본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

조선 후기 고대사 연구와 漢四郡

A Study on Research Perspectives and Works on Han Commanderies by the Sirak Scholars' of the Late Joseon Dynasty

0

조회

0

다운로드

21

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류역사학

초록

This article examined late Joseon dynasty research perspectives and works of the Sirak scholars on Han commanderies of Korean ancient history. At the advent of the early Joseon dynasty, in the context of the unilineal system of Korean ancient history, Han commanderies were perceived as "Old Joseon-Han commanderies-Three Hans-Three Kingdoms". However, after the second Manchu invasion of Korea occurred in 1636, the historical legitimacy theory was introduced in the writing of the history books, and so history began writing Wiman Joseon and Han commanderies as the subjective entities to Mahan in the history. Through this process at this time, Yi Ik and Jeong Yak-yong contrasted the native authorities of Nangnang-guk against the perceiving of Han Chinese commandery's rule over Nangnang. Furthermore, Ahn Jeong-bok established how Korean history system could be perceived to be different from Chinese one through examining Han commandery. Many positive outcomes on the studies of Han commanderies were accumulated in the late Joseon dynasty. Lots of scholars in Joseon dynasty were uncritically following the opinion that Two-bu existed as one stage of Han commanderies in the first century B.C.E.― which had been first mentioned at Samgukyusa in Goryeo dynasty. Nam Gu-man and Han Jin-seo actively criticized Two-bu theory and proved that Han commanderies were developed step by step as a whole from Four commanderies via Two commanderies to Three commanderies without the Two-bu stage. A variety of opinions on the locations of Jinbeon and Hyeonto commanderies were expressed in the late Joseon dynasty. During this period of active academic development, first it was Han Baek-gyeom who insisted Jinbeon commandery had been located around Chuncheon now in Gangwon province. Then from this notion of his, other scholars located Jinbeon commandery to be at an area in Liaodong district, but later many scholars of the late 18th and the early 19th centuries asserted that Jinbeon commandery was first established at the center of early Goguryeo and afterwards united into Hyeonto commandery. The exact location of Hyeonto commandery was much befuddled during the early Joseon dynasty, because the center of early Goguryeo had been fallaciously estimated to be located at the northern part of Korean peninsula― instead of the correct location now known to be at the Liaodong district. After the center of early Goguryeo was corrected and asserted to be in Liaodong district in 17th century, Ahn Jeong-bok and Han Jin-seo and other scholars were able to properly and investigate the locations of Hyeonto commandery and its movements at three times. Ahn Jeong-bok, Han Jin-seo and other scholars assumed the locations of the 25 prefectures under Nangnang commandery, based on the locations of the three rivers: Yeol, Dae and Pae river. However, some defects are also latent within even these conclusions arising from profound researches of the Sirak scholars, as these researches assumed that all the prefectures under Nangnang commandery had been spread evenly in the northern part of Korean peninsula, which happens to be contradictory to actual historic facts.

Abstract

This article examined late Joseon dynasty research perspectives and works of the Sirak scholars on Han commanderies of Korean ancient history. At the advent of the early Joseon dynasty, in the context of the unilineal system of Korean ancient history, Han commanderies were perceived as "Old Joseon-Han commanderies-Three Hans-Three Kingdoms". However, after the second Manchu invasion of Korea occurred in 1636, the historical legitimacy theory was introduced in the writing of the history books, and so history began writing Wiman Joseon and Han commanderies as the subjective entities to Mahan in the history. Through this process at this time, Yi Ik and Jeong Yak-yong contrasted the native authorities of Nangnang-guk against the perceiving of Han Chinese commandery's rule over Nangnang. Furthermore, Ahn Jeong-bok established how Korean history system could be perceived to be different from Chinese one through examining Han commandery. Many positive outcomes on the studies of Han commanderies were accumulated in the late Joseon dynasty. Lots of scholars in Joseon dynasty were uncritically following the opinion that Two-bu existed as one stage of Han commanderies in the first century B.C.E.― which had been first mentioned at Samgukyusa in Goryeo dynasty. Nam Gu-man and Han Jin-seo actively criticized Two-bu theory and proved that Han commanderies were developed step by step as a whole from Four commanderies via Two commanderies to Three commanderies without the Two-bu stage. A variety of opinions on the locations of Jinbeon and Hyeonto commanderies were expressed in the late Joseon dynasty. During this period of active academic development, first it was Han Baek-gyeom who insisted Jinbeon commandery had been located around Chuncheon now in Gangwon province. Then from this notion of his, other scholars located Jinbeon commandery to be at an area in Liaodong district, but later many scholars of the late 18th and the early 19th centuries asserted that Jinbeon commandery was first established at the center of early Goguryeo and afterwards united into Hyeonto commandery. The exact location of Hyeonto commandery was much befuddled during the early Joseon dynasty, because the center of early Goguryeo had been fallaciously estimated to be located at the northern part of Korean peninsula― instead of the correct location now known to be at the Liaodong district. After the center of early Goguryeo was corrected and asserted to be in Liaodong district in 17th century, Ahn Jeong-bok and Han Jin-seo and other scholars were able to properly and investigate the locations of Hyeonto commandery and its movements at three times. Ahn Jeong-bok, Han Jin-seo and other scholars assumed the locations of the 25 prefectures under Nangnang commandery, based on the locations of the three rivers: Yeol, Dae and Pae river. However, some defects are also latent within even these conclusions arising from profound researches of the Sirak scholars, as these researches assumed that all the prefectures under Nangnang commandery had been spread evenly in the northern part of Korean peninsula, which happens to be contradictory to actual historic facts.

