인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
학술저널
DBpia Top 5%
오류 신고하기해당 페이지 내 제목·저자·목차·페이지정보가 잘못된 경우 알려주세요!
초록·키워드
This study organizes the meanings and contexts of the terms used to refer to the period when Goryeo established relations with the Mongol Empire. This aims to help users understand and judge, not to advocate the use of any particular term.
The term ‘Yuan intervention period(元干涉期)’, which is now most commonly used to refer to this period, has been in use since the 1970s, revealing the injustice of Yuan influence over Goryeo, while at the same time positively evaluating Goryeo’s resistance to such injustice. This was later crystallized in the 1990s by studies that understood Goryeo-Mongol relations in terms of the cefeng(冊封)-chaogong(朝貢) relationship. However, in the 2000s, studies that
viewed the Yuan as a nomadic empire broadened the view of the Goryeo-Mongol relations, and the term ‘Yuan intervention period’ was challenged.
As an alternative to the term ‘Yuan intervention period’, the term ‘Shiyuanqi(事元期)’ and ‘Mongol/Yuan subjugation period(-服屬期)’ are used. It is also argued that a period distinction based on external relations is neither necessary nor appropriate. Critical discussions of the term ‘Yuan intervention period’ share the concern that it is one-sided, but they have different perspectives on Goryeo-Mongol relations and the impact on Goryeo. There is no need to unify these terms, but users should be aware of the context in which they are used.
The term ‘Yuan intervention period(元干涉期)’, which is now most commonly used to refer to this period, has been in use since the 1970s, revealing the injustice of Yuan influence over Goryeo, while at the same time positively evaluating Goryeo’s resistance to such injustice. This was later crystallized in the 1990s by studies that understood Goryeo-Mongol relations in terms of the cefeng(冊封)-chaogong(朝貢) relationship. However, in the 2000s, studies that
viewed the Yuan as a nomadic empire broadened the view of the Goryeo-Mongol relations, and the term ‘Yuan intervention period’ was challenged.
As an alternative to the term ‘Yuan intervention period’, the term ‘Shiyuanqi(事元期)’ and ‘Mongol/Yuan subjugation period(-服屬期)’ are used. It is also argued that a period distinction based on external relations is neither necessary nor appropriate. Critical discussions of the term ‘Yuan intervention period’ share the concern that it is one-sided, but they have different perspectives on Goryeo-Mongol relations and the impact on Goryeo. There is no need to unify these terms, but users should be aware of the context in which they are used.
본문·목차
인공지능 문자 인식 모델을 통해 추출된 텍스트로, 일부 오타나 오류가 포함될 수 있으나 지속적으로 개선 중입니다.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
최근 본 자료 전체보기
UCI(KEPA) : I410-151-25-02-092337195
