근세 돗토리번 (鳥取藩) 町人의 울릉도 도해

尹裕淑(Yu-sook Yoon) 한일관계사학회 2012 한일관계사연구 Vol.42 No.-

본고는 돗토리번 초닌(町人) 오야(大谷)가문과 무라카와(村川)가문의 울릉도 도항실태를 검토한 것이다. 구체적으로 두 가문의 유래, 17세기 초 울릉도에 도해하게 된 경위, 막부와의 관계, 돗토리번청과의 관계, 울릉도 산물의 활용, 울릉도 도해가 금지된 이후 두 가문의 행보 등을 규명하였다. 두 가문은 전국시대(戰國時代)에 무사(武士)로 존재하다 돗토리번 요나고(米子)에 이주, 정착한 내력을 지니며 17세기 초까지만 해도 무사적인 성격을 완전히 떨쳐내지 못했다. 그러던 중 막부 관리 아베 마사유키(阿部正之)의 알선을 통해 막부로부터 울릉도 도항을 허가받아 울릉도 도항권을 독점하게 된다. 그들은 이 권한을 근거로 하여 쇼군 알현을 비롯하여 다양한 특권을 획득했고, 매년 울릉도에 교대로 도항하여 해륙의 산물을 채획했다. 그들은 울릉도의 전복을 쇼군과 막부의 요인들에게 헌상하는 한편 채획한 물품을 나가사키로 가져가 견직물, 虎皮, 砂糖등과 교환하여 일본 각지를 돌며 판매하기도 했다. 17세기 말 울릉도의 소속을 둘러싸고 조선과 외교문제가 발생하자 막부는 1696년 돗토리번주에게 “죽도도해금지”를 명하였다. 오야 가쓰후사(大谷勝房)와 무라카와 마사카쓰(村川正勝)의 대에 이르러 두 가문은 약 70년 동안 향유해 온 울릉도 도항의 권리를 상실하게 되었다. 울릉도 도항을 완전히 중단한 결과 경제사정이 어려워지자 돗토리번은 오야씨에게 요나고의 城下에서 어류도매업(魚鳥問屋)에서 수수료를 취득할 수 있는 권한을, 그리고 무라카와씨에게는 소금도매업(鹽問屋)의 수수료 취득권을 부여했다. 그럼에도 불구하고 두 가문 모두 울릉도 도항을 재개시키기 위한 운동을 오랫동안 계속했다. 또한 오야씨는 1740년 무렵 가업을 확대시키기 위해 ‘오사카 회미선업’, ‘나가사키 무역’에의 참가를 막부에 청원하기도 했다. 그러나 이러한 노력은 모두 실패로 돌아갔고, 이후 오야 가문은 경제적인 부침을 거듭하다가 메이지 유신을 맞이하였다. This paper reviews the travel of the Oya family and the Murakawa family from Tottrrori Domain to Ullengdo. In particular, the paper studies the origins of the two families, the background of their travel to Ulleundon in the early seventeenth century, relationships with the Edo shogunate and the Tottori Domain government, usage of Ulleungdo’s local products, and progress after travel to Ulleungdo was banned. The two families, having served as warriors in the Warring States period, moved to and settled in Yonago, and maintained some of their warrior-like characteristics until the early seventeenth century. Abe Masayuki(阿部正之), and Edo government official who had connection with the two families, helped them to acquire exclusive rights from the Edo government to travel to Ulleungdo. With those rights, the two families enjoyed various privileges: they were allowed to have an audience with the shogun, and they took turns every year to travel to Ulleungdo and gather tremendous amounts of abalone and seafood. They offered abalone to key figures of the Edo government, and took the seafood and abalone to Nagasaki and exchanged them with silk, tiger pelts, and sugar cane to sell across the country. When diplomatic disputes with Joseon concering sovereignty over Ulleundo arose in the late seventeenth century, the Edo government ordered the daimyo of Tottori Domain to ban travel to Ulleungdo in 1696. The families lost their rights to travel to Ulleungdo, which they had enjoyed for about seventy years, during the generation of ya Katsufusa(大谷勝房) and Murakawa Masakatsu(村川正勝). In consideration of the two families’ economic loss due to the ban on travel to the island, Tottori Domain granted the ya and the Murakawa with rights to receive fees from fishery wholesalers and salt wholesalers, respectively, in Yonago. Nonetheless, both families continued their efforts to resume travel to Ulleungdo for many years. Around 1749, the ya even petitioned the Edo government to be allowed to participate in the shipping business of Osaka and the Nagasaki trade in order to expand their family business. However, such efforts were in vain. The ya faced the Meiji Restoration after repeated ups and downs in its economic status.

