일본의 독도 이름 개칭에 관한 연구 - 松島에서 竹島로의 개칭에 대한 고찰을 중심으로 -

김화경 영남대학교 민족문화연구소 2011 민족문화논총 Vol.48 No.-

Japan have changed Dokdo name from the existing ‘Matsushima(松島)’ to ‘Takeshima(竹島)’ during the process of forced annexation of Dokdo. But Japan insisted the responsibility of changing name of Dokdo was due to foreign country. That is, the reason of changing name Dokdo as ‘Takeshima’ which has meant as Ulleungdo by Japan instead of ‘Matsushima’ is based on Siebold's wrong map. This study tried to reveal the truth of the fact that Japan justified the seizure of Dokdo by changing name of Dokdo. So, this paper proved the false excuse by Kawakami Kenzo(川上健三) who explained about the reason of changing name Dokdo(Matsushima) to ‘Takeshima’ was due to Siebold's wrong map. And the paper found the fact that Siebold's 「Japan Map(日本圖)」 obviously revealed ‘Takeshima’(Ulleungdo) and ‘Matsushima’(Dokdo), but the location of latitude and altitude was wrong. Also, this paper proved wrong insistence by Japan about the confused name of Dokdo because there were islands in the western map of 「Japan Map」 which figured ‘Takeshima’ as ‘Argonaut island’ and ‘Matsushima’ as ‘Dagelet island, and Hornet island between Korea and Japan. Author raised a question on the Western recognition of the geography about the area because Admiral Perry's 1856 「Map around Japan(近域圖)’ never drew any island like 'Argonaut' in the area but the fact 「Japan Map」 had drawn three islands after the time meant Westerners had a little knowledge about the geography of East Sea area. Especially, this paper assumed a possibility of Japanese intention to hide something important because every country should examine prior survey and strictly review on historical fact to decide important national agenda such as acquisition of new territory issues, but Japan ignored the process. So the paper tried to find the Japanese intention and pursued the reason of Japanese changing name from ‘Takeshima’ as Ulleungdo to ‘Matsushima’. It was assumed that Japanese intended to change the name because Japan tried to cheat governor who banned sailing to Takeshima in the year of 1836 which evoked an incident by Aizuya Hachiemon(會津屋八右衛門)’s Takeshima sailing. This incident resulted behead of Aizuya Hachiemon and Hashimoto Sanbei who secretly sailed to ‘Takeshima’(Ulleungdo) to make smuggling for Japan Sword and