1900년 칙령 제41호의 발굴 계보와 ‘石島=獨島’설

Abstract

Koreans referred to Dokdo as “Dokseom” even before they became aware of the existence of Imperial Edict 41 of 1900. Those who saw Dokdo in person in 1947 immediately recognized that the name “Dokdo” came from “Dokseom” and “Seokdo”. The media also called Dokdo, Dokseom, and Seokdo. Some scholars have mentioned the contents of Imperial Edict 41 since 1947, but they did not refer to “Imperial Edict 41” and “Seokdo”. It was from 1968 that “Imperial Edict No. 41” and “Seokdo” were directly mentioned and the claim that Seokdo is Dokdo. However, it was not until 1947 that Koreans began to mention Dokseom and Seokdo. Korean scholars who saw Dokdo in 1947 referred to Seokdo, Dokseom, and Dolseom together, and also referred to it as “Dokseom (Seokdo)” and “Dokseom (Dokdo)”. A scholar who has not seen Dokdo has interpreted ‘Dokseom’ as a meaning of a jar island and Dokdo as a meaning of a lonely island, but he considered ‘Dokseom’ as an island attached to Ulleungdo. As such, Koreans have considered Dokdo as Dokseom, Dolseom, and Seokdo even before they knew that Seokdo was specified in Imperial Edict No. 41. In other words, the recognition that Seokdo was Dokdo in Korea was established regardless of whether or not the Imperial Edict 41 was discovered. This proves that Dokdo came from Dokseom and Seokdo. It is very natural for Koreans to call Dokdo as “Dokseom” and “Dokseom” as Seokdo(石島) and Dokdo in literature. For the names that Koreans naturally called, the Japanese demanded that the Koreans directly prove why they had to call them that way. This in itself is an unreasonable demand. Moreover, it was Japanese who said that stone was called “Dok” in dialect, and that “Dokseom” could be written as Seokdo(石島).