고대사파동과 식민주의, 한국고대사학의 성과와 과제

이정빈 한국역사교육학회 2020 역사교육연구 Vol.- No.37

This article aims at considering the achievements and tasks of Korea ancient history for decolonizing drawing a lesson from the so called crisis in the study of Korea ancient history. In two crises in the study of Korea ancient history, chauvinistic pseudo history claimed to support liquidation of colonialist history during the Japanese colonial period. The recognition of Korean history in chauvinistic pseudo history originated from the urge to forget the memory of colony and create history, as it did in many independent countries that escaped from the colonies in the late 20th century. chauvinistic pseudo history set the colonialist history as an axis of confrontation, and claimed to be anti colonialism and nationalist history. It also argued that the study of Korean history, which did not match this, was to be forgotten by criticizing it as the result of colonialist history. This was the very attempt to justify the creation of a chauvinistic perception of Korean history. However, the chauvinistic pseudo history was an imitation and appropriation of Pan Asianism of Japanese imperialism, and was a way of thinking and product of imperialism and colonialism. It was a colonialism hidden in anti colonialism. In comparison, the history academia criticized colonialist history in terms of recognition and logic rather than content. The academia particularly focused on the theory of heteronomy, and criticized the geographical determinism that was the premise of the theory. Furthermore, the academia criticized the theory of nationality and racism of colonialist history, taking the nationalism(國粹主義) and imperialism into account which possessed colonialist history. Therefore, it was possible to maintain a critical stance with consciousness of crisis in the crisis in the study of Korea ancient history caused by the nationalist pseudo history of the mid 1970s to 1980s. However, it did not move from anti colonialism to post colonialism because it aimed at pursuing study of the development of national history until the 1990s. Post colonialism has been pursued since the 1990s from the perspective of post modernism. The same is true in the study of Korea ancient history. It is necessary to examine the various perspectives of the ancient states and societies, races and genders, regions and cultures, human beings and natural and ecological environments more broadly. For the complete escape from colonialism, it is necessary to look from the bottom, not from the top, and to pay attention to the periphery, not only to the center. This article believes that complete escape can be possible after fully dissecting and overthrowing colonialism and that new and diverse historical research is also possible. It may also be a way to prevent the rerun of another crisis in the study of Korea ancient history. 본고에서는 이른바 고대사파동을 거울로 삼아 탈식민을 위한 한국고대사학의 성과와 과제를 생각해 보고자 했다. 두 차례의 고대사파동에서 국수주의적 유사 역사학은 일제시기 식민주의 역사학에 대한 청산을 표방했다. 국수주의적 유사 역사학의 한국사 인식은 20세기 후반 많은 수의 식민지 독립국가에서 그러하였던 것처럼 식민지 기억을 망각하고 역사를 창출하려는 충동에서 비롯되었다. 그들은 식민주의 역사학을 대립 축으로 설정하고, 反식민주의·민족주의 역사학을 표방했다. 그리고 이에 그와 부합하지 않는 한국사 연구를 식민주의 역사학의 소산으로 비난하며 망각하자고 했다. 이로써 국수주의적 한국사 인식의 창출을 정당화하고자 하였다. 그런데 국수주의적 유사 역사학이야말로 일제의 대아시아주의를 모방·전유한 것으로, 제국주의·식민주의의 사유방식이자 그 산물이었다. 반식민주의에 감추어진 식민주의였다. 이와 비교해 역사학계는 식민주의 역사학의 내용보다 인식과 논리의 측면에서 비판하였다. 특히 타율성론에 주목했는데, 그 전제가 된 지리적 결정론을 비판하였다. 나아가 식민주의 역사학을 배태한 국수주의·제국주의를 염두에 두고, 그의 민족성론·인종주의를 비판하였다. 그러므로 1970년대 중반~1980년대의 국수주의적 유사 역사학이 일으킨 고대사파동에서도 위기의식을 갖고 비판적인 입장을 견지할 수 있었다. 다만 1990년대까지 민족사의 발전을 구명하는 데 목표를 두었기에 반식민주의에서 탈식민주의로 나아가지 못한 면이 있었다. 1990년대 이후 탈근대주의의 관점에서 탈식민주의가 추구되고 있다. 한국고대사 연구에서도 마찬가지이다. 고대의 국가와 사회, 종족과 성별, 지역과 문화, 인간과 자연·생태환경을 바라보는 여러 시각을 보다 폭넓게 점검할 필요가 있다. 식민주의를 충분히 해부하고 전복해야 그로부터 온전히 벗어날 수 있으며, 그래야 새롭고 다양한 역사상의 모색도 가능하다고 믿는다. 또 다른 고대사파동의 재연을 방지하는 길이기도 할 것이다.

