Headlines

Loading...

19.9.07

1696 Ahn Yong-bok's second visit to Japan: Part I

Ahn Yong-bok was to be severely punished as a criminal in 1693 but he could survive because of the political change in the Chosun government. He came to Japan again in May-June 1696 with other 10 Koreans, it was five months later than Japan banned Japanese fishermen to make a voyage to Takeshima (Ulleungdo).

He later became a hero in Korea because Korean people believed that he made Japan admit that Ulleungdo and Liancourt rocks to be Korean territory. But if you consider it after reading all the documents written in Japan and Chosun, you would notice that his reputation is groundless.

At first, we will take a look at the first stage of this incident (the stage until Ahn reached Oki island) as part I:

1) From “Ikeda archives” which was written in November 1722, the 7th year of Kyoho:

A ship came to Oki island in June 1696 (the 9th year of Genroku). As the
officials under the local administrator Goto Kakuemon, Nakase Dan-emon and
Yamamoto Sei-emon, asked them, it revealed that 32 Korean ships had went to
Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and 11 people of them came over here on one ship. They
said that they came here because they had an entreaty to Houki county. The two
officials hired an express messenger and sent the information to their
superior.

(*:More accurately, it was 18th of May
according to other records.

2) From the Korean document “粛宗実録” (vol.30) which was edited in 1728:

During the investigation by the
office of defence, Ahn Yong-bok told as follows. He went to
蔚山
to see his mother
and happened to see a Buddhist priest
雷憲
and others, with
whom Ahn told about Ulleungdo. Being told that there were lots of sea products
at Ulleungdo, the priest and others were interested in the island, so they rode
on the ship and prepared to go there. When they arrived at the island, the main
three peaks were rising into the sky in the shape of triangle. It needed two
days to go from southern part of the island to northern part. It needed the same
to go from the eastern part to western part. There were lots of various trees in
mountain district. There were hawks, craws, cats and Japanese ships too. People
on the ship were afraid of them. Ahn said (to Japanese), “Ulleungdo is our
border. Why do you Japanese cross the border? We will tie up all of you!” When
he cried this out at the head of the ship*, the Japanese said “We are living at
Matsushima, we happened to come here to catch fish and we are going back to the
place where we live”. Ahn said, “ Matsushima is Usando (Josando), this also
belongs to our country. Why can you live there?” At dawn on the next day, they
pulled a boat and went to Usando (Josando). Japanese were boiling fish glue in
the pots in line. Ahn broke them down with his cane and scolded them loudly.
Japanese took the equipments and loaded them onto their ship, put up a sail and
were gone. They rode the ship and chased the Japanese but met a strong wind and
drifted ashore to Oki island. The chief of the island asked them why they went
there. So he said, “When I came here before, there was a document written by the
Chief Adviser (kanpaku) that says Ulleungdo and Josando are Chosun’s boundary.
But it is not strict in this country about it and now they crossed the border
again. Why did they do this? Please tell this to Houki county”, but there was no
reply for a while.

(*head of the ship: the word
has another meaning “boatman”, so some scholars interpreted this sentence as
“when he went forward and cried out to the
boatman”.)

Notice: There are some inconsistencies here.

(1) He said that he met Japanese at Ulleungdo in May 1696 and scolded them. But in reality, the shogunate banned Japanese fishermen to go to Ulleungdo in January the same year and it is apparent from the record that there were no Japanese fishermen who went there in 1696. So this part of his story seems to be a made-up story to impress Korean officials who investigated him.

(2) His story of Usando is full of inconsistency too. If Usando was Liancourt rocks (Matsushima in those days) as he insisted, how Japanese fishermen could live on the small rock island? How Japanese fishermen boiled pots in line on the narrow rock island? And how Ahn’s boat could visit the island 92km away at dawn? It usually took one day to get there.

(3) He said that there was a document written by the Chief Adviser (kanpaku) when he had come to Japan before. His last visit was 1693 when he was arrested, brought to Japan and deported as a criminal. There was no chance for him to claim about the territory or to make Japanese powerful person to write a document. Of course, there was no such document found in Japan.

3) One-volume Memorandum concerning the Korean boat that came alongside the pier in the 9th year of Genroku (1696). [This document was found in May 2005 at Oki island. It was a part of the record of the investigation of Ahn Yong-bok in Oki island.]

