지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Korean students develop their historical identities with Korean history textbooks, which are constructional sources for their historical attitude toward Korean national community as social members. This means that the content and discourse in Korean history textbooks influence the future of Korea and its national community. Thus, we have to seriously decide upon the content and curriculum of Korean history textbooks and think about the possibility whether the discourse through the curriculum would help us to achieve our original educational goal from various perspectives.
In this paper, I discuss the history of ancient Korea appeared in Korean history textbooks with an emphasis on the way of explaining Korean national origin and cultural archetype, its contribution to the establishment of its people's historical identity and self-image, and the truth and reliability of the discourse in Korean history textbooks : these issues are developed by the following discourses.
First, I studied on the establishment of Gojoseon in Korean history textbooks. Gojoseon is the first country established by Korean people. Since the history of Gojoseon maintains elements of Korean national origin and cultural archetype of historical identity, we must pay a serious attention to the history of Gojoseon in Korean history textbooks and clarify the historical truth on it. In the aspect of Korean national identity, it is essential to describe Gojoseon history as a historical reality that existed throughout Korean history and to introduce the related historical facts on Gojoseon. If the history of Gojoseon is not in the paradigm of a historical fact but of a fictional history contrived for pseudo-historical purpose, we should adjust and correct the content that is not based on the historical truth. In this logical context, I propose that National Institute of Korean History must prove the existence of Gojoseon history in advance and then develop the description on the historical process in Korean history textbooks. In this paper, I argue that we should keep away from an ambiguous explanatory attitude toward the existence of Gojoseon history by critically studying on how current Korean history textbooks explain the historical reality on Gojoseon history.
Second, I discuss the chronological issue of Korean bronze era. The chronological fact of the bronze era in Manchuria and South-and-North Korean area is a critical clue to demonstrate the evidence of historical existence of Gojoseon. The fact that Gojoseon was established in B.C. 2333 can be logically relevant only with the precondition that at least one of those regions developed into its bronze era no later than B.C. 24-25th century : the factual entrance into its bronze era should be supported by reliable archeological studies. Without this logical precondition, there would be no way to demonstrate the historical evidence of establishment of Gojoseon in B.C. 2333. It is logically irrelevant to argue that Korean bronze era was started B.C. 7-8th century or B.C. 10th century unless there is any archeological evidence on Korean bronze era. Importantly, it is necessary to clarify the relationship between the establishment of Gojoseon and the chronological evidence of entrance into Korean bronze era. In this context, I discuss how our current history textbooks explain the chronological issue of Korean bronze era.
Lastly, I studied on the issue of Kija, Wuiman, and Hansagun. One of the most important issues in Korean ancient history is about the characteristics of historical activities of Kija and Wuiman as well as their meaning in Korean history. In Jewangunki, Yi,Seung-hyu described Korean history as a sequence of Gojoseon (Jeonjoseon, Early Joseon)-Kijajoseon (Hujoseon, Late Joseon)-Wuimanjoseon-Hansagun. This idea is an obvious example of Sinocentirc ideology that was extremely diffused among Goryeo confucian scholars. It would not be possible to solve the problems on Korean ancient history without overcoming this historical limitation by clarifying the location and role of historical activities of Kija and Wuiman as well as the relationship between their historical characteristics and Korean ancient history. If Kija and Wuiman played their historical roles in border areas of Gojoseon, they cannot be centered in Korean history and Hansagun also cannot be located in the central area of Korea peninsular. The idea that they played their historical roles in Korean ancient history is related to the theory of Joseonsapyunsuheo that Korean history was made up of Chinese colony in northern part and Japanese colony in southern part : we should be very cautious in that this theory is in the same logical line with what Chinese government argues in the name of Dongbukgongjeong. In this context, I have critically reviewed the description on Kija, Wuiman, and Hansagun throughout our current Korean history textbooks.
In conclusion, it is an important historical responsibility for Korean people to describe our own history correctly before arguing about the Korean historical distortion contrived by China and Japan. Thus, I would like to emphasize that National Institute of Korean History must seriously consider the issues I discussed in this paper and endeavor to correctly describe Korean history in Korean history textbooks. In addition, I would like to ask Korean historical academic societies to expand active discussions on these issues, and Ministry of Education, Science and Technology to act promptly under a long-term plan to solve this educational issue.
In this paper, I discuss the history of ancient Korea appeared in Korean history textbooks with an emphasis on the way of explaining Korean national origin and cultural archetype, its contribution to the establishment of its people's historical identity and self-image, and the truth and reliability of the discourse in Korean history textbooks : these issues are developed by the following discourses.
First, I studied on the establishment of Gojoseon in Korean history textbooks. Gojoseon is the first country established by Korean people. Since the history of Gojoseon maintains elements of Korean national origin and cultural archetype of historical identity, we must pay a serious attention to the history of Gojoseon in Korean history textbooks and clarify the historical truth on it. In the aspect of Korean national identity, it is essential to describe Gojoseon history as a historical reality that existed throughout Korean history and to introduce the related historical facts on Gojoseon. If the history of Gojoseon is not in the paradigm of a historical fact but of a fictional history contrived for pseudo-historical purpose, we should adjust and correct the content that is not based on the historical truth. In this logical context, I propose that National Institute of Korean History must prove the existence of Gojoseon history in advance and then develop the description on the historical process in Korean history textbooks. In this paper, I argue that we should keep away from an ambiguous explanatory attitude toward the existence of Gojoseon history by critically studying on how current Korean history textbooks explain the historical reality on Gojoseon history.
