統一新羅 二重基壇石塔의 形式과 編年

신용철 동악미술사학회 2008 東岳美術史學 Vol.0 No.9

Silla Stone Stupa has gone through various changes and development for 200years from the end of the 7th century. The study of Silla Stone Stupa was conducted by Go Yu Seop(高裕燮) in 1940s. The chronicle of era of Silla Stone Stupa, by dividing into the 3 periodization, attempted by Go Yu Seop, has been generalized up to now, and the subdivision study, is being carried out now. This study is based on the precedent study and attempted the chronicle analysis of Silla Stone Stupa on the basis of the recent investigation outcome. First of all, the particulars which can be the basis of division of era, attempted by an author of this thesis, I are as followings: First is the construction method of stylobate part, second is the aspect of proportion, third is the statue, carved on the surface of Stupa, and fourth is the regional distribution. As a result of objectively analyzing 4 chronicle factors, mentioned above, Silla Stone Stupa is divided into 4 periodization. The first periodization is until 686, the second periodization is 686~780, the third periodization is 780~830, and the 4th periodization is from 830 to the end of Silla. The history of the style of Silla Stone Stupa is grasped as a matter about how to simplify the number of stone material. The biggest change is to show the phase of change according to the era with the construction method of stylobate part. The Silla Stone Stupa of early United Silla, which is in the first periodization, shows the process of change, which is the method to construct the stone material but is out of the style of wooden Stupa. However, it can be found that several methods were attempted about how to simplify the stone material due to inefficiency. Especially, the second periodization and the third periodization are noticed as periods, when various forms of stone stupa coexist and are manufactured in the history of Silla Stupa. The construction method of the 2nd periodization, which largely appears as 3 kinds, was developed from the matter about how to complement the structural aspect of Stone Stupa. However, the Stone Stupa, which constructs only with the flagstone in the stylobate of the upper and bottom layer, became the mainstream in the time of the 3rd periodization. Eventually, the change in the Silla stone Stupa of the 4th periodization was made in 2ways, which was the Stone Stupa of slim and long type, with the flagstone construction of the upper and bottom layer, and the Stone Stupa of single story. Especially, the range of Silla Stone Stupa went through the expansion process nationwide in the 4th periodization, which is meaningful in the aspect of expansion of pagoda faith in Gyeongju(慶州) and its neighboring area. Meanwhile, there were many stupas, which were created by the local craftsmen in the end of the 9th century and strikingly behind backwards in the figurative feature. It shows the proliferation of the stupa construction technology of the end of Silla and the transmission process of it, and it is estimated that this phenomenon was working as a driving force of the construction of Stone Stupa, tinged with the unique locality by stimulating the natives of each region in the early period of Goryeo Dynasty. 신라석탑은 7세기 말부터 약 200년 동안 다양한 변화와 발전으로 많은 작품을 남기고 있다. 신라석탑 의 연구는 1940년대 고유섭 선생에 의하여 본격화 되었다. 고유섭 선생이 시도한 신라석탑의 시대편년은 3시기 구분법은 지금까지 일반화 되어 있으며 최근 이를 세분화 시키는 연구가 진행되고 있다. 본 논문 역시 이 같은 선학의 연구를 토대로 하고 있으며 최근 조사성과를 바탕으로 신라석탑의 편년분석을 시도 한 것이다. 먼저 필자가 시도한 시대구분의 근거가 되는 사항들로는 첫째, 기단부의 결구방식이다. 둘째, 비례의 측면이다. 셋째, 탑 표면에 새겨진 조각상이다. 넷째, 석탑의 지역적 분포를 언급할 수 있다. 위의 4가지 편년요소들을 객관화하여 분석한 결과 신라석탑은 4시기로 구분이 가능한데, 1기는 686년까지, 2기는 686∼780, 3기는 780∼830, 4기는 830부터 신라말까지이다. 신라석탑의 양식사는 석재의 숫자를 어떻게 간략화 하는가라는 문제로 파악된다. 그런데 가장 큰 변화 는 기단부의 결구법으로 시대에 따른 변화양상을 보여주고 있다. 1기인 통일초기 신라석탑은 많은 석재 를 결구하는 방법이면서도 목탑양식에서 벗어나 석탑양식으로 변화하는 과정을 볼 수 있다. 그러나 곧 석재의 사용과 결구의 비효율성으로 많은 석재를 어떠한 방식으로 간략화 하는가 라는 점에서 여러 가지 결구방법들이 시도되고 있음을 알 수 있다. 특히 2기와 3기까지는 신라탑파사에서 매우 다양한 형식의 석탑들이 서로 공존하며 제작된 시기로 주 목된다. 크게 3가지로 나타난 2기의 결구법은 석탑으로서 구조적인 면을 어떻게 보완할 것인가 하는 문 제에서 발전하였다. 그러나 3기에 이르러 상하층 기단을 판석으로만 결구하는 석탑이 주류를 이루게 된 다. 이는 점차 지방으로 확산되는 석탑건립과 관계가 있는 것으로 파악된다. 결국 4기 신라석탑은 2가지 방향에서 그 양식적 변화가 이루어졌는데, 상하층 판석식 결구를 가진 세 장형의 석탑과 단층기단 석탑의 성립이다. 특히 4기에 이르러 신라석탑의 범위는 서울 경기 지역을 제외 한 전국적 확대 과정을 겪는데, 종전에 경주와 그 인근에 머물던 불탑신앙의 전국적 확대라는 측면에서 도 중요한 의미를 갖는다. 한편 9세기 말엽 지방 장인에 의해 만들어진 조형성이 현저하게 떨어지는 탑들 이 다수 있다. 이는 신라말기 건탑 기술의 확산과 전래 과정을 보여주는 것으로 고려초기 각 지방의 토착 민을 자극하여 독특한 지역성을 띤 석탑 건립의 원동력으로 작용하였다고 생각된다.

