융합시대 역사 교양교육-기후사를 통한 역사교양의 융합적 전환의 모색

박혜정 한국교양교육학회 2023 교양교육연구 Vol.17 No.5

역사교양의 융합적 전환은 분명 교양 역사학도 제대로 정립되지 않은 마당에 교양과 융합이라는 두 마리 토끼를 모두 잡는 격이지만, 기후사는 이 두 마리 토끼를 모두 잡는 데 효과적인 사냥 도구로 쓰일 수 있다. 본고에서는 기후사의 역사교양적 전환을 크게 세 단계로 나누어 논의하였다. 먼저, 역사콘텐츠의 생래적인 융복합적 성격에 힘입어 아날사학, 지구사, 빅히스토리로 꾸준히 이어져온 융합적 실험과 새로운 방법론적 혁신을 살펴봄으로써 역사학의 융합학문적 성격을 확인하였다. 이어진 장에서는 융합학문의 첨병으로 회자되는 빅히스토리가 아닌 기후사에 주목하여 왜 이 새로운 역사학 장르가 역사교양의 융합적 전환을 견인할 더 큰 잠재력을 갖는지 살펴보았다. 마지막으로는 기후사를 융합과학이 아닌 융합교양 콘텐츠로 개발하는 과정에서 핵심적으로 고려해야 할 세 가지 논제로서 기후과학, 기후 담론, 지구시스템을 키워드로 다루었다. 종국적으로 본고에서는 기후사가 학생들이 작금의 학술적, 정치적 담론과 거리를 두고 실제 역사적 사건을 통해 조망, 판단함으로써 새로운 성찰, 판단, 대응능력을 함양할 수 있는 최적의 융합교양 콘텐츠라고 주장하였다. Although making the history general education convergent can be compared to hunting two birds with one stone - due to the fact that history general education is not well established yet - climate history could serve as a pertinent tool for doing this sort of hunting. This paper discusses the multifarious aspects of climate history for convergent general education in three steps. The first section reviewed the convergent experiments and new methodological discussions continued from Annales and global history through ‘Big History.’ In result, it confirmed the inherently convergent character of history content itself. In the following section, this paper payed full attention to climate history, not Big History, which is often cited as a front runner of convergence science. It also discussed why this new field of history has a bigger potential to lead the convergent shift of history. The last section was devoted to three subject matters, i.e. climate science, climate discourse, and the earth system, which need to be considered in the process of developing climate history as a convergent general education content, not as the content of a convergence science. Eventually, this paper came to the conclusion that climate history is the best content for convergent type of general education, due to the possibility that it could lead students to develop a new thinking and responding skill by keeping distance from the current academic and political discourses and by making their own judgments based upon historical events.

역사와 서사

최성철(CHOI Seong Cheol) 한국사학사학회 2017 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.35

