What is “Punku Tomb”? Lee Sung Joo(2000) is the first researcher to introduce the concept of Punku Tomb. According to him, Punku Tomb refers to the tomb with a unique construction method that appeared in the Yayoi Period in Japan. Here the “uniq...
http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
https://www.riss.kr/link?id=T15069328
청주 : 충북대학교, 2019
학위논문(석사)-- 충북대학교 일반대학원 : 고고미술사학과 고고학전공 2019. 2
2019
한국어
911.0025 판사항(5)
충청북도
A Study on the Dajang Punku Tombs of Proto Three Kingdoms ∼ Three Kingdoms Period West Coast of Korea
ix,88 p. : 삽화, 표 ; 26 cm.
충북대학교 논문은 저작권에 의해 보호됩니다.
지도교수:성정용
참고문헌 : p.85-87
I804:43009-000000051901
0
상세조회0
다운로드다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)
What is “Punku Tomb”? Lee Sung Joo(2000) is the first researcher to introduce the concept of Punku Tomb. According to him, Punku Tomb refers to the tomb with a unique construction method that appeared in the Yayoi Period in Japan. Here the “uniq...
What is “Punku Tomb”? Lee Sung Joo(2000) is the first researcher to introduce the concept of Punku Tomb. According to him, Punku Tomb refers to the tomb with a unique construction method that appeared in the Yayoi Period in Japan. Here the “unique construction method” refers to the method in which the burial mound is constructed first and then the person to be buried is buried in it unlike the “grave mound” which refers to the method in which the person to be buried is buried first and then the burial mound is covered. The background to the introduction of these terms is that although the tombs with a similar construction method to the Punku Tomb of the Yayoi Period were mostly found around the Hoseo and Honam regions, there was no agreement as to the terms referring to them.
This argument could draw a tacit nod of approval from many researchers in the academic world at the time that there was not much data stored regarding Punku Tomb. However, at this point in time when enough data has been accumulated, researchers have mixed opinions on the argument.
The controversial issue is whether we can equate the cases referred to as Punku Tomb in the Hoseo and Honam regions with the construction method of Punku Tomb in the Yayoi Period. The researchers who advocate the introduction of the concept of Punku Tomb believe that the above-mentioned “unique construction method” does exist in the Punku Tomb of the Hoseo and Honam regions. On the other hand, there are other researchers who disagree with these researchers based on the fact that it is hard to distinguish between “Punku Tomb” and “grave mound.”
This article is written from the perspective of a critical agreement with the former. The reason for criticism is that, according to the critics of Punku Tomb, the historical justice of Punku Tomb cannot be accomplished any more that presupposes “a unique construction method,” and that, therefore, the reexamination of the recognition of mounded burial is inevitable. However, the author is different from the naysayers, who replace mounded burial with the existing terms, i.e., “wooden coffin burial” or “old burial mound” for this reason, in that even the cases in which the distinction between “mounded burial” and “grave mound” is difficult are included in the scope of mounded burial. Then what are the cases of the tombs that are located on the borders of “mounded burial” and “grave mound”?
Some in the academic world recognize these cases of the tombs as “Jugumyo (enclosed burial)” or “Gwanchang-ri type.” “Jugu” is similar to a ditch and, therefore, Jugumyo refers to the cases of tombs with only the ditches left in which Togwang, or the space where the person to be buried was buried, does not exit (or it may include the cases in which the shallow depth of Togwang remains). For this reason, there are two conflicting positions. Thus far, it has been dominant to naturally regard the person buried as not remaining when the burial mound was lost as the person buried had been buried in the burial mound. However, a counterargument on this has been set forth recently. Lee Nam Seok (2011), Han Ok-min (2016) et al. believe that the space in which the person to be buried is buried is not in the burial mound but in the compacted layer (soil compaction), which is different from the so-called “burial mound.” Therefore, the difference between these two originates from the difference in understanding of the structure prepared for the person to be buried. However, in this article, we pay attention to the intent of pulling the burial facilities above the ground rather than the differentiation of burial mound (The reasons that only the shallow depth of Togwang remains or Togwang does not remain at all are not irrelevant to this.). The author thinks that the difference between the method in which the person to be buried is buried in a pit without an additional compacted layer and the method in which the person to be buried is buried after the compacted layer is constructed lies in whether this intent existed or not. After all, mounded burial can be said to refer to the tombs whose vertical positions of burial facilities are in the semi-basement or on the ground, which leads to the dialectical approach to why the tombs appear that naturally reflect this intention.
Kim Nak Jung (2009) argued that the reason the position of burial facilities appeared on the ground may have something to do with the appearance of “multiple burials.” “Multiple burials” refer to the burial methods in which many people are buried in a tomb. The argument is persuasive in that mounded burial obviously has a favorable structure than grave mound.
Kim Seung-og (2011) mentioned the three elements of mounded burial: 1) a ditch, 2) a unique construction method and 3) multiple burials. This argument is significant in that mounded burial is a three-dimensional structure and at the same time is a cultural product and that it cannot be defined as a phenomenon alone.
The common denominators between these two researchers are multiple burials and the unique phenomenon in which pulling the burial facilities above the ground appears in mounded burial, which can be an element that constitutes the identity of mounded burial.
Eventually while we are solving clues to the issue of mounded burial, we will get to the task of defining the reality of “multiple burials.” The author aims to take solving this task as the theme of this article. The process for solving the task consists of two steps: The first is to introduce a hypothesis that the methods for burying the person to be buried vary depending on the region. The second is to verify the hypothesis. Research results confirm that the difference in burial methods is determined by the two elements: The rank of the person to be buried and the appearance of the burial mound. For example, the square mounded burial and the trapezoidal mounded burial have different arrangements of the person to be buried, respectively.
Defining the meaning of multiple burials by taking these steps is expected to be another groundbreaking achievement that differentiates the borders of mounded burial and other tomb types.
목차 (Table of Contents)