독도·울릉도 ‘가지’(강치)에 대한 인식의 변화와 그 의미

한철호(Han Cheol-ho) 고려사학회 2012 한국사학보 Vol.- No.49

Gaji(可之), which is sea lion, was one of the specialties in Ulleungdo(Ulleung Island) and Dokdo and is now widely called ‘Gangchi’. Japan illegally occupied Dokdo in order to secure the exclusive fishing righls there. Thus the stludy about Gaji provides important clues for refuting Japan’s claim on Dokdo and also helps to prove thal Dokdo is Korean territory. This paper analyzes the change of views on ‘Gaji’ in Ulleungdo and Dokdo from lhe early Chosun Dynasty to 1905, when Japan seized Dokdo, and the implication of lhe change. The first official record of Gaji in the early Chosun Dynasty shows that Kim In-woo dedicated its leather in 1416. With the increasing interests on Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Inspectors were dispatched regularly to the islands. Inspector Jang Han-sang, who recognized the existence of Dokdo and witnessed Gaji, dedicated its leather when his returned. Thereafter it was regularized that the Inspectors who visited Ulleungdo dedicate Gaji leather as tribute. Gaji was recognized as a symbol of Ulleungdo’s typical souvenirs and this customary practice lasted until December 1894. when Government Patrol and Inspection System (sutoje) was abolished. Ulleungdo Inspector Yi Gyu-won left valuable records of Gaji in 1882 with mentions on its habitat, capture, use, and the fishing activities of the captors. With the accumulation of information about Gaji by Inspectlors. it was mentioned in several writings including Yi Ik’s Seonghosaseol, Sin Gyeong-jun’s Ganggyego and Dongguk-munheonbigo. Yeojigo, and Yi Gyu-gyeong’s Ojuyeonmunjangjeon-sango. Especially it attracts our attention thal Yi Gyu-gyeong recordro the sea lion as ‘Gaji’ referring to the writings of Sin Gyeong-jun. He also comparro and analyzed the origins of the names and the characleristics of sea lion, sea horse and other sea creatures in order to identify Gaji clearly. Thus, the current word Dokdo ‘Gangchi’ should be replaced with ‘Gaji’ or ‘Gaje’, a dialect in Ulleungdo. In this context, it is very significanl lhat Sin Gyeong-jun reconfirmed Woosan and Ulleungdo as wwo different islands belonging to Chosun in Ganggyego and Dongguk-munheonbigo. With regular dispatch of Inspectors, Woosan(Dokdo) was recognized as our territory and it was important to have precise knowledge on the geography, topography, and local products of Ulleungdo and Dokdo like Gaji. After lhe opening of ports, both the government and media shared the information that Gaji was a local product of Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Especially Hwangseong-sinmun made strong claims on Dokdo’s dominium as Korean territory, indicating Yu Deuk-gong’s poem which suggested Gaji and Imperial Edict No. 41 as the supporting evidence for il even after the Japanese seizure of the island. These records show that Gaji was widely recognized as the symbol of the evidence for Dokdo’s dominium as Korean territory.

