论文部分内容阅读
在明代,中朝两国均纂修了代表性的官修地理志书。在对于鸭绿江、图们江地理的记载及认识方面,明朝的官修地理志书因沿袭了传统地志体例模式,“重中原而弱边疆”的记史方式,并继承了“华夷之限”的思想,以及采取了特殊的东北边疆治理政策,而展现出了较之前代几近停滞的认识。相比之下,朝鲜王朝的官修地理志书却因其对中国传统史学进行了扬弃,并基于其北方军事要求与王室需求乃至北疆的快速开拓,以及采取了与内地一致的北疆管辖政策,从而展现出了较之前代不断深化的认识。在导致中朝双方认识出现差异的这些原因背后,更有明朝传统“天下”观的包容型边疆观与朝鲜王朝基于疆土实利的务实型边疆观的不同,而这也正是双方差异如此巨大最深层次的根源。
In the Ming Dynasty, both China and the DPRK complimented a representative official geocentric book. In terms of the records and understanding of the Yalu River and the Tumen River geography, the official records of the Ming Dynasty follow the historical mode of traditional geo-genography and “emphasize the Central Plains and weak frontiers” and inherit the “ The limit of Hua Yi ”, and adopted a special policy of governing the northeast border, showing a rather stalled understanding than the previous generation. In contrast, the DPRK’s official revision of geographical records gave up its pursuit of traditional Chinese historiography and, based on its military requirements in the north and the rapid development of royal needs and even the northern part of the country, and the administration of the northern Xinjiang in conformity with the mainland Policy, thus showing a deepening understanding of previous generations. Behind these reasons that led to the difference between China and the DPRK, there is more difference between the inclusive frontier concept of the Ming Dynasty and the DPRK’s pragmatic frontier outlook based on the realities of the territory, and this is precisely the difference between the two sides Such a huge source of the deepest level.