한국출판문화사의 시대구분에 관한 연구

부길만(Booh, Gil-Mann) 한국출판학회 2009 한국출판학연구 Vol.35 No.1

이 연구는 한국 출판문화사의 시대구분에 관한 논의를 살펴보고 하나의 시대구분 시안을 제시하기 위한 것이다. 한국 출판문화사의 시대구분을 위한 논의에 앞서, 일반적인 시대구분의 의의와 유형,출판사(出版史)의 연구 영역, 특수사로서의 출판문화사 등에 대하여 살펴보았다. 그리고 한국 출판문화사의 인접 분야에 해당되는 한국 언론사와 한국 문학사의 시대구분을 고찰한 다음, 한국 출판문화사 시대구분의 선행 연구를 검토하였다. 이를 바탕으로 한국 출판문화사의 시대구분을 시도하였는데, 한국 출판문화사가 우리 민족의 정신사와 맞닿아 있다는 점을 중시하였다. 시대구분의 기준으로는 다음의 두 가지를 내세웠다. 첫째, 출판의 시대적 역할과 사회적 관련성, 둘째, 출판물을 기획·제작·유통시키는 출판 주체, 그리고 출판수용자에 해당되는 독자층의 문화의식이다. 여기에서 문화의식이란 단순한 문화적 욕구나 수용에 국한되지 않고, 민족 문화를 구성하는 일원으로서 지니게 되는 공동체의식, 역사 발전을 이루어내는 비전 등을 포함하는 개념이다. 이러한 기준에 따라 한국 출판문화사를 다음과 같이 다섯 시기로 구분하였다. 제1기 14세기 후반 이전 : 한국 출판문화의 시작 제2기 14세기 후반~16세기 : 엘리트 지식인의 문화의식과 금속활자의 활용 제3기 17세기~1883년 : 평민의식의 고양과 독서문화의 확산 제4기 1883년~1945년 : 국민 계몽 및 민족의식의 발현과 출판 (1) 1883~1910 : 국민 계몽 운동 및 근대적 출판의 등장 (2) 1910~1945 : 민족의식의 성장과 출판 제5기 1945년~현재 : 민주의식의 성장과 출판산업의 확장 (1) 1945년~1960년대 : 해방 및 전쟁 후유증 극복 (2) 1970년대~1980년대 : 한글세대의 등장과 출판산업의 확장 (3) 1990년대~현재 : 전자출판의 발달과 출판의 국제화 이 글에서 제시한 시대구분은 한국 출판문화사 연구를 위한 사고의 도구로 활용될 수 있다는 데에 의의가 있을 것이다. 물론 그렇게 되기 위해서도 많은 연구와 함께 활발한 논의들이 지속적으로 나와야 할 것이다. 이 글은 그러한 논의의 시작을 알리기 위한 것이다. This study is to examine the discussions on the periodization in the history of Korean publishing culture and to recommend a new way of periodization. Before the discussion of the periodization in the history of Korean publishing culture, this study examines the previous studies on several topics: the periodization of the history in general, areas of study in publishing, and the characteristics of the history of publishing culture. This study also examines the periodization in the study of the history of Korean journalism and that of Korean literature, which are associated with the history of Korean publishing culture. This study then examines the previous studies on the periodization in the history of Korean publishing culture in particular. On the basis of these discussions mentioned so far, this study attempts to recommend a new way of the periodization in the history of Korean publishing culture. In doing this, it is emphasized that the history of Korean publishing culture is closely associated with the spiritual history of the Korean people. The two criteria are given for the periodization in this study. First, the role of publishing in each period and its relations with the society. Secondly, the culture-consciousness of the two groups: the publishers and the readers. Based on these criteria the history of Korean publishing culture is categorized into these five periods. The 1st period (before the second half of the 14th century) : beginning of the Korean cultural history The 2nd period (from the second half of the 14th century till the 16th century) : growth of culture-consciousness of the elite intellectuals and the use of metal printing The 3rd period (from the 17th century till 1883) : growth of the common people's consciousness of equality and the expansion of reading culture The 4th period (from 1883 till 1945) : enlightenment of the people and growth of nationalism (1) 1883~1910: beginning of the campaign for the enlightenment of the people and the appearance of modern publishing (2) 1910~1945: growth of nationalism and publishing The 5th period (1945-present) : growth of people's consciousness in democracy and the expansion of publishing industry (1) 1945~1960s: liberalization and overcoming of the aftermath of the Korean war (2) 1970s~1980s: appearance of the Korean alphabet generation and the expansion of publishing industry (3) 1990s~present: development of digital publishing and the globalization of publishing Further studies and more discussions are needed to use the recommended periodization discussed so far. This study shows the new beginning of the ongoing discussions on this area.

