• Journal of Korea Water Resources Association
• /
• v.57 no.4
• /
• pp.263-276
• /
• 2024

Since the first introduction of one-dimensional transient storage modeling in the field of solute transport analysis in rivers, its application has notably expanded for various purposes, including for hydrology and geobiology over the past few decades. Despite strides in refining transient storage models, there remain unresolved challenges in simplifying complex river transport dynamics into concise formulas and a limited set of parameters. This review paper is dedicated to cataloging and assessing existing transient storage models, outlining the difficulties associated with model structures, parameters, and data, and suggesting directions for future research. We seek to enhance understanding of transient storage by highlighting the importance of continuously evaluating residence time distribution modeling, integrating hydrodynamic models, and using data with minimal assumptions. This paper would contribute to advance our comprehension of the transient storage process, offering insights into sophisticated modeling techniques, pinpointing uncertainty in parameters, and suggesting the necessary avenues for further study.

• 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.