The man who was called Ahn Yong-bok said that Takeshima is called Take-no-shima (island of bamboo). And he said that there is an island called Ulleungdo which is Take-no-shima in the 東莱府 of Gangwon province in Chosun. He also said that it was drawn in the map of eight provinces (八道ノ図).

He said that there is an island called Usan in the same province and that this
island is called as Matsushima, and that it was also drawn in the map of eight
provinces (
八道ノ図).

They left Takeshima on 15th May,
reached Matsushima on the same day, departed Matsushima on 16th and
reached Nishimura-iso in the island of Oki in the morning of 18th.

He said that the distance between Takeshima and
Chosun is 30-ri and the distance between Takeshima and Matsushima is 50-ri.

Notice: This document shows that Ahn really believed that Matsushima was Usando. But there are inconsistencies in this document too.

(1) If Usando was Matsushima (Liancourt rocks), he sailed from Ulleungdo and got to Liancourt rocks on the same day while he needed two days from Liancourt rocks to Oki island. But they couldn’t reach Liancourt rocks from Ulleungdo on the same day in those days, it usually took one day. If he reached “Matsushima” on the same day and needed 2 days from “Matsushima” to Oki island, that “Matsushima” should be a near island to Ulleungdo, not Liancourt rocks.

(2) And as to the distance, the distance from Ulleungdo to Korean mainland (115km) is greater than the distance from Ulleungdo to Liancourt rocks (92km) which is 23-ri. His estimate of the distance between Ulleungdo and Liancourt rocks is more than twice, it’s almost the distance between Ullengdo and Oki island.

(3) As for the map of eight provinces (八道ノ図), it was actually only a list written by a Japanese official, not a map. And the Japanese writing written under Gangwondo reads “此道ノ中ニ竹島松島有之 (Takeshima and Matsushima locate in the route to this area)”, it doesn’t say that these two islands belong to Gangwondo of Chosun.

92 comments:

not anonymous said...

Let's look at your mistakes on a point by point basis Pacifist.

First the Japanese were banned from passage to Takeshima. This is true but that never stopped them from tresspassing on the island. In fact, after the ban in 1696 the Japanese continually trespassed afterward. This can be shown by the 1724 map in the Tottori family records. Just because they weren't allowed to go does not mean they didn't historical records prove that.

The Japanese said they were staying on Matsushima. For how long they did not say. Maybe they were staying there temporarily or perhaps they just stated that because they knew they were not allowed on Ulluengdo and made up that excuse.

Anyongbok left early in the morning for Matsushima and he arrived the same day. He mentioned in the report that winds were both quite strong and favourable at that time. Even the Japanese themselves could manage to go from Matsushima to Takeshima in one day against both winds and current. It would be no problem for Anyongbok to go 87kms in one day with winds on his side. Oki from Matsushima travel time is accurate as well. It is quite a coincidence that Anyongbok's travel times to Matsushima and Oki match with known historical records...isn't it?

Nobody knows why Anyongbok's distance to Matsushima was off by so much. However the Japanese always quoted the distance by at least double themselves at around 40ri. Some Japanese maps show the distance to Matsushima as 80 ri!! (320kms) This was after repeated voyages as well. It's not fair to hold Anyongbok to a higher standard than that of the Japanese Pacifist.

The map of the eight provinces is translated differently from what I've read Pacifist. Your translation makes no sense and it doesn't jibe with the rest of the record. Page five of the document found in the Murakawa's archives quotes Anyongbok as saying.

According to Anyoengbok,  "Takeshima (Ulleungdo) is this Bamboo Island. He says that there is an island named Ulleungdo in Dongnae-bu, Gangwando, Korea and this is also called Bamboo Island. He had a map of eight provinces of Korea that says so. Matsushima (Dokdo) is the island called Jasan (Usan) in the same province of Gangwando. It is the same name for Matsushima (Dokdo) and this is also recorded on the eight provinces of Korea map...."

Anyongbok5


Anyongbok didn't go all the way to Japan to give directions Pacifist. He went there to declare Takeshima AND Matsushima as Korean land. Also to the Japanese themselves there could be no doubt what Matsushima meant given the distance and location. If the Japanese believed Matsushima was theirs at this time why didn't they raise objections??