청년학우회 하기강습회와 최남선의 「大韓上古史講稿」

권두연(Kwon, Du-yeon) 고려대학교 한국학연구소 2016 한국학연구 Vol.58 No.-

청년학우회는 각종 부설활동을 전개하였지만 강습회에 대해서는 지금까지 주목된 바가 없던 차 최남선이 , 청년학우회의 하기강습회를 위해 쓴 원고인 「대한상고사강고」가 연세대학교 국학자료실 장지영의 기증 문고에서 발견되었다. 이를 계기로 이 연구는 새 자료 소개를 겸해 청년학우회의 하기강습회에 대해 본격적으로 다루었다. 1910년 7월 이전에 작성되었을 것으로 추정되는 「강고」는 최남선의 초기 역사 서술에 관한 사료라는 점에서 탐구적 가치를 지닌다. 이 연구에서는 학우회의 하기강습회가 그간 상동청년학원의 강습회로 오인되었던 점을 바로잡고 장지영이 원고를 소장하게 된 경위를 추정해봄으로써 강습회가 실제 하기강습회 형식으로 실행되었을 가능성을 논증했다. 무엇보다 「강고」의 체재를 분석함으로써 최남선이 상고사와 단군에 대한 인식을 상당히 이른 시기부터 지니고 있었음을 확인할 수 있었다. Young Student Academic Association in Korea which started has not attracted attention so far about the class. By the way, is the manuscript which Choi Nam-seon wrote Korea Ancient history for the Lecture Notes (大韓上古史講稿) for the summer course of Young Student Academic Association in Korea and this ancient history scheme article was discovered newly. This paper studied the summer courses of Young Student Academic Association in Korea while serving as the document introduction and, with this discovery, handled it in earnest. Korea Ancient history for the Lecture Notes(大韓上古史講稿) is possessed in Yonsei University Kokugaku Library as a donation library of Zhang Ji-young which is a scholar of national language in large Korea. It is estimated that the ancient history scheme article was made in large Korea before August, 1910. Korea Ancient history for the Lecture Notes has the value of the document in the point called the document about the initial history description of class and Choi Nam-seon of the young man student"s union in large Korea. I was able to confirm in particular that Choi Nam-seon had upper ancient history and recognition to a platform from considerably early time by the class of Young Student Academic Association in Korea being really established in the form of the summer course, and at least run possibility analyzing the appearance of Korea Ancient history for the Lecture Notes in considerably high point and large Korea.

