作为“东洋学派”与“古史辨派”的创始人，白鸟库吉与顾颉刚都展开对《禹贡》“九州”名称由来的考证，二者在主要证据、结论、视角、考辨方式、论证层次上有明显差异。关于《禹贡》“九州”名称的产生时间，白鸟库吉认为产生于春秋时代，孔子之前，顾颉刚认为“九州说”产生于春秋中叶，而《禹贡》“九州”中九个州的具体名称产生于战国时代。白鸟库吉将《禹贡》“九州”中关于地理位置、民族疆域、人文、贡赋等记述认定为源于中国传统思想的传说，并不具有地理记述价值，顾颉刚则将其视作一个不断演化、渐趋具体化的地理学概念；白鸟库吉的考证只关注中国传统思想文化因素，完全忽视地理性因素，而顾颉刚不仅考虑到五行思想的因素，而且更多地关注地理沿革；白鸟库吉把《禹贡》“九州说”当作“尧舜禹抹杀论”的一个重要证据，而顾颉刚对《禹贡》“九州”的考证相对独立，没有较强的结论指向性。","Siratorikurakiti and Ku Chieh-kang, as the poineers of the Oriental History and The Suspicion of the Ancient Chinese History respectively, the research about the origin of the name, “the Nine States”, in Yugong Geography was conducted by both of them. However, there are apparent distinctions among their main evidence, conclusions, perspectives, methodologies of the research and the levels of the argumentation. Siratorikurakiti holds that the name of “the Nine States” appears over the Spring and Autumn Period that is prior to the time of Confucius, whereas Ku Chieh-kang maintains that “the Nine States” was generated during the mid Spring and Autumn Period, yet the specific names of“the Nine States” in Yugong Geography was produced during the Warring States Period. Siratorikurakiti insists that the relevant accounts of the “the Nine States” including the locations, national territories, humanities and tributes in Yugong Geography originate from Chinese traditional legends which have no value of geographical description, but Ku Chieh-kang regards the “the Nine States” as an evolving and more specific geographical concept. Siratorikurakiti only focuses on the elements of Chinese traditional cultural and the geographical elements are not taken into consideration, while not only Ku Chieh-kang considers the Five Elements, but he pays more attention to the history of the geographic evolution. Siratorikurakiti views the “The Argument of Nine States” in Yugong Geography as a piece of important evidence confirmed the “The Argument of Erasing Yao-Shun-Yu”, while the study of Ku Chieh-kang is relatively independent without the strong conclusive tendency.