위기 담론과 고고 자료의 관계성 연구

Abstract

Crisis has both material attribute and favorite attribute, and it is not easy to define universally because relative attributes can also be revealed. In addition, when defining a crisis in the past, perception of the current crisis, that is, periodical values can be inherent. Crisis can exist through the narrative and discourse as social structuralists argue, but it needs to consider additional relational problems of the crisis that material phenomena can create in interaction with us. Crisis in archaeology is also discussed as the process of the appearance and disappearance in archeological data. For example, the culture of the terminal period of Neolithic Age is indigenous hunter- gatherers, and the culture type of the early Bronze Age can be recognized as farmers, which can be depicted as a crisis and response situation for each group. Such interpretive tendency can be seen as an effort to find a real crisis. In contrast, the crisis may be viewed as a non-substantive crisis constructed by ideology. From a post-processual archaeological position, evidence considered as a criterion for objective judgment in process of defining a crisis can be a device to conceal or rationalize any contradictions in the past or present society. From this perspective, a crisis is an ideological phenomenon that can be constructed by a specific value without substance. In post-dualistic and anti-anthropocentric thinking, various relationships involving the concept of crisis should be considered. It is also necessary to review issues such as how the current concept of crisis plays a role in looking at past materials and how past materials elicit the concept of crisis. Material culture does not mean something in human society, but creates a world with humans in itself, so it needs to understand how languages such as crises we use become together in the relationship between humans and non-humans surrounding them.