한국어교재의 변천과 시대구분에 대한 연구

고경민 제주대학교 교육과학연구소 2017 교육과학연구 Vol.19 No.1

This paper examined the previous researches and suggested a new way of periodization, based on changes in teaching materials in order to consider periodization of Korean education. In contrast to the existing researches laying stress on external criteria for periodization, this paper analyzed teaching materials as internal criteria and reflected changes in them in it. In order to achieve these purposes, Chapter Ⅱ considered the necessity for periodization and its criteria, and arranged the existing perspectives on periodization through the previous researches. Chapter Ⅲ then, proposed meanings of periodization of Korean education focusing on the history of teaching materials and a new way of periodization. Ultimately, this paper aimed to prove that it is possible to periodize, based on internal criteria, not external ones, although it may be impossible to periodize perfectly only with them. Moreover, this paper demonstrated that it's possible to complement periodization of the history of Korean education more through this process. 이 연구는 현재까지 개발된 교재를 중심으로 한국어교재의 변천과 한국어교육의 시대구분을 살핀 연구이다. 본격적인 한국어교재가 개발된 이후 약 200년의 시간이 흐르면서 한국어교육과 한국어교재 역시 많은 변화와 발전이 있었다. 본 연구에서는 근대 이전의 한국어교재부터 최근의 교재까지 각 시대를 대표하는 교재를 중심으로 해당 시기의 특징을 살펴보고, 이러한 특징들을 종합하여 시대구분을 시도하고자 한다. 시대구분의 목적은 과거 일련의 사건과 역사적 사실을 토대로 객관적이고, 체계적인 기준을 설정하고, 이를 바탕으로 현대적 의미와 가치로 재구성하는 것이라 할 수 있다. 또한 이러한 재구성은 현대의 구조적․학문적 모순과 문제를 해결하는 방향을 제시할 수 있을 것이라 생각한다. 교육사 전체를 아우르는 여러 요인이 아닌 교재를 중심으로 시대를 살폈을 때의 장점은 외적인 기준에 의거하지 않고, 교육 내적인 변화에 초점을 맞출 수 있다는 점이다. 본고에서는 교재 중심의 시대구분을 통해 크게는 태동기, 성장기, 발전기로 시대를 구분했으며, 태동기와 성장기는 각각 1기와 2기로 세분화하였다. 2장에서는 이러한 시대구분의 기준과 필요성에 대해 살펴보고, 3장에서는 각 시대별 특징과 대표 교재에 대해 논의하기로 한다.

