The map is made of hundreds of individual sheets of ruled paper panels. It is twenty-two panels wide and twenty-nine panels high.
The height of each panel represents a unit measure of 100 Korean ri, and the width of each panel represents a unit measure of seventy Korean ri. One Korean ri is equivalent to 400 meters (0.4 kilometers).
The scale of the map is about 1/216,000th of actual size.
Each panel has a 10-segment rule for the height and a 7-segment rule for the width. Each segment represents a distance of ten ri. Two panels are used to rpresent Ulleungdo (鬱陵島) and its neighboring island of Usan (于山 - 우산).
The above panel shows the west coast of Ulleungdo.
The above panel shows the east coast of Ulleungdo.
Notice that the small island off the east coast of Ulleungdo is labeled "Usan" (于山), which is an abbreviation of Usando (于山島 - 우산도). The map shows Usando to be about ten ri off of Ulleungdo's east shore since there is about one segment distance between Ulleungdo and Usan. Ten ri would be about four kilometers, which means that the Usan on the map was almost certainly Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도), which is about 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore. The writing below Usan translates as follows:
“In the 11th year of Yeongjo (1735), Gangwon Provincial Governor Jo Choi-suKoreans usually claim that Usando was the old name for present-day "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks), but the above map clearly shows that Usando was the old name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which is about 2.2 kilometers off of Ulleungdo's east shore.
reported to the king: ‘A survey of Ulleungdo has found that the land is wide and
fertile, and there are signs that people once lived there. Also, to its west is
Usando, which is also wide and spacious.’ The so-called “west” character is
different on this map, where (Usando) is to the east.
The following graphic shows that the Usan on the above map was almost certainly Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島), not Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks), which the Japanese presently refer to as Takeshima (竹島). The fact that Koreans use the same Chinese characters to refer to Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo as the Japanese use to refer to Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks) may be part of the reason for the present-day confusion.
The Cheonggudo is currently located at Seoul National University's Kyujanggak (규장각) Museum. Here is a link to the museum's Web site, which is excellent:
http://e-kyujanggak.snu.ac.kr/index.jsp
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete英宗十一年江原監使趙最壽啓言査陵島地廣上●
ReplyDelete有人居田（用?）地而其西又有于山島亦廣●云則●謂西
字興此各之在東相佐
I managed to read the small characters beside "Usan" (if there are mistakes, please correct them). ● means that I couldn't read.
The first part seems to refer to the officer who came to Ulleungdo for inspection. Then "有人居田地" may be about Ulleungdo, not Jukdo. But if so, the following sentence
"其西又有于山島" is inconsistence...which may mean "There is also Usando in the west of it" which is not true... Usando is located at east of Ulleungdo in the map.
Are there anybody who can read this?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGerry,
ReplyDeleteSorry, I didn't notice that you already wrote the translated version of the note.
I understand it says that in the 18th century Usando was recognised at west of Ulleungdo but it locates at east of Ulleungdo.
Hello from Japan. I'm Peter Payne of J-List, researching the islands for a post. Just wanted to say thanks for this wealth of information and hats off to you guys for being so sharp. I am quite confused over all the Korean language (I am fluent in Japanese), but it's a good kind of confused.
ReplyDeletegerry,
ReplyDelete을릉도에는 사람들이 자주 올 수가 있었습니다.
또한, 독도처럼 맑은 날씨에만 주변을 볼 수가 있는 것도 아닙니다. 특히 2.4km 떨어진 섬은 언제나 볼 수 있습니다.
그렇다면, 왜 우산이 서쪽에 있는 것이 아니라 실제적으로 동쪽에 있다는 설명을 했을 까요?
gerry, 당신의 소설을 한번 들어봅시다.
Hello, I am from Korea. Although all of the explanation why Takeshima is a Japanese territory makes sense, it cannot be true. Al of Japan was once a Japanese territiory, because Japan invaded Korea. We should have all of those lands back, however, Japan did not give Dokdo back. There are other islands like these that have not been returned. In addition, in the past records, Dokdo has been marked in old books in 512. http://serviceapi.nmv.naver.com/flash/NFPlayer.swf?vid=E2CC85DDBD25C5F4F14A141B435665847E88&outKey=V12936c4cc5c0f3f727a5533a1736676b86305ff239e2ede3a146533a1736676b8630
ReplyDeletedear 수연,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your opinion.
As to your questions and your opinions, please read the following.
1) "why Takeshima is a Japanese territory" :
Becuase Japan reached and used Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) since the 17th century. And after the turmoil of name confusion in the 18th century to 19th century, Japanese government officially incorporated Liancourt Rocks to Japan in 1905. The incorporation was internationally recognised as legal. It was 5 years ealier than the annexation of Korea, not related with the annexation.
(Inaddition, you wrote "Japan invaded Korea" but it was not right in the historical meaning, "Japan annexed Korea". It was not done one-sidedly - Korean progressive faction petitoned both Korean and Japanese governemnts for the annexation to improve the situation of Korea. World lawyers recognised the annexation lawful.)
But this is another subject, so I won't refer to it any more.
2)"Japan did not give Dokdo back":
You should know that Rhee Syngman illegally occupied Liancourt Rocks and Korea still keeps occupying the rocks. The country who should "give back" the rocks is Korea, not Japan.
