본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

新羅 및 高麗時代 鬱陵島와 獨島의 인식과 경영

A Perception and a Management about Ulleungdo and Dokdo during the Silla and Koryo Dynasties

0

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류역사학

초록

There were not historical records that Dokdo was a possession of Usanguk, or that Silla and Koryo dominated directly Dokdo. Silla conquered Usanguk but didn’t exert territorial sovereignty over it and didn’t establish the provincial government. Because the people weren’t concerned about the small and uninhabited island. It had been recognized that Dokdo was an independent territory in the Koryo Dynasty. A text that Usan and Mureung were originally two islands was recorded in the chapter ‘Geography’ of『The History of Koryo』. At that time, Dokdo first came out into the open. It was the result of the development of geography in the Joseon Dynasty. But there were not direct historical sources to prove that Dokdo was a domination of Ulleungdo. At the same time, it could not predicate that Dokdo wasn’t a territory of Silla and Koryo. Ulleungdo and Dokdo were a dominion of Usanguk and provided a livelihood and a living space to the inhabitants of Ulleungdo, Silla, and Koryo. The products nearby Ulleungdo and Dokdo were offered a tribute to the government of Silla and Koryo. The situation was the reason that they were indissolubly linked. Therefore the recognition about Dokdo should start from the existence and awareness of Ulleungdo. It was not a simple task that Dokdo was included in the territory of Ulleungdo because of the lack of historical records. We should emphasize that Dokdo was belonged to a living space of the population of Ulleungdo. Because Dokdo was located within the rage of sight of Ulleungdo. While Ulleungdo was regarded as an attractive district, Dokdo also was emerged as a livable area in the Koryo and Joseon Dynasties. Since then it had been considered that Dokdo was an indigenous territory of Korea. Dokdo was a living space of the inhabitants of Ulleungdo. That is an established historical fact.

Abstract

There were not historical records that Dokdo was a possession of Usanguk, or that Silla and Koryo dominated directly Dokdo. Silla conquered Usanguk but didn’t exert territorial sovereignty over it and didn’t establish the provincial government. Because the people weren’t concerned about the small and uninhabited island. It had been recognized that Dokdo was an independent territory in the Koryo Dynasty. A text that Usan and Mureung were originally two islands was recorded in the chapter ‘Geography’ of『The History of Koryo』. At that time, Dokdo first came out into the open. It was the result of the development of geography in the Joseon Dynasty. But there were not direct historical sources to prove that Dokdo was a domination of Ulleungdo. At the same time, it could not predicate that Dokdo wasn’t a territory of Silla and Koryo. Ulleungdo and Dokdo were a dominion of Usanguk and provided a livelihood and a living space to the inhabitants of Ulleungdo, Silla, and Koryo. The products nearby Ulleungdo and Dokdo were offered a tribute to the government of Silla and Koryo. The situation was the reason that they were indissolubly linked. Therefore the recognition about Dokdo should start from the existence and awareness of Ulleungdo. It was not a simple task that Dokdo was included in the territory of Ulleungdo because of the lack of historical records. We should emphasize that Dokdo was belonged to a living space of the population of Ulleungdo. Because Dokdo was located within the rage of sight of Ulleungdo. While Ulleungdo was regarded as an attractive district, Dokdo also was emerged as a livable area in the Koryo and Joseon Dynasties. Since then it had been considered that Dokdo was an indigenous territory of Korea. Dokdo was a living space of the inhabitants of Ulleungdo. That is an established historical fact.

참고문헌 (39)

  1. "노무현대통령 ‘한일 관계에 대한 특별담화문’", ~
  2. "2012년 8월 29일「연합뉴스」", ~ (2012)
  3. "2012년 9월 6일「YTN 뉴스」기사", ~ (2012)
  4. "2012년 9월 28일「동아일보」기사", ~ (2012)
  5. "2012년 10월 1일. 「연합뉴스」기사", ~ (2012)
  6. 송휘영, "2011년 인문과학 분야 독도연구의 현황과 과제, In 독도관련 연구동향과 전망", 2012, 2012년 경상북도 독도연구기관 통합협의체 심포지움 발표자료집
  7. 이한기, "한국의 영토" (1969), 서울대출판부
  8. 신용하, "독도의 민족영토사 연구" (1996), 지식산업사
  9. 송병기, "울릉도와 독도" (1999), 단국대출판부
  10. 김호동, "독도ㆍ울릉도의 역사" (2007), 경인문화사
  11. 김윤곤, "우산국과 신라ㆍ고려의 관계"
  12. 김정숙, "울릉도ㆍ독도의 역사지리적 인식, In 울릉도ㆍ독도의 종합적 연구" (1998), 영남대학교민족문화연구소
  13. 신지현, "독도영유에 대한 일연구ㆍ신라로부터 조선초기까지를 중심으로-", 인천교대논문집, 22 (1988)
  14. 김호동, "제2장 고ㆍ중세의 독도와 울릉도, In 독도ㆍ울릉도의 역사" (2007), 경인문화사
  15. 송병기, "고대ㆍ고려시대의 경영, In 울릉도와 독도, 그 역사적 검증" (2010), 역사공간
  16. 김병렬, "독도ㆍ독도자료총람", 해양수산부, ~ (1998)
  17. "세종실록", ~
  18. "고려사", ~
  19. "신증동국여지승람", ~
  20. 송병기, "울릉도와 독도, 그 역사적 검증", pp.16~18 (2010), 역사공간
  21. "삼국사기", ~
  22. "삼국유사", ~
  23. "太宗實錄", ~
  24. 울릉도, "김원룡", 국립박물관, ~, pp.고적조사보고 제4책 (1963)
  25. 울릉도 문화유적 지표조사보고서1, "서울대학교박물관", ~, pp.서울대학교박물관학술총서6 (1997)
  26. 정영화, "울릉도의 고고학적 연구, In 울릉도ㆍ독도의 종합적 연구" (1998), 영남대민족문화연구소
  27. 울릉군, "문화유적분포지도-울릉군", ~ (2002)
  28. "태종실록", ~
  29. 池內宏, "刀伊の賊, In 滿鮮史硏究", pp.316~ (1933), 中世第一
  30. 울릉도, "김원룡", 국림박물관, 58~, pp.고적조사보고 제4책 (1963)
  31. 신용하, "독도의 민족영토사 연구", pp.62~63 (1996), 지식산업사
  32. "삼국지", ~
  33. 이병도, "탐라와 우산국, In 한국사 고대편", pp.459~ (1959), 진단학회
  34. 김윤곤, "우산국ㆍ우산도인의 해상활동과 동해문화권, In 울릉도ㆍ독도 동해안 주민의 생활구조와 그 변천ㆍ발전" (2003), 영남대출판부
  35. 林英正, "독도의 호칭에 관한 검토, In 환동해권의 시간과 공간의 교감" (1995)
  36. 竹島の歷史地理學的硏究, "川上健三", ~ (1966)
  37. 김병렬, "독도냐 다케시마냐", pp.353~354 (1996), 다다미디어
  38. "신증동국여지승람", ~
  39. 김윤곤, "우산국과 신라ㆍ고려의 관계", pp.29~ (1998)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (6건)