armors. Japan Bafuku declared ‘Order of Prohibition to Sail to Takeshima’ again in 1837. Japanese who recognized this fact intended to escape the punishment by taking a measure calling 'Takeshima(Ulleungdo) to ‘Matsushima’. This fact was proved by written statement by Aizuya Hachiemon as “Matsushima is a small island and not scheduled to sail, and how about remain a report to Edo office about sailing to Matsushima but really secretly try to sail to Takeshima? And I discussed in detail with Hashimoto Sanbei to pretend the drift of sailing to, when if the fact was leaked to other persons, and hurried the sailing.” Also, this kind of measure to change name of the islands was applied to ‘Application of Matsushima Exploration’(鬱陵島 開拓願) which has been submitted to Japan MOFA in 1876 by Muto Heikaku(武藤平學). Recognizing the fact, Japan government used the name Takeshima which they traditionally called as Ulleungdo to make Dokdo as Terra Nullis as a means to achieve their purpose. As a conclusion, this paper induced a theoretical result that Japan instead cited ‘Matsushima’ as Ulleungdo which civilians so far called it. The reason of the changing name by Japan assumed Japanese government's intention to avoid a criticism of suspicion for the Korean territory seizure by foreign countries if Japan use same name of the existing ‘Matsushima’. In other word, Japan needed a changing name of the islands to avoid the criticism and acquire a new territory. 일본은 독도를 강탈하면서, 종래에 불러오던 ‘마쓰시마(松島)’ 대신에 ‘다케시마(竹島)’라는 이름을 붙였다. 하지만 일본에서는 이처럼 섬 이름이 변경된 책임을 시볼트의 잘못 된 지도의 탓으로 돌리고 있다. 본 연구는 이와 같은 일본인들의 주장이 자기들의 독도 강탈을 정당화하기 위하여 만들어진 허구임을 구명하기 위해서 마련되었다. 그리하여 먼저 그들이 섬 이름을 바꾼 저의가 어디에 있는가 하는 문제를 살펴보았다. 이 과정에서 울릉도에 건너왔던 일본인들이 전통적으로 불러오던 다케시마란 이름을 마쓰시마로 바꾼 것은 1836년의 아이즈야 하치에몽(會津屋八右衛門) 사건과 밀접한 관련을 가지고 있을 것이라는 추정을 했다. 하치에몽 사건이란 ‘다케시마’라고 부르던 울릉도에서 日本刀를 비롯한 무기들을 밀무역하다가 적발되어, 사형에 처해진 사건을 가리킨다. 이 사건을 계기로 에도막부에서는 1837년 재차 ‘덴보 다케시마 도해 금령’을 내렸다. 이런 사실을 알고 있던 일본인들은 울릉도 도항 시에 받을지도 모르는 처벌을 피하는 방법으로 이 섬을 마쓰시마로 불렀다는 것이다. 이러한 사실은 하치에몽의 진술, 곧 마쓰시마에 간다는 핑계를 대고 다케시마에 건너가려고 했다는 것을 통해서 확인이 되었다. 그리고 이렇게 섬 이름을 바꾸는 방법은 1876년 무토 헤이가쿠(武藤平學)라는 자가 「마쓰시마 개척에 대한 안건」을 일본 외무성에 제출할 때도 이용되었다는 것을 밝혔다. 이와 같은 사실을 알고 있던 일본정부는 독도가 無主地였다는 것을 강조하기 위해서, 그들이 전통적으로 사용해오던 울릉도의 이름인 다케시마를 독도를 지칭하는 이름으로 사용하였을 것이라고 상정하였다. 그러면서 그 대신에 울릉도에는 민간에서 사용하던 마쓰시마란 호칭을 원용함으로써, ‘무주지 선점론’이라는 이론적 틀의 정당성을 확보하려고 했다는 결론을 추출했다.

