일반적으로 발해와 일본의 교류를 727년 발해의 사신파견으로 시작되었다고 보는 가운데『續日本紀』에 등장하는 720년‘靺鞨國’이 발해일 가능성이 일부 제기되었으나 그다지 주목받지 못하였다. 이에 본고는 靺鞨이 아니라 靺鞨’國’이라고 기록되었음에 착안하여 이것이 발해일 가능성을 적극적으로 검토하였다. 우선『續日本紀』중에‘○○國’이라는 표현을 분석한 결과 이러한 표현은 독립왕조를 유지하고 있는 국가에 한정하여 사용하고 있다는 것을 확인하였다. 따라서 靺鞨國은 특정지역이 아니라 독립왕조를 지칭하는 용어이며 多賀城碑의 기록을 근거로 위치를 추정한 결과 黑水靺鞨지역이 아닌 당시 발해의 정치력이 미치는 범위 내를 가르키고 있다는 것을 확인하였다. 다음으로『類聚國史』에서 720년 기사를 발해와 달리별도의 말갈 항목으로 구분한 것은 발해 인식의 시기적 차이에 기인한 것임을 지적하였다. 즉 9세기 후반에 편찬된『類聚國史』는 渤海를 高句麗계승국가로 보는 인식하에 편찬되었기 때문에, 발해에 대해 잘 알지 못하던 8세기 초반에 기록된‘靺鞨國’이라는 표현을 별도 항목으로 구분하게 되었음을 지적하였다. 아울러 8세기 초반에 渤海를 靺鞨國으로 칭하게 된 것은 당시 발해에 대한 唐의 인식과 표현으로부터 영향을 받았던 것임을 추론했다. 일본은 이 시기 견당사를 파견한 바 있으므로 704년과 718년에 각각 귀국한 栗田眞人과 多治比縣守등을 통해 발해에 관한 정보를 입수했을 것이다. 그러나 중국사서를 분석해 보면 靺鞨이라는 卑稱이 이 시기 집중적으로 나타나고 있는 것으로 보아 이 당시 일본에 전달된 발해 정보는 이러한 당의 부정적인 인식이 그대로 전달되었을 가능성이 높다. 靺鞨國이라는 용어도 이러한 영향에 따른 것이라 볼 수 있다. 또한 대륙정세에 유달리 민감한 일본조정은 발해에 대한 좀 더 자세한 정황 파악을 위해 직접 현지에 사신을 파견했을 가능성이 크다. 따라서 720년에 등장하는‘靺鞨國’은 渤海를 지칭했을 가능성이 높으며 이는 양국 교류의 구도를 새롭게 해석할 수 있는 여지를 남기고 있다.

Historians generally believe that the exchange between Palhae and Japan began with Palhae’s envoys in 727. Some pointed out the possibility that the Magal Kingdom that appears in Shokunihongi 『( 續日本紀』) in 720 could be Palhae, but it was not very convincing. In this study, I further examined the possibility that it could be Palhae, focusing on the fact that it is described as the Magal Kingdom (靺鞨國) instead of just Malgal (靺鞨). First, I analyzed the expression of‘ ○○ Kingdom (國)’in Shokunihongi 『( 續日本紀』), and discovered that it was limitedly used to call nations with independent dynasties. Therefore, it does not refer to a certain region. Moreover, in an effort to locate the Magal Kingdom based on the records of Daka (多賀) Monument, it was identified that it refers to a region that was under the rule of Palhae, not the Heuksu (黑水) region. Next, I pointed out why Ruijukokusi 『( 類聚國史』) referred to that nation as Malgal instead of Palhae in 720. It’s because it was difference in the historical view of Palhae between the early 8th and the late 9th century. This book was published in the late 9th Century and it thought of Palhae as the successor of Goguryeo. Therefore, it understood the Magal Kingdom from the early 8th century, when Japan had limited information on Palhae, as the name of a different nation. It is assumed that the fact that Palhae was called the Magal Kingdom (靺鞨國) in the early 8th Century was influenced by the Tang Dynasty’s view and expression about Palhae. Chinese historical texts had used the unofficial name of Malgal in only that period and Japan dispatched envoys to the Tang Dynasty at that time. Awatanohito (栗田眞人) and Douji (道慈) who were envoys returned to Japan in 704 and in 718 and they must have brought these texts from the Tang Dynasty. It is very likely that Japan dispatched envoys directly to Palhae as it was extraordinarily sensitive about the politics of the Continent. In this respect, it is possible that the agal Kingdom from 720 refers to Palhae and this gives us the possibility to interpret the exchange between Palhae and Japan from another view.

Historians generally believe that the exchange between Palhae and Japan began with Palhae’s envoys in 727. Some pointed out the possibility that the Magal Kingdom that appears in Shokunihongi 『( 續日本紀』) in 720 could be Palhae, but it was not very convincing. In this study, I further examined the possibility that it could be Palhae, focusing on the fact that it is described as the Magal Kingdom (靺鞨國) instead of just Malgal (靺鞨). First, I analyzed the expression of‘ ○○ Kingdom (國)’in Shokunihongi 『( 續日本紀』), and discovered that it was limitedly used to call nations with independent dynasties. Therefore, it does not refer to a certain region. Moreover, in an effort to locate the Magal Kingdom based on the records of Daka (多賀) Monument, it was identified that it refers to a region that was under the rule of Palhae, not the Heuksu (黑水) region. Next, I pointed out why Ruijukokusi 『( 類聚國史』) referred to that nation as Malgal instead of Palhae in 720. It’s because it was difference in the historical view of Palhae between the early 8th and the late 9th century. This book was published in the late 9th Century and it thought of Palhae as the successor of Goguryeo. Therefore, it understood the Magal Kingdom from the early 8th century, when Japan had limited information on Palhae, as the name of a different nation. It is assumed that the fact that Palhae was called the Magal Kingdom (靺鞨國) in the early 8th Century was influenced by the Tang Dynasty’s view and expression about Palhae. Chinese historical texts had used the unofficial name of Malgal in only that period and Japan dispatched envoys to the Tang Dynasty at that time. Awatanohito (栗田眞人) and Douji (道慈) who were envoys returned to Japan in 704 and in 718 and they must have brought these texts from the Tang Dynasty. It is very likely that Japan dispatched envoys directly to Palhae as it was extraordinarily sensitive about the politics of the Continent. In this respect, it is possible that the agal Kingdom from 720 refers to Palhae and this gives us the possibility to interpret the exchange between Palhae and Japan from another view.

720(Yorou4), the exchange between Palhae and Japan, the Malgal kindom, Palhae-malgal, Oshima-Tsugaru tsunatsukasa