보존과학회지 (Journal of Conservation Science)

  • 제36권6호
  • /
  • Pages.578-590
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 1225-5459(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-9781(eISSN)
한국문화재보존과학회 (The Korean Society Of Conservation Science For Cultural Heritage)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

융합적 연구를 위한 도자기 보존과학과 도자사학 언어의 접목: 『경기도 광주관요 종합분석 보고서』를 중심으로

Making a Linguistic Connection for Interdisciplinary Research between Conservation Science and Ceramic History: The Case of 『Analytical Report of the Royal Kiln Complex at Gwangju in Gyeonggi Province』

  • 문지호 (서울대학교 자연과학대학, 과학사 및 과학철학 협동과정)
  • Moon, Jiho (Seoul National University, Program in History and Philosophy of Science)
  • 투고 : 2020.09.28
  • 심사 : 2020.11.16
  • 발행 : 2020.12.29
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

한국에서는 1960-70년대를 거치며 도자기라는 유물을 역사적으로 또는 과학적으로 분석하는 학자들이 등장하여 오늘날 각각 도자사와 보존과학이라고 불리는 분과가 형성되었다. 그러나 두 분과는 도자기라는 같은 대상을 연구함에도 독자적인 연구 스타일을 형성한 결과 서로의 연구를 이해하고 소통하는 데 어려움을 겪고 있다. 본고는 백자를 분석한 사례들에 초점을 맞추어, 『경기도 광주관요 종합분석 보고서』와 이 보고서의 분석을 담당한 보존과학자의 다른 연구를 역사적으로 추적함으로써 두 분과가 가진 연구의 특징과 역사를 살피면서 다음과 같은 질문에 답하고자 한다. 첫째, 도자기를 연구하는 두 분과의 설명 스타일이 지닌 특징과 차이는 무엇일까? 둘째, 두 분과의 소통이 점차 어려워지는 이유는 무엇일까? 셋째, 두 분과가 다시 소통할 수 있는 교역지대가 있다면 그 가능 조건과 산물은 무엇일까? 본고에서는 도자기를 분석하는 두 분과의 설명 스타일을 언어적 관점에서 분석한 뒤, 보존과학이 도자사와 공통언어를 공유하고 있음에도 분석기법이 세분화되고 정량화됨에 따라 그 과정에서 생산되는 과학 데이터가 점차 도자사와 무관한 것처럼 보이게 되었음을 주장한다. 그러나 두 분과가 공유한 공통언어의 존재는 보존과학 데이터가 새로이 해석되어 다시 도자사 연구로 확장될 수 있는 가능성을 보여주었다.

During the 1960-1970s, a group of ceramic conservation scientists and ceramic historians in South Korea came together and established their own disciplines. While the two disciplines share the same ceramics as the subjects of their research, there has been little interaction between the two as their research outputs are articulated in remarkably different languages. This paper aims to address the following questions by using a case study that focuses on the research on white porcelains centered on the project of Gyeonggi Museum and a series of studies conducted by one of the museum's project research teams. First, what are the characteristics of and differences between the explanation styles of the two disciplines that share the same research subjects of ceramics? Second, why has the communication between the two disciplines become difficult? Third, if there can be a trading zone wherein the two disciplines would be able to communicate again, what would be its epistemic conditions? The focus of this paper is the relationship between scientific data and ordinary language, which the two disciplines have shared from their inception. By analyzing the relationship, I first argue that, as the analytical techniques of conservation science have become more developed, conservation science's data have gradually lost its relevance in ceramic history, in spite of a shared common language between them; Second, I argue that by recovering the import of shared language again, the scientific data can be placed in a different practical context, providing novel interpretations that are relevant and often consequential to ceramic history.

키워드

과제정보

본 논문은 연구자의 석사 학위논문, "깨진 도편에서 도공들의 서사로" (서울대학교, 2014)를 3절의 내용을 중심으로 요약, 정리한 내용이다. 본 논문을 수정하는 데 많은 도움을 주신 익명의 심사위원들께 감사드린다.

