지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Currently we have over 360 articles and books devoted to the research of Buyeo history and published in South and North Korea, China and Japan. In this article, the task of properly reviewing them overall is attempted. Three main points mentioned here are as following:
First, Buyeo and Northern Buyeo, being the same entity as have been usually considered, emerged in the Jilin city, Jilin Province of China roughly during the early Qin dynasty period. Later it moved its heartland westward to the Nongan area, and fell there at the end of the 5th century. On the other hand, the Eastern Buyeo was found later assumably in the region of the Duman(Tumen) river basin.
But regarding the location of the royal palace at the beginning, this author has an idea different from the existing theories. It is commonly said that, especially in China, Dongtuanshan and Nanchengzi fortresses constituted the royal palace area, which was also referred to as the Noksan(deer hill) region. But considering the historical records, and in this researcher's opinion, the area should be considered merely the 'Namsan'(the Southern hill). And we should search for the region where the royal palace might have been located, in the Northern region of the Namsan mountain instead.
Secondly, some researchers consider the archaeological sites Xichagou and Cailan to be the remains of the Buyeo people, as they also considered the middle layer of the Laoheshen site and Maoershan Tombs to be as such as well. But I believe that those were left by the Wuhuan race who resided in the Liaodong region, and not by the Buyeo people.
Thirdly, the Baijinbao Culture, or the second term of the Hanshu culture, distributed across the Nun river basin is also commonly regarded in China as the remains of Tangniguk, the country from which the founder of Buyeo came. But with only some limited archaeological resemblance to the Buyeo culture, we can not confirm any specific occurrence of a historical event. We could only acknowledge that the resemblance does reflect the existence of certain cultural exchanges.
First, Buyeo and Northern Buyeo, being the same entity as have been usually considered, emerged in the Jilin city, Jilin Province of China roughly during the early Qin dynasty period. Later it moved its heartland westward to the Nongan area, and fell there at the end of the 5th century. On the other hand, the Eastern Buyeo was found later assumably in the region of the Duman(Tumen) river basin.
But regarding the location of the royal palace at the beginning, this author has an idea different from the existing theories. It is commonly said that, especially in China, Dongtuanshan and Nanchengzi fortresses constituted the royal palace area, which was also referred to as the Noksan(deer hill) region. But considering the historical records, and in this researcher's opinion, the area should be considered merely the 'Namsan'(the Southern hill). And we should search for the region where the royal palace might have been located, in the Northern region of the Namsan mountain instead.
Secondly, some researchers consider the archaeological sites Xichagou and Cailan to be the remains of the Buyeo people, as they also considered the middle layer of the Laoheshen site and Maoershan Tombs to be as such as well. But I believe that those were left by the Wuhuan race who resided in the Liaodong region, and not by the Buyeo people.
Thirdly, the Baijinbao Culture, or the second term of the Hanshu culture, distributed across the Nun river basin is also commonly regarded in China as the remains of Tangniguk, the country from which the founder of Buyeo came. But with only some limited archaeological resemblance to the Buyeo culture, we can not confirm any specific occurrence of a historical event. We could only acknowledge that the resemblance does reflect the existence of certain cultural exchanges.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 扶餘와 北扶餘, 東扶餘
Ⅲ. 扶餘文化와 先扶餘文化
Ⅳ. 맺음말
<참고 : 표 2와 표 3에 인용된 논문 목록>
Abstract
참고문헌 (15)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
中國의 夫餘史 認識과 硏究現況 檢討
고구려발해연구
2007 .09
-
高句麗의 夫餘 出源에 관한 認識의 變遷
고구려발해연구
2007 .06
-
일제강점기 일본인에 의한 扶餘位相의 提高 努力에 대한 考察
문화와 예술연구
2019 .01
-
부여·고구려 건국신화의 계통과 형성과정 : 『三國遺事』 북부여조 인용 ‘古記’에 대한 분석을 실마리로 하여
동북아역사논총
2011 .12
-
부여의 天下觀 小考
사학연구
2008 .06
-
백제와 부여의 계승성 여부에 대한 검토
동북아역사논총
2018 .09
-
『後漢書』 「東夷列傳」 〈夫餘國傳〉 분석
문화사학
2004 .06
-
三國의 相互關係를 通해 본 高句麗 正體性
고구려발해연구
2004 .12
-
고구려본기의 부여 관계 기사와 ‘동부여’의 실체
사학연구
2019 .12
-
조남익 시 연구
어문연구
2010 .01
-
부여 초기 및 전기왕성에 대한 고고학적 검토
동양학
2016 .01
-
위진남북조시기 중국의 코리안 디아스포라 : 고조선 · 고구려 · 부여계 이주민 집단 연구
한국사학보
2018 .08
-
The names for dog in the modern Turkic languages
알타이학보
2013 .01
-
『三國史記』 百濟本紀의 溫祚傳承과 沸流傳承
역사와 담론
2015 .01
-
발해 거란도 노선 연구
고구려발해연구
2018 .03
-
扶餘八景의 詩的 形象
어문연구
2005 .01
-
일제하 부여지역 동족마을의 농민운동 연구
역사와 담론
2002 .09
-
부여 석목리 143-16번지 유적 문자자료 소개
목간과문자
2019 .06
-
일제 식민지 상황에서의 부여(扶餘) 고적에 대한 재해석과 "관광명소" 화
비교문화연구
2003 .07
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-911-001504908