한국 출토 목간의 분류와 정리 및 표준화 방안

초록

Since studies on wooden documents excavated in South Korea have been advanced, issues regarding ‘standardization’ and ‘systematization’ were raised in terms of organizing and categorizing wooden documents. However, they were still individual proposals, so it was not possible to draw conclusions by exchanging opinions constructively. First of all, the definition of ‘wooden document’ is not fully agreed on yet. Even the quantity of wooden documents in South Korea can vary widely according to the definition. In the past, wooden document was often defined based on the purpose or form of it. But figuring out the creator’s intent or guessing its purpose without text can be arbitrary. Therefore, I propose to define wooden document as “wooden item on which text has written” and to add a provisory clause such as “except one made for printing and stamping”. The number that identifies each wooden document is the name of it. Making easy to identify and search, that is why numbering fundamentally. Therefore, we should not give the same name to different wooden documents, and should not give several names to one wooden document. So far, it has been very confusing to identify wooden documents in Korea, for one wooden document has more than three names. The most basic direction is to follow the number in the excavation report, but it is not possible practically because a lot of research are carried out on excavated wooden documents before the publication of the excavation report. As a general rule, it should be recommended to use the number assigned at the initial disclosure in all subsequent studies, catalogs, reports, etc. Nevertheless, the manner to display the assigned numbers may also vary. It can lead to confusion in search in the future. The Korean Society for the Study of Wooden Documents must list all the numbers and titles used for wooden documents so far, and specify the standard notation in the journal each year. The standardization of terminology should also be established by the society. And categorization criteria are not uniformed yet, so they vary from researcher to researcher. I proposed a code system by appearance for wooden documents in this paper. More important than proposing a criterion or method is the further discussion and conclusion. In Korea, the Korean Society for the Study of Wooden Documents could be the center for those discussions. Through the process of ‘consensus’ and ‘accreditation’, standardized results would be produced soon, I hope.

키워드