It is often said that history is narrative. This paper is designed to get answers to questions: what kind of narrative is history, what functions and features does it have? In conclusion, history is not a fictional narrative, but a factual narrative, and in fact it can be said that it is a ‘positive narrative’ which is based on thorough or independent evidences. ‘History as a positive narrative’ is basically, in many respects, differentiated from other kinds of narrative, especially from a fictional and from a scientific one. First, we explore the ‘goal.’ Historical narrative aims at the fact, although it may later be revealed to be false, but fictional narratives are based on fiction, though they can be revealed later to be true. So whereas a fictional narrative is a fictional story that pretends to be a truth, a historical one is a ‘narrative seeking the truth’, or “non-fiction novel” (P. Veyne). Science, on the other hand, aims at perfect, realistic, truthful investigations and explanations of the real world. In this case historical narrative is much closer to the science than to the literature. Next is the ‘target.’ The object of history is not a fictional figure as in fiction. It deals specifically with people, events, and items that existed. If we deal with an object that is not empirical, it should be called fiction, not history. On the other hand, history is closer to science than to literature, since science takes concrete, empirical, and positive beings of the real world, not imaginary or fictional worlds. However, if one goes to ‘method’, things will change. As we know, there is no definite scientific method in history. The critics of historical material (Quellenkritik), also known as the representative research method, are also used differently by historians. Moreover, the ‘narrative’ style of historical writing no longer allows history to remain comfortable in the realm of science. No matter how objective and empirical it tries to convey the narrative without any literary inspiration, history can not but be closer to literature than to science, unless historians completely give up narrative. As a result, it is undesirable to misunderstand that history as positive narrative is just a science because it has the positivity. So it is once again confirmed that history locates itself at the boundary between literature [art] and science. But I am boldly moving away from existing scholarly opinion that history has been defined as both literary and scientific, and will present a new predicate: history is neither academic nor literary, but a third independent field with all the qualities of these two domains . 흔히 역사는 서사라고들 말한다. 본 논문은 만일 역사가 서사라면, 도대체 어떤 종류의 서사이고, 그 기능은 무엇이며, 어떠한 특징을 갖는가에 대한 답을 얻기 위해 기획되었다. 결론부터 말하면, 역사는 서사이되, 픽션서사가 아니라 사실서사의 영역에 속하고, 사실서사 중에서도 나름 증거자료(사료)에 입각해 기술되는 이른바 ‘실증서사(positive narrative)’라고 할 수 있다. ‘실증서사로서 역사’는 다음과 같이 많은 부분에서 다른 종류의 서사들, 무엇보다 픽션서사 그리고 과학서사와 차별화되어 있다. 먼저 ‘목표’를 보면, 역사서사는 나중에 그것이 거짓으로 드러날망정 사실을 목표로 삼지만, 픽션서사는 나중에 그것이 진실로 드러날지 언정 픽션을 근거로 한다. 그래서 픽션서사가 ‘진실을 가장한 허구적이야기’라면, 역사서사는 ‘진실을 추구하는 서사’, 즉 ‘허구가 아닌 소설’(P. Veyne)이다. 한편 과학은 연구 대상의 완벽한 사실적, 진실적해명 또는 설명을 목표로 두기에, 적어도 목표만 보면 역사서사는 과학에 매우 가까이 기울어 있다. 다음으로 ‘대상’을 보면, 역사의 서술 대상은 픽션에서처럼 가상의 인물이 아니다. 구체적으로 실존했던 인물, 사건, 항목들을 취급한다. 만일 실증성을 띠지 않는 대상을 다룬다면 그것은 이미 역사가 아니고 픽션으로 불려야 할 것이다. 한편 과학도 역시 상상이나 가상의 세계가 아니라 현실 세계의 구체적이고 경험적이며 실증적인 존재자를 대상으로 삼기에, 이 점에서도 역사는 문학이 아니라 과학 쪽에 더 가까이 다가가 있다. 그러나 ‘방법’으로 가면 사정이 달라진다. 주지하다시피 역사에는 딱히 확정된 과학적 방법이 없다. 그나마 대표적인 연구방법으로 알려진 사료비판 또한 역사가들마다 제각각 다르게 활용된다. 더구나 연구결과를 풀어낼 때 사용하는 ‘서사’라는 서술방식은 더 이상 역사를 과학의 영역에 편안히 머물도록 놔두질 않는다. 아무리 객관적이고 실증적인 내용만을 문학적 감흥 없이 무미건조하게 전달한다 하더라도, 역사가 서사를 완전히 포기할 수 없는 한, 역사는 과학보다는 문학에 더 가까이 서 있을 수밖에 없다. 결국 실증서사로서 역사가 나름 실증성을 갖는다고 해서 곧바로 과학으로 오인받아서는 곤란하다. 이로써 역사는 문학과 학문 사이, 예술과 과학 사이의 경계지점에 존재한다는 점이 다시 한 번 확인되었다. 그러나 나는 역사가 이제 문학이면서 동시에 학문이라고 정의되어 왔던 기존의 학문론적 관행을 과감히 탈피해, ‘문학도 학문도 아니면서 이 두 영역의 특질들을 모두 갖는 제3의 독립적인 영역이다’라는 새로운 술어로 재정의되어야 한다.

