百濟 義慈王論

이도학 한국민족학회 1997 민족학연구 Vol.2 No.-

「광개토왕릉비문」에 보이는 전쟁 기사의 분석

李道學,金賢淑(토론자) 고구려발해학회 1996 고구려발해연구 Vol.2 No.-

百濟 漢城時期의 都城制에 관한 檢討

李道學 한국상고사학회 1992 한국상고사학보 Vol.9 No.-

百濟 蛇城의 位置에 대한 再檢討

李道學 한양대학교 한국학연구소 1990 韓國學論集 Vol.17 No.-

According to Samkuksaki(三國史記). Sa-Song(snake type castle) was located in the shore of Han-river(漢江), and it known as a military castle. And this Sa-Song had been assumed to be the usual mud castle in Pung-Nab-Dong(風納洞), Seoul. But when we analyze the historical documents related with the capital of a kingdom in Paek-Che dynasty and the material evidences pound in the mud castle in Pung-Nab-Dong has been proved as a royal castle during Paek-Che dynasty seated in Han Song(漢城). On the other hand, Sa-Song should be located in the east starting point of the river bank built in king Gae-ro(蓋鹵) era, but the traces of that river bank was found on the inside of Han-river between Song-pa(松坡) and the mud castle in Pung-Nab-Dong. As a result, Sa-Song should be located to the west of the mud castle in Pung-Nab-Dong, so we assume that the mud castle in Sam-Song-Dong(三成洞) by Han-river can be a candidate for Sa-Song. Because the strategical meaning of the mud castle in Sam-Song-Dong also coincide with the characters of Sa-Song.

百濟의 起源과 國家發展過程에 관한 檢討

李道學 한양대학교 한국학연구소 1991 韓國學論集 Vol.19 No.-

The rivalry of Paekche, whose founders originated from Puyeo (夫餘), against Kokuryo(高句麗), can be understood as the competition for the legitimate successor of Pyueo. The lineal connection between Paekche and Puyeo can be confirmed through surveying the style of tombs. The Tomb style of the Paekche's founders has been regarded as the stone tomb of stepped pyramid type. But the stone tomb of non-pyramid type which is the preceding style of the stone tomb of stepped pyramid type is not found in the area of Seoul and Han River. Therefore the tombs in the area of Chun-Cheon Jungdo (中島), Je-Won(堤原), Yang-Pyong(楊平), Which has been understood as the stone tomb of pyramid type, should be revised as type of the mound tomb with stone. Type of the mound tomb with stone was developed from the pit mound tomb which is designed for mound of a grave not to be swept away. In other words, the pit mound tomb has been main tomb style before the appearance of the stone tomb of stepped pyramid type. Considering scales and qualities of the articles buried in the tombs, these could be thought as the tombs of the top ruling class. The pit mound tomb might be related with contents of "with a coffin without its case" in the Sam-Kuk-Ji (三國志) Puyeo article. And that would be proved in relation with the recent research on a Puyeo tomb at Lao-Ho-Shen Site (老河深遺蹟), Jilin Province (吉林省) in China which is the pit mound tomb. The developing process of Pit tomb style was understood as the pit tomb-the pit mound tomb-type of the mound tomb with stone-the stone tomb of middyied type. The tomb of Sokcjon-dong No. 4 is regarded as a complete form of type of the mound tomb with stone. The stone tomb of stepped pyramid type, which is the tomb style of Kokuryo, appeared in the area of Seoul after the latter half of 4th century. And that is the result of southward migration of Manchurian Paekche. The location of Paekche at the Manchurian area is clarified by the record of the items of Jenuary A.D. 346 in Ja-Chi-Tong-Gam(資治通鑑) and the biography of Moyong-hyang(모용황) in Chin-Seo(晋書). The records on its location also can be found in the Records about Paekche of Song-Seo (宋書) : "The paekche Kingdom and Kokuryo originally had been located to the 400km east of the Ryaotung(遼東)." And the article of Sam-Kuk-Sa-Ki(三國史記) records of the second year of DanMuSin-King(大武神王) also would be the evidence of Paekche's location at the Manchurian area: "the 1,000 or more houses of Paekche came and submitted" two years before Kokuryo's Army passing upper reaches of Pyru-River(沸流水) and attacking Puyeo. So Puyeo which originally had been located in the Manchurian area, moved southward twice to the Han-River(漢江) valley and settled. And the tomb style after the second movement was the stone tomb of stepped pyramid of Kokuryo type. This means an alternation of kingship to another clan, making it possible to dicide the history of Paekche to the state of Paekche-Kuk(伯濟國) and Paekche(百濟).

