KJC Korea
Journal Central

Examined in this article is the ‘Origin’ of two trends: Critical analyses of the occupied Joseon people which were launched against ‘Colonial Historiography,’ and the “Internal Development theory” launched later by Korean historians. The beginning points of these two trends may seem (at first glance) to have been different from each other, but both trends actually took place at the time of liberation from Japanese occupation, and amidst the surge of Anti-Colonial historiography studies. And these two trends sure interacted with each other in the 1960s, so such interaction is examined in this article as well. This is not an analysis of what came after the emergence of the Internal Development theory, but rather of what came ‘before’ it, as the origin itself should be construed within the context of situations (as well as academic efforts in the area of history) that unfolded right after the liberation. And in order to do that right, we should also be well aware of how a series of critical analyses of ‘Colonial Historiography,’ and the eventual advent of “Internal Development theory,” sort of fueled each other for years, to reach their full potential. Meanwhile, also stressed in this article is that critical analyses of Colonial historiography did not only criticise the colonial historical perspective shown by the Japanese, but were launched to overcome colonial historical studies done by Korean scholars, which were performed in the name of pursuing “empirical studies (dealing ‘facts’ that could be confirmed by written records).” And most importantly, suggested in this article is that it was the Nationalistic historiography and Marxist historiography, which were both against Colonial historiography, that bridged critical analyses of colonial historiography and the Internal Development theory.

The first conference to be held in Korea and to ever apply the “Modernization” theory of the U.S. Kennedy administration in its presentations was held in 1962. In this conference, the concept of modernization was understood as “Westernization,” and therefore the ‘beginning point’ of the modern period was extensively discussed. Koreans debate upon this matter, as well as their embracement of the “Modernization” theory, which began essentially with efforts concerning the issue of how to establish periods in Korean history, explosively expanded around 1965 when the Korea-Japan treaty was signed and a sense of crisis continued to rise amongst the Korean people. People started to search for entities (or trends) that opposed colonial ruling, and started to analyze and explain colonial historial perspectives. Periodization efforts concerning the entire Korean history resurfaced as well. The influx of the “Modernization” theory and its expansion in the 1960s was a process in which chronological time-consciousness and development-based perspectives were being newly labelled as a Nationalistic and Pro-‘social principles’ perspectives. An eye to monitor ‘internal developments’ was being ingrained in individual scholars’ perspectives and attitudes.

In the 1960s when Japan was about to get to the economic growth, the modernization theory from United States took on in the country. The modernization theory, in order to use Japan as the model for modernizing Asia, appreciated Japan’s early modern period and Japan’s unique successful linkage with the world capitalism system. At that time Takeuchi Yoshimi, criticizing the modernization theory, appreciated Japan’s Asianism before 1945 so that he was able to distinguish the Asiatic modernity which resisted the western imperialism from Japanese modernity which participated in it. Takeuchi tried to extract the resource of thought from the Asianism’s tradition which kept putting the Asiatic modernity against Japanese modernity. The Japanese researchers of Korean history including Kajimura Hideki, thought the appreciation of the Asianism was only a kind of the modernization theory or a new logic to make Japan the model of modernization. The chance for making the change came with the discovery of people, who on the one hand was subordinated to the ruling class, and on the other hand kept resisting against it. Kajimura saw Korean people who endeavored to be modernized by sending troops to Vietnam and economic cooperation with Japan, and also saw the resisting shape of Korean people through the movement for democracy. The modernization theory is supported by the people’s desire, but the people has another desire of protecting the life-world and national sphere of life. Kajimura recognized the influence of the modernization theory, but at the same time became convinced that homogeneous modernization should be impossible. Hereby Kajimura could overcome the modernization theory and got a chance to understand the project of Takeuchi.

The records of Jajang’s foundation of Jungamsa (a.k.a. Seoknamwon 石南院) can only be found in Korea, but none in China. As a result, there are some scepticism on Jajang’s foundation of the temple. This study reviewed the times of Jajang’s travel to the northeast and his foundation of Jungamsa in the records in Korea. Il-yeon claimed that Jajang travelled to the northeast twice, but Min Ji recorded it as one time in the monk’s later years. Considering Jajang’s activities following his return to Korea, this study endorses Min Ji’s stance that Jajang travelled the northeast once in his later years, specifically around the time of Jajang’s downfall under the clan of Kim Chunchu during the reign of Queen Jindeok. The records on Jajang’s foundation of Jungamsa are associated with Jajang’s tragic death (入寂) and the remains of his cremation and burial. The negative records of the monk and the tangible presence of his burial remains serve as concrete evidence of Jajang’s foundation of Jungamsa. Next, this study took account of Sumano-t’ap as one of Jajang’s legacies, considering the high significance of the structure in the temple spiritually linked to the historical figure. This association between Sumano-t’ap and Jajang is indisputable, as there existed no other monk who represents Jungamsa than Jajang. To summarize, this study associated the date of the first establishment of Sumano-t’ap with later Silla, the period when Jajang revives from his downfall as he is reassessed. Considering Sumano-t’ap as an easily alterable stone brick pagoda, this assumption is deemed feasible.