봉건제를 둘러싼 소련 시대의 시대구분 논쟁

조호연(Hoyeon Cho) 한국슬라브유라시아학회 2021 슬라브학보 Vol.36 No.2

The purpose of this thesis is to examine how the issues related to the periodization surrounding the feudal system in Russian history were arranged before and after the Russian Revolution. The Russian Revolution, like other historical subjects, raised a fundamental task in the field of periodization. The periodization theories of the Tsarist Russia period before the revolution were denied, and a new period periodization theory had to be established according to Marxism. However, even by M. N. Pokrovskii, who had the most weight in the history of the Soviet Union in the early days of the Soviet Union, a satisfactory periodization theory was not presented. Rather, through the debate that developed in the late 1920s and early 1930s, Pokrovskii"s historiography was criticized for being anti-Marxism and anti-scholarship. In the Soviet Union, with the establishment of Stalin"s historiography in the 1930"s, a new periodization theory surrounding feudalism could be organized. In this process, Stalin"s books and articles played a significant role. As a professional scholar, B. D. Grekov"s works coexisted with Stalinist history and made an important contribution to resolving the controversy surrounding feudalism. His research established the position that the period of feudalism started from Kiev Rus, and that feudalism did not go through slavery in Russian history. Grekov"s position was highly praised for not only using the results of archaeological excavations and various historical sources, but also for using a comparative historical method. The periodization debates that developed from the end of 1940’s to the beginning of 1950’s developed over the basic nature of feudalism. K. B. Bazilevich tried to define the feudal period in terms of socioeconomic history, and his critics, N. M. Druzhnin and I. Smirnov, in terms of the political superstructure, whereas V. Pashto and L. Cherepnin synthesized socioeconomic history and political historical factors. In my opinion, Soviet historians were able to reach a certain level of agreement in terms of timing and nature on the issue of feudal periodization. However, issues such as the basic laws of feudalism and the origins of capitalism were still unsolved and caused a lot of controversy, and in the subsequent period, Soviet historians argued a lot about various issues related to the periodization.

블록 주기화 훈련 후 Taper 기간이 엘리트 단거리 수영선수의 운동수행력에 미치는 영향

박지희(Park, Ji-Hee),조영현(Cho, Yeong-Hyun),김영표(Kim, Yeong-Pyo) 한국체육과학회 2023 한국체육과학회지 Vol.32 No.6

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of tapering period after block periodization training on the sports performance in elite swimmers. Thirty elite swimmers were participated in this study, and they were randomly divided into three groups: typeⅠ block periodization training group (1 week interval) (BP1, n=10), Type Ⅱ block periodization training group (2 week interval) (BP2, n=10), and a traditional periodization training group (TP, n=10). To evaluated the swimming performance, we measured swim bench scores, vertical kick and swimming record(15~100m section) in before and after block periodization training and than measured during tapering period. Training program was tailored to each group, applying block periodization and traditional periodization training for 8 weeks. As shown in the results, swim benches and vertical flutter kick were found to have an interaction effect between group and periods. swim benches and vertical flutter kick were significantly higher in the BP2 compared to the BP1 and TP 8 weeks after exercise intervention. Swimming record at 100m was interaction effect between group and periods. Swimming record was improved in the BP1 than those in BP2 and TP at the 15m section, but record of 25m~100m section was no significant differenes among groups. During the tapering phase, swimming records at 5m and 15m were significantly shortened in the BP1 compared to the TP group at the 7, 10, 12. and 14 days. In addition, 100m swimming record was significantly shortened in the BP2 compared to the TP. Our findings provides information that block periodization training may improve sports performance in elite swimmer, as well as, tapering period of from 5 to 14 days is needed to improve swimming records.

