독립운동 계열의 한국사 구성 체계 ― 대종교계 역사서술을 중심으로 ―
The Constructive System of Korean history by the Indendent movement Camp
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study purports to explore the constructive system of Korean Independent movement camp, focusing on the historiography of Daejonggyo(大倧敎). Fist of all, the most important feature in the the historiography of Daejonggyo is that it regarded Tangun in the ancient times as the forefather of Korean nation. It introduced the family state ideology from Japan and set Tangun as a means of unifying Korean nation instead of real Emperor by formulating ‘Tangun’s descendant ideology’. But, it is to be kept in mind that emphasis on Tangun did not always lead to the resistance to Japanese rule. Secondly, Daejonggyo expanded the historical view of Chae-ho Shin(申采浩) to the history of ‘the Paedal(倍達) nation’, which explained Korean history as a history of ethnic Puyeo(扶餘) which have lived around the mountain Paekdoo(白頭). This history of ‘Paedal(倍達) nation’, centered on the ethnic Puyeo, seems to be constructed as reaction to the ‘Il-Son Tongjoron(日鮮同祖論)’ of Japanese modern historians who argued the close relationship between Southern Korean peninsula and Japan. Thirdly, this construction of Korean history as the history of ‘the Paedal nation’ certainly functioned as a resistance discourse to Japanese modern historians who tried to deny the autonomy of Korean history. But, at the same time, it could be an invasive discourse which desired to rule and govern the ethnic Han(漢族) of Chinese main land. So, it can be called ‘Man-Son Tongjoron(滿鮮同祖論)’, as a hostile acculturation of Japanese ‘Il-Son Tongjoron’, regarding all the ethnic groups which have lived in Manchu and Korean peninsula as one historical agent, ‘Paedal nation’
Abstract
This study purports to explore the constructive system of Korean Independent movement camp, focusing on the historiography of Daejonggyo(大倧敎). Fist of all, the most important feature in the the historiography of Daejonggyo is that it regarded Tangun in the ancient times as the forefather of Korean nation. It introduced the family state ideology from Japan and set Tangun as a means of unifying Korean nation instead of real Emperor by formulating ‘Tangun’s descendant ideology’. But, it is to be kept in mind that emphasis on Tangun did not always lead to the resistance to Japanese rule. Secondly, Daejonggyo expanded the historical view of Chae-ho Shin(申采浩) to the history of ‘the Paedal(倍達) nation’, which explained Korean history as a history of ethnic Puyeo(扶餘) which have lived around the mountain Paekdoo(白頭). This history of ‘Paedal(倍達) nation’, centered on the ethnic Puyeo, seems to be constructed as reaction to the ‘Il-Son Tongjoron(日鮮同祖論)’ of Japanese modern historians who argued the