울릉도쟁계(元祿竹島一件)와 근세 일본의 ‘죽도’ 인식 -소위 ‘죽도 양도’ 인식을 중심으로 -

이훈 한일관계사학회 2022 한일관계사연구 Vol.78 No.-

This paper examines the genealogy of perception that how the Edo Shogunate, Japan's central government, recognized Takeshima (Ulleungdo) when it declared a law related to the ban on Japanese sailing to Takeshima (Ulleungdo). Specifically, considering the phrase “handed it over" in the sentences of 「Tempō-Takeshima Ban in1837」, "It was an island that ordered the suspension of crossing the sea since Japan handed it over to the Choseon Dynasty during the year of Genroku.", included the meaning that it was originally Japanese, but they handed it over, it was reviewed when, why, and how this perception of ‘Takeshima transfer’, which is different from historical facts, was inherited. The conclusions obtained as a result are as follows. First, it was pointed out that the perception of Takeshima(Ulleungdo) by The Shogunate at the time of 「the Genroku-Takeshima Ban in1696」 was that it did not make sense to return it because it was not an island originally taken by Japan, and that did not want the Korea-Japan relationship to be deadlocked due to the territorial dispute over the ownership of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) Second, the perception that "Takeshima(Ulleungdo) was transferred to Chosun during the Genroku period" was a desperate measure created by Tsushima, who delivered the Ban to Choseon, and it was found to be related to Choseon's response "Ulleungdo" be stated in the twice replies (diplomatic document) of Yejochampan . In particular, when Yejochampan's Reply(李畬, 1694.9) based on "Ulleungdo = Takeshima" (one island two names) confirmed that Tsushima was based on Joseon's guidelines for border management when Tsushima- han requested Choseon's permission to explore Isotake-shima Island in 1614, Tsushima prepared the following logic in preparation for Joseon's protest and the Shogunate censure. In other words, under the premise of "Takeshima = Ulleungdo," Takeshima has been "neglected" for a long time without protesting the Japanese's border crossing even if 「Takeshima(Ulleungdo) belonged to Choseon ("Takeshima Neglecting" Theory) →The evidence is that the Japanese who sailed to Ulleungdo Island and engaged in fishing activities were repatriated as "drifted people." → Therefore, it was the logic that Takeshima was actually used as an empty ownerless island just like the Japanese island.(Takeshima Empty Island Theory)」 In the final stage (1699) of informing Choseon of Takeshima Ban(1696), following the direction of the Shogunate, it was pointed out that the logic was once again leaped to that of 「Takeshima Transfer」, which was based on the sentence, "It was the effort of the Lord of Tsushima-han to return Takeshima to the land of your country.", in the January 1699 verbal note sent to Dongrae-Busa by Tsushimahan-garo. Third, in the mid-18th century after 「the Genroku Takeshima Ban」, when the smuggling incident (1723-1725) in which Kyushu and Tsushima residents conspired with Koreans occurred around Waegwan, in the verbal negotiations with Choseon, Tsushima-han highlighted 「Gangwon-do and Ulleungdo」 as a Japanese sailing route and smuggling ginseng place but in the round-trip diplomatic letter of the Choseon Dynasty and Japan, it was listed as 「Coastal region」 and 「Dark place」, respectively. As a result, it was pointed out that there was virtually no opportunity for the Shogunate to recognize Takeshima (Ulleungdo) problem for more than 140 years until Hamada-han Hatchiemon's Ulleungdo smuggling incident (1836) occurred in the mid-19th century Fourth, it was revealed that nevertheless, 「the Tempo-Takeshima Ban」(1837) stated that Takeshima(Ulleungdo) which had long belonged to Japan was handed over to Choseon only after reaching the Genroku period, which was based on statements from Hamadahan-garo and Tsushimahan- garo based on the records of Tsushima-han at the time of the Shogunate's investigation into the Hachiemon Case. It was pointed out that the only document reflecting t...

