Japan had given up her claim to Ulleungdo in th 1690s, so I do not know why the map is showing Ulleungdo (竹島) as Japanese territory, but what is significant about the map is that it clearly shows Liancourt Rocks (松島) as Japanese territory.
I do not know what he is saying, but Tanaka Kunitaka talks a little bit about the map HERE.
The following Japanese map is called the 亜細亜小東洋圖, and appeared in an 1835 atlas called 唐土歴代州郡沿革地図. The original atlas and map were made in 1789, and are stored in Japan's National Diet Library. The map shows Ulleungdo (竹シマ = 竹島 - Takeshima) and Liancourt Rocks (松シマ = 松島 - Matsushima) in red, which designated them as Japanese territory.
The following 1861 Japanese map is called 新刊輿地全図. It shows an island that was most probably Ulleungdo labeled as タケ(Take), which was almost certainly an abreviation of Takeshima (竹島). The island is colored in red, which designates it as Japanese territory.
Japan gave up her claim to Ulleungdo in the 1690s, but by the late 1700s and early 1800s, it appears some Japanese maps were once again showing Ulleungdo (Takeshima) as Japanese territory. I wonder why?
This map 「華夷一覧図」 was made by 木村蒹葭堂(Kimura Kenkadou) in 1790's.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Wiki , 木村蒹葭堂(Kimura Kenkadou) was a writer, painter, Natural historian, book collector and collector. He was a salon owner for the intellectuals and had a broad network.
Even after the 1694, there were certain people like 青木昆陽(Aoki Konyou), who were not satisfied with the Bakuhu's decision to give Takeshima(Ulleundo) away to Choson. The map may have reflected those ideas, considering Kimura was a erudite person with the knowledge that Takeshima(Ulleundo) had been long used by Japanese and abandoned by Choson dynasty, though it is not confirmed.
You can see some of his work on this site . They are incredibly beautiful.
The name of the second map is a 「亜細亜小東洋圖」 . It's one of the atlas called 「唐土歴代州郡沿革地図」. The original atlas was made by 長久保赤水(Nagakubo Sekisui) in 1789. According to this article, Mr. Tsukamoto, from National Diet Library in Japan, confirmed that the original, which is stored in the library, has the same colour on both islands. There is another one on Kobe Uni's site.
ReplyDeleteThese maps are obviously misprints because in 1696 Japan publicly declared Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as Korean territory.
ReplyDeleteGerry, what you will constantly find in these maps is one thing. Despite the coloration of the maps Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) are consistently coloured the same regardless of who the islands are printed as under.
ReplyDeleteThis clearly illustrates the inseparability of Ulleungdo and Dokdo as percieved by Japanese during this era.
For example look at these maps.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japan-world-map-songdo.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/seitailen-1835-songdo.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-kinseki.html
Kanganese the Bahuku did more than declare Takeshima Chosun land. The answer to his questions regarding Takeshima and Matsushima excluded Dokdo from Japanese territory.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-tottori.html
Maps that show Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as under the jurisdiction of Japan and are post 1696 are simply wrong. Japan publicly declared Takeshima as Chosun land in 1696, 1835 and 1883.
Kaneganese,
ReplyDeleteI am somewhat confused about the second map. I have changed my description based on your comment. Please read it and tell me if I got it correct.
Was the map reprinted in a later atlas (1835)? Please reference THIS POST.
Kaneganese,
ReplyDeleteCan you look at THIS POST and tell me what Mr. Tanaka says about the 1861 map?
Gerry,
ReplyDeleteAs for the second map, yes, this is a reprinted version in 1835. The original is not available on the web yet. I read there is one in some book somewhere, though.
And he explains about the 1861 map as "The name of the map is 「新刊輿地全図」(New world atlas) by 佐藤政養 (Satoh Masayasu). It stands for the world map by Mercator projection made in the late Edo era. The original was 1857 Dutch sea chart. The contents of the map is detailed and precise, and moreover, there is a list of the major cities, mountains and rivers of the world. Satoh is a Durch scholar and a engineer in the late Edo through Meiji, and he studied a land survey and Western sciences through the medium of the Dutch language at the private school of 勝海舟(Katsu Kaishuu). There is a island which labelled as "タケ(Take)" and it is coloured in the same colour withJapan between Oki and Chosun penninsula."
Actually, I have already found this map on the Kobe university site and listed on the timeline in July. And it says same thing. I guess Mr. Tanaka cited the line of explanation from the same site with me. By the way, I was going to translate those lists I made into English in then future anyway. So,can you correct my English?
not anonymous(a.k.a. toadface)
ReplyDeleteIt's not misprint. As I said above, there were many opinion(pros and cons) in Japan to oppose against Bakuhu's decision to "give away" Takeshima(Ulleundo, note: not Matsushima,the present Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks) in order to avoid conflict between Choson. It is a reflection of those opinion. Besides, it is a proof that Nagakubo recognised both islands as Japanese territory, and he didn't intend to exclude nor recognise those as Choson territory in his 1779 map in which he left both islands were left uncoloured. It is important for Japanese only to refute Korean historian's false claim that Japanese recognised Matsushima(today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks) as Korean territory in his 1779 map only because Nagakubo left those islands uncoloured. In fact, there are lots of maps which coloured both islands in the same colour with Japanese main islands. Moreover, the Ullundo was labelled as "見高麗猶雲州望隠州" which means "(from this island) Koryo can be seen as Oki can bee seen from 出雲(Izumo)". It clealy means Japanese considered those two islands outside Korean territory.
1846(弘化三)年 - 栗原信充「改正 日本輿地路程全圖」
1849(嘉永二)年 - 高柴英三雄「嘉永新増 大日本國郡輿地全圖」
1861(文久一)年 -佐藤政養 「新刊輿地全図」
1862(文久二)年 - 井上治兵衞「日本郡國一覽」
1864(元治元)年 - 逸見豐次郎「増訂 日本輿地全圖」
1865(元治二)年 - 松川半山譯 「新刻 大日本程路全圖」
You can check those maps on this page. I have't translated those Japanese yet, but I hope you can at least find them.
As for the first two maps you linked, they are clearly disfigured compared to the maps I reffered. Matsushima was even nearer to Chosun than Takeshima. You claimed you don't rely on Korean old maps because they are not accurate nor precise. You shouldn't even show those inaccurate Japanese maps if you disqualify old Korean maps Gerry presented. It is a double standard. And the last one is Mori Kinseki's map which misplaced Masushima to Ulleundo and Takeshima(mystery island Argonaut) to the location between penninsula and Ulleundo. There are no Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks on that map. you can clearly see this fact on opp's site. But I know you already knew this. This is why everybody see your site as propaganda. Stop using those maps which had been debunked long time ago.
By the way, as for Nagakubo, he wrote drafts for the "国郡誌(History of Nations and Country)" when 徳川光圀(Tokugawa Mitsukuni: a cousin of Shogun, famous for his nickname "水戸黄門") started to compile 「大日本史」(Great Japanese History). In that history book,it says that "別に松島、竹島があり、これ(隠岐国）に属する（隠岐古記、隠岐紀行、案ずるに隠地郡の福浦より松島に至るには海上６９里、竹島に至るには１００里４町である。韓人は竹島を称して鬱陵島という。すでに竹島といい、松島といい、我が版図となした。智者を待つが知れない。ついては、以て考えに備える）" This means that both islands are Japanese territory.
In Edo era, Japanese sailors used Matsushima(today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks) as a landmark for the fishery in the Japan sea, route to Ulleundo and the route to Hokkaido. It was located on the route from western Japan to Hokkaido since Japanese traditional ships needed strong and proper winds to sail. (That's why there were so many "倭船待風"places on Ulleundo.) If you sail between Takeshima and Matsushima first, then you can have best winds to reach Hokkaido fast. Matsushima was not only used as a fishing base, but also as a important guide to the cargo vessels which are well known as 北前船. This route was decreased in Meiji era when traditional Japanese ships were replaced by western ships which 江戸幕府(Edo Bakuhu) prohibited to build. There are some documents like 石見外記 which states those fact. Matsushima was very important for Japanese not only because it's marine products but also as a sea guide for the businessmen. It is a shame that Meiji people were confused about Matsushima/Takeshima/Argonaut by western maps and Chosun's information. One thing we can clearly say is, those maps doesn't show Matsushima and Takeshima as inseparable twins at all. You always make mistakes since you only see what you want to see in the maps and documents.
As we have seen, there are lots of opinions throughout Edo era that Ulleundo was also the Japanese territory. Just like there were opinions that Ulleundo is Japanese territory among Chosun officials in 1696. In spite of those history, Meiji government didn't incorporate Ulleundo into Japanese territory. If they are really the land grabber as you claim, they certainly would have had Ulluendo incorporated, but the fact is, they didn't. They sincerely tried to follow the international law. That is why they peacefully and lawfully incorporated only Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks since there were absolutely no certain record of Korean jurisdiction over the Takeshima/LR, but Japan had plenty.
