• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.56 no.4
• /
• pp.288-318
• /
• 2023

This work began with the aim of examining the history of the concept "cultural property" that is expected to disappear, and the main subject of research was the history that preceded the spread of this notion throughout society. The phrase "cultural property" first appeared in the 1920s, and was used in various fields such as literature, history, music, and philosophy in the context of cultural resources. Until immediately following liberation from the Japanese colonial era, the meaning of cultural assets was widely applied in the range of "cultural resources," and during this period, it was often used to help supplant the reality and history of Japanese occupation. Immediately after the Korean War, it was also employed for the purpose of 'restoration of cultural resources through war'. Recognition of cultural property directly influenced by Japan's Cultural Heritage Protection Act has occurred since 1950s. In the early 1960s, the enactment of various laws related to cultural properties and the establishment of the Cultural Heritage Administration caused the meaning of cultural property to be limited to 'cultural heritage'. In this way, the definition of state-led cultural property has continued to apply to this day. It has not been clearly confirmed whether the concept of cultural properties was imported from Japan through means such as the Cultural Heritage Protection Act. Cases in which several Japanese students endorsed the concept of cultural property within Korea serve to increase the likelihood that the concept was indeed imported from Japan. However, "coined language using multiple Chinese characters," "the phenomenon of cultural complex words in the 1920s,", and "cases of non-Japanese international students using the concept of cultural property" also open up the possibility of their own occurrence. Apart from the general importance of the concept of cultural property, intellectuals at the time used this concept to promote internal development and the overcoming of colonial Joseon. In this research, it was confirmed that the conceptual word cultural property was older and had a wider history than the general perception had indicated previously. The history of the conceptual term "cultural property" may appear to be more than 60 years old based on the enactment of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, but in fact it is nearly 100 years old when traced back to on 1925, as established here. In general, the creation and disappearance of terms may proceed naturally with social change, but such terms may alternatively be created or erased through national policy. Identifying the origins of a phrase that is about to disappear represents a significant task for purposes of establishing its historical meaning.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.21-32
• /
• 2010

The convergence angle of a prepared tooth is a very important factor in the retention and resistance of a crown restoration. But various intraoral environments and clinician's techniques make it difficult to obtain the ideal inclination. Therefore, in this study, clinical convergence angle of a prepared tooth was investigated. The data was collected from the patient models of prosthodontic residents and the patient models of general practitioners. The images of mesiodistal and buccolingual surfaces were taken with a digital camera to evaluate the convergence angle on 'ImageJ' program. The images were classified according to the criteria (1. Clinician group, 2. Position in the dental arch, 3. The purpose of abutment preparation)and then analyzed. The mean convergence angle of a prepared tooth for Korean clinicians was $15.02^{\circ}$ (${\pm}10.13^{\circ}$). 1. It was significant in the convergence angle between the general practitioner group and the prosthodontic resident group(p<0.05). 2. It was significant between the mesiodistal and buccolingual surface in the the prosthodontic resident group(p<0.05). 3. For the general practitioner group, it was significant when anteriors and premolars were compared with molars(p<0.05). For the prosthodontic resident group, it was significant when anteriors and premolars were compared with molars (p<0.05). 4. When divided into upper and lower arches, for the general practitioner group, it showed significant difference in the buccolingual aspect(p<0.05). Also in the prosthodontic resident group, it showed significant difference in the buccolingual aspect(p<0.05). 5. Dividing left and right sides of the arches, there was no significant difference in the general practitioner group and the prosthodontic resident group(p>0.05). 6. In the general practitioner group, it was significant in the mesiodistal axial convergence angle of single crown abutment and 3 unit bridge abutment(p<0.05). In the prosthodontic resident group, it was significant in the mesiodistal and overall axial convergence angle of single crown abutment and 3 unit bridge abutment(p<0.05). Clinical convergence angle of prepared tooth in Korea was included in agreement with other studies investigating convergence angle that ranged from 10 to 22 degrees, achieved in clinical practice.