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
This review concerns two important books on urban history of Seoul in the Joseon dynasty, both of which were recently published. Four points will be discussed focusing Koh's book, which is the newer of the two studies.
First, the process of designating and developing Hanyang(漢陽) as capital of Joseon. While Yoshida argued that Hanyang was designated as capital based on a single idea of feng-shui(風水) and developed as a dukedom-scale city, Koh pointed out there was a more complex process of assignment and development of Hanyang than Yoshida implied and argued multiple ideas set the course of building the new capital. The roadblock to discussing this point further is the fact that the concerned documents are limited, so inventing new methodology is needed.
Second, Koh revised the figures of census executed during the Joseon dynasty and the Japanese colonialist rule, and presented the trend in population in Seoul in the late Joseon dynasty. The work itself of revising existing figures based new developments is significant. However, the objectivity of the basis Koh used for working on these figures can leave rooms for doubt.
Third, Koh portrayed Seoul of the late Joseon dynasty as a modern city and its residents as modern urbanites, using a variety of documentation and literature. In a word, he depicted Seoul of that period as a more fluid state of urban community moved by wealth rather than strictly restricted by medieval ideals or a status system. However, his analysis is limited within the seventeenth and eighteenth century time frame.
Fourth, Among the administrative units of Seoul administrative system during the late Joseon dynasty, Koh focused on bang(坊), while Yoshida stressed the importance of dong(洞). Koh argued that bang(坊), which was a unit of mobilizing labor by the state, gradually settled as a administrative unit. On the other hand, Yoshida said dong, which was evolved from alley(golmokgil), became a community unit of residents. Difference between the two studies arise from the fact that Koh's analysis focused on the seventeenth and eighteenth century, while Yoshida's the late nineteenth century. Therefore, these two studies can complement each other.
Lastly, there are two essential issues besides four points discussed remaining unanswered: first, the nineteenth century Joseon remained not studied for urban studies, and second, Seoul had too many unique features to be regarded and analyzed as a mere region.
First, the process of designating and developing Hanyang(漢陽) as capital of Joseon. While Yoshida argued that Hanyang was designated as capital based on a single idea of feng-shui(風水) and developed as a dukedom-scale city, Koh pointed out there was a more complex process of assignment and development of Hanyang than Yoshida implied and argued multiple ideas set the course of building the new capital. The roadblock to discussing this point further is the fact that the concerned documents are limited, so inventing new methodology is needed.
Second, Koh revised the figures of census executed during the Joseon dynasty and the Japanese colonialist rule, and presented the trend in population in Seoul in the late Joseon dynasty. The work itself of revising existing figures based new developments is significant. However, the objectivity of the basis Koh used for working on these figures can leave rooms for doubt.
Third, Koh portrayed Seoul of the late Joseon dynasty as a modern city and its residents as modern urbanites, using a variety of documentation and literature. In a word, he depicted Seoul of that period as a more fluid state of urban community moved by wealth rather than strictly restricted by medieval ideals or a status system. However, his analysis is limited within the seventeenth and eighteenth century time frame.
Fourth, Among the administrative units of Seoul administrative system during the late Joseon dynasty, Koh focused on bang(坊), while Yoshida stressed the importance of dong(洞). Koh argued that bang(坊), which was a unit of mobilizing labor by the state, gradually settled as a administrative unit. On the other hand, Yoshida said dong, which was evolved from alley(golmokgil), became a community unit of residents. Difference between the two studies arise from the fact that Koh's analysis focused on the seventeenth and eighteenth century, while Yoshida's the late nineteenth century. Therefore, these two studies can complement each other.
Lastly, there are two essential issues besides four points discussed remaining unanswered: first, the nineteenth century Joseon remained not studied for urban studies, and second, Seoul had too many unique features to be regarded and analyzed as a mere region.
목차
1. 한국 도시사 연구가 선 자리
2. 두 저작에 나타난 조선시대 도시사의 몇 가지 논점
3. 남아 있는 문제와 앞으로의 전망
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
중국소설 《西遊記》 번역본의 조선후기 유통에 관한 연구 : 영남대 소장 번역필사본을 중심으로
중국어문논역총간
2017 .01
-
조선후기 刀劒 素材 科擧 答案사례에 대한 一考察 -｢劒策問｣과 ｢劒對策文｣을 중심으로-
동방한문학
2020 .01
-
The Nature of Seoul’s Modern Urban Development during the 18th and 19th Centuries
Korea Journal
1995 .09
-
[조선후기] 팽창, 다양화, 모색 : 2009~2010 조선후기사 연구 동향
역사학보
2011 .09
-
Characteristics of Agricultural Techniques in 18th and 19th Century Joseon Dynasty
Korea Journal
2003 .03
-
조선시대 한양의 수도성 : 도시의 위계와 공간표현을 중심으로
역사학보
2011 .03
-
朝鮮 初期 中國語 通譯 發展 背景에 관한 硏究 －≪朝鮮王朝實錄≫의 記錄을 中心으로－
중국어문학
2015 .01
-
한국 도시사 연구동향 : 고려 개경과 조선 한양을 중심으로
역사학보
2010 .09
-
Distinctive Characteristics of the Joseon Dynasty’s Fiscal Policy in the Nineteenth Century
Korea Journal
2007 .06
-
開港前朝鮮知識份子對西洋地理的認知與考辨 : 以李圭景(1788‐1865年)和其《五洲衍文長箋散稿》為研究中心
동서인문
2014 .10
-
Seoul at the Beginning of the 20th Century : Urban Development Based on Western Models
Korea Journal
1999 .09
-
한국사에서의 수도 집중
한국사연구
2006 .09
-
[조선전기] 조선전기사 : 연구의 집적과 쟁점의 부각
역사학보
2011 .09
-
조선 전기 패설 연구의 성과와 방향
동방한문학
2019 .01
-
What is Seoul for Us?
Korea Journal
1994 .09
-
고려ㆍ조선시대의 역사의식과 문화정체성론
韓國史學史學報
2004 .01
-
申翊聖의 金剛山 遊記를 통해 본朝鮮 後期 遊記의 文體的 多變化
한국한문학연구
2020 .01
-
환웅, 삼조선과 부여ㆍ고구려ㆍ요ㆍ금ㆍ원ㆍ청의 계보 : 지식형태사에 입각한 한국과 방계의 역사
고조선단군학
2007 .06
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-911-018481006