It's time for Korean and pro-Korean people to show their own maps and documents to prove their sovereignty, not Japanese maps and documents.
Kaneganese. Nobody is fooled by these incorrect maps posted by Gerry. These historically inaccurate charts may be the ambitions of a land hungry radical but what is more important is the genuine territorial perceptions of Japan as nation at this time.
ReplyDeleteFirs look the 1790 map. Is shows Hokkaido as part of Japan at this time. Japan hadn't even colonized Hokkaido until almost a century later. On the other map it also looks like the Ryuku Islands are also included and even part of China!! These maps are not at all representative of Japan's territory. Period.
Here is an accurate map of Japan's territory at this time. THIS is a historically accurate-typical map from this era. Notice Hokkaido is not shown as part of Japan. Notice Takeshima and Matsushima are not part of Shimane.
real Japan
Yes, the Japanese voyaged to Ulleungdo and Dokdo. However there are abosolutely no Japanese documents to show Japan considered Dokdo was part of Japan until their Navy annexed it in 1905.
In 1696, Japan officially declared Takeshima (Ulleungdo) part of Chosun. Not even 30 years later Japanese records of fishermen show they were violating both their own domestic law AND internaitonal agreements made in good faith to stay off Ulleungdo.
In 1837, again Japanese nationals were ordered to stay off of Korea's Ulleungdo and signs were posted on the island. What happened? Again Japanese swarmed the island en masse to the point where around 235 Japanese squatters had to be forcibly removed in 1883.
In 1900 the Chosun government launched a lawsuit against the Japanese government for trespassing and damages were awarded. However, again Japanese encroached on the island and the Japanese government simply refused to help and instead installed their own police on the island in 1902 because the problem was so out of control.
How callous it of those who cite Japanese activities on Ulleungdo as it was just so. These activities were illegal trespassing and Japanese activities on Matsushima were based on the invasion of Ulleuengdo, an island the Japanese had no right to be on in the first place.
The Japanese government may have followed the "law" the trouble is Kaneganese their citizens didn't. Japan didn't need to incorporate Ulleungdo, anyone who could physically access the island was either fishing around the island or illegally squatting their anyway.
This map shows the situation on Ulleungdo. Note the Japanese illegal squatters on Ulleungdo are called "temporary villages" These were all illegal residents at this time.
Ulleungdo
not anonymous(a.k.a. toadface),
ReplyDeleteNobody is trying to fool anyone. These maps only back up the fact that there were many scholors who considers Bakuhu's official decision was a mistake and kept thinking those two islands as Japanese territory, that's all. Nobody today is claiming Ulleundo is Japanese territory. It is natural there should be various opinions among people even if it contradicts government's official attitude. Does all the American follow President Bush's decision? Are't they allowed to express his/her contradictory opinion? You tend to exaggerate things too far. Your story sounds like a famous Korean soap dramas. Evil Japanese VS cute poor Chosun. It's not entertaining at all.
“How callous it of those who cite Japanese activities on Ulleungdo as it was just so. These activities were illegal trespassing and Japanese activities on Matsushima were based on the invasion of Ulleuengdo, an island the Japanese had no right to be on in the first place.”
Don't get too excited. They were just civilians who were trying to make their living or to get a better life. Ordinary Japanese in Meiji era were also poor as Chosun people. There were even thousands farmers who had to sell their daughters to brokers, just like Korean. Besides, there were thousand of illegal Korean immigarnt in Showa era too. These are the newspaper articles which report those illegal Korean immigrants.
『四百廿余名の密航鮮人／内地へ続々と侵入』 福岡日日 1938/1/30
『福岡沿岸に密航鮮人頻々／ブローカーと連絡／本年に入つて五百名』 福岡日日 1938/3/3
『また密航鮮人／西戸崎で六十五名逮捕』 福岡日日 1938/3/3
『密航鮮人四十名西戸崎に上陸（粕屋郡志賀島村）』 福岡日日 1938/3/29
『密航鮮人団上陸／トラック運転手の気転で大半は逮捕される（遠賀郡水巻村）』 福岡日日 1938/5/2
『鮮人の内地密航あの手この手／驚くべき大胆な玄海突破や九ヶ月苦心の方法』 神戸新聞 1938/5/21
『鮮人十五名が小倉へ密航（小倉市）』 福岡日日 1938/7/24
『密航鮮人団四十二名 悉く逮捕さる（宗像郡津屋崎町）』 福岡日日 1938/8/26
『・こ奴怪しい・六感的中／果して密航半島人！／海田市署の槍玉へ』 中国 1938/9/1
『密航鮮人丗一名一網打尽に（宗像郡神湊町）』 福岡日日 1938/12/17
『津屋崎沖に不敵な密航船／鮮人十八名を逮捕す（宗像郡津屋崎町）』 福岡日日 1938/12/20
『又も密航鮮人／怪船行方を晦ます』 福岡日日 1938/12/21
『九十余名の鮮人が密航／五十余名を検挙す（宗像郡岬村）』 福岡日日 1939/2/3
『密航半島人二名／倉橋島村で検挙す／発動機船で二十五名潜入／一味検挙に着手』 呉日日 1939/2/12
『半島人密航団か／怪機船倉橋島に出没／呉、江田島署が厳重捜査中』 中国日報 1939/2/13
『密航者丗八名八幡で捕はる（八幡市）』 福岡日日 1939/5/18
『密航半島人遠賀へ十九名（遠賀郡岡垣村）』 福岡日日 1939/6/5
『密航はしたけれど／途方に暮れる気の毒な鮮人／今度は逆戻り失敗（兵庫）』 神戸又新日報 1939/6/20 夕
『密航青年を半島へ送還（兵庫協和会）』 大阪毎日 1939/6/20 神版
『全面的検挙は困難／県の密航鮮人狩り／今後は取締りを厳重に』 中国 1939/11/30
『手荷物の箱詰め人間／密航？の半島人、小倉で発見さる』 大阪毎日 1940/1/14 夕
And there are still almost 50,000 illegal Korean in Japan today, and 210,000 Korean illegaly stay in U.S. in 2000. Do you still call them "callous"? Or are they angels because their race is your beloved Korean? If they are Japanese, do you call them callous? If so, you are a racist.
The fact is, it was like this.
(Two cents on occidentalism via ZERO)
Although the Korean government did not wish to allow the presence of Japanese on Ulleungdo (but they never checked out the island until 1882), the islanders seemed to have been getting along quite fine with each other, before 1882. The islanders and their leader seemed to not have considered the Japanese on the island as poachers.There is a Japanese document titled “Report of a secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs Higaki Naoe who made an official trip to Ullung-do in Korea” 1883(明治十六)年11月12日 -「朝鮮国蔚陵島出張檜垣内務少書記官復命ノ件」 (Ref code : A03023617600). "故ニ今回御國人民ノ帰國ヲ聴クヤ愁容表ニ溢レ哀情甚タ切ニ殆ド兄弟親友ニ別ルガ如ク 或ハ行李ヲ擔ヒ或ハ荷物ヲ負ヒテ海岸マテ送リ来レリ 御國人民モ亦タ別レヲ惜ミ且差向キ其ノ窮困ヲ憐察シ私ニ米若干包ヲ恵恤セシト云フ 其相親睦セル斯ノ如キヲ以テ島長ノ他ハ御國人民ノ伐木スルヲ以テ敢テ意ニ介セス" Higaki had received orders from the Japanese government to go to Ulleungdo in 1883 and round up all Japanese on the island, in response to a complaint field by the Korean government that Japanese were conducting illegal lumbering on Ulleungdo. (A fact probably discovered by the 1882 inspection by Lee Gyun-yon.) It seems the men of both countries were getting along very well and wept when they were upon their parting like brothers or best friends. The Korean islanders (a little over 60 in all) seemed to have had been heavily dependent on the Japanese (who counted about 150) for their living. Thus they were horrified to hear that the Japanese were all leaving. Especially, they had just experienced a bad season and the horrible typhoon season had nearly cut off all travel between Ulleungdo and the Korean peninsula, the departing Japanese leave what food they have for the Koreans and the island leader also come to Higaki asking to loan him some food to prevent the remaining Koreans from starving to death, so Higakai gives them some rice from his private stock. A different document shows that Higaki was later compensated for the rice he gave the Koreans by the Japanese government, for the reason that the act could be considered the official duty of a Japanese policeman, since he wan in Ulleungdo under orders.
