라시드 앗 딘(Rashīd al-Dīn, 1247-1318)의 『中國史』속에 나타난 ‘中國’ 認識

金浩東(Hodong Kim) 동양사학회 2011 東洋史學硏究 Vol.115 No.-

쿠빌라이 카안의 大臣들

金浩東(Hodong Kim) 동양사학회 2013 東洋史學硏究 Vol.125 No.-

This paper analyzed the List of amirs in in Shu’ab-i panjg?na written by Rash?d al-D?n at the beginning of the 14<SUP>th</SUP> century. The List contains 57 names who were considered as am?rs of Qubilai Qa’an. The source of Rash?d al-D?n’s information was in all probability Bolad Chingsang who came from the court of Qubilai and had very accurate knowledge about the power elites in the Ulus of Qa’an. Therefore, the List reflects the Mongol viewpoint, not the Rash?d al-D?n’s personal opinion. In this sense, the List is a unique source showing us how the Mongols themselves understood about the most powerful people. Based on the analysis of the List, we can divide them into several groups. (1) The Chinggisid princes and non-Chinggisid son-in-laws: their feudal domains were dispersed over the various parts of empire. These people were not counted in the List because they were not considered to belong to the category of ‘commander’ (am?r). (2) Ministers in central as well as regional government bureaus: they administered important state affairs by presenting memorial, stating their opinion, and giving advice to the great khan. Especially the highest officials in Central Secretariat, Central Censorate and Bureau of Military Affairs were the ‘pillars’ of the empire. (3) Military commanders: they were commanders of the units of ten thousand or of a thousand. Although many of these stationed in the steppe and had very few contacts with Han Chinese people, some of the top generals were appointed to ministerial post and their careers were recorded in Chinese sources. (4) Keahing commanders: they belonged to one of four keshing units and periodically came in the court for duty, so they could maintain intimate relations with the great khan. Their existence was usually hidden behind the veil of inner court, but they exercised influence by consulting for the khan on important state affairs and countersigning the edict, thus certifying its authenticuty, on behalf of the khan. Some of them rose to the highest echelon in the government. People belonging to these four groups actually dominated political and military power of the Mongol empire under Qubilai. Ethnically Mongols took the majority and Semuren followed them, while Han Chinese were almost negligible. From the eyes of the Mongols the Han Chinese had no place in the imperial power politics. There is no doubt that Qubilai patronized many different ethnic and religious groups, and to rule vast territory and the people in China he definitely needed the cooperation of Han Chinese officials and scholars. However, there was not much possibility for them to be grafted onto the core group of the empire. The failure of the Mongols in admitting the Han Chinese, the absolute majority of the population in the realm of Qa’an, seem to be a critical weakness of their rule and it became, undoubtedly, one of the most important causes of the downfall of their empire in China.

몽골제국의 ‘울루스 체제’의 형성

金浩東(Hodong Kim) 동양사학회 2015 東洋史學硏究 Vol.131 No.-

‘변방사’로 세계사 읽기

김호동(Kim, Hodong) 역사학회 2015 역사학보 Vol.0 No.228

This article aims at elucidating the meaning and the purpose of the researches on Central Eurasian history in Korea, by reviewing the general trends and the characteristics of those researches in the field since the 1950s. In the first part of the article, it expounds the importance of the study of this area from two perspectives: the Silk Road and the nomadic empires. And it proves and emphasizes how these two factors, the two most important elements in the history of Central Eurasia, have connected the histories of various regions of the world. Then, in the second part, this article tries to show how important these studies are for our understanding of not only the history of Korea but also the world history. To pursue this aim it emphasizes the various historical ‘connections’ of Korea with this region and beyond. It also touches upon the necessity to reconsider the historical reality of ‘China’ in relation with recent arguments about the Yuan and the Qing empires.