It's because just months before (December 1695) the Shogunate had concluded both Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) were not part of Hoki or Inbashu. This means that they did not consider the islands part of Japan even before the second Anyongbok incident Pacifist.

Tottori

pacifist said...

not anonymous,

"In fact, after the ban in 1696 the Japanese continually trespassed afterward".

No,toadface. There was NO record of Japanese ships those went to Ulleungdo in 1696. The 1724 map doesn't prove anything toadface, as I've told you hundred times.

"Maybe they were staying there temporarily"

No, toadface. We Japanese don't say "住" (live) if we stay for a short period. You have to learn Japanese language first.

"Anyongbok left early in the morning for Matsushima and he arrived the same day"

toadface, the above is half a day trip, not one day trip. They couldn't go 92 km in half a day in those days.

"winds were both quite strong and favourable at that time".

Then, why did they take two days from Matsushima to Oki island? If they could reach Matsushima in half a day, why couldn't reach Oki island in half a day too?

"The map of the eight provinces is translated differently from what I've read Pacifist".

If you have different translation, then you may have a wrong translation again, because I have a photo of the original copy of the handwritten "eight provinces".
The Japanese writing that I put in the topic is right and the translation is right unless if you read the word "道" (way or road) as "道" (province). But usually Japanese word "道" is a way, not a province. Hokkaido (北海道) means "way to north sea", not the north sea province. So the direct translation should be "the two islands are in the way to this".

"He went there to declare Takeshima AND Matsushima as Korean land".

toadface, Ahn didn't declare. He was only relating his opinion during the investigation by Oki county. His opinion was written down but people didn't think it was important.

"It's because just months before (December 1695) the Shogunate had concluded both Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) were not part of Hoki or Inbashu. This means that they did not consider the islands part of Japan even before the second Anyongbok incident Pacifist".

You are wrong again, toadface. When the shogunate asked about the belonging of the two islands, they answered it didn't belong to the Houki county. It is natural because the islands were thought to be the place under the shogun's direct control - the permission of voyage was passed to Tottori feudal clan from the shogunate and the feudal lord of Tottori passed it to Oya & Murakawa families. If Houki county or Tottori feudal clan owned the islands, there was no need of permission of voyage from the shogunate.

So toadface, Ahn Yong-bok was not a hero. He was just an ignorant fisherman, who lied to Korean officers in order to survive.

He didn't know about the Liancourt rocks, he said in another document that Usando was far bigger than Takeshima (Ulleungdo). And in another document (written in Tsushima) he told that Usando locates north east of Ulleungdo but that he had not a chance to go there.

pacifist said...

In addition...

The "eight provinces" was not a map, it was a list written down by Japanese (Oki county's) officials. And he just wrote down what Ahn Yong-bok said.

About the "eight provinces" (八道之図) which Ahn may have had, there is no clue.
There was a Korean map "八道総図" (1530) which had Usando at the left side of Ulleungdo.

And there was a Japanese map by Hayashi Shihei "朝鮮八道之図" (1785), which may have traced from the original Korean map of eight provinces. It depicted only one large island. It reads both names of Ulleungdo and Usanguk but no other island such as Usando or Matsushima.

not anonymous said...

Pacifist, you are talking in circles

The Shogunate asked Dottori if Takeshima and Matsushima belonged to either Inbashu or Hoki Provinces. They responded NO. All of the voyages to these islands voyaged by the Murakawas and the Oya's voyaged from Yonago in Hoki. Thus, if Takeshima and Matsushima did not belong to these prefectures we know they did not belong to Japan. If the Shogunate considered Takeshima and Matsushima under his control he wouldn't have asked Hoki or Inbashu about their status.

Pacifist, seriously I don't know what you are talking about. The character "道" was used consistently in the "map" document to mean province. All of the provinces are of Korea are listed using the character "道" It seems your translation goes against the consistent usage of the character "道" on the same page of the "map" of the Korean "道" (Provinces)

Why don't you look at the original image?

Anyongbokdoc

The character "住" means stay or live. I really don't care what the Japanese usage is because it was Anyongbok who used this character in the Chosun records found here. So you see you're basing a lot of theories on some questionable translations Pacifist.