「죽도문제에 관한 학습」 추진 검토부회의 활동과 시마네현의 독도교육 검토

송휘영 영남대학교 독도연구소 2021 독도연구 Vol.- No.30

The purpose of this paper is to outline the activities of the “Learning on the Takeshima Problem” promotion review subcommittee presented in the ‘4th Final Report’ of the ‘Takeshima-mondai-kenkyukai’ in Shimane Prefecture, Japan, and to review the “study guidance” of each level of school. In the ‘Takeshima-mondai-kenkyukai’ = Takeshima Issue Research Group, the activities of the ‘Takeshima (Dokdo) Study’ subcommittee in 2005 have already led to 「Learning about Takeshima」 from 2009, and the '4th Takeshima Problem Research Group' has been conducted with 「Learning about the Takeshima Issue」. It has been expanded and systematized by reflecting the trends of study guide tips and commentary. The result reviewed in this paper are as follows. First, historical research in the activities of the ‘‘Takeshima-mondai-kenkyukai’ is gradually changing to post-modern research, and interest and efforts in Dokdo education = “learning on the Takeshima problem” are gradually expanding. Second, the Dokdo education = 「Learning about the Takeshima issue」 in the 『Second Final Report』 was expanded to 「Learning about the Takeshima issue」 as it had a nationwide impact, and a review committee was organized to provide a 'study guide plan' for each school level was written. Third, the 'Learning Guidance Plan' of the 「Learning on the Takeshima Problem」 promotion by the Review Subcommittee is based on the revised 『Learning Guidance Guide』 and 『Commentary』 of the Ministry of Education, ① 'Function and Knowledge', ②'Thinking, Judgment, and Expressive Power', ③ The content was systematically pursued with the three-step guidance of 'attitude toward subjective learning'. The 'Learning Guidance Plan' of the "Learning on the Takeshima Issue" promotion by thr Review Committee provides many implications and directions for Dokdo education, which should be led by the Daegu Metropolitan Office of Education and Gyeongsangbuk-do Office of Education, as well as the Korea Ministry of Education's setting of the direction of Dokdo education will say that It is necessary not only to systematically organize the contents of Dokdo education by school level, but also to be supplemented with subject contents that allow students to think and explore on their own, not in an introductory style. 본고의 과제는 일본 시마네현 ‘죽도문제연구회’의 『제4기 최종보고서』에서 제시된 「죽도문제에 관한 학습」 추진 검토부회의 활동을 개관하고 각급학교의 ‘학습지도안’을 검토하는 것을 목적으로 하였다. ‘죽도문제연구회’에서는 이미 2005년 「죽도(독도)학습」 부회의 활동이 2009년부터 「죽도에 관한 학습」으로 이어졌으며, ‘제4기 죽도문제연구회’에서는 「죽도문제에 관한 학습」으로 확장되어 학습지도요령 및 해설서의 동향을 반영하여 체계화하고 있다. 본고에서 검토된 것들은 다음과 같다. 첫째, ‘죽도문제연구회’의 활동에서 역사적 연구가 차츰 근현대 이후의 연구로 변화되고 있으며, 독도교육=「죽도문제에 관한 학습」에 대한 관심과 노력이 점차로 확대되고 있다는 것이다. 둘째, 『제2기 최종보고서』의 독도교육=「죽도에 관한 학습」은 전국적으로 영향을 미치게 됨에 따라 「죽도문제에 관한 학습」으로 확장하였고, 검토부회가 조직되어 각급 학교급별 ‘학습지도안’을 작성하고 있다는 것이다. 셋째, 「죽도문제에 관한 학습」 추진 검토부회의 ‘학습지도안’은 문부성의 개정 『학습지도요령』 및 『해설서』를 토대로 ①‘기능·지식’, ②‘사고력·판단력·표현력’, ③‘주체적으로 학습에 임하는 태도’의 3가지 단계별 지도를 염두에 두고 그 내용에 체계성을 추구하고 있다는 것이다. 이러한 「죽도문제에 관한 학습」 추진 검토부회의 ‘학습지도안’은 교육부의 독도교육 방향 설정은 물론 관련지자체인 경상북도교육청, 대구광역시교육청이 주도적으로 추진해야할 독도교육에 대해 많은 시사점과 방향성을 던져주는 것이라 할 것이다. 독도교육 내용의 학교급별 체계적 구성뿐만 아니라 주입식이 아닌 스스로 생각하고 탐구하는 교과내용으로 보완될 필요가 있다.

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.