울루스인가 칸국인가 - 몽골제국의 카안과 칸 칭호의 분석을 중심으로 -

김호동 ( Kim Hodong ) 중앙아시아학회 2016 中央아시아硏究 Vol.21 No.2

It was Ogodei who took the title of qa`an for the first time among the Mongol emperors. Although that title was later widely employed by the supreme rulers of the empire, it had been rarely used in the Mongolian steppe before his adoption. At first, qa`an was a unique title for Ogodei but later it was adopted as a general title for Mongol emperors. This change was almost complete in the time of Qubilai. In the meantime, the title of khan was used, before 1206, to designate rulers of tribe, tribal confederacy or a dynasty. After 1206, only the supreme ruler of the empire could use that title. Although we can find a few princes - e.g., Jochi and Batu - who were called khan, it was an honorary title attached after their death. It was only from the late 1250s when Hulegu came to West Asia with a huge army that Chinggisid princes began to be called khan. As is well known, Hulegu and his successors were called il khan whose meaning is not `a subordinate khan` but `khan of il (i.e., ulus).` However, it was not a title monopolized by the Huleguid rulers; Jochid rulers were also addressed by that title. It should be pointed out that khan was not an official title adopted by the Mongol Empire. The official title to designate Chinggisid princes was ko`u(n) in Mongolian, and it was translated into oghul in Turkic, shahzada in Persian, and wang (or zhuwang, dawang) in Chinese. Qubilai introduced an institution of investment and divided Chinggisid princes into six hierarchically ordered groups, which were distinguished by the materias and the shape of the seals bestowed to them. `The Table of Princes` in Yuan shi shows this six-hierarchy institution was current only within the realm of the Qa`an Ulus, and no prince in the large three western uluses was found there. However, we know that Huleguid princes received various seals engraved with the expression of zhibao(之寶), and their officials also received zhiyin(之印) seals. After the reform of the institution in 1282 the imperial court stopped to bestow zhibao seal because it was regarded to be used only by emperors. Nonetheless, the Huleguid princes continued to use the zhibao seals within their realms as we see in the letter of Arghun in 1289 and in the edict of Ghazan in 1302. They went so far as to cast a new zhibao seal for themselves as evidenced by its use in 1305 and in 1320. The mode of employment of the khan title and the zhibao seals suggests the fact that the Huleguid princes, and probably other rulers in the three western uluses, practiced a policy of `internally emperor, externally king(外王內帝).` This policy allowed the Mongol Empire to maintain its unity in spite of growing independency of the three western uluses.

