백제와 탐라 관계를 바라보는 시각

The View of Baekje and Tamna Relations

백제와 탐라 관계에 대해 다음과 같은 이견이 등장했다. 먼저 탐라가 문주왕 2년(476)에는 정치적으로 복속했다는 『三國史記』 백제본기의 기록보다는 『日本書紀』 계체천황 2년(508) 조의 기록이 객관적이고 사료적 가치가 크므로 무령왕대로 보아야 한다는 것이다. 다음으로 백제가 영산강 유역에 진출한 시기를 근초고왕대로 볼 수 없다고 했다. 그리고 『日本書紀』 신공황후 49년 조의 침미다례를 제주도의 탐라와 동일한 세력으로 보려고 한다. 또한 문주왕 2년과 동성왕 20년에 백제에 사신을 보낸 탐라는 제주도가 아니라 강진과 해남이라고 한다. 이러한 주장은 나름의 논리를 세우기도 했지만, 관련 사료의 면밀한 검토와 역사적 정황으로 보아 성립하기 어렵다. 백제가 탐라와 통교한 시기는 『日本書紀』 계체천황 2년(508) 조의 기사를 근거로 삼는 것보다는 『三國史記』 백제본기 문주왕 2년(476)의 기록을 따르는 것이 타당하다. 백제와 탐라의 통교는 일찍부터 주호가 백제와 교류한 결과이고, 『日本書紀』의 통교 기록은 백제가 아닌 왜와 탐라의 통교 기록이다. 백제가 남해안지역으로 진출한 시기는 통설처럼 근초고왕 대로 보아야 한다. 『日本書紀』 신공황후 49년 조의 침미다례를 탐라와 동일시 할 수는 없으며, 남해안에 있었던 마한세력 중 하나인 신미국으로 보아야 한다. 영산강유역의 문화적인 양상이 백제의 중앙과 오래도록 달랐다고 하더라도 정치적으로 독립된 마한세력이 계속해서 유지되었다고 보는 것은 타당하지 않다. 동성왕 20년(498)의 무진주 진출과 탐라 정벌을 위한 출정은 육로가 아닌 해상을 이용한 것이었으며, 탐라를 탐모라라고 한 기록을 근거로 탐라의 위치를 강진과 해남 등에 비정할 수는 없다. 탐모라는 탐라의 이칭에 불과하므로 제주도로 보는 것이 마땅하다.

There is disagreement about the idea that Tamna became politically subordinate to Baekje at least by the second year of King Munju's reign (476), as Tamna had been in contact with Baekje from an early time. Some argue against the records in the “Baekje bon-gi” (百濟本記) of the Samguk Sagi (三國史記) citing a story from the Nihon Shoki (日本書紀) that Tamna first established diplomatic relations with Baekje in the second year of Emperor Keitai's reign (508) and claiming that the latter's record is more objective and of higher historical value. This has been used as evidence against the widely-held belief that Baekje under King Geunchogo secured the Yeongsan River basin and expanded southward toward the southern coast. In addition, the view that the southern coast of South Jeolla Province, such as the Yeongsan River basin, maintained a unique culture different from the center of Baekje until the first half of the 6th century, was combined to expand to the theory that Mahan forces continued to exist in these regions until a relatively late period. Moreover, there have been alternative claims that Tamna was located not on Jeju Island, but rather in the towns of Gangjin and Haenam on the southern coast of South Jeolla Province. This paper is a critique of the controversies surrounding the exchange between Baekje and Tamna. Firstly, it argues that the record in the Nihon Shoki from the 2nd year of Emperor Keitai (508) about the exchange between Baekje and Tamna might actually be a record about the exchange between Wa and Tamna and that the record in the “Baekje bon-gi” of Samguk Sagi should be given more weight. In particular, it emphasizes that since the Juho which were originally located on Jeju Island had long been in contact with Baekje, the exchange between Tamna and Baekje in the 2nd year of King Moonju should be accepted as it is. Secondly, this article criticizes the claim that Baekje expanded its territory to the southern coast of Jeolla province during the mid-4th century under the reign of King Geunchogo, which is based on a record of the massacre of chimmidaryeo in the 49th year of Emperor Shinkō of Japan in the Nihon Shoki. The article points out that this record is erroneous and provides a comparison with a record of Emperor Ōjin in the 8th year of his reign in the same Nihon Shoki to support its argument. Furthermore, the article refutes the claim by citing previous research that there is no mention of the massacre on the King Gwanggaeto's tombstone, which was built in 414. Lastly, it argues that it is unlikely that the massacre took place on Jeju Island and instead suggests that it occurred on the southern coast of South Jeolla Province. Thirdly, it was argued that the claim that Tamna, to which Baekje sent envoys n the second year of King Moonju and the twentieth year of King Dongseong was not Jeju Island but Gangjin and Haenam is incorrect. Another claim that Tamna was the name for Jeju and Tammora was the name for Gangjin and Haenam, since in the 20th year of King Dongsung's reign, Tamna was called Tammora, is also incorrect. This is supported by articles of the 36th year of King Wideok of the Samguk Sagi, articles about Baekje from Beishu (北史), and the Suishu (隋書), which indicate that Tammora was simply another name for Tamna. Additionally, it was shown that the location of the battle of Mujinju, which King Dongseong launched to conquer Tamna, was in the southern coast of South Jeolla Province, under the jurisdiction of Mujinju, and that it was conducted by sea rather than by land, and by a navy rather than an army. To summarize the above arguments, it can be concluded that Tamna had already had contact with Baekje since the period of the Juho. During the reign of King Moonju, Tamna had already established diplomatic relations with Baekje, and Baekje's expansion to the southern coast of Korea during the reign of King Geunchogo is a fact that should be acknowledged.