Bacillus alveayuensis sp. nov., a thermophilic bacterium isolated from deep-sea sediments of the Ayu Trough

Bae, Seung Seob,Lee, Jung-Hyun,Kim, Sang-Jin Microbiology Society 2005 International journal of systematic and evolutiona Vol.55 No.3

<P>Two thermophilic, spore-forming strains, TM1<SUP>T</SUP> and TM5, were isolated from deep-sea sediment (4000 m below sea level) of the Ayu Trough in the western Pacific Ocean. Cells of the two strains were Gram-positive, motile and rod-shaped. Their spores were ellipsoidal, subterminal to terminal and occurred in swollen sporangia. The two strains grew at temperatures up to 65 °C and in the pH range 6·5-9·0. The NaCl concentration for optimal growth was 3·0 % (w/v) and growth was inhibited by 5 % (w/v) NaCl. Phylogenetic analysis based on 16S rRNA gene sequences indicated that strains TM1<SUP>T</SUP> and TM5 belonged to the genus <I>Bacillus</I>, and that strain TM1<SUP>T</SUP> was most closely related to <I>Bacillus aeolius</I> DSM 15084<SUP>T</SUP> (96·7 %), <I>Bacillus smithii</I> DSM 4216<SUP>T</SUP> (96·1 %), <I>Bacillus methanolicus</I> NCIMB 13113<SUP>T</SUP> (95·8 %) and <I>Bacillus pallidus</I> DSM 3670<SUP>T</SUP> (95·7 %). Between the 16S rRNA gene sequences of strains TM1<SUP>T</SUP> and TM5 there were only three nucleotide differences, implying that the two strains were of the same species. The cellular fatty acid profiles of the two strains were also very similar, with iso-C15 : 0, iso-C16 : 0, C16 : 0, iso-C17 : 0 and anteiso-C17 : 0 as the major components. The G+C content of strain TM1<SUP>T</SUP> was 38·7 %. On the basis of phenotypic and molecular data, strains TM1<SUP>T</SUP> and TM5 represent a novel species of the genus <I>Bacillus</I>, for which the name <I>Bacillus alveayuensis</I> sp. nov. is proposed. The type strain is TM1<SUP>T</SUP> (=KCTC 10634<SUP>T</SUP>=JCM 12523<SUP>T</SUP>).</P>

Enhancing bio-hydrogen production from sodium formate by hyperthermophilic archaeon, Thermococcus onnurineus NA1

Bae, Seung Seob,Lee, Hyun Sook,Jeon, Jung Ho,Lee, Jung-Hyun,Kang, Sung Gyun,Kim, Tae Wan Springer-Verlag 2015 Bioprocess and biosystems engineering Vol.38 No.5

FOUNDATIONS FOR THE LEGITIMATION OF THE TONGHAK PEASANT ARMY AND AWARENESS OF A NEW POLITICAL ORDER

BAE HANG-SEOB 계명대학교 한국학연구원 2013 Acta Koreana Vol.16 No.2

Flagellimonas eckloniae gen. nov., sp. nov., a mesophilic marine bacterium of the family Flavobacteriaceae, isolated from the rhizosphere of Ecklonia kurome

Bae, Seung Seob,Kwon, Kae Kyoung,Yang, Sung Hyun,Lee, Hee-Soon,Kim, Sang-Jin,Lee, Jung-Hyun Microbiology Society 2007 International journal of systematic and evolutiona Vol.57 No.5

Kaesŏng Uprising of 1893

Bae Hang-seob(배항섭) 고려대학교 한국사연구소 2010 International Journal of Korean History Vol.15 No.1

