2012 개정 중학교 역사 교과서의 내용 분석- 선사 시대~삼한까지를 중심으로 -

Abstract

So far we reviewed the artifacts dating from the Paleolithic Age, the solidarity between the Paleolithic era and the Bronze Age, the explanation of the dolmen, the myth of Dangun, the Kojoson’s sphere of influence, Chamseongdan Altar, and Hansagun from the contents of the textbook, 《History ①》, published in 2012. As we analyzed the 8 types of the textbook, we could find the problems as follows. 1) 6 ones, among the 8 types of the textbook, described the commencement of the Paleolithic era started up 700,000 years ago. Some textbooks, however, designated it only in the chronological table of history, intensifying the confusion to students. 2) It is generally accepted that the commencement of the Bronze Age was from 2,000 B.C. to 1,500 B.C. But some textbooks described it as around 1,500 B.C. or 1,000 B.C. A glaring discrepancy as to the ages among the textbooks is likely to cause confusions to teachers as well as students. 3) According to the existing research result, a statement that rice cropping began from the Bronze Age should be revised as it began from the New Stone Age. 4) Because of the lack of expertise, there’s some erroneous textbooks which tells the wrong explanations of the dolmen. Besides, the map showing the territory of the Kojoson era tell us the incorrect distribution of the dolmen. So, we need to rectify the mistakes. 5) In regard to the Kojoson-related contents, Ⅰ)Two publishing companies misdescribed ‘the founding story of the Kojoson era’ as ‘the myth of Dangun.’ Ⅱ) It’s a shame that some companies explained quite simply about the features of the Chamseongdan Altar, or remained untold. Ⅲ) While almost the whole textbooks didn’t mention the location of the Hansagun, a textbook explained in details about the unproven location of it in the pages that followed, causing a serious concern. As pointed out above, it seems that controversies raised from the newly published textbooks resulted from not only the lack of expertises but also the writing of the personal opinion. If the contents are reflected in the textbooks without deducing agreements among the professionals, I think, it would be like to teach our young students the wrong history. By replacing the 2012-published textbooks in 2014, the related areas one have to learn necessarily expanded. Considering the areas gaining in quantity compared to the limited time period, we can get a sense that curriculum for the modern and contemporary history education is reinforced relatively. I think it is a wrong conclusion originated from the trend that neglect what lies at the premodern times. I should like to end by saying as follows; to get to know the aspect of transition of the textbooks contents exactly I should have referred to the textbooks published in the period of Japanese occupation. In a word, there is a certain wistfulness not to putting this into practice.