This is an another record how Korean residents had to depend on Japanese. 1883(明治十六)年12月10日 -「在蔚陵島朝鮮国人民ヘ米苞給与ノ件」 (Ref code : A03023617400) "明治十六年十二月十日 拙者儀蔚陵島出張正ニ帰帆際シ朝鮮国吏員該島長某幼学某ヲ卒ヒ本般ニ罷越接見申入候ニ付応接致候処現ニ在島朝鮮人大凡六十余名ニシテ即今糧食欠乏且時季風波ノ峻ニ際シ本国ト航通難層成為メニ飢＠ニ迫ニ候ニ付粲米若干苞貸与アリ度間ニ御座候 因テ中実等＠接究候処如何ニモ可＠諒事情ト認メ候付専断ヲ以テ粲米四斗二升俵廿五俵給与致候"Japanese Government was begged by Chosun officials to supply foods since they are seriously in lack of foods because of the strong seasonal winds hinder ships from mainland.
Even after the officials stationd on the island in 1900, Japanese and Korean lived amicably and depended on each other. Korean engaged in farming, on the othe hand, Japanese engaged in logging, fishing and trading. But there were Japanese culprits who apparently gave damages to even Korean on the island, Japanese tried to regulate themselves and asked Japanese government to dispatch police officer. You can read here. 1902(明治三五)年 - 外務省通商局編纂「通商彙纂」 Why Korean officer didn't aske Korean government to dispatch Korean police officer? I honestly want to read Korean side of the story. It is a good time to study Korean old documents now.
In 1905 Japanese MOFA's offical document of commerce 「外務省通商局編纂「通商彙纂」 第50号」clearly shows that the number of Japanese had decreased from 1902, but the occupation had been rich in variety. There were even 1-2 medical doctors. I think Korean residents benefit from them. I will post the translation of this document later.
As far as I read the those documents availale, it was Chosun or Korean Empire government who were callous to their people, not Japanese. They didn't try to supply the transportation nor the enough foods supplies to the islanders even though they were the one who encouraged people to immigrate the island. It looks like they were only interested in collectiong taxes from Korean residents and Japanese immigrants. Whom we should blame most?
As we have seen above, even if there were many records that Japanese had been long engaged in economical activity when Chosun literally abandoned the island and there were opinions that Ulleundo belong to Japan in Edo era and there were many Japanese residents on the islands at the time, Meiji government didn't incorporate Ulleundo. They only incorporated Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks lawfully and peacefully which Korean had absolutely no record of their their sovereignty. There were no one injured or get intimidated to evacuate when Japan incorporated the island in 1905, whereas Korean Navy brutelly killed or severly injured 44 Japanese civilian after they set the Lee line to include Takeshima/Dokdo in 1952, Among the victims, there is a young fisherman whose baby just had born. This poor kid lost his father. More than that, 3,929 fishermen was detained, and 328 fishing boats were ceized by Korean authorities. The total damages of the economy was almost 80,000,000 US dollors(9 billion Yen) at the time. And even after the treaty in 1965, Korean still refuse to Japanese fishermen or even Japanese official surveyrance vessel to enter the Japanese EEZ. If you count those damages Korean caused Japanese fishery business from 1965, it is going to be a colossal sum of money.
It is impossible and very unsuitable to call Meiji government aggressive land grabber. It is apparently Korean government who illegaly grabbed the island and still occupies it. They should at least have guts to go to ICJ now.
Read my lips Kaneganese. The Japanese had no business being on Ulleungdo. Period it was Chosun's land. You just don't get it do you?
ReplyDeleteKanganese, the illegal Japanese on Ulleungdo were trespassers. My point is Japan is trying to use these illegal activites as a legal venue to say they perceived Dokdo as Japanese land which is not true. Of the Japanese who "lived" or fished near Liancourt the documents we see from this era show they considered the island as apended to Ulleungdo. What else could they think? Look at Dokdo from Ulleungdo.
Ulleungdo from Dokdo
The report issued by the Japanese official who visited Ulleungdo can't be trusted. Of course he wanted to paint a positive picture that was his job. The documents issue by Chosun show a differect picture Kanganese. This was before Leegyuwon inspected the island The Chosun government repeartedly told the Japanese to stop logging on the island and to stay off. Did the Japanese stay off. NO, they didn't.
Are you seriously trying to blame the Koreans for the out of control situation on Ulleungdo. Very shabby Kaneganese!!
The 1905 document you mention shows something very interesting. It shows first the Japanese on Ulleungdo were trespassers, illegally squatting on Korean soil. They were still registered by their home prefectures.
It also shows the many Koreans were coming to Ulleungdo from Geumundo. Do you know how far it is to Geomumdo Kanganese? It is over 550kms by boat. Here is a map to show you how far Koreans travelled to Ulleungdo every year.
Korean yearly voyage to Ulleungdo
In 1882 when Leegyuwon surveyed Ulleungdo he found residents from Geomundo, Nagan, Chodo and Hameung living on Ullengdo. These people gathered seaweed and built boats on Ulleungdo, they were not landlcocked as Japanese are trying to assert. The islanders who frequented Ulleungdo were not agrarian by nature and of course would have fished around Ulleungdo to supplement their diets.
Kaneganse, Korea never abondoned Ulleungdo, they had a rule to inspect the island every two or three years. This is recorded fact. Chosun refused the Japanese to come to Ulleungdo as early as the 1400s when the lord of Tsushima contacted Chosun.
Japan had no business on Ulleungdo.
not anonymous (a.k.a. toadface),
ReplyDelete“The Japanese had no business being on Ulleungdo. Period it was Chosun's land. You just don't get it do you?”
Don't get paranoid. I didn't say it was Japan's land. I said there was a reason to assert claim the sovereingty over the Ulleundo for Japan if they were as agressive as you cry out, but they didn't. Whereas, Korea did snatched Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks even they clearly knew it was not theirs. 崔南善, the historian and the author of the 朝鮮常識問答 in 1947 and 朝鮮常識 in 1948, who clearly states that the eastern limit of Korea is Chukdo of Ulluendo, not Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks apparently lied to 兪鎮午, who became the Korean delegate to Japan-Korea normalization process, that there are enough reason to claim that the island is theirs.
"Of the Japanese who "lived" or fished near Liancourt the documents we see from this era show they considered the island as apended to Ulleungdo."
Show me the proof that they thought it "appended"to Ulleundo. There are no record of Japanese payed taxes of Sea lion or any other marine products from Matsushima to Korean officials, though they payed for the products from Ulleundo. Japanese on the island apparently considered Matsushima as outside of Korean territory. They go fishing and hunting from Ulleundo only because it was near than from Oki. Besides, as I said above, Japanese long had considered Matsushima as a guide from western Japan to Hokkaido, too.
“The 1905 document you mention shows something very interesting. It shows first the Japanese on Ulleungdo were trespassers, illegally squatting on Korean soil. They were still registered by their home prefectures.”
Don't jump to conclusion when you cannot read Japanese."一、 人口 人口は昨年十二月末の調査に戸数八十五戸人口二百六十人内男百七十五人女八十五人なりしに本年六月末に於いては戸数百十戸に及び人口も三百六十六人となりたり、今本年四月より六月迄戸数並人口の増殖し行く跡を窺はんが為めに左に其統計を挙げん、"There were apparently 260 Japanese who stayed over the winter. And there were many people came from Japan when the spring came, though. So, we can clearly say that in 1905, there were many Japanese who actually lived on the island and there also were many who only came seasonaly.
And in 1902 document, it clearly says that Japanese and Korean lived amicably and depended on each other. Korean engaged in farming, on the othe hand, Japanese engaged in logging, fishing and trading. (It says that there were a few Korean who were collecting seaweeds, but apparently, Japanese didn't consider them as fishermen.) So, please show me the Korean documents, if you cannnot rely on Japanese documents. (Are you talking about the 「鬱陵島検察日記」 by 李奎遠? Do you know where we can read 『鬱島記』『日本人事實』『本島等状』『監務報告』『日本人結幕人口成冊』『日本人犯斫槻木成冊』『本島人犯斫成冊』 by 禹用鼎 ?)
“These people gathered seaweed and built boats on Ulleungdo,”
By the way, what kind of "boat" did they have built? As far as I know, the Korean on the island only used "raft" so that they can collect seaweeds aroud the island. It was too frail to go fishing out the open sea. There is no record of Korean engaged in real "fishing" apart from "gathering or catching" before 1907. It was impossible for Korean on the island with rafts to go "fishing" to Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks before 1905. The seasonal fishermen from 江原道 also engaged in "gathering seaweeds". If you don't have proper gear, you cannot fish out the open sea. Do you have the record of what kind of "boats" they used to go travel from mainland to Ulleundo? All I know is people from 全羅道(115人) and 江原道(14人) logged the trees on the island and built the boat to go back to mainland after they finished "fishing and gatering" (Note: not to Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks. There is no record those who seasonal collectors went to Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks which locates 92km away from Ulluendo.).