일본 시마네현 고등학교 사회과의 독도 관련 영토교육 동향

김병연(Kim, Byung-Yeon),이상균(Yi, Saangkyun) 한국지역지리학회 2018 한국지역지리학회지 Vol.24 No.3

본 연구는 시마네현의 다케시마 교육 및 정책 개발의 가이드 라인을 제시하고 있는 ‘다케시마 문제연구회’의 제 2기, 3기 「최종 보고서」에 제시된 교육정책 및 학습지도안을 중심으로 일본 시마네현의 다케시마 교육정책과 고등학교 사회과 다케시마 교육 방향성을 검토해 보았다. 다케시마 문제연구회에서 생산된 연구성과는 일본 외무성이나 문부과학성에서 주장하는 다케시마의 ‘일본 고유 영토론’에 대한 국・내외 홍보 및 정책 형성과 교육에 기본 논리를 제공하고 있으며, 시마네현 교육위원회 차원에서 이루어지는 다케시마 교육에 다양하게 활용되고 있다. 특히 다케시마 문제연구회는 고등학교 다케시마 교육의 준거가 되는 사회과 학습지도안을 작성하여 학교 현장에 배포·활용토록 독려하고 있다. 지도안은 한국이 다케시마를 불법점거하고 있으며, 일본은 다케시마 문제의 평화적 해결을 위하여 국제사법재판소에 공동으로 제소하고자 하지만 한국이 이를 거부하고 있어 다케시마 문제가 해결되지 않는다는 왜곡된 사실을 학생들에게 학습하도록 하여 일본의 다케시마 영유권 강화에 그 목적을 두고 있다. The purpose of this study is to examine the direction of Takeshima Education policy and high school social studies Takeshima education focusing on the educational policy and the teaching guidance plan presented in the second and third period ‘The Final Report ’ of the Takeshima issue Study Group, which provides guidelines for Shimane Prefecture"s Takeshima education and policy development. The results of the research conducted at the Takeshima issue Study Group provide the basic logic for promoting national and international publication, policy formulation and education on Takeshima’s ‘Japanese original sovereignty’ which is claimed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan and is being utilized variously in the Takeshima education conducted at the Shimane Prefecture Board of Education level. In particular, the Takeshima Issue Study Group has created a Social Studies teaching guidance plan that is a reference for high school Takeshima education and encourages them to be distributed and utilized at school. The teaching plan is designed to allow students to learn distorted facts that Takeshima is illegally occupying Korea, and Japan wants to file a joint complaint with the International Court of Justice for peaceful settlement of the Takeshima issue, but the Takeshima issue is not resolved because Korea rejects to do so. It is aimed to make sure that Takeshima"s sovereignty is in Japan.

竹島자료공부회의 『메이지 10년 태정관 지령의 검증』에 대한 비판

박병섭 영남대학교 독도연구소 2023 독도연구 Vol.- No.35

① Based on Takashi Tsukamoto’s argument, the Takeshima Documents Study Group argued that today’s Takeshima [Dokdo] is not included in the ‘Takeshima and an other island’ that the Dajokan, namely the Japanese Government ordered in 1877 to be unrelated to Japan. Tsukamoto's argument is that when the Ministry of Home Affairs examined an inquiry from Shimane Prefecture regarding the compilation of the cadastral records of Takeshima and one other island, firstly, it examined only Takeshima (Uleungdo) and did not examine the other island, namely Matsushima, secondly, it did not adopt the "outline of origin'' from Shimane Prefecture, and thirdly, because the Dajokan approved such an examination, Matsushima was not included in the Dajokan Order. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs also thoroughly examined Matsushima, so Tsukamoto's claim does not hold up. ②The study group argued that all Japanese maps made by the Japanese government before the Dajokan Order depicted Matsushima at the location of Dagelet Island (Ulleungdo), so the Japanese government recognized Matsushima as Ulleungdo. However, such map of Japan could not be confirmed. But the Ministry of Education's map “Complete Map of Great School District in Greater Japan(大日本大學區全圖)” depicting Takeshima at the location of Ulleungdo was found. The study group’s claim is not correct. ③The study group believed that the Isotakeshima Memorandum(礒竹島覚書), which investigated the ‘Takeshima Incident (Ulleungdo Dispute)’ in Edo Era, was written by the Edo Shogunate without any basis, and excluded it from the Meiji government’s recognition of Takeshima and Matsushima. However, this is a document prepared by the Topography Department of the Ministry of Home Affairs by comparing and correcting various documents. This document revealed that the Edo shogunate gave up Takeshima and viewed Matsushima as a belonging island to Takeshima. This document is material that reveals the Meiji government's recognition of Takeshima and Matsushima. ④The study group claimed that the Dajokan Order was an internal directive to the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, there is another Dajokan directive with almost the same meaning in Dajo Ruiten(太政類典). Since this is a collection of precedents and regulations, strict interpretation is possible. If you look for ‘one other islands’ within this, there is only Matsushima (namely Dokdo), as Shimane Prefecture calls it. Dajokan ordered that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were not part of Japan.

