KJC Korea
Journal Central

Yemaeck(濊貊) which is shown in pre-Qin(先秦) literatures lived around the Daling(大凌河) of the Liaoxi(遼西) for about 1,000 years from early Zhou(周) to late the Age of Wars(戰國時代). Yemaeck is rooted in ‘Bak(亳)’ which led in the lower layer of Xiajiadian(夏家店 下層文化) in Liaoxi, the southeast area of Inner Mongolia and Hebei(河北), not immigrants from the north area. Shang(商), Yan(燕), Gojuk(孤竹), Yeongji(令支) and Shanrong(山戎) were divided from Bak as well as it was an origin of Yemaeck. In Liaoxi, Bak appeared as the lower layer of Xiajiadian disappeared before and after the 15th century B.C. Bak led in the Daling culture(凌河文化) characterized by Liaoning bronze(琵琶型銅劍) daggers while inheriting the culture of the lower layer of Xiajiadian, and was gradually divided into Maeck(貊) and Ye(濊). Yemaeck developed through various relationships with China empire including Shanrong and East-violets(東胡), and Je and Yen. They survived until Yan established five county including Liaoxi in about the 4th century B.C. In addition to them, Homaeck(or Maeck) of north violets was active until the early he Age of Wars. Yemaeck was a partial axis of Korean ancient history inheriting the rather than a collateral being of Gojoseon(古朝鮮). However in Liaoxi, Gojoseon developed whose tribe and culture were different from Yemaeck. Yemaeck's base was destroyed under competition of Gojoseon, Yan and East-violets, and Liaoxi and Po Hai(渤海) which had different tradition from China since the Neolithic Era became Korean.

The result to examine the recognition of 『Jewangunki』 for the dynasties in the northern region that is connected to Balhae (渤海), Liao (遼), Jin (金) and Yuan (元), in the period from 10 to 13 century is as follows. 『Jewangunki』 incorporated Balhae in the system of Korean history the most actively among existing histories. Inter alia, it highly appreciated that Balhae obeyed to Goryeo(高麗) of their own accord by taking the nation, and as for the record of immigration of wandering people of Balhae to Goryeo in 925, 『Jewangunki』 is the primary historical records. The reason that Lee, Seung Hyu (李承休, 1224∼1300) included Balhae in the system of Korean history might have a certain relation with enhancing national consciousness including Tangun (檀君) under the domestic and international situations. Liao (遼) of the Kitan put emphasis on domination of dynasty in central districts (中原 王朝) with ten million mounted troops by that soldiers were powerful and the nation was wealth. Jin (金) of Jusen described more positively compared to Liao for which Goryeo is the land of forefathers and both countries were in the relationship of brotherhood. Yuan (元) established by Mongols watched it as the object of admiration and wonder for it was the prosperous nation like the sun and the moon. It is considered that the recognition of Lee, Seung Hyu like above was based on that Yuan was the world-wide empire that unified the region of central district and in the marriage relationship with royal family of Goryeo. Only, the description for Yuan was not particularly distinct from previous dynasties in the amount, rather that it is fewer is strange. In addition, the thing that there are parts that were different from the historic facts in 『Jewangunki』 etc, it seems that the research level for the Chinese history was not on a high level. 『Jewangunki』 arranged the Chinese dynasties in history in the point of view of authenticity. In spite of that new dynasty was derived, in a case that the period after foundation of country is short and returns to the previous dynasty, it was not authentic country. In a case that ascending the throne, it is called that ‘authenticity’ when unified the world by acceding to the proper line (正脈), and handled Liao as a side story (傍傳) unlike Wudai (五代, five dynasties) and excluded Namsong (南宋) for the authenticity of Northern region was passed down to Jin. The view of authenticity of Lee, Seung Hyu could be found its background in the relation with Yuan. The syntactic system of Korean history that begins to authentic theory of Chinese dynasties or Tangun appeared in 『Jewangunki』 had a great influence on historical presentation and discussion of authentic theory in the latter part of the Goryeo dynasty and Joseon(朝鮮) dynasty.

The Yulgok School showed a processing of formation and development through the late of 16th and 17th century. A group which was consisted of students or fellows of Yulgok was made to learn a theory of Yulgok in the late of 16th century. In the early of 17th century, processes centered around Kim Chang-Saing(金長生), who were followed the theory of Yulgok and raised students were accomplished. the Yulgok School published Yulgok's works and chronology of his life. In the late of 17th century, however, we can see an internal conflict among them toward the way of comprehending Yulgok’s studies and characteristics. That is, for example, a division of a way of understanding Yulgok between Song Si-yul(宋時烈) and Park Se-chai(朴世采). It is especially originated from their political perspectives because Song Si-yul comprehended the political characteristic of Yulgok studies through a way of politics of public opinion. Unlike Song, Park Se-chai wanted to understand Yulgok by a perspective of political reconciliation. This difference seems as a constant influence for a division between Noron(老論) and Soron(少論).