Only if you put aside those aggressive remarks that Japanese on the island more than 100 years ago "squatting", we can work together to understand what was like the life on the Ulluendo, it must be interesting. But you keep niptucking only what you want from what I say, it is not fun to debate with you at all. Very sad. Korean seriously need more intelligent and logical supporter unlike person like yourself so that they can grow up.
Kanganese, these so called "rafts" managed to take the Koreans to Ulleungdo every year at will for a distance of 550kms in very heavy seas for decades before the Japanese annexed Dokdo. What makes you think they couldn't travel a mere 90kms more?
ReplyDeleteAgain you argument has little common sense. Leegyuwon reported these Koreans on the Southeastern side of Ulleungdo sailing off to the South in his diary. Of course the Koreans must have been aware of Liancourt.
Kanganese, I'm not using the illegal activities of Japanese on Ulleungdo to demonize them. What I'm saying is, Japanese activities on Liancourt were conducted through the knowingly illegal invasion of Ulleungdo. There is no way Japanese who were squatting on Ulleungdo considered an island within visual proximity of Ulleungdo as Japanese land. This is shown by the way some of these documents list Liancourt under Gangwan Province.
Again look at how close Ulleungdo is to Dokdo, you can easily see that the Japanese must have thought Dokdo was a sister island of Ulleungdo.
Ulleungdo from Dokdo
Kaneganese, of course there are no records of Japanese paying taxes from Liancourt. The Japanese didn't pay proper taxes on most if not all of the resources they plundered from Ulleungdo. Remember all of the smuggling activities there and the kickbacks the Japanese police got?
Kaneganse, the Japanese who were on Ulleungdo were illegal trespassers. Someone who simply decides to live on a foreign land without permission and reap the resources is such. Sorry.
I know you are Japanese but you must learn to accept historical facts and put your emotion aside.
Use your common sense instead of your blind nationalism. BTW I'm not Korean.
not anonymous(a.k.a. toadface)
ReplyDelete"I'm not using the illegal activities of Japanese on Ulleungdo to demonize them."
Apparently, you are. Using those aggressive words as "invasion", "callous " and ignoring all the fact I presented that both residents amicablly spending their life together, you are demonizing Japanese overly and unnecessarily. You are deliberately mixing up those civilian's act with Imperialism. It is true that there were some places in Korea that Meiji government did encouraged their people to immigrate, but I have never seen that Ulleundo was one of them. Do you have any evidence? Do you think it is appropriate to call almost 50,000 illegal Korean in Japan today and 600,000 Zainichi Korean as callous invaders? I don't think so.
"What I'm saying is, Japanese activities on Liancourt were conducted through the knowingly illegal invasion of Ulleungdo."
Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks had been Japanese territory since 1600's. It was not illegal to go fishing to the island. There is no record of Korean authorities even recognized the island where it is, nor accused Japanese of "illegaly" go fish there. There is no record of they even tried to tax the marine products from Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks. Do not try to connect irrevant dots and make false claim.
"Kaneganese, of course there are no records of Japanese paying taxes from Liancourt."
This is my mistake. I should have said Korean officers tried to tax on Japanese. I think they failed. Sorry.
Anyway, people on Ulluendo only had rafts (tepe in Korean?) and it was not suitable for transportation between Ulluendo and mainland. According to Japanese 1902 document, They had to hire Japanese ship to go back to mainland. Don't get confused with the seasonal fishermen's boat who came to collect seaweeds from mainland. The people on Ulleundo mainly engaged in farming. There is no record of Korean residents on Ulleundo solely going fishing outer sea until 1908. You need to stop using your "common cence" too much. Read Korean book of fishing history. The situation of the Chosun people's was totally different from the one of Korean today. The residents on Ulleundo in early 1900's despised fishing as vulgar job. That's why there were only a few Korean who collect seaweeds and catch small fishes(sardines) with their hands. It was not easy to use even fishing net around Ulleundo since the sea bed was rocky. Besides, Confucian Chosun of Lee-dynasty was heavily agro-centered society and they considered fishing as "賤民" job. I guess they didn't even want to be called as fishermen themselves. I am reading some books what was like Korean fishing industry around 1900's and the life of woman divers in Cheju. You do know how Koren looked down woman diver in Cheju island. I will post some day if I find them interesting. You should read more Korean documents and books.
All I can say to you is, do not rely on your imaginary version of "common cence" too much, instead, try to read the historical fact as it is. Your common sense is apparently disfigured and ethno(Korea)-centored. The fact is, There is no evidence Korean on Ulluendo had engaged in real "fishing" until 1908 when they learned from Japanese and started fishing squids around Ulleundo so far. If you have a evidence, please show me.
You keep running away from what I asked you many times, and try to shift to another lies. I am not emotional at all, though I got really bored to talking to you since we cannot make any constructive debate. I hope someone like myCoree came back instead of you.
"BTW I'm not Korean."
Don't worry, I know who you are, Steve.
Kanganese, open your ears. The Koreans sailed to Ulleungdo 550kms every year for decades before the Japanese annexed Dokdo. Your "rafts" theory doesn't, shall we say "hold water"... You and others like Gerry have been trying to paint this theory that the Koreans were land-locked which is a fallacy
ReplyDeleteI'm not using aggressive words at all Kaneganese. Do you have a politically correct term for hundreds of foreign residents squatting (that's right squatting) on another's territory, logging, fishing and then taking the resources without paying any taxes?
The dictionary I have in front of me defines a squatter as someone who occupies unused land without legal right to do so, or someone who lives somewhere without paying taxes or rent. I'm sorry you find the term offensive, but let's call a spade a spade shall we?
The Japanese have owned takeshima since 1600's?? That's the biggest misconception the Takeshima lobbyists have been dishing out lately. This is because their "terra nullius" claim didn't work as it has been learned Koreans were cognizant of Dokdo before the Navy annexed the island.
Didn't I post the Bafuku's response in 1695 on this forum already? Even before the second Anyongbok incident of 1696 Japan did not claim either Takeshima nor Matsushima as part of Tottori and thus Japan. The Shogunate did not "bestow" these islands on the Oyas or Murakawas. He just let them voyage to foreign lands Kaneganese. Because if this document it can be confirmed Takeshima and Matsushima were not lands of Japan at this time. All Japanese national and prefecture maps of the 17th Century also fail to show these islands as Japanese lands.
Japanese fallacy
Japan has absolutely no historical claim to Dokdo before 1905. This is why the Japanese annexed this Dokdo-Takeshima Kaneganese. Why don't you translate this for the Japanese readers on this forum?
The Shameful Truth of Japan's claim to Takeshima
BTW, I miss mycoree too.
Kaneganese,
ReplyDeleteYes, I will proofread your translations when you finish them.
By the way, good job countering Non Anonymous's distortions and exaggerations. However, I would suggest that you ignore his inflammatory remarks and just focus on correcting his so-called "facts" and misinterpretations. As you know, "Non Anonymous" is just one of a half dozen aliases he uses, which, in itself, should tell you that he is not really interested in sincere discussion.
Thanks for all your help and hard work, Kaneganese.
Non-Anonymous wrote: "Japan has absolutely no historical claim to Dokdo before 1905."
ReplyDeleteGerry writes:
Japan began traveling to and mapping Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) since, at least, the 1600s. You know his, Non-Anonymous (Toadface), and have seen the maps to prove it, so you above statement is ridiculous. Also, you are ignoring such documents as Watanabe Kouki's 1878 document, which can be read HERE.
In his letter, Mr Watanabe said, "Therefore, if the “Matsushima” being talked about here is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it belongs to them (Koreans). If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan."
Mr. Watanabe also wrote the following:
Many records say that “Argonaut,” which is the Western name for Takeshima (Ulleungdo), does not exist, and that “Dagelet,” which refers to Matsushima, is actually Takeshima (Ulleungdo). So what we call "Matsushima” (Liancourt Rocks) is called “Hornet Rocks” by Westerners. Foreign maps show Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory, but there is still no agreement among countries concerning the other two islands.
Please stop exaggerating and distorting the facts, Non-Anonymous, and please stop being rude and making childish, inflammatory statements.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI'm back from holiday.
First of all, I was surprised by great work of Kaneganese. And you defeated "not anonymous" (toadface) completely. Good job!
"not anonymous" (toadface) is intentionally telling lies. He wrote, "these so called "rafts" managed to take the Koreans to Ulleungdo every year at will for a distance of 550kms in very heavy seas for decades before the Japanese annexed Dokdo", but actually it is 115km, not 550 km.
And he should know that there had been various opinions about Ulleungdo(Takeshima) in Japan even after 1696.