Anyongbokdoc2

Anyongbok reached Matsushima in about a day. I don't get why you are hung up on this detail as the time is about right. Travelling 87kms in one day with in the spring with long daylight hours is not a problem at all. He couldn't reach Oki in a day because it is double the distance Pacifist. Stop being silly.

Pacifist, stop taking the issue of Anyongbok personally. I dont' idolize this man. However, we must consider the information he gives as by and large credible with respect to Takeshima and Matsushima. It is not an academic approach to disregard it because he lied about his governmental credentials.

Consider the fact he was alone on this trip. In fact there were also Buddhist monks one of which was the head of his temple. The monks were considering starting a hermitage on Takeshima, that's why they went along. In total 11 men went to Japan to protest their activities on Takeshima and Matsushima.

not anonymous said...

Remember Pacifist. The Japanese said Anoyeongbok quoted;

"Takeshima (Ulleungdo) is this Bamboo Island. He says that there is an island named Ulleungdo in Dongnae-bu, Gangwando, Korea and this is also called Bamboo Island. He had a map of eight provinces of Korea that says so. Matsushima (Dokdo) is the island called Jasan (Usan) in the same province of Gangwando. It is the same name for Matsushima (Dokdo) and this is also recorded on the eight provinces of Korea map...."

This was recorded on page of the records from the Murakawa documents found in 2005. Again here is the page.

Matsushima of Gangwando

pacifist said...

toadface,

"Thus, if Takeshima and Matsushima did not belong to these prefectures we know they did not belong to Japan".

No. You must study about the lands under shogun's direct control. These lands didn't include to the local governments. The crops must go directly to shogunate not to local government. So when the Tottori feudal clan saw the permission from the shogunate, they should have thought that the islands were under shogun's direct control so they couldn't touch them.

"Pacifist, seriously I don't know what you are talking about. The character "道" was used consistently in the "map" document to mean province".

toadface, remember that the writing under the list of eight provinces was written in Japanese. And in Japanese, the word "道" means road, way or route. "此ノ" or "此" means "this", "ノ中" means "in" or "inside of". So "此ノ道ノ中に" means "in this road" or "inside of this route".

"Anyongbok reached Matsushima in about a day"

No. He reached Matsushima on the same day. It may have taken 3 hours, 6 hours, 10 hours, 18 hours...I don't know but it didn't take 24 hours.

If he started 6am and arrived at Matsushima at 6pm, it took 12 hours. If Matsushima was the Liancourt rocks, it was dangerous to get on the shore in the midnight. So the above assumption maybe reasonable. If they took 12 hours, the velocity was 7.66km/h.
If they started Matsushima and headed for Oki island under the same circumstances, the distance between Liancourt rocks and Oki island is 157km, so they should have reached Oki island in 20 hours, less than one day!
Why did they take 2 days?

So reasonable thinking must result in the assumption that Matsushima Ahn Yong-bok reached was nearer island to Ulleungdo than Liancourt rocks.

For example, if it was Jukdo, they could reach the island on the same day and it is reasonable that they took 2 days to get to Oki island. According to Ahn's statement, there still be a possibility that he may have misunderstood Jukdo as Matsushima.

"The character "住" means stay or live".

No. You are wrong again. The charcter "住" only means to live.
So the original sentence "倭言吾等本住松島" only means "Japanese said, we live in/at Matsushima".
If they wanted to say "stay", the word shouild have been "留" or "停".

Kaneganese said...

not anonymous (toadface),

If the testimony of Ahn that he met Japanese on Ulleundo and scolded them was true as you claim, then it makes his Jasando was definately Jukdo, not Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks.
Read carefully two documents below, which supposedly describing same incident.

1696 村上家古文書「元禄九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一巻之覚書」 (Murakawa ducument)
"五月十五日竹嶋出船 同日松嶋江着 同十六日松嶋ヲ出十八日之朝 隠岐嶋之内西村之磯ヘ着 同廿日ニ大久村江入津仕由申候"

and compare it with the the annals of 肅宗.
1696 肅宗 30卷, 22年( 丙子 / 청 강희(康熙) 35年) 9月 25日 戊寅 2번째기사 ( from official site of National Institute of Korean History)
"遂以翌曉, 拕舟入子山島, 倭等方列釜鬻煮魚膏。"

Notice that he said "遂以翌曉"? Yes, he said he went to Jasando next morning (at dawn). and he didn't say he left Ulleundo the day before. In the first document, he testified that he left Ulleundo and reached to Matsushima on a same day. He should have left Ulleundo very early in the morning on the 15th of May and reached within a few hours before the sun comes up on a same day. Thus if the testimony of Ahn to Choson offical was true, that exactly proves that Ahn's so-called Masushima/Jasando was definately Jukdo. Agreed?

you said,
"He mentioned in the report that winds were both quite strong and favourable at that time."

