任那日本府 연구의 허상과 실상

Abstract

The main controversy in the history of ancient relations between Korea and Japan can be said to be the issue of Mimana-Nihonhu. This topic has long been studied in connection with the issue of historical perception of the ancient history of the two countries. The Theory of Mimana-Nihonhu, composed of Nihon Shoki historical sources, was also the basis for the false claim that ancient Japan politically controlled the southern part of the Korean Peninsula. The reason for this error is that in the interpretation of relevant historical sources, the criticism of historical sources has been neglected and only interested in the verification of facts. As a result, it can be seen that previous studies made the mistake of interpreting the Mimana-Nihonhu issue by expanding the scope of time and space. In order to correct these errors, the purpose of this study is to understand the reality of Mimana-Nihonhu and the illusion of Theory of Mimana-Nihonhu through the analysis and criticism of the situation in the Korean-Japanese maritime world in the mid-6th century and Kinmeiki. In addition, consideration was also conducted on the necessity of the Kinmeiki year adjustment and the issue of the same state theory between Imna and Gaya. The results of this study are summarized as follows. The Theory of Mimana-Nihonhu, which has been the center of research on ancient Korea-Japan relations in Japanese academia, is an illusion. This was due to errors, distortions, and manipulation of Nihon Shoki’s articles related to Imna and Mimana-Nihonhu, and uncritical interpretation and misreading of related materials by researchers of 20th century colonial history. At the same time, through reinterpretation of Nihon Shoki’s Kinmeiki record, I was able to know that the reality of Mimana-Nihonhu was ’Mimano-Yamato-Nomiko-Mochi(任那倭宰)’ in the 6th century. Mimana-Nihonhu was a diplomatic and interpreting agency belonging to Imna, not Yamato (倭). They were Imna people who, despite the king’s surrender to Silla in 532, refused to surrender and worked for the revival of Imna along with several Hanki (旱岐) of Imna. Therefore, Kinmeiki’s Mimana-Nihonhu record should be reinterpreted as a record of Imna’s people independence movement, not a record of Japanese activities used in Yamato(倭). And contrary to the arguments of some scholars, I think Imna is not a country of the Japanese archipelago, but a country name that refers to today’s Geumgwan Gaya centered on the Gimhae region. Eventually, they dominated the ancient sea routes of Korea and Japan and were in charge of trade and diplomacy with Baekje, Silla, and Japanese countries as ’Mimano-Yamato- Nomiko-Mochi(任那倭宰).