국사교과서고대사 개편 방향

Abstract

In this paper, I projected new conceptual approaches to understand Korean history and discussed three descriptive errors in Korean history textbooks that must be corrected by turning the distorted direction to the truth-based passage of Korean history. The revising work of Korean ancient history description has important meaning in the present historical situation confronting China’s Sino-centric historical idealism, Dongbukgongjeong(東北工程), and Japanese distortive touches on Korean history. Firstly, I studied how to clarify and correct the errors of historical understanding and explanation on Korean ancient history, KodaeChosunSa(古代朝鮮史). KodaeChosun is Korea’s first nation and the historical orientation of Korean philosophy and cultural archetype so that Korean people’s national identity is based on KodaeChosun history. We are experiencing difficulty in understanding history of KodaeChosun correctly and in organizing the relevant document system due to many conflicting descriptive directions deteriorating the truth-based historical viewpoint on Korean ancient history. A historical document such as Samgukyusa(三國遺事) records that Korean history began in the year of 2333 B.C. when Tangunwanggeom(檀君王儉) founded KodaeChosun, which existed over 1908 years through the era of Yulguk(列國) represented by many nations such as Buyeo(夫餘), so Korean history lasted for five thousand years. I would say that this description is based on the relevant historical opinion generally shared through Korean history. In contrast, there is an argument that KodaeChosun is just a fictional nation made out of mythological story so that Korean history lasted no more than two thousand years. This kind of argument was generated by ChosunsaPyeonsuhoe(朝鮮史編修會) and developed by the scholars of Japanese committee for Korean history distortion project and now is connected to the historical view point of Chinese Dongbukgongjeong(東北工程). I insist that only the reasonable description based on the historical truth can solve this distortion problem of Korean history. Secondly, I discussed the issue of clarifying Korean Bronze Era chronology. In academic field, it is theoretically recognized that most of the early types of nation were formed in their Bronze Era. Considering this developmental phase of national system, it should be supposed to be true that either Manchuria or Korean historical territory was in the Bronze Era around the 24th century B.C if KodaeChosun(古代朝鮮) was established in 2333 B.C. and this logical fact-based sequence of Korean Bronze Era chronology should be scientifically supported by archeological studies. However, Korean history textbooks describe that Korean Bronze Era started in the 7th century B.C. or the 10th ~ 15th century B.C. and that KodaeChosun is not a historical fact since there is limited archeological evidence related to KodaeChosun history. Concerning this issue, I researched on the updated historical studies that Hagajeom(夏家店) Lower Level Culture in Manchuria area was developed in the Bronze Era in the 24th century B.C. and there are many Korean historical reports on the Bronze relics of the 24th century B.C. Korean history. Therefore, the academic effort with Korean Bronze Era’s chronological clarification and scientific archeological examination is critical in reconsidering the granted argument fossilized by distorted description on KodaeChosun. Lastly, I wrote about the issue in what exact area Gija(箕子) and Weman(衛滿) played their historical roles and I induced the result that they had no meaningful link in Korean history. In addition to this discourse, the regional point where Hansagun(漢四郡) was located must be studied correctly and applied to Korean history textbooks. Gija is a historical person who was not related to Korean history, but he has been described as a main character who played an important role in Korean history so that this kind of distorted explanation made students misunderstand about Korean historical fact. In addition, Korean history textbooks describe that Korean history originated by Weman’s historical role, but Weman was a person in Yeon(燕), one of Chinese country, and had no historical relationship with KodaeChosun. Despite this historical fact, irrelevant interpretation and additional references based on made-up stories about Weman’s historical activities are centered in the textbook pages. Hansagun was an administrative province, Gunhyeon(郡縣), formed by Han(漢)’s Muje(武帝) who defeated Weman’s country so that Hansagun was the place settled by the historical relationship between Weman and Han instead of between KodaeChosun and Han. However, Korean history textbooks are based on the distorted proposition that Hansagun was located in the late KodaeChosun, and this description must be revised with fact-based critical concepts and discourses on Korean ancient history. In conclusion, the argument of this paper is on the important project of reconstructing fact-based concepts about Korean ancient history by eradicating deep-rooted remains of Japanese colonial touches and Sino-centric historical views on Korean history. The ongoing process of Korean history is heading toward to the era of unified Korea, and Korean students who are leading this historical steps of the unified Korea are in need of learning about Korean historical truth and national identity with fact-based historical textbooks revised by correct conceptual approaches to Korean history. I believe that it is my historical responsibility as one of agents of Korean history to help students to listen to the confident voice of Korean history so that I discussed the project of revising Korean history textbooks on Korean ancient history. Finally, I am requesting Korean scholars, academic organizations of Korean history, and administrative departments of education to recognize the important need of revising Korean history textbooks and to construct historical passages guiding students to pursue and achieve their true historical knowledge by freeing themselves from the confused conceptual threads tangled by distorted knots on Korean history.