식민지기 일본인 연구자들의 고대 한일관계사 연구 경향: 이마니시 류(今西龍)와 스에마쓰 야스카즈(末松保和)의 논의를 중심으로
Trend in ancient Korean-Japanese relation historical studies during the colonial era: with a focus upon studies of Imanishi Ryu and those of Suematsu Yasukazu
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
To rationalize the colonial rule insisting that Japan dominated southern part of the peninsula, or to explain the Japanese origin through modern historical methodologies, many Japanese historian have studied the relationship between Korea and Japan in ancient. In the early 20th century, Imanishi Ryu(今西龍), the top authority in the Korean ancient history study, opposed the controversy over the national homogeneity of Korea and Japan, and defined the relationship between Japan and Korea as ‘conquering-being conquered’. He claimed that it was natural that Korea, which was culturally inferior, was conquered and that had no historical material about Ilbonbu, also. He insisted that Ilbonbu was not a permanent government but a government official who collects tributes. It was the way to explain Japanese ruling of the southern part of the Korean Peninsula in ancient, which cannot be confirmed by historical materials and relics. On the other hand, Imanishi believed that the ruling of a peninsula such as Ilbonbu had been carried out after the conquer of Empress Jinggu’s Shilla and was carried out until 562. These overseas operations were possible when the Yamato court’s central power was established, meaning that Japan’s national system has been organized since the 3rd century. Suematsu Yasukazu(末松保和)’s vision of ancient Korea-Japan relation was wider than Imanishi’s, in time and space. First of all, Suematsu took “Han(韓)” as a geographical concept, and explained the peninsula(Nakrang(樂浪)․Daebang(帶方), Goguryeo(高句麗)) and Japanese traffic within the context of the Korea-Japan relationship. However, the most important characteristic of Suematsu's vision on ancient Korea-Japan relations was to interpret it in China-Japan relations. In other words, Japan’s foreign policy was always aimed at the continent (China), so Korea-Japan relations should also be looked at in this context. According to Suematsu, the fact that Japan had traveled directly to China in ancient meant that there was a Japanese sphere of influence in south of Korean peninsula which mediated Japan and China. This meant that if the Sino-Japanese traffic was confirmed, Japan had great influence on the Korean peninsula. It was Suematsu’s idea that Japan had great influence on the Korean Peninsula from the around A.D. to the end of the 9th century when traffic between China and Japan was confirmed. This was also the way to explain the existence of the Ilbonbu, which was difficult to prove as a historical materials through records about China-Japan traffic. In addition the fact which Japan ruled other countries from around A.D. meant that a political system with a certain level of power has already been established in Japan. This was not only to claim that Japan’s influence has long been maintained on the Korean Peninsula, but also to confirm the historical position of Japan, which has led the history of Northeast Asia along with China since ancient times.
Abstract
To rationalize the colonial rule insisting that Japan dominated southern part of the peninsula, or to explain the Japanese origin through modern historical methodologies, many Japanese historian have studied the relationship between Korea and Japan in ancient. In the early 20th century, Imanishi Ryu(今西龍), the top authority in the Korean ancient history study, opposed the controversy over the national homogeneity of Korea and Japan, and defined the relationship between Japan and Korea as ‘conquering-being conquered’. He claimed that it was natural that Korea, which was culturally inferior, was conquered and that had no historical material about Ilbonbu, also. He insisted that Ilbonbu was not a permanent government but a government official who collects tributes. It was the way to explain Japanese ruling of the southern part of the Korean Peninsula in ancient, which cannot be confirmed by historical materials and relics. On the other hand, Imanishi believed that the ruling of a peninsula such as Ilbonbu had been carried out after the conquer of Empress Jinggu’s Shilla and was carried out until 562. These overseas operations were possible when the Yamato court’s central power was established, meaning that Japan’s national system has been organized since the 3rd century. Suematsu Yasukazu(末松保和)’s vision of ancient Korea-Japan relation was wider than Imanishi’s, in time and space. First of all, Suematsu took “Han(韓)” as a geographical concept, and explained the peninsula(Nakrang(樂浪)․Daebang(帶方), Goguryeo(高句麗)) and Japanese traffic within the context of the Korea-Japan relationship. However, the most important characteristic of Suematsu's vision on ancient Korea-Japan relations was to interpret it in China-Japan relations. In other words, Japan’s foreign policy was always aimed at the continent (China), so Korea-Japan relations should also be looked at in this context. According to Suematsu, the fact that Japan had traveled directly to China in ancient meant that there was a Japanese sphere of influence in south of Korean peninsula which mediated Japan and China. This meant that if the Sino-Japanese traffic was confirmed, Japan had great influence on the Korean peninsula. It was Suematsu’s idea that Japan had great influence on the Korean Peninsula from the around A.D. to the end of the 9th century when traffic between China and Japan was confirmed. This was also the way to explain the existence of the Ilbonbu, which was difficult to prove as a historical materials through records about China-Japan traffic. In addition the fact which Japan ruled other countries from around A.D. meant that a political system with a certain level of power has already been established in Japan. This was not only to claim that Japan’s influence has long been maintained on the Korean Peninsula, but also to confirm the historical position of Japan, which has led the history of Northeast Asia along with China since ancient times.