「죽도외일도」의 해석과 메이지 정부의 울릉도·독도 인식

송휘영(Song, Hwi Young) 동아시아일본학회 2014 일본문화연구 Vol.0 No.52

This paper reviews the recognition of the Ulleungdo-Dokdo islands by the Japanese government during the Meiji era through an analysis of the meaning of the term “Takeshima and one island” in the Dajokan Order, which was written by the Takeshima Study Group in Shimane-ken. The results of the analysis were as follows. First, the term “one island” was insisted upon by the Takeshima Study Group, and it was based on Kawakami Kenzo’s confused theory about the name “Dokdo.” However, the term does not actually include Ulleungdo, which has been called both Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo), but rather refers only to the island of Dokdo. This interpretation is clear in the phrase Takeshima-gai-itto, meaning “Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and one island,” which traditionally refers to Takeshima or Matsushima (Dokdo). Second, another phrase found in the Daijokan Order, Iso-takeshima-Ryakuzu, obviously refers to Takeshima-gai-itto. It specifically includes Iso Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo), which clearly shows that it is the “one island” of Matsushima (Dokdo). Third, Shimane-ken mentioned the “one island” of Songdo (Dokdo) when the Japanese Ministry of Domestic Affairs first sent them a letter to inquire about a map published by the local government. In this letter, the documentation of Takeshima-Kankeishiryo by Shimane-ken clearly recorded Matsushima (Dokdo) as the “one island.” Fourth, analysis of the names used for the Ulleungdo-Dokdo islands during the Meiji era by each Japanese ministry and council, especially by the Ministries of Domestic Affairs and Foreign Affairs and the Daijokan, shows that they recognized Ulleungdo as Takeshima and Dokdo as Matsushima without any confusion. This paper shows that the various Japanese ministries used these different names for the islands with no confusion.

竹島(獨島)の活用実態と領有権

이케우치 사토시 영남대학교 독도연구소 2017 독도연구 Vol.- No.23

This article aims to examine the actual utilization of Takeshima/Dokdo. It has been used by Japanese government as the basis for claiming Takeshima/ Dokdo sovereignty. Japanese government argue Oki Isand residents’ actual utilization of Takeshima/Dokdo as the place for fishery operation. The evidence of actual utilization of Takeshima/Dokdo can be found in the literature record of the 1640s. And, There are records that Ulleungdo and Dokdo had been used in one set in the literature record of the post-1640s. Due to the problem of the voyage technique, it was not until the early 20th century that it was possible to go over Ulleungdo from Oki Island directly. Takeshima/Dokdo is located in between Korea's Ulleungdo and Japan's Oki Island. Takeshima/ Dokdo had been used the route for the connecting the two big Islands. So, Considering that the actual utilization of Takeshima/Dokdo in history, I think that it is inappropriate to pass over historical characteristics and claim each goverment’s sovereignty of Takeshima/Dokdo. 본고에서는 일본에서 말하는 영유권 주장의 근거로서 죽도(독도) 활용실태에 대해 그것이 어떠한 것이었는가를 검토하고자 했다. 일본정부가 죽도(독도)의 활용실태를 주장함에, 오키섬에서 죽도(독도)로 직접 가서 어로로서 죽도(독도)를 활용한 사실을 중시하는 경향이 있다. 그러나 죽도(독도)의 활용사실을 확인할 수 있는 문헌이 처음 등장한 1640년대 이후의 문헌들을 검토해보면, 울릉도와 세트로 활용됐다고 제시되어 있다. 항해 기술의 문제로 20세기 초엽에야 이르러 비로소 오키섬에서 울릉도로 직접 왕래할 수 있었던 것이다. 죽도(독도)는 한국의 울릉도와 일본의 오키섬 사이에 존재하기 때문에 그 두 개의 큰 섬을 연결하는 동선 상에서 활용되고 있었다. 그 점에 유의한다면 죽도(독도)를 역사적으로 축적되어온 죽도(독도)의 특성을 무시하고 그 동선 상의 어느 한쪽만 갈라놓아 주장하는 것은 부적절하다는 생각이 든다.

