선사의 현재성: 베트남 사례로 본 물적 정보의 복원

The Contemporaneity of Prehistoric Archaeology: Reconstructing Past Human Behavior in Vietnam

본고에서는 과거의 물적 자료가 현재성(복원이 이루어 지는 시점)을 통해서 어떠한 굴절을 보이는지에 대한 논의를 담고 있다. 그와 관련된 사례연구로 베트남 역사를 통한 굴절성을 바라보았다. 베트남전쟁 그리고 통일된 국가의 형성과 발전시기 조사된 선사시대 결과물을 중심으로 현재성과 그 현재성에 따른 굴절성을 살피고자 한다. 일견 가치 중립적으로 보이는 고고자료의 복원과정을 살피면서 주어진 정치⋅ 경제⋅사회적 맥락을 통한 굴절성 관찰과 비교를 시도한다.

Material remains may not be free from socio-political context. Archaeological works have been processed under idiosyncratic nations’ conditions. Consciously and subconsciously archaeological works serve to shape communities’ collective memory. Conversely, nations’ paradigm affects archaeological disciplines of studies. Archaeology is not the politically and socially isolated domain of academy. Archaeological process for reconstructing past behavior has been diverse, and the process is the window of postulated ideas and direction of commitment. Depending on given socio-political orientation, a certain type of process can be emphasized. Collections of archaeological remains have neutral value in nature, however through the gate of the processes the reconstructed human behavior is not consistent. There are series of steps of shifting material remains. Discovered objects on or in the ground are turned to be artifacts. The artifacts contain various information such as time, space, group etc., once filtered by archaeological inference, these are shaped into culture. The archaeological process can be largely divided into three different ways: describing, understanding and interpreting. Of them, it needs to clarify difference between understanding and interpreting. The difference is highly dependent on what paradigm is. If archaeologists belong to the society overwhelmed by objective ideas, primary works are finding universal law and testing against archaeological data. The important point of study is how to make understanding past human behavior. Such explaining is often reinforced with scientific methods. Conversely, interpreting is less emphasized unity or generalization, instead, the historical particularism or cultural unique are highlighted. Therefore, material culture is viewed individually and subjectivist implications are highly considered. Modern Vietnam archaeology has been initiated from a colonized state and has struggled to maintain during war. Archaeology has been forged through harsh conditions. On the other hand, current Vietnam archaeology has been developed under relatively promising conditions. Vietnam initiated diplomatic relationships with more than 170 nations and is a member of the UN and ASEAN. Its GDP is one of world’s fastest growing among other countries. Substantial re-orientation of archaeological paradigm is necessary. Former socio-political conditions are harsh and there is a need to emphasize Vietnam’s glorious past. The reader is confined to the nation’s population and interpretation of the past. After unification, archaeological understanding not interpreting has been emphasized. An objective way of reconstructing human behavior has been devoted more attention.