No, Ahn testified that he encountered strong winds and drifted to Oki AFTER he left Matsushima, not before he reached Matsushima. Thus, it should have been a normal vayage from Ulleundo to Matsushima. Without a motor, it must have taken almost a whole one day. Don't distort what the document say. Read original document carefully. Do not rely on the translation made by pro-Korean.
"遂以翌曉, 拕舟入子山島, 倭等方列釜鬻煮魚膏。 渠以杖撞破, 大言叱之, 倭等收聚載船, 擧帆回去, 渠仍乘船追趁, 猝遇狂飆, 漂到玉岐島。 "

By the way, he said that "順風惣布候而當地ヘ寄申候 (The wind was normal and stopped by here(Oki))"... I'm not sure if he really met strong wind and forced to be drifted to Oki as he said to Choson official, or he came to Oki with a normal wind to claim Ulleundo was Choson land to the Lord of Tottori, but one thing is clear. He contradicts himself.

Antway, as Pacifist said, you need to study Japanese hard if you want to rely on Japanese dpcument, especially, the system of feudal state of Tokugawa Shogunate. It was totally different from centralization system of Choson Dynasty.

not anonymous said...

Kanganese says:

He should have left Ulleundo very early in the morning on the 15th of May and reached within a few hours before the sun comes up on a same day. Thus if the testimony of Ahn to Choson offical was true, that exactly proves that Ahn's so-called Masushima/Jasando was definately Jukdo. Agreed?

No not agreed Kaneganese. Under what assumption do you make that Anyongbok would arrive in at Matsushima on the same morning?? The distance was 87kms it would have taken the better part of a day.

If the Japanese were on Jukdo Islet Anyongbok would have just told them to scram and not waited until early the next day. Jukdo Islet is only 2kms aways and Anyongbok said it was over 50ri. There is no way he would have made that error in distance.

Secondly Jukdo Islet is a 100 meter block of stone that is Koreans described as impossible to climb on at least 2 historical records. There is also no mooring or fresh water. How and why would the Japanese camp and cook at the top of a 30 storey vertical high rock when the best Japanese mooring to be found on Ulleungdo (Waeson Chang beach) is within visual proximity?? Again a little common sense instead of wishful thinking would help your theories.

Both Korean documents say he left on the 15th and arrived on Matsushima the same day. The Murakawa document says they left Matsushima on the 16th and reached Oki on the 18th. Oki is double the distance of Dokdo so double the time works fine. Kanganese under what premise do you arrive at your arrival times. How can you claim Anyongbok arrived at Oki in one day when historical records say it takes about 2 days?

As I've said twice now. The map lists Takeshima and Matsushima as part of Gangwando. Even without this map, on page five of the Murakawa records Anyongbok clearly states Matsushima as part of Gangwan Province. So really the map translation is moot.

Of course there will be some inconsistencies in documents recorded by two countries and decades apart. However it is not a good study of history to attempt to disregard this information on the basis of travel times.

Pacifist the character "住" means stay or live in Korean. (머무르다) If you don't believe me get a Korean dictionary yourself. Anyway again they never said how long. And we don't know if they were telling the truth. Also, if they were telling the truth it certainly rules out Jukdo Islet which is a 100 meter high vertical block of stone with no fresh water or mooring. Right?

About the 1695 Bafuku document. Note the questions the shogunate asked about the islands. First, he had no idea how big the island was, whether it was inhabited or if it was under anyone's jurisdiction. It's clear the Shogunate did not consider the island as part of Japan.

Second Inbashu and most notably Hoki (where all voyages departed from, Yonago) also did not consider these islands as part of their prefectures.

If the Shogunate had "bestowed" these lands upon the Murakawas or the Oyas or given them "feudal tenure" as the Japanese Foreign Ministry tries to tell us, they would have stated "these islands belong to us". But they did not. From this we know that Japanese voyages to Takeshima and Matsushima were not claims of territory at all.