페놀계 모델 화합물 및 폴리벤조옥사진 수지에 대한 수소결합분포의 정량화

김호동(HoDong Kim),문화연(HwaYeon Moon) 한국염색가공학회 2008 韓國染色加工學會誌 Vol.20 No.4

『죽도기사(竹嶋紀事)』 분석 -안용복,박어둔 진술서 분석 및 우산도(于山島) 기록을 중심으로-

김호동 ( Hodong Kim ) 대구사학회 2016 대구사학 Vol.122 No.-

‘Ahn Yong-bok’ was recognized as a hero who preserved Dokdo island in Korea but he has been described as negative image person in Japan. Japanese researchers raise a question about the description of Korean part for Ahn Yong-bok. We need to describe the image of ‘Ahn Yong-bok’ through the historical materials in Japan too. I``d like to review about the materials concerning the Ahn Yong-bok and Park Eo-dun deposition in 『Jukdogisa』 Many people explain that 『Jukdogisa』 do not mentioned about ‘Usando(于山島)’, that is Dokdo record. In case of Ikeuchi Satoshi(池內敏), Ahn Yong-bok was well evaluated in which he ‘preserved Ulleungdo’. Ikeuchi always has explained Songdo(Dokdo-松島) has been out of recognition of territory during the Choseon Dynasty.” Now, I will analyze the record on ‘Usando(于山島)’ revealed in 『Jukdogisa』 to criticize the views of Ikeuchi Satoshi. On April 17 in 1693, Ahn Yong-bok and Park Eo-dun were taken away forcibly at Ulleungdo by Japanese fishers from Oya family and were examined by the fishers on same day. Ahn Yong-bok stated ‘the purpose of cross to Ulleungdo island was to harvest sea weed and abalone by the order of higher rankers of Korean administration(Sakuwan or General) from three provinces and started sail on March 27 to the island’. On April 18, the fishing boats from Oya family in Japan left Ulleungdo and arrived in Fukuora(福浦) of Dogo(嶋後) in Oki Island((隱岐國) Japan. Ahn Yong-bok and Park Eo-dun left Ianaba(因幡) on May 7 and arrived at Nagasaki(長崎) on late June. On July 1, Hamada Kenbe(濱田源兵衛) the district governor from Tsushima province of Edo government(Bafuku) inquired Ahn Yong-bok and Park Eo-dun. Ahn Yong-bok and Park Eo-dun arrived at Tsushima(對馬島) on September 2 through Nagasaki and were inquired by Kadono Gurojaemon(門野九郞左衛門) the higher inspector(大目付) who has been ordered by Tsushima governor on September 4, the two days later of the arrival. Ahn Yong-bok stated that the purpose of three ships from Choseon sailed to Ulleungdo was to harvest abalone and sea weed for money but has no intentions to earn much money and never tried to trade with Japanese. They explained the purpose of the sail to Ulleungdo was not ordered from government and secret sail but sailed by themselves only for money. Usando was mentioned three times on 『Jukdogisa』. On November 19 in 1693, the letter of Tada Yozaemon(多田與左衛門=橘眞重) arrived to Tsushima governor. And Tsushima governor replied to Tada Yozaemon on December 5. In the correspond letter of Tsushima governor, ‘Usando’ was cited three time. First, deposition of Ahn Yong-bok in Tsushima province described two times watching for ‘Usando’ at Ulleungdo. Second, Park Dong-ji concerned about ‘Usando’ when the ship judge Takase Hachiemon(高瀨八右衛門) rode arrived on Sasna(佐須奈), and thirdly Usando looks different to Ulleungdo citing Yeoji-seunglam(輿地勝覽). Ahn Yong-bok not only recognized the difference between Ulleungdo and Usando but also Choseon dynasty receptionist Hong Jung-ha, Park Dong-ji, governor of Tsushima, count Japanese Tada Yajaemon, and Judge Takase Hachiemon even recognized Ulleungdo and Usando as two different islands. During the ‘Dispute on Ulleungdo Issue’, not only Ahn Yong-bok but also Choseon dynasty, Japanese Edo government and Tsushima governor recognized ‘Jukdo(竹島)’ was ‘Ulleungdo’ and ‘Songdo(松島)’ was ‘Usando(于山島)’. Because of the epoch, Tokugawa government(Bafuku) of Japan in 1695 requested to Dottori(鳥取藩) province about when the two islands 竹島(Ulleungdo) and 松島(Dokdo) were belong to Japan. The answer from Dottori province was ‘Ulleungdo(竹島) and dokdo(松島) do not belong to Dottori province’. As a result, Tokugawa government declared order of ‘Prohibition of sail to Jukdo(竹島)’ on January 1696. (Research Professor Dokdo Research Institute, Yeungnam Univ./ khd223@ynu.ac.kr)

