2009 개정 교육과정 중학교 『역사(1)』 교과서의 백제사 쟁점에 대한 서술 검토

Abstract

This article reviews the current middle school textbook History(1) which the first edition was released in 2014 by the 2009 revised curriculum mainly focusing on Baekje’s historical issue. First of all, the debate on the origin of Baekje had two points of view; one is immigrants from Goguryeo theory and the other is those from Buyeo-Goguryeo theory. The proper description for understanding further development of Baekje’s history would be ‘immigrants from Buyeo-Goguryeo theory’ which is being discussed in the academic world. Concerning the issue on Hanam-Wiryeseong which was the capital city in Hanseong period, most of textbooks are not making a clear distinction between Wiryeseong and Hanam-Wiryeseong. Also on the matter of Hanam-Wiryeseong, the academia regards Pungnaptoseong as the royal castle covering Pungnaptoseong and Mongchontoseong area. With the view of the academia, majority of textbooks need to supplement their unidentified description. Furthermore, covering Bu-system in the time of establishing a centralized state period directly on a middle school level textbook is inappropriate considering the students' level. The suitable way for learner’s understanding is to compare the terms between confederation and centralism. And almost every textbooks are dealing carefully with the view of Baekje’s advance on Liaoxi. The problem is the map, describing Japan / Shandong as ‘exchanged’ area and Liaoxi as ‘advanced’ area, which still demonstrates a difference in concept between 'exchanged' and 'advanced' in Baekje's advance on Liaoxi View. Considering the text during King Geunchogo Period, the advancement on Liaoxi was highly accepted as a fact at the time. As the criteria of division between ‘advance’ and ‘exchange’ is based on the view of Baekje’s advance on Liaoxi, the text should be clarify its uncertainty as it is a view. At last, even though many academic articles have pointed out the problem of the description of the ancient exchange between Korea and Japan, the textbooks are still stuck in the one-way ‘dispensational’ cultural exchange. Understanding the exchange between the Three States or Gaya and Japan in the historical context, the narration should escape from its unilateral perspective and look at it in different angle with a mutual exchange point of view. Through this study, the previous textbook’s improvements and corrections were confirmed. Understanding merits and demerits of diversity of authorized textbooks, the textbook editors should select the contents precisely considering academic research results. Futhermore efforts are required for detecting the textbook’s faulty description of ancient Korean history. Through this will propose alternatives and directions in making more advanced history text book.