우리나라 최초의 국기(‘박영효 태극기’ 1882)와 통리교섭통상사무아문 제작 국기(1884)의 원형 발견과 그 역사적 의의

한철호(Cheol-Ho Han) 독립기념관 한국독립운동연구소 2008 한국독립운동사연구 Vol.0 No.31

필자는 영국 국립문서보관소에 소장된 문서번호 FO 228/871과 FO 228/749에서 우리나라 최초의 국기인 박영효 태극기, 현존하는 것들 가운데 정부기관에서 공식으로 제작한 최초이자 最古인 통리교섭통상사무아문 제작 국기의 원형을 발굴하였다. 본고에서는 이를 바탕으로 최초의 국기 원형과 그 특징, 국기 창안자와 제정자 및 그 의미, 그리고 국기 개정 가능성 등을 고찰해보았다. 첫째, FO 228/871 소재 국기가 우리나라 최초의 국기인 박영효 태극기라는 사실은 동봉된 문서의 작성일이 수신사 박영효가 일본 도쿄에 체류하고 있던 1882년 11월 1일이였으며, 일본 외무성 외무대보 요시다가 해리 파크스의 구두 요청에 따라 조선 국기라는 사본을 동봉한다고 밝힌 점 등으로 확실하게 입증된다. 둘째, 우리나라 최초의 국기인 박영효 태극기는 4괘가 건 · 곤 · 리 · 감이며 청색이고, 태극은 청?적색으로 되어 있지만 현재의 태극보다 굴곡이 더 심하며, 깃대는 오른쪽에 달도록 되어 있다. 국기의 크기도 최초로 정확하게 명시되어 있지만, 태극이 상대적으로 매우 커서 4괘가 네 귀퉁이에 바짝 배치된 점은 좀더 세밀하게 고찰할 필요가 있다. 이러한 형태와 크기를 지닌 국기는 박영효가 남긴 사화기략 의 기록과 일치한다. 셋째, 박영효가 사화기략 에 세로는 가로의 5분의 2를 넘지 않았다고 기록한 부분은 현재 사화기략 원본을 찾을 수 없어 확인할 길이 없지만, ‘3분의 2’의 誤記일 가능성이 크다고 판단된다. 가로대 세로의 비율이 5 : 2일 경우 가로가 지나치게 길고 세로가 짧은 기형적이고 볼품없는 모양이 되기 때문이다. 이러한 견해는 1880년대에 제작된 국기의 가로와 세로 비율이 5 : 2가 되는 기형적인 형태를 띠지 않았다는 점, 1942년 6월 29일 대한민국 임시정부 국무위원회가 제정한 국기 양식에 그 비율이 3 : 2로 규정되어 있다는 점 등이다. 넷째, 박영효는 ‘이응준감정본’을 모본으로 삼아 최초의 국기를 제정했으므로 최초의 국기 창안자는 이응준, 제정자는 박영효로 규정해야 한다. 고종에게 국기 제정권한을 위임받은 박영효는 국기에 정통한 제임스의 의견을 빌미로 마젠충의 태극 8괘도안을 거부하고‘이응준감정본’의 모본으로 삼아 4괘를 좌?우로 바꾼 최초의 국기를 제정했던 것이다. 따라서 최초의 국기에는 박영효가 중국의 조선 속방화정책에 대해 강력하게 저항한 자주의식, 서구 국가들과 조약의 비준을 재촉하거나 새로 조약을 맺으려는 의지가 담겨져 있다. 다섯째, 통리교섭통상사무아문에서 제작된 국기는 정부기관에서 공식적으로 제작했던 국기들 중 현존하는 가장 오래된 국기의 원형으로 국기의 개정 가능성을 제시해주지만, 개정이 이뤄지지 않은 것으로 판단된다. 그러나 통리교섭통상사무아문이 최초의 국기를 반포했을 뿐 아니라 국기를 실질적으로 관할하는 정부기관이라는 점에서 국기 개정 가능성에 대해서는 좀더 면밀한 분석이 필요하다. 마지막으로 국기의 올바른 위치, 특히 국기의 앞뒷면을 구별하는데 중요한 단서가 되는 깃대의 위치는 적어도 1880년대에는 오른쪽 이었다. 이와 관련해서 최초의 국기와 통리교섭통상사무아문 제작 국기 둘 다 일치했던 4괘의 위치도 국기의 앞뒷면을 비정하는 데 중요한 기준 혹은 참고가 될 수 있을 것이다. I found the prototype of the first national flag, that is, “Park Young-Hyo's national flag of Korea” and the first and oldest Korean national flag which was officially made by the Foreign Office, the Joseon Dynasty in the national Archives of the Great Britain (their document numbers are FO 228/871 and FO 228/749). In this article I inquired into the prototype of the first Korean national flag and its peculiarity, its originator, the person who decided on the Korean national flag, its meaning, the possibility to have revised the national flag and so on. To begin with, The date written on the document enclosed in FO 228/871 was the first of November, 1882 when Young-Hyo Park, a diplomatic representative of the Joseon Dynasty stayed in Japan, and the high-ranking official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Yosida made it clear that he enclosed a copy of the Korean national flag in the document according to Harry S. Parkes' oral request. This proves that the Korean national flag kept at FO 228/871 is the first one. Secondly, the Four Trigrams for Divination in Park Young-Hyo's national flag of Korea