Historical-Spatial Identification and Textual Verification of Hebei in Ancient Chinese Sources and Modern Hebei Province : A Cross-Textual Examination of Shangshu Zhengyi, Tongdian, and the Historical Hebei Commandery and County in Shanxi

This study reexamines the historical meanings and spatial identities of Hebei, written as 河北(하북), in Chinese historical texts and investigates whether the ancient 河北縣(하북현) and 河北郡(하북 군) can be identified with the modern 河北省(하북성). Particular attention is given to the textual attribution of Hebei-related passages in the 尚書正義(상서정의) and 通典(통전), which have sometimes been cited in secondary discussions without sufficient verification. The study cross-checks these materials with the 晉書 (진서), 魏書(위서), 元和郡縣圖志(원화군현도지), 太平寰宇記(태평환우기), and 欽定⼤清⼀統志(흠정대청일통지). The research adopts four methods: textual criticism, source comparison, administrative-geographical analysis, and historical-spatial verification. First, the dates and textual traditions of the relevant sources are established. Second, passages concerning 河北(하북) are examined in their original textual contexts. Third, the administrative levels of 郡(군), 縣(현), 道(도), and 省(성) are distinguished. Fourth, later geographical works and modern historical-GIS materials are used as supplementary evidence for identifying historical locations. The results demonstrate that the frequently cited 河北(하북)-related passage attributed to 尚書正義(상서정의) cannot be verified as an original passage of that work and therefore should not be used as direct evidence. Likewise, 通典(통전) presents a broad administrative geography of ancient 冀州(기주) rather than a simple definition of Hebei as a fixed region. By contrast, 晉書(진서) explicitly records 河北(하북) as a county of 河東郡(하동군), while 魏書 (위서) records 河北郡(하북군) and lists 河北(하북) and ⼤陽(대양) among its subordinate counties. Later geographical works connect these places with present-day 芮城縣(예성현) and 平陸縣(평륙현) in southern ⼭西省(산서성). The study therefore argues that the historical Hebei in the 河東 (하동) administrative context and the modern 河北省(하북성) should be treated as distinct historical-spatial entities. The same written name does not necessarily indicate administrative or geographical continuity. This approach contributes to source-critical research on historical Chinese place names and provides a methodological framework for distinguishing textual identity from administrative identity.