북한 초기 역사학계의 고대사 인식체계와 구상

이경섭 한국사학사학회 2017 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.36

Right after Liberation, the history circles of North Korea sorted out anew the issues of Gojoseon and the Four Commanderies of Han in the area of ancient history and exhibited a strong tendency of finding the period of ancient history in the Three Kingdoms period in order to overcome the colonial historical studies. Under the influence of nationalistic historical studies mainly led by Shin Chae-ho, they criticized the controversial issues of Gojoseon and the Four Commanderies of Han and argued that the center of Gojoseon should be Liaoning, China. After the Korean War, they started a new controversy over how to set the periods of ancient times, the Middle Ages, slavery, and feudalism and then had intensive discussions about the center of Gojoseon, the perception of the Dangun myth, and the origin of Korean people. As a result, they determined that the ancient society came before the Three Kingdoms period and that there was a medieval feudal society during the Three Kingdoms period. Lee Ji-rin’s Research on Gojoseon represents this perception system of ancient history. The history circles of North Korea right after Liberation were led by Baek Nam-woon, Lee Cheong-won, and Do Yu-ho that used to Marxist historians during the colonial days. After the Korean War and the power struggle(the sect event in August, 1956) inside North Korea, a shift took place in the generations of researchers. Newly emerging Kim Seok-hyeong and Park Si-hyeong established the system of ancient history and pre-modern history in North Korea, which led to the perception system of history that reinforced nationalistic historical studies based on socialist patriotism. This flow eventually evolved into historical studies that was thoroughly subjected to the state and power and offered a base for the emergence of full-blown Juche view of history. 해방 직후 북한 역사학계는 식민주의 역사학의 극복을 위하여 고대사 영역에서는 고조선과 한사군 문제를 새롭게 정리하면서 고대사의 시기를 삼국시대로 바라보는 경향이 강하였다. 논란이 되었던 고조선의 중심지와 한사군 문제는 주로 신채호 등의 민족주의 역사학의 영향 아래 중국의 요령 지역으로 비정하였다. 한국전쟁 이후에는 고대와 중세, 노예제와 봉건제의 시기를 어떻게 설정할 것인가를 둘러싼 논쟁이 시작되었고, 이어서 고조선의 중심지 문제, 단군신화의 인식 문제, 민족의 기원 문제 등이 집중적으로 논의되었다. 그 결과 삼국시대 이전을 고대사회로, 삼국시대를 중세 봉건제 사회로 확정하게 된다. 이러한 고대사 인식 체계를 완성한 연구가 리지린의 『고조선 연구』이다. 해방 직후의 북한 역사학계는 식민지시대 마르크스주의 역사학자로 활동했던 백남운과 리청원, 도유호 등이 주도했지만, 한국전쟁과 북한 내부의 권력투쟁(1956년 8월 종파사건)을 경과하면서 연구자의 세대교체가 이루어진다. 이후 등장한 김석형과 박시형은 북한의 고대사와 전근대사 체계를 구축하는데, 그 결과 역사인식 체계는 사회주의적 애국주의에 기반한 민족주의 역사학의 강화로 귀결되었다. 결국 이러한 흐름은 국가와 권력에 철저하게 종속되는 역사학으로 현상하게 되고, 이후 본격적인 주체사관 등장의 토대를 제공하였다고 생각된다.

