竹島問題の歴史

3.6.07

1751 - 1763: Takeshima Zusetsu" (竹島図説)

The following is a translation of the "Takeshima Zusetsu" (竹島図説), which means "Explanation of Takeshima with Figures/Maps." It was published in the Horeki era (1751-1763). Please note that Matsushima (Liancourt rocks) was called "Oki's Matsushima." This shows that Matsushima was considered a part of Oki county even after the prohibition of voyages to Ulleungdo in 1696.
There is an island about 40 ri north of the west island of Matsushima in Oki county. It is called Takeshima. This island is close to Japan and next to Joseon and is shaped like a triangle. It's circumference is about 15 ri.
...

The distance from Hakushu's Yonago to Takeshima is about 160 ri by sea. One should go from Yonago to Izumo, and then through Oki’s Matsushima to get to Takeshima. They say that the distance from Oki’s Fukushima to Matsushima is 60 ri by sea, and from Matsushima to Takeshima is 40 ri.

The above information is from documents written when Yonago residents Kyuemon Oya and Ichibee Murakawa replied to questions by the government in 1724.



「隠岐国松島ノ西島ヨリ海上道規凡四十里許リ北方ニ一島アリ名テ竹島ト曰
フ 此ノ島日本ニ接シ朝鮮ニ隣シ地形三角ニシテ周囲凡ソ十五里許リ 
(中略) 
伯州米子ヨリ竹島マテ海上道規百六十里許アリ 米子ヨリ出雲ヘ出隠岐ノ松
島ヲ歴テ竹島ニ至ルナリ 但隠岐ノ福島ヨリ松島マテ
海上道規六十里許松島ヨリ竹島マテ四十里許ト云也
以上ノ諸説ハ享保九申辰年官府江府ノ叩問ニ依テ米子ノ市人大谷九右衛門村川 
市兵衛カ貴答ノ上書ニ原ケリ」

15 comments:

  1. Gerry,

    The first translation had a little mistake. It was "west island" of Matsushima (Liancourt rocks), not the west of Matsushima. I corrected it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pacifist,

    Do you have a link to the map that was being explained?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gerry,

    Unfortunately I don't have the map, although the title of the book indicates the book included maps or figures.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gerry,

    Thanks for correcting my English.
    But I think 「竹島図説」 means "The book of Takeshima explaining with some figures (or maps)", which don't mean it always include maps.

    図(zu) means a chart, a picture, a drawing, an illustartion, a figure, a diagram, a graph etc. And a map (地図) is one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pacifist,

    I have added a map to the post that I think is being described. Can you confirm it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pacifist,

    Actually, the following map on Opp's site seems to fit the description better than the one I posted.

    Link to Opp's Site

    What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gerry, Kaneganese,

    Yes, I agree that the map is closer to the depiction in the book. As the information in the book was from Murakawa and Oya and the map may have been drawn by Murakawa or Oya in the 18th century, so the source of the information should be the same, although we can't decide that the map was included in the book.

    So how about to write that this map is closer to the depiction and that perhaps it may have been made in the same period?

    BTW, I just took a look at 竹島考証 at the Japan Center for Asian Historical Records (アジア歴史資料センター), it didn't include maps except one at the Volume III. It is interesting that the map was attached to the article about the Matsushima (Ulleungdo) and another island. It said that a small rock called Takeshima at the north of Ulleungdo and the map attached shows 竹嶼 (Jukdo). So the two islands Meiji government gave up were definitely Ulleungdo and Jukdo, not Liancourt rocks.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gerry & Kaneganese,

    The second map (in the link) looks closer to the depiction because the distances between Oki to Matsushima, Matsushima to Takeshima are the same as the depiction in the book.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree. The map Gerry linked to says it is 60-ri from Oki to Matsushima, on the other hand the added one says 70-ri.

    I am going to add the links to your post.

    By the way, some of the links to the map on Mr.Tanaka's site does'nt work properly. Maybe we should apply to each institute to get a permission to put them on this site directly later. Is it possible to put the lots of maps, Gerry? Do you have spaces? I can apply the permission myself. (I may be sound strict, but I think it is better to do properly.)(By the way, I accessed to this site from Apple Center in Ginza this afternoon, and when I clicked those map links, the access was denied because of "adults contents". What the...?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Gerry,

    About 竹島考証, it is available from Tanaka's site too. It is interesting to read, you can see how Meiji government was confused with an effect of western maps (Argonaut and Dagelet).

    Kaneganese, why don't we use this map (it may be rather sketch than map)?
    http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/2a343tan1649-1881/51.jpg

    This sketch (map?) was attached to the No.24 article.
    The article before it (No.23 article) referred to the small island called Takeshima that Amagi saw in 1880, saying "Although there is a small island at north of it (Matsushima = Ulleungdo), we came to know that it was merely a rock and mystery for years disappeared, I put the figure to the left of this text". But there is no figure, I doubt the figure for the No.24 maybe figure for the No.23 article. If it is so, "Takeshima" should be Jukdo.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Kaneganese,

    If you link to Tanaka's map, you should link to the page just before the map to avoid being sent to that silly Yahoo advertisement.

    Pacifist & Kaneganese,

    So, I should probably remove the map I posted to the post, right?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kaneganese, Gerry

    I found that the maps in my posting, six maps are not available now - (6), (9), (12), (15), (16), (17), although others can be seen. These maps includes three maps that depicted Liancourt rocks...isn't this some pro-Korean people's prank?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Pacifist,

    In no.24, it also says 「即左の図面の如し」. So it is possible no.23 & 24 referred to same map and that is why they attached it next to no.24 and omit after no.23?

    And yes, we need to add the map(sketch) to the list. So what is the name of this should be?

    Gerry,

    Thank you for the information, I will change the links to the map.
    And maybe, you should replace the map, I guess. But in any case, we should note that the map is not directly from the document. But it is a great help for the readers if the relating map is available.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pacifist,

    As Gerry said, some of maps on
    Tanaka-san's site should not be directly linked to. I checked the page just before the maps. I will change the urls for my postings.

    (6)朝鮮東海岸図"Map of East Coast of Chosun" (Japan,Waterway department of navy 1876)
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/korea_eastcoast-1876/

    (9)日本本州九州及四国附朝鮮 "Japan Mainland Kyushu Shikoku with Chosun"(Japan, Navy 1891)
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/honshukyushukorea-1891/

    (12)朝鮮輿地図"Map of Chosun" (Japan, Jotaro Shimizu, 1894)
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/chosenyochizu-1894/
    (document no.s)

    (14)朝鮮全図 "Whole Chosun Map" (Japan, Tokyo Earth Science Association, 1894)
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/tokyo-1894/

    (15)朝鮮全岸 "All Coasts of Chosun" (Japan, Waterway department of navy, 1896)
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/koreacoast-1896/

    (16)亜細亜東部輿地図 "Map of East Part of Asia"(Japan, Rikitaro Kawai, 1898)
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/asiaeast-1898/

    (17)朝鮮全図 "Whole Chosun Map" (Japan, Bunjiro Koto, 1903)
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/koto-bunjiro/

    ReplyDelete
  15. I remember Kaneganese saying there are apparently over 100 Matsushimas in japan.

    and 10 near Oki island..

    Gerry... ask Kaneganese

    do you still think this post makes any sense?

    ReplyDelete