Examined in this article, is the practice of relocating one's grave("遷葬"), which became a fashion fueled by the people's determination to honor their ancestors during the middle and the latter half of the Joseon dynasty period. Such practice became a fashion partly due to some changes in the location of people who were serving as guardians for their individual Houses' burial mountains. The case of the Hae'nam Yun house shows us how their 'distant' burial mountain located in the Gyeonggi-do province was replaced by a new and closer burial mountain in the Haenam and Gangjin areas, through relocation of the graves. This relocation of the graves, and also the arranging of a new mountain to house them, were all part of the descendants' efforts to successfully guard the mountains which were full of their ancestors' graves. This habit of relocating one's ancestors' graves was another reason for the outburst of lawsuits that concerned burial mountains("山訟") during the Joseon dynasty period. Such lawsuits broke out as well when graves for Yun Ih-seok and Yun Du-seo were being relocated, and although these two cases were apart from each other by almost a century, the reason for the conflicts were generally the same. In both cases, the descendants(Yun Ih-seok's and Yun Du-seo's) intended to move their graves to a closer location to themselves, and in the process they wished to resettle the graves upon another mountain which had been housing graves for distant relatives' ancestors too, yet were met by severe resistance by those distant relatives. We can see how such simple intentions could easily escalate into a legal conflict. When such incidents occurred, the House itself had to intervene as a mediator, and encourage both parties to seek for a reconciliation(和會).

이 글의 목적은 일제강점기 재조일본인의 출판활동을 규명하는 작업의 일환으로 지방의 현황을 파악할 수 있는 중요자료인 지방사의 간행실태를 분석하는데 있다. 이 작업을 위해 거류민단, 교육회, 도(부)청, 언론인 및 단체가 간행한 서적의 실태와 성격, 편찬활동의 목적, 간행서적에 나타난 조선인식을 검토하여, 재조일본인의 존재양태를 파악하는 단서를 찾아보려고 하였다. 총독부의 지방제도 개정으로 1914년 府制가 시행되어 거류민단이 폐지되었다. 재조일본인들은 부제시행을 전후하여 민단의 ‘분투사’를 정리하거나, 혹은 ‘鮮民同化’의 길이라는 인식을 갖고 지방사를 편찬하였다. 그리고 양국의 관계를 역사적으로 추적하여 반도의 종주권을 장악한 고대 일본, 임진왜란, 청일전쟁과 러일전쟁에 승리한 근대 일본의 우월성을 강조하였다. 이는 과거의 역사를 왜곡하여 관련유적 등의 보존과 선전활동을 통해 식민통치를 긍정하며 장래의 내선일체를 꾀하려는 의도였던 것이다. 재조일본인들이 지방사 편찬에 착목한 이유는 일본인의 조선에 대한 인식부족을 해결하고, 내지의 식량부족과 과잉인구 문제를 해결하며, 부원개발과 일본인의 이주를 촉구하기 위한 것이었다. 그리고 만주사변 이후 전시체제기의 비상시국에 대처하면서, 식민통치의 선전을 위한 것이었다. 따라서 이 시기에 간행된 지방사는 식민통치에 필요한 자료조사의 결과물이며 나아가 식민통치의 결과로 지역사회가 발달했음을 보여주는 의도에서 편찬된 것이 많았다.

Jeju 4ㆍ3 Incident is regarded as an example among the many cases occurred in contemporary Korean history. The truth of the Incident was revealed and the impaired reputation of the victims was regained in 2003. But dispute continues over the cause, nature, and evaluation of that Incident. Reflecting the circumstances, the accounts on the Incident in high school history textbooks show the interrelationship of current situation, curriculum, frame of reference and perspective of the authors. This paper analyzes the trend in the description on Jeju 4ㆍ3 Incident in Korean Modern and Contemporary History Textbooks and Korean History Textbooks and suggests some ideas for future textbook writing. First, we need to be more careful in setting up Curriculum and the Writing Guide (or National Standard) that influence the authors' textbook writing significantly. The Curriculum and Writing Guide for Korean Modern and Contemporary History and Korean History were made under the influence of the political situations at that time. The account on Jeju 4ㆍ3 Incident has shown deviation. Thus it is suggested that the Curriculum be revised in order to secure the author's autonomy and neutrality to the maximum while providing the minimal writing guideline, on the one hand, and to provide the necessity and justness of the account on the Incident by reflecting recent results such as Reports on the Truth of Jeju 4ㆍ3 Incident, on the other. Next, the textbook authors should write correctly with a correct perception on Jeju 4ㆍ3 Incident. Some authors don't write even the fact of the Incident reflecting their own disposition. The government is impairing the neutrality of history education by its control and nullifying the intent of the inspection system. But the textbook authors should try to describe the truth of the Incident with a sense of mission as historian and history educator because history textbooks guide history education and have great influence on middle and high school students whose historical perspectives are yet to be formed. Thus textbook authors should describe Jeju 4ㆍ3 Incident for the realization of the purpose of history education. Textbooks must lead the students to understand the Incident in diverse perspective and to find its nature and significance for themselves beyond simple memorization. Though the authors are losing their space for writing due to the decrease in the quantity of contemporary history part, they should do their best to provide the measures for fostering the sense of peace by writing about Jeju 4ㆍ3 Incident. Lastly, it is suggested that textbook writers, researchers, institutes, and other institutions relevant to Jeju 4ㆍ3 Incident have more communication and interchange. By increasing their communication and cooperation with in-depth studies of the Incident, they should develop matters for textbook writing and expand the scope of mutual understanding. This will help the authors write history textbooks by grasping the truth and essence of Jeju 4ㆍ3 Incident in spite of relatively insufficient space permitted in history textbook.