공공역사로서의 역사영화와 개연성으로서의 역사

이하나 역사문제연구소 2022 역사비평 Vol.- No.139

This article aims to review the issues and challenges of history films, which are one of the most problematic fields of historical use in the field of popular culture, and explore the direction of Korean history films from the perspective of public history. In this article, among all historical films based on history or subject matter, all historical films that are dealt with at least one of the three elements: real people, real events, and representation of a specific era are broadly referred to history films. Since the 2010s, history films have become a popular genre that has been successful in both box office and criticism. However, history films were highly controversial due to pro-Japanese issues or historical distortions and had a decisive impact on box office success, including “Cheongyeon(Blue Swallow)” in the mid-2000s, “Deokhye Ongju(The Last Princess)”, “Gunhamdo(The Battleship Island)”, and “Naratmal Sami(The King’s Letters)” in the mid-to-late 2010s. In the controversy surrounding these films, the issue is whether history films should not have negative characters as leading roles, how far can they pursue film imagination and entertainment, and whether imaginative fiction inserted in history films can be viewed as a kind of historical interpretation. Through these issues, it is argued that history films are a place where the public’s perception and emotions about history are expressed through criticism and discussion around the film as well as the content, and strategies and attitudes are set in different positions of creators/producers and users/consumers. When recognizing historical films as public history, is the problem of verisimilitude of history films, the problem of re-recognizing the meaning of history films as historical interpreters, the need to recognize that history films are films of the present rather than films of the past, and the ethics of representation in history films. After all, history films indicate history as a probability rather than history of fact. The film has an outstanding advantage in recreating and portraying plausible stories that might have been there at the time. It will be a strategy of history films as a public history to capture the various paths that may come to face the truth there. 이 글은 대중문화 영역에서 발생하는 역사 활용 중에서도 가장 문제적 분야의 하나라고 할 수 있는 역사영화의 쟁점 및 난제들을 검토하고 공공역사의 관점에서 한국 역사영화의 방향을 탐색해 보고자 한다. 이 글에서는 역사를 배경이나 소재로 하는 전체 역사극영화 중에서 실존 인물, 실제 사건, 구체적인 시대의 재현이라는 세가지 요소 중에서 한 가지라도 비중 있게 다루어지는 모든 역사극영화를 광범위하게 역사영화로 칭한다. 2010년대 이후 역사영화는 흥행과 비평 모두에서 성공한 대세 장르가 되었다. 하지만 역사영화가 친일문제나 역사왜곡 문제로 크게 논란이 일고 흥행에까지 결정적인 영향을 미친 것은 2000년대 중반의 <청연>을 필두로, 2010년대 중후반의 <덕혜옹주>, <군함도>, <나랏말싸미> 등의 사례를 대표적으로 꼽을 수 있다. 이들 영화를 둘러싼 논란들 속에서 쟁점은 ① 역사영화는 부정적 인물을 주인공으로 삼아서는 안되는가 하는 문제, ② 역사영화가 허용하는 영화적 상상력과 오락성의 추구는 어디까지 가능한가 하는 문제, ③ 역사영화에 삽입된 상상적 허구를 일종의 역사해석으로 볼 수 있는가 하는 문제이다. 이러한 쟁점들을 통해 역사영화가 내용 뿐만 아니라 영화를 둘러싼 비평과 토론을 통해서 대중이 역사에 대해 가지는 인식과 정서가 표출되는 장소이며, 이에 대한 전략과 태도는 창작자/생산자와 수용자/소비자 각각의 다른 입장 속에서 설정되는 것임을 논한다. 역사영화를 공공역사로서 인식할 때, ① 역사영화의 핍진성(verisimilitude) 문제, ② 역사 해석자로서의 역사영화의 의미를 재인식하는 문제, ③ 역사영화는 과거에 대한 영화라기보다는 현재에 대한 영화라는 것을 인식할 필요성, ④ 역사영화에서의 ‘재현의 윤리’가 문제가 된다. 결국, 역사영화가 보여주는 것은 사실의 역사라기보다는 개연성(probability)으로서의 역사이다. 그때 그 장소에서 있었을 법하고 있었을지도 모르는 그럴듯한 이야기를 재현하고 묘사하는 데 영화는 탁월한 장점을 발휘한다. 어쩌면 그곳에서 진실을 마주하게 될지도 모르는 다양한 경로들을 포착하는 것이 공공역사로서의 역사영화의 전략이 될 것이다.

