하상주단대공정과 信古 경향 고대사 서술

Abstract

This paper introduces the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project(hereafter the Project) critically, pointing out the problematic historiography of the so-called “Believing in Antiquity"(xingu 信古) prevalent both in China and Korea. About 200 specialists in archaeology, astronomy, history and scientific dating participated in the Project to establish the chronology of the three ancient dynasties before the Gonghe(共和) interregnum in 841 B.C. As many domestic and foreign scholars have criticized the proposed chronology, the author also raises questions about the methodology of the Project. As for the Xia and early Shang periods, the Project depended too heavily on radiocarbon dates from several archaeological sites which are still in debate on their identification with Xia and Shang. Although the late Shang and the King Wu’s Conquest year might have been accepted, several key dates in the period such as the movement of King Pangeng(盤庚) to Yin(殷) in 1300 are nothing but speculative. Comparing the proposed Western Zhou chronology of the Project with those of the Western scholars, especially that of Edward Shaughnessy's, the author further finds critical mistakes in the “Chronological Table of Western Zhou Bronze Inscriptions" which is one of the most important bases for the Project. This derives from the intrinsic limitations we currently know about the Western Zhou calendar and the related records in transmitted texts. Thus, the proposed chronology from the Projects is like a house of cards. Since Western scholars utilized the same sources, despite their strict methodology and ingenious ideas especially regarding the Western Zhou, their studies cannot free from criticisms as well. Meanwhile, the current Chinese national projects for their ancient glory have been motivated to a certain degree by its historiographic tendency toward the “Believing in Antiquity." The great archaeological discoveries of recent decades led many leading Chinese scholars such as Li Xueqin and Li Ling to deny the strict scholarship of the “Doubting in Antiquity" and to trace early Chinese history even to the period of legendary Huangdi(黃帝). However, Qiu Xiqui and Shaughnessy, other leading scholars in China and the United States respectively, worry the new trend in that the bamboo strips from Guodian(郭店) and Shanghai Museum do not necessarily warrant the authenticity of the transmitted texts. They warn that the excessive reliance on the problematic texts such as the Ancient version of the Shangshu(古文尙書) would seriously damage the scholarship of early Chinese history. The Project is exactly the case their anxiety is warranted. Then, what is the situation in the historiography of ancient Korean history in Korea? The author points out serious problems in the first reign year of mythic Dnakun, 2333 B.C., which has recently been inserted as historical fact in the Korean high school history textbook. Noting that Korean scholars also have the similar problem of the “Believing in Antiquity", the author proposes to reflect the exaggerated scholarship of Old Choson in Korea.