遼東地域靑銅器時代土器文化圈설정에 관한 再檢討

Review of the Setting up of the Pottery Pottery Cultural Area in Liaodong region in the Bronze Age

중국 동북지방 청동기시대 文化區系 중 토기문화권 설정에 있어 큰 이견을 보이고 있는 것으로는 凉泉文化를 들 수 있는데, 현재까지도 한중학계에서 연구자간 시공간적 위치 및 문화(유형)의 성격까지 그 견해차를 좁히지 못하고 있다. 구체적으로는 ①표지유물의 차이 ②연대관의 차이 ③유형과 문화의 구분 모호로 지적되는데, 본문에서는 이러한 량취안문화 유적을 객관적으로 분석하고자, 중국학계에서 제시한 자료에 입각하여 유구 및 유물 양상을 자세히 소개하고 그에 따른 문제점을 지적한 후 그 특징과 ‘문화’설정에 대한 전반적인 재검토를 하였다. 그 결과 수습유물이 대부분인 량취안문화유적에 대한 분석은 韓半島 粘土帶土器文化 연구성과를 역으로 대입하여 고찰하는 방법이 가장 적합하며, 이를 적용한 결과 량취안문화 유물상에서는 美松里型土器와 三足器를 제외할 필요가 있으며, 량취안문화는 랴오둥지역 점토대토기문화 속에서 이해되어야 한다는 점을 알았다. 따라서 량취안문화의 표지유물은 粘土帶土器, 環狀把手附長頸壺, 豆形土器의 3기종으로 정리할 수 있다. 또한 표지유물을 일부 혹은 모두 포함하고 있는 량취안문화유적을 살펴보면, 기존의 ‘凉泉文化’의 정의를 재설정 할 필요가 있는데, 그 대안으로는 다음과 같다. 먼저 량취안문화의 시공간적 위치와 문화내용을 확대 수정하는 대안1)은, 상기의 표지유물 3종을 포함하고 기원전 6세기부터 기원전 200년경으로 시간적 위치를 재설정할 필요가 있다. 이 외에 기존의 凉泉文化라는 명칭에서 ‘鄭家窪子文化’로 대체 명명하는 대안2)도 모색해 볼 수 있다. 결과적으로 馬城子文化→雙房式土器文化→鄭家窪子文化[대안1)의 凉泉文化]로 이행되는 묘장문화의 변천단계를 상정할 수 있는데, 이로서 遼河下流와 渾河․太子河유역의 기원전 일천년기 청동기시대 토기문화권을 재설정해 볼 수 있다.

The issue, which is drawing the biggest disagreement to the setting up of the pottery cultural area among the cultural regional system in the Bronze Age in the northeast region of China, is perhaps Liangquan Culture; even until the present, the academic circles between Korea and China have failed to narrow the gap between both sides opinions ranging from temporal-spatial location to the character of the cultural pattern. Such disagreement can be summed up as 1] differences in marker remains 1] differences in age-date viewpoint 3] ambiguity in classification of pattern and culture, and this text, with the aim of objectively analyzing the site of Liangquan Culture, introduced the structure of ruins and their aspects in detail by going by the data suggested by China, pointed out its subsequent points at issue and did a general review of the characteristics and setting up of Culture. As a result, it was found that the accurate analysis of Liangquan Culture site, whose remains were already put in order, could be the most properly made through the method of study by reversely substituting the research achievement of Jumtodae Pottery Culture in the Korean Peninsula; as the result of applying this method, there came out the necessity of exempting Misongri Type Pottery and three-legged dish in the configuration of Liangquan Culture remains and Liangquan Culture should be understood in Jumtodae Pottery Culture in Liaodong region. Accordingly, the marker remains of Liangquan Culture could be summed up as three vessel types including Jumtodae Pottery, long-necked jar with ring handles, and mounted dish. In addition, taking a look at Liangquan Culture remains that include some or all of the marker remains, there is the necessity of re-installing the definition of Liangquan Culture and its alternative is as follows: First, Alternative 1, which includes the expansion & revision of the temporal & spatial location of Liangquan Culture and its contents, proposes that Liangquan Culture include the above mentioned 3 sorts of marker remains and temporal location be re-set up as from 6C B.C. to around 200 B.C. It could be worthwhile to seek Alternative 2 as well, which proposes that the existing name of Liangquan Culture be replaced by a designation of Zhengjiawaai Culture. Consequently, it is possible to bring up the transitional stage of the grave & funeral culture switching from Machengzi Culture to Shuangfang Type Pottery Culture and Zhengjiawaai Culture[Liangquan Culture of Alternative 1], by which it is possible to reset up Pottery Cultural Area in the Bronze Age in chiliad phase at the downstream of the Liao River, and the reaches of the Hun River and Taizi River. The issue, which is drawing the biggest disagreement to the setting up of the pottery cultural area among the cultural regional system in the Bronze Age in the northeast region of China, is perhaps Liangquan Culture; even until the present, the academic circles between Korea and China have failed to narrow the gap between both sides opinions ranging from temporal-spatial location to the character of the cultural pattern. Such disagreement can be summed up as 1] differences in marker remains 1] differences in age-date viewpoint 3] ambiguity in classification of pattern and culture, and this text, with the aim of objectively analyzing the site of Liangquan Culture, introduced the structure of ruins and their aspects in detail by going by the data suggested by China, pointed out its subsequent points at issue and did a general review of the characteristics and setting up of Culture. As a result, it was found that the accurate analysis of Liangquan Culture site, whose remains were already put in order, could be the most properly made through the method of study by reversely substituting the research achievement of Jumtodae Pottery Culture in the Korean Peninsula; as the result of applying this method,