As Tada Yozaemon pointed out during the first dispute between Korea and Japan 1693-1696(see my posting), Korea admitted that they hadn't sent inspection officers to Ulleungdo for many years and that they let foreign fishermen engage in fishing there - that means Korea admitted that they didn't control the island at all.
It is doubtful that Korea could claim the island from today's viewpoint....
Bakufu (the shogunate) only admitted that Korea had had the island as old documents showed and Bakufu only proclaimed that "go to Ulleungdo is banned".
They gave up to negotiate or threw away the island to Korea for the friendship of the two countries. Many scholars in those days believed that the island belonged to Japan.
Hi, everyone. Long time no see.
ReplyDeleteI frequently come here and read new posts and comments.
But, I usually don’t like to debate about anything. And, I can’t continue to do – mainly due to my language deficiency and partly due to my own business. I learn Japanese every morning at a beginners’ class. That can be another excuse about my 'hiding'. Anyway, thank you for remembering me.
Under this post, there has been fierce debates and nobody will be happy now for it. Me, either.
One part is trying to bind two islands together and the other is trying to separate them each other! Of course, I belong to the former part. Neither of them doesn’t imagine to be defeated.
Nowadays, I’m interested in 隱州視聽合記(Collection of Survey Records about Onshu District?), 大日本地名辭書(Geographical Dictionary of Great Japan) and ‘可視水平線(apparent horizon)’.
Kaneganese,
I will post the original Japanese text here.
Could you translate the last part? I can’t distinguish comma(,) from period(.) in old Japanese sentences. You may post that text on this site. BTW, when was that part published for the first time?
Gerry and NotAnonymous,
I recommend you to read this : “Distance to the Horizon”. It contains recent practical formula : D = Square Root( (2 * r0 * hf)/(6076.1 * B0) )
D is the distance to the horizon in nautical miles
r0 is the mean radius of the earth (3440.1 nautical miles)
hf is the height of eye in feet
B0 (0.8279) accounts for terrestrial refraction.
And, You will know that the distance from Ulleungdo to Dokdo is 87.4km, not 92km, and the height of Dokdo is 168.5m, not 174m.
Everybody, let’s be relaxed. Good night and day.
P.S.: a report about “dog meat” ^_^ : part1, part2, part3
Welcome myCoree!
ReplyDeletePlease write your opinions, even if you don't like to debate. It is good to hear different opinions.
BTW, the reason pro-Japanese people used to separate the two islands (you mean Ulleungdo and Liancourt rocks, don't you?) and pro-Korean people used to bind them together should be different interpretation about Usando.
Usando was one of the Ulleungdo group, as written in the old documents in Korea.
The former think it is not Liancourt rocks (as Gerry has already proved), although the latter believe it is Liancourt rocks.
Gerry and NotAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteI missed something regarding distance(92km or 87.4km?) and height(174m or 168.5m?). That's here.
Pacifist,
I believe that Usando was proved not to be the present Jukdo contrary to Gerry's claim.
I will be back later.
Gerry, are you still using that tired old, Watanabe Kuoki confused quote? Watanbe's opinion was the minority view of the Japanese at that time. He was using Western maps to ascertain the position of a fictitious island and simply stated Liancourt was mapped by foreigners as such. Other Japanese in the document you quote believed Matsushima (Dokdo) was Usando and attached to Ulleungdo. I can't believe you are backpedalling Gerry. I've already heard you say yourself, that Japan had no claim prior to 1905.
ReplyDeletePacifist, of the Koreans who came to Ulleungdo many of them were from Geomundo, Chodo, Nagan and the Namhae region. These people were islanders and accounted for about 70% of the population of Ulleungdo. In Leegyuwon's diary he met such people near Dodong on the southeast side of Ulleungdo and they sailed off to the South.
Again here is a map of where they came from and how incredibly far they would have travelled. This is almost three times the distance Japanese travelled to Ulleungdo from the Japanese mainland.
Korean voyage to Ulleungdo
The point I'm making is Koreans on Ulleungdo were of two types. Some were farmers and permanent residents. The others were transient and adept at nautical skill. There are many records of these Koreans being carpenters and building boats on Ulleungdo. It's not a reasonably assumption these people were not cognizant of Dokdo especially when they lived alongside Japanese and plied the same waters for decades before the Japanese annexed Dokdo.
Pacifist you didn't read what I wrote about the 1695 Bafuku document. I didn't say this document banned Japanese passage to Matsushima. This document is proof positive that the Japanese activities on Takeshima and Matsushima were NOT acts of sovereignty over Dokdo. The voyages of the Oyas and Murakawas were not "bestowals of land" as I've said repeatedly. They were permission to visit foreign lands in exchange for tributes paid to the Shogunate. Thus, Japanese claims of effective management of these islands during the 17th Century are nonsense.
The End of a Japanese Myth
Mycoree, I'm glad to see you here. I have to respectfully disagree with your comment above. I am not trying to "bind" Takeshima and Matsushima together. I'm staying true to all Japanese historical records of the islands that consistently treated the islands as one. No historical data shows that the Shogunate government consciously distinguised Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) from each other, they were always together and they should remain as such.
pacifist,
ReplyDeleteWelcome back !!
Gerry,
550km...Gosh, I didn't notice that.
Sorry, if I sound agitated, but honestly I wasn't that angry. I was just irritated with his "common sence", though. I was very happy to write many things that I learned in the last few months, beside I just took off my cast few days aga and it is much easier to type (still my bandages on).
hi ! myCoree
It's good to hear you are studying Japanese. You should do that to avoid basic mistakes if you still want to rely on Japanese sources to claim Korean land...
As for Yoshida's book(吉田東伍「大日本地名辞典」), You have already mentioned about it on occidentalism in June and I saw your translation. What else do you want to know? What do you mean commas and periods? If you let me know exactly which part, I will translate it for you.
By the way, you can download whole book from here. And there is a website of his museum. According to this site, it took 13 years for him to finish this book. He was born to poor farmers and only finished elementary school, but kept studying hard and became a Professor of Waseda. Fascinating. Sounds like 野口英世.
I honestly admire he and his hard work, but we have to be careful when we read it. As you may have noticed, this is a compilation of miscellaneous and various resources for the place names . There are many confusions and contradictions in this book. For example, it says (I took this Japanese form your post, sorry. I didn't check it with the original, but I belive you did it right. Or was it done by halfmoon via hanmauny? It is really funny that he takes many things halfmoon says true. You should be careful when you cite from them. They always use logical leap. Or warp, I would say.)
"北方 北方南方は今二村に分てど, 本來一色とす, 西鄕の西方三里半, 其西に福浦灣と號すゐ小港あり. 視聽記云, 福浦は富浦とも云ふ, 辰巳の方へ海灣入りて, 十三町ばかり 又北の方より山埼突を出て , 舟を泊すへし, 磯竹(イソタケ)島(朝鮮蔚陵島)へ渡ゐもの, 此にて晴を量り, 風を占ひ 舟を 出すとぞ, 富浦の直西四里の海上に, 桂島あり."
There is no island in 16km west from 富浦. But interestingly, there are many mysterious 桂島's described in several Japanese maps. Some Japanese claim it may be Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks. I didn't know it was mentioned in 「視聴合記」. You said you are studying it, if you find the part, please let me know. It sounds very interesting. The maps which drew 桂島 are...
1821年頃 - 伊能忠敬「大日本沿海輿地（よち）全図」（伊能図）中図 小図
1908年 - 島根県全図
The last part you are talking about clearly shows he referred many documents and quated some sentences and put together to explain.
"安政の比, 松浦武四郞竹島雜志を著し, 論述を爲す, 明治維新後, 又漁民の來往するものありて, 地誌提要には隱岐國の下に附載して曰く,
“土俗相傳ふ, 福浦より松島に至る海路凡六十九里, 竹島に至る, 海路凡百里, 朝鮮に 至る, 海路凡百三十六里”
と, 松島とは輿地勝覽の三峯島なるべし, 明治十六年, 更に日韓兩政府の談判あり, 我往漁の舟を還して, 再往するなからしめ, 明に朝鮮の所屬と爲しぬ. (I took it from your comment again.)"
First sentense came from 「竹島雑誌」. Next quated part which the Oki residents said is from 「地誌提要」. And the Yoshida's opinion part comes as "三峯島 in 輿地勝覽 should be Matsushima", and the rest of the sentence came from meiji governemt reports in 1883. And those sentenses are connected by the word "松島". It looks like he is confused and mixed those resources. Because in 明治十六年(1883), when Meiji government prohibited Japanese to go to Ulleundo, Ulleundo was called both 竹島 and 松島. You can make sure the fact here.
公文類集第七編 「鬱陵島へ渡航上陸を禁す」
"朝鮮国所属鬱陵島我邦人竹島又ハ松島ト唱フ"( The island which Japanese called Matsushima or Takeshima is a Ulleundo which belong to Chosun.)