is composed of kheon, khon, li, kham and their color is blue. The color of the Great Absolute is composed of blue and red, however, its sharp bend is keener than the present one. And the flagpole is sticked on the right side of the flag. The size of the flagwas described accurately for the first time, however, as the size of the Great Absolute is very big comparatively, the Four Trigrams for Divination are close to four corners of the flag. I think these peculiarities require more detailed study. This form and size of the flag coincides with the record in his literary work Sahwagiryag - a diary about diplomatic journey to Japan. Thirdly, according to Sahwagiryag, the length of the flag is not longer than two fifth of the width of the flag. It is not possible to check its truth because we can’t find the original copy of Sahwagiryag, however, it is considered that there is possibility to have made a mistake in writing its size of the length, that is, two fifth was written instead of two third. This opinion results from the points that the ratio of width to length of the flag made in 1880s did not have an abnormal shape of 5 to 2 and the ratio of width to length in the form of the flag provided by the Cabinet Council of the provisional government on 29th of June, 1942 was 3 to 2. Fourthly, as Young-Hyo Park decided on the first national flag of Korea on the basis of the model appraised by Eung-Jun Lee, it should be decided that the originator of the flag was Eung-Jun Lee and the person that decided on the flag was Young-Hyo Park. Young-Hyo Park who got carte blanche to decide on the national flag from Gojong rejected the design composed of the Great Absolute and the Eight Trigrams for Divination proposed by Ma Jen Chung under the pretext of the opinion of James who had complete knowledge on the national flags, and decided on the first national flag which changed the location of the right and left side of the Four Trigrams for Divination on the basis of the model appraised by Eung-Jun Lee. Therefore the first national flag keeps Young-Hyo park’s consciousness of independence resisting a Chinese policy to make the Joseon a subject country of China and his will to promote the ratification of treaties with European countries or conclude new treaties with them.Fifthly, the flag which was made by the Foreign office, the Joseon Dynasty is the prototype of the oldest Korean national flag among the existing flags officially made by the apparatus of government and it presents the possibility of the revision of the flag, however, it seems that its revision was not performed. But as the Foreign Office, the Joseon Dynasty promulgated the first national flag and was the government agency to be in charge of the flag actually, closer inquiry into the possibility to have revised the flag is required. Finally, the right posi