비평논문 : 한국고고학의 시대구분과 원삼국시대론에 대한 소론

노혁진 ( Hyukjin Ro ) 호남고고학회 2015 湖南考古學報 Vol.51 No.-

한국고고학의 시대구분은 미완의 과제이며, 원삼국시대론은 한국식 삼시기법의 중요한 논쟁점의 하나이다. 그동안 원삼국시대, 철기시대, 초기철기시대, 삼한시대 등의 제 명칭의 사용에 대한 논쟁이 지속되는 한편, 원삼국시대의 인지도와 용례는 증가하고 있는 추세이다. 이러한 학계의 경향과 사회적 분위기는 문제해결을 위하여 바람직하지 않으며, 한국고고학의 독자적 시대구분체계 수립에도 결과적으로 걸림돌이 될 수 있다. 필자는 본고를 통하여 한국식 삼시기법 전체의 틀을 대체하지 않는 한, 원삼국시대는 철기시대의 대안이 될 수 없음을 기존의 비판적 시각과 또 다른 관점에서 지적하고자 하였다. 즉, 문헌사의 입장에서는 원삼국시대를 채택하거나 도입할 수 없는 분명한 논거를 추가로 제시하고자 하였고, 고고학의 입장에서는 원삼국시대 설정의 근본 취지와는 다른 방식으로 그 지속적인 사용을 지지하는 모순과 문제점을 비판하였다. 결론적으로, 한국고고학의 시대구분이란 특정 시대에 대한 명명작업이 아니라 모든 시대를 통관하는 일관성을 갖춘 체계를 수립하는 작업이기 때문에, 한국식 삼시기법의 틀 자체를 새로운 독자적인 시대구분체계로 완전 대체 하기까지는 원삼국시대를 비롯한 어떠한 명칭도 철기시대의 대안으로서 상대적 실효성이나 대체효과가 없음을 재강조하였다. 한편, 고고학적 관점에서 비판적으로 보는 시대명칭인 고조선과 삼한은 문헌사의 관점에서 보면, ‘조선-고려-통일신라-삼국시대’의 연장선에서 채택할 명분과 역사적 가치가 있는 명칭임을 지적하였다. The archaeological periodization of Korean history remains a work in progress, and using the term “Proto-Three-Kingdoms Period” within the traditional and persistent chronological framework of the Three-Age system is a highly debatable issue. Recently, the term “Proto- Three-Kingdoms Period” has been commonly used, but this trend within and outside the archaeological academia as well as its negative impact on the production of a desirable and logical periodization system for Korean archaeology needs to be critically assessed. Contrary to the opinions of those who support the term “Proto-Three-Kingdoms Period,” the author argues that this term cannot be used as a substitute for the term “Iron Age” until the Three-Age system currently being used in Korean archaeology is completely replaced by a new and improved periodization system. The author emphasizes that the key imperative in the archaeological periodization of Korean history does not lie in highlighting the uniqueness of each historical period, but rather in generating a coherent and consistent system that applies to every archaeological period. Therefore, as long as the Three-Age system continues to be used as the standard periodization system for Korean archaeology, the use of the term “Proto-Three Kingdoms Period” or any other equivalent terminologies in the place of the term “Iron Age” should be minimized.

