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
Among the 48 writings related to Korean ancient history written by Joseon peoples in the colonial period, 36 writings narrated the history of Balhae and 12 writings did not. Most of the 12 writings did not narrate the history of Balhae only because they narrated only ancient histories and histories in the epoch of the three Kingdoms. They did not deny the history of Balhae in the history of Korea. For your reference, among the 11 new type history writings in the period of Korean Empire, 9 narrated the history of Balhae and 2 did not.
As such, one of the characteristics of Korean modern history is the inclusion of the history of Balhae in the system of Korean history. Among the 36 writings that narrated the history of Balhae, 17 indicated the period when Silla and Balhae coexisted as the period of ‘southern and northern dynasties’ and 6 indicated the period as the period of ‘northern and southern kingdoms.’
By the way, the writings that indicated southern and northern dynasties intensively appeared in the first half of the 1920s, and the phrase ‘northern and southern kingdoms’ was used from the late 1920s. It can be seen that this conversion in terms was intentional because Jang Do-Bin and Kwon Jik-Gyu, who used ‘southern and northern dynasties’ in their writings in the first half of the 1920s, changed the term into ‘northern and southern kingdoms’ in their writings in the late 1920s. The clue can be found from the case where Shin Chae-Ho, who used the term ‘northern and southern kingdoms’ in the late 1910s, contributed an editorial where a term ‘northern and eastern kingdoms’ was used to a domestic media during his asylum in China.
As such, Korean modern history has actively accepted the theory of northern and southern kingdoms. On the contrary, there are four kinds of modern history writings that denied the theory of northern and southern kingdoms. The reason was that these writings put up the unification by Silla. The reason for this is that they were influenced by the Japanese colonial Manchuria-Joseon history.
As such, one of the characteristics of Korean modern history is the inclusion of the history of Balhae in the system of Korean history. Among the 36 writings that narrated the history of Balhae, 17 indicated the period when Silla and Balhae coexisted as the period of ‘southern and northern dynasties’ and 6 indicated the period as the period of ‘northern and southern kingdoms.’
By the way, the writings that indicated southern and northern dynasties intensively appeared in the first half of the 1920s, and the phrase ‘northern and southern kingdoms’ was used from the late 1920s. It can be seen that this conversion in terms was intentional because Jang Do-Bin and Kwon Jik-Gyu, who used ‘southern and northern dynasties’ in their writings in the first half of the 1920s, changed the term into ‘northern and southern kingdoms’ in their writings in the late 1920s. The clue can be found from the case where Shin Chae-Ho, who used the term ‘northern and southern kingdoms’ in the late 1910s, contributed an editorial where a term ‘northern and eastern kingdoms’ was used to a domestic media during his asylum in China.
As such, Korean modern history has actively accepted the theory of northern and southern kingdoms. On the contrary, there are four kinds of modern history writings that denied the theory of northern and southern kingdoms. The reason was that these writings put up the unification by Silla. The reason for this is that they were influenced by the Japanese colonial Manchuria-Joseon history.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 식민지시기의 한국고대사 관련 저술들
Ⅲ. 남북국론을 설정한 저술들
Ⅳ. 남북국론을 설정하지 않은 저술들
Ⅴ. 맺음말
참고문헌
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
고등학교 한국사 교과서의 ‘북벌론’ 서사 분석
역사교육논집
2024 .06
-
북방사, 50여 년 연구 여정의 또 다른 농축(김정배, 2018, 『한국과 중국의 북방사 인식』, 세창출판사)
한국사학보
2019 .05
-
나의 발해사 연구
한국고대사연구
2015 .12
-
발해 도성 연구 성과를 반영한 역사 수업방안 연구
역사학연구
2024 .08
-
‘발해유민’인가 ‘발해인’인가?
역사비평
2022 .08
-
Korean Studies in the United Kingdom: History and Prospects
THE REVIEW OF KOREAN STUDIES
2024 .12
-
일본 근대 초기 역사학의 발해사 서술과 그 전거
고구려발해연구
2019 .03
-
한국사의 의미에 비추어 본 현행 교육과정 고대사 체계의 문제점과 개선 방향
대구사학
2022 .05
-
渤海國과 契丹(遼) 關係史의 硏究爭點과 向後 課題
중국사연구
2017 .01
-
발해 강역 연구의 현황과 전망
백산학보
2018 .01
-
최근 대만 역사교과서의 한국사 인식 변화 - 101과강 『선수역사(選修歷史)』와 108과강 『역사(歷史)2』 비교 분석
동북아역사논총
2021 .03
-
지속가능한 발전을 위한 역사교육 - 환경사와 역사교육의 연대를 위한 제언
역사비평
2022 .02
-
한국 공공역사 연구의 가능성과 지향
역사비평
2024 .08
-
World history가 아닌 Global history
동서인문
2021 .04
-
고등학교 『한국사』 교과서의 발해사 서술 현황과 그 문제점
선사와 고대
2019 .01
-
최근 10년간 발해사 연구성과와 방향
동북아역사논총
2016 .09
-
Mapping World History in Korea
The Asian review of world histories
2015 .01
-
한국사 연구와 역사교육에서 정체성과 역동성, 공동체 정신
역사교육
2016 .06
-
권력과 기록
동아시아고대학
2017 .01
-
‘문학’에서 ‘글쓰기’로 -김윤식의 ‘글쓰기론 3부작’ 논의를 위한 예비적 고찰
구보학보
2019 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2018-911-001702448