대한제국 외교고문 스티븐스의 외교권 장악과 친일외교 -일본의 독도 강점 전후를 중심으로

한철호 ( Cheol Ho Han ) 고려대학교 역사연구소(구 역사학연구회) 2013 사총 Vol.79 No.-

일본의 "첨각제도(尖閣諸島)"조어도(釣魚島) 편입 배경과 과정

한철호(Cheol Ho Han) 서울국제법연구원 2012 서울국제법연구 Vol.19 No.2

현재 尖閣諸島를 둘러싼 중·일 양국의 영유권 주장과 분쟁은 한국의 고유영토인 독도에 대한 한·일 양국의 갈등과 유사하다. 그런데 한국의 기존연구는 국제법 측면에서 영유권문제를 다루거나 일본의 독도 강탈과 유사성을 분석하는 데 초점을 맞추고 있다. 따라서 본고는 일본의 1차자료를 활용해 일본의 尖閣諸島 영토과정을 살펴보았다. 1885년 9월 西村捨三 沖繩縣令은 山縣有朋 내무경의 內命에 의거해서 魚釣島 등이 청국령일 가능성이 있으므로 沖繩縣 소속 절차를 신중하게 추진하자는 상신을 올렸다. 이는 1885년 古賀辰四郞이 魚釣島 등의 借地契約을 청구한 것을 계기로 내무성이 魚釣島를 조사하라고 내명했다는 일본의 주장과 맞지 않는다. 이어 西村는 그 직전 내무성의 내명을 받아 大東島를 답사했던 石澤兵吾 등에게 釣魚島 등을 조사토록 한 뒤, 11월 5일 山縣 에게 魚釣島 등을 沖繩縣에 국표를 건설하자고 건의하였다. 魚釣島 답사가 大東島 답사의 연장선상에서 매우 계획적으로 추진되었던 것이다. 그러나 1885년 11월 24일 西村은 11월 5일자 상신과는 정반대로 魚釣島 등의 국표 건설에 신중을 기하자는 상신을 다시 제출하였다. 결국 1885년 12월 山縣은 청국의 의혹을 초래하지 말자는 井上馨 외무경의 의견을 받아들여 국표 건설을 미룬다는 결정을 내렸다. 1890년과 1893년에 沖繩 현지사는 11월 5일자 西村의 상신을 근거로 魚釣島 등의 영토편입을 상신하였다. 이에 1894년 4월 내무성은 1885년 유보 결정을 내렸던 사실을 상기시키며 일본영토로 편입할 만한 구체적 근거를 찾아내라고 지시하였다. 그러나 沖繩 현지사는 1885년 실지 답사 이래 다시 魚釣島 등을 조사한 적이 없으며, 일본영토임을 입증할 만한 역사적 근거도 전혀 없다고 보고하였다. 또한 1894년 청일전쟁 발발 전후 古賀의 魚釣島 개척원도 그 소속이 불확실하다는 이유로 각하되었다. 그럼에도 1894년 12월 일본은 청일전쟁에서 사실상 승리하자, 1885년 당시와 현재는 사정이 크게 다르다는 이유를 내세워 1895년 1월 14일 魚釣島 등을 일본영토로 편입하였다. Japan insists that Senkaku Islands/Diaoyudao are under the valid control of Japan and are clearly an inherent part of Japan`s territory in light of historical facts and based upon international law. However, China, which says Japan illegally took control of Chinese territory, demands the reversion of Diaoyudao. Like this, the dispute over Senkaku Islands/Diaoyudao between China and Japan is similar to the issue between Korea and Japan over Dokdo. But Korea didn`t investigate in detail the process of Japan`s incorporation of Senkaku Islands. Therefore this article analyzes the basis and the logic upon which Japan has dominated Senkaku Islands by using Japanese primary sources. In September 1885, the Japanese Governor of Okinawa Prefecture, Nishimura Sutezo, petitioned for a cautious implementation of incorporating Senkaku Islands(Uotsuri-jima) to Okinawa Prefecture because it`s possible that they had been under the control of China`s Qing Dynasty based on the unofficial order of Yamagata Aritomo, the Minister of the Interior. This fact conflicts with the Japanese argument that after Japanese entrepreneur Koga Tatsushirou explored Senkaku Islands in 1884, he asked Okinawa Prefecture to lease the islands and the Interior ordered Prefecture Government to probe Senkaku Islands in 1885. Therefore Koga`s request was a justification for dominating Senkaku Islands and the real intention of the unofficial order was incorporating Senkaku Islands for military and political reasons. Yamagata accepted Nishimura`s petition to Japanese advantage and enforced incorporation of Senkaku Islands. But since this could cause conflicts with Qing, Yamagata sought advice on this to Inoue Kaoru, the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs. Inoue was concerned that if Japan proceeded to erect a marker stating its claim to the islands, it would arouse the suspicion of the Qing. Therefore he suggested that they survey the islands and postponed the incorporation. He didn`t oppose the incorporation of Senkaku Islands but rather delayed its time. Accordingly, Nishimura ordered Ishizawa Heigo to survey Senkaku Islands in October 1885. Six people including Ishizawa were the surveyors who had probed Daitou-jima by Nishimura`s command and the Interior`s unofficial order in August 1885. This fact shows that survey of Senkaku Islands was very thoroughly planned as an extension of Daitou-jima survey. Ishizawa reported that he regarded Senkaku Islands as terra nullius like Daitou-jima and planned colonization of it. Based on Ishizawa`s report. Nishimura suggested on November 5th the erection of the marker and the controlling of the islands. On November 24th, 1885, however, Nishimura submitted another petition that requested the reconsideration of erecting the marker because of relationship with Qing. He wouldn`t have reversed the petition he submitted 20 days ago on his own, without orders. This article assumes that Yamagata who accepted Inoue`s opinion ordered Nishimura to adjust the former one. In December 1885, Yamagata and Inoue decided to postpone the erection of the marker based on the latter petition. Meanwhile in 1890 and 1893, Governor of Okinawa Prefecture petitioned that Japan should take control of Senkaku Islands based on the order of December 1885. Since both petitions were based on the former, Governor of Okinawa Prefecture`s petition just suggested that Senkaku Islands should be under the control of Japan for fishing regulations and this totally excluded the possibility that Senkaku Islands would be under the control of Qing. In April 1894 the Interior reminded Governor of Okinawa Prefecture of postponing in 1885 and commanded him to find detailed basis of taking control of the islands. However in May 1895, Governor of Okinawa Prefecture reported that they didn`t survey Senkaku Islands since their last survey in 1885 and had no historical basis that Japan had took control of Senkaku Islands. Therefore the Interior couldn`t force the incorporation of the

