周代를 읽는 다른 방법 ― 자료와 체계의 양면성 ― (Two Different Ways in Studying the Zhou Period: The Ambivalence of Sources and Systems)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 중국고중세사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 중국고중세사연구 / 26호 / 219 ~ 263페이지
· 저자명 : 심재훈

초록

This is a critical review of the three recently published books on the Zhou dynasty, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius (2006) by Lothar von Falkenhausen, and Landscape and Power in Early China (2006) and Bureaucracy and the State in Early China (2009) by Li Feng. While the former focuses on the social and religious history of the Zhou, the latter two examine political and institutional history of the dynasty.
However, the two authors demonstrate quite different understandings on the sources and methodology in studying the Zhou period. Whereas Falkenhausen, an archaeologist from Germany, values excavated materials from tombs higher than any other sources, Li Feng, a historian from China, rather treats the other sources such as transmitted and paleographic texts with equal weight. While Falkenhausen never tries to reconstruct the Zhou society as a system, Li Feng argues the geopolitical reasons for the Western Zhou's collapse as well as a single bureaucratic structure of the dynasty.
This different methodologies further lead them to propose completely different ideas on the metropolitan area of the Zhou and the dynasty's development from the previous Shang. To Falkenhausen, the area was a fairly haphazard agglomeration of religious and residential compounds. The first two centuries of the Zhou was just a continuation of the preceding Shang dynasty. To Li Feng, on the contrary, the metropolitan center of the Zhou must have been a space of comparable size and planned structural complexity. The Zhou state was formed on different principles from the incipient Shang state.
Reflecting the current status of the fast-evolving field of research, however, these seemingly contradictory understandings do not depreciate both authors' insightful and compelling scholarship on the Zhou. All the same, they cannot be completely free from criticisms. Falkenhausen's strong doubt about the authenticity of the transmitted texts conflicts with his own reliance on the very sources in some of the main arguments. Li Feng's obsession to the systematic structure of the Zhou state seems have led him to build a government considerably sophisticated but more amplified than its probable reality.

영어초록

This is a critical review of the three recently published books on the Zhou dynasty, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius (2006) by Lothar von Falkenhausen, and Landscape and Power in Early China (2006) and Bureaucracy and the State in Early China (2009) by Li Feng. While the former focuses on the social and religious history of the Zhou, the latter two examine political and institutional history of the dynasty.
However, the two authors demonstrate quite different understandings on the sources and methodology in studying the Zhou period. Whereas Falkenhausen, an archaeologist from Germany, values excavated materials from tombs higher than any other sources, Li Feng, a historian from China, rather treats the other sources such as transmitted and paleographic texts with equal weight. While Falkenhausen never tries to reconstruct the Zhou society as a system, Li Feng argues the geopolitical reasons for the Western Zhou's collapse as well as a single bureaucratic structure of the dynasty.
This different methodologies further lead them to propose completely different ideas on the metropolitan area of the Zhou and the dynasty's development from the previous Shang. To Falkenhausen, the area was a fairly haphazard agglomeration of religious and residential compounds. The first two centuries of the Zhou was just a continuation of the preceding Shang dynasty. To Li Feng, on the contrary, the metropolitan center of the Zhou must have been a space of comparable size and planned structural complexity. The Zhou state was formed on different principles from the incipient Shang state.
Reflecting the current status of the fast-evolving field of research, however, these seemingly contradictory understandings do not depreciate both authors' insightful and compelling scholarship on the Zhou. All the same, they cannot be completely free from criticisms. Falkenhausen's strong doubt about the authenticity of the transmitted texts conflicts with his own reliance on the very sources in some of the main arguments. Li Feng's obsession to the systematic structure of the Zhou state seems have led him to build a government considerably sophisticated but more amplified than its probable reality.

참고자료

· 없음