close relationship between Southern Korean peninsula and Japan. Thirdly, this construction of Korean history as the history of ‘the Paedal nation’ certainly functioned as a resistance discourse to Japanese modern historians who tried to deny the autonomy of Korean history. But, at the same time, it could be an invasive discourse which desired to rule and govern the ethnic Han(漢族) of Chinese main land. So, it can be called ‘Man-Son Tongjoron(滿鮮同祖論)’, as a hostile acculturation of Japanese ‘Il-Son Tongjoron’, regarding all the ethnic groups which have lived in Manchu and Korean peninsula as one historical agent, ‘Paedal nation’
참고문헌 (48)
- "高麗史", ~
- "東史綱目", ~
- "황성신문", ~
- "대한매일신보", ~
- "독립신문", 대한민국임시정부, ~
- 金敎獻, "神檀實記" (1914), 大倧敎本司
- 金敎獻, "神檀民史" (1946), 大倧敎總本司
- 朝鮮總督府, "國境地方視察復命書", 白山學報, 9 (1970)
- 玄采, "中等敎科東國史略" (1908), 中央書館
- 朴殷植, "韓國痛史" (1915), 上海大同編譯局
- 崔景煥, "大東歷史" (1905)
- 兪吉濬, "勞動夜學讀本", ~ (1908)
- 大倧敎總本司, "大倧敎重光六十年史" (1971), 大倧敎總本司
- 小田省吾, "朝鮮史大系上世史" (1927), 朝鮮史學會
- "不逞團關係雜件-朝鮮人の部-在歐米 2"[URL]
- "不逞團關係雜件-朝鮮人の部-在滿洲の部 3"[URL]
- "不逞團關係雜件-朝鮮人の部-在滿洲の部 36"[URL]
- "韓國獨立黨黨義의 理論體系草案"[URL]
- 김동환, "백암 박은식과 대종교", 백암학보, 1 (2006)
- 김성환, "단군교포명서의 단군 인식", 국학연구, 13 (2009)
- 김소영, "대한제국기 '국민' 형성론과 통합론 연구", 박사, 한국사학, pp.2010
- 김용국, "민족문화논총: 노산 이은상박사 고희기념논문집" (1973)
- 도면회, "조선총독부의 문화 정책과 한국사 구성 체계 -『 조선반도사』와 『조선사의 길잡이』를 중심으로 -", 역사학보, (222), pp.67~97 (2014), 역사학회
- 도면회, "한국 근대 역사학의 창출과 통사 체계의 확립", 역사와 현실, (70), pp.171~206 (2008), 한국역사연구회
- 박걸순, "박은식의 역사인식과 대동사관", 국학연구, 13 (2009)
- 박걸순, "日帝强占期 亡命 人士의 高句麗·渤海認識", 한국독립운동사연구, (23), pp.435~482 (2004), 한국독립운동사연구소
- 박광용, "대종교 관련 문헌에 위작 많다 2 : 신단실기와 단기고사의 성격에 대한 재검토", 역사비평, 18 (1992)
- 박영석, "대종교의 독립운동에 관한 연구", 사총, 21․22 (1977)
- 박영석, "대종교의 민족의식과 항일민족독립운동(상)(하)", 한국학보, 9(2) (1983)
- 박환무, "제국 일본과 민국 한국의 역사학적 교차로-쓰다 소키치와 손진태의 국민", 민족 개념을 중심으로-, 2001, ~
- 삿사 미츠아키(佐佐充昭), "한말ㆍ일제시대 단군신앙운동의 전개: 대종교ㆍ단군교의 활동을 중심으로", 박사, pp.2003
- 서굉일, "단군교포명서와 항일민족운동", 국학연구, 13 (2009)
- 서영대, "근대 한국의 단군 인식과 민족주의", 동북아역사논총, (20), pp.7~52 (2008), 동북아역사재단
- 서영대, "한말의 檀君運動과 大倧敎", 韓國史硏究, 114 (2001)
- 이숙화, "대종교 설립초기 일제의 탄압과 대응 양상", 仙道文化, 18, pp.141~184 (2015), 국학연구원
- 임찬경, "단군교포명서의 고구려 인식", 국학연구, 13 (2009)
- 장신, "일제하 日鮮同祖論의 대중적 확산과 素戔嗚尊 신화", 역사문제연구, 13(1), pp.365~392 (2009), 역사문제연구소
- 정상우, "1910~1915년 조선총독부 촉탁(囑託)의 학술조사사업", 역사와 현실, (68), pp.237~271 (2008), 한국역사연구회
- 정상우, "稻葉岩吉의 ‘滿鮮史’ 체계와 ‘朝鮮’의 재구성", 역사교육, (116), pp.1~31 (2010), 역사교육연구회
- 정영훈, "대종교와 '단군민족주의'", 고조선단군학, 10, pp.281~310 (2004), 고조선단군학회
- 조인성, "한말 단군관계 사서의 재검토 : 신단실기ㆍ단기고사ㆍ환단고기를 중심으로", 국사관논총, 3 (1989)
- 조준희, "근대 단군대황조 용어의 출현과 확산", 국학연구, 11 (2006)
- 타키자와 노리오키, "이나바 이와키치와 만선사", 한일관계사연구, 19 (2003)
- 한영우, "한국민족주의역사학" (1994), 일조각
- 허태근, "홍암 나철의 대종교 중광과 조천 연구", 박사, pp.2015
- "歷史學事典 제12권 王と国家" (2005), 弘文堂
- 佐々充昭, "檀君ナシヨナリズムの形成--韓末愛國啓蒙運動期を中心に", 朝鮮學報, 174 (2000)
- 佐々充昭, "韓末における檀君教の重光と檀君ナシヨナリズム", 朝鮮學報, 180 (2001)