Problems of Rewriting History of Hindi Literature in 21st Century

Mahendra Pal Sharma 한국외국어대학교 인도연구소 2009 남아시아연구 Vol.15 No.1

Hindi has a very long and rich tradition of writing the history of Hindi literature. The Hindi literature is generally divided into four periods namely Adikaal(the Early Period starts from the middle of 10th century), Bhaktikaal(the Devotional Period), RitiKaal(the Scholastic Period), Adhunik kaal(the Modern Period till today). Looking at the past attempts of writing of literary history we witness many books in the name of history of Hindi literature. One such book ‘Bhaktamaal’ was compiled by Sant Nabhadas in the medieval period. From ‘Bhaktamaal’ to the modern period of Hindi literature a number of books have been written. Some small collections were written too. The ‘Istavar Da La Literature Endui Ae Endustani’ in two parts(1839 and 1847) by French scholar Garsa Da Tasi, in which he collected more then 2000 poets of Hindi and Hidustani, ‘Shivasingh Saroj’(1878) by Shivsingh Sengar, ‘ The Modern Vernacular Literature of Northern Hindustan’(1889) by George Abraham Grierson, ‘Misrabandu Vinod ’ (1913) by Misrabandhu, ‘ Hindi Sahitya Ka Itihaas ’ (1928-29) of Acharya Ramchandra Shukla and ‘Hindi Sahitya Ki Bhoomika’(1940) and ‘Hindi Sahitya: Uska Udbhav aur Vikas’ (1952), and ‘ Hindi Sahitya Ka Adikal ’ (1952) of Acharya Hazariprasad Dwivedi and a few others are the books on the history of Hindi literature. Among all these the work of Ramchandra Shukla and Hazariprasad Dwivedi is still considered most authentic and reliable one. These two writers are still considered the founders of new trends in the modern literary history and Critism of Hindi. The first systematic book ‘Hindi Sahitya Ka Itihas’ the history of Hindi literature was written by Acharya Ramchandra Shukla. He was the first Hindi critic and historian in the field of literary criticism of Hindi to evaluate Hindi literature firmly with a positive and realistic approach. We notice many books on the history of Hindi literature today but most of these have almost repeated the work done by other historians earlier. Writers like Shivadan Singh Chauhan, Ramvilas Sharma, Namwar Singh and a few others have discussed in detail and have pointed out various contradictions existed in these books and highlighted controversial issues related to the history of Hindi literature and criticism. They have also emphasized on the need of rewriting the history of Hindi literature from Marxist point of view. But no such book has been written till today which considered complete and uncontroversial. For instance the critical evaluation of Hindi 317 literature done by Ramchandra Shukla by systematically dividing the available material of Hindi literature of centuries into four Periods and naming them as Aadi kal, Bhakti kal, Riti kal and Adhunik kal has been considered the work of excellence by many writers and critics. Later many questions were raised regarding the evaluation of some of the poets and it was also termed controversial. But despite the opposition of some writers the work of Shukla is still considered satisfactory and his division of time done on the basis of different trends of Hindi literary traditions also existed till today. Today, some well known writers and critics of Hindi have criticized the approach adopted in available books. The evaluation of some of Hindi poets and writers done earlier by the famous historians and critics had been contradicted by many other writers from time to time. The evaluation of well known poet Kabir and likewise some other poets belonging to relatively weaker sections of Indian society has been the subject to of discussion on many occasions. The depiction of many Dalit characters of fiction writer Premchand and others had been challenged by some newly emerged writer and critics of that particular category. Therefore many critics feel for the need of re-writing history of Hindi literature in changed perspective of 21st century. In this pa... Hindi has a very long and rich tradition of writing the history of Hindi literature. The Hindi literature is generally divided into four periods namely Adikaal(the Early Period starts from the middle of 10th century), Bhaktikaal(the Devotional Period), RitiKaal(the Scholastic Period), Adhunik kaal(the Modern Period till today). Looking at the past attempts of writing of literary history we witness many books in the name of history of Hindi literature. One such book ‘Bhaktamaal’ was compiled by Sant Nabhadas in the medieval period. From ‘Bhaktamaal’ to the modern period of Hindi literature a number of books have been written. Some small collections were written too. The ‘Istavar Da La Literature Endui Ae Endustani’ in two parts(1839 and 1847) by French scholar Garsa Da Tasi, in which he collected more then 2000 poets of Hindi and Hidustani, ‘Shivasingh Saroj’(1878) by Shivsingh Sengar, ‘ The Modern Vernacular Literature of Northern Hindustan’(1889) by George Abraham Grierson, ‘Misrabandu Vinod ’ (1913) by Misrabandhu, ‘ Hindi Sahitya Ka Itihaas ’ (1928-29) of Acharya Ramchandra Shukla and ‘Hindi Sahitya Ki Bhoomika’(1940) and ‘Hindi Sahitya: Uska Udbhav aur Vikas’ (1952), and ‘ Hindi Sahitya Ka Adikal ’ (1952) of Acharya Hazariprasad Dwivedi and a few others are the books on the history of Hindi literature. Among all these the work of Ramchandra Shukla and Hazariprasad Dwivedi is still considered most authentic and reliable one. These two writers are still considered the founders of new trends in the modern literary history and Critism of Hindi. The first systematic book ‘Hindi Sahitya Ka Itihas’ the history of Hindi literature was written by Acharya Ramchandra Shukla. He was the first Hindi critic and historian in the field of literary criticism of Hindi to evaluate Hindi literature firmly with a positive and realistic approach. We notice many books on the history of Hindi literature today but most of these have almost repeated the work done by other historians earlier. Writers like Shivadan Singh Chauhan, Ramvilas Sharma, Namwar Singh and a few others have discussed in detail and have pointed out various contradictions existed in these books and highlighted controversial issues related to the history of Hindi literature and criticism. They have also emphasized on the need of rewriting the history of Hindi literature from Marxist point of view. But no such book has been written till today which considered complete and uncontroversial. For instance the critical evaluation of Hindi 317 literature done by Ramchandra Shukla by systematically dividing the available material of Hindi literature of centuries into four Periods and naming them as Aadi kal, Bhakti kal, Riti kal and Adhunik kal has been considered the work of excellence by many writers and critics. Later many questions were raised regarding the evaluation of some of the poets and it was also termed controversial. But despite the opposition of some writers the work of Shukla is still considered satisfactory and his division of time done on the basis of different trends of Hindi literary traditions also existed till today. Today, some well known writers and critics of Hindi have criticized the approach adopted in available books. The evaluation of some of Hindi poets and writers done earlier by the famous historians and critics had been contradicted by many other writers from time to time. The evaluation of well known poet Kabir and likewise some other poets belonging to relatively weaker sections of Indian society has been the subject to of discussion on many occasions. The depiction of many Dalit characters of fiction writer Premchand and others had been challenged by some newly emerged writer and critics of that particular category. Therefore many critics feel for the need of re-writing history of Hindi literature in changed perspective of 21st century. In this paper while the role of historians of Hindi literature is bein...