竹島及鬱陵島에 나타난 시마네현의 울릉도·독도 인식

송휘영 동아시아국제정치학회 2019 국제정치연구 Vol.22 No.4

This paper examines how Shimane Prefecture perceived Ulleungdo and Dokdo through Nakai Yozaburo’s perspective as reflected in the writings of Hekiun Okuhara(奥原碧雲), who served as a member of the Takeshima Survey team in 1906. The main texts referred to in this study include Takeshima-Oyobi-Utsuryoto(竹嶋及鬱陵島),Takeshimaenkakuko((竹島沿革考), Biography of Nakai Yozaburo the Takeshima Manager(竹島経営者中井養三郎氏立志傳), and a local history written by him. This study establishes the following. First, the author of Takeshima-Oyobi-Utsuryoto(竹嶋及鬱陵島), Okuhara Hekiun praised fishing activities off the shore of Ulleungdo by the Edo era Japanese and trading on the island by Hachiemon from Hamada District(浜田藩) in the early 19th century throughout the book, and criticized the Edo Shogunate’s ‘Ban on Ulleungdo Island crossing’ policy for being a weak and indecisive foreign policy in his “Ulleungdo Dispute Matter(=竹島一件)”. This is to encourage external expansion and support imperialist invasion. Second, on the other hand, he summarized the geographies and histories of Ulleungdo and Dokdo in his Takeshimaenkakuko(竹島沿革考) based on historical documentation. This was a work based on Takeshima Inspection(竹島視察)’ and extensive research on Ulleungdo and Dokdo made possible by documentation preserved in Okinōshima and Shimane Prefecture, and the whole content was reprinted in the compilation of Okinoshimashi(隠岐島誌, 1933) and Shimanekenshi(島根縣誌, 1923) and has been influential. Third, in ‘the Biography of Nakai Yozaburo the Takeshima Manager(竹島経営者中井養三郎氏立志傳)’ written from stories told by Nakai Yozaburo who had joined the ‘Takeshima Survey Team’, Okuhara objectively states that “Nakai viewed Dokdo(Takeshima) as under the rule of Korea and therefore tried to file a petition to the Korean government for a rental right.” This shows how Nakai and Okuhara but also Shimane Prefecture perceived the island back then. Eventually, however, Nakai submitted the “Liyangko Island Territory Incorporation and the Rental Application” at the urging of Maki Bokushin(牧朴信) the head of the waterways bureau and Yamaza Enjiro(山座円次郞) the foreign affairs department to the Japanese government and Dokdo was illegally annexed to Japan on January 28, 1905. The perceptions of Nakai and Okuhara have been inherited through Okinoshimashi(隠岐島誌) and Shimanekenshi(島根縣誌) containing the whole content of Okura’s work. It is clear from these findings that before the illegal annexation, Dokdo (Liyangko Island) was considered part of Korea and permission from the Korean government was required to rent the island. 본고에서는 1906년 ‘죽도조사단’의 일원으로 가담했던 오쿠하라 헤키운(奥原碧雲)의 저술을 통해 당시 오쿠하라와 나카이 요자부로 등 시마네현의 울릉도·독도 인식을 살펴보고자 했다. 그가 저술한 『죽도급울릉도』를 비롯하여 「竹島沿革考」, 「竹島経営者中井養三郎氏立志傳」, 향토지 등을 통해 그 일단을 파악하고자 한 것이다. 본 연구를 통해 밝혀진 것은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 『죽도급울릉도』의 저자 오쿠하라 헤키운은 이 저술 전체를 통해 에도시대의 울릉도 출어와 19세기초 하마다번의 하치에몬 등의 울릉도 도항을 칭송하고 있으면서도 「울릉도쟁계(=竹島一件)」로 「죽도도해금지」를 내렸던 에도 막부의 정책에 대해 ‘우유부단하고 연약한 외교정책’이라고 비난하고 있다. 이는 대외팽창적 사고를 부추기고 제국주의적 침략을 지지하는 가치관을 담고 있다는 것이다. 둘째, 그러면서도 울릉도와 독도의 지리적·역사적 부분은 사료적 근거를 바탕으로 「竹島沿革考」로 정리하고 있다. 이것은 ‘죽도시찰’을 바탕으로 오키노시마와 시마네현에 소장된 울릉도·독도 관계자료를 섭렵한 다음 이루어진 작업으로, 후일 『오키도지(隠岐島誌)』(1933)와 『시마네현지(島根縣誌)』(1923)의 편찬에 그대로 내용이 전재되어 답습하고 있다. 셋째, 그가 ‘죽도조사단’에 함께 합류한 나카이 요자부로(中井養三郎)와의 교유를 바탕으로 기술한 「竹島経営者中井養三郎氏立志傳」을 보면, 객관적으로 “나카이(中井)가 독도(죽도)를 한국의 판도에 속하는 것으로 사고하여 한국정부에 대하를 청원”하고자 했다고 기술하고 있다. 이것은 나카이와 오쿠하라는 물론 당시 시마네현 측의 인식이었던 것이다. 결국 수로부장 마키 보쿠신(牧朴信)과 외무성 정무국장 야마자 엔지로(山座円次郞)의 회유와 사주로 「리양코섬 영토편입 및 대하원」을 일본 정부에 제출하고, 1905년 1월 28일 각의결정을 거쳐 영토편입에 이르게 된다. 나카이와 오쿠하라의 인식은 오쿠하라의 논고가 전재되었던 『오키도지』와 『시마네현지』에 그대로 이어지고 있다. 여기서도 나카이의 인식을 청취했던 오쿠하라의 의견이 계승되고 있는 것이다. 즉 나카이 요자부로와 오쿠하라 헤키운의 인식을 보면, 불법편입 이전 독도(량코섬)의 판도는 “한국령이라고 사고하고 한국정부에 대하를 요청”했다는 것이 명백하다는 것이다.

