한국고대사 시대 설정에서의 가야사 위상 정립을 위한 시론적 논의

Abstract

This article summarizes the several points that can be raised in establishing the status of Gaya history in ancient Korean history and presents tasks considered as a premise for establishing the status. First, this article summarizes the present condition of debate on “Former history theory” and “Former generation theory” while calling attention to the issue of setting the starting point of the Gaya history. Former generation theory, which understands Byunhan (Byunjin) and Gaya as a succession relationship and considers Byunhan history as the former generation of Gaya history, has long been common knowledge about Gaya history. Former history theory, however, understands that an understanding based on fact of the nature of the political body of Gaya and social development was possible only when Byunhan was regarded as the former history of Gaya history. The issue of setting the starting point of the Gaya history is inherent in the basis of debate on two theories. It is necessary to identify what Gaya is to solve the issue. Existing studies have understood Gaya history from the point of view of the federation, but recently criticism has been raised on the theory of federation. Therefore, what the research at this point should explain is what Gaya is if it is not a federation, and why several states are grouped as Gaya. “The four kingdoms period” was presented as an alternative to establish the status of Gaya history in ancient Korean history. To group the three kingdoms and Gaya into the same category and recognize them as four kingdoms, grounds for grouping several political groups that were separated into states into a single category called “Gaya States” must be presented first. In domestic and foreign historical records, “Imna” is identified as a term encompassing all states at the time Gaya States existed. This is a usage confirmed as a case of recognizing the Gaya States as a group in all historical documents of Korea, China, and Japan. Imna is also a term used during the time when the Gaya States existed. Therefore, its implications need to be closely examined. Some connect the use of the term Imna with following the “Imna-ilbonbu theory (claims that ancient Japan ruled the southern part of the Korean peninsula)” of Japanese colonial history in the past. However, the way out of Japanese colonial history represented by the Imna-ilbonbu theory lies in facing the term Imna and clearly reveal its historicity.