공공역사가로서의 역사교사를 말하다

방지원 역사문제연구소 2022 역사비평 Vol.- No.139

Teachers and students are two subjects of school history education. Students grow up in history culture, and each enters the classroom with a sense of history formed through public area. Based on such historical perception, students renew their historical understanding, create historical narratives containing their perspectives, and express them in various ways, growing into a new subject of public history. If it is the ideal of public history to allow students and the public to experience “doing history”, it can be said that history teachers play the role of public historians. This is in that history is reproduced through the teacher curriculum, the meeting of students and history is mediated using various media, and the learning experience is designed. As a public history historian, the educational interest of history teachers should not remain in the relationship between public representation activities and school history. Serious attention should also be paid to the fact that such representation activities are consequently involved in the historical consciousness and identity of members of society. 교사와 학생은 학교 역사교육의 두 주체이다. 학생들은 역사문화 속에서 성장하며, 저마다 공공역사를 통해 형성된 역사인식을 가지고 교실로 들어온다. 그러한 역사인식을 바탕으로 학생들은 자신의 역사인식을 갱신하며, 자신의 관점을 담은 역사적 서사를 만들고 이를 다양한 방식으로 표현하는 가운데 공공역사의 새로운 주체로 성장한다. 학생을 비롯한 대중이 직접 ’역사하기‘를 경험하도록 하는 것이 공공역사의 이상이라면 역사교사는 공공역사가의 역할을 담당한다고 할 수 있다. 교사 교육과정을 통해 역사를 재현하고, 다양한 매체를 활용하여 학생과 역사의 만남을 중재하고, 학습 경험을 디자인한다는 점에서 그렇다. 공공역사가로서 역사교사의 관심은 공공 재현 활동과 학교 역사의 관계에 머물러서는 안 된다. 그러한 재현 활동이 결과적으로 사회 구성원의 역사의식과 정체성에 관여한다는 점에도 진지하게 관심을 기울여야 한다.

한국사 수능 필수화 이후 고등학교 역사수업

金秀美(Kim, Su-Mi) 역사교육연구회 2018 역사교육 Vol.147 No.-

Since Korean history was selected as a compulsory subject for the College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT) from 2017, it has been implemented twice. The direction for setting questions in the examination under the system of absolute evaluation would help history teachers encourage students to arouse interests and attention, thereby creating various and creative Korean history classes. This study aims to analyze how Korean history classes in high schools as Korean history became mandatory in the national examination. History teachers and high school students who participated in this study and students responded that students are willing to learn Korean history and highly interested in the subject after becoming the compulsory subject of Korean history. However, history classes are not distinct from previous days when Korean history was not mandatory and no various and creative history classes stimulating curiosities of students is performed. What is the reason? It was found that history teachers taught students with textbooks based on the history curriculum and achievement standards. Therefore, it is highly significant how new history textbooks are developed in accordance with the new history curriculum enacted in 2015. The teacher is the most essential factor that encourages students to be interested in history classes. Thus, teachers should be willing to diversify history classes. It would be more realistic to increase the percentage of performing evaluation centered on the process as an alternative for various classes.