한국 전쟁사 서술에 대한 비교와 특징 연구- 남북한 중등 역사 교과서 고대 대중국전쟁사 서술을 중심으로 -

김도형 한국세계문화사학회 2020 세계 역사와 문화 연구 Vol.0 No.56

The purpose of this paper is to compare and analyze the history of the Sino-Korean War, which is described in South and North Korean secondary history textbooks, to study its characteristics. As Korea was reorganized into the 2015 revised curriculum in 2020, new Korean history textbooks were distributed to high schools. North Korea had a new history textbook distributed in 2013 after its curriculum was reorganized in 2012. As a result, history textbooks from the two Koreas were newly distributed, but there was no comparative study on them, so they were the first to compare and analyze secondary history textbooks from the two Koreas. War history education does not emphasize violence, but can serve as a major subject of history education sufficiently as another aspect of peace education. From this point of view, when analyzing the history of the ancient Sino-Korean War, many differences in the textbook system could be found due to the differences in the political systems of the two Koreas. There is also a big difference in the text of the textbook: North Korea's history of the war against China is closely related to the political system, but the amount of descriptions is vast and the strategy and tactics are described in relatively detailed military terms. On the other hand, the Korean History was not focused on the history of the Sino-Korean War, but on politics and culture, and the volume of the descriptions itself was concentrated on modern and contemporary history, indicating that the descriptions of the history of the war were sketchy. As a result, the active use of supplementary materials such as maps was suggested to improve the descriptions of Korean history related to the history of the Chinese War. Through these studies, the two Koreas wanted to understand the education of the history of the Chinese War and to help the future society of unification. 본 논문의 목적은 남북한 중등 역사 교과서에 서술되어 있는 대중국전쟁사를 비교 분석하여 그 특징을 연구하는 것이다. 한국은 2020년 2015 개정 교육과정으로 개편되면서 고등학교에 새로운 『한국사』 교과서가 배포되었다. 북한은 2012년 교육과정이 개편되면서 2013년 새로운 역사 교과서가 배포되었다. 이처럼 남북한 역사 교과서가 새롭게 배포되었지만 이에 관한 비교 연구가 전혀 없기에 최초로 남북한 중등 역사 교과서를 비교 분석하였다. 전쟁사 교육은 폭력을 강조하는 것이 아니라 평화교육의 또 다른 측면으로서 충분히 역사교육의 주요한 소재로 작용할 수 있다. 이러한 관점에서 고대 대중국전쟁사를 분석할 때 기본적으로 남북한 정치 체제의 상이함으로 인해 교과서 체제의 많은 차이점을 발견할 수 있었다. 교과서 본문 서술에서도 큰 차이점이 나타나는데 북한의 대중국전쟁사는 정치 체제와 밀접한 연관성을 가지고 있으면서 서술 분량이 방대하고 군사학적으로 볼 때 전략·전술까지 비교적 상세히 서술되어 있다. 반면 『한국사』는 대중국전쟁사에 집중하는 것이 아니라 정치, 문화 등과 관련하여 서술되어 있고, 서술 분량 자체가 근현대사에 집중되어 있기에 전쟁사 서술이 소략함을 알 수 있었다. 이로 인해 대중국전쟁사 관련 『한국사』 서술의 개선 방향으로 지도 등 보조 자료의 적극적 활용을 제시하였다. 이상의 연구를 통해 남북한의 대중국전쟁사 교육을 이해하고, 통일미래 사회에 도움을 주고자 하였다.

요시다 도고(吉田東俉)의 조선 연구

윤소영 한국일본사상사학회 2015 일본사상 Vol.0 No.29

Yoshida Togo吉田東俉 is a modern Japanese representative geographer and is a historian. His representative writings include Japanese Place Name Dictionary 『大日本地名辞書』(1907)、Nikkan Koshidan (Ancient Histories of Japan and Korea) 『日韓古史斷』(1893),UpsidedownJapaneseHistory『倒敍日本史』,Historical Anecdote of Comparison between Japan and Korea 『日本朝鮮比較史話』. The Korean researcher analyzed a study of Yoshida's 『日韓古史斷』 mainly. When the book distorted Korean history, Korean researchers criticized it. This study examines Yoshda's Korean recognition mainly on the historical concerned on modern Korea day through the『倒敍日本史』and『日本朝鮮比較史話』which did not attract attention so far. In additoin, I consider the influence that he gave to Korean students. Generally, Japan rules Korea in the colonization historical study insist that Korea was a colony of Japan in the ancient times. In addition, though Japan helped with independence of Korea in the modern times. But she was disturbed Oriental peace, therefore Japan annexed Korea for the peace of East. However, in Yoshida, as for the relations, a race of the south side of the Korea Peninsula and a race of the northwestern part of Japan consider the relations to have been one race on ancient times. He insists that both interchanged culturally politically. He characterized Korean and Japanese culture as one is inclined to literature, and the other is inclined to millitary power each on Middle Ages and early modern day. He pointed that Japan of modern times protected Japanese national interest while lecturing on a good artifice and invaded Korea. He said that the Korean resisted aggression of Japan intensely. He recognized it was necessary to make Korea the colony on development of the Japanese state of the nation. But followed the friendly relationship in the ancient times of the two countries, he insisted that we should intend a culture community. And he warned Japanese people must not bring about a tangle with Korean people on the pretext of Japan gained a new territory. On the other hand, he had a big influence on Choi Nam-Sun崔南善、Hyun Sang-Yun玄相允、Lee Byong-Do李丙燾 which studied in Waseda University in posture and the study methodology of the history study, the point of view of the Korea Confucianism study. I think that Yoshida was an idealist who prayed for building the relations to be reconciled with each other across the chain of "love and hatred" that Korea and Japan continued historically.

