「西突厥」起源説再考 : 前近代における漢文史書を中心として

DOI Web Site

書誌事項

タイトル別名
  • A Reconsideration of Opinions on the Origins of Xi-Tujue(西突厥) : Premodern Chinese History Texts
  • ニシトッケツ キゲン セツ サイコウ ゼン キンダイ ニ オケル カンブン シショ オ チュウシン ト シテ

この論文をさがす

抄録

It is commonly accepted that the Tujue (突厥) split into two nations-i.e. the Xi-Tujue (西突厥) and the Dong-Tujue (東突厥)-in 583. This theory is based mainly on the Suishu's (隋書) description; it is probable that the description is only an interpretation, since the term Xi-Tujue cannot found in the sources before the Shekui-kehan (射匱可汗) regime. In this paper descriptions about the origins of the Xi-Tujue in premodern Chinese history texts are analyzed from the viewpoint that they are interpretations. The conclusions drawn are as follows. The Suishu, including the opinion on Xi-Tujue origins, only says that the Xi-Tujue were established by Daluobian (大邏便) and that discord (隙) between Daluobian and Shetu (摂図) caused the split. It says no tnore. The Tongdian (通典) regards the appearance of the hostile military situation between the East and the West as the establishment of "Eastern and Western Parts" (東西部). Original Notes to the Tongdian considered this hostility the establishment of "Two Nations" (二国) and regards "Part" (部) as "Nation" (国). The Zizhitongjian (資治通鑑) says that the hostile military situation arose in 583 and the Daluobian declared Xi-Tujue in 585. It is the first to mention clearly when Xi-Tujue was established. Hu Sanxing (胡三省) agrees with the Zizhitongjian and identifies the discord with a series of events concerning the appearance of the hostile military situation. The Xintangshu (新唐書) considers the founder of Xi-Tujue to be Dianjue (〓厥) and maintains that its origin led to Tuwu (吐務), who was Dianjue's grandfather. The Jiutangshu (旧唐書) in its Tujue-zhuan's (突厥伝) beginning only says that the Xi-Tujue had a same ancestor (同祖) as the Bei-Tuiue (北突厥). Two reconstructions are assumed here. One is that the descriptions about Xi-Tujue's founding by Daluobian in earlier books was abridged by the Jiutanshu's editor. The other is that he had doubts about it, but he could give no concrete opinion. Either reconstruction is equally probable.

収録刊行物

  • 史学雑誌

    史学雑誌 108 (11), 1933-1952,2062-, 1999

    公益財団法人 史学会

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