This article is a review of Chae Sang-sik (蔡尙植)'s viewpoints as a part of analyzing the advance studies on the establishment of Korean Buddhist sects. At the first, Chae Sang-sik’s criticism was raised against Heo Heung-sik (許興植) insisted on the late Silla and early Goryo period establishment theory of Korean Buddhist sects. Chae Sang-sik claimed the Unified Silla period as the starting point of the middle period in Korea, and as an indicator of that theory, he suggested the formation of Buddhist order, the deepening of the scholarship of Buddhism and the generalization to the general public. He claimed that the Buddhist sects were established with the formation of the Buddhist order. He defined the sects as “group in which certain ideas have a system of teaching, ritual, and faith separately and shared his ideas with the whole class through temples”. However, groups with this independent system in the Buddhist order of Silla did not appear at any time. Rather, the early Uisang lineage, which was somewhat free from the control of the Buddhist order, had the requirements of a “sect” that conformed to the definition of Chae Sang-sik. But the appearance of the early Uisang lineage was exceptional in the whole situation of the Silla Buddhist system in the late 7th to early 8th century, and in the middle of the 8th century it went into the capital city, Gyeongju and assimilated to the central Buddhist order. It is quite questionable that the early appearance of Uisang lineage was kept in that period. In conclusion, I think the ‘sects’ that Chae Sang-sik claimed did not exist during middle period of Silla Kingdom.

Located in the northeast of the Korean peninsula Hamgil Province was integrated as part of Goryeo’s Northeastern Frontier District in 1356 (5th year of King Gongmin’s reign). It was thereafter named Yeonggil Province in 1413(13th year of King Taejong’s reign), Hamgil Province in 1416(16th year of King Taejong’s reign), and Yeongan Province in 1470(1st year of King Seongjong’s reign). As such, various names, Northeastern Frontier District, Yeonggil Province, Hamgil Province and Yeongan Province, were given to the same region across differen tperiods. Aboriginals, Jurchen and Mongolians historically resided in this area since the Goryeo dynasty. The majority of Jurchen living in this area were naturalized as Joseon commoners shortly after the foundation of Joseon dynasty. As such, unique social manners and customs formed as a result of the cohabitation of Goryeo and Joseon nationals and naturalized locals in this area. The practice of Sejeon gwanha (Hereditary hired laborers), under which local powers or barbarian leaders (Jurchen) handled commoners under their authority like private slaves constitutes one of the unique social manners and customs that existed in this region. Local power holders concealed the existence of these commoners in order to keep them as their private slaves. These commoners were expected to serve out their duties to the state, including military conscription and corvee labor. However, as they were registered as hyeopho (people who were subordinate to their main family) rather than gunho (military householders), they were not mobilized for the military. Although the Joseon government was aware of this situation in Hamgil Province, the problem of hyeopho in Hamgil Province proved hard to uproot over the short term, having being a long-accepted custom in the area. The problem of Sejeon gwanha, which lasted until the reign of King Sejo, finally began to be resolved following the Yi Siae Rebellion of May 1467(13th year of King Sejo’s reign). King Seongjong determined that the Sejeon gwanha under the control of local power holders in Hamgil Province represented a force for rebellion in such local areas. In addition to King Seongjong’s political determination, the necessity to sever private dominant-subordinate relationships was also highlighted. As a result, the state decided to longer accept the uniqueness of Hamgil Province, a decision that was also in keeping with the system in place in the southern provinces where the state was directly responsible for military conscriptions. In keeping with this logic, the decision was made to remove the custom of Sejeon gwanha found only in Hamgil Province. Following this process, Hamgil Province became unified under Joseon. The uniqueness of Hamgil Province, which has heretofore been regarded as being heterogeneous, provides a clue to the actual diversity of Joseon history. The Sejeon gwanha of Hamgil Province represents a small but salient example of how diversity became unified during early Joseon.

Kim Man-duk(1739～1812) was originally a female courtesan in Jeju island. In 1796, great famine struck the island and left many starved to death. Kim Man-duk helped these people by providing vast amounts of rice to the government for free. Impressed by her sacrifice, Jeju governor reported such deed to the court. King Jungjo was also grateful to her, granting any of Kim’s wishes. Kim surprisingly did not ask for status elevation, but merely wished to tour Seoul and Mount. Kumkang, which the king fully accepted. During Kim Man-duk’s visit to Seoul, many court Confucian literati composed writings to praise her charity. Those works still survive to this day to make her a great historical figure. Recenty, Kim Man-duk became a symbolic individual to represent Jeju island and her reputation spread nationwide. Such assessment is indeed justified as proven by her virtuous philanthropy. However, as Kim emerges more into history from myth, her life requires more accurate understanding from the public. Kim Man-duk’s charitable activities and her visit to Seoul and Kumkang mountains demand almost no controversy as they are strongly documented. But the facts of how she acquired her immense wealth or economic operations are still not clear by documents. Lately, a theory that Kim became a peasant at 20 and subsequently was involved in commerce to eventually become a business magnate is widely held. This study therefore has examined whether such understanding corresponds to the contemporary situations. Based on 18th century commercial development of Jeju island, previous opinion that Kim Man-duk became rich because of trade needs much to be reconsidered. During that time, there were ship merchants who did business between Jeju island and mainland and who were mostly of Jeju origin. This fact implies that they led such trade. However, recent study that recognizes Kim Man-duk as the merchant princess insists that she had a joint partnership with mainland merchants. This opinion lacks credibility since it was impossible for Kim to accumulate her riches by transacting with mainland traders when there were very few of them coming to the island. Another common theory that Kim Man-duk was freed of slavery around the age 20 could also be disputed. In order for government courtesans to be released of their status, vast economic costs were needed. Moreover, official records clearly recorded Kim as state-owned courtesan. Hence, aforementioned theory requires further verifications. Then, the question arises as to how Kim Man-duk rose herself to be a business powerwoman in Jeju island. Some clues can be found from the fact that she was a courtesan. A famous courtesan in late Joseon period was able to make a fortune in a short time, thus it could be said that this was the exact route that Kim took to her rise to riches. The new theory raised in this study is quite different from the established one. Although newly suggested theory has few recorded grounds and rather based on the conditions of the time, this study hopes to contribute to the deepening research of Kim Man-duk by approaching it from a fresh perspective.