In the next document which was compiled later(1890), it even defied the location of the island which Japanese called Matsushima (another name Takeshima) and Chosun calls Ulleundo with it's longitude and latitude.
明治二十三年 往復簿 一 内閣記録局 Click no.04
「北緯37度30分東経130度49分ノ洋中ニ位スル一ノ島嶼即日本称竹島或ハ松島朝鮮称蔚陵島ノ儀ハ往古孰レノ所領タル確定セスト雖モ我慶長年間宋対馬守ヨリ朝鮮政府ニ照会シ所属論ヲ提出シタレトモ論旨徹セス其後元禄6年ヨリ同12年ニ至ル迄７年間数回ノ往復ヲ経テ遂ニ両政府ニオイテ其所属論ヲ確定シタルコトハ別冊竹島版図所蔵考記載ノ通リナリ 明治十六年(1883)三月三十一日 内務卿 各府県長官宛 進展」
The Matsushima in 1883's Meiji government's decision was definately Ulleundo.
To claim that 松島 in this book was Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks , you need to identify the where is 三峯島 in 輿地勝覽 or at least 三峯島 was Takeshima/Liancourt rocks since in early Meiji era, Japanese was calling Ulleundo as Matsushima. It is really hard to identify where it was in Chosun official documents. But it clearly says the island was inhabitable and fertile where people are living to escape from labour tax, which is impossible to be a Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks. I would say it was Ulleundo, but the only thing we can definately tell from those Chosun annals, none of officials could even land on the island and they cannot be the critical evidence to prove Chosun owned the island.. Below are from the official site of 朝鮮王朝実録. There are plenty of them, but I copy and pasted some of them.
"成宗 16卷, 3年( 1472 壬辰 / 명 성화(成化) 8年) 3月 6日 壬寅 1번째기사
廣土衆民, 王政之所先也, 三峯島在我江原之境, 土地沃饒, 民多往居之故, 自世宗朝, 遣人尋之, 而未得。 若之何, 則得其地, 使居民衆乎? 或言: “海道險阻, 雖得無益, 不如置之。” 此說何如? 凡此數事, 莫非經濟之策, 子大夫亦嘗講究, 而欲陳者也, 其各悉心以對。 予將觀有用之才。"
"三峯島" is a fertile land and there were many people lives on it.
"成宗 26卷, 4年( 1473 癸巳 / 명 성화(成化) 9年) 1月 9日 庚子 2번째기사
○諭永安道觀察使鄭蘭宗曰: “金漢京言: ‘在慶興, 遇淸明日, 可望見三峯島, 自會寧向東舟行, 七晝夜而到, 向北行四晝夜而還。 前年, 遣人往尋茂陵島, 自蔚珍向東舟行, 一晝夜而到, 西行三晝夜而還,’ 其所言地勢, 有可疑者。 世傳: ‘茂陵島之北, 有蓼島, 無一人往還者,’ 是亦可疑。 卿更訪問沿海古老舟人, 詳究以啓。 海路險惡, 今若遣人尋求, 宜募願行者。 人言: ‘邊民逃賦往投’ 不可置而不問, 亦不可以難信之言, 涉險冒危, 或致傾敗。 卿其審情度勢以啓。”"
金漢京 says "三峯島" can be seen from 慶興 on a fine day. It is North Korean city, right?
"成宗 72卷, 7年( 1476 丙申 / 명 성화(成化) 12年) 10月 22日 壬辰 3번째기사
○永安道觀察使李克均馳啓: “永興人金自周言: ‘往見三峯島, 且圖其形。’ 送自周以進。” 命問之, 自周對曰: “於鏡城海濱乘舟, 行四晝三夜, 見島屹然, 而有人三十餘, 列立島口, 有烟氣。 其人衣白, 形貌遠不能詳, 然其大槪乃朝鮮人也, 懼見執, 不能進也。” 賜襦衣二領。"
Finally, 金自周 went near the island, but didn't land on it. But he saw 30 people on the island.
And in 「春官志」 completed by李孟休 in 1745, it is written that “This island [Ullengdo] is called Takeshima because is produces bamboo. There are three peaks on it, and so it is called Sambo-to (三峯島). The terms于山, 羽陵, 蔚陵, 武陵, 磯竹島 are all phonetic transformations of the name.” see here
And in 「欝陵島始末」 in 「文献撮録」 by 元鄭容（1783－1873）, it says exactly the same thing with 「春官志」. (金学俊著「独島/竹島韓国の論理」 論創社)
To be honest, I couldn't find original document of thelast two books on the net. If you knew where it is, please let me know.
Anyway, myCoree, it was really good to hear from you again. I hope you join to debate when you have time. But I was really disappointed that you lead me to "KillZap" site again. You are not going to kill us over Takeshima, right? The Korean boy I knew when I was in Australia was very intelligent and logical person. He was really angry at the Korean government that they are making use of anti-Japanese feeling in order to boost their popularity. I hope you will be free from those hatred sentiment. It looks nothing but a narcotic for Korean youngstars.
If I made any mistakes, please let me know, thank you.
Kaneganese,
ReplyDeleteI want to answer you later within today. Sorry.
Hi myCoree,
ReplyDeleteThank your your sincere reply.
The "period" you are mentioning is the last one, isn't it? In modern Japanese, which I believe you are learning at the moment, we use period "。" to finish or deliminate a sentence and commas "、" to punctuate in the sentence. It looks like Ministory of Education made rule in 1906. As for Yoshida's book, he didn't use period to finish one sentence, but to finish one paragraph, or one article. In order to find the sentences, it is required to be able to understand the writing itself. These writing style was adopted in many document in Meiji era.
As for the translation for the "last sentence" of the article, since this is very confusing even for me, I would like to take more time and translate whole "北方"article, if you don't mind. I found exactly same line with this in 奥原's book 「竹島沿革考」 in 1600. except for he quated as "明治十六年に至り、更に日韓両国政府の談判ありて、わが往漁の船を還して、再び渡航することなからしめ、明かに、竹島即ち鬱陵島を以って、朝鮮の所属となしぬ。" As you can see, the part "竹島即ち鬱陵島を以って (Takeshima, namely Ulleundo was (became to the Chosun land.) )" I don't know why he omitted this part, but I guess Yoshida only referred Okuhara's Takeshima book, but wasn't bothered to read original government report in 1883. The original 1883(明治十六年) document clearly says Matsushima which locate at "北緯37度30分東経130度49分"was also called as Takeshima by Japanese and Chosun people call it Ulleudo.
明治二十三年 往復簿 一 内閣記録局 Click no.04
Basically, he talked about Takeshima in this article, but apparently confused by the expression 三峯島 in 輿地勝覽. It says "成宗二年, 有告別有三峯島者," that is why I cited 成宗実録, which is the original of the sentence of 輿地勝覽. I wasn't try to "scatter" the point. 輿地勝覽's sentence is only a quatation. Beside, Korean lost the original of 輿地勝覽, right?. But 成宗実録 is the real original. Look, what Yoshida cited from "輿地勝覽'", it goes as "成宗二年, 有告別有三峯島者, 乃遣朴宗元往覓之, 因風濤不得泊而還, 同行一船, 泊鬱陵島, 只取大竹大鰒魚回, 啓云島中無居民矣.", that means there was someone who says that there is an island called as 三峯島 beside (Ulleudo), but the Chosun official 朴宗元 couldn't find it. Note; he couldn't find it. The original sentence from 成宗実録 follows as
成宗 19卷, 3年( 1472 壬辰 / 명 성화(成化) 8年) 6月 12日 丁丑 5번째기사
○江原道觀察使李克墩馳啓曰: “三峯島敬差官朴宗元與所領軍士, 分乘四船, 去五月二十八日, 自蔚珍浦發去, 卽遇大風四散。 朴宗元之船, 東北去, 二十九日平明, 向東南, 望見武陵島, 可十五里, 復遇大風, 船纜絶, 漂流大洋中, 不知東西者七晝夜。 本月初六日午時, 到杆城郡淸簡津。 司直郭永江等三船, 去五月二十九日, 至武陵島, 留三日, 搜索島中, 不見居人, 只有舊家址而已。 島中有竹, 其大異常, 永江等取數竿載船, 發回, 本月初六日, 至江陵羽溪縣梧耳津。 今風氣漸高, 海波險惡, 更遣爲難。 放遣本道軍士, 京軍士分運上送, 何如?”
Though there were people that say there is an island called "三峯島", nobody could actually land on the island. Besides, According to the "original" 成宗実録, the island was the place for the people to hide to escape from labour tax, which is fertile, inhabitable, could be seen from 慶興 on a fine day and 金自周 who went near the island (didn't land on it"saw 30 people on the island. Do you still believe 三峯島 in 成宗実録 is a Takeshima?
