KJCKorea
Journal Central

This study examines Yukdang Choe Nam-seon’s research on Gojoseon and Kija Joseon and clarifies its historiographical significance. Choe Nam-seon’s perception of Gojoseon’s territory and center was not static, but evolved in response to historical circumstances and his field exploration experiences. His localization of the center shifted from the initial “Baekdusan–Pyongyang migration theory” to the “Liaohe–Songhua River basin to Pyongyang migration theory,” and eventually to the “Pyongyang-centered theory.” Although his territorial perception of Gojoseon underwent several shifts, it was ultimately defined as encompassing northern Korea and southern Manchuria as its primary historical arena. He posited that Gojoseon confronted the state of Yan along its western border centered on the Yaosu (Liao River), crossing beyond the Liaoxi region during times of peak strength, but retreated to the Yalu River line following the invasion of the Yan general Qin Kai. In addition, he classified the ethnic group of Gojoseon as the Ye (濊) tribe, identical to that of Buyeo. The most original and significant research achievement of Choe Nam-seon’s Gojoseon research was his systematic critique of the fictitious nature of the Kija Joseon theory and his replacement of it with Gaeaji Joseon (Haessi Joseon), an indigenous dynasty unique to Gojoseon. Against Japanese scholars such as Imanishi Ryu, who used the fictitiousness of the Kija tradition as a pretext to render the history of Gojoseon prior to the 3rd century BCE a historical blank, Choe proved the fictitious nature of Kija Joseon from various perspectives. Furthermore, his attempt to place an indigenous ruling power in the position where Kija was negated led to the research of contemporary historians, such as Jeong In-bo’s “Geom Joseon” and Yi Byeong-do’s “Han-ssi Joseon.” In addition, he sought to independently establish the system of Gojoseon history by identifying Wiman as of Joseon descent, leaving meaningful implications for the subsequent course of ancient history research in Korean scholarship.

The quotas of official posts in the central administrative offices recorded in Jikgwan(Upper) of Volume 7 of the Japji(雜志) in the Samguksagi, as well as the heading terms of the Seventeen Ranks of Office(17-gwandeung) transmitted in the Sillabongi and Jikgwan(Upper), can be confirmed to reflect the contents of the Jikweonryeong(職員令) and Gwanwiryeong(官位令) enacted during Queen Jindeok’s reign. This suggests that a comprehensive revision of the Yullyeong was carried out during Queen Jindeok’s reign. Furthermore, the royal testament(yujo) of King Munmu indicates that the Yullyeong was revised once again during the reign of King Sinmun. An analysis of records concerning rank regulations for official posts in Jikgwan(Upper) further demonstrates that another revision of the Lyeong took place between the 6th(747) and 17th(758) years of King Gyeongdeok’s reign. After the 17th year of King Gyeongdeok, the Yullyeong or Lyeong was no longer comprehensively revised; instead, the legal system was administered through the compilation of Gyeoksik(格式) based on laws and ordinances promulgated by royal edicts(王敎). The same mode of legal administration is also likely to have been in operation in the periods between Queen Jindeok and King Sinmun, and between King Sinmun and the sixth year of King Gyeongdeok.

This study re-examines the characteristics and structural relationship between Guihyang punishment(歸鄕刑) and Chungsangho punishment(充常戶刑) in the Goryeo dynasty. Previous studies defined these two punishments as a ‘supplementary penalty system’ existing outside the five-punishment(五刑) framework of the Penal Code(律令). However, this interpretation presents limitations due to the arbitrary conceptualization of ‘supplementary penalty.’ Furthermore, as recent studies suggested that Guihyang punishment(歸鄕刑) was a type of exile(流刑) reflecting Goryeo’s social structure. In this situation, reinterpretation of the penal nature of these two punishments and their relationship is necessary. The Guihyang punishment(歸鄕刑) constituted a principal punishment(主刑) that could be imposed independently. It shares the same content and objective with the exile(流刑), however it is lighter punishment than exile punishment which is included in Penal Code(律令). Guihyang punishment was established under the influence of the Song Dynasty’s law system, and was closely linked to Goryeo’s Bongwan system(本貫制). Chungsangho punishment(充常戶刑) was a supplementary punishment aimed primarily at status demotion and the deprivation of opportunities for social mobility. In particular, it was frequently execution-bound with facial tattooing(鈒面) or exile to remote regions like island. When imposed on privileged or specialized status groups such as Buddhist monks or ruling class, Chungsangho served to forfeit existing privileges and demote social standing; when applied to commoners, it was combined with facial tattooing or remote exile to enforce permanent status fixation. In conclusion, Guihyang punishment and Chungsangho did not constitute a rigid, unified ‘supplementary penalty system.’ Instead, Guihyang punishment as an independent exile punishment and Chungsangho as a supplementary status-based sanction were combined and operated fluidly according to the nature of individual crimes and status control needs. This demonstrates that while the penal execution system of Goryeo adopted Tang and Song laws, it operated dynamically by reflecting the specificities of Goryeo society.