‘안용복’ 역사적 사실과 ‘안용복’ 소설

김호동 영남대학교 민족문화연구소 2017 민족문화논총 Vol.66 No.-

안용복 소설은 다음과 같다. 리성덕, 『울릉도』 문예출판사, 1990 김래주, 『대조선인 안용복』 1·2, 늘푸른소나무, 2005 권오단, 『안용복』(울릉도와 독도의 영유권을 되찾아온 조선의 어부), 산수야, 2010 권오단, 『우리땅 독도를 지킨 안용복』 산수야, 2010 차상찬, 『해상의 쾌인 안용복』 이프리북스, 2013 황인경, 『소설 독도』 북스타, 2015 김하기, 『해제 어둔』 경상일보, 2013~2014 『독도전쟁』 1·2, 쌤앤파커스, 2015 고정옥, 『고정옥 선생님이 들려주는 안용복』 산하, 2015 장을 나누어 첫째, ‘안용복’의 역사적 사실, 둘째, 역사적 사실과 안용복 소설이다. 역사소설의 경우 역사기록에서 근거한다. 리성덕의 『울릉도』의 경우, 역사적 사실에 근거한다. 리성덕의 『울릉도』에서 왜선을 쫓아 하루 낮, 하루 밤을 달리고 나니 오키섬이었다. 안용복은 배에서 관복을 입고, ‘울릉우산양도 감세관’을 잘못되었다. 『숙종실록』 숙종 22년 9월 25일에서 ‘鬱陵子山兩島監稅’라고 하였다. 황인경의 『소설 독도』의 경우, 역사적 사실에 근거해서 안 맞다. 김하기의 『해제 어둔』(『독도전쟁』)의 경우, ‘박어둔은 울릉도와 독도에서 왜적을 소탕한 뒤 아시아 해상항로를 개척해 일본, 대만, 베트남, 아프리카를 거쳐 유럽에 처음 들어가 교황을 알현했다. 이후 그는 사람들로부터 바다의 제왕인 海帝라고 불렸다.’고 한 것은 한일 양국에 문헌이 안 드러나고, 잘못되었다. 황인경의 『소설 독도』는 오키도주가 ‘空島政策’을 말을 한다. 또, 김하기 소설의 『해제 어둔』(『독도전쟁』)의 ‘공도정책’을 말한다. 기타자와 미사나리(北澤正誠)가 『竹島考證』(1882)에서 “鬱島가 조선의 섬이라는 것에 대해서는 두말할 필요가 없다. 그러나 文祿以來(1592~1614) 버려두고 거두지 않았다. 우리나라 사람들이 그 빈 땅[空地]에 가서 살았다. 즉 우리 땅인 것이다. 그 옛날에 두 나라의 경계가 항상 그대로였겠는가. 그 땅을 내가 취하면 내 땅이 되고, 버리면 다른 사람의 땅이 된다.”는 논리를 드러내기 위해 ‘空島制’란 용어를 부각시킨 것에서 비롯된다고 본다. 쓰다 소키치(津田左右吉)이 그것을 고려와 조선정부가 왜구 때문에 도서지역과 연해지역의 거주민들을 내륙으로 소개시키는 정책, 즉 ‘無人化政策’ 또는 ‘空島政策’을 시행했다고 하여 학문적으로 가다듬었다고 볼 수 있다. 김호동, 「독도 영유권 공고화와 관련된 용어 사용에 대한 검토」 『대구사학』 98, 대구사학회, 2010, 9~10쪽. 기타자와 미사나리는 1882년에 ‘공도제’란 처음 제기하였으나 오키도주가 ‘공도정책’을 말하는 것은 잘못되었다. 리성덕의 『울릉도』·황인경의 『소설 독도』(독도 영웅, 의인 안용복의 삶과 애환)·김하기의 『해제 어둔』(『독도전쟁』1·2)을 구독하였다. 김래주의 『대조선인 안용복』(1·2), 차상찬의 『해상의 쾌인 안용복』, 권오단의 『안용복』(울릉도와 독도의 영유권을 되찾아온 조선의 어부), 권오단의 『우리땅 독도를 지킨 안용복』, 고정옥의 『고정옥 선생님이 들려주는 안용복』 책은 품절되어 구독하지 못하였다. Ahn Yong-bok novel was published as below. Lee Seong-deok, 『Ulleungdo』 Munyae Publishing co., 1990 Kim Rae-ju, 『Great Choseon People Ahn Yong-bok』 1·2, Neulpureun-sonamu, 2005 Kwon O-dan, 『Ahn Yong-bok』(The Fisherman Who Recovered Territory Right of Ulleungdo and Dokdo to Korea), Sansuya, 2010 Kwon O-dan, 『Ahn Yong-bok Who Protected Korean Territory Dokdo』, 2010 Cha Sang-chan, 『Ahn Yong-bok the Cool Man of the Sea』 Ipribooks, 2013 Hwang In-gyeong, 『Novel Dokdo』 Bookstar, 2015 Kim Ha-gi, 『Haejae Eodun』 Gyeongsang-ilbo, 2013~2014 『Dokdo War』 1·2, Ssan-n-pakers, 2015 Koh Jeong-ok, 『Ahn Yong-bok Story by Koh Jeong-ok』 Sanha, 2015 In Chapter I describe ‘Ahn Yong-bok’ Historical Fact, and II, Historical Fact and Ahn Yong-bok Novel. Historic novel is based on historic record. In case of Lee Seong-deok's 『Ulleungdo』, it based on historical fact. Lee