시마네현 ‘죽도(竹島)의 날’ 조례 제정의 기원

박창건 영남대학교 독도연구소 2023 독도연구 Vol.- No.34

The purpose of this study is to trace the origins of the “Takeshima Day” ordinance in Shimane Prefecture, Japan. The discussion focuses on the period before and after the establishment of the ordinance in Shimane Prefecture in 2005, limited to the period of transition from a fishing issue to a territorial sovereignty issue in the contentious structure of the Japan-Korea relationship, since the entry into force of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1994. The issue of Takeshima in Shimane Prefecture began with the assertion of territorial sovereignty for the fishing rights around Dokdo. The justification for modifying related policies in a direction that takes an active and proactive role in making noise about the Takeshima territorial dispute was found to be closely related to institutional changes, such as changes in the Japan-Korea fisheries regime, the introduction of fishing quotas, and the expansion of the influence of local NGOs. In this way, the fundamental reason why Shimane Prefecture raised the territorial sovereignty issue through the establishment of the “Takeshima Day” ordinance was the fishing problem for securing its survival. Japanese coastal fisheries, especially those in Shimane Prefecture, showed a rapid decline in catch volume starting in 1998, and there were continuous demands for a solution to the survival problem due to the economic impact on fishermen resulting from the conclusion of the new Japan-Korea fisheries agreement. To overcome these problems, Shimane Prefecture argued that it was necessary to establish territorial sovereignty to secure safe fishing rights in the provisional waters around Takeshima. The logical basis for this was that Shimane Prefecture's fishermen, who have a higher proportion of fishing, believed that if they could secure the Takeshima territorial sovereignty, they could increase their catch volume through securing new fishing grounds. In other words, the fundamental reason why Shimane Prefecture was able to establish the “Takeshima Day” ordinance can be traced back to the fishing problem rather than the territorial sovereignty issue.