참고문헌 (31)

  1. 한영우, "조선후기 사학사 연구" (1989), 일지사
  2. 박인호, "조선시기 역사가와 역사지리 인식" (2003), 이회문화사
  3. 조성을, "조선후기 사학사 연구" (2004), 한울 아카데미
  4. 이만열, "17, 8세기의 사서와 고대사 인식", 한국사연구, 10 (1984), 한국사연구회
  5. 이만열, "조선후기 고구려사 연구", 동방학지, 43 (1984), 연세대 국학연구원
  6. 송기호, "조선시대 사서에 나타난 발해관", 한국사연구, 72 (1991), 한국사연구회
  7. 송호정, "실학자들의 역사지리관과 고조선 한사군 연구", 한국고대사연구, (62), pp.27~59 (2011), 한국고대사학회
  8. 문창로, "조선 후기 실학자들의 삼한 연구-연구 추이와 특징을 중심으로-", 한국고대사연구, (62), pp.61~109 (2011), 한국고대사학회
  9. 那珂通世, "朝鮮樂浪玄菟帶方考", 史學雜誌, 5(4) (1894), 東京帝國大學史學會
  10. 樋口隆次郞, "朝鮮半島に於ける漢四郡の疆域及沿革考(1~5)", 史學雜誌, 22(12) (1912), 東京帝國大學史學會
  11. 白鳥庫吉, "漢の朝鮮四郡疆域考", 東洋學報, 2(2) (1912), 東洋學術協會
  12. 稻葉岩吉, "眞番郡の位置", 歷史地理, 24(6) (1914), 日本歷史地理學會
  13. 今西龍, "眞番郡考", 史林, 1(1) (1916), 京都帝國大學 史學硏究會
  14. 池內宏, "樂浪郡考", 滿鮮地理歷史硏究報告, 16 (1940)
  15. 和田淸, "玄菟郡考", 東方學, 1 (1951)
  16. 末松保和, "漢眞番郡治考", 古代學, 1(3) (1952), 古代學協會
  17. 이병도, "古朝鮮四郡疆域考(1),(2)", 한빛, (4·5·6) (1928)
  18. 이병도, "眞番郡考", 史學雜誌, 40(5) (1929)
  19. 이병도, "玄菟郡及臨屯郡考」(1),(2)", 史學雜誌, 41(4,5) (1930)
  20. 이병도, "韓國古代史硏究" (1976), 博英社
  21. 허태용, "조선후기 ‘南北國論’ 형성의 논리적 과정 검토", 동방학지, (152), pp.127~162 (2010), 국학연구원
  22. 박인호, "고려시기 사서에 나타난 역사지리인식, In 조선시기 역사가와 역사지리인식", pp.108~109 (2003), 이회
  23. 정구복, "한백겸의 동국지리지에 대한 일고", 전북사학, 2, pp.56~57 (1978)
  24. 김영심, "조선후기 정통론의 수용과 그 변화", 한국문화, 26, pp.179~181 (2000)
  25. 한영우, "19세기 초 정약용의 역사관과 대외관", 조선후기사학사연구, pp.369~371 (1989)
  26. 조성을, "‘아방강역고’에 나타난 정약용의 역사인식", pp.76~ (1992), 규장각
  27. 천관우, "고조선사, In 삼한사연구", pp.90~135 (1989), 일조각
  28. 조성을, "世宗實錄 地理志와 高麗史 地理志의歷史地理 認識", 조선시대사학보, (39), pp.77~111 (2006), 조선시대사학회
  29. 조성을, "조선 초기 고조선․삼한․삼국의 수도와 강역 인식 - 신증동국여지승람을 중심으로", 과기고고연구, 11 (2005), 아주대박물관
  30. 한명기, "조선시대 漢中 지식인의 高句麗 인식―고구려의 ‘强盛’과 조선의 고구려 계승 인식을 중심으로―", 한국문화, (38), pp.337~366 (2006), 규장각한국학연구원
  31. 박인호, "南九萬과 李世龜의 역사지리 연구", 역사학보, 138, pp.43~ (1993), 역사학회

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (7건)