한국 고문서학의 전개과정 = The History and Current Status of Korean Studies of Age-old Documents

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Korean age-old documents we have today are mostly originated from governmental offices, and the ones from periods before the 17th century are mostly missing, due to wars and other reasons. Many of the documents from periods after the wars are also missing, and the ones that remain are in most cases the ones generated by central offices.
The age-old documents that are now newly discovered or found are mostly reported from individuals or houses or governmental bodies, who or which had managed to keep them in their custody for a long time. The old documents that were kept by individuals are in some cases produced by either the king, the royal family or the governmental offices, but are mostly private documents which were produced by other individuals. They usually cover a variety of topics such as religion, or even the plans of establishing secret alliances.
Studies of Korean age-old documents began in the 1960s, and in the 1970s the effort to compile all those original materials of such age-old documents into manuals and books first emerged. In the 1980s the contents which had been written in the so-called grass-style writing were interpreted and rewritten(reprinted) in standard writing style, and then they were published in the form of material books. The Seoul National university library(Kyujanggak), the Academy of Korean studies(Jangseo-gak), Yeongnam university played the leading role in such publication projects, and following such initiatives other universities as well and the National Museum of Korea, the National Library of Korea, other self-governing local bodies, traditional Seoweon and Hyanggyo schools, and private houses and individuals, all continued such efforts of compiling and publishing age-old document books.
Attempts of using such age-old documents in academic studies are continuing in the area of historical studies, studies of the Korean language, studies of socio-economic history, and the study of legal codes, etc. Yet in order to efficiently and effectively utilize such material, several conditions should be in place: the ability to examine and interpret contents written in either grass-style writing or Haengseo standard style, the ability to examine and interpret contents written in cursive letters, and also the ability to examine and interpret sentences written in Chinese letters yet composed in a 'Korean' style(using Idu) or Chinese sentences using Chinese letters which were fashioned specifically by the Koreans, should be secured beforehand.
Many scholars devoted a considerable amount of their time and efforts into establishing a categorization system for the age-old documents. And the most important task that had to be done before all else was establishing the 'definition' of age-old documents. Such definition had to reflect all the characteristics of the age-old documents, and also take all the basic components of such documents into consideration. Currently the age-old documents from the past are categorized by who generated such document, and are assorted into categories such as the kings' documents, the royal family's documents, governmental offices' documents, private individuals' documents, religious bodies' documents, Seoweon schools' documents, Dogwan office's documents, Allied organizations' documents, and Bong-shin'bul documents. The diplomatic documents are categorized, by the counterpart countries of Korea such as China and Japan, yet studies that directly dealt with such diplomatic documents are yet to be announced. Also, aside of this categorization, in some cases a wider definition of the age-old documents is also employed. In the 2000s, the categorization system was once again discussed, yet instead of trying to make some hasty modifications to the current system, we should try to heighten the level and quality of age-old document studies in general and then try to renovate the categorization system based upon such results.
It is not an easy job to ascertain the exact figure ...