북한의 역사 인식과 부여사로의 적용 -권승안의 『조선단대사 : 부여사』 비평-

이종수 ( Lee Jong-su ) 단국사학회 2016 史學志 Vol.53 No.-

『Joseon Dandaesa : Buyeo History』 was released in 2011. It is written by Kwon Seung-an and the publisher is Encyclipedia of science. North Korea`s Buyeo history is based on early historical materialism. From 1990 (90`s), all the studies of North Korea started making progresses with their unique historical view after it was consolidated. It is called Subjective historical view of North Korean Nationalism. North Korea considers that the historical period of Buyeo is from BC.1500 to AD 494. Based on the second century BCE, it is divided into ancient Buyeo, a slavery society, and later Buyeo, a feudal serfdom society. The composition of the book is divided into Part 1 ancient Buyeo and second part later Buyeo. This book describes the process of setting up the period, the realm, the regime, the economy, culture, foreign relations, the process of destruction. The problems of this book include the excessive arbitrary interpretation of the historical records, the fact that Buyeo area is set too wide. Also, it can be said that the contents described in the ancient Buyeo are all based on the literature materials describing the later Buyeo period. There are some huge differences of acknowledgement of Buyeo history between South Korea and North Korea. But we have to keep looking over historical study of North Korea. Because I believe that the time will come when we can cooperate each other with our common sense as being one nation. It will bring two countries to get an agreement with historical view of Buyeo history to organize with one consensus. this would a condition to reestablish as a result. We get an agreement with historical view between two countries.

