• Communications of Mathematical Education
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.351-362
• /
• 2012

Until the 1950s, linear algebra was considered only as one of abstract and advanced mathematics subject among in graduate mathematics courses, mainly dealing with module in algebra. Since the 1960s, it has been a main subject in undergraduate mathematics education because matrices has been used all over. In Korea, it was considered as a course only for mathematics major students until 1980s. However, now it is a subject for all undergraduate students including natural science, engineering, social science since 1990s. In this paper, we investigate the early history of linear algebra and its development from a historical perspective and mathematicians who made contributions. Secondly, we explain why linear algebra became so popular in college mathematics education in the late 20th century. Contributions of Chinese and H. Grassmann will be extensively examined with many newly discovered facts.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.49 no.1
• /
• pp.84-97
• /
• 2016

One of the assimilation policies of Japanese imperialism for the permanent domination in the colonial Joseon is the theory of integration of Japan and Joseon. The theory of integration of Japan and Joseon is a logic that Joseon (Korea) and Japan (Wae) were connected to the same ancestor on the basis of ancient myths. Also it is the assimilation ideology to justify the Colonial rule of those days through the objectification of historical identity or affinity of political and cultural relations of ancient Korean peninsula and Japan (Wae). Japan reorganized our history to meet the colonial point of view, as part of the assimilation policies based on the theory of integration of Japan and Joseon. On the other hand Japan attempted to objectify them through archaeological research and the reinterpretation of the historical remains. The survey, reinterpretation and tourist of the historic sites in historic cities such as Gyeongju and Buyeo were promoted in this context. In particular, the Buyeo, a capital of Baekje, was emphasized upon the close relevance and affinity between Sabi, Baekje and ancient Asuka (飛鳥) in Japan through research and reinterpretation on the Historic Sites. Based on them, Historic Sites Tourism was conducted by reconstructed historic sites toward the colonial Korean. In addition, after the Sino-Japanese war in 1937, Japan tried to realize the politics of space by upgrading and idealizing Buyeo as homeland or Shinto (神都) related to Japanese ancient mythology of the Asuka culture. This paper investigated in what context research, reinterpret and tourist of the historic sites progressed on Buyeo area and how it had soaked through the general public in the Japanese colonial era. First, it is on historic sites. Historic sites research on Buyeo area made an attempt by Sekino Tadashi in 1909 for the first time and the re-excavation of the old burial mounds and temple sites during the Japanese colonial period. Sekino set up a cultural relationship and influences between the ancient China (梁), Korea (百濟) and Japan (倭). Also, he emphasized that Sabi, Baekje largely received influence of Chinese culture and Baekje and Japan Asuka culture had closely relations and affinity. These views had been consistent during the Japanese colonial period. Second, it is the reinterpretation on Historic sites. Buyeo Historic Sites Preservation Society (Buyeo Gojeok Bojonhoe) was established in 1915 and Osaka Kintaro, curator of Baekje exhibition hall redefined the relationship between ancient Japan and Baekje as perspective of the assimilation ideology through the post contextual interpretation. In particular, they emphasized on the close relevance between Baekje's Historic sites and Japan, through the reinterpretation of Nakhwaam, Goransa and Cheongmasanseong. Third, it is the tourist on Historic sites. Buyeo Historic Sites Preservation Society played a leading role in Tourist on Historic sites at the Buyeo region. The main tourist destinations and course were restructured through a reinterpretation on the historic sites. Japan would like to show Buyeo as ideology area, homeland of ancient Japanese culture, toward the Koreans under Japanese colonial era. Thus, research, reinterpretation, and tourism on Historic sites were promoted while they were closely related to each other. The promoting body was Joseon Chongdokbu and pro-Japanese interest group. It's point was 'made' and 'shown' by the eyes of others and a rediscovery of Buyeo as representational space of colony.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.53 no.4
• /
• pp.150-169
• /
• 2020

Surveys of Buddhist ruins at Namsan in Gyeongju began in earnest during the Japanese colonial era, undertaken by Japanese scholars. These surveys of Buddhist remains in Namsan made during the colonial period should be seen as previous research which cannot be ignored in any in-depth study of Buddhist ruins in Gyeongju. Full-scale surveys of Buddhist ruins at Namsan began in the 1920s. Previous surveys conducted around the time of the Japanese annexation of Korea in 1910 are generally viewed as only representing preliminary investigations and, thus, have not received much attention. However, these early surveys are significant in that they led to the Buddhist ruins on Namsan becoming widely known in the 1910s and served as the foundations for later studies. The removal of the Seated Medicine Buddha from Samneung Valley in Gyeongju in 1915 and its subsequent exhibition at the Joseon Local Products Expo, which marked the fifth anniversary of the Japanese administration of Korea, was especially important in garnering attention for Namsan's wealth of Buddhist artifacts, as the statue was placed in the main hall of the art museum and attracted a great deal of interest from visitors. It is typically thought that this Seated Medicine Buddha was exhibited in 1915 because it was the most beautiful and well-preserved statue from Namsan. However, the removal of this statue was closely related to the proposed move of the Seokguram statue to Seoul around the time of Korea's annexation. The plan to move Seokguram to Seoul was primarily devised by Terauchi Masatake, and the plan, based on Ilseontongjo-ron ('日鮮同祖論'), a historical theory that prehistoric Korean and Japanese people were of the same blood, and Joseon Jeongcheasoeng-ron ('朝鮮停滯性論'), a historical theory arguing that development had stagnated in Korea, was intended to be a visual demonstration of a new era for Korea. This new era was to proceed under the rule of the Japanese Empire through the dissolution of Gyeongbokgung, the symbol of the Joseon Dynasty, which would be replaced with past glories as symbolized by the statue of Buddha. However, as the plan floundered, the replacement for Seokguram in Seoul ended up being none other than the Seated Medicine Buddha of Samneung Valley. Surveys of the Seated Medicine Buddha began in 1911, administered by Sekino Tadashi, but he likely learned of the statue's location from Moroga Hideo or Kodaira Ryozo, Japanese residents of Gyeongju. It is also probable that these Japanese residents received a request from the Japanese Government General of Korea to find a Buddha statue that was worthy of being displayed at exhibitions. In this way, we can say that the transfer of the Seated Medicine Buddha to Seoul was the result of close cooperation between the Government General, Sekino Tadashi, and Japanese residents of Gyeongju. This also had the effect of removing the magical veil which had shrouded the Buddhist ruins of Namsan. In other words, while the early surveys of Buddhist ruins on Namsan are significant, it is difficult to argue that the surveys were undertaken for purely academic purposes, as they were deeply related to the imperial ambitions of Governor-General Terauchi which encompassed the plans to move Seokguram to Seoul and the successful hosting of the 1915 Expo. It should also be pointed out that the failure of the plan to move Seokguram to Seoul and the preservation of the Seated Stone Buddha of Mireuggok at Namsan was in no small part due to resistance from Korean residents in Gyeongju. Although it is not described in detail in the paper, research is needed which shows that the Korean residents of Gyeongju were not simple bystanders, but agents of history.