1990년대 이후 몽골 역사학자들의 근현대사 서술동향

이평래 중앙아시아학회 2017 中央아시아硏究 Vol.22 No.2

This study examines the trend of modern history research and narration by Mongolian historians and its features after the system transition of the 1990s. The Mongolians abandoned their socialist system in the early 1990s and embraced a market economy. The transition had a significant effect on the study of history and also led to a tremendous change in the study and narration of national history. Although a new perspective emerged across the whole spectrum of Mongolian history in terms of research and narration, the most substantial change occurred in the field of modern history. The study focused on this detail and considered the new trends of research on the modern Mongolian history and the characteristics of national history narration. The items discussed in the study are as follows. In Part 2, the question of the periodization of modern history, raised by various researchers after the 1990s, was discussed. The key points to note are the standard for the periodization and the issue of the scope of modern history. During the period of socialism, the Mongolian historians divided the period into the pre-modern period and the modern period based on the Mongolian Revolution of 1921. After the 1990s however, new historical events to divide the period of modern history, such as the independence from the Qing dynasty in 1911 and the pro-democracy movement of 1990, appeared and the period of 1911-1921, which was previously classified as part of the feudal age, was included into the period of modern history. As a result, the event of 1911 is currently the branch point for dividing the modern period and the pre-modern period. In Part 3, the features of the new trend in modern history narration were examined. The key point to note is the problem of evaluating the events of 1911 and 1921. During the socialist period, Mongolian historians assessed that the aristocrats leading the national liberation movement in 1911 were defending their own interests and that the resulting Bogd regime was a feudal reign that should have been overthrown through a revolution. After the 1990s, however, the event of 1911 was assigned a more active meaning, being evaluated as the “prelude to Mongol’s restoration,” and included as part of modern history. The historians of the socialist period also narrated the 1921 revolution wholly in relation to the Soviet and the Comintern but focused on the activities and roles of the Mongolians and national interest after the democratization. Other points to note regarding research on modern Mongolian history after 1990 include the publication of biographies on historical figures, 20th century social research using oral data, and the introduction of new historical terms. In Part 4, the discussion of researchers on the continuity and succession of key events of modern history, such as the events of 1911, 1921 and 1990, was examined. The main point to pay attention to in relation to this is the issue of correlation between the major events of 20th century Mongolian history, namely the events of 1911, 1921 and 1990. The Mongolian historians before the system transition narrated the events of 1911 and 1921 as events symbolizing feudalism and the modern era respectively but after 1990 started to narrate the events of 1911, 1921 and 1990 as a chain of events having continuity and succession. Thus, it was recorded that the event of 1921 was based on the event of 1911, the event of 1990 was based on the event of 1921, and the main goal of the three events was complete independence from foreign influence. In addition, the names of the three events are being set as the National Liberation Revolution (1911), National Democratic Revolution (1921), Democratic Revolution (1990).

