KCI등재후보
高句麗 柵城 遺址 三考 = The Reconsideration on Koguryo Zhancheng Relics
저자
박진석 (옌볜대학)
발행기관
학술지명
권호사항
발행연도
2008
작성언어
Korean
주제어
등재정보
KCI등재후보
자료형태
학술저널
수록면
173-216(44쪽)
KCI 피인용횟수
7
제공처
소장기관
In 1985, the author published “the Reconsideration on Koguryo Zhacheng Relics”(高句麗柵城遺址). He denied the relics of Hunchun Baliancheng(琿春八連城) of today’s our country, that is, Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu(渤海東京龍原府) [it is called Zhachengfu(柵城府)]. At the same time he negated the traditional opinion of the academe that was affirmed to correspond to Koguryo Zhacheng Relics. And he newly put forward the view that the relics of Koguryo Zhacheng would be built, Chengzishanshancheng(城子山山城) was combined with Tuchengcuntucheng(土城村土城) (Later Xingangucheng (興安古城) was attached).
After that Fang Xuefeng(方學鳳) and Li Zongxun(李宗勛), and so on, professors denied that the author’s view and protested that Koguryo Zhacheng Relics belonged to the Wentehebucheng(溫特赫部 城) near Hunchun Baliancheng.
It appears that this kind of different view that we produced, of course, would be able to have all kinds of reasons. However, among them the most important reason that we believed is that if we have different understanding about the related to the record of events of Xintangshu Balhae biography(新唐書∙渤海傳), it seems as if we had different understanding of being affiliated with the region of Beiwoju(北沃沮). Setting out from the view, the article will bring forward the author’s preliminary opinion related to two problems, focusing on the latest article of Prof. Fang Xuefeng and Prof. Li Zongxun, and I’m going to discuss it with many readers myself.
一.Fang Xuefeng(方學鳳):After Reading the Investigation about the Location of“ Koguryo Zhacheng”(高句麗柵城)
The author has ever pointed out in the reconsideration on Koguryo Zhacheng relics that it is necessary for him to analyse that in Xintangshu Balhae biography there is such a sentence that the place where Huimo(濊貊) lived once was Dongjing, and said it was Longyuanfu, and said that it was also called Zhanchengfu“( 濊貊故地爲東京, 曰龍原府, 亦曰柵城府”). In fact, it was why the place where Huimo lived once didn’t conform it, and so, of course, it would be replaced with the old site of Beiwoju. Therefore, the sentence mentioned above should be written“ the place where Beiwoju lived once was Dongjing, and said it was Longyuanfu, and said that it was also called Zhachengfu. The author recognizes that it was right that the old Site of Koguryo Zhacheng should be found not only inside the jurisdiction of Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu but also in the wider region (including the place where Beiwoju lived once), which was its groundwork. However, Prof. Fang claims that it was naturally and rationally formed becacuse the region of today’s Yanbian(延邊) was the place where Huimo lived once, the statements mentioned above in Xintangshu Balhae biography completely conformed the historical fact. And it was appropriate contents. The former name of Huimo had been formed before Beiwoju occupied it. According to his advice, Prof. Fang claims that the first half of Xintangshu Balhae biography(the place where Huimo<Beiwoju> lived once was ongjing) was neglected and while only be based on the last part (Dongjing, and said it was Longyuanfu, and said that it was also called Zhachengfu, the relics of Koguryo Zhacheng must be discovered inside the jurisdiction of Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu(Now it is the jurisdiction of Hunchun(琿春), without discovering outside the jurisdiction of Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu). Prof. Fang’s opinion does not conform with the matter of history. As a result, the jurisdiction of Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu(Now it is Hunchun is not the place where Huimo lived once. Obviously, that is why it is the place where Beiwoju lived once. The fact is that the historical materials of ancient books, which the old name of Huimo can be proved before Beiwoju occupied it, don’t exist anywhere. Prof. Fang recognizes that according to the analysis of the record of e...
In 1985, the author published “the Reconsideration on Koguryo Zhacheng Relics”(高句麗柵城遺址). He denied the relics of Hunchun Baliancheng(琿春八連城) of today’s our country, that is, Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu(渤海東京龍原府) [it is called Zhachengfu(柵城府)]. At the same time he negated the traditional opinion of the academe that was affirmed to correspond to Koguryo Zhacheng Relics. And he newly put forward the view that the relics of Koguryo Zhacheng would be built, Chengzishanshancheng(城子山山城) was combined with Tuchengcuntucheng(土城村土城) (Later Xingangucheng (興安古城) was attached).
After that Fang Xuefeng(方學鳳) and Li Zongxun(李宗勛), and so on, professors denied that the author’s view and protested that Koguryo Zhacheng Relics belonged to the Wentehebucheng(溫特赫部 城) near Hunchun Baliancheng.
It appears that this kind of different view that we produced, of course, would be able to have all kinds of reasons. However, among them the most important reason that we believed is that if we have different understanding about the related to the record of events of Xintangshu Balhae biography(新唐書∙渤海傳), it seems as if we had different understanding of being affiliated with the region of Beiwoju(北沃沮). Setting out from the view, the article will bring forward the author’s preliminary opinion related to two problems, focusing on the latest article of Prof. Fang Xuefeng and Prof. Li Zongxun, and I’m going to discuss it with many readers myself.
