『後漢書』 「東夷列傳」 〈韓傳〉에 대한 분석

Analysis Study on 『Huhanso』 「doingyiyuljeon」 〈hanjon〉 - Comparative study on 『Samkukji』 〈hanjon〉 -

This paper intends to reconsider the validity of 『Huhanso』 <Hanjon> as a historical material by the comparative study with 『Samkukji』 <Hanjon> which says different records in Korean part. Many researchers’ rationale for their denial of 『Huhanso』 『Huhanso』 as a valid historical material lies in two assertions: first, 『Huhanso』 was published approximately one century after 『Samkukji』 was edited Second, the author of 『Huhanso』 randomly copied and pasted the content of 『Samkukji』 「Doingyijon」without any deep-leveled research. However, the study on 『Wrrak』, which is known to be consulted by <Hanjon>’s author when editing proves that 『Huhanso』 <Hanjon> was more close to 『Wirak』 in it’s records whereas 『Huhanso』 was not coherent with a lot of contradictions in it’s content. The assertion of non-validity of 『Huhanso』, therefore, has the conflict in its rationale. Rather, I claim that the author of 『Huhanso』 corrected the wrong part of 『Samkukji』 records based on other historical materials in his time.