일본 메이지시기 야즈 마사나가(矢津昌永)의 지리교과서·부도 편찬과 독도 인식

한철호(Han, Cheol-ho) 독립기념관 한국독립운동사연구소 2021 한국독립운동사연구 Vol.- No.74

메이지시기의 대표적인 지리교육자이자 학자인 야즈 마사나가(矢津昌永)의 지리교과서와 지리부도는 채택률이 높았고 한국과 중국에서 번역될 정도로 그 실증성과 실용성을 인정받았다. 특히 그는 일본의 국세와 영토 확장에 관한 상황을 지리교과서와 부도에 적극 반영하였다. 이에 본고는 1905년 2월 일본의 독도 강점 이전에 그의 지리교과서와 부도에는 독도가 일본 영토에서 명확하게 제외되었다는 사실을 새롭게 밝혀보았다. 야즈가 일본 文部省의 検定을 받은 『中地理學 外國誌用 外國地圖』의 「亞細亞」에는 당시 일본 영토에서 독도를 제외한 국경선이 명확하게 표시되었다. 이 지리부도와 자매서인 『中地理學 外國誌』의 저본이었던 『中學萬國地誌』의 「亞細亞」에는 울릉도와 독도가 일본 영토로 포함된 국경선이 그어져 있었다. 야즈는 처음에 울릉도와 독도를 일본 영토로 표시했던 오류를 깨닫고 두 섬이 일본 영토에 속하지 않는다고 바로잡았던 것이다. 따라서 『中地理學 外國誌用 外國地圖』의 「亞細亞」는 독도를 일본 영토로 틀리게 표시한 오류를 저자 스스로 바로잡은 중요한 사례로 평가된다. 야즈의 『中學日本地誌』·『新萬國地圖』·『新撰日本地圖』의 「大日本帝國全圖」, 『中地理學日本誌用 日本地圖』의 「日本全圖」 등에도 오키를 비롯해 일본 영토가 모두 표시되었지만, 독도는 그려져 있지 않다. 그들 중 『新撰日本地圖』의 「大日本帝國全圖」에는 처음으로 울릉도가 표기되었는데, 울릉도는 일본식 이름인 松島가 아니라 ‘欝陵島’로 표기됨으로써 일본 영토가 아님을 밝혔다. 야즈는 『日本地圖』·『新撰日本地圖』의 「中國及四國」, 『中地理學 日本誌用 日本地圖』의 「西部」에서도 오키까지만 그려 넣었다. 특히 『新撰日本地圖』의 「中國及四國」뿐만 아니라 일본 외곽의 각종 섬들이 포함된 「諸島集圖」의 位置圖인 「參照日本總圖 육백만분일」에는 울릉도와 독도는 명백하게 제외되었지만, 南鳥島가 별도로 일본 영토라고 표시되어 있다. 이러한 사실은 역설적으로 야즈가 독도를 일본 영토로 인식하지 않았음을 확실하게 보여준다. Yazu Masanaga(矢津昌永), one of the most renowned scholars of the Meiji period, published several geography textbooks and atlases. Not only were they widely used in Japanese schools, but they were translated into Korean and Chinese, which attests to their accuracy and practicality. In writing these books, Yazu paid special attention to the territorial changes that had taken place, and was taking place, in the Japanese Empire. This essay sheds light on the fact that Dokdo did not appear to be part of the dominions of Japan in any of the textbooks and atlases produced by him. The map entitled Asia(亞細亞)’ included in Chuchirigaku-Gaikokushiyo-Gaikoku-chizu(中地理學 外國誌用 外國地圖), a geography textbook officially approved by the Ministry of Education, showed the boundaries of the Japanese territories, which evidently excluded Dokdo. Chugaku-Bankoku-chishi(中學萬國地誌), which was subsequently enlarged into Chuchirigaku-Gaikokushi(中地理學 外國誌) that was a sister book to Chuchirigaku-Gaikokushiyo-Gaikoku-chizu, contained a map with the same title Asia, on which Dokdo and Ulleungdo were portrayed to form part of the Japanese dominions. What this suggests is that Yazu, after realizing that he had mistaken the two islands for Japanese territories, corrected his mistake by placing them outside the Japanese dominions in his subsequent books. Therefore, the Asia of Chuchirigaku-Gaikokushiyo-Gaikoku-chizu presents an important case where a Japanese scholar corrected the misunderstanding of the ownership of the island on his own. On maps such as Dai-Nihonteikoku-zenzu(大日本帝國全圖) in Chugaku-Nihon-chishi(中學日本地誌), Shin-Bankoku-chizu(新萬國地圖), Shinsen-Nihon-chizu(新撰日本地圖), Nihon-chizu(日本全圖) in Chuchirigaku-Nihonshiyo-Nihon-chizu(中地理學 日本誌用 日本地圖), Yazu had all the territories of Japan including Oki(隱岐) marked. What is important is that Dokdo was painted as a territory of Japan on none of them. While Ulleungdo appeared on Dai-Nihonteikoku-zenzu of Shinsen-Nihon-chizu, it was indicated not by its Japanese name ‘Matsushima(松島)’ but by the Korean one ‘Ulleungdo(欝陵島)’, which confirms once again that he did not consider the island to be a Japanese territory. The same goes for Chugoku-oyobi-Shigoku(中國及四國) included in Nihon-chizu and Shinsen-Nihon-chizu, and Seibu(西部) in Chuchirigaku-Nihonchiyo-Nihon-chizu. On these maps, Oki appeared to be the only island lying within the boundaries of the Japanese territories in the area. On Chugoku-oyobi-Shigoku of Shinsen-Nihon-chizu and Sanshyo-Nihon-sozu(參照日本總圖) of Shoto-shuzu(諸島集圖), Ulleungdo and Dokdo did not appear, whereas Minami-Tori-shima(南鳥島) was distinctly marked as belonging to Japan. This paradoxically demonstrates that Yazu did not view Dokdo as part of the Japanese dominions.