개항(1876) 전후부터 1910년 이전 시기에 일어난 민란 형태의 집합적 투쟁에서 개성민란 이외에는 지주제 반대는 물론 토지소유와 관련된 요구가 전혀 없었다. 개성민란에서 제시된 토지소유와 관련 요구도 토지소유의 불균등을 해소하려는 것이 아니었다. 수령에 의해 토지소유권이 부당하게 침해되는 것을 방지하려는 목적에서 제시된 것이었다. 물론 개성민란의 주도층은 상인이나 전직관리였기 때문에 빈농들의 요구가 반영되지 않았을 개연성이 크다. 그러나 1862년 임술민란 당시 처음부터 빈농들이 주도한 경에도 역시 지주제를 반대하는 구호는 없었다. 뿐만 아니라 민란에 비할 수 없을 정도의 대규모 반란인 1894년의 동학농민전쟁 시기에도 농민군들이 요구한 「폐정개혁안」에 지주제를 반대하는 요구가 없었다. 농민군이 제시한 토지관련 개혁요구도 개성민란에서와 마찬가지로 사적 소유권의 안정적 확보를 지향하는 내용이었다. 한편 반외세와 관련된 요구 역시 개성민란을 제외한 민란형태의 집합적 투쟁에서 제시된 사례가 없다. 개성민란에서는 일본상인들이 개성상인들의 이익을 침해하거나, 침해할 가능성이 있었기 때문에 “일본인을 들여 살게 한 사람은 그 집을 부술 것”이라는 구호가 제기되었다. 그러나 일본인에 대한 적극적인 공격의지는 보이지 않았다. 동학농민전쟁에서도 제1차 봉기에서는 일본에 대한 반대 구호가 전면에 제시되지 않았다. 일본군에 의한 경복궁 침범이라는 구체적 침략행위가 일어난 다음에는 일변하여 제2차 농민전쟁은 기본적으로 반일투쟁의 성격을 띠게 된다. 이상에서 살펴 본 바와 같이 1894년 농민전쟁 이전 시기는 물론, 1910년까지 동학농민전쟁을 제외한 민중의 집합적 투쟁에서 토지소유와 관련된 요구나 외세에 반대하는 요구가 개성민란에서만 유일하게 나타났다. 또한 그 내용도 지주제에 대한 반대와 거리가 멀었고, 외세에 대한 반대도 제한적이었다. 이 점은 근대이행기의 민중을 “봉건적”, “민족적” 모순의 담지자이자, 그에 맞서는 변혁주체로 이해해 오던 기왕의 견해에 의문을 제기하는 것이다. With the exception of the Kaes?ng Uprising of 1893, none of the other uprisings that emerged from the opening of the three ports in 1876 until 1910 featured demands related to the landlord system. That being said, the land ownership related demands made by the leaders of the Kaes?ng Uprising were in actuality not intended to overcome the inequality of the land ownership system. Rather, these demands were focused on preventing illegal exploitation of their land by the magistrate. Moreover, the fact that the leadership group of the Kaes?ng Uprising consisted of merchants and former government officials means that the wishes of peasant famers were in all likelihood not reflected in these demands. Even the cases of uprisings led by peasant farmers, such as the Uprising of 1862, did not feature any overt slogans against the landlord system. Moreover, no demands hinting at an out and out opposition to the landlord system are evident in the proposed reform program (p’yej?ng kaehy?kan) prepared by the leadership behind the large-scale rebellion known as the Tonghak Peasants’ War of 1894. Rather, much like had been the case in the Kaes?ng Uprising, the demands related to the reform of the land system raised by the peasant soldiers were geared towards the solid entrenchment of the private ownership system. Meanwhile, one finds almost no instances in which actual anti-foreign power related demands were raised during the type of collective struggle known as an uprising. While the possibility of Japanese merchants infringing on the interests of Kaes?ng merchants can be understood as the main rationale for the inclusion of Article 15, “Any person who rents out his residence to a Japanese national shall have their home destroyed,” no lingering sense of outright belligerence toward Japanese merchants was recorded. Moreover, no objections to Japanese power were raised during the first Tonghak Peasants Uprising. To this end, it was only during the second uprising that the movement took on an anti-Japanese character, a denouement which was in large part motivated by the Japanese military’s attempt to seize Ky?ngbokkung Palace. As mentioned above, the only popular uprising from 1894 to 1910 other than the Tonghak Peasants’ War in which demands related to land ownership or to an opposition to a foreign power were made was the Kaes?ng Uprising. In addition, a closer look at these demands reveals that they in fact had little to do with out and out opposition to the landlord system or foreign powers. These points have the effect of calling into question the prevailing perception of the people (minjung) during the transition towards the modern era as both the main actors in bringing about reform and the flag-bearers of the efforts to resolve Chos?n’s feudal and national contradictions.

