<論説>韓信故里からみた楚の東漸 : 江蘇淮安市運河村一号戦国墓の検証を中心に

Abstract

江蘇省淮安市から出土した運河村墓は戦国中後期の境に造営された楚国の墓とされ、楚が前四世紀末には[カン]溝以東まで支配を拡大していた証左とされた。しかし本稿では同墓が土着の習俗を保持した楚墓とは異質な墓であることを指摘し、江東の情勢と比較することで、淮安に楚の実効支配が及んだのは戦国後期以降だったことを明示した。つまり戦国中期には楚が淮河・長江両下流域をも支配するようになっていたとする従来の認識は誤っており、春秋戦国に江漢地区で栄えた楚と秦末漢初に江淮地区で興った楚とを単純に同一視することはできないのである。秦末に楚の勢力として挙兵した人々のなかには戦国時代に楚の支配を短期間しか受けていない地域の人々も少なくなかったのであり、淮安出身の韓信もその一人だった。彼らが楚のもとに結集した一要因としては楚文化の共有が指摘でき、今後は漢帝国の成立に楚文化が果たした役割について考えていく必要がある。

Huai'an, located at the mouth of the Hangou Canal on the Huaihe River in Jiangsu province, is the birthplace of Han Xin, a leading minister of Liu Bang, the founder of the Han dynasty known as Gaozu. According to the report on the Yunhecun-1 Warring States-Period Tomb excavated in 2004, the tomb has been judged a tomb from Chu state that was built near the shift from the mid to the late Warring States period and it is evidence that Chu had spread its control to basin of the Hangou Canal by the end of the fourth century BCE. In the conventional understanding of the extent of Chu's control, which was based on written sources, it was thought that the basin of the Hangou Canal had been incorporated into Chu territory by the mid Warring States period, and the report on the Yunhecun-1 Warring States- Period Tomb has been used to confirm the conventional understanding on the basis of archaeological evidence. Nevertheless, there are many problems concerning the report's argument that the tomb was a Chu tomb; whether it can actually be called a Chu tomb and whether the tomb can really be taken as evidence proving the conventional understanding of the extent Chu territory is extremely dubious. Moreover, as the conventional understanding of the extent of Chu territory itself was based on fragmentary written sources and was merely speculative, it is doubtful whether the Chu truly expanded its territory to the Hangou Canal basin during the mid Warring States period. Then in this paper, I examine each of the arguments in the report of the Yunhecun tomb one by one and prove that this tomb exhibits characteristics of the older customs of Huai'an that are at odds with those of Chu tombs and thus it cannot be called a tomb of the Chu state. Next, tracing the changes in the Warring State-era tombs from excavations in Jiangdong, the southern part of Jiangsu and the northern portion of Zhejiang, Shanghai in the southern downstream basin of the Changjiang River and the lower basin of the Qiantangjiang River that permit us to reconstruct to a certain extent the process of the actual implementation of Chu rule, which can also be seen in written sources, I clarify what sorts of changes in the tombs in the region that came about with the beginnings of actual Chu rule. In regard to the Huai'an during the Warring States period, nothing can be learned with certainty from written sources, but through a comparison of the changes in tombs in Huai'an and those in Jiangdong, I demonstrate that the spread of Chu's actual rule to Huai'an occurred following the final stage of the Warring States period as it also did in Jiangdong. In short, the conventional understanding of the expansion of the territory of Chu into the Hangou Canal basin by the mid Warring States period is mistaken, and the expansion of actual Chu rule into the lower basins of the Huaihe River and the Changjiang River took place after the final stage of the Warring States period had begun. Therefore, we understand that the Chu that flourished in the Jianghan region in the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods and the "Chu" that rose in Jianghuai region at the close of the Qin and early Han periods cannot simply be viewed as identical Among the "Chu" forces that arose in the Jianghuai region in the late Qin were people who had only accepted Chu rule in the last stage of the Warring States period, in other words, there were many who had accepted Chu rule for a brief period. It is extremely suggestive that Han Xin ls not called "a Chu person" or "a person from Chu" in the Shiji or the Hanshu, but he is instead called one who was "very familiar with the culture of Chu." It can be said that one reason that such men who were definitely not originally from Chu assembled under its banner was a shared Chu culture. The formation of the Han Empire has been argued solely from the point of the political system, but with now with the addition of excavated sources, it is possible to focus on the fact that there was a shared culture that linked people who were behind the birth of the ancient empire. It will be necessary to consider in the future the role played by Chu culture in the formation of the Han dynasty.