1693년 조선인의 돗토리번(鳥取藩) 연행 사건과 쓰시마번(對馬藩)

윤유숙(Yusook Yoon) 동양사학회 2013 東洋史學硏究 Vol.123 No.-

This paper examines a set of diplomatic measures taken by Tsushima Domain(對馬藩) regarding relations between Joseon(朝鮮) and Japan, and focuses on the Koreans who were captured and taken to Tottori Domain(鳥取藩) in 1693. This paper seeks to identify the intention and the diplomatic position of Tsushima Domain, which was deeply involved in the repatriation of these Koreans. In 1407, the governor of Tsushima, S? Sadashige(宗貞茂), expressed to Joseon that he wanted to move to Ulleungdo(鬱陵島). Further, Tsushima several times gained the repatriation of Japanese fishermen who had sailed to Ulleungdo and reached the eastern coast of Joseon. Through such experiences, Tsushima Domain learned that fishermen from Tottori Domain had been sailing to Ulleungdo. However, there is no record that Tottori Domain ever informed the Joseon government of this fact. The Edo government(江戶幕府) ordered Tsushima Domain to repatriate the Koreans taken to Japan by Tottori Domain fishermen in 1693. Tsushima Domain independently investigated Ulleungdo and reaffirmed that Takeshima(竹嶋) is Ulleungdo. Tsushima Domain, however, negotiated with Joseon without reporting the results of this investigation to the Edo government. Further, Tsushima Domain sent Joseon a diplomatic document in which was written “Japan’s Takeshima,” while the original order from the Edo government was to “request the Joseon government to prohibit its people from sailing to Takeshima,” that is Ulleungdo. Joseon and Japan argued over expressions included in the Joseon government’s reply from the eleventh month of 1693 to mid-1695. During this period, Tsushima Domain continuously attempted to include Takeshima into Japanese territory. Such attempts could stem from Tsushima Domain’s territorial ambitions over Ulleungdo. However, Tsushima Domain was not able to achieve its goal as the Joseon government started to adopt hard-line policies to address this issue in the late stages of its diplomatic negotiations with Japan. In the end, the Edo government confirmed the facts about the ownership of Ulleungdo and provided Joseon with a reply that it will ban Japanese from sailing to Ulleungdo.

