민족사학계의 ‘고대요수(遼水)’와 ‘패수(浿水)’ 위치비정 비교 -리지린과 윤내현 학설 비교를 중 심으로- = Study on the location of ‘the ancient Yosu(遼水)’ and ‘the Passu’ in the anti-colonialism ethnic history academia -Focusing on the comparison of Lee Ji-rin’s and Yoon Nae-hyun’s theories-

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In the study of ‘the ancient old Joseon(we call it Gojoseon), the problem of estimating the position of ‘the ancient Yosu(遼水)’ and ‘the Passu(浿水)’ shows where the western boundary of Gojoseon, which was bordering China at the end of the Gojoseon period, was. The issue is also a matter of contention as it relates to the location of ‘Four Commanderies of Han’ that the Han Dynasty installed on the site after the collapse of the Wimanjoseon(衛滿朝鮮).
Korea’s Gojoseon research and history scholars’ have inherited without any doubt Japan’s setting up of the location for ‘the ancient Yosu(遼水)’ and ‘the Passu(浿水)’ in Korean History Compilation Committee under Japanese Goverment General of Korea, which was created to justify its invasion of Korea. For example, Japanese imperialist historians Shiratori Kurakichi and Tsuda Sokichi made ‘the Amnok River’ a ‘the Passu(浿水)’.
Lee Byung-do, who worked with Inaba Iwakichi and Imanishi Liu at Korean History Compilation Committee, and who was taught by Tsuda Sokichi and Hiroshi Ikeuchi, inherited their logic. Lee Byung-do then took a step further into the Korean Peninsula and claimed that ‘the Passu(浿水)’ was ‘the Cheongcheon River’. His pupil, Roh Tae-don, also claimed that ‘the Passu(浿 水)’ was the ‘the Cheongcheon River’. This theory is the narrowest view of the land of Gojoseon among all the theories submitted. As such, the claim by Korean disciples of Japanese imperialism historians is criticized as colonialism because the location of ‘the ancient Yosu(遼水)’ and ‘the Passu(浿水)’ is related to the ‘national territory’ of Gojoseon. As a result, there is a controversy that the colonialism Korean history has not yet been liquidated.
Unlike the colonialism historians who received the legacy of Japanese imperialist historians, it is said that the anti-colonial ethnic history academia developed the study under the influence of the independence activist and historian Shin Chae-ho and Chung In-bo. The scholars who can represent the South and the North in the field of Gojoseon research in the current ethnic history circle can be called Lee ji-lin and Yoon Nae-hyun.
Both scholars, Lee Ji-lin and Yoon Nae-hyun, argue that ‘the ancient Yosu(遼 水)’ is not today’s ‘Yoha(Liaohe River)’ but today’s ‘Nanha(Luanhe River)’. To prove it, two scholars present it on the basis of the various ancient historical records. At this time, the ancient historical records presented by Lee Ji-lin and Yoon Nae-hyun are almost identical, and are not much different each other.
However, the two scholars disagree on the location of ‘Passu(浿水)’. Lee Jirin argued today’s ‘Daereungha(Daling River)’ a ‘Passu(浿水)’. But Yoon Naehyun insisted that today’s ‘Nanha(Luanhe River)’, ‘a river flowing westward beyond Nanha(Luanhe River)’ or ‘a tributary of Nanha(Luanhe River) to the west beyond Nanha(Luanhe River)’ are ‘Passu(浿水)’.
Meanwhile, recent the anti-colonialism ethnic historians learned from Shin Chae-ho, Chung In-bo, Lee Ji-rin and Yoon Nae-hyun express the new view that the ‘Chao Bai Xin River’ that flows through the suburbs of Beijing, not today’s Nanha(Luanhe River),is ‘the ancient Yosu(遼水)’. Other anti-colonialism ethnic historians argue that ‘Dangha(Tanghe)’ or ‘Komaha(Jumahe)’ that flows through Baoding City are also likely to be ‘the ancient Yosu(遼水)’.
One of among recent the anti-colonialism ethnic historians, Hwang Soonjong points out that there is a problem with Lee Ji-rin and Yoon Nae-hyun’s claim to ‘the ancient Yosu(遼水) is today’s Nanha(Luanhe River)’ based on 『Su Kyong-ju(水經注)』.
Hwang Sun-jong explains that 『Su Kyong-ju(水經注)』 is a book written by Ruan Yuan(酈道元) of the Northern Wei, which arbitrarily distorts the flow of the river in the original 『Suyeong(水經)』.
The theori...