穆克登查边与《皇舆全览图》编绘——兼对穆克登"审视碑"初立位置的考辨

康熙年间打牲乌拉总管穆克登的长白山查边活动,是东北边疆史研究的重要课题.以往学界的研究多注重查边定界活动,忽视了穆克登此行的另一项使命--为<皇舆全览图>的编绘进行实地勘测.而完成<皇舆全览图>东北舆图测绘工作,则是康熙帝两次派遣穆克登前往长白山区的重要原因.穆克登的查边过程是定界、绘图同时进行,所以此次划定边界的勘界成果便保留在<皇舆全览图>中.本文通过深入分析穆克登查边与编绘<皇舆全览图>的关系,结合舆图资料和中朝双方文献记载,对穆克登"审视碑"初立位置做重新探研.     

穆克登碑原址考证

清康熙五十一年,乌喇总管穆克登奉旨勘查中朝边界,在其认定的鸭绿江、图们江分水岭建立一座石碑。从光绪十一年朝鲜勘界使李重夏的秘密奏章《乙酉状启追后别单》、《朝鲜王朝实录》、《皇舆全览图》以及当初朝鲜接伴使朴权、首译官金指南的日记看,穆克登勘定的土门江源只能是发源于长白山的石乙水或红土山水,其所立石碑最初位置只能是在发现位置长白山天池南麓而不可能是在小白山。     

长白山东南地区石堆土堆筑设的真相

清光绪朝中朝会勘图们江边界时,李氏朝鲜高宗政府以筑设在长白山东麓黄花松沟子一线的石堆、土堆为划分边界的合法标识物,其实是一些伪证。这些石堆、土堆原来是李朝肃宗政府的下级官吏擅自改变清康熙朝查边钦差穆克登委托筑设边界标识物的施工地段,咨意筑设的,当年李朝政府曾明白认定其为非法,所以黄花松沟子根本不是历史上的中朝边界线。而李朝高宗政府改变原来立场,竟然利用这些伪证向清政府提出领土要求。当两国勘界代表分队会勘时,朝方人员在树丛中发现了肃宗朝时在穆克登委托的地段上最初筑设的石堆,但却故意欺瞒清政府勘界委员。因此,清光绪朝中朝会勘边界是李氏朝鲜高宗政府利用伪证、隐瞒实证对清政府进行的外交欺骗     

篠田治策与《白头山定界碑》

康熙五十一年(1712),清廷诏令乌拉总管穆克登勘查中朝边界本国一侧,途中于鸭绿江、图们江正源分水岭———小白山山顶凿立高约3尺、长约2尺的查边纪念碑一通,碑文为“大清乌喇总管穆克登,奉旨查边,至此审视,西为鸭绿,东为土门,故于分水岭上勒石为记”。该碑史称穆克登碑(即外方所称白头山定界碑)。由碑文内容可以明显看出,所谓“白头山定界碑”本来是清朝政府派员自行勘察中朝边界中国一侧的一座碑刻纪念物,而决非中朝边境的“定界碑”,但由于外方对这一历史事件及碑刻的曲解,后来竟成为清代以来中朝边界争议的一个焦点,包括日本学者在内的中外学者对此进行了长期的研究和探讨,《白头山定界碑》一书是这种探讨的结果之一。     

穆克登碑的性质及其凿立地点与位移述考——近世中朝边界争议的焦点

１７１２年，康熙帝派穆克登到中朝边界去本是本国自行“查边”。穆差在鸭绿江、图们江分水岭上凿立的石碑，不过是审视水源的标志与证明到达奉旨查边关键地段的纪念物。光绪朝中朝会勘图们江边界时，双方官员看到该碑矗立于长白山主峰东南麓。朝方硬说该碑是“定界碑”，要求以彼处为基点同清朝政府划定边界。清朝勘界委员会坚申当年穆差出来是为查边，非为定界，故此碑并非“定界碑”。更以碑文与当地江山形势不符，但与小白山江山形势相符，疑是原立于小白山顶，后被人移来，但并未稍指是何时何人所为。清季吴禄贞虽然有力的论证了穆碑不是定界碑，更肯定其位移是朝民所为，但有欠具体。本文用朝鲜历史文献证明穆碑当初实凿立于小白山顶，但穆差方离去，即被朝鲜下级官吏许梁、朴道常移到长白山东南麓，以与其同时非法筑设的石堆土堆等伪边界标识物相连接配套，用以为日后与我争界的证据。此移位的穆碑与伪边界标识物石堆土堆连同“土门”、“图们”两江妄说，构成了李氏朝鲜高宗政府对清朝政府进行谋夺边疆领土国际外交大欺骗的基本内容     