한국 고지도가 증명하는 독도 영유권

김호동(Hodong Kim) 영남대학교 독도연구소 2013 독도연구 Vol.- No.15

김정호의 ?청구도범례?에서 고지도의 경우 동서남북으로 나누어 작성하였지만 만약 상하·좌우에 약간의 차이가 있다고 하여 전체 지도를 비난하는 것이 아니란 지적을 통해 현재 고지도를 보는 시각에 대한 올바른 방법이라고 생각한다. 독도, 우산도는 울릉도 동남쪽에 있다. ?청구도범례?에 따르면 고지도상의 ‘우산도’의 경우 동쪽이나 동북쪽에 그려진 것은 이해할 수 있지만 서쪽이나 북쪽, 남쪽에 그려진 것은 우산도의 위치가 잘못된 것이다. 왜 그런 고지도가 나왔을까? 그 이유에 대해 해명하기 위해 이 글이 작성되었다. 『세종실록』 ?지리지?와 『신증동국여지승람』의 우산도·무릉도 설명을 통해 우산도는 무인도임을 정확히 인식하였다고 보아야 한다. 울릉도가 울진에 가깝지만 우산을 먼저 들고 울릉도를 뒤에 기록한 것은 우산이 무인도임을 알았기 때문에 적을 것이 없어 먼저 기록하고, 울릉도에서 양자의 관계를 적을 수밖에 없는 사정 때문에 그러한 서술이 이루어진 것으로 볼 수 있다. ‘우산’, ‘무릉’을 순차적으로 기록한 것이 고지도상 본토와 울릉도 사이에 ‘우산도’를 표기하게 된 요인이 되었을 것이다. 울릉도 동(남)쪽에 ‘우산도’를 표기한 지도는 1693년 이후에 안용복이 울릉도와 독도를 건너간 이후 ‘울릉도쟁계’발생이후, 1694년 장한상이 울릉도에 파견된 이후에 수토제가 확립되면서 주로 18세기 이후에 제작된 지도에 나온다. 조선초기의 경우 주로 강원도에서 울를도와 독도를 드나들었지만 조선후기의 경우 경상도, 전라도 지역의 동남해연안민들이 울릉도와 독도에 드나들었다. 그들은 울릉도의 동북방에 ‘우산도’가 있다고 생각하였다. 그런 인식을 가진 사람들이 많았기 때문에 조선후기 고지도에서 울릉도 동북방에 ‘우산도’를 표시하는 지도가 나온다는 것을 염두에 두어야 한다. ‘우산도’가 표기된 지도를 두고 ‘독도’라고들 한다. 특히 울릉도 동쪽에 그려진 ‘우산도’는 독도임이 당연하다고 주장한다. 그렇지만 울릉도 동쪽에 그려진 ‘소위우산도 ’는 독도가 아니라 댓섬(죽도)이다. 영조때 강원도감사 조최수의 주기가 담긴 ‘우산도’는 ‘소위우도’를 빼고 ‘우산도’라고 하였고, 광활하다고 하였다. 이 주기가 담긴 ‘우산도’도 댓섬일 것이다. 「Cheunggu-do Beomre」 of Kim Jung-Ho teaches us how to read old maps. Even though in the case of old maps, north and south, east and west were written down a little differently to real, there is little difference in the entire map. Dokdo, Usando lies in the southeast of Ulleungdo. According to 「Cheunggu-do Beomre」, it is understandable that Usando was drawn in the east or north-east of Ulleungdo. But it is wrong that Usando was drawn in the west, north or south of Ulleungdo. What is the cause of that kind of wrong maps? This article was written to clarify the reason for. It was recognized by the explanation of Usando·Mulleungdo in 「Jiriji of Sejong Sillok」 and 「Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam」, that Usando was uninhabited. The reason why to write first Usando later Mulleungdo, even though Mulleungdo was closer to Ulzin was that they knew then that Usando was uninhabited. Therefore, they wrote Usando on the map first on which there was nothing to write, then explained relations between Usando and Mulleungdo. The Maps in which Usando was written in the southeast of Ulleungdo appeared first after 1693 when Ahn Yong-bok’s voyage brought about ‘Ulleungdo jaenggye’ and 1694 when ‘Suto Policy(Find and Seek Policy)’ was established by Jang Han-sang dispatched to Ulleungdo. Since 18th century, there are many such maps had been made. In the early Joseon Dynasty, Gangwon-do’s residents had been to Ulleungdo and Dokdo. In the late Joseon Dynasty, southeastern residents from of Gyeongsang-do and Jeolla-do had been to Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Many people thought that Usando lies in northeast of Ulleungdo. Therefore, in the maps of late Joseon Dynasty, Usando was written in northeast of Ulleungdo. They naturally say that Usando especially written in the east of Ulleungdo is Dokdo. However, ‘SoweUsando’ written in the east of Ulleungdo is not Dokdo, but ‘Daetsum(Zhukdo)’. According to the maps with notes of Gangwon-do’s governor, Jo Choe-su, ‘Usando’, that is, ‘SoweUsando’ was vast and flat. This ‘Usando’ also must be ‘Daetsum(Zhukdo)’.