Seong-deok's 『Ulleungdo』 described one day night and day voyage to trait Japan ship reached Oki island. Ahn Yong-bok weared governmental official costume and flag ‘Ulleung-Usan both Tax Inspector’ but it was wrong, 『King Sukjong-silrok』 King Sukjong 22, September 25 described ‘鬱陵子山兩島監稅(Ulleung-jasan oth Tax Inspector’)’. Hwang In-gyeong case of 『Novel Dokdo』 do not meet with historical fact. Kim Ha-gi's 『Haejae eodun』(『Dokdo War』) described ‘Park Eo-dun defeated Japan and explored Asian sea route to Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Africa and Europe to solute to the Pope. Aftermath called him as Emperor of Sea by people.’ but was not revealed in Japan or Korean novel and revealed the false. Hwang In-gyeong's 『Novel Dokdo』 mentioned about Governor of Oki island ‘Vacant Island Policy(空島政策)’ And Kim Ha-gi's novel 『Haejae Eodun』(『Dokdo War』) described ‘Vacant island Policy’. Kitajawa Misanari(北澤正誠) mentioned about 『Takeshima Review(竹島考證)』(1882) “There is no question about Ukkeungdo(鬱島) belongs to Korea. But They did not managed the island after Bunroku age(文祿以來1592~1614). Our Japanese have lived there as vacant land. So the island is our land. How the border could be same as old days? If I take the wasted land, it deserve my land but it is other's land if I waste the land.”, which emphasized the logic of the term ‘vacant island system(空島制)’ Tsuda Sokichi(津田左右吉) tried to arranged the definition of ‘Evacuation Policy’ or ‘Vacant Island Policy’ on scholar point of view which evacuate people living in the island because of Japan pirate around seashore and islands during Goryo Dynasty and Yi Dynasty Kim Ho-dong, 「Dokdo 영유권 공고화와 관련된 용어 사용에 대한 검토」 『대구사학』 98, 대구사학회, 2010, 9~10쪽. Kitazawa Misanari first suggested mentioned about ‘vacant island system’ in 1882 but the mention about the policy by governor of OKI Province is wrong. Lee Seong-deok's 『Ulleungdo』, Hwang In-gyeong's 『novel Dokdo』(Dokdo Hero, The Life and Introspection of Righteous Man Ahn Yong-bok), Kim Ha-gi's 『Interpretation on Eodun』(『Dokdo War』1·2) were possibile to get in my hand. KIm Rae-ju's 『Great Choseon people Ahn Yong-bok』(1·2), Cha Sang-chan's 『Ahn Yong-bok the Cool Man of the Sea』, Kwon O-dan's 『Ahn Yong-bok』(The Fisherman Who Recovered Territory Right of Ulleungdo and Dokdo to Korea), Kwon O-dan's 『Ahn Yong-bok who preserved our territory Dokdo』, Goh Jeong-ok's 『Story of Ahn Yong-bok heard from teacher Goh Jeong-ok』 were unable to buy.