역사에 흥미를 가진 학생들과 일반 학생들의 역사적 사고 양상 비교 연구

윤종필 한국역사교육학회 2016 역사교육연구 Vol.- No.25

본 연구는 역사에 흥미를 가진 학생들과 일반 학생들을 대상으로 일련의 연구 활동을 실시한후 그 결과를 바탕으로 이들의 역사적 사고 양상을 비교·분석하였다. 본 연구의 연구 활동 결과를 정리해 보면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 역사에 흥미를 가진 학생과 일반 학생 모두 교과서에 대한 강한 신념을 공유하고 있었다. 전자의 경우 모든 역사적 해석은 일차 사료에 근거해야 한다는 일차 사료의 우선적 중요성에대한 개념을 갖고 있었지만 여전히 『일본서기』와 『삼국사기』와 같은 일차 사료보다는 교과서를더 신뢰하였다. 더 나아가 이들은 실제적으로 일차 사료의 신뢰도를 판단하는 과정에서는 그러한개념을 엄밀하게 적용시키지 못하였다. 일반 학생 중에 지문의 신뢰도를 일차 사료와의 연관성속에서 판단한 학생은 상당히 적었다. 결과적으로 교과서의 신뢰성에 대한 강한 신념은 학생들이일차 사료와 이차 문헌의 관계를 이해하는데 방해가 되었고 그리고 그것이 제대로 된 출처 확인작업을 막는 결적정인 요인 중 하나로 작용하였다. 따라서 역사적 사고를 위한 역사교육을 위해서는 학생들의 교과서에 대한 인식과 학생들이 교과서의 성격을 다각적으로 바라볼 수 있도록 도와 줄 수 있는 교수·학습 모델에 대한 추가적인 연구가 필요하다. 둘째, 역사에 흥미를 가진 학생들은 일반 학생들보다 고대 한·일 관계사(특히 임나일본부설) 내용뿐만 아니라 『삼국사기』와 같은 일차 사료에 대한 많은 선행지식을 가지고 있었다. 역사에 흥미를 가진 학생들은 역사적 자료를 이해하고 판단하는 데 있어서 그것의 서술 형식과 내용 및 다른자료와의 상호 관련성뿐만 아니라 선행지식과의 일치 여부를 고려하였다. 이에 반해 일반 학생이선행지식을 활용하여 자료를 평가하는 경우는 거의 관찰되지 않았다. 그러나 선행지식의 보유가역사적 사고 능력과 절대적 비례 관계에 있지는 않았다. 선행지식이 역사학에 있어 일차 사료와이차 문헌의 성격에 대한 불완전한 개념적 이해와 결합하는 경우 오히려 온전한 역사적 사고를방해하는 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 역사에 흥미를 가진 학생은 지문이 임나일본부설을 지지하는 내용인지 아니면 그것을반박하는 것인지 여부에 일반 학생들보다 민감하게 반응했으며 그것을 식별하는 능력도 뛰어났다. 이와는 대조적으로 일반 학생들은 임나일본부설에 대한 지지 여부보다는 지문의 내용과 서술방식에 초점을 맞춰 신뢰도를 평가했다. 넷째, 역사에 흥미를 가진 집단과 일반 집단에서 일차 사료를 검토하는 과정에서 맥락적 사고 를 시도하는 경우는 관찰되지 않았다. 두 집단의 학생들 모두 지문의 문자적 내용과 표현상의 특징을 중심으로 일차 사료의 신뢰도를 평가하였다. 맥락화가 역사적 사고에서 가장 중요한 요소로서 평가되어오고 있는 상황을 고려해 볼 때 이것은 상당히 주목해야 할 문제라고 할 수 있다. 다섯째, 역사에 흥미를 가진 학생들은 객관/주관, 사실/해석, 실재/사고의 이분법에 기반을 둔인식론적 입장에서 역사 지식을 바라보는 경향을 보였다. 그리고 그러한 인식론적 입장은 학생들이 한국의 역사적 내러티브가 객관적인 사실이며 과거의 실재를 반영하고 있다는 강한 신념을 갖도록 하는 사고의 토대를 만들어 주었다. 이것은 이 집단에 속한 학생들 중 일부가 한국의 내러티브를 역사적 진실로 받아들이면서 그것에 대한 일치·불일 ... The purpose of this study is to investigate the similarities and differences between students with strong interest in history and students taking little or only a mediocre interest in the subject in terms of the ways they think of history and solve historical problems. Based on the previous studies, this study analyzes students’ historical thinking with focus on the following elements: (1) the relationship between primary material and secondary literature, (2) sourcing, (3) corroboration, (4) contextualization, and (5) the understanding of the epistemological problems inherent in history as a discipline. First, all students both with and without acute interest in history shared a strong faith in thetrustworthiness of the history textbook. The former, while possessing the idea that historical interpretation should be based on primary material, still trusted the textbook more than primary texts like the Nihon shoki and Samguk sagi. Nor did they exhibit the ability of applying the idea in their actual readings of the primary texts. Second, students who were interested in history had more knowledge of the ancient history between Korea and Japan, the Imna controversy in particular, and the relevant primary texts including the Samguk sagi than the ones who were not. However, having prior knowledge did not necessarily mean excellence in historical thinking because it, when being coupled with an insufficient understanding of the relationship between primary and secondary materials, was observed to keep students from conducting historical thinking properly. Third, the former group paid more attention than the latter did to whether the text was for or against the existence of Imna and had a keen eye for identifying its position on the subject. Fourth, students from both groups were hardly seen to perform contextualization. They tended to evaluate the trustworthiness of the primary sources exclusively focusing on the terms used and their literal meanings. Fifth, students interested in history exhibited the tendency to approach history from the ‘fact/interpretation and reality/mind’ dichotomous epistemological point ofview. And that kind of view laid the foundation for their strong faith in that the Korean historical narrative accurately reflected the states of affairs in the past, which explains their behavior of assessing the reliability of primary sources in terms of whether they corresponded with the Korean narrative. Students with strong interest could do more than just memorizing and reciting facts. They were able to assess historical text taking into consideration its various aspects like what it tried to say and how it said, in what relations it stood to other texts, and how it related to their prior knowledge, all of which were indicative of their ability to perform historical thinking. Nonetheless their critical thinking was selectively applied to the Japanese texts. Therefore, their faith in the Korean narrative not only prevented them from performing sourcing properly, but made them apply the methods of historical thinking in an inconsistent manner. Students less interested in history, too, shared dichotomous epistemological understanding of history. However, two students in the group believed there cannot be clear-cut distinction between objectivity and subjectivity and every historical narrative is penetrated by the author’s point of view. These students tended to rather carelessly incline toward historical relativism, which in turn reduced their interest in history to a certain degree. This study will provide history teachers with some clues with respect to what kind of issues they have to raise and what aspects of students’ thinking they should tackle in order to help students think historically.

