민족국가 형성과 영토분쟁에서 고고학의 역할 - 독일과 폴란드의 사례를 중심으로 -
Characteristics and Meaning of Nation-state Examined Through Archaeology
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
For establishing national territory and identity, this study came from the sense of purpose with regard to archaeological interpretation of that ‘how did the nation get created, and how was aspect of changes?’. This topic is linked to overall changes in fundamental view on history that Europe had changed the modern nation. While nationalism had a significant impact on archaeology, western modern nations set the academic fundaments of archaeology. Thus, in addition to formation of nation, archeological knowledge was accumulated. However, archaeology had developed in European countries since 19th century, and its aspects that had connection with real-politic vary from country to country. Therefore, in this study, by looking at development process of archaeology for each nation, we have discussed on when and how archaeology played political role during rising period for nationalism of modern nation, and how processes had been developed archaeology until now. As a result, we found that nation-states examined by archaeology have advanced under many measures – politics, propaganda, museum - that are able to connect to archaeology in the situation of formation of nation, the later territorial conflicts, and etc. European cases, focusing on Germany and Poland, have a strong tendency to provide identity for certain artifact or historical monuments and are considered important on account of the fact that territorial disputes meshing with World War I and II reflected many factors to form archaeological theories and methodologies under nationalistic elements. Of course, these are not a perfectly ethnic classification, but a classification of people who were living there at that time. Therefore, the role of archaeologists is to analyze and approach whether there are national boundaries or not.
Abstract
For establishing national territory and identity, this study came from the sense of purpose with regard to archaeological interpretation of that ‘how did the nation get created, and how was aspect of changes?’. This topic is linked to overall changes in fundamental view on history that Europe had changed the modern nation. While nationalism had a significant impact on archaeology, western modern nations set the academic fundaments of archaeology. Thus, in addition to formation of nation, archeological knowledge was accumulated. However, archaeology had developed in European countries since 19th century, and its aspects that had connection with real-politic vary from country to country. Therefore, in this study, by looking at development process of archaeology for each nation, we have discussed on when and how archaeology played political role during rising period for nationalism of modern nation, and how processes had been developed archaeology until now. As a result, we found that nation-states examined by archaeology have advanced under many measures – politics, propaganda, museum - that are able to connect to archaeology in the situation of formation of nation, the later territorial conflicts, and etc. European cases, focusing on Germany and Poland, have a strong tendency to provide identity for certain artifact or historical monuments and are considered important on account of the fact that territorial disputes meshing with World War I and II reflected many factors to form archaeological theories and methodologies under nationalistic elements. Of course, these are not a perfectly ethnic classification, but a classification of people who were living there at that time. Therefore, the role of archaeologists is to analyze and approach whether there are national boundaries or not.
참고문헌 (30)
- 곤도 다카히로, "역사교과서의 대화" (2006), 역사비평사
- 김명아, "민주주의 이행기의 민족 정체성과 정치제도의 제약 : 리투아니아와 에스토니아 사례 비교연구", 석사, 정치외교학과, pp.2013
- 김승렬, "유럽의 영토 분쟁과 역사분쟁" (2008), 동북아역사재단
- 김종일, "“계층 사회와 분지배자의 출현”을 넘어서", 한국고고학보, (63), pp.150~176 (2007), 한국고고학회
- 김종일, "고고학 자료의 역사학적 해석에 대한 비판적 고찰", 한국고대사연구, (52), pp.91~116 (2008), 한국고대사학회
- 김종일, "한국 초기 및 고대국가 성립에 관한 비교사적 검토 - 한국과 유럽의 사례를 중심으로 -", 동북아역사논총, (33), pp.207~249 (2011), 동북아역사재단
- 베네딕트 앤더슨, "상상의 공동체 - 민족주의의 기원과 전파에 대한 성찰 -" (2002), 나남
- 시안 존스, "민족주의와 고고학" (2008), 사회평론
- 이보아, "문화재의 원산국으로의 반환에 대한 고찰", 비교문화연구 (1999)
- 이성주, "토기제작의 技術革新과 生産體系" (2015), 학연문화사
- 임지현, "민족주의와 역사교과서: 역사 갈등을 보는 다양한 시각" (2005), 에디터
- 장문석, "민족주의 길들이기" (2008), 지식의 풍경
- 정규영, "이집트 문화재의 반환 가능성에 관한 연구", 지중해지역연구, 9(1), pp.227~248 (2007), 지중해지역원
- 조대연, "고고학 자료를 이용한 근대 민족국가의 과거 재구성 - 유럽의 사례를 중심으로", 제41회 한국상고사학회 학술발표대회 : 신화의 역사화 (2014), 한국상고사학회
- 최대석, "유럽의 중앙, 리투아니아" (2010), 재승출판
- 콜린 렌프류, "현대 고고학의 이해" (2004), 사회평론
- Abramowicz, A., "Historia archeologii polskiej" (1991), Institute history Kultury, Materialnej PAN
- Arnold, B., "The past as propaganda: totalitarian archaeologyy in Nazi Germany", Antiquity, 64 (1990)
- Childe, V. G., "The Danube in Prehistory" (1929), Clarendon
- Chlebowczyk, J., "Procesy narodotwórcze we wschodniej Europie Środkowej w dobie kapitalizmu" (1975), Państwowe Wydawn. Naukowe
- Chapman, T., "The Congress of Vienna 1814-1815" (1998), Routledge
- Diaz-Andreu, "Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe" (1996), UCL Press
- Jane Lydon, "Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology" (2010), Left Coast Press
- Kristiansen, K., "Chiefdoms: Power, Economy and Ideology" (1992), Cambridge University Press
- Kohl P, L, "Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology" (1995), Cambridge University Press
- Kossinna, G, "Die Herkunft der Germanen" (1911), Kabitzsch
- Building National Museums in Europe 1750-2010, "Peter Aronsson", ~, pp.Eunamu Report No.1 (WP2) (2011)
- Trigger, B., "Alternative archaeologies : Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist", ~ (1984)
- Trigger, B, "A history of archaeological thought" (1989), Cambride University Press
- Zak, J., "Slowianie i Germanie w prahistorii polskiej i niemieckiej" (1974), Instytut Zachodni