CMSMPR 결정화기의 결정화속도에 대한 연구

김호동,박효식,신영준,이철수 한국화학공학회 1985 Korean Chemical Engineering Research(HWAHAK KONGHA Vol.23 No.3

CMSMPR 結晶化器에서 NaCl-에탄올-물 염석계의 結晶化速度를 연구하였다. 定常狀態에서의 結晶粒度分布를 population 收支式으로부터 계산하여 成長速度와 核生成速度를 구하였으며 臨界攪拌速度와 RPM의 영향을 알 수 있도록 攪拌速度를 변화시켰다. 成長速度는 過飽和度에 비례하였으며 臨界攪拌速度이상에서 核生成速度는 RPM의 3.2승에 비례하는 것을 알 수 있었으며, 二次核生成의 영향이 지배적이었다. The Kinetic equations were experimentally studied for a salting out system of NaCl brine and ethanol using CMSMPR (Continuous Mixed Suspension Mixed Product Removal) crystallizer. Experiment was carried out in the steady state with varying agitator speed to establish the critical agitator speed and RPM dependence on the nucleation late. While growth rate was found to be proportional to the supersaturation, beyond the critical agitator speed the nucleation rate was found to be proportional to 0.8 power of supersaturation and to suspension density and to 3.2 power of RPM.

最近 30年(1986-2017) 몽골帝國史 硏究: 省察과 提言

김호동 중앙아시아학회 2017 中央아시아硏究 Vol.22 No.2

This article surveys the important trends in the study of the Mongol Empire during the last 30 years, 1986-2017. The reason of covering that period is because since around the middle of the 1980s there were conspicuous changes in the study of this world empire as many scholars agree. Not only in terms of quantity, i.e., the overall number of publications, but also regarding the perspective and the approach there were noticeable changes. T. T. Allsen’s The Mongol Imperialism (1987) can be regarded a harbinger of this new era. By covering the entire realm of the empire ― China, Central Asia, Western Asia and Russia ― through masterly combination of sources in different languages, he showed a possibility of overcoming the regional division in the scholarly researches. Since then appeared many studies inspired by his example. Therefore, this article attempts to single out what the most conspicuous developments were during this period, and it divided its analysis into two parts: the first part describing numerous new source studies and the second part explaining the introduction of new perspectives in this field. First of all, it explains important publications, editions and translations, of the sources like The Secret History of the Mongols and Rashīd al-Dīn’s Jāmʿi al-tawārīkh. Especially a remarkable phenomenon is the rise of interest in the Persian sources in East Asian countries, i.e., China, Japan and Korea. Since there exist written sources in many different languages, about fifteen, this article surveys the source studies of Chinese, Arabic, Armenian, Syriac, Uyghur, Tangut, Tibetan, and European languages. It also explains the recent researches on the stone inscriptions in Japan and China. Archaeological findings and ecological studies were introduced too. This article then explains two new perspective that emerged since the 1980s: one is ‘a holistic approach’ as Allsen aptly expressed and the other ‘a Mongol perspective.’ Many new studies appeared that help us to understand the Mongol Empire in its entirety. The research topics cover economic exchanges over the continent as well as the sea, intellectional cooperation as epitomized by Rashīd al-Dīn and Bolad Chingsang, human migration and cultural contacts, etc. At the same time, we see the studies emphasizing the role of the Mongols as ‘agents’, in other words, the question of how they actively engaged in these exchanges. Thus, a number of scholars scrutinized the so-called ‘imperial institutions’: keshig, jam, jasaq, darughachi, jarghuchi, quriltai, marriage, etc. Finally, in order to understand the history of the Mongol Empire from the eyes of the Mongols, this article puts forward a new way of periodization hinted by the letter of Öljeitü to France king Phillipe in 1305: (1) Formation and Expansion, 1206-59; (2) Civil War, 1260-1304, (3) Rapprochement and Decline, 1305-68.

