earticle

영어

So far, the location of the Beak River(白江) and the Juryu Castle(周留城), as claimed in the geography book of the Qing Dynasty (大淸一統志), has not been discussed. It has, so far, been a void in research. The compilation of the geography book of the Qing Dynasty was done at the time when the Textual Research (考證学) was in full bloom. Textual Research was a method of study that was the basis of mainstream research in the Qing dynasty. The research method was completely different from that of Zixue's Confucianism (朱子学). By collecting extensive data, research scholars conducted empirical studies based on rigorous evidence: opinions without evidence were rejected by research scholars. They also valued the insights gained from the examination of historical sites. It was believed that this method of study would only be helpful in practice. There was a clear literary basis for the positional determination of research scholars in the Qing dynasty. They were acquainted with important Chinese records of Korea, as well as ancient Korean records. Some of them are repeating the wrong Baekje records. However, their views cannot be taken lightly, and it is necessary to look at them from a historical point of view. Nowhere in the Chinese records has the Beak River been referred to as the Woongjin River (熊津江). Yet, research scholars of the Qing dynasty period claimed that Beak River was located to the southeast of the Woongjin River Mouth (熊津江口), and that it also faced the sea. The Woongjin River and the Beak River are completely different rivers. The Beak River was considered to be the Dongjin River (東津江), located in the southeastern part of the Woongjin River Mouth. Research scholars of the Qing Dynasty claimed that the Juryu Castle was located in the western part of Chunzhou (全州). However, the Juryu Castle is located in present-day Kobu(古阜), in Jeonbuk(全北). Research scholars of the Qing dynasty examined ancient Korean records on the withdrawal of the Silla army after being defeated by the Baekje people at the Juryu Castle in February, 661. Further, on March 1, 661, they read a Chinese record (Zi Zhi Tong Jian: 資治通鑑) containing the account of the Silla army’s defeat after being attacked by Baekje. Therefore, it appears that by comparing the two records, they came to the conclusion that the Juryu Castle was located in western part of Chunzhou.

한국어

지금까지 『大淸一統志』의 白江․周留城의 위치 비정은 연구자들의 고찰대상이 되지 못했다. 중국인들은 금강을 熊津江으로 인지했다. 『大淸一統志』 卷421, 白江 조에서 白江은 熊津(江口) 동남쪽에 위치했으며, 또한(亦) 大海를 接하고 있다.”라고 하고 있다. 이 표현은 熊津江口가 바다를 접하고 있지만 白江口도 바다를 접하고 있다는 의미이다. 두 江이 분명이 다르다는 것을 말해준다. 『舊唐書』 百濟전을 보면 663년 劉仁軌가 唐船團을 이끌고,“熊津江에서 白江으로 갔다”라고 하고 있다. 一統志 저자들은 周留城이 全州의 西쪽에 있다고 주장하고 있다. 그렇다면 周留城은 지금의 전북 扶安이나 古阜이다. 왜 이러한 주장이 나왔을까. 그들이 인지하고 있던 『東國通鑑』(新羅 文武王) 報薛仁貴書 조를 보면 顯經 6년(661)에 이르러 唐軍의 요청을 받고 출동한 신라군이 周留城에서 패배하여 철수한 기록이 나온다. 顯慶 6년은 661년 正月에서 2월 그믐 乙未日(龍朔으로 改元) 하루 전까지를 말한다. 『資治通鑑』 661년 3월 1일 조에 신라군이 古泗에 이르러 백제인들의 공격을 받고 철수했다는 기록이 보이는데 一統志 저자들이 이를 직접 언급한 바 있다( 『大淸一統志』 卷421, 泗州城 조). 報薛仁貴書의 顯慶 6년(661) 조의 기록과 『資治通鑑』 661년 3월 1일 기록은 시간적으로 선후가 일치한다. 전자는 周留城이라고 하고 후자는 古泗라고 한다. 『北史』 백제전을 인용했던 一統志 저자들은 백제 中方인 古沙城을 인지하고 있었으며, 周留城=古泗=古沙城이란 등식이 성립된다고는 것을 알고 있었다. 그래서 그들은 周留城이 全州의 西쪽에 있다고 했던 것이다.