한국에서 高麗-몽골(元) 關係史 인식과 北方民族史 연구

Abstract

This article aims to examine the research results of history of Northern Peoples by a history circle including related academic societies and organizations after 1990’s and the perception of Mongol revealed in Korean history books, Oriental history books and treatises on the relation between Goryo and Mongol. Furthermore, I hope that the examination could be an opportunity for introspection and prospect to advance. In the second half of 20th century(1945～1989), many scholars accomplished outstanding research achievements even in unfavourable research environment. Some works and treatises have a bias on Northern Peoples, however, it appears unavoidable considering a lot of barriers against research in this field at that time. Nevertheless, it can be said that those research achievements laid the foundation for Northern People studies and Altai Studies from then on. As a result, The Altaic Society of Korea, The Korean Association for Central Asian Studies, The Korean Association for Mongolian Studies were established and played a key role in studying Northern peoples. As related research institutes, Northeast Asian History Foundation, National Museum of Korea, National Folk Museum of Korea and National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage have also spared no support, carrying out relevant researches. Gyeonggi Provincial Museum, Seoul Arts Center held exhibitions on related themes and published research books and pictorial books to help the public with understanding. Besides, Dongguk Univ., Dankook Univ., Seoul National Univ., Pukyong National Univ., and Keimyung Univ. are conducting researches on history and culture of Northern and Central Asia and Silk road. As is examined in this article, the academic circle of Korean history has made outstanding achievements in researches on relation between Goryo and Mongol and history of Northern peoples since last mid-twentieth century. To take treatises and books not covered in this article into consideration, it can be said to make the rapidest growth in quantitative aspect in the world. However, introspecting critically, no one could not be convinced whether all research achievements are wholly satisfactory in qualitative aspects. In addition, it is a current situation that integral researches on this field are still insufficient. Finally, a lack of mutual exchange of research finds and evolutive academic commentaries is pointed as the most serious problem. It should be reflected and rejected for academic improvement under the situation of thin researchers base and little accumulated academic results in Central eurasian studies circle in Korea.