康熙时期穆克登碑初立位置新证

清康熙五十一年(1712),康熙帝命打牲乌拉总管穆克登赴中朝交界的图们江、鸭绿江江源一带确定两江正源,并在分水岭处树立界碑,史称"穆克登碑"。根据新发现的李匡德《冠阳集·答李君敬书》、首尔大学奎章阁藏《西北界图》和《八道地图》、成海应《北边杂议》等朝方资料,结合中国第一历史档案馆所藏满文奏折、清末相关人员的实地考察等中方资料,作者认为穆克登碑最初确实立于小白山分水岭上,穆克登指定的图们江源是红丹水。     

清代封祭长白山与派员踏查长白山

我国东北与朝鲜邻界的长白山,曾经有过名号累易备受尊崇的经历。清朝入关,基于保护发祥圣地、巩固后方、独占资源、防止偷越等政治与经济的目的,对长白山施行封禁;同时修神殿于吉林温德亨山,定期派员望祭。清朝踏查长白山始于康熙中,断续至宣统末,武木讷、穆克登、刘建封即其主要代表。武木讷疏通了入山的通道,属探秘性质;穆克登为奉旨查边,曾勒石于鸭绿、图们两江分水岭上,有明显的守土色彩;刘建封曾遍访天池诸峰、三江源流、奉吉边界,首次揭开了长白山江冈的奥秘,写下许多充满炽烈爱国激情的著作,为了解长白山提供了可贵的史料。研究清朝对长白山的封祭与踏查,展示它开发的过程与轨迹,具有重要的历史与现实的意义,本文试图就此加以探讨。     

李重夏与“土门”、图们“两江说”

19世纪末,朝鲜王朝向清王朝提出穆克登碑文所标示的界河"土门"不是图们江,而是海兰河(后来改为黄花松沟子),中朝两国应以"土门"分界。为此,双方进行了两次界务谈判。谈判中,朝鲜李重夏虽然坚决主张"土门"非今图们江的"两江说",但其实知晓这一观点是错误的。界务谈判后,李重夏以"别单"形式几次撰文上奏政府,阐述了他对"两江说"的真实看法,论证了"土门"即图们江、图们江自朝鲜王朝初年就已是中朝两国界河的史实,揭露了"两江说"的策划者是鱼允中,被朝鲜称为"分界江"的布尔哈通河与现实界河毫不相关等。     

刘建封与长白山十六峰命名

<正>长白山,是中华名山,满族圣山。长白山最早见于中国4000多年前的文字记载中,《山海经》称不咸山,北魏称徒太山,唐称太白山,金始称长白山。长白山,位于吉林省东南部地区,为中朝两国界山,是松花江、图们江和鸭绿江的发源地。著名景点有天池、瀑布、原始深林和长白山十六峰等。光绪三十四(1908)年5月28日,刘建封受命查勘长白山。1909年,他成为安图县第一任知事。他带5名测绘员、16名士兵,一行25人,历时四年之久,曾先后四次踏查长白山     

黑石沟土石堆考

本文利用古文献资料和古地图资料,再结合笔者实地踏查的经验,考察了康熙五十一年穆克登定界时筑设的堆标的遗迹,确认黑石沟东南岸的土石堆沿长约23公里,合54韩里,黑石沟全长约24公里,合57韩里。还确认黑石沟是一条干沟,没有水流入松花江,并不是松花江支流。本文阐明光绪年间勘界时所说的土石堆"沿长九十里",不无参照康熙年间的许梁供辞而伪造的痕迹,目的是为了造成黑石沟与松花江上流相连的假象,因为这是土门、豆满二江说成立的前提。     