20세기 말, 21세기 초 영국 보수당의 역사교육정책과 역사전쟁

김중락 ( Joonglak Kim ) 영국사학회 2015 영국연구 Vol.34 No.-

Britain experienced two history wars in the last 25 years. Both wars broke out when the Conservative Party took the power. The aim of this paper is to examine the background and process of the history wars. The Conservative Party under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher attempted to introduce an obligatory history curriculum, which focused on the British history rather than world history, and on the fact-based knowledge rather than concept and understanding. The government`s plan was strongly opposed by those who preferred the School History Project (SHP) which was designed to make students engage in historical research in the same way as historians do. The first history war broke out. The draft curriculum, published by History Working Group(HWG) in the midst of the war, surprisingly took a side with the government critics by emphasizing on understanding rather than fact. The government strongly pressed the HWG to revise the final plan but without success. In March 1991 the official history national curriculum was published without any serious revision from the final report. The Conservative Party lost the war. The second history war broke out in 2013 when the ruling conservative party under the leadership of David Cameron attempted to revise the existing history curriculum. They wanted more British history taught in schools. The British history they asked was a story of white mono-culture. When the education minister Michael Gove`s draft was published in February 2013, most of the historical profession were shocked to discover a long and chronological list of political facts in English history. Many famous historians like Simon Schama and Richard Evans vehemently criticised Gove`s draft. In a opinion poll of the HA, most history teachers found against the draft. Eventually the government had to give up a draft. The final draft, published in July, was welcomed by most historians and history teachers as it accommodated almost every demand of them. The two history wars is over with defeats of the Conservative Party. One lesson they learned is that they cannot win a history war without support from the history profession.

개념사 연구와 연계한 국어 어휘사 연구 방법

허재영 국어사학회 2024 국어사연구 Vol.- No.38

This paper is an experimental study to explore research methods on the history of the Korean lexicon in connection with research on the history of concepts. Traditionally, the history of the Korean language is the study of the history of the phoneme, lexical, and grammar of the Korean language, while the history of concepts is known as an academic field that studies the formation and change process of historically important concepts at the level of historical linguistics. The relationship between Korean language history and conceptual history has certain differences not only in the vocabulary or concept to be studied, but also in the perspective from which the research object is viewed. From the perspective of Korean language history, the focus is on exploring the principles of linguistic change inherent in the history of vocabulary or words, while from the perspective of conceptual history, attention is paid to the formation and change of vocabulary concepts with historical meaning. In this paper, we examine how the study of lexical history, word history, and etymology corresponding to the history of language and the study of conceptual history can be connected from the perspective of modern linguistics, and solve the problem of ‘multilayeredness’ as a method of understanding the structure of concepts. As a way to do this, we wanted to propose ‘historical sociolinguistic research’. This methodology refers to a method of studying the meaning of vocabulary, the process of conceptual differentiation, and the emergence of new conceptual words in relation to historical and social factors. Since the translation of new modern academic languages and the principles of new character creation are not only a field of Korean language history in themselves, but are also closely related to conceptual history, it is expected that research linked to conceptual history will make a certain contribution to the development of Korean language history.

삶의 비평으로서 역사

김기봉 ( Gi Bong Kim ) 연세대학교 국학연구원 2010 동방학지 Vol.152 No.-

History is a narrative composed by the communication of the present and the past, E. H. Carr once describing it as the endless dialogue. The relationship between the communication between the present and the past is primarily determined by the pertinent side of the initiative. An appropriate historical discourse of every epoch is constructed by way of this dialogue. We, thus, may say that the history of the historiography has been basically developed by the changes in historical discourse. The periodization of the discourse is generally categorized into three parts: the pre-modern, the modern, and the postmodern ages. First, pre-modern historical discourse is well expressed by the famous words of Cicero, historia magistra viate (History is a teacher of human life). Historians then write their histories by way of criticizing the given present time according to the precedents of the past. Second, modern historical discourse came from the perspective of the Enlightenment, which viewed the past not as an example for the present but as an obstacle to the future`s progress. In other words, the progressivism of the modern historical discourse created the future-type project beyond history as the records of past; therefore, the idea becomes a grand narrative covering all of the different histories. The past loses its function of criticizing the present. This modern concept of history as a grand narrative allowed the modern time to be viewed as a revolutionary age. Third, postmodern historical discourse serves to excavate each history that has been buried by History as Grand Narrative. Although a scientific approach to history has reached a crisis, historical narratives have become popular, which reflects the the postmodern turn of historical discourse. On the other hand, as we all know, the postmodern historical discourse reverses the Marxian 11th thesis of Ludwig Feuerbach, as follows: People attempted to change the world in one way; however, in the postmodern age, various ways of thinking have become significant. If the modern era is considered as a revolutionary age, the postmodern era should be considered as the age of criticism. While the moral right, in their pre-modern historical criticism, belongs to the hegemony of the historical discourse, modern history in which historiography is the exclusive property of professional historians loses the function of history as the criticism of life, finally facing a crisis. Although historical science has confronted a critical stage, historical narratives have become popular through the return of micro-histories. If the past is a finished book, then history is rather related to a work that is written to criticize the past. Every man who critiques the past is a historian in the postmodern time. According to Alvin Toffler, the term prosuming describes the open source-like phenomenon of people producing what they consume. The producers of historical dramas and historical novelists critically reuse historical knowledge, and they become prosumers. In this prosuming age, historical criticism is expected to play major role. With the crisis of historical science, people may have an opportunity to become history critics but not historians. If so, we can apply the common phrase, opportunities are found in times of crisis.

