『규원사화(揆園史話)』·『단기고사(檀奇古史)』·『환단고기(桓檀古記)』위서론의 성과와 과제

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This article combines and arranges preceding research results which have proven that the books Gyuwon sahwa, Dangi gosa, and Hwandan gogi are pseudographs and suggests the direction of future research.
Gyuwon sahwa is known to have been written by Bugaenoin in 1675, during the Joseon Dynasty. Dangi gosa was written by Daeyabal during the Balhae Dynasty. Hwandan gogi is known to have been composed as four books, Samseongg i, Dangun seg i, Bukbuyeogi, and Taebaek ilsa, and was compiled by Gye Yeon-su in 1911. Among these texts, Dangun segi is known to have been written by Iam in the late Goryeo dynasty, and Taebaek ilsa was composed in the early Joseon Dynasty.
But it has been proven that those three texts were written in the modern period or in the contemporary period. Thus they all are pseudographs. In these texts we find words that have been used from the modern period, such as “culture” and “primitive state.” Gyuwon sahwa may have been written by a member of the Dangungyo around 1920. Dangi gosa may have been written by Yi Hwa-sa, who was known as a translator of Dangi gosa around 1945. Hwandan gogi may have been written by Yi Yu-rip around 1970. He was known as an introducer of Hwandan gogi in 1979.
Some directions of current study follow below.
1) History of historiography research: Someone who believed that the three books Gyuwon sahwa, Dangi gosa, and Hwandan gogi are important for the study of ancient Korean history argued that they inherit the nationalistic history in the modern period. To reveal differences between the nationalistic history in the modern period and these three books, we can understand the character or the nature of these three books more deeply.
2) Comparative study: The chauvinism or nationalistic sentiments in these three books are popular in some nations. In particular, in Japan we can find books that are very similar regarding the contents and the understanding of ancient history. Comparative study helps us to understand nationalism around the world.
3) Social historical study: These three books are pseudographs. Thus it is clear that they cannot be materials for the study of ancient Korean history. Nevertheless, some people have believed the contents of these three books. We require social historical studies regarding this social phenomenon.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 머리말
• Ⅱ. 위서론
• Ⅲ. 성격론
• Ⅳ. 맺음말: 향후의 과제
• 참고문헌
• [국문초록]
• [ABSTRACT]

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박광용, "우리 역사를 의심한다" 서해문집 2002

2 이문영, "만들어진 한국사" 파란미디어 2004

3 박광용, "대종교 관련 문헌에 위작 많다-『규원사화』와 『환단고기』의 성격에 대한 재검토" 10 (10): 1990

4 박광용, "대종교 관련 문헌에 위작 많다(2)』-『신단실기』와 「단기고사』의 성격에대한 재검토" 16 (16): 1992

5 조인성, "단군과 고조선사" 사계절 2002

6 이순근, "고조선 위치에 대한 제설의 검토」 改稿, 「고조선은 과연 만주에 있었는가" 3 (3): 1988

7 이순근, "고조선 위치에 대한 제설의 검토" 190 : 1987

8 趙仁成, "韓末檀君關係史書의 再檢討-『神檀實記』·『檀奇古史』·『桓檀古記』를中心으로" 3 : 1989

9 趙仁成, "現傳 『揆園史話』의 史料的 性格에 대한 一檢討" 1987

10 李道學, "在野史書 解題 『桓檀古記』" 1986

11 趙仁成, "國粹主義史學과 현대의 한국 사학" 20 : 1997

12 김상호, "古朝鮮 문제를 둘러싼 논쟁과 금후의 과제" (가을) : 1988

13 宋贊植, "僞書辨" 1977

14 조인성, "『桓檀古記』의 『檀君世紀』와 『檀奇古史』·『揆園史話』" 2 : 2000

15 趙仁成, "『桓檀古記』에 대한 몇 가지 의문(요지)" 1999

16 趙仁成, "『揆園史話』와 『桓檀古記』" 2 : 1988

17 趙仁成, "『揆園史話』論添補" 3 : 1987