변방사의 한계를 넘어

金浩東(Kim, Hodong) 동양사학회 2015 東洋史學硏究 Vol.133 No.-

This paper aims at finding major trends and conspicuous changes during the last thirty years, from 1985 to the present, in the field of Central Asian history as well as the history of Liao, Jin and Yuan dynasties. As a result of our review the present writer was able to find out three new distinctive developments since 1985. The first is the creation and the activities of academic associations and research groups specialized in the Mongol studies, the Altaic studies, the Central Asia studies, and the history of Song-Liao-Jin-Yuan dynasties. These organizations became the central field of scholarly activities. The second is the establishment of the study of Central Asian history as a branch of historical studies in Korea. Before 1985 scholars paid attention to it and published some works related to that field, but it was generally perceived as a part or an extension of Chinese history. After 1985 young scholars who were able to utilize the non-Chinese sources, such as those written in Mongolian, Turkic and Persian, began to publish their works, and Central Asia came to be regarded as an independent historical and cultural area. The third is the rapid expansion of the Mongol-Yuan historical studies. Compared to other areas of research like Qitan Liao or Jurchen Jin, the growing interest in the Mongol empire is quite astonishing. A number of scholars published their books and articles, scholarly books in English or in Japanese were translated, and the primary sources written in Persian and Arabic languages were also translated, which all reflect the degree of scholarly and popular interest in the history of the Mongol empire. In sum, the scholarly researches in the field of Central Asian history and Liao-Jin-Yuan dynasties have achieved a remarkable development. However, the institutional framework, such as the availability of faculty position in universities and the scope of the lectures in the curriculum, is lagged far behind. So what confronts the Central Asian scholars in future would be how to narrow down this gap and to make a stable condition for Central Asian studies.

비 캐시 하드웨어 이벤트를 이용한 캐시 부채널 공격 실시간 탐지

김호동(Hodong Kim),허준범(Junbeom Hur) 한국정보보호학회 2020 정보보호학회논문지 Vol.30 No.6

캐시 부채널 공격은 CPU의 공유 캐시 자원을 이용하여 시스템에서 민감한 정보를 획득해내는 공격 유형이다. 최근 모바일 시스템에서 클라우드까지 다양한 환경에 공격이 가해짐에 따라 많은 탐지 전략이 제안되었다. 기존의 캐시 부채널 공격들은 많은 수의 캐시 이벤트를 발생시키는 특징을 가지고 있었기 때문에 기존의 탐지 기법은 대부분 캐시 이벤트를 주의 깊게 모니터링하는 것에 기반하여 설계되었다. 그러나 최근에 제안된 공격은 공격 중에 캐시 이벤트를 적게 유발하는 경향이 있다. 예를 들어 PRIME+ABORT 공격은 캐시에 접근하여 액세스 시간을 측정하는 대신 Intel TSX를 활용한다. 이러한 특징으로 인해 캐시 이벤트 기반 탐지 기법은 해당 공격을 탐지하기 어렵다. 본 논문에서는 PRIME+ABORT 공격에 대한 심층 분석을 수행하여 캐시 이벤트 이외에 공격 탐지에 활용 가능한 유용한 하드웨어 이벤트를 밝힌다. 이를 기반으로, PRIME+ABORT 공격 탐지 기법인 PRIME+ABORT Detector를 제시하고, 실험을 통해 제안한 탐지기법이 0.3%의 성능 오버헤드로 99.5%의 탐지 성공률을 달성할 수 있음을 보인다. Cache side-channel attack is a class of attacks to retrieve sensitive information from a system by exploiting shared cache resources in CPUs. As the attacks are delivered to wide range of environments from mobile systems to cloud systems recently, many detection strategies have been proposed. Since the conventional cache side-channel attacks are likely to incur tremendous number of cache events, most of the previous detection mechanisms were designed to carefully monitor mostly cache events. However, recently proposed attacks tend to incur less cache events during the attack. PRIME+ABORT attack, for example, leverages the Intel TSX instead of accessing cache to measure access time. Because of the characteristic, attack detection mechanisms based on cache events may hardly detect the attack. In this paper, we conduct an in-depth analysis of the PRIME+ABORT attack to identify the other useful hardware events for detection rather than cache events. Based on our finding, we present a novel mechanism called PRIME+ABORT Detector to detect the PRIME+ABORT attack and demonstrate that the detection mechanism can achieve 99.5% success rates with 0.3% performance overhead.