제국시기(1871-1914) 독일 교육사의 동향

유진영 ( Jin Young Yu ) 한국교육사학회 2011 한국교육사학 Vol.33 No.1

This study focuses on the tendency of History of Education during the German Empire (1871-1914), because the education in this period is very related to the present educational system in Germany. I analysed various themes and points of views from the book Handbook for German History of Education IV and from three representative journals on History of Education in Germany, Historische Bildungsforschung, Zeitschrift fur p?dagogische Historiographie, and Jahrbuch fur Universitatsgeschichte. As a result I have found that the tendency of History of Education dealing with the period, the German Empire has mostly been influenced from trends of History. For instance, through the History of technical-vocational education part I found various trends of History of Education like political History of Education, economic History of Education, social History of Education, autobiographical History of Education etc. In conclusion, I came up with suggestions on what needs to be considered and changed in the existing researches on the trends of History of Education in Germany. The research for History of Education needs to be more intensive in relation, not only with history, but also with other human science fields like pedagogy, economics, psychology etc. due to various complicated topics and abstract descriptions in existing researches.

대한제국기~1950년대 교과서를 통해 본 발해 인식의 변화

구난희 한국역사교육학회 2015 역사교육연구 Vol.- No.21

이 연구는 대한제국기부터 1950년말까지의 역사교과서 속에 나타난 발해 관련 서술을 검토하였다. 근대 역사 교과서가 직면한 과제는 크게 두 가지였다. 외형적으로는 전근대적 역사서술체계를 해체하는 것이었으며 내용적으로는 민족의 연원을 확대 재구성함으로써 자국사의 유구성과 우월성(제국성)을 확립하는 것이었다. 이 관점들은 모두 발해사 서술을 변화시키는 동력이 되었다. 구체적인 서술의 양상은 당대의 정치사회적 요구와 관련을 맺으면서 변화해나가고 있음을확인할 수 있었다. 시기별 특징을 정리하면 다음과 같다. 첫째 대한제국기까지만 하더라도 발해는 신라정통성이라는 맥락 구조에 갇혀 ‘인근국 역사’라는 위상을 벗어나지 못했지만 통감부 시기에 접어들면서 신라정통의 인식에 일정한 변화가 시도되고 고구려 계승이라는 매개를 통해 발해는 한국사로의 한 귀퉁이로 진입하기 시작했다. 국권 침탈의 위기의식이 자국사의 유구성과 제국성으로 이어진 것이다. 둘째 일제강점기를 맞으면서 일제가 허가한 교과서에서 발해는 그다지 주목 받지 못하다가 일제의 만주 침략이 본격화되면서 일본에 조공한 만주의 한 왕조로 다루어지고 있었다. 반면 다행스럽게도 장도빈이 저술한 조선력사대전에서 한국사로 정확히 자리매김하고 그 의의를 부각하였다. 일제강점기라는 시대상황에서 북방에 펼쳐졌던 고대의 제국적 경험이 저항 민족주의의 중요한 한 축을 담당하였다. 셋째 해방 후 발해는 남북국 시대라는 체계 위에 안착되고 전후 사례가 없을 정도로 발해와 신라간의 긴밀한 교류가 강조되었고 교육과정에 이를 명시하였지만, 교과서 서술은 의외로 소극적이었다. 해방과 함께 맞이한 분단의 현실이 양국의 관계와 공존의 역사를 남북통일의 역사 컨텐츠로 주목하였지만 한국전쟁을 겪으면서 이러한 인식이 교과서 서술에 안착되지 못했던 것이다. 넷째, 이러한 인식의 제한은 한국전쟁 이후 남북 분단이 고착화되면서 더욱 빠르게 전환되었다. 급기야 신라중심적 역사관이 남북국시대 인식을 앞서고 발해의 결말은 열등한 타자 북한을바라보는 시각과 오버랩되었다. 발해는 북방고토에 대한 아쉬움으로 마감한 채 다시금 한국사의변두리에 두어졌다. 현재까지도 교과서 속 발해는 체제면에서나 내용면에서나 여전히 분단고착기의 답보적 상태를 이어가고 있다. 동북공정에 의한 발해사 중국 편입이 노골화되고 공존과 평화를 향한 다양한통일 논의가 모색되고 있는 대내외 현실은 발해사에 대한 한국사 내적 지위와 내용 구성에 대한새로운 검토와 변화를 요구하고 있다. 