박사
- 저자 안춘배
- 시대 삼국
- 학술지명
- 페이지 408p
- 학위수여기관 동아대학교
- 학위논문사항 사학과
- 발행지역 부산
- 발행년도 1993
초록(영문)
This research aims to further the study of Kaya history and other unsowed questions concerning Kaya culture by archaeological analysis of earthenware objects and other materials of the Kaya period. The states of Kaya played an important role in the history of early state formation in ancient Korea, together with the kingdoms of Koguryo, Silla and Paekche. The study of Kaya is particularly important for examining links between Korea and Japan during the ancient period. Despite the importance of Kaya within the framework of ancient Korean history, the study of Kaya remains the most incomplete area of research. There are a number of reasons for the academic on activity in misfield. One of the main reasons is the lack of documentary materials concerning Kaya. In the study of ancient Korean history, when researching into the Neolithic or Bronze Age, it is permissible to base ones the one's on archaeological data, However, from the emergence of early state formation, at around the beginning of the first millenium A.D., we enter the historical period. At this point in Korean history, fragmentary historical records tell of the development of numerous small states. This documentary material is, however, too scant to give a substantial view of the historical circumstances. It is by examining archaeological materials that we are able to discern differences in common objects and thereby to recognize the existence of reigional cultures. However when it is necessary to rely solely on archaeological materials for analytical purposes, it is very difficult to as certain chronological time phases. In the history of Kaya, with its scant literary documentation which does not clarify the time of the emergence of the Kaya states, it is not only difficult to pinpoint the beginning of the Kaya states historically, but in view of the small amount of literary documentation actually related to Kaya, the story of Kaya is almost on a par with a pre-historic field of research. Thus research into Korean archaeology which aims to re-construct Kaya history is very different from similar fields where there is an abundance of relased written documents. In a situation where archaeological materials can be related to a specific historical period for precise dating, then the archaeological data supports of compliments the historical facts, However in fields of research such as Kaya history, where these historical materials are lacking, this hierarchical relationship between archaeology and history becomes reversed and the discipline of archaeology takes on the role of umpire concerning the results of historical documentary research, and furthermore it may occur that historians construct historical theories and arguments around archaeological data. The latter phenomenon applies to the study of Kaya history. As a result, those involved in Kaya archaeology perform a vitally important role in the development of Kaya research. In such a situation, where research into Kaya history has to rely on archaeological material - one fact that various theories have been put forward, none of which can be termed an established theory, - highlights the many problems that have occurred where research into Kaya history has been based on archaeological data. Materials which have under gone archaeological examination and scientific inspection play an important role in the consideration of the societal structure of the period and in the reconstruction of the contemporary lifestyle, areas of research which cannot be covered by literary documents alone. It is well known that in prehistoric research where there is no literary documentation. It is impossible to carry out research without using