Climate and energy security policies and measures: synergies and conflicts

Concerns about climate and energy security are leading to increased government intervention in the energy sector, in particular as they relate to the choice of energy supply options. While many of these options will improve both energy and climate security, many measures will benefit one while harming the other. This raises an important question for governments and energy planners: how can conflicts between climate and energy security be resolved? This article outlines some of the barriers and problems that may arise as governments and companies try to address climate and energy security concerns simultaneously in various energy supply areas. It concludes by arguing against choosing one objective over the other, and by outlining steps that can be taken to help resolve conflicts between the two agendas.     

我和我的兄弟姐妹

1938年．我出生在金沙江畔一个叫巴塘的小县城里。生在哪一天．至今不知道．因此．六十多年过去了．我从来也没有过过生日。     

Challenger and Chernobyl Lessons and Reflections

Abstract

It is argued that Psychological research on 'race' and 'ethnicity' issues presents a number of ethical problems. These relate to the sociopolitical impact of such research, particularly when it purports to find differences of an 'innate' character; to the use of naive subjects, particularly children, in research which is aimed at demonstrating their 'inferiority'; and, within the academic community itself, to the working relationships between researchers who believe in 'innate' 'race' differences and colleagues belonging to allegedly 'inferior' groups – this being particularly significant within a teaching environment. Although the 'race differences' question has a long and controversial history, ethical issues relating to the research process itself have received less focused attention. Moreover, replacement of the genetically obsolete concept of 'race' with the idea of 'ethnicity' does not solve the problem entirely, and the term 'ethnicity' is itself unsatisfactory in several respects.     

Power and Ethnicity History and Anthropology

This essay reflects on the relationship between anthropological and historical scholarship of ethnicity, picking up on themes explored by Andre Gingrich, by considering the epistemological and evidentiary limitations of social scientific and historical analysis and reconstruction. Beginning with the consideration of the pioneering transdisciplinary efforts of Robert Darnton and Clifford Geertz, it argues that many of the weaknesses ascribed to such efforts are actually part of the nature of social scientific investigation which, in the terms of Peter Winch, must take into account two sets of relationships: that of the relationship between the scientist and the phenomena that he or she observes and the symbolic system that he or she shares with other scientists, which can only be understood from the social context of common activity. How these two relationships challenge social scientific analysis of ethnicity are examined through a consideration of the difficulties of applying Anthony Smith's definition of an ethnie to either Fredrik Barth's classic essay on “Pathan Identity and its Maintenance” or Helmut Reimitz's study of Frankish identity. It concludes that neither anthropologists nor historians are simply describing societies as they are or as they were but rather attempt to describe societies as witnesses within them thought they should be, and we do this for our own society, not for those of the participants, past or present.     

Of Demons and Angels and Historical Humans: Some Events and Questions in Translation and Post-colonial Theory

In what follows, I attempt to show that a look at some curious examples of translations from European texts makes us think about issues in translation theory and post-colonial theory from a slightly different angle. The metaphor of translation can very well be employed for understanding the relation between European texts, and some texts and some social and political practices in India in the colonial period, and this in turn helps us look critically at what I shall call our fuzzy post-colonialism. I also argue that Walter Benjamin's metaphor of translation as the after-life of a work can be extended to posit two basic modes of after-life.     

后伊拉克时代与中国的内政外交--普遍主义与单边主义的冲突

"9·11"事件后,冷战后的国际政治格局发生了重大变化.其最大特征可以概括为以下两点:第一,确立了以唯一超级大国--美国为核心的以反恐为普遍主义的全球性安全阵线;第二,美国的爱国主义、民族主义戏剧性地高涨起来.就像当时有人强调因为全世界有60多个国家的人在世界贸易中心工作,所以对世贸中心的攻击就是对全世界的攻击那样,在美国国民中普遍存在着这样的观点:因为美国社会自身就是世界的缩影,所以星条旗也可被看作是超越一国国界的全人类的普遍象征.