자연인류학을 활용한 도래인 연구의 현황과 시사점

조성학 바른역사학술원 2025 역사와 융합 Vol.- No.29

Understanding of Do-lae-in(渡來人, Ancient migrants from Korea to Japanese archipelago) have great impact on the formation of one’s historical perspective on the ancient Japanese history and ancient Korea-Japan relations. Physical anthropology is a notable related academic felid to history that can play a crucial role in understanding Do-lae-in. In this paper, we will review the research results of physical anthropology related to Do-lae-in, focusing on the results of the population genetics which has recently been developed rapidly, and extract the implications that this has for the study of Do-lae-in in ancient Japanese history. As a result, the dual-structure model presented in the research results of Hanihara Kazuro published in the late 1980s and early 1990s took the position of the established theory, and the academic world's understanding of Do-lae-in, when viewed from a broad perspective, returned from "the theory that regards the Jomon people, who were native to Japan, as the ancestors of the Japanese" to the established theory before the 1920s, that is, "the academic tradition that highly values the status of Do-lae-in from the Korean Peninsula and recognizes them as the ancestors or important components of the Japanese." Subsequently, with the advancement of genetics and the subsequent invigoration of research in population anthropology, a branch of physical anthropology, Hanihara Kazuro's dual-structure model solidified its position as an established theory and the origins, nationalities, and dates of arrival of Do-lae-in were further specified as "Korea," "ancient Koreans," and "the Yayoi and Kofun periods." These recent research findings on Do-lae-in utilizing physical anthropology offer significant implications for the study of ancient Korea-Japan relations, ancient Japanese history, and ancient Korean history.

중국 조선족 역사교과서에 나타난 한국관련 내용분석(Ⅰ) : 중국 조선족의 정체성과 중국의 역사 만들기

강택구, 박재영(Park, Jae-Young) 백산학회 2008 白山學報 Vol.- No.81

Even though the thesis to analyze Chinese History Textbooks are abundant after China’s North-eastern project, it is difficult to find a good result of studying about History Textbooks of Chosun-people. My object for the analysis is 1st and 2nd Textbook of “Chinese History” to be the Chosun-people’s History Textbooks that had been published on the beginning of 1990 at first in order to compare and analyze Chosun-people’s History Textbooks before and after China’s North-eastern project while considering about the Project. In the result of analysis, the below things are pointed out as the problems. Second, the identity of Chosun-people in China has the meaning of middle zone. To say - One is the country’s identity as Chinese and the other is national identity as Korean. Third, “Ha · Sang · Joo Dan-Dae-Project(夏 · 商 · 周 斷代工程)” to be processed since 1995 has the close relationship with China’s Northeastern Projects. Because the former one was the Project to advance China’s history age about 1,200 year and the latter one has the meaning to include the history of Gochosun(古朝鮮), Goguryeo(高句麗), Balhae(渤海) into Chinese history. In addition, Chinese government and history academic circles promote “Yo-Ha civilization” that had been advanced than “Hwang-Ha civilization” about 2,000 year. The Project of “Yo-Ha civilization” to be made by Chinese government is the very big trial to include 56 minor nations inside of China as well as the all nations of East Asia entirely into the category of Chinaism - so called - United country of all nations. Therefore, To keep the national identity of Chosun-people in China against “Making the history project like (North-southern project, North-western project, Ha-Sang-Ju Dan-Dae project, North-eastern project) and our ancient history of Gochosun, Goguryeo, Balhae, etc. it needs to prepare the confrontation in the level of all country and academy.