개화ㆍ일제강점기 김옥균에 대한 역사적 평가

한철호(Han Cheol-ho) 호서사학회 2004 역사와 담론 Vol.0 No.38

진관사 태극기의 형태와 그 역사적 의의

한철호(Han Cheol-Ho) 독립기념관 한국독립운동연구소 2010 한국독립운동사연구 Vol.0 No.36

『독립신문』(1896~1899)의 치외법권 인식 ―일본인 관련 범죄를 중심으로―

한철호 ( Cheol Ho Han ) 고려대학교 역사연구소(구 역사학연구회) 2012 사총 Vol.77 No.-

Extraterritoriality (consular jurisdiction), one of the unequal treaties that was contracted between Korea and other imperial nations like Japan and western imperialistic countries, was the poisonous pill that exerted an evil influence on Korea, So research of imperialistic nations` exercise of extraterritoriality and Korea`s response gives us an important clue to inquire into process and character of invasion, and futhermore the character of Korea modern history. This article is studying The Independent`s view of extraterritoriality and Japanese crime, 1896~1899. The Independent criticized English consular jurisdiction about Chinese because Korea severed diplomatic relations with China after the Sino-Japanese War. The Independent pointed out that extraterritoriality is unequal treaty, Japan and other powers misuse extraterritoriality for invasion of Korea. Nevertheless The Independent measured that it`s impossible to abolish extraterritoriality, emphasized the protection of the people`s right by showing the abuse of extraterritoriality. But The Independent insisted equal treaty without extraterritoriality after the negotiations for Treaty of Commerce between Korea and China in October 1989. By using this chance, The Independent claimed equal relation between Korea and China. And The Independent criticized that western powers demand extraterritoriality to eastern and needed to revise it by plan to enhance national prosperity and military power like Japan, Futhermore The Independent paid attention to the case of Transvaal which resisted against English imperialism and claimed planning to enhance military power and reacting the harmful effects of extraterritoriality, The Independent`s recognition was revealed in reporting Japanese crime. The Independent criticized Japanese crime which abused extraterritoriality during King Kogong`s flight to the Russian legation. After that, however, The Independent insisted that Korean government have to prevent Japanese crime by modifying law and punish the Japanese criminals through fair judgement. Although The Independent recognized the unfairness and bad effects of extraterritoriality, couldn`t demand the revision or abolition of it. However it doesn`t mean that The Independent was pro-Japanese or pro-imperialism. The Independent recognized that it is impossible to abolish extraterritoriality because of the weakness of the national power. So The Independent developed the strategy that Korea and Japan must observe the rule which didn`t act well practically. This means that The Independent appreciated that if conditions are satisfied, extraterritoriality could be abolished.