Yoshida apparently made mistake, confused by concepts that there is another island other than Ulleundo. 「地誌提要」 says there is another island as Matsushima, and 「輿地勝覽」 also said that there is another island other than Ulleundo. Yoshida simply assumed those "another island" is the same(Matsushima). He wrote "なるべし(must be or should be)" to express that this is his assumption. He should have referred to the originals as 「成宗実録」 , 「公文録」 or shouldn't omit the part from original sentence when he quate, if he want to make such a bold assumption. But he revealed his carelessness when he dropped the expression "竹島即ち鬱陵島を以って" from the original sentence in the very last sentence. Unfortunately, Okuhara was the expert on this issue, but Yoshida was not. He only collected misclleanous historical documents to make dictionary. That is why his book was first disregarded by mainstream of Japanese academic world. This book was published by private publisher who discovered Yoshida's hard work and thought it should be made public. According to Fukuoka Uni's site, the first edition of this book was started to be published from March of 1899 and continued until 1907. But I think this book is very valuable and useful to understand the trace of the name of the place for modern Japanese. But as I said, we should be careful when we read it. He quated thousand resources and apparently didn't have enough time to check all the history. Well, it is understandable since he had been a just a local historian, though he became a professor a year before he passed away.
I'm not trying to defeat you or anything, myCoree. But as long as you believe what he wrote, I think at least you should know those things.
I'm coming back Sunday night. If you want to know more, please let me know. As for writing and translation, you did good job. But if I have to do that, I want to do it properly to avoid mistake or any confusion, that is why I need more time. I hope you understand.
Well, anyway, we are going to get a fresh air. My daughter got sick and we had to go to ER last night in the storm. Typhoon is not good for asthma kids, sadly.
Kaneganese,
ReplyDeleteHope your daughter will get well soon. Has she a steroid inhaler to control asthma or a bronchodilator (beta stimulater) inhaler to relieve asthamal attack?
Anyway, I hope she is okay now.
Sorry for the unrelated topic.
Kaneganese,
ReplyDeleteThank you. You are a mommy, right? I'm a daddy. Anyway, I hope your daughter get well.
I'm busy and busy from Saturday morning until Tuesday evening. So, don't wait for my early reply.
Dewa, matta...
Hi ! myCoree
ReplyDeleteThank you for your kind word for my daughter. She's fine now. It is really good to know that at least we share something in common. I believe that we should talk more about this issue to avoid any unnecessary military conflict for our kids, don't you think?
By the way, I've been reading Yoshida's biography on weekend and found some interesting points. Just for the updates.
1. Yoshida wrote a book 「日韓古史断」 and the book became one of the basis for Meiji government to justify annexing Korea.
2. 「大日本地名辞書」第二冊上, which includes Oki part, was published in December 1900, not 1907.
3. Okuhara's article「竹島沿革考」 was published in 1906 in academic journal , the journal of 『歴史地理』. 第8巻第6. 号. 1906. pp.7-24, after he came back from Takeshima inspection tour lead by Shimane pref. So it was after Yoshida's book published, not before. And Okuhara actually mentioned about Yoshida's book. it goes as this
"なほ、吉田東伍氏の大日本地名辞書は、新竹島につきて直接に記する処なけれども、旧竹島につきて、諸書を引用すること頗る該博なれば、必ず参照すべきなり。(By the way, although Mr. Yoshida's book 「大日本地名辞書」 doesn't directly mention about new Takeshima(Liancourt Rocks), but it has cited from various books and it is erudite about old Takeshima(Ulleundo), thus it must be consulted. )" He says same thing as me. And he also commented that Yoshida didn't mention about new Taheshima(Liancourt Rocks). Okuhara already knew that Yoshida's Matsushima in the last sentence was actually Ulluendo. The only possible Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks mentioned in Yoshida's book was in the quatation of Japanese fishermen's comment from 「地誌提要」.
4.It looks like 吉田東伍(Yoshida Tougo) had a photographic memory. Since he was just a private journalist, he didn't have enough access to the documents. Once he had chance to read documents in the library, he remembered them by heart. Interesting.
Anyway, though I have some important points to be clarified before I make a post, I don't have much time to collect enough resources and read them, unfortunately. This is kind of fun, but time consuming.
Kaneganese 様,
ReplyDeleteSomeone here called you like this in a comment. The word 様 is a exotic word in Korea, but 嬢 is commonly used. I wrongly thought 様 was used only for a woman. That’s why I thought you are a woman. That’s all. The proper word for様 will be ‘님’.
Thank you for waiting. (I had been at a workshop for two days.)
If you translate the whole “北方” into English, I will say ‘Thank you very much’.
1. You said:
I found exactly same line with this in 奥原's book 「竹島沿革考」 in 1906. except for he quoted as "明治十六年に至り、更に日韓両国政府の談判ありて、わが往漁の船を還して、再び渡航することなからしめ、明かに、竹島即ち鬱陵島を以って、朝鮮の所属となしぬ。" As you can see, the part "竹島即ち鬱陵島を以って (Takeshima, namely Ulleundo was (became to the Chosun land.) )" I don't know why he omitted this part, but I guess Yoshida only referred Okuhara's Takeshima book, but wasn't bothered to read original government report in 1883.
My Q :
Sorry. I can’t figure out if it was possible Yoshida(1900) referred 奥原碧雲(1906). I think it’s a mistake in your expression.
BTW, do you think he dropped the part “竹島即ち鬱陵島を以って” calessly? In my opinion, he did so ‘intentionally’. In that case, he knew "竹島(鬱陵島)” had been the object of the compromise and he included 松島 as a vivid Korean territory. Could you understand? “明に朝鮮の所屬と爲しぬ” means “竹島と 松島は 明に朝鮮の所屬と爲しぬ”. (竹島 and 松島 became clearly belonged to Chosun).
2. You mean that he didn’t read 成宗実録 and 輿地勝覽 doesn’t exist, right?
He must have read a “written copy of 輿地勝覽” in Japan. So what? His recognition that 松島(Dokdo) as the 三峯島 of 輿地勝覽 belongs to Chosun(Korea) is very important in itself, no matter whether 三峯島 of 輿地勝覽 is Dokdo or not, no matter whether 朴宗元 had found it or not.
And, 輿地勝覽 exists ”here”.
And, I still believe that 三峯島 which Kim JaJu(金自周) saw is Dokdo. You should note that人形(man’s shape) is different from 人(man).
To understand 吉田東伍’s 三峯島, such a preposition that you urged me to have doesn’t need.
3. You said “he assumed ~”.
I agree.
So, “松島とは輿地勝覽の三峯島なるべし” is translated in English like this :
What 松島 in 「地誌提要」 means must(should) be the very 三峯島 of 輿地勝覽.
★Now, I will reply to your last comment.★
1. Yoshida wrote a book 「日韓古史断」?…
My Reply: Not surprising. I ‘already knew’ vaguely that he gave Japan a logical basis for annexing Korea. That is a separate independent topic.
2. 大日本地名辞書」第二冊上, which includes Oki part, was published in December 1900, not 1907.
My Reply:Is 第二冊上 correct? If so, we can say it’s the 1900 text, not the 1907 text. Thank you.
3. ……… 新竹島につきて直接に記する処なけれども、
although Mr. Yoshida's book 「大日本地名辞書」 doesn't directly mention about new Takeshima(Liancourt Rocks),……
My Reply:Yoshida(吉田) wrote that’松島 on the way to 竹島 must be 三峯島 written in 輿地勝覽’. There are two islands(竹島, 松島). If 松島 is not 新竹島, what is it? He should have mentioned about it, if he had understood the whole article “北方”.He must have skipped that part. Though we are in 21st century, we can see through the same text that Okuhara had misunderstood it. So, it is a kind of not-so-good evidence.
4. …… 吉田東伍(Yoshida Tougo) had a photographic memory……
My Reply: I guess that he must be a genius though I don’t know how many rolls of film had been in his brain. Such an ability is treated as an characteristic of some genius. But, I think we all have that ability, strong or not. I believe it can be developed in an early age.
You may say that we should go to ICJ. Frankly, I don’t understand why Korea don’t want to go there. You may say that Korea is in fear of losing but most Koreans have a notion that Dokdo is surely Korean land and they don’t permit 1% probability of losing it. Military conflict should be avoided, of course. I strongly agree with you.
Sorry.
ReplyDeleteI will rewrite my mistake.
= calessly → carelessly
= 輿地勝覽 exists http://147.46.181.118/IMAGE/SNUG0146.PDF
myCoree,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your reply.
"嬢" is not common in today's Japan. It is used for young lady here, sometimes.
