(서평) 한국 도시사 연구의 현 단계 - 고동환, 『조선시대 서울도시사』(2007, 태학사) 吉田光男, 『近世ソウル都市社會硏究』(2009, 草風館) - (The present stage in the Study of Korean urban history Koh, Dong-Hwan 『Urban History of Seoul in the Joseon Dynasty』 (Tahaksa, 2007), Yoshida Mitsuo(吉田光南) 『The Study of Seoul’s Urban Society in the)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국역사연구회
· 수록지 정보 : 역사와 현실 / 72호 / 315 ~ 337페이지
· 저자명 : 염복규

초록

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.

영어초록

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.

참고자료

· 없음