ウイグル可汗の系譜と唐宋漢籍史料―懐信と保義の間―

機関リポジトリ Web Site オープンアクセス

書誌事項

タイトル別名
  • The Genealogy of the Uighur Kaghans and the Han Chinese Written Sources of the Tang and Song Periods: From Huaixin to Baoyi
  • ウイグル カ アセ ノ ケイフ ト トウ ソウ カンセキ シリョウ : カイシン ト ホギ ノ アイダ

この論文をさがす

抄録

A perception gap has been created between academic circles of Japan and China regarding the genealogy of the Uighur kaghans from Huaixin 懷信 to Baoyi 保義. In Japan in 1951, Yamada Nobuo overturned the conventional opinion about the kaghan genealogy, Huaixin → Tengli 滕里 → Baoyi, arguing a direct succession from Huaixin to Baoyi and winning general acceptance. Then in Taiwan in 1978, Liu Yitang launched a broadside against Yamada’s hypothesis, supporting the previous tripartite genealogy, winning general acceptance throughout Chinese academia. The cause of this gap has arisen from alleged“ confusion” about the existing Han Chinese historiography. The present article is an attempt to reconsider the problem of the kaghan genealogy as a problem of the Han Chinese sources, employing two different approaches: the first approach being to reorganize the information in the Tang and Song Period sources focusing on diaoji celishi 弔祭册立使, Tang Dynasty envoys dispatched to the Uighur court to express condolences on occasion of the death of a kaghan and to approve his successor; the second to examine newly discovered sources containing the epitaphs of those envoys. In addition, the author also reviews the character and quality of the Han Chinese sources in question. Because the kaghan genealogy issue existed before the 6th year of the Dazhong 大中 Era (852), the related sources may be arranged chronologically as Tanghuiyao 唐會要→ Jiutangshu 舊唐書→ Cefuyuangui 册府元龜 → Xintangshu 新唐書→ Zizhitongjian 資治通鑑, and the specific information regarding kaghans generally unfolds along this same continuum. Based on the above two approaches, the author concludes the following. To begin with, the Tanghuiyao identified the wrong persons as diaoji celishi in the items written about the succession of the Uighur kaghans, creating a misunderstanding about the existence of a Tengli Kaghan, thus confirming the Yamada hypothesis. Moreover, the later sources in the source chronology not only occasionally base their accounts on the Tanghuiyao’s misinformation, but also changed the narrative with their different editorial policies, thus leading to their“ confusion” about the kaghan genealogy.

収録刊行物

  • 東洋学報

    東洋学報 100 (2), 33-65, 2018-09

    東洋文庫

関連プロジェクト

もっと見る

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