As for 「輿地勝覧」, I didn't know Korean abbreviate 「新増東国輿地勝覧」 in 1530 or 1531 as 「輿地勝覧.」 (By the way, your link still doesn't work.) So, 「東国輿地勝覧」 in 1484 doesn't exsist anymore, but the revised 「新増東国輿地勝覧」 exists and Korean call it as 「輿地勝覧」, right? Looks like I have confused with 「輿地志」 which doesn't exist now. Sorry.
According to 「輿地勝覧」 you referred, "成宗二年, 有告別有三峯島者, 乃遣朴宗元往覓之, 因風濤不得泊而還, 同行一船, 泊鬱陵島, 只取大竹大鰒魚回, 啓云島中無居民矣", so 朴宗元, the official of Chosun dynasty only "heard" that there were 三峯島 other than 鬱陵島. But 朴 didn't reach the island to make sure where it is or if there are many people on the island as 金漢京 and 金自周 said. As you can clearly see, it can't be said that where this 三峯島 is from this sentence. Yoshida only assumed that this is 松島, since it has no details in 「輿地勝覧」 except for it is different island from 鬱陵島. As far as there is no detailed description in 「輿地勝覧」, we have to read original, which is 成宗実録, to get more information about 三峯島.
In the earlier comment, I only quated some of the 三峯島s described in 成宗実録, since they are so many of them. But none of them succeed to clearly identify 三峯島 as Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks unfortunately. You can check all the original documents on the official site of 朝鮮王朝実録 or see some more below.
成宗 16卷, 3年( 1472 壬辰 / 명 성화(成化) 8年) 3月 6日 壬寅 1번째기사
三峯島在我江原之境, 土地沃饒, 民多往居之故
三峯島 locates at the border of our 江原, and the land is fertile and many people live on the island.
"成宗 26卷, 4年( 1473 癸巳 / 명 성화(成化) 9年) 1月 9日 庚子 2번째기사
○諭永安道觀察使鄭蘭宗曰: “金漢京言: ‘在慶興, 遇淸明日, 可望見三峯島"
金漢京 says "三峯島" can be seen from 慶興 in 鏡城 on a fine day.
成宗 64卷, 7年( 1476 丙申 / 명 성화(成化) 12年) 2月 8日 壬午 3번째기사
下書永安道觀察使李克均曰:今鍾城居親軍衛盧義順上言云: “前年五月, 與鏡城人金漢京、會寧人林都致、慶源人任有才ㆍ金玉山ㆍ李吾乙亡ㆍ金德生, 就慶源地面末應大津, 發船行三日, 得見三蓬島, 遙望島中有七八人, 然吾輩單弱, 不得下陸而還。” 卿其詳問義順等各人以啓。
金漢京 went to 三蓬島 and saw there were 7-8 people"有七八人(" not"人形") on the island.
成宗 68卷, 7年( 1476 丙申 / 명 성화(成化) 12年) 6月 22日 癸巳 2번째기사
○下書永安道觀察使李克均曰:今見卿啓, 知鏡城金漢京等二人, 辛卯五月漂泊三峯島, 與島人相接,
金漢京 drifted to 三峯島, and had a contact with actual people, the islander, (not "人形").
"成宗 72卷, 7年( 1476 丙申 / 명 성화(成化) 12年) 10月 22日 壬辰 3번째기사
○永安道觀察使李克均馳啓: “永興人金自周言: ‘往見三峯島, 且圖其形。’ 送自周以進。” 命問之, 自周對曰: “於鏡城海濱乘舟, 行四晝三夜, 見島屹然, 而有人三十餘, 列立島口, 有烟氣。 其人衣白, 形貌遠不能詳, 然其大槪乃朝鮮人也, 懼見執, 不能進也。” 賜襦衣二領。"
金自周 went to 三峯島 and saw 30 or more people on the island entrance. There were even smokes. The islanders dressed in white. Though it was difficult to see how they looked from far, they looked like Choson people.
Though none of the Chosun officials succeeded in even landing on the island, 金漢京 and 金自周 actually went there and met people living on the island.
myCoree, you need to show us if 成宗実録 described 三峯島 as Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks. As far as we can see in 成宗実録, there is no chance to say definately 三峯島 is Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks.
It is understantable that in 1500's, the Chosun people and failed to identify the island, but it is ridiculous to keep insisting that the island which is fertile enough to support many people live on the island and seen from 慶興 in 鏡城 on a fine day as Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks which has no soil or water to support people's life. They apparently confused Ulleundo as 三峯島. And Yoshida, who was just a private journalist at the time made wrong speculation based on those confusion. Yoshida's book was a full of quote, and as you can see in his other book, Yoshida made many mistakes in his writings. Do you believe 神功皇后 conquered 新羅 as written in 日本書紀? He wrote it as a fact in his book. I don't want to point out his mistakes to degrade his enormous efforts, but I must say he should have been trained in schools to study basic academic strategy which he lackes. Believing a private person's speculation without checking originals or criticising what kind of author he was is very dangerous, I would say. As Okuhara wrote, Yoshida did a great job to collect many documents and it definately worth to refer, but he apparently made mistake when he speculate connecting two islands.
"You may say that Korea is in fear of losing"
I don't know much about Korea or Korean, actually. But I would say that Korean government must be in fear of revealing the fact that they have been lying to their own people and lose it's popularity.
"most Koreans have a notion that Dokdo is surely Korean land and they don’t permit 1% probability of losing it. "
What ICJ exsists for, then? 44 innocent Japanese civilians were already killed or injured severly by Korean Navy. Be reasonable, throw away the pride, win the world's reputation and show the at least South Korean are true democratic country to the entire world.
By the way, the fact that Yoshida's book was published in 1900, not 1907 makes me confused a lot. I am still trying to find where Yoshida quated the last sentence from. But I am starting to think that it is possible that he intentionally dropped the part as you say. In that case, I have to say that he distorted the fact to make his opinion look true, unfortunately. Because in (明治十六年) Japanese government clearly stated in his official documents that Matsushima, another name Takeshima was Ulleundo and there were nothing mentioning today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks. As far as Yoshida states "日韓両国政府の談判ありて", his Matsushima only refers to Ulleundo as in government's official documents clearly states with it's correct longitude and latitude which exclude today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks. Which do you believe, official documents, or private journalist's speculation? If you choose the latter what is the reason to do so?
Anyway, sorry for any inconvenience.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKaneganese,
ReplyDeleteCopy and paste this : http://147.46.181.118/IMAGE/SNUG0146.PDF
I will have time to think about your reply and to do my own business.
Good night, everybody.
Anybody's comments are welcome.
再見.
myCoree,
ReplyDeleteThank you, for pdf file. now I can clearly see 「輿地勝覧」 is actually「新増東国輿地勝覧」.
While I was on the Yoshida's last sentence quest, I found original 「地誌提要」 which Yoshida claim he quated from.
日本地誌提要 （明治11(1878)年1月刊） 巻之五十 隠岐 島嶼
"又西北に方りて松島竹島の二島あり。土俗相伝て云ふ。隠岐穩地郡福浦港より松島に至る。海路凡六拾九里三拾五町。竹島に至る。海路凡百里四町余朝鮮に至る.海路凡百三拾六里三拾町"
吉田東伍「大日本地名辞典」
"地志提要には隱岐國の下に附載して曰く,
"土俗相傳ふ, 福浦より松島に至る海路凡六十九里, 竹島に至る, 海路凡百里, 朝鮮に 至る, 海路凡百三十六里""
If you compare it to Yoshida's quotation above, it it obvious that he didn't write entire sentence, but omitted some parts. This sounds not good for the credibility of his book, unfortunately.
By the way, I think you are one of the best Korean debator I ever saw on the net who can talk logically and democratically. I know you are busy person, but I hope you keep commenting since I think you are doing excellent job here. If you find anything offensive to you in my comment, please let me know. Sometimes, it looks I sound harsh when I write in English, which I certainly don't intend to.
1804.辺要分界図考 by 近藤重蔵(1771～1829)
ReplyDelete図証(1),今所考定分界の図
It is not clear image but there might be タケシマ(Takeshima) and マツシマ（Matsushima） with same color with Oki province.
1804(文化元)年 - 近藤重蔵守重「邊要分界圖考」「今所考定分界之圖」
ReplyDelete「マツシマ」「タケシマ」が記載。日本及び朝鮮と同じ赤で彩色。特筆すべきは、「岩瀬文庫」蔵の同図では、二島は地名が無く、ヲキノシマや日本と同様に青く彩られている。（朝鮮は黄色）
This is what I wrote in the post below.
竹島問題の歴史
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/blog-post_23.html
Unfortunately, I don't remember where I cited from. 岩瀬文庫 is in 西尾 city in 愛知県.