제4차 교육과정기 고등학교 국사교과서의 고대사 서술 특징과 배경

신선혜 대구사학회 2019 대구사학 Vol.136 No.-

As fourth education curriculum had educational goals and ideologies that emphasize national independence and community spirit, it differs from the third education curriculum which emphasizes national identity. In addition, as the development of education courses was entrusted to the Korea Educational Development Institute which hosts several seminars and other events, willingness to capture opinions from all walks of life. Of course, the extension of the previous curriculum is also found in the fact that national history textbooks still maintained the state-authored version, and that the political intentions of the new military are included in the education content. To examine the characteristics of the fourth curriculum, this study first reviewed the curriculum and the description system of the textbook and analyzed the specific descriptions of the textbooks. As a result, a new perspective was reflected in the large framework of the period classification method and nation development theory, and changes such as Balhae chapter setting were found. This was possible due to the reorganization of textbook researchers and authors, along with the implementation of several research and seminars to revise the curriculum. In the case of Balhae's perception, the educational ideology of the regime, which emphasized national independence and a community spirit, was found to have influenced the change in the chapter setting. The reasons behind this change in the fourth textbook description were largely influenced by both domestic and abroad factors. First, challenge of pseudo history, which has been trying to reflect their arguments in textbook descriptions. They judge the existing historians have not been able to escape the influence of colonial history since the 1960s. As a result, the descriptions of Gojoseon and Han Sa-gun were inevitably affected, and the descriptions of Korea-Japan relations were also changed due to Japan's distorted history textbooks again claimed in 1982. In addition, descriptions of the relics in Jeongok-ri, the change in descriptions with the local system of Baekje and the Silla rank-system are examples that reflect the research achievements of Korean scholars in ancient history that had accumulated up to that time. As such, analyzing the fourth curriculum textbook based on ancient history is important in terms of reaction from the history and education circles to the domestic and international situations of the 1980s. 제4차 교육과정기는 민족 자주성과 공동체 의식을 강조하는 교육 목표 및 이념을 가지고 있었다는 점에서 민족주체성을 강조한 제3차 교육과정기와는 다소의 차이가 발견된다. 아울러 교육과정의 개발이 한국교육개발원에 위탁되어 여러 차례 세미나 등의 자리가 만들어짐으로써 교육 내용에 대한 각계의 의견을 담아내려는 의지가 있었던 점 역시 제4차기의 특징으로 파악할 수 있다. 물론 국사교과서의 경우 여전히 국정화 기조를 유지하였고, 신군부의 정치적 의도가 교육 내용에 포함되어 있다는 점에서는 이전 교육과정기의 연장선적 성격도 발견된다. 제4차 교육과정기 교육 내용의 특징을 살피기 위해 본고에서는 먼저 교육과정 및 교과서의 서술체제를 검토한 후 교과서의 구체적인 서술을 분석해 보았다. 그 결과 시대구분법 및 국가발달론이라는 큰 틀에 있어서 새로운 시각이 반영되었고, 발해 단원 설정의 변화 등의 특징이 발견되었다. 이는 교육과정 개정을 위한 여러 차례의 연구 및 세미나의 실시와 함께 교과서 연구진 및 집필진의 개편을 배경으로 하였고, 발해 인식의 경우 민족 자주성과 공동체 의식의 강조라는 당시 정권의 교육 이념이 단원 구성의 변화에 영향을 미쳤던 것으로 파악되었다. 이러한 제4차기 교과서 서술 변화의 배경에는 학술외적 국내외 요인이 큰 영향을 미쳤다. 먼저 1960년대 이래로 기존 역사학계가 식민사관의 영향을 벗어나지 못하고 있다는 판단 하에 교과서 서술에 그들의 주장을 반영시키고자 했던 유사역사학계의 도전을 들 수 있다. 이로 인해 고조선 및 한사군의 서술은 그 영향을 받을 수밖에 없었고, 아울러 1982년에 다시금 주장된 일본의 역사교과서 왜곡으로 인해 한-일 관계 서술 역시 변화되었다. 이밖에 전곡리 유적에 대한 서술 추가, 백제의 지방제도, 신라 골품제도 관련 서술의 변화는 당시까지 축적된 국내학계의 고대사 연구성과가 교과서 서술에 반영된 사례로 볼 수 있다. 이렇듯 제4차 교육과정과 교과서를 고대사 중심으로 분석하는 것은 1980년을 전후한 시기의 국내외적 상황에 대한 역사학계와 교육학계의 적극적 대응이라는 측면에서 중요하다고 할 수 있다.