朝陽지역의 西漢 유적에 관하여

卜箕大(BOK Gi-dae) 고구려발해학회 2003 고구려발해연구 Vol.15 No.-

Based on the remains of the Former Han dynasty in Joyang, author has investigated the political situation of this area in this paper. In general, it is suggested that the domain of China extend to Laotung area and the Cheongcheon river valley in Yen dynasty, and the Four Chinese Commendaries created at Pyeungyang area in the Former Han dynasty. But this opinion need to make more study. It is certain that the power of the Yen dynasty and the Former Han dynasty appeared in the Manchurian area, and the central power of these dynasties not extended to the Liao-Ho river. If the Chinese power occupied the whole Manchurian area and the part of the Han peninsular, its remains would discover in all direction. Also, its remains will have to show not the intermittent form but the concrete one. As above, it is certain mat the Chinese power extended to Chinchou and Chinshi in the west of the Liao-Ho river. Therefore, it is suggested that the Yen dynasty settled in this area, and the Former Han dynasty established the perfective and administrative system. Afterward, the quasi-independent political system appear to operate in the Later Han dynasty.

고구려 도읍지 천도에 대한 재검토

복기대(Bok Gi-Dae) 고조선단군학회 2010 고조선단군학 Vol.22 No.-

For the research into a certain country’s history, the study on the seat of government is very important. Because the seat of government is the center of everything, it is the most important material for the research of the history of a country. From this point of view, the study on the location of Ko-gu-ryu’s seat of government is more important than anything else. Because, as most of Korean history research including history of Ko-gu-ryu, has begun by Japanese rather than by Koreans. As everybody knows, the purpose of the research on Korean history by Japanese was to make logical base of their ruling Korea. That’s why there are so many points in dispute. The writer felt that there are many questions while reading papers studied on the seat of government of Ko-gu-ryu by Japanese. Above all things, Hwan-in or Jib-an was not the seat of government of Ko-gu-ryu at the beginning part of Ko-gu-ryu as Japanese asserted. They are of middle part. In addition, Pyung-yang which King Jangsoo transferred to was not Pyung-yang of North Korea of today but I confirmed that it was Pyung-yang of Yo-yang city, Yo-nyung sung, China. At the same time, I got to know that Yo-yang was a place where there were Nak-rang kun and Hyun-do kun of Han. This is a record which is a very important base of not only research on the history of Ko-gu-ryu but also of Korean ancient history. Then, what happened to Pyung-yang of today? It is proven to be true that that had transfered during the King Pyung-won of Ko-gu-ryu. Just like this, as the seats of government of Ko-gu-ryu of middle part are newly proven, it will affect deeply those studies had been done on Ko-gu-ryu, relevant Bu-yeo and Ko-cho-sun. Nevertheless, there are other not-yet-ascertained seats of government of Ko-gu-ryu of the beginning part. This is the time when the efforts of the academic world is necessary for these ascertainments.

기원전 7~4세기 遼西지역의 정치적 변화에 관하여

복기대(Bok Gi Dae) 한국문화사학회 2004 文化史學 Vol.0 No.21

홍산문화와 하가점하층문화의 연관성에 관한 시론

卜箕大(Bok Gi Dae) 한국문화사학회 2007 文化史學 Vol.0 No.27

小河沿文化에 관하여

복기대(Bok Gi-Dae) 고조선단군학회 2009 고조선단군학 Vol.21 No.-

In the era of Xiao He yan culture is between the progress of Hong San culture and Under Xia Jia Dian culture. Although the elements of the Xiao He yan culture were identified in the early 1900's, it has not been studied actively due to the result of the high attention of the Hong San culture and the Under Xia Jia Dian culture, and a lack of remains and relics. However, many scholars have studied this culture more and more from 1970's, In the past, the origin of the Xiao He yan culture was simply believed Da Wen Kou culture or the Hong San culture, but according to the result of author's research, it was influenced by the Hong San culture and Miao Zi Gou culture with the cultural phenomenon of the form of tombs and the potteries, so it should be reconsidered. There are many different kinds of opinions of a range of the Xiao He yan culture. For example, simply, one is a large region included Liao Xi and Peking, and another is only a region of Liao Xi. Importantly, the first opinion should be reconsidered because the elements of the Miao Zi Gou culture might be largely distributed. The Under Xia Jia Dian culture is the main culture which connect to the Xiao He yan culture among the other cultures and the fastest Northeast Asia culture in the Bronze Age. The comparisons with these cultures show many similar parts each other. For example, the structure of the tombs, the potteries and the patterns indicate inherited culture clearly, and the same gene of the people in these cultures, which is very important point because the cause of connecting culture to culture is by people. Moreover the Xiao He yan culture is the biggest culture to influence for Gao Tai San culture. As it shows that the Xiao He yan culture is the powerful culture to the formative period of the late Neolithic era and the early Bronze era, but unfortunately, the study of the Xiao He yan culture is difficult because the remains have not been excavated yet a lot, which is very regretful point.