돗토리번 사료를 통해 본 울릉도 쟁계 -몇 가지 쟁점에 대한 검토를 중심으로-

박지영 영남대학교 독도연구소 2018 독도연구 Vol.- No.25

This paper examines the issue and the nature of the issue of the ‘Permission for passage to Takeshima’ and the inclusion of Dokdo in the ‘Prohibit the passage to Takeshima’ in relation to the "Ulleungdo Conflict" between the two countries at the end of the 17th century. And in 1696, An Yong-bok sought to identify historical facts about the purpose. Regarding the timing and nature of issuance of the ‘Permission for passage to Takeshima’, it was originally issued in 1618 and issued in 1625, but in this paper, it was issued twice in 1618 and 1625, Proved to be a license that must be renewed each time it is replaced. And Oya, Murakawa family used a license that was ineffective in Japan at that time, proved that the "Passage to Takeshima Project" by the Oya, Murakawa family and the Tottori government also committed illegal activities. Regarding the inclusion of Dokdo by the ‘Prohibit the passage to Takeshima’, in 1740, Oya, Murakawa family sent petitions to the related organizations of the Edo Shogunate, including Sasa-bugyo, as well as Oya, Murakawa, and the Edo Shogunate, And that the purpose of Ahn Yong-bok's passage to Japan was to compensate the individual, but in the process Ulleungdo and Dokdo claimed to belong to the Gangwon Province of Korea. Proved that it is no doubt wrong to claim the sovereignty over Dokdo, though it is different from the purpose. 이 글은 17세기 말에 조·일 양국 간에 벌어진 ‘울릉도 쟁계’와 관련해서 돗토리번의 사료를 중심으로 쟁점이 되고 있는 문제 중에 ‘다케시마 도해면허’의 발급 시기와 성격, ‘다케시마 도해금지령’의 독도 포함 여부, 그리고 1696년에 안용복이 도일한 목적에 대해 역사적 사실관계를 규명하고자 한 것이다. ‘다케시마 도해면허’의 발급 시기와 성격과 관련해서는 기존의 1618년 발급설과 1625년 발급설이 있었지만 이 연구에서는 그것이 상반되는 것이 아닌 1618년과 1625년 두 차례에 걸쳐 발급된 것이며, 쇼군과 번주가 교체될 때마다 갱신해야 하는 면허라는 것을 증명했다. 그리고 당시의 일본 국내법적으로 효력이 상실된 면허장을 사용한 오야·무라카와 가문과 돗토리번 당국의 ‘울릉도 도해사업’도 불법행위를 자행한 것임을 증명했다. 또 ‘다케시마 도해금지령’의 독도 포함여부와 관련해서는 1740년에 오야·무라카와 가문이 사사봉행소를 비롯한 에도막부의 관련기관에 제출한 청원서를 통해 오야·무라카와 가문뿐만 아니라 에도막부도 ‘다케시마 도해금지령’에 독도가 포함되어 있다는 인식을 공유하고 있었다는 것을 증명했다. 그리고 안용복의 도일 목적은 개인적인 피해보상 차원에서 이루어진 것이지만, 그 과정에서 울릉도와 독도가 조선의 강원도에 소속된 섬이라고 주장하였으므로 결과적으로는 목적과는 다르지만 독도에 대한 영유권을 주장한 것은 틀림이 없다는 사실을 증명했다.

일본 내각관방의 독도 홍보 영상 분석

홍정원 동양고전학회 2022 東洋古典硏究 Vol.- No.89

일본 정부의 영토 관련 홍보는 2013년 2월 출범한 내각관방 영토주권대 책기획조정실이 주도해나가고 있다. 최근 내각관방은 독도 관련 홍보 영상 ‘에도시대의 울릉도와 안용복 진술([竹島研究⋅解説サイト PART1⋅2] 江 戸時代の竹島と安龍福の供述)’ 1⋅2편을 공개했다. 이 홍보 영상은 2021 년 8월 27일 내각관방 홈페이지와 유튜브(youtube)에 일본어로 게재된 데 이어, 2022년 4월 24일 영어, 9월 6일에는 한국어로도 게재했다. 이 홍보 영상의 주요 주장은 첫째 17세기 돗토리번(鳥取藩) 사람들이 막부로부터 「竹島(울릉도) 도해면허」를 받아 독도에서 어로 활동을 했고, 둘째 안용복의 진술은 신빙성이 결여되어 있으며, 셋째 「竹島도해 금지령」에 독도는 포함되지 않았다는 것으로 요약할 수 있다. 이러한 주 장은 전체적으로 1950-60년대 한·일간 「왕복외교문서」, 2008년 외무성의 「竹島(독도) 문제를 이해하기 위한 10개의 포인트」 팜플렛을 충실하게 계승하고 있다. 그런데 내용 면에서는 「10 포인트」보다 「왕복외교문서」 에 더 유사성을 보여주고 있다. 일본 내각관방은 앞으로도 독도 관련 홍보 영상을 계속 제작해서 공 개할 것으로 보인다. 이 홍보 영상 처음에 “정부 위탁사업 하에 전문가 의 조언을 받아 작성한 것이며 해당 내용이 정부 견해를 나타내는 것은 아닙니다”라고 밝히고 있지만, 정부 홈페이지에 게재된 것이고, 향후 이 내용들을 정부 공식 견해로 포함시킬 가능성도 크기 때문에 철저한 분 석이 필요하다고 생각한다. In the Japanese Government, the Office of Planning & Coordination on Territory and Sovereignty of the Cabinet Office has been in charge of promoting its territoriality since its establishment in February 2013. Recently, the Cabinet Secretariat released promotional videos on Dokdo named “Takeshima and Ahn Yong-bok's testimony in the Edo period Part 1 and Part 2.” These promotional video clips of the Japanese language were uploaded to the Cabinet Office’s homepage and YouTube on August 27, 2021, the English version on April 24, 2022, and the Korean version on September 6, 2022. The major arguments by this video are three-fold: First, in the 17th century, the Tottori-han people were authorized by the Japanese Shogunate the license to Takeshima (Ulleungdo) to fish at Dokdo. Second, the credibility of the deposition of Korean fisherman An Yong-bok is infirm. Third, the Order banning Passage to Takeshima (Ulleundo) by the Edo Shogunate did not apply to passage to Dokdo. These points are basically the same as following Japan’s arguments in the diplomatic correspondence between Korea and Japan during the 1950s and 60s (diplomatic correspondence) as well as the pamphlet entitled “10 points to understand the Takeshima Dispute” (10 points) released in 2008 by the Japanese Foreign Ministry. The video clip's content is more similar to the diplomatic correspondence than the 10 points. The Japanese Cabinet Office is expected to continue to produce and upload promotional videos on Dokdo. The first part of the video puts a disclaimer saying, “the video has been made under governmental consignment with the advice of experts, but does not represent the view of the Japanese government.” However, these video clips are worth thorough investigation in the sense that they have been uploaded on the government’s website, and Japan is likely to include the gist of the videos on the government’s official position.