方位名 夫餘國의 성립에 관한 檢討

李道學 백산학회 1991 白山學報 Vol.- No.38

고구려 건국 세력의 정체성 논의

이도학 전북사학회 2020 전북사학 Vol.0 No.59

In addition to the literature, letters on stones said that the founder of Goguryeo came down from Buyeo. Although the record has been trusted without doubt, it has been argued that it is only a one-sided record of the Goguryeo people. A key rationale for this view is that if the Goguryeo founder had applied for the project in Buyeo, the Buyeo tomb form should have been built on Goguryeo land, but only a tomb stowed with stones, an indigenous tomb, was created in the Goguryeo kingdom. It reflected not only the identity of the founder, but also the fact that there was no change or coercion in the conservative tomb. Furthermore, it applied the wage theory from outside Marshall Sahlins that the Founders made their way into the outside world. However, we cannot follow the theory of the indigenous people of the Goguryeo founder of Goguryeo. The claim that the founder of Goguryeo applied from Buyeo is also agreed by Baekje, which was the arch-enemy of Goguryeo. Furthermore, according to Sahlin's theory, when strangers integrate with indigenous people, “the whole group is named after indigenous, subordinate subgroups.” Sahlins said that this method of classification expresses “a king's consent in a kind of reverse-name method in which the title of social underdogs becomes the general concept of the whole.” In this context, the founders of Goguryeo also adopted tombs for indigenous people. And in Sahlin's theory, power and territory are inherited through marriage. Similarly, the founder of Goguryeo was reconciled to the region by marrying a powerful woman of indigenous power. Through Sahlin's theory, the founder of Goguryeo could rather prove his application from Buyeo, the outside world. 문헌 뿐 아니라 금석문에서는 고구려 건국 세력이 부여에서 내려왔다고 하였다. 이 기록을 의심 없이 믿어 왔지만, 고구려인들의 일방적인 기록에 불과하다는 주장이 제기되었다. 그렇게 간주하는 핵심적인 근거는 고구려 건국 세력이 부여에서 출원했다면, 부여 묘제가 고구려 땅에서 조성되었어야 하지만, 고구려 건국 지역에서는 토착 묘제인 적석총만 조성되었다는 것이다. 건국 세력의 정체성을 반영할 뿐 아니라 보수성을 지닌 묘제상의 변화나 강요가 없었다는 점에 착목하였다. 게다가 건국 세력을 외부 세계에서 진입한 것으로 만들었다는 마샬 살린스(Marshall Sahlins)의 외래왕 이론을 적용했다. 그러나 이에 근거한 고구려 건국 세력의 토착민 설은 따를 수 없다. 고구려 건국 세력이 부여에서 출원했다는 주장은, 고구려의 앙숙이었던 백제에서도 동의하고 있기 때문이다. 게다가 살린스 이론에 따르면 이방인이 토착민과 통합했을 때 “집단 전체의 명칭은 토착의, 종속하는 하위집단의 이름을 따서 붙여진다”고 했다. 살린스는 이러한 분류 방법을 “사회적 약자의 호칭이 전체의 일반적인 개념이 되는 일종의 역명명법으로 왕의 同化”를 표현해준다고 했다. 이러한 맥락에서 고구려 건국 세력도 토착민의 묘제를 채용한 것이다. 그리고 살린스의 이론에서 혼인을 통해 권력과 영토를 물려받는다고 했다. 이와 마찬 가지로 고구려 건국 세력도 토착 세력의 힘 있는 여성과 혼인함으로써 그 지역에 융화되었던 것이다. 살린스 이론을 통해 오히려 고구려 건국 세력은 외부 세계인 부여에서 출원했음을 입증할 수 있었다.

