지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 한국역사연구회 역사와현실 역사와 현실 제116호
- 발행연도
- 2020.6
- 수록면
- 389 - 420 (32page)
- DOI
- 10.35865/YWH.2020.06.116.389
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Today, the Tongshin-sa envoys of the Joseon period are considered as transmitters of advanced culture and a messenger of peace and friendship. But it was not like that all the time. Since the Edo period through the early days of the Meiji era, Tongshin-sa envoys were regarded by the Japanese people as an evidence of the Korean peninsula being subjugated by Japan, based upon a fictional ancient narrative of Queen Shingong conquering the Three Han entities. Despite that, several Japanese intellectuals who were actually involved in diplomatic contacts with Joseon representatives were actually well aware that such belief was far from the historical truth.
Japanese scholars’ modern empirical studies of these Tongshin-sa entities began around the time of Japanese imperialism annexing Korea. Unfortunately they inherited past perspectives to view these figures which was also another viewpoint of colonial historiography. Later, as it became clear that the Tsushima island had belonged to both Japan and Korea, Tongshin-sa figures could no longer be considered as tributary envoys, and emerged was a new task to define their identity and function from an East Asian standpoint.
Since the 1980s, Tongshin-sa studies became active again as part of the efforts to review Japanese history from an East Asian perspective. Arano Yasunori(荒野泰典) argues that Ezo, Ryukyu, Joseon and China all feared Edo Bakuhu’s military prowess and sent tributary envoys to Japan. In his argument, Tongshin-sa emissaries are also examined as part of this ‘Japanese-style Civilized/Barbaric World order.’ Of course it turned out that such world order was an imaginary one which had never been acknowledged by nearby countries, yet Huma Susumu(夫馬進)’s recent Tongshin-sa studies also share such view, which still considers Joseon as a country which had been a protectorate of China in a Japan-centric world order. Then Huma compares Joseon’s ‘academic backwardness’ to the advanced nature of Japanese culture, from a certainly ‘modernistic’ point of view.
The Japanese ancient mythical desire to position the Korean peninsula as part of the Japanese sphere of influence changed its shape as time went by, but continued to produce false and fabricated images of the Korean peninsula, under the intention of emphasizing Japanese superiority.
Japanese scholars’ modern empirical studies of these Tongshin-sa entities began around the time of Japanese imperialism annexing Korea. Unfortunately they inherited past perspectives to view these figures which was also another viewpoint of colonial historiography. Later, as it became clear that the Tsushima island had belonged to both Japan and Korea, Tongshin-sa figures could no longer be considered as tributary envoys, and emerged was a new task to define their identity and function from an East Asian standpoint.
Since the 1980s, Tongshin-sa studies became active again as part of the efforts to review Japanese history from an East Asian perspective. Arano Yasunori(荒野泰典) argues that Ezo, Ryukyu, Joseon and China all feared Edo Bakuhu’s military prowess and sent tributary envoys to Japan. In his argument, Tongshin-sa emissaries are also examined as part of this ‘Japanese-style Civilized/Barbaric World order.’ Of course it turned out that such world order was an imaginary one which had never been acknowledged by nearby countries, yet Huma Susumu(夫馬進)’s recent Tongshin-sa studies also share such view, which still considers Joseon as a country which had been a protectorate of China in a Japan-centric world order. Then Huma compares Joseon’s ‘academic backwardness’ to the advanced nature of Japanese culture, from a certainly ‘modernistic’ point of view.
The Japanese ancient mythical desire to position the Korean peninsula as part of the Japanese sphere of influence changed its shape as time went by, but continued to produce false and fabricated images of the Korean peninsula, under the intention of emphasizing Japanese superiority.
목차
1. 조공사절인가 우호의 사절인가
2. 에도시대의 통신사 인식
3. 일제강점기의 근대적 통신사 연구
4. 일본형화이질서론과 통신사
맺음말
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (36)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
‘바다의 역사’와 도요토미 히데요시 정권론: 대외관계사를 중심으로
한일관계사연구
2022 .02
-
선조대 경인통신사의 사행과 조정의 대응방식
역사교육
2017 .12
-
조선 후기 日本使臣 접대절차와 양상
한일관계사연구
2015 .04
-
柳宗悦の朝鮮理解の特質 ―朝鮮関連初期の著作を手がかりに―
일본문화학보
2020 .11
-
韓国大学生が関心を持つ日本の「文化」
日本語敎育
2019 .01
-
継承日本語教育における歴史教育の必要性 -「朝鮮通信使」をテ-マとした活動実践を中心に-
일본어학연구
2020 .12
-
조선전기 일본인의 向化와 정착
동양학
2017 .07
-
Research on the Contacts and Composition of Repartee Poems and Prose between Vietnamese and Joseon Envoys in China: Reports from Vietnam
THE REVIEW OF KOREAN STUDIES
2022 .12
-
16세기 후반 조일관계와 대일사행의 파견
한일관계사연구
2020 .05
-
한국 고등학교 일본어학습자의 대일(對日) 인식
일본어문학
2023 .02
-
The Effects of Study Abroad Experience and the Length of Stay on Study Practices and Affective Aspects of Language Learning
Studies in English Education
2019 .01
-
17-18世纪朝日文人笔下的儒学论争
연민학지
2023 .02
-
고대 동아시아의 사신왕래와 ‘送使’ : 고대 중국 왕조의 사신 전송 문제 검토를 중심으로
신라사학보
2018 .12
-
조선시대 外交儀禮의 특징
동양학
2016 .01
-
조선총독부 고적조사사업에 대한 평가와 인식 -패전 후 일본 학계의 동향을 중심으로-
한일관계사연구
2020 .05
-
조선초기 尹仁甫의 대일 교섭 활동
한일관계사연구
2020 .11
-
행위를 중심으로 한 언어·문화의 통합적 수업활동 - 초급 일본어 수업의 시도 -
일본문화학보
2021 .05
-
일본문화교육 전후 일본이해도 차이 연구 ― 경남지역 대학생을 중심으로 ―
日本語敎育
2021 .09
-
오윤겸의 사행일기 연구: <동사일록>과 <조천일록>을 중심으로
온지논총
2016 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2020-911-000839434