestors of Manchu and insists that Balhae foundation secured the control over this area and Balhae led to Jurchen(女眞); it is because this is in considerable contrast to the understanding of Korea’s ancient northern nations, which are Gojoseon(古朝鮮)-Goguryeo(高句麗)-Balhae(渤海). This article has examined how the northern navive land awareness has formed as the base of Balhae reversion logic. First of all, Balhae reversion logic is divided into China’s territory succession view and Korea’s history succession view as a premise of argument and the logic has been argued in that the tribe succession as a complement of the former and the native land succession logic as a complement of the latter are combined. In addition, under the problem awareness that the northern native land awareness had not proceeded in a proactive way, it researched how a wide variety of logic had worked from each period and changed the northern native land awareness through the description related to Gojoseon, Goguryeo and Balhae stated in main history books. In the 16th century, the interest in the ancient northern-district made the history of Goguryeo be actively recognized under the influence of so-called ‘the south from the south, the north from the north(南自南北自北)’, which was addressed in Dong-kuk Chiriji(東國地理志) written by Han Baeg-gyom(韓百謙) and collaterally Balhae started to be recounted. The native land succession was extended into the one above the district of the day but Balhae was not connected to the context of the history succession. This article has grasped that LEE Jong-Whi(李種徽)’s Dongsa(東史)was on this side in contrary to previous researches. Both Goguryeo and Balhae were covered in a distinguished family history(世紀) not in dynastic annals(本紀). This is because the succession is still considered as imperfect in that the connection from Gija(箕子), Goguryeo to Balhae is segmented succession. From the mid of 18th century to 19th century, Seonchunryungseaol(先春領說) and Bungaegalseol(分界江說) were emphasized according to the criticism of political circles from the mid 18th century to 19th century in 1712 and as the results of historical investigation of geography from Han CHI-yun(韓致奫)·HAN jin-seo(韓鎭書) were accumulated, various northern-district awareness was formed. Especially, JEONG Yakyong(丁若鏞), who were positive in realistic matters such as the restoration of abolishing four districts of north provinces but passive in the ancient native land-district awareness, was opposed to KIM Jeong-ho(金正浩), who was passive in realistic matters but positive in the ancient northern-district. At that time, in the spectrum ranging from idealogical history succession awareness, the extension of northern native land to realistic native land succession awareness, the recovery of lost land in tension with Qing dynasty, each one was readjusting various debates, finding out his own argumentation point.

The question of title to Balhae is not only the matter of Balhae history, but also the point in dispute about how a series of history developments are understood related to Balhae as a focus. China provides that Suksin(肅愼), Uproo(挹婁), Mulgil(勿吉) and Margal(靺鞨) are ancestors of Manchu and insists that Balhae foundation secured the control over this area and Balhae led to Jurchen(女眞); it is because this is in considerable contrast to the understanding of Korea’s ancient northern nations, which are Gojoseon(古朝鮮)-Goguryeo(高句麗)-Balhae(渤海). This article has examined how the northern navive land awareness has formed as the base of Balhae reversion logic. First of all, Balhae reversion logic is divided into China’s territory succession view and Korea’s history succession view as a premise of argument and the logic has been argued in that the tribe succession as a complement of the former and the native land succession logic as a complement of the latter are combined. In addition, under the problem awareness that the northern native land awareness had not proceeded in a proactive way, it researched how a wide variety of logic had worked from each period and changed the northern native land awareness through the description related to Gojoseon, Goguryeo and Balhae stated in main history books. In the 16th century, the interest in the ancient northern-district made the history of Goguryeo be actively recognized under the influence of so-called ‘the south from the south, the north from the north(南自南北自北)’, which was addressed in Dong-kuk Chiriji(東國地理志) written by Han Baeg-gyom(韓百謙) and collaterally Balhae started to be recounted. The native land succession was extended into the one above the district of the day but Balhae was not connected to the context of the history succession. This article has grasped that LEE Jong-Whi(李種徽)’s Dongsa(東史)was on this side in contrary to previous researches. Both Goguryeo and Balhae were covered in a distinguished family history(世紀) not in dynastic annals(本紀). This is because the succession is still considered as imperfect in that the connection from Gija(箕子), Goguryeo to Balhae is segmented succession. From the mid of 18th century to 19th century, Seonchunryungseaol(先春領說) and Bungaegalseol(分界江說) were emphasized according to the criticism of political circles from the mid 18th century to 19th century in 1712 and as the results of historical investigation of geography from Han CHI-yun(韓致奫)·HAN jin-seo(韓鎭書) were accumulated, various northern-district awareness was formed. Especially, JEONG Yakyong(丁若鏞), who were positive in realistic matters such as the restoration of abolishing four districts of north provinces but passive in the ancient native land-district awareness, was opposed to KIM Jeong-ho(金正浩), who was passive in realistic matters but positive in the ancient northern-district. At that time, in the spectrum ranging from idealogical history succession awareness, the extension of northern native land to realistic native land succession awareness, the recovery of lost land in tension with Qing dynasty, each one was readjusting various debates, finding out his own argumentation point.

, , , , , , , ,

Ancient Northern-district, Northern Native Land, History succession, Native Land Succession, Tribe Succession, Gojoseon, Goguryeo, Balhae