百濟 熊津期 漢江流域支配 問題와 그에 대한 認識

이도학 서울역사편찬원 2009 서울과 역사 Vol.- No.73

Many researchers have a lot discussed who controlled the area of the Han River. What has been most important for that matter is that whether Goguryeo occupied this area after it collapsed Hanseong, the capital of Baekje on Sep. 475 A.D. <Samguk Sagi> says that at that time Baekje had still dominated Hanseong as well as the surroundings of the Han River and a battlefield between Baekje and Goguryeo in the era of Woongjin had also been formed in the northern Gyeonggi Province and Hwanghae Province as it had been in the Hanseong era (18 B.C~475 A.D.). In the light of the contents of <Samguk Sagi>, it could be found that Goguryeo didn't dominate the area of the Han River and Baekje also didn't lose it. The chapter for geographical features of <Samguk Sagi>, however, says that the administrative names of Goguryeo reached the area of the Asan Bay, confirming this historical fact from archaeological evidence. The chronicle part of the <Samguk Sagi> omits severely the history of Goguryeo but for the articles related to wars, the book introduces almost all the chronicle of Baekje, which means that any contents regarding the surroundings of the Han River shown on <Samguk Sagi> is just none other than the article of Baekje chronicle. A poor perception of such problematic view of history and resulting impartial recording has naturally led to the Han River area dominated by Baekje. And some suggestions of geographical name-transfer have been very poor in their arguments and revealed arbitrary interpretation as well. Furthermore, suggestions that concretely explained places to which the names were transferred were too much. I discovered that not only suggestions of Baekje's rule over the Han River area but name- transfer have all weak arguments and logical deficiency. The people of Baekje recorded as if they had continued to dominate the area of the Han River that had been associated with the legitimacy of the Royal Munyeong lineage which had tried to link it with King Gaero who was the last king in their Hanseong (the home of Baekje) era. In their view, history was real and was very important when the government tried to solve pending issues. Since the era of King Seong, Baekje has put its top priority on recovering the Han River area which had been taken by its neighboring Shilla. We could assume that for this, Baekje used both retaliatory attacks and political pressure against Shilla and as a countermeasure of it, Shilla demanded that they possessed the Han River area as a territory of Goguryeo, not of Baekje and Baekje would need to break such arguments made by Shilla. And for this, Baekje demanded that the Han River area had been their territory since the foundation of Baekje but deprived by Shilla 553 A.D. This shows that the Baekje people demanded their originality in the Han River area with their realistic and long desire. 한강유역의 지배권 문제에 대해서는 지금까지 논의가 분분하였다. 논의의 요체는 475년 9월에 고구려가 백제의 왕도인 한성을 함락한 후 이곳을 영유하였는가의 여부였다. <삼국사기>에는 백제가 한성을 비롯한 한강유역을 여전히 확보하고 있었을 뿐 아니라 웅진시기의 백제와 고구려의 戰場도 한성시기(기원전 18년~475년)와 마찬가지로 황해도와 경기도 북부 일원에서 형성되었다. <삼국사기> 年代記만 본다면 고구려는 한강유역을 지배하지도 못했을 뿐 아니라 백제 역시 이곳을 상실하지도 않았다. 그러나 <삼국사기> 지리에는 고구려 行政地名이 아산만 일원까지 내려와 있다. 고고학적 물증 역시 이와 어긋나지 않았다. <삼국사기> 年代記 가운데 고구려 것은 기사 누락이 극심하였다. 관련된 전쟁 기사는 백제 연대기 내용을 거의 그대로 전재하고 있다. 그러니까 <삼국사기>에 보이는 한강유역 관련 기사는 백제측의 일방적인 내용을 담고 있는 백제 연대기 기사에 불과한 것이다. 이러한 사료의 기본적인 속성을 제대로 이해하지 못한 관계로 백제의 한강유역 지배라는 인식이 제기되었다. 이와 맞물려 있는 地名 移轉 주장의 경우도 논거가 몹시 취약할 뿐 아니라 恣意的인 해석임을 드러냈다. 더구나 그 위치를 구체적으로 제시한 주장의 경우는 强辯이 심하였다. 백제가 한강유역을 지배했다는 주장이나 지명이 이전되었다는 주장 모두 취신하기에는 논거 뿐 아니라 논리적인 결함이 크다는 것을 발견했다. 백제인들은 자국의 발상지이자 한성시기 마지막 왕인 개로왕과 연결 짓고자 했던 무령왕계 왕실의 정통성과 관련된 한강유역을 줄곧 확보한 것처럼 기록했다. 역사는 현실인 동시에 현안의 해결이 정권이 처한 焦眉의 관심이자 과제가 되는 것이다. 성왕대 이후 백제 왕실은 신라에 빼앗긴 한강유역 회복이 국가적 懸案이었다. 백제는 신라에 대한 보복 공격뿐 아니라 정치적 압박이라는 兩面에서 故土 返還을 요구했을 것이다. 이에 대한 대응으로 신라는 백제가 아닌 고구려 영토인 한강유역을 점유했다는 논리를 내세웠을 법하다. 백제는 이러한 신라의 논리를 차단할 필요가 있었을 것이다. 그러한 차원에서 백제는 한강유역은 건국 이래로 자국 영역이었으나 553년에 신라에 빼앗겼다는 논리로써 대응했다. 백제인들은 현실적 숙원과 결부된 한강유역에 대한 오리지널리티를 주장한 것이다.

『禰寔進墓誌銘』을 통해 본 百濟 禰氏 家門

李道學 한국전통문화대학교 한국전통문화연구소 2007 한국전통문화연구 Vol.5 No.-

百濟 初期史에 관한 文獻資料의 檢討

李道學 한양대학교 한국학연구소 1993 韓國學論集 Vol.23 No.-