일본의 독도 ‘고유영토설’ 비판

김호동 영남대학교 민족문화연구소 2011 민족문화논총 Vol.49 No.-

On March 30, 2011 Japanese highschool geography, public life textbook which passed inspection by Ministry of Education and Science described ‘Dokdo is Japanese inherent territory’. This project is aim to respond to presently prepared Korean highschool textbook on Dokdo lacks counter description about Japanese wrong inherent territory insistence, and most of Korea teachers are short of recognition about this fact. As Japanese textbook intend to describe about Dokdo as Japanese inherent territory and the sovereign right was established in 17th century and that we need to describe more correctly about the historical period. In this aspect, the viewpoint of individual Ahn Yong-bok had resolved territory issue should be eliminated. That is, the textbook ‘curriculum’ and ‘Interpretation’ and should be revised to criticize the Japanese inherent territory theory. In Korea, Ahn Yong-bok who preserved Dokdo as Korean territory during King Sukjong has been admired as ‘Civil Diplomat’ or ‘The General’. However the role of Ahn Yong-bok is great, but the textbook content should be revised to describe as the territory issue ‘Ulleungdo Dispute(Takeshima incident)’ between Korea and Japan was resolved during King Sukjong. Though Japanese would try to advertise Ahn Yong-bok as cheating individual, but Korea shall highlight Ahn Yong-bok not just the people who ‘preserved Korea territory Dokdo’ but the Ahn Yong-bok and Park Eo-dun kidnap incident raised a diplomatic dispute between Korea and Japan and Japan finally admitted Ulleungdo border as Korean territory to resolve the dispute. 2011년 3월 30일에 검정된 일본 교과서에서 독도는 일본의 고유영토이며, 그 영유권 확립이 17세기에 이루어졌다고 하였으므로 교과서에서 이에 대한 반론을 제기할 필요가 있다. 그것을 위해 일본의 고유영토론을 비판하는 내용이 교과서에 담길 수 있도록 ‘교육과정’과 ‘해설서’를 고칠 필요가 있다. 2010년에 교육과학기술부가 ‘해설서’에 언급된 독도문제를 ‘교육과정’에 언급하기로 하였지만 여전히 ‘근대 국가 수립 운동과 일본 제국주의의 침략’ 항목에 넣어 일제에 의한 독도 불법 편입을 강조하고 있는 내용을 17세기 영유권 확립설을 비판할 수 있는 ‘조선후기’에 넣어서 고칠 필요가 있다. 현재 나와 있는 독도 교재의 경우 ‘안용복’을 부각시켜 ‘민간외교가’라거나 ‘장군’으로 칭송하면서 독도를 지킨 인물로 부각시키고 있다. 그 보다는 일본의 17세기 영유권 확립설에 바탕한 ‘고유영토설’을 비판하기 위해서는 안용복・박어둔 납치사건으로 인해 국가와 국가 사이에서 ‘울릉도쟁계(竹島一件)’가 일어나 그것이 해결되었다는 내용으로 교과서 내용을 고쳐야만 한다.

특집 : 한국,스웨덴,실크로드 ; 군나르 야링(Gunnar Jarring) 컬렉션의 중앙아시아 문헌자료

김호동 중앙아시아학회 2000 中央아시아硏究 Vol.5 No.-

서평 : Jam`al-tavarikh (『집사(集史)』) 교감본(校勘本) Muhammad Roshan & Mustafa Musavi 교감(校勘) 4 vols. Tehran: Katibe Publ., 1373(1994) 서론+2977page+삽도

김호동 중앙아시아학회 1997 中央아시아硏究 Vol.2 No.-

전문대학 전공심화과정(학사학위과정) 설치ㆍ운영 방안

김호동 한국고등직업교육학회 2006 한국고등직업교육학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2006 No.1