조선후기 對馬藩의 조선 교섭과 1693년 울릉도 영속시비

장순순 동북아역사재단 2012 東北亞歷史論叢 Vol.- No.37

This paper focuses on the territory dispute over Ulleungdo between Joseon and Japan in 1693 and the attitude of Tsushima Domain toward diplomatic negotiations with Joseon. In the third month of 1693, Ahn Yongbok (安龍福) and Pak Eodun (朴於屯), who had sailed near Ulleungdo (Takeshima, 竹島) for fishing were abducted by Japanese fishermen from Oki Province (隱岐州). The Edo Shogunate, which was briefed on the situation through Tottori Domain (鳥取藩) instructed the Edo Hantei (江戶藩邸) on the thirteenth day of the fifth month of that year to negotiate with Joseon for their repatriation to Joseon and for a prohibition on sail to Takeshima. At that time, Tsushima had long recognized that Takeshima belonged to Joseon and that that island was Ulleungdo. What Tottori Domain or the Edo Shogunate wanted to gain through the Tsushima’s negotiations with Joseon was not possession over Takeshima, but fishery rights for Japanese by prohibiting fishing by Koreans at Takeshima. However, Tsushima had indicated its position that Takeshima was the territory of Joseon from before the Imjin War (壬辰倭亂), which started in 1592. But according to the cases in 1637 and 1666, there was no indication of Joseon’s territory so Japan gained that island. Japan thus engaged in the negotiation with Joseon based on the unreasonable preconception that Takeshima is Japanese territory, and put the expression of “our Takeshima” (本國竹島) in the document sent to the Minister of the Board of Rites (禮曹參判) in the Joseon government. The first negotiation over the possession of Ulleungdo between Tsushima and Joseon, which started with the Ahn Yongbok abduction case in 1693, continued from the twelfth month of 1693 to the second month of 1694. The second negotiation was in progress from the intercalary fifth month in 1694 to the fifth month of 1695. Tsushima,which demanded to alter the document from Joseon, and Joseon, which continued to insist that Takeshima was Ulleungdo and Joseon’s territory, were in confrontation and negotiations showed no sign of resolution. Tsushima asked the Edo Shogunate, which began to study the Ulleungdo possession issue. The conclusion was that Takeshima was not Japanese territory, thus Japanese were not permitted to sail to Takeshima. Though Tsushima recognized that Takeshima is Ulleungdo and Joseon’s territory, Tsushima included Takeshima in Japanese territory. In the background to this were the new diplomatic procedures with Tsushima as the leader after the Imjin War. The order from the shogunate about Ahn Yongbok’s repatriation and the prohibition on sail to Takeshima for Joseon were the touchstones of the diplomatic ability of Tsushima with Joseon, thus Tsushima exhibited its loyalty to the shogunate at the negotiations with Joseon. Also in the background was Tsushima’s intent to process Ulleungdo since Japanese fishermen whose ships had drifted to Joseon avoided punishment even though they had stated that they were fishing around Takeshima in 1637 and 1666. A third issue was the diplomatic position of Tsushima toward Joseon after the Imjin War. Tsushima made effective use of Joseon’s defensive situation due to the Manchu wars in 1627 and 1636, and thus gained good benefit from Joseon. Tsushima tried to gain diplomatic benefit from Joseon and used illusory pressure called “the shogunate’s military prestige.” With the position of Tsushima, they thought they had to carry their point even with force and threat. And a fourth was that the negotiation was being conducted under Sō Yoshizane, the daimyo of Tsushima. At the time of the negotiations over possession of Ulleungdo with Japan (Tsushima), Joseon took a firm and active attitude, yet Tsushima maintained its earlier position. Therefore, the possession issue regarding Ulleungdo that started in 1693 was settled not as Tsushima Domain had hoped.