조선 중기 시기 구분에 대한 검토 - 사족사회의 형성 문제를 중심으로 -

송웅섭 ( Song Woongsup ) 수선사학회 2020 史林 Vol.0 No.73

This paper is a review of the aspects of the periodization of the mid-Joseon Period. Through this, the goal is to review how the mid-Joseon period is being set up. Currently, the periodization of the mid-Joseon period is not a single standard. Each researcher sets the mid-Joseon period to suit the purpose of the research. However, one of the main ways to distinguish the mid-Joseon Period is to distinguish the sarim based on their growth. In other words, the tendency to set the 16th and 17th centuries as the mid-Joseon period, in which the growth and development of Sarim takes place, is typical. However, this method of distinguishing the period is not based on empirical analysis of the reality of the local community since the end of the Goryeo Dynasty. Rather, it is leaning on the political history of the Sarim faction's growth and development. As a result, the limit of the study of Sarim continues to be the limit of the method of setting the time in the middle of Chosun. Therefore, the more desirable setting of the mid-Joseon period should be based on empirical research on the local community since the end of the Goryeo Dynasty. In other words, the periodization needs to be adjusted based on the study of how the local noble family of the local community have gone through and established themselves as the ruling class leading the local community.

신라하대 중기(839~888) 왕위계승과 정국의 안정

권영오 부경역사연구소 2009 지역과 역사 Vol.- No.24

In the year 839 King Shinmu(神武王) ascended to the throne. This was the start of the middle period of Hadea(下代). During this period battles for the throne ended and political stability was regained. This condition continued until the third year of Queen Jinsung(眞聖女王) when she lost control over the country due to rampant peasant uprisings and local aristocracy increasing their sovereignty. After King Shinmu’s accession to power, the throne could be bequeathed to a queen or to a Taeja(太子), who was a person born to a concubine. Sometimes it was bequeathed to a person in the royal family with the first name ‘Park.’ Until the collapse of Silla in 935, there were no military struggles for the throne. In case a king had no son to inherit his throne, he appointed a Taeja or a Bugun(副君), or designated someone in his royal family as his successor by considered many political factors when choosing successor. The kinship to the king was just a prerequisite. The throne was not bequeathed to a person closest to the king, but to a person who was in the royal family and could meet the political considerations that the king considered important. Chingol (眞骨 : bone lineage) group did not challenge this system in the rule of Yeyoung(禮英) lineage. The 155 years of the Hadea period is comprised of three periods: from King Seonduk(宣德王) to King Minae(閔哀王 : period of struggle for the throne), from King Shinmu to the second year of Queen Jinsung(period of political stability), and finally, from the third year of Queen Jinsung to King Kyungsoon(敬順王 : period of decline). In the earlier period, there were some struggles for the throne, but this cannot be an appropriate explanation for understanding the entire Hadea period. The argument that there were struggles for the throne in the Hadea period is only appropriate to its earlier period. Even if struggles existed, they were relatively severe compared to the Middle Period of Silla(新羅中代). In the year 839 King Shinmu(神武王) ascended to the throne. This was the start of the middle period of Hadea(下代). During this period battles for the throne ended and political stability was regained. This condition continued until the third year of Queen Jinsung(眞聖女王) when she lost control over the country due to rampant peasant uprisings and local aristocracy increasing their sovereignty. After King Shinmu’s accession to power, the throne could be bequeathed to a queen or to a Taeja(太子), who was a person born to a concubine. Sometimes it was bequeathed to a person in the royal family with the first name ‘Park.’ Until the collapse of Silla in 935, there were no military struggles for the throne. In case a king had no son to inherit his throne, he appointed a Taeja or a Bugun(副君), or designated someone in his royal family as his successor by considered many political factors when choosing successor. The kinship to the king was just a prerequisite. The throne was not bequeathed to a person closest to the king, but to a person who was in the royal family and could meet the political considerations that the king considered important. Chingol (眞骨 : bone lineage) group did not challenge this system in the rule of Yeyoung(禮英) lineage. The 155 years of the Hadea period is comprised of three periods: from King Seonduk(宣德王) to King Minae(閔哀王 : period of struggle for the throne), from King Shinmu to the second year of Queen Jinsung(period of political stability), and finally, from the third year of Queen Jinsung to King Kyungsoon(敬順王 : period of decline). In the earlier period, there were some struggles for the throne, but this cannot be an appropriate explanation for understanding the entire Hadea period. The argument that there were struggles for the throne in the Hadea period is only appropriate to its earlier period. Even if struggles existed, they were relatively severe compared to the Middle Period of Silla(新羅中代).