一.Fang Xuefeng(方學鳳):After Reading the Investigation about the Location of“ Koguryo Zhacheng”(高句麗柵城)
The author has ever pointed out in the reconsideration on Koguryo Zhacheng relics that it is necessary for him to analyse that in Xintangshu Balhae biography there is such a sentence that the place where Huimo(濊貊) lived once was Dongjing, and said it was Longyuanfu, and said that it was also called Zhanchengfu“( 濊貊故地爲東京, 曰龍原府, 亦曰柵城府”). In fact, it was why the place where Huimo lived once didn’t conform it, and so, of course, it would be replaced with the old site of Beiwoju. Therefore, the sentence mentioned above should be written“ the place where Beiwoju lived once was Dongjing, and said it was Longyuanfu, and said that it was also called Zhachengfu. The author recognizes that it was right that the old Site of Koguryo Zhacheng should be found not only inside the jurisdiction of Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu but also in the wider region (including the place where Beiwoju lived once), which was its groundwork. However, Prof. Fang claims that it was naturally and rationally formed becacuse the region of today’s Yanbian(延邊) was the place where Huimo lived once, the statements mentioned above in Xintangshu Balhae biography completely conformed the historical fact. And it was appropriate contents. The former name of Huimo had been formed before Beiwoju occupied it. According to his advice, Prof. Fang claims that the first half of Xintangshu Balhae biography(the place where Huimo<Beiwoju> lived once was ongjing) was neglected and while only be based on the last part (Dongjing, and said it was Longyuanfu, and said that it was also called Zhachengfu, the relics of Koguryo Zhacheng must be discovered inside the jurisdiction of Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu(Now it is the jurisdiction of Hunchun(琿春), without discovering outside the jurisdiction of Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu). Prof. Fang’s opinion does not conform with the matter of history. As a result, the jurisdiction of Balhaedongjinglongyuanfu(Now it is Hunchun is not the place where Huimo lived once. Obviously, that is why it is the place where Beiwoju lived once. The fact is that the historical materials of ancient books, which the old name of Huimo can be proved before Beiwoju occupied it, don’t exist anywhere. Prof. Fang recognizes that according to the analysis of the record of event...
분석정보
연월일 | 이력구분 | 이력상세 | 등재구분 |
---|---|---|---|
2026 | 평가예정 | 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증) | |
2020-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) | KCI등재 |
2017-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) | KCI등재 |
2013-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) | KCI등재 |
2010-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) | KCI등재 |
2009-01-01 | 평가 | 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) | KCI후보 |
2007-01-01 | 평가 | 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) | KCI후보 |
기준연도 | WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) | KCIF(2년) | KCIF(3년) |
---|---|---|---|
2016 | 1.18 | 1.18 | 1.19 |
KCIF(4년) | KCIF(5년) | 중심성지수(3년) | 즉시성지수 |
1.06 | 0.98 | 2.155 | 0.1 |
서지정보 내보내기(Export)
닫기소장기관 정보
닫기권호소장정보
닫기오류접수
닫기오류 접수 확인
닫기음성서비스 신청
닫기음성서비스 신청 확인
닫기이용약관
닫기학술연구정보서비스 이용약관 (2017년 1월 1일 ~ 현재 적용)
학술연구정보서비스(이하 RISS)는 정보주체의 자유와 권리 보호를 위해 「개인정보 보호법」 및 관계 법령이 정한 바를 준수하여, 적법하게 개인정보를 처리하고 안전하게 관리하고 있습니다. 이에 「개인정보 보호법」 제30조에 따라 정보주체에게 개인정보 처리에 관한 절차 및 기준을 안내하고, 이와 관련한 고충을 신속하고 원활하게 처리할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 다음과 같이 개인정보 처리방침을 수립·공개합니다.
주요 개인정보 처리 표시(라벨링)
목 차
3년
또는 회원탈퇴시까지5년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한3년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한2년
이상(개인정보보호위원회 : 개인정보의 안전성 확보조치 기준)개인정보파일의 명칭 | 운영근거 / 처리목적 | 개인정보파일에 기록되는 개인정보의 항목 | 보유기간 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
학술연구정보서비스 이용자 가입정보 파일 | 한국교육학술정보원법 | 필수 | ID, 비밀번호, 성명, 생년월일, 신분(직업구분), 이메일, 소속분야, 웹진메일 수신동의 여부 | 3년 또는 탈퇴시 |
선택 | 소속기관명, 소속도서관명, 학과/부서명, 학번/직원번호, 휴대전화, 주소 |
구분 | 담당자 | 연락처 |
---|---|---|
KERIS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 정보보호본부 김태우 | - 이메일 : lsy@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0439 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0195 |
KERIS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 개인정보보호부 이상엽 | |
RISS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 대학학술본부 장금연 | - 이메일 : giltizen@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0149 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0194 |
RISS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 학술진흥부 길원진 |
자동로그아웃 안내
닫기인증오류 안내
닫기귀하께서는 휴면계정 전환 후 1년동안 회원정보 수집 및 이용에 대한
재동의를 하지 않으신 관계로 개인정보가 삭제되었습니다.
(참조 : RISS 이용약관 및 개인정보처리방침)
신규회원으로 가입하여 이용 부탁 드리며, 추가 문의는 고객센터로 연락 바랍니다.
- 기존 아이디 재사용 불가
휴면계정 안내
RISS는 [표준개인정보 보호지침]에 따라 2년을 주기로 개인정보 수집·이용에 관하여 (재)동의를 받고 있으며, (재)동의를 하지 않을 경우, 휴면계정으로 전환됩니다.
(※ 휴면계정은 원문이용 및 복사/대출 서비스를 이용할 수 없습니다.)
휴면계정으로 전환된 후 1년간 회원정보 수집·이용에 대한 재동의를 하지 않을 경우, RISS에서 자동탈퇴 및 개인정보가 삭제처리 됩니다.
고객센터 1599-3122
ARS번호+1번(회원가입 및 정보수정)