Second, I discuss the chronological issue of Korean bronze era. The chronological fact of the bronze era in Manchuria and South-and-North Korean area is a critical clue to demonstrate the evidence of historical existence of Gojoseon. The fact that Gojoseon was established in B.C. 2333 can be logically relevant only with the precondition that at least one of those regions developed into its bronze era no later than B.C. 24-25th century : the factual entrance into its bronze era should be supported by reliable archeological studies. Without this logical precondition, there would be no way to demonstrate the historical evidence of establishment of Gojoseon in B.C. 2333. It is logically irrelevant to argue that Korean bronze era was started B.C. 7-8th century or B.C. 10th century unless there is any archeological evidence on Korean bronze era. Importantly, it is necessary to clarify the relationship between the establishment of Gojoseon and the chronological evidence of entrance into Korean bronze era. In this context, I discuss how our current history textbooks explain the chronological issue of Korean bronze era.
Lastly, I studied on the issue of Kija, Wuiman, and Hansagun. One of the most important issues in Korean ancient history is about the characteristics of historical activities of Kija and Wuiman as well as their meaning in Korean history. In Jewangunki, Yi,Seung-hyu described Korean history as a sequence of Gojoseon (Jeonjoseon, Early Joseon)-Kijajoseon (Hujoseon, Late Joseon)-Wuimanjoseon-Hansagun. This idea is an obvious example of Sinocentirc ideology that was extremely diffused among Goryeo confucian scholars. It would not be possible to solve the problems on Korean ancient history without overcoming this historical limitation by clarifying the location and role of historical activities of Kija and Wuiman as well as the relationship between their historical characteristics and Korean ancient history. If Kija and Wuiman played their historical roles in border areas of Gojoseon, they cannot be centered in Korean history and Hansagun also cannot be located in the central area of Korea peninsular. The idea that they played their historical roles in Korean ancient history is related to the theory of Joseonsapyunsuheo that Korean history was made up of Chinese colony in northern part and Japanese colony in southern part : we should be very cautious in that this theory is in the same logical line with what Chinese government argues in the name of Dongbukgongjeong. In this context, I have critically reviewed the description on Kija, Wuiman, and Hansagun throughout our current Korean history textbooks.
In conclusion, it is an important historical responsibility for Korean people to describe our own history correctly before arguing about the Korean historical distortion contrived by China and Japan. Thus, I would like to emphasize that National Institute of Korean History must seriously consider the issues I discussed in this paper and endeavor to correctly describe Korean history in Korean history textbooks. In addition, I would like to ask Korean historical academic societies to expand active discussions on these issues, and Ministry of Education, Science and Technology to act promptly under a long-term plan to solve this educational issue.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 고조선 건국에 관한 내용
Ⅲ. 청동기시대 편년에 관한 내용
Ⅳ. 기자와 위만, 한사군에 관한 내용
Ⅴ. 맺음말
〈참고문헌〉
〈abstract〉
참고문헌 (129)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
The Case of Korean History
Korea Journal
1970 .11
-
국사교과서에 반영된 해양관련 서술의 검토와 몇 가지 제언
고조선단군학
2014 .12
-
동북아 시대에서 한국사 서술과 역사교육 : ‘국사’를 넘어서
역사교육
2005 .09
-
전근대 국사의 형성과 그 발전
韓國史學史學報
2008 .01
-
‘고대사 파동’과 고조선 역사지도
한국사연구
2016 .03
-
The Portrayal of Korea : A Critical Analysis of Korean History in American Secondary Schools
International Journal of Korean History
2000 .12
-
해방후 현대사 교육 내용 기준의 변천과 국사교과서 서술
역사학보
2010 .03
-
현재의 한국사 연구와 역사관 문제
韓國史學史學報
2003 .01
-
제 7차 교육과정 高等學校 國史敎科書의 내용 분석
역사교육
2002 .12
-
2009 개정 교육과정과 고등학교 국사 교육
역사교육
2011 .06
-
Problems in the Writing of Korean History Textbooks
Korea Journal
1998 .03
-
고등학교 세계사 교과서의 중국고중세사 서술 : 역사 용어를 중심으로
역사교육
2017 .06
-
한국사와 역사철학
유라시아문화
2020 .08
-
10학년 〈역사〉 교육과정의 ‘비교’ 내용 구성 방향
역사와 세계
2009 .06
-
교과서의 고려시기 학습내용 서술체계·요소 분석과 체계화
역사교육
2018 .09
-
제1차 교육과정기 발행 『중등국사』 (역사교육연구회 엮음) 교과서의 특성과 의의
역사교육
2018 .06
-
China’s Attempt at “Stealing” Parts of Ancient Korean History
THE REVIEW OF KOREAN STUDIES
2004 .12
-
세계사 교과서 현대사 단원의 학생 활동 분석
역사교육
2020 .06
-
역사교육 계열화를 위한 고등학교 국사교육 내용구성 방안
역사와 담론
2005 .04
-
역사교과서의 사회문화적 기능과 국가 이데올로기
역사교육
2014 .09
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-911-002399607