동학농민군의 <무장기포>와 <무장포고문>에 대한 이해의 변천과정 고찰

배항섭(Bae, Hang-seob) 호서사학회 2016 역사와 담론 Vol.0 No.79

〈茂長起包〉와 〈茂長布告文〉에 대해서는 농민전쟁 당시 혹은 직후부터 그 사정을 정확하게 알려주는 자료들이 적지 않았다. 그러나 이러한 자료들이 본격적으로 발굴된 것은 해방 이후, 특히 동학농민전쟁 100주년에 즈음하여 자료에 대한 대대적인 자료 발굴, 조사가 이루어지면서부터였다. 식민지 시대에 들어 ‘근대적’ 방법에 의한 역사연구가 시작되면서 고부민란과 농민전쟁을 분리하여 이해하려는 연구가 나오기 시작하였고, 대부분의 연구자들이 <무장포고문>의 내용을 인용하기 시작하였다. 그러나 <무장기포>나 <무장포고문>이 무장에서 일어난 일임을 확인하기까지는 오랜 시간이 필요했다. 특히 흥미로운 것은 다보하시 기요시의 연구(1940) 이후 <무장포고문>의 발포장소와 시기가 무장인 것으로 이해하기 시작하였으나, 그 시기가 3월 20일이 아니라, 4월 7일 황토현 전투에서 승리한 농민군이 정읍, 흥덕, 고창을 거쳐 4월 9일 무장을 재차 점령한 이후라는 주장이 많은 연구자들에 의해 매우 오래 동안 받아들여졌다는 점이다. <무장기포>와 <무장포고문>에 대한 정확한 이해는 한우근의 선구적 연구를 거쳐 신용하에 의해 이루어졌다. 물론 현재에도 이와 다른 주장을 제기하는 연구자들이 없지 않으나, 활용하는 자료나 논지의 전개 면에서 설득력이 있는 것으로 보이지는 않는다. Data informing the situation accurately for 〈the Mujang uprising〉 and 〈Mujang declaration〉 at time of Peasants’ War or immediately after that were not a little. But, what these data have been excavated was by the 1970s after the liberation, especially lots of new data have been known as the extensive data excavation and investigation for these data on the occasion of the 100<SUP>th</SUP>anniversary of Donghak Peasants War. The research aiming to separated and understand the Gobu riot and Peasants War started to come out as the research of history by the modern method is commenced when it enters the colonial era, most or researchers started to quote the content of 〈Mujang declaration〉. But it needed a long time to identify that 〈the Mujang uprising〉 or 〈Mujang declaration〉 occurred in Mujang. Especially, what is interesting is that the time is not March 20, even though the firing place and time of Mujang declaration started to be understood Mujang after the research of Dabohashi Giyoshi, it is the point that the assertion that is after Mujang is occupied again in April 9 as the Peasant army having won the Hwangtohyun battle in April 7 passing through Jeongeup, Heungduk and Kochang has been accepted by lots of researchers for a long time. The accurate understanding for 〈the Mujang uprising〉 and 〈Mujang declaration〉 has been realized passing through the pioneering research of Woo Keun HAN. Of course, even though it isn’t that there are no researchers raising the different assertion at present, it doesn’t seem to have the persuasive power in the aspect of data to be utilized or deployment of point.

1893년 동학교도와 大院君의 擧兵 企圖

배항섭(Bae Hang-seob) 고려사학회 2002 한국사학보 Vol.- No.12

19세기를 바라보는 시각

배항섭(Bae Hang-seob) 역사비평사 2012 역사비평 Vol.- No.101

This writing will critically review ‘19th century crisis theory’ recently suggested by economic history academia. ‘19th century crisis theory’ finds out the main factors of its crisis from low standard of living and the crisis of survival due to decreasing of land productivity and population decrease. The crisis was enough to destroy itself without suffering aggression by foreign powers in 19th century of the Joseon Dynasty period. This thought about 19th century completely criticizes the beginning of the capitalism theory that argues late Joseon had the factors of aiming modern era and directly relates to modernizing colony theory that argues political/economical management and transplant of modern capitalism done by Japan made 19th century crisis overcome and real modern economy start. This writing will use recent studies to reveal that ‘19th century crisis theory’ is non-exist or exaggerated, and point out its foundation is strong belief, Euro-centrism/Moderno-centrism.

