• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.52 no.2
• /
• pp.38-61
• /
• 2019

Up until the early twentieth century in Germany, there were two research trends: 1) emphasizing objectives and making detailed observations of archaeological artifacts and sites, 2) tracing the remains of specific nations or ethnic groups and defining their temporal-spatial boundaries by conducting research on material culture in terms of nationalism or ethnocentrism. After the Second World War ended and Germany was divided, West German archaeology focused on observations of artifacts and sites, cataloging them, and doing research on chronology and distribution following their own traditional methodologies. East German archaeology attempted to prove the developing process of history and its Marxist principles based upon material culture and to examine the historic value of inherent specific cultural heritage based on criteria regarding how it corresponded to socialism and contributed to the development of socialism. Nevertheless, East and West German archaeology shared traditional archaeological methods inherited from German archaeology since the nineteenth century, and contact between archaeologists in West and East Germany continued to a degree. Furthermore, East German archaeology produced significant archaeological achievements acknowledged by West German and European archaeologists. These facts provided the momentum to complete rapid incorporation of the archaeologies of West and East Germany in spite of a one-sided process imposed by West German archaeology. In the case of Korea, it seems necessary to make an effort to share common research history and traditions and to encourage mutual academic exchange (e.g. joint excavation and archaeological research). Furthermore, it is also imperative to have open-minded attitudes toward accepting substantial results and interpretations achieved by North Korean archaeologists under scrutiny when and where necessary, despite seeming to have been fossilized by Marxism and Juche ideology. Any efforts to narrow the gap in archaeological research and conservation of cultural heritage between the archaeologies of South and North Korea should be made immediately. The case of Germany demonstrates how such a project could proceed efficaciously.

• Journal of Korean Historical Folklife
• /
• no.27
• /
• pp.267-361
• /
• 2008

This article traces how the modern Chinese "nation" was constructed as an "imagined community" around Huang-ti (the Yellow Emperor) in late Qing. Huang-ti was a legendary figure in ancient China and the imperial courts monopolized the worship of him. Many late Qing intellectuals appropriated this symbolic figure and, through a set of discursive strategies of "framing, voice and narrative structure," transformed him into a privileged symbol for modern Chinese national identity. What Huang-ti could offer was, however, no more than a "public face" for the imagined new national community, or in other words, a formal structure without substantial contents. No consensus appeared on whom the Chinese nation should include and where the Chinese nation should draw its boundaries. The anti-Manchu revolutionaries emphasized the primordial attachment of blood and considered modern China an exclusive community of Huang-ti's descent. The constitutional reformers sought to stretch the boundaries to include the ethnic groups other than the Han. Some minority intellectuals, particularly the Manchu ones, re-constructed the historic memory of their ethnic origin around Huang-ti. The quarrels among intellectuals of different political persuasion testify how Huang-ti as the most powerful cultural symbol became a site for contests and negotiations in the late Qing process of national construction.