archaeological data, and in areas of study where there is little or no literary documentation, achaeology performs a vital role in research into ancient history. However, historical interpretations which are based on archaeological data involve questions which are open to subjective interpretation, and in the interpretation of archaeological data of ancient periods in history where there is little or no literary documentation, it is often the case that greating differing interpretations arise according to the standards and historical perspective of the researcher in question. This may result in an interpretation which is Jar removed from the actual historical circumstances. Such instances come to light when archaeological materials are discovered which completely over throw prior established theory. In this research, I have focused on the major Kaya tomb sites. Having grouped the burials according to structure and burial goods, I have examined closely each type of burial items and divided them into groups accordingly. The burial foods have then been placed in order according to their co-existence with other objects and according to stylistic changes, Based on the burial structures and burial goods of each site, 1 have examined the relationship between burials of the same type and shape and the existence or absence of certain burial goods. In doing so I have attempted to identify regions of cultural exchange, spheres of mutual influence and spheres of power and thus to clarify unified cultural spheres with recognizable regional characteristics.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론 = 1
1. 연구사적 검토 = 2
1). 연구경향 = 2
2). 와질토기론과 가야토기 편년에 관한 연구 = 6
3). 가야토기의 특징에 관한 연구 = 9
2. 연구범위와 방법 = 10
Ⅱ. 가야의 역사 = 13
1. 가야와 신나의 기원과 초기기년 간제 = 13
2. 가야의 변천 = 16
3. 가야강역의 변동 = 24
4. 소결 = 35
Ⅲ. 가야토기의 배경과 기종 = 37
1. 와질토제와 경질토기의 출현 = 37
2. 가야토기의 기종과 양식에 대한 고찰 = 49
1). 가야권과 신라권의 구분 = 49
2). 가야양식과 신라양식의 검토 = 50
3). 토기의 기종 분류와 명칭 = 52
(1). 발(바리) = 56
(2). 완(사발, 보시기) = 56
(3). 합 = 57
(4). 접시 = 57
(5). 호(단지) = 60
(6). 기대(그롯받침) = 61
(7). 옹(항아리, 독) = 62
(8). 병(병) = 62
3. 소결 = 62
Ⅳ. 가야토기 관연 분석 대상 주요유적 = 64
1. 김해지역 = 64
1). 회현리패총 = 67
2). 부원동패총 = 67
3). 부원동고분군 = 68
4). 대성동고분군 = 68
5). 칠산동고분군 = 69
6). 예안리유독 = 70
7). 양동리유적 = 71
8). 퇴례리고분군 = 72
2. 성주지역 = 73
1). 성산동고분군 = 74
3. 고령지역 = 74
1). 지산동고분군 = 75
2). 목관동고분군 = 77
4. 대구지역 = 77
1). 복현동고분군 = 78
5. 부산지역 = 79
1). 복천동고분군 = 81
2). 노포동고광군 = 82
3). 덕천동고광군 = 82
4). 화명동고분군 = 83
5). 연산동고분군 = 83
6). 오륜대고분군 = 85
7). 괴정동고분군 = 85
8). 생곡동 가달고분 = 86
9). 당감동고분군 = 87
10). 두구동 림석견독 = 87
6. 경주지역 = 87
1). 월성노고분군 = 90
7. 마산-창원지역 = 90
1). 마산 현동고분군 = 91
2). 창원 도계동고광군 = 92
3). 창원 삼동동고분군 = 92
4). 창원 성산패총 = 93
8. 진해지역 = 94
1). 웅천 우마산고분군 = 95
2). 웅천 패총 = 95
9. 진주지역 = 95
1). 수정동고분상 = 96
2). 가좌동고분군 = 96
10. 창녕지역 = 97
1). 교동고분군 = 97
2). 계성리고분군 = 98
11. 협천지역 = 98
1). 삼가고분군 = 100
2). 창리고분군 = 100
3). 봉계리(오림동)고분군 = 101
4). 저포리견독 = 101
(1). 저포리A지구 고분군 = 102
(2). 저포리B지구 고분군 = 103
(3). 저포리C, D지구 견독 = 103
(4). 저포리D지구고 분군 = 103
(5). 저포리E지구분군 = 104
5). 중반계고분군 = 104
6). 반계제유독 = 104
7). 옥전고분군 = 105
12. 함안지역 = 106
1). 도항리고분군 = 107
13. 고성지역 = 108
1). 고성패총 = 108
14. 사천 - 삼천포지역 = 108
15. 소결 = 109
Ⅴ. 가야토기의 분류와 분석 = 110
1. 고배류의 분류와 분석 = 110
1). 무개식고배의 분류와 분석 = 110
2). 유개(식)고배의 분류와 분석 = 113
3). 단각고배의 분류와 분석 = 118
4). 잔무의 분류와 분석 = 119
5). 개의 분류와 분석 = 121
6). 고배 및 개류의 종합적인 분석 = 124
(1). 분석 = 125
(2). 고배류 분석결과의 종합 = 147
2. 구, 호, 기대 및 기타 기종의 분석 = 149
3. 소결 = 170
1). 고배류 분석결과의 종합 = 170
2). 고배류 이외 기종 분석결과의 종합 = 172
3). 전기종의 분석결과 종합 = 174
Ⅵ. 가야토기의 편년 = 176
1. 기존의 년대관에 대한 검토 = 176
1). 기종별 년대관 = 178
2). 견구별 년대관 = 187
2. 편년 = 205
1). 편년자료 = 205
2). 동종동열토기와 공반관계 = 218
3). 동종동형토기군과 공반일상관관계 변집 = 230
4). 동종동형토기군의 군집연쇄편년 = 241
5). 기존의 편년안과 비교 검토 = 250
3. 소결 = 266
Ⅶ. 결론 = 268
참고문헌 = 275
가야토기와 그 영역의 연구 (加耶土器와 그 領域의 硏究) 저작물은 공공누리 “출처표시+상업적이용금지+변경금지” 조건에 따라 이용할 수 있습니다.