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 金東旭, "李朝古文書의 分類에 대하여 - 李朝古文書의 樣式的 硏究序說 (二) in: 古文書集眞 - 壬亂以前 文書를 主로" 인문과학연구소 1972
• 2 양진석, "최승희 서울대 명예교수 소장 조선시대고문서Ⅰ․Ⅱ․Ⅲ․Ⅳ․Ⅴ" 도서출판다운샘 2007
• 3 金錫亨, "조선봉건시대 농민의 계급구성"
• 4 許宗浩, "조선 봉건말기의 소작제연구"
• 5 金東旭, "이조고문서의 분류에 대하여" 연세대 (19) : 1968
• 6 박병호, "우리나라 최초의 고문서 수집 · 정리" 한국고문서학회 31 : 1-14, 2007
• 7 "서울大學校 所藏 古文書集眞"
• 8 이해준, "생활문화와 옛문서" 국립민속박물관 1991
• 9 정수환, "북한의 고문서 연구현황과 북한고문서 조사방안 연구" 한국고문서학회 32 : 119-145, 2008
• 10 양진석, "규장각한국학연구원 고문서 조사 정리의 현황과 과제" 경북대학교 영남문화연구원 9 : 2006
• 11 김대길, "국사편찬위원회의 고문서 조사수집의 성과와 과제" 한국고문서학회 31 : 15-47, 2007
• 12 許興植, "韓國의 古文書" 민음사 1988
• 13 全海宗, "韓國近世對外關係文獻備要" 1966
• 14 韓우劤, "韓國經濟關係文獻集成" 1966
• 15 朴秉濠, "韓國法制史特殊硏究"
• 16 李姬載, "韓國書誌- 修正飜譯版" 一潮閣 2004
• 17 이욱, "韓國國學振興院의 古文書 수집·정리의 실제와 과제" 한국고문서학회 31 : 49-72, 2007
• 18 沈우俊, "韓國古文書의 套式 in: 內賜本版式․古文書套式硏究" 일지사 1990
• 19 崔承熙, "韓國古文書硏究 in: 增補版 韓國古文書硏究" 지식산업사 1981
• 20 尹炳泰, "韓國古文書整理法" 한국정신문화연구원 1994
• 21 盧明鎬, "韓國古代中世古文書硏究" 서울대출판부 2000
• 22 李基白, "韓國上代古文書資料集成" 일지사 1987
• 23 高昌錫, "濟州島古文書硏究" 도서출판 세림 2002
• 24 崔在錫, "朝鮮時代의 相續制에 관한 硏究 -分財記의 分析에 의한 接近" 53 : 1972
• 25 周藤吉之, "朝鮮後期の田畓文記に關する硏究" 7 (7): 8-9, 1937
• 26 鄭求福, "朝鮮前期古文書集成" 국사편찬위원회 1997
• 27 朴盛鍾, "朝鮮初期 古文書 吏讀文 譯註" 서울대출판부 2006
• 28 崔承熙, "日本所在韓國古文書" 국사편찬위원회 2002
• 29 李樹健, "慶北地方古文書集成" 영남대학교 출판부. 1981
• 30 "對馬島宗家文書記錄類目錄集 1책"
• 31 "對馬島宗家文書書契目錄集 5책"
• 32 "對馬島宗家文書 古文書目錄集 Ⅰ·Ⅱ"
• 33 "對馬島宗家文書 3책"
• 34 "寒喧箚錄"
• 35 金約瑟, "古文書論考" 1967
• 36 이수건, "古文書의 조사․정리와 史料的 가치" 경북대학교 영남문화연구원 9 : 2006
• 37 白麟, "古文書의 硏究와 그 整理問題" (4) : 101-110, 1964
• 38 金東旭, "古文書의 樣式的 硏究序說(1) in: 古文書集眞 - 壬亂以前 文書를 主로" 인문과학연구소 1972
• 39 崔承熙, "古文書의 槪念" 정신문화연구원 1981
• 40 金東旭, "古文書集眞 - 壬亂以前 文書를 主로" 인문학연구원 1972
• 41 鄭求福, "古文書集成 2 -扶安金氏愚磻古文書"
• 42 崔承熙, "古文書集成 1 -光山金氏烏川古文書"
• 43 "古文書集成"
• 44 국립중앙도서관, "古文書解題"
• 45 韓國古文書學會, "古文書硏究" 2003
• 46 鄭求福, "古文書 硏究의 現況과 問題點" 15 (15): 1992
• 47 "古文書"
• 48 한국국학진흥원, "http://www.history.go.kr"
• 49 국사편찬위원회, "http://www.history.go.kr"
• 50 한국역사정보통합시스템, "http://koreanhistory.or.kr"
• 51 金泰雄, "1910년대 前半 朝鮮總督府의 取調局․參事官室과 ‘慣習制度調査事業’" 16 : 105-, 1993
• 52 許宗浩, "18세기 말～ 19세기 초 병작제도의 발전 (상․하)"
• 53 이수건, "16세기 한국고문서연구" 아카넷 2004