고구려 국내성 및 환도성 위치 연구

복기대(Bok, Gi-Dae) 강원대학교 인문과학연구소 2020 인문과학연구 Vol.0 No.65

1900년대 초반 일본 역사학자들이 한국과 만주 지역의 고대사를 연구하는 과정에서 고구려의 두 번째 도읍지 국내성을 지금의 중국 길림성 집안시로 비정하였다. 집안이 고구려 두 번째 도읍이라는 근거는 국내성이 압록강 가에 있다는 것이었다. 집안의 동쪽에 압록강이 있기 때문에 집안이 국내성이라는 것이다. 이를 근거로 첫 번째 도읍지도 정해졌다. 이후 고구려 역사는 이를 바탕으로 연구되는데 이 과정에서 논리적으로 맞지 않는 많은 문제가 쌓여갔다. 그렇지만 뚜렷한 대안이 없어 문제들을 덮어두고 있었다. 그러던 차에 고구려 국내성 관련 자료들을 다시 분석하고, 고고학 관련 자료들도 살펴본 결과 국내성은 길림성 집안시가 아니라 중국 요녕성 철령시 일대인 것을 알 수 있었다. 이는 당시부터 전해져 내려오던 자료들을 중심으로 한 결과이다. 뿐만 아니라 일본 학자들이 가장 중요한 근거로 제시하였던 압록강이 고구려 시대와 현재는 같지 않다는 것이 확인되었다. 이렇게 문헌 기록과 자연 지형지물이 일치하는 것이 확인된 것이다. 국내성 위치 확인은 고구려 세 번째 도읍지인 환도의 확인도 가능하도록 해주었다. 즉 세 번째 도읍인 환도는 두 번째 도읍지인 국내성에서 멀지 않은 곳임이 확인되었다. 앞으로 더 정밀한 연구를 진행 해야겠지만 문헌 기록과 자연 지형지물을 비교연구 했을 때는 큰 오류가 없을 것으로 판단된다. 그렇다면 앞으로 이 결과들을 활용하여 고구려사를 연구해 볼 필요가 있고 연구 결과들이 합리적이라면 그 결과들을 존중해야 할 것이다. In the early 1900s, Japanese historians studied the ancient history of Korea and Manchuria, and the second capital of Goguryeo was the ji an of Jilin Province in China. The foundation, which was the second capital of Goguryeo, was based on the fact that it was located near the Yalu River, which flows east of the family. Based on these historical facts, the first map of the capital was also established, and later Goguryeo history was studied based on it. However, based on this historical fact, many issues were raised that were not logically correct in the course of studying Goguryeo history. Then, after reanalysis of Goguryeo"s family-related data and analysis of archaeological data, was not Ji An of Jilin Province, but the city of Cheolryeong in Liaoning Province, China. The results are based on data handed down later. Furthermore, it has been confirmed that the Yalu River in the Goguryeo period, which Japanese scholars presented as the most important evidence, is different from the Yalu River in modern times. Therefore, it was confirmed that the Yalu River in Goguryeo was consistent with the literature records and natural geography. The location of the fortress was even located in Huando, the third largest capital of Goguryeo. In other words, Hwando, the third capital, is confirmed not far from the second capital, Guk naeseong. More precise research should be carried out in the future, but it is thought that there will be no major error in comparing literary records with natural topographical features. If so, these results need to be used to study Goguryeo history in the future and should be respected if they produce reasonable results.

광개토대왕비문 연구의 몇 가지 문제에 대하여

복기대(Bok Gi-Dae) 고조선단군학회 2009 고조선단군학 Vol.20 No.-

The tombstone of the Great King Kwang-Gae-To is very important for interpretation of Eastern Asia at around A.D.400. It is true that a great deal of researches on this has been done since the tombstone was introduced for the first time up to present. The direction of the result of the research has been decided according to the profits of the nationalities of the researchers. Especially, Japan and Korea showed tremendous interests on this because they thought according to the interpretations described on the relationships between the two countries on the tombstone will determine the dominion of hegemony at around A.D.400 in Eastern Asia. However, in this writing, I have put aside this point of an argument and emphasized purely on fresh historical investigation about the facts which were appeared on the tombstone. As a result, the two words, 'Chun-Je' and 'Hwang-Chun' which appear at the beginning of an inscription do not mean God but Royal Palace of Buyeo at that time instead. I think this interpretation will give us a chance to have a new idea about Buyeo different from what we used to think of. This article is concerned about foreign conquest of the Great King Kwang-Gae-To, one of our prides of Han-Min-Jok. On Middle School Korean History textbooks and on General Introduction of Korean History, the conquered area by the Great King Kwang-Gae-To was written as 64 fortresses and 1400 villages. This was written based on the result of researches had been done in the past. But what I have found out was much more than this :- 128 fortresses, 3 counties and 2800 villages. The formers are obvious errors. Therefore, our academic society must correct these errors as soon as possible. The writer has presented a few fresh ideas. I think these should be proven by the verification of my school fellows.

