유라시아 전차(Chariot)의 등장과 확산과정의 고고학적 의미

Archaeological Significance of the Emergence of War Chariot and its Diffusion in Eurasia - Focusing on Diffusion of War Chariot in Europe

주지하다시피 대략 기원전 2000년경에 흑해-카스피 해 연안 스텝지역에서 등장한 전차는 서쪽으로는 메소포타미아와 이집트, 그리고 유럽으로, 그리고 남쪽과 동쪽으로는 인도와 중국으로 확산되어 간 것으로 추정된다. 이 글에서는 전파와 이주에 대한 이론적 논의와함께 전차가 각 지역으로 확산되어 가는 과정에서 발견되는 유사점과 차이점에 대해 논의하고자 하였다. 이를 통해 전차의 확산이 정복과 이주, 전리품의 획득과 선진기술의 채택, 대등 정치체 사이의 위세품의 교역 등에 의해 이루어졌음을 살펴보았다. 특히 유럽의 경우,대등 정치체 내의 지배 엘리트 사이에서 행해진 위세품의 교역을 통해 전차가 빠른 속도로 확산되는 과정은 그리스를 포함한 유럽 후기 청동기 사회 이래 확인되는 전사로서의 남성과 남성성의 이미지가 전차의 채용을 통해 최종적으로 완성되어가는 과정이라고 볼 수 있다는 점을 강조하고자 하였다. 즉, 외부로부터 도입된 전차는 외부로부터의 수입품이 가질 수 있는 상징적 우월성과 함께 기존의 범주에 포함되어 일종의 에이전시로서 지배 엘리트이자 개인 주체인 남성의 몸과 남성성의 내면화에 기여하며 권력과 권위를 표상했던 것으로 생각된다. 한편 외부로부터 유입된 전차가 기존의 범주에 매우 빠른 속도로 포함될 수 있었던 것은 이미 신석기 시대 중기부터 이미 유럽에 수레가 사용되었거나 개인무덤에 부장품으로 묻혀왔던 역사적 배경이 있었기 때문이라는 점 또한 논의하고자 하였다. 결론적으로 전차의 전파와 확산의 과정은 단순히 원 인도 유럽어족의 이주와 확산, 새로운 전투기술 및 전략의 등장, 지배 엘리트 계층의 등장과 전차, 그리고 전차의 실제적 기능과 용도에 대한 관심과 관련하여 제한적으로 논의되기 보다는 물질문화의 전파와 확산, 그리고 그것의 범주화와 정체성의 형성 등과 관련한 매우 중요한 이론적 논의와 함께 그 실제 사례를 보여주는 중요한 고고학적 현상으로 다루어져야 한다는 점을 강조하고자 하였다.

As already known, war chariot, which was developed in the area of Pontic-Caspian steppe approximately in 2000 BC, is likely to spread out to the West(Mesopotamia and Egypt, and Europe), to the South(India) and to the East(China). This article aims at discussing similarities and differences observed in the spreading process of war chariot into various regions as well as theoretical argument on diffusion and migration. Based upon this, it has been argued that the diffusion of war chariot was possible by various processes including invasion and migration, war prize and adoption of new technology, and trade of prestige goods between peer polities. In particular, the case of Europe, in which war chariot was diffused by trade of prestige goods between the ruling elites of peer polities, demonstrates that image of male as a warrior and of masculine body since the Late Bronze Age was finalised with adoption of war chariot. It has been also argued that war chariot as an import would have symbolic priority as an import itself and be included in the existing categorisation of material culture. And thus adoption of war chariot would contribute to formation of an image of masculine body, to institutionalisation of masculinity as an agency, and to symbolising power and authority. In addition, it has been pointed out that war chariot as an import was rapidly accepted because cart was already used and buried in individual burials since the Middle Neolithic Period in Europe. Consequently, it has been argued that the diffusion and adoption process of war chariot cannot be limited to discussions of migration and diffusion of proto Indo-European(ethnic or linguistic) group or the emergence of ruling elite and its association with war chariot or its utilitarian function. Instead, it has been emphasised that diffusion of war chariot need to be dealt with as an intriguing and thus important archaeological example to demonstrate a diffusion process of material culture and its contribution of categorizing process and of formation of individual identity in many ways. As already known, war chariot, which was developed in the area of Pontic-Caspian steppe approximately in 2000 BC, is likely to spread out to the West(Mesopotamia and Egypt, and Europe), to the South(India) and to the East(China). This article aims at discussing similarities and differences observed in the spreading process of war chariot into various regions as well as theoretical argument on diffusion and migration. Based upon this, it has been argued that the diffusion of war chariot was possible by various processes including invasion and migration, war prize and adoption of new technology, and trade of prestige goods between peer polities. In particular, the case of Europe, in which war chariot was diffused by trade of prestige goods between the ruling elites of peer polities, demonstrates that image of male as a warrior and of masculine body since the Late Bronze Age was finalised with adoption of war chariot. It has been also argued that war chariot as an import would have symbolic priority as an import itself and be included in the existing categorisation of material culture. And thus adoption of war chariot would contribute to formation of an image of masculine body, to institutionalisation of masculinity as an agency, and to symbolising power and authority. In addition, it has been pointed out that war chariot as an import was rapidly accepted because cart was already used and buried in individual burials since the Middle Neolithic Period in Europe. Consequently, it has been argued that the diffusion and adoption process of war chariot cannot be limited to discussions of migration and diffusion of proto Indo-European(ethnic or linguistic) group or the emergence of ruling elite and its association with war chariot or its utilitarian function. Instead,