1696년 오키(隱岐)에 도항한 조선인들의 송환과정 검토

윤유숙 일본사학회 2013 일본역사연구 Vol.38 No.-

This article examines the case in May 1696 when a ship carrying eleven Joseon people sailed from Ulleungdo to the Oki islands and thereafter repatriated from Tottori Domain in Japan back to Joseon. Far from an ordinary case of drifting ashore, the event is a rare case reflecting Korea-Japan relations in the late Joseon period in that the sailors from the ship went to make a direct appeal to Japanese authorities. In this paper, I argue that the case was deeply related to the so-called 'Ulleungdo Dispute' that began in 1693. The case can be viewed as an extension of the event in which Joseon fishermen working at Ulleungdo were forcibly taken to Japan as well as the ongoing diplomatic dispute at the time between Joseon and Japan's Tsushima Domain over the possession of Ulleungdo. The ship from Joseon sailed to Japan for an 'unusual purpose' before the dispute over Ulleungdo could be officially settled by the governments of Joseon and Japan. The Tsushima Domain responded to the case by maintaining its diplomatic control of having exclusively managed relations between the two countries. As a result, after heavily persuading Japan's Edo government, the Joseon people were returned to their homeland in a form resembling deportation instead of the customary practice of repatriating drifters as was the case in 1693.

18~19세기 전반 朝日 양국의 울릉도 도해 양상

尹裕淑(Yusook Yoon) 동양사학회 2012 東洋史學硏究 Vol.118 No.-

This paper will give a general overview of the policies about sea crossing in both Joseon and Japan in the late seventeenth century and examine the reality of sea crossing by people in both countries, ranging from the eighteenth century through the nineteenth century over Ulleungdo(鬱陵島). After the eighteenth century, Joseon’s policy towards Ulleungdo revolved around Suto Policy (搜討政策) and Ulleungdo’s regional product acquisition activities. Suto(搜討) by a periphery administrator began to be implemented on a regular basis from 1699 and was officially abolished in 1894 as the Joseon government changed its Ulleungdo policy into a migration policy by pioneering. Even after the enhancement of the Suto Policy, sea crossing to Ulleungdo continued. Especially in the late eighteenth century, the number of cases of entering the island for gathering ginseng(人蔘) by the public increased. The Joseon government once dispatched both Suto officers(搜討官) and people digging ginseng(採蔘軍) together to Ulleungdo to take advantage of wild ginseng from the island. Meanwhile, even after the Edo Bakufu prohibited on the Dottori Clan(鳥取藩) the sea crossing to Ulleungdo in 1696, a fact that local residents of Oki(隱岐), Nagato(長門), Iwami(石見) accessed the island is revealed. Among them, a case of Imazuya Hachiemon(今津屋八右衛門) from the Hamada Clan(浜田藩) of sea crossing to Ulleungdo which was found in 1836 let the re-inspection of passage problems in conjunction with a power struggle in the Edo Bakufu. As Hachiemon was only a commoner of the Hamada Clan, his sea crossing was in fact pursued with permit and assistance of the Hamada Clan Agency. The Sentencing of the Edo Bakufu(江戶幕府) has a record of Hachiemon’s violation against the prohibition of sea crossing to foreign countries. However, there is another record that Hachiemon sold Japanese swords to foreigners. It could be possible that there was a huge possibility that Hamada Clan took some profit created by the sea crossing to Ulleungdo as the sea crossing was permitted by the Hamada Clan Agency. Another thing to note in this case is that the shogunate promulgated the prohibition of sea crossing to Ulleungdo again in the form of national laws in the following year 1837. It may be because the Edo Bakufu recognised the need to emphasise on the reason for illegality and its significance of the sea crossing to Ulleungdo on a nationwide scale. In this law, both facts were specified that Ulleungdo belonged to Joseon and the act of sea crossing to Ulleungdo was against the ban on the sea crossing to foreign countries.