근대 일본인의 기자조선 인식

Abstract

Modern Japanese studies on Gija Chosun can be divided into those that deny Gija Chosun along with the Dangun denial, and those that insist on the movement theory of Gija Chosun. Shiratori, Imanishi, and Inaba deny the existence of Gija Chosun or the rumor of Gija-Dongrae. This has the same context as the denial of Gija-Dongrae, which is now claimed by the Korean historical community, but the root is different. In other words, the theory of denial of Gija Chosun, which modern Japanese historians insist on, aims to deny Gija-Dongrae and descend the history of Old Chosun to Wiman Chosun. Therefore, there is an intention to assert that Japan's history is older by limiting the history of Chosun at that time to the period of the Three-Han after Wiman. On the other hand, unlike these orthodox historians of modern Japan, Seifuku Tsuneya and Ken Nishikawa insist on the theory of movement in Gija Chosun, such as Liaoxi- Liaodong-Pyongyang. Around the 1910s, the Japanese people's interest in Manchuria following the advance of the Japanese army into Manchuria was reflected in the background of the theory of moving to Gija Chosun. It can be said that the theory of recognition of Gija Chosun by these modern Japanese people living in Japan is related to Japan's advance into the continent. It is pointed out that the denial theory of Gija Chosun and Dongrae by orthodox historians in modern Japan is fundamentally different from the denial theory of Gija Chosun and Dongrae claimed by Korean academia today. The false theory of Gija Chosun by modern Japanese was created to emphasize that Japan was founded longer than Chosun. In the end, it is revealed that the false theory of Gija Chosun by orthodox historians of modern Japan, such as Shiratori, is clearly within the framework of colonial history in the colonial era, and that their claim is only one-sided, unrelated to historical facts.