조일수호조규 체결 후 일본 군함 호쇼(鳳翔)의 조선 해안 최초 측량과 그 의의

韓哲昊(Han, Cheol-Ho) 고려사학회 2021 한국사학보 Vol.- No.83

일본이 조일수호조규에서 획득한 조선 해안 측량권은 향후 조선을 침략하는 중요한 발판이 되었다. 이는 서양 열강이 중국 · 일본과 맺은 조약에서도 규정되지 않은 매우 불평등한 독소 조항이었다. 일본은 1875년 운요호사건을 일으킨 후, 부산 왜관과 거류민의 보호라는 명분으로 군함을 부산에 파견하였다. 호쇼함은 그해 12월에 부산에 도착한 이래 무력시위를 벌였으며, 기관 고장으로 예정대로 강화도로 떠나지 못하고 부산에 머물러 있다가 1876년 2월 남해안을 측량하였다. 이러한 호쇼함의 측량은 강화도조약의 체결 사실을 통보받지 않은 상황에서 단행된 불법 행위였지만, 조일수호조규는 체결 당일부터 시행되었기 때문에 형식상 최초의 합법적인 조선 해안 측량이 되었다. 호쇼함은 영국 해도 제104호에 정보가 가장 미흡하게 기재된 지역인 부산에서 남해도까지를 대상으로 삼아 해안과 섬들의 수심 · 지형 · 지명 · 정박지 등을 측량하였다. 또 호쇼함이 육지에 올라가 측량하는 과정에서 조선인들이 총을 쏘고 돌을 던지며 격렬하게 방해하는 사건도 벌어졌다. 호쇼함은 측량 상황을 자세하게 기록한 「朝鮮南岸航行日記拔抄」를 보고서로 제출하였다. 이를 토대로 수로부는 4개의 해도를 제작했으며, 수로지를 편찬하는 근거 자료로 활용하였다. 이처럼 호쇼함의 측량, 그 결과인 보고서 작성, 그리고 해도와 수로지의 편찬으로 이어지는 유기적인 과정은 향후 일본 군함의 조선해안 측량에 대한 전형적인 모습을 보여준다는 점에서 주목할 만하다. The right to survey the coasts of Korea Japan acquired through the Korea-Japan Treaty of 1876(the Treaty of Kanghwa) became an important stepping-stone for Japan’s future invasions of Korea. This clause was particularly unequal and thus poisonous in that no such clause was found in treaties Western powers concluded with China and Japan. This essay sheds light on how Japan surveyed the Korean coasts and the significance of the surveying activities by examining the movements of the Japanese warship Hosho that surveyed the coasts for the first time and how the information thereby gathered came to be used in the making of nautical charts and sea directories. After the Kanghwa Island incident in September 1875, Japan dispatched warships to Busan under the pretense of protecting Japanese diplomats and citizens residing in the city. Upon arriving in Busan by December of that year, Hosho staged armed protests, and then was sent to Shimonoseki, where she was tasked with urging the Japanese government to authorize the deployment of additional forces. The vessel, due to an engine breakdown on the way to Busan, was forced to stay in that city instead of sailing for Kanghwa Island as she was scheduled to and then proceeded to survey the southern coasts. While being problematic given that the ship’s crew was not notified of the signing of the Treaty at that time, the act was, technically speaking, the first survey of the Korean coasts legally conducted because the Treaty went into effect upon signature. From February 29 to March 10, 1876, the warship Hosho, traveling between Busan and Namhae Island, collected information on the depths, currents, geographical features, and names of the southern coastal areas and islands. There, the focus lay in locating places where ships, both military and civilian, could be safely anchored. When the sailors came ashore and conducted their survey, Koreans violently interrupted them firing guns and throwing stones. Hosho submitted the report detailing its surveying activities. Japanese Hydrographic Office(JHO) published four nautical charts with the information collected by the ship, which later furnished a basis for the compilation of sea directorys. It is noteworthy that the steps taken by the Japanese-the military vessel Hosho’s survey, the submission of the survey report, and the publication of nautical charts and sea directorys-set a pattern for subsequent surveys of the Korean coasts by Japanese warships.

여행기를 통해 본 한,일 양국의 표상 ; 개화기 박영효(朴泳孝) 『사화기략(使和記略)』에 나타난 일본 인식

한철호 ( Cheol Ho Han ) 한양대학교 동아시아문화연구소 2008 동아시아 문화연구 Vol.44 No.0