摘要
侯“驺”是高句丽早期历史中的关键人物,他到底是高句丽王还是将,这一身份的确定是解开高句丽早期历史诸多谜团的“钥匙”。文献关于侯“驺”的记载主要出现在中国正史和朝鲜半岛史书中,较早成书的《汉书》《三国志》的内容相对清晰客观,之后的《后汉书》相关内容则出现了歧义,这对后史产生了深远的影响。无论是以后的正史,还是《资治通鉴》《通志》等诸多文献均不同程度出现理解的偏差,乃至混乱记载。朝鲜半岛史书《三国史记》《东国通鉴》等文献基于“古记”,回避了正史中侯“驺”被杀和“始见称王”的不利信息,将高句丽始祖身世“神话化”,并建构出“延丕”形象加以替代。明确高句丽侯“驺”的身份,需要对基本史料进行再比勘,分析不同史料记载混乱的因由,以及隐藏其中的关键信息;还要从王莽新朝的整体视角下探讨边疆经略的逻辑。结合王莽对边疆的了解及对边疆政权首领的诛杀,尤其王莽将高句丽“虏驺”与匈奴单于“虏知”对等,以及“驺”被杀后的巨大反应,加之“驺”与“邹牟”的书写和内涵上的密切关系,基本可以得出高句丽侯“驺”就是当时高句丽政权的首领邹牟(朱蒙)的结论。
Hou"Zou",is a key figure in the early history of Gaogouli.Determining whether he was the monarch or a military commander of Gaogouli is crucial to unlocking many of the mysteries of Gaogouli's early history.The historical records of Hou"Zou"primarily derive from Chinese official dynastic histories and the historical texts from Korean Peninsula.Earlier texts such as the Book of Han and Records of the Three Kingdoms provide relatively clear and objective accounts,while the later Book of the Later Han introduced ambiguities that profoundly influenced later historiography.Whether in subsequent official histories or in texts like the Comprehensive Mirror to Aid in Government and General Records,there are varying degrees of interpretative deviation and even conflicting accounts.Historical texts from the Korean Peninsula,such as the Samguk Sagi and Dongguk Tonggam,which are based on"ancient records",omitted unfavorable details from the Book of Han and Records of the Three Kingdoms regarding Hou"Zou's"execution and"first proclaiming of kingship",instead mythologizing Gaogouli's founder and substituting his identity with the constructed figure of"Yanpi".To clarify the identity of Hou"Zou"of Gaogouli,it is necessary to re-examine the primary historical sources,analyze the causes of historiographical discrepancies,and uncover the key information they conceal.Additionally,the broader context of Wang Mang's Xin Dynasty and its borderland governance strategies must be considered.Examining Wang Mang's understanding of the borderland and his policy of eliminating leaders of borderland regimes,particularly his equating of Gaogouli's"captured Zou"with the Xiongnu Chanyu"captured Zhi",combined with Wang's intense reaction to Zou's execution and the etymological-conceptual links between"Zou"and"Zou Mou"(Zhumeng),it can be concluded that the Hou"Zou"of Gaogouli was,in fact,the leader of the Gaogouli regime at the time,Zou Mou(Zhumeng).
作者
朱尖
ZHU Jian(Institute of Chinese Borderland Studies,History Research of China,Chinese Academy of Social Sciences;Research Center of Turkic of CASS,Beijing 100101,China)
出处
《中央民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》
北大核心
2025年第2期109-120,共12页
Journal of Minzu University of China(Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition)
基金
国家社会科学基金专项项目“高句丽政权建构与族群形成演变研究”(项目编号:22VGB003)
中国社会科学院学科建设“登峰战略”资助计划优势学科“中国边疆史”(项目编号:DF2023YS20)。