As to the Rhee Syngman's illegal occupation, please read the following postings:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/09/1953-daiichi-daihou-maru-incident.html
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/1952-january-syngman-rhee-line.html
Also, you should know that USA warned Korea to "give Takeshima back to Japan".
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/12/report-of-van-fleet-mission-to-far-east.html
3) "Dokdo has been marked in old books in 512".:
It was not Liancourt Rocks, please read the following text:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/where-have-all-usandos-gone.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTrue, this map questions the legitimacy of the Korean claim, but I think you've failed to take to account the Korean sources.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I quote from the Korean "Mangi Yoram" (1808), which dates nearly 30 years before the Cheonggudo,
"輿地志云 鬱陵于山 皆于山國地 于山則 倭所謂松島也"
which translates, interestingly, into
'According to the "Yeojiji" (most likely a reference to the "Dongguk Yeojiji" of 1656), Ulleung and Usan were all territory of the state of Usan, and Usan is what the Japanese refer to as "Matsushima."'
Strange, because records like the "Onshu Shicho Goki" (1667) claim the northwestern border of Japan lied at Oki Island, and refers to an island a day's distance away from Ulleung as "Matsushima(松島)." I highly doubt that:
1) The geographical record which was supposed to for inspection by the central government would have been misleading in the whereabouts of the country's national border, and that
2) 10 ri is the distance which can be travelled by boat easily, in much less than a day.
Hi, 재민준달
ReplyDeleteYeojiji or "Dongguk Yeojiji" didn't say Usan is so-called Matsushima. Korean academics except for Prof.宋炳基 already admitted that. "Mangi Yoram 萬機要覽"（1808）simply quoted from 「東国文献備考・與地考」(1770) and the sentence was distorted by the author 申景濬. If you read my post, you'll know what happened.
1656 - "Yojiji (輿地志)" by Ryu Hyung-won (柳馨遠) didn't say "Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima."
1756 - 申景濬「疆界誌」『旅菴全書』巻之七 「Ganggyego (彊界考) 」十二 鬱陵島
"按 輿地志云 一説于山鬱陵本一島 ( Thinkin about Yojiji, it says that Usan and Ulluen are the same island in one theory,) 而考諸圖志二島也 一則其所謂松島 ( But I think, considering many maps, it must be two island and one of them must be so-called Matsushima,) 而蓋二島 倶是于山國也(and probably two islands are Usanguk.)"
1770 - 申景濬・洪啓禧 「東国文献備考 ・與地考」
"輿地志云 鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 于山則倭所謂松島也 (Yojiji says that Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk. Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima. )"
1808 - 「萬機要覧 軍政篇 (1937 朝鮮総督府)」
"輿地志云 鬱陵于山皆于山国地. 于山則倭所謂松島也" (Yojiji says that Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk. Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima. )"
1908 - 李萬運「増補文献備考 輿地考 ｣
"輿地志云 鬱陵于山皆于山国地. 于山則倭所謂松島也" (Yojiji says that Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk. Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima. )"
Matushima in Japanese Edo era was Liancourt Rocks, on the other hand, Usando in Joseon was Ulleungdo's another name(-late 1700s) or Jukdo (late 1700s-). Thay are not same island. The sentence in Mangi Yoram is based on 安龍福's inconsisitant testimony, and Ahn's Usando can't be Liancourt Rocks even though he said it is Japanese Matsushima.
1696 - Ahn's so-called Matsushima/Usando was Jukdo, afterall. (元禄九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一巻之覚書 肅宗実録 30卷, 22年 戊寅)
Onshu Shicho Ghoki says Ulleungdo is the northwestern border of Japan. Or people from Yonago couldn't have received the licence of reclamation from Edo Shogunate. Or there couldn't have occured any negotiation concerning the sovereignty over Ulleungdo between Joseon and Edo Shogunate in 1694-99. Even after the negotiation, Edo Shogunate simply banned Tottori Clan from trevelling to Ulleungdo, not today's Takeshima, by the way.
That's why Japaense Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks) takes one day from Ulleungdo, while Korea's Usan(Jukdo) locates simply from 10 ris on the map. They are different islands.
Kaneganese. you are wrong again.
ReplyDeleteEdo Japan did issue an explicit travel ban on BOTH Ulleungdo and Dokdo in 1837. This shows Japan considered the islands as Korean.
Japanese-declare-Dokdo-Korean
The references stating Usando was Matsushima are by and large from the Anyongbok incident. Records show An's Matsushima was 50 ri from Ulleungdo much too far to have been Ulleung's neighbouring Jukdo Islet.
Yes, Usando was said to be today's Dokdo in many historical records.
Also Saito Hosen's Report on Oki did NOT say Ulleungdo was the border of Japan Kaneganese. It stated that this "州“ meaning state or province was the limit of Japan. Your have to check the source of your translations Kaneganese because you are giving false information to the public.
ReplyDeleteA translation of Saito Hosen's 1667 Report on Oki can be found here. This translation is supported by both Korena and Japanese scholars alike.
The-Truth-of-Saito-Hosen's-Report-on-Oki
Thank you.
Good job Gerry.
ReplyDeletebut sadly there is not islands at the bottom of Ulleung-do which your map is drawing several times..
and u-san-do is drawn too large..
which doesn't make sense since viewed from Ulleung-do, it's insignificantly small..
Ulleung-do and Juk-do are very close so there's no doubt they have missed the size of juk-do