참고문헌

  1. Cho, J.K., 2009, Characteristics and structure of kiln sites in Joseon period. Journal of Central Institute of Cultural Heritage, 5, 51-83. (in Korean with English abstract)
  2. Collins, H., 2011, Language and practice. Social Studies of Science, 41(2), 271-300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711399665
  3. Ewha Womans University Museum, 1993, Special exhibition of excavation memoir about Choson's white porcelain kiln sites. 77-123. (in Korean),
  4. Galison, P., 1997, Image and logic: a materical culture of microphysics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 781-844.
  5. Gyeonggi Cultural Heritage Research Institute, Yongin City and Yongin Culture Center, 2016, The upper plate of Goryeo White Porcelain Kiln Site in Seo-ri, Yongin. 253-293. (in Korean)
  6. Haegang Ceramics Museum, 1995, White porcelain kiln site of Woosan-ri at Kwangju. 25-58.
  7. Jang, N.W. and Kim, Y.J., 2007, The matter of 'Reception' in study of ceramic history. Art History, 21, 293-322. (in Korean with English abstract)
  8. Jeon, S.C., 2004, A Study on the System of operation and distribution of Choson Royal Kilns. Journal of Art History, 18, 3-20. (in Korean with English abstract)
  9. Jung, D.S., 2012, Production and Transport of White Clay from Yanggu, Gangwon in the Age of Joseon Dynasty. Studies in Humanities, 35, 257-290.
  10. Kang, K.I., 2003, Whiteware from the official kiln of Choseon dynasty period in Beoncheon-ri, Gwangju. Journal of Conservation Science, 12(1), 1-14.
  11. Kang, K.S., 1996, Studies on Korean ceramics during the last 50 years. Journal of Korean studies, 22(2), 116-145.
  12. Kim, H.J. and Lee, Y.E., 2014, A scientific study for celadon excavated from Kiln in Seo-ri, Gyeonggi-do. Report on the Excavation of the Ruins at Dojanggol.Sagimakgol Site in Seo-ri, Yongin, 321-350.
  13. Kim, J.Y., 1990, Crafts (Ceramics). Korean Journal of Art History (Formerly Art and Archaeology), 188, 111-124.
  14. Kim, K.J., 2013, A Study on the nature of the ceramic industry and the consumption of ceramics from the early to the middle period of the Joseon dynasty in the Gangwon region. The Journal of Korean Field Archaeology, 18, 163-191. (in Korean with English abstract)
  15. Kim, Y.W., 1995, Choson ceramics during the reigns of king Sejo(1455-1468), Yejong(1468-1469) and Songjong (1469-1494). Art History Forum, 2, 223. (in Korean with English abstract)
  16. Kim, Y.W., 2001, The discussion on the development of porcelain production system in the Joseon Period: from the Kiln of Dogi-so and Jagi-so to the Punwon, governmental kiln. National Museum of Korea Art Journal, 66, 17-46.
  17. Kim, Y.W., 2012, Ceramics of Joseon Dynasty. Seoul National University Press, Seoul, 189-335.
  18. Koh, K.S., Choo, W.K. Ahn, S.D., Lee Y.E., Kim, G.H. and Lee, Y.S., 2011, A study of the chemical composition of Korean traditional ceramics (II): Choson Whiteware. Journal of Conservation Science, 27(1), 61-74. (in Korean with English abstract)
  19. Latour, B., 1986, Visualization and cognition: thinking with eyes and hands. In: Henrika Kuklick and Elizabeth Long (eds.), Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present(Vol.6), JAI Press, Greenwich, 1-40.
  20. Lee, Y.E., 2013, The color of the Goryeo celadon: composition and microstructure of bi-saek celadon. National Museum of Korea Art Journal, 83, 221-243. (in Korean with English abstract)
  21. Lim, E.K. and Lee, Y.H., 1973, Fundamental studies on celadon bodies. Journal of the Korean Ceramic Society, 9(2), 70-79. (in Korean with English abstract)
  22. Moon, J.H., 2014, From fragments to porcelain makers' stories. Master dissertation, Seoul National University, Seoul.
  23. National Museum of Korea and the Gyeonggi Museum, 2000, Central government kiln in Kwangju. Explanation, 1-373.
  24. National Research Institute of Cultural Heratage, 2012, Ethical guidelines for conservators. National Research Institute of Cultural Heratage, Daejeon, 11.
  25. The Gyeonggi Museum, 2001, The royal kilns and white porcelain.
  26. The Gyeonggi Museum, 2004, The ceramic ruins in Yeoju Jungam-ri area. 1-510.
  27. The Gyeonggi Museum, 2008, Analytical report of the royal kiln complex at Gwangju in Gyeonggi province.
  28. The National Maritime Cultural Heritage Museum and Jeollabuk-do, 2004, The underwater remains of Biando, Gunsan.
  29. The National Maritime Cultural Heritage Museum, 2003, The underwater remains of Doripo, Muan. 1-250.
  30. The National Research Institute of Maritime Cultural Heritage, 2009, Taean treasure ship: submarine excavation. The National Research Institute of Maritime Cultural Heritage. 1-502.