RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      중국 고대문명 연구 100년: 쟁점과 전망 = One Hundred Years in the Studies of Early Chinese Civilization: Issues and Prospect

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A108660872

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      This study reviews the scholarship of early Chinese civilization since the 1900s focusing on the keywords of “regionalism” and the “doubting or believing antiquity.” The two issues, perhaps more substantially than any other regions, seem to be rooted on particular historical conditions inherent in China such as the dominance of antiquarianism and the celebrated traditional scholarship as well as being a response to the Western impact.
      Chinese archaeologists’ long-term endeavor to disprove the Western origins of Chinese civilization argued by Johan G. Anderson in the 1920s marks the transition to Sinocentric regionalism, which was propelled by the growth of indigenous scholarship, from Eurocentric regionalism. As represented by Su Bingqi’s “regional systems and cultural types” (quxileixing 區系類型) and K.C. Chang’s “Chinese interaction sphere,” the new regionalism results in a contradiction between the centrifugalism prevalent in the multiregional Neolithic archaeology built on current Chinese territory and the centripetalism ingrained deeply in traditional Chinese historiography. While Chinese scholars tend to reconcile the pluralistic phenomena into the monolithic linear trajectory, Western scholars gives more stress on muitiregional trajectories.
      Another methodological dispute on the authenticity of early Chinese texts underlies these controversies. It was the “doubting antiquity” (yigu 疑古) theorized by Gu Jiegang in 1920s following Tominaga Nakamoto, Cui Shu and Shiratori Kurakichi’s lead that took the studies of early Chinese civilization in the 20th century by storm. But the new archaeological discoveries since the late 20th century, including the Chu bamboo slips, led Chinese scholars to revisit the doubting antiquity discourse to the extent that in the 1990s, Li Xueqin urged to “step out of the doubting antiquity.” This declaration has affected the current trend of “believing antiquity” in Chinese academia. More and more influential Chinese-American scholars further seem to have reshuffled the academia in the West, which was previously in exclusive support of “doubting antiquity.” Especially, it is expected that the revisionist approach overcoming the extreme of doubting or believing antiquity both in China and the West will open a new vista in the studies of early Chinese civilization.
      번역하기

      This study reviews the scholarship of early Chinese civilization since the 1900s focusing on the keywords of “regionalism” and the “doubting or believing antiquity.” The two issues, perhaps more substantially than any other regions, seem to be...

      This study reviews the scholarship of early Chinese civilization since the 1900s focusing on the keywords of “regionalism” and the “doubting or believing antiquity.” The two issues, perhaps more substantially than any other regions, seem to be rooted on particular historical conditions inherent in China such as the dominance of antiquarianism and the celebrated traditional scholarship as well as being a response to the Western impact.
      Chinese archaeologists’ long-term endeavor to disprove the Western origins of Chinese civilization argued by Johan G. Anderson in the 1920s marks the transition to Sinocentric regionalism, which was propelled by the growth of indigenous scholarship, from Eurocentric regionalism. As represented by Su Bingqi’s “regional systems and cultural types” (quxileixing 區系類型) and K.C. Chang’s “Chinese interaction sphere,” the new regionalism results in a contradiction between the centrifugalism prevalent in the multiregional Neolithic archaeology built on current Chinese territory and the centripetalism ingrained deeply in traditional Chinese historiography. While Chinese scholars tend to reconcile the pluralistic phenomena into the monolithic linear trajectory, Western scholars gives more stress on muitiregional trajectories.
      Another methodological dispute on the authenticity of early Chinese texts underlies these controversies. It was the “doubting antiquity” (yigu 疑古) theorized by Gu Jiegang in 1920s following Tominaga Nakamoto, Cui Shu and Shiratori Kurakichi’s lead that took the studies of early Chinese civilization in the 20th century by storm. But the new archaeological discoveries since the late 20th century, including the Chu bamboo slips, led Chinese scholars to revisit the doubting antiquity discourse to the extent that in the 1990s, Li Xueqin urged to “step out of the doubting antiquity.” This declaration has affected the current trend of “believing antiquity” in Chinese academia. More and more influential Chinese-American scholars further seem to have reshuffled the academia in the West, which was previously in exclusive support of “doubting antiquity.” Especially, it is expected that the revisionist approach overcoming the extreme of doubting or believing antiquity both in China and the West will open a new vista in the studies of early Chinese civilization.

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