한말 일제하 李鍾浩의 교육활동과 항일운동

배항섭(Bae Hang-Seob) 한국인물사연구소 2008 한국인물사연구 Vol.9 No.-

Lee Jong-ho(1887~1932) was an educator and anti-Japan fighter in Late Chosun Dynasty and Japanese Imperialism Period. He had in actual fact run the Bosung College(普成專門學校) which his grandfather Lee, Yong-ik(李用翊) had already founded in 1905. From 1907 when Lee, Yong-ik had passed away, he inaugurated as the second proprietor of the college. Also, besides the Bosung College and elementary and middle schools, he established and managed many different types of schools. He had been arousing national and anti-japanese consciousness to a lot of students throughout many schools as well as the Bosung College. On the other hand, he carried out a variety of patriotic enlightenment movements(愛國啓蒙運動) and anti-japanese movements within the country. Roots of his scholarship activities were the patriotism with priority given to “Self-existence(自尊), Self-respect(自重), Self-confidence(自信), Self-lover(自愛)”. By starting from these ideas, he leaded a diversity of academic activities such as Hanbook-heunghakhoi(漢北興學會) and Seubookhakhoi(西北學會). Moreover, he had the intimate relations with Korean independence movement activists in Vladivostok, the Maritime Province of Siberia, Russia and gave aids with direct and indirect ways. In January, 1908, he introduced the editorial writers to the activists of Vladivostok, concerning in foundation process of Heijosinmun(海朝新聞). Mter 1907 when he joined Sinminhei(新民會), he was attracted by armed campaigns and in 1908 supported the money for weapons of Lee, beum-yoon's justice troops in Vladivostok. These activities had been kept under observation of Japanese imperialism. In 1909 he cast into prison because after An, joong-geun had killed Ito, Hirobumi(伊藤博文), he was pointed out as the wirepuller. Released from prison, he made the determination to install a military academy and the independence movement bases with Sinminhei's executives abroad, and in April, 1910, exiled himself through China to Vladivostok. As might be expected, also in this place, he played a leading role in the anti-Japanese movements such as organizing Kwonuphei(勸業會) and issuing Kwonupsinmun(勸業新聞)

`근대이행기`의 민중의식: `근대`와` 반근대`의 너머 ―토지소유 및 매매관습에 대한 인식을 중심으로

배항섭 ( Bae Hang Seob ) 역사문제연구소 2010 역사문제연구 Vol.14 No.1

Previous studies which had dealt with the people`s perception of certain issues during the so-called `period of transformation into modernity` have been presenting two different stances that existed in that time period. Some of the scholars presented an aspect of the people`s attitude which they recognized as “aspiring for modernity,” while the others suggested `another` kind of stance that was exhibited by the people of the time as they considered such stance to be “standing against modernity.” These are clearly two different points of view, yet at the same time they share a certain level of similarity as well, in terms of no other than their equally `transcendental` nature in their viewing of history. In fact, they have both been basing their points of view upon certain premises, such as “the world history tends to exhibit a universal nature, regardless of the differences among regions,” or “the world tends to share, similar historical experiences.” In this article, the people`s perspectives that were reflected in their lives during the period of `transformation into modernity,` are examined through traditional customs and conventional practices which existed at the time with relation to certain issues such as land ownership and transaction of those lands. Such approach was conceived as an empirical approach to the reality of this time period, and hopefully it could provide some insights to the situation, which must have had an internal driving force behind it. The people`s perspectives were never free from the ruling structure & ideology or laws & institutions, and they were also pretty much formed upon the basis of customary practices and culture, derived from the very lives of people. In that regard, it should be noted that the Joseon dynasty and its society already had a working land ownership structure accompanied by a landlord system, which was well established in legal and customary terms and also very similar in its exclusiveness to a modern style land ownership system. The Joseon society also had a time-honored custom of freely trading those lands. This was indeed a unique situation, considering the entire history of the world, and it must have had a profound influence upon the people`s perspective of viewing things, especially in the period of transformation into modernity. For a long time, the people had hopes for equal distribution(`均分`) of lands, and the intellectuals also made such cause one of their pressing priorities in their reform suggestions. Yet, the people were not able to demand the landlord system to be brought down permanently, even after they staged violent insurrections and waged full-scale peasant wars. Instead, in their demands delivered to the government during the Dong`hak Peasant war, they only demanded that land be owned freely by people. And at the same time, the Peasant army also contemplated upon the idea of abolishing private ownership of lands, and having people cultivate them in an equal and equitable fashion. This was not an idea that depended upon traditional customs or conventional practices. It was an idea that based itself upon the old school thinking that believed “all lands belonged to the king(`王土思想`).” It was far from being a modernized thought. This kind of position featured by the people during the period of transformation into modernity, reflected in their arguments and perceptions regarding land ownership reforms, shall not be categorized neither as “aspiring for modernity” nor “opposing modernity.” It had much more to do with the land ownership structure and the customs of transaction that had earlier been established in the latter half period of the Joseon dynasty.