참고문헌 (39)
- 李基白, "國史新論" (1961), 泰成社
- 金容燮, "日本․韓國에 있어서 韓國史敍述", 歷史學報, 31 (1966)
- 李基白, "國史新論" (1961), 泰成社
- 金容燮, "日本․韓國에 있어서 韓國史敍述", 歷史學報, 31 (1966)
- 윤해동, "식민주의 역사학과 제국" (2016), 책과 함께
- 윤해동, "제국 일본의 역사학과 ‘조선’" (2018), 소명출판
- 경성제국대학과 동양학 연구, "윤해동", 도서출판 선인, ~ (2018)
- 정상우, "조선총독부의 역사 편찬 사업과 조선사편수회" (2018), 아연출판부
- 도면회, "조선총독부의 문화 정책과 한국사 구성 체계 -『 조선반도사』와 『조선사의 길잡이』를 중심으로 -", 역사학보, (222), pp.67~97 (2014), 역사학회
- 정상우, "일제 하 일본인 학자들의 한국사에 대한 通史的 이해 -1930년대 중반의 저작들을 중심으로-", 역사와 현실, (104), pp.83~123 (2017), 한국역사연구회[DOI]
- 近現代 韓日關係 硏究史: 日本人의 韓國史硏究를 中心으로, "이만열", ~, pp.한일역사공동연구보고서 4 (2005)
- 旗田巍, "日本人의 韓國觀", pp.37~38 (1981), 일조각
- 심희찬, "근대역사학과 식민주의 역사학의 거리 -이마니시 류今西龍가 구축한 조선의 歷史像-", 韓國史學史學報, (28), pp.277~320 (2013), 한국사학사학회
- 林直樹, "今西龍と朝鮮考古學", 靑丘學術論集, 14, pp.53~55 (1999)
- 今西龍, "日韓上代文化と其關係に就て", 朝鮮 (1910)
- 정상우, "『朝鮮史』(조선사편수회 간행) 편찬과 만선사의 상관성 ―『朝鮮史』 제 3편을 중심으로", 만주연구, (24), pp.51~88 (2017), 만주학회[DOI]
- 今西龍, "歷史地理 朝鮮號", pp.224~ (1910)
- 今西龍, "朝鮮史の栞" (1935)
- 稻葉岩吉, "支那社會史硏究", pp.283~286 (1922)
- 친일반민족행위 진상규명위원회, "친일반민족행위관계사료집 Ⅴ", pp.138~ (2008)
- 朝鮮史編修會, "朝鮮史編修會事業槪要", pp.48~ (1985)
- 谷井濟一, "朝鮮平壤附近に於る新たる發見せられた樂浪郡の遺蹟(上)", 考古學雜誌, 4(8), pp.22~23 (1914)
- 關野貞, "朝鮮に於ける樂浪帶方時代の遺蹟", 人類學雜誌, 29(10), pp.384~386 (1914)
- 정상우, "1910~1915년 조선총독부 촉탁(囑託)의 학술조사사업", 역사와 현실, (68), pp.237~271 (2008), 한국역사연구회
- 今西龍, "大同江南の古墳と樂浪王氏との關係", 東洋學報, 2, pp.101~104 (1912), 東洋協會調査部
- 稻葉君山, "朝鮮文化史硏究", pp.278~ (1925)
- 今西龍, "加羅疆域考", 史林, 4(3) (1919)
- 今西龍, "任那に就て", 朝鮮彙報, 1918(2) (1918)
- 정상우, "『朝鮮史』(朝鮮史編修會 간행) 편찬 사업 전후 일본인 연구자들의 갈등 양상과 새로운 연구자의 등장", 사학연구, (116), pp.143~194 (2014), 한국사학회
- 末松保和, "朝鮮史の硏究と私", 日本歷史, 560, pp.24~25 (1995)
- 旗田巍, "シンポジウム 日本と朝鮮" (1969), 勁草書房
- 田川孝三ほか, "座談會 先學を語る: 田保橋潔 先生", 東方學, 65 (1983)
- 신주백, "末松保和(1904~1992)의 學術史와 식민주의 역사학 - 韓國史 學界의 엇박자의 원인을 찾아서", 동방학지, (183), pp.189~234 (2018), 국학연구원[DOI]
- 末松保和, "朝鮮行政", pp.1~12 (1937)
- 松保和, "日韓關係", pp.3~5 (1933), 岩波書店
- 末松保和, "百濟の故地に置かれた唐の州縣について", 靑丘學叢, 19 (1935)
- 中村栄孝, "朝鮮史: 國史と海外史との交關", pp.2~ (1935), 歷史敎育硏究會
- 稻葉岩吉, "滿洲發達史", pp.471~476 (1915), 大阪屋號出版部
- 稻葉岩吉, "朝鮮史講座: 分類史", pp.23~26 (1925)