이 글이 이러한 사회적 요구에 대한 일정한 해답을 찾는 실 마리를 제공해 주기를 기대한다. This study reviewed the descriptions of Parhae in the history textbooks from the Korean Empire period to the late 1950s. The history textbooks of the modern times faced two major issues. Externally, it was the decomposition of the premodern style of historical descriptions and internally, it was to expand and re-construct the national chronology to secure the length and superiority(imperiality) of national history. All of these perspectives motivated the change of historical description about Parhae. In a larger view, the principle was the decomposition of Silla’s legitimacy and the contextualization of Korean history in the northern native land. The specific descriptions were related to the sociopolitical demands of the time. First, until the Korean Empire period, Parhae was confined in the contextual structure of Silla’s legitimacy and considered ‘the history of neighboring state’, but entering the Residency-General period, certain changes were made to the awareness of Silla’s legitimacy and Parhae was placed on the outskirt of Korean history for the succession of Koguryo. The awareness of crisis of loss of sovereignty led to the length and imperialism of national history Second, entering the Japanese colonial period, the textbooks approved by Japan discussed Parhae as an empire in Manchuria that tribute to Japan. Fortunately, however, it clearly settled as a part of the Korean history with significance in Jang, Do Bin’s Joseon-ryeoksa-daejeon. In the situation of the Japanese colonial period, the ancient imperial experience in the north took an important part of the nationalism of resistance. Third, after the liberation of Joseon, Parhae has settled on the system of the North and South States Period and the close interaction between Parhae and Silla was unprecedently emphasized. This was stated in the national curriculum, but the descriptions in the textbooks were rather passive. The reality of division soon after the liberation was stressed as a historical content of the unification of North and South, but the same awareness was not applied to the descriptions in the textbooks. Fourth, such restricted awareness was converted even faster as the division of North and South settled after the Korean War. The historical view focused on Silla was even surpassed the awareness of the North and South States Period and the fall of Parhae was overlapped with the perspective of North Korea as an inferior other. Parhae was placed back on the outskirt of Korean history with the regretful view of the Northern Native Land. Even today, Parhae in the textbooks is still conveying the conventional view from the period of division, in terms of both the systems and the contents. Now, China has argued Parhae is the part of their history with Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences(Dongbei-Gongcheng), and various discussions of reunification are sought for coexistence and peace. Under these circumstances, new discussions and changes are required for the history of Parhae in the history of Korea and its contents. It is hoped that this study provides a clue for the search of a certain solution to these social demands.