한국 상고사 연구에 있어서 고고학 응용에 관하여 -요서 지역 고대문화를 중심으로-

복기대 ( Gi Dae Bok ) 국제뇌교육종합대학원 국학연구원 2009 선도문화 Vol.6 No.-

To investigating ancient history is a very complex process with insufficient records in any other world history, however, the solution for this is archaeology in this kind of situation. Even though the history of academic archaeology is not long, it plays very important role to study of ancient history. In the case of Korea, archaeology is the most important part to research into Korea ancient history. However, there are two important problems of applying archaeology. One is how apply archaeology for the Korea ancient history, for example, whether it should be accepted the interpretation of Korea history by Chinese or Japanese or Korean should analysis it by themselves. Another is whether the starting point of the history of Korea should be decided by Chinese records traditionally or Korean historical materials. If the starting point for investigating history is determined at first, the outcome will be entirely different. In this study, as a result of interpretation of relics through Korean historical materials and a Korean point of view, antiquities in Liao Xi area have an affinity with Korea ancient history. Fortunately, in resent years, Chinese archaeology scholars are interested in this area and study, therefore Korean scholars can invest jointly. Unfortunately, if China does not concern to this study, Korea can do anything in this academic area. For example, as the research from China, some ancient ruins was found which have the keys to interpretate possibly as the birth myth of nation of GoJoseon, which is the most important in Korea history. This is a signal to find the history of Gojoseon through archaeology. In fact, it is not a big thing in politically and economically, even it could be a tiny point, however, the outcome of this was surprisingly unexpected because it became a heroic deed for Chinese in modern Chinese history. This distortion project started from only the result of investigation of their history and divided the period of Xia, Shang, Zhou through the exhaustive archaeolocal research. Perhaps Xia Shang Zhou Chronology Project provide the worth of archaeology greatly, since archaeology has been studied. Threrfore, it could be thought that Korea has great potential materials to prove Korea ancient history by Korean.

맥(貊)의 기원과 전승에 관한 초보연구

복기대 ( Gi Dae Bok ) 국제뇌교육종합대학원 국학연구원 2011 선도문화 Vol.11 No.-

``Dong yi Liezhuan`` of Hou Han Shu(後漢書) describes that Goguryoe indicates Maeg(貊) because the Maeg(貊)is their totem, it means that their ancestors and descendants quite relate to the Maeg. There are many different kinds of opinions about what the Maeg is because people imagine the Maeg might be a bear, a Kylin, an antelope, a pig and so on and the different point of view of recording history. However, in this paper, it examines ``Haechi`` which has single horn animal might be the Maeg and the Maeg is not a dragon. For example, according to the history of the Maeg and Haechi, firstly, in the case of Korea, the Maeg has been connecting historically before 6500 years ago; from the late Neolithic era, the Bronze age, the Three Kingdoms, Koryo Dynasty, Joseon Dynasty to nowadays, interestingly, the body has been changing in a variety of styles but a single horn on the crown of the head has been remained until now. Secondly, in Japan, this Maeg has been regarding as a sacred animal before 1500 years ago and in China, only in the northern part of the Yellow River could be found it before 1600 years ago. Therefor, geographically, this Maeg should be a totem animal in the Northeast Asia area. Moreover, the result of comparing between Maeg and dragon, these two animals have different characters so the recognition which is about a dragon points to Maeg should be reconsidered, and also the situation that many Chinese scholars still think every animal which has single horn is all dragon should be reanalyzed clearly. Historically, the Maeg has been connecting from generation to generation, now only in Korea, we could see a variety of styles of the Maeg in a different parts of area; the case of combining foreign culture and own culture, not in China, Mongolia and Russia. So this Maeg is not just simply an animal, we should reconsider what the Maeg implies for us.

高台山文化에 대하여

복기대(Bok, Gi-dae) 백산학회 2003 白山學報 Vol.- No.65

The culture of Mt. Gotae is the culture of Bronze Age that developed in the lower area of Liahoe River. This culture is transformed into the culture that represented an earthenware with three legs under the influence of the later Neolithic Age and the Bronze Age in the western area of the Liahoe River. Also, this culture lasted from the 19th century B.C. to the 15th century B.C. It is suggested that this culture is formed under the influence of the Neolithic Culture and the Bronze Culture. Then, the study on this culture still has not advanced in comparison with the culture around this area. Nevertheless, it is important to study the history and the culture of the Bronze Age in the south Manchuria through this culture. Also, this culture appear to be connected with the ancient Korean history. The character of this culture was located between the flatland typed culture in the western area of the Liahoe River and the mountain typed culture in the eastern area of the Liahoe River, and played an important role to communicate both cultures. Considering all data, it is impossible to compare both areas. Because we can not systematically reorganize the culture in the western area of the Liahoe River. But if we secure many data about the Neolithic Age and the Bronze Age in the eastern area of the Liahoe River, it is necessary to reconsider the relation of both cultures.