메이지시대 일본의 울릉도ㆍ독도 정책

김호동 한국일본문화학회 2010 日本文化學報 Vol.0 No.46

1) In 1876, inspired by Choseon opening policy by virtue of Japan and acquisition of Ogasawara islands territory, Japanese had opportunity to expand the activity to the Ullenungdo island and its sea where Japan had stopped fishing activity around the sea for hundreds years after ‘One Takeshima(Ulleungdo) Dispute(竹島一件)’. Shimane Ken of Japan submitted a request document about the listing Takeshima(now Ulleungdo) on the map to the Ministry of Domestic Affairs facing the map production schedule, and ruling family of Shimane Ken Mr.Toda Takayoshi(戶田敬義) submitted a petition for ‘Sailing to Takeshima(Ulleungdo)’ to Tokyo Government. Also, Mr. Muto Heigaku(武藤平學) who engaged in trade biusiness at Russia Vladivostok suggested a report about the intention of cultivation for new island he founded ‘Matsushima(松島)’ to Japan MOFA, and soon Mr. Saito Shichirohei(齋藤七郎兵衛) submitted a petition for ‘Matzushima Cultivation’, which was deeply related to the Japanese official of commercial department Mr. Sewaki Hisato(瀨脇壽人). 2) Prime Ministry of Japan ordered to exclude Takeshima(Ulleungdo) from Japanese map production process because the island was Choseon territory and didn't accepted the petition of Mr. Toda Takayoshi(戶田敬義) for Takeshima(Ulleungdo) sailing, which means Matzushima was recognized as same island with Takeshima(Ulleungdo) by Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But Japan could not abandon the thought of cultivation of the island on the basis of dispute for two names of ‘Matzushima(松島)’. After serious discussion, Japan had to admit the name ‘Matzushima(松島)’ was another name of ‘Takeshima(Ulleungdo;竹島)’. However, Japan named ‘Takeshima(竹 島; Ulleungdo)’ as ‘Matzushima(松島)’ because ‘Takeshima(Ulleungdo;竹島) was definitely cleared as Choseon territory at the ‘One Takeshima(Ulleungdo) Dispute’. So, Japan named again a vague ‘Matzushima(松島)’ to Ulleungdo and Takeshima(竹島) name to Dokdo. 3) The procedure of debate during 1876~1877 in Japan MOFA on ‘Matzushima (松島)’ cultivation induced a theoretical foundation of method for territory acquisition. In the process, the logic of proof for distance in the process of territory acquisition, and the Head of Japan MOFA Public Division Mr. Tanabe Taiichi(田邊太一) who engaged in the Ogasawara islands territory acquisition activity suggested a method to cultivate the ‘Matzushima(松島)’ proving ‘ownerless’ at any proper opportunity. Mr. Kitazawa Deisei(北澤正誠) who reviewed the discussion procedure discoursed a logic of ‘vacant island policy’ which means ‘acquisition of ownership for the wasted land’ in the paper 『Takeshima Report(竹島考證)』(1882) which was edited by Japan MOFA Order. The logic of ‘Proof of ownerless’ in 1876 by Mr. Tanabe Taiichi(田邊太一) and Mr. Kitazawa Deisei(北澤正誠)'s logic of ‘acquisition of ownership for the wasted land’ for the ‘theory of prior acquisition of ownerless land’ were adopted to the acquisition of Minami Dorishima(南鳥島) and Takeshima(Dokdo).

논문 : 『집사(集史)』「칭기스 칸 열조기(列祖紀)」역주(譯註)

김호동 중앙아시아학회 2001 中央아시아硏究 Vol.6 No.-

명학소민 봉기의 결과와 역사적 의미

김호동 한국중세사학회 2003 한국중세사연구 Vol.- No.15

A series of peasant uprisings prior to the uprising of Myeonghaksomin(鳴鶴所民) during the military rule were those in which peasants participated in the process that they turned into anti-military rule activities with local officials dispatched from the central government and native local powers and retired civil vassals allied together. In contrast, the Uprising of Myeonghaksomin, led by Mang-yi(亡伊) and Mang-soyi(亡所伊) in the 6th year of King Myeongjong’s reign, was run under the leadership of So-min, and it marks as the start of peasant uprisings that were carried out by peasant class who were excluded from the lands and were starving. Mang-yi and Mang-soyi’s uprising in Myeonghakso takes on remarkable historical significance from the view that it has had a tremendous impact on the later peasant uprisings by not being limited to one single county but going beyond that, seeking cooperation with other uprising forces from other areas. However, a number of peasant uprising forces usually remained as each single individual unit failing to establish an unified organization, in spite of the fact that being labelled as Southern Enemy(南賊), it could have been included within the same sphere of influence sharing the common target of attack. Therefore, things got to the point where each individual uprising group ended up in collapse without achieving its revolutionary goal. Myeonghaksomin, led by Mang-yi, and other involved uprising forces were composed of Somin(所民) and starving and wandering peasant class, while such uprising group in those days as Southern Enemy Seokryungsa(南賊 石令史) and Kayasan Enemy Son-cheong(伽倻山賊 孫淸) were native local powers, taking asymmetrical position with Myeonghaksomin and other involved uprising forces. Which was one of the major reasons that they were embroiled in the internal discord in their process of struggle, which led to the failure in the entire struggle, providing costly lessons for the later peasant uprising forces.