If Takeshima and Matsushima were not considered part of Japan by the Shogunate, Inbashu or Hoki (Oya~Murakawas of Yongago) it is safe to say Japan had absolutely no territorial land claim to the islands in the 17th Century. They just visited.

Kanganese as long as I keep finding Koreans with good knowledge of the Kanji characters I will continue to cite their translations. Hanmaumy's website has quite accurate information and the other translations were form reputable publications.


Nonetheless, I think it's commendable that everyone on this forum has taken the time and effort to have these documents translated. Just don't be disappointed when you see that more often that not these papers end up supporting the Korean claim.

pacifist said...

toadface,

"Both Korean documents say he left on the 15th and arrived on Matsushima the same day. The Murakawa document says they left Matsushima on the 16th and reached Oki on the 18th. Oki is double the distance of Dokdo so double the time works fine".

toadface, are you weak in arithmetic?
If he arrived at Matsushima on the same day, the time it took could be one hour, 3 hours, 6 hours, 10 hours, 16hours or 20 hours or whatever but less than 24 hours. There are many possibilities, but 12 hours may be acceptable, agreed?

If it took 12 hours, and it took 2 days from Matsushima to Oki island, it was four times longer, not double. Agreed?

According to the Murakawa's and Oya's documents concerning the 1692 - 1693 events, it took one day to two days from Oki island to Ulleungdo and two days from Ulleungdo to Oki island.

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/08/1692-and-1693-incidents-ahn-yong-boks.html

In 1692, they departed Oki on 24th of March and arrived at Ulleungdo at 6am of 26th. (It may have taken one and half days or two)
In 1693, they departed Oki on 16th April and arrived at Ulleungdo at 2pm 17th April. (It may have taken one day or one and half days.)

On the contrary, it took 2 days from Ulleungdo to Oki island. In 1693, they departed Ulleungdo (with arrested Ahn Yong-bok) on 18th April and arrived at Oki on 20th April.

So if Ahn made a voyage from Matsushima to Oki island for two days, it took double time of normal voyage.
Was his ship so slow? If his ship was so slow, how could he reach Matsushima on the same day - it couldn't be accomplished unless he had a speedboat. How do you explain this inconsistency?

Kaneganese said...

toadface said,
"Under what assumption do you make that Anyongbok would arrive in at Matsushima on the same morning?? The distance was 87kms it would have taken the better part of a day."
??? You are the one who are making assumptions. Don't automatically assume that Ahn's Jasando=Matsushima=Liancourt Rocks. That's why you cannot understand even simple math.

It was Ahn himself who said he reached to Jasando at the dawn.
肅宗 30卷, 22年 9月 25日 戊寅 条 "遂以翌曉, 拕舟入子山島"

And he also said that he left Ulleundo on the same day as he reached to Jasando. It exactly means he left at the dawn and reached to Matsushima before the sun comes up. Thus we can know it took only few hours or less from Ulleundo to Jasando. So if Jasando was Liancourt Rocks, it doesn't fit at all as you say. But if Jasando was Jukdo which locate only 2-4km away from Ulleundo, it perfectly make sence. Understood?
"五月十五日竹嶋出船 同日松嶋江着 同十六日松嶋ヲ出十八日之朝"「元禄九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一巻之覚書」

Besides, he said "遂以翌曉". Do you understand what it means? It means "finally, when dawn came in the next morning ". He apparently waited to leave Ulleundo until next morning so that he can safely reach to the Jasando.

Go to the official site of the annals of Choson Dynasty by National Institute of Korean History by yourself and check the original or at least Korean translation by yourself. Do not trust Hanmaumy.

"Kanganese as long as I keep finding Koreans with good knowledge of the Kanji characters I will continue to cite their translations. Hanmaumy's website has quite accurate information and the other translations were form reputable publications."
I know you are using hanmaumy's site. But he has serious problem with reading and presenting old documents. Do you know he doesn't even understand Japanese and always mocked by Japanese on Enjoy Japan site? He uses the site to gather information from Japanese, too. I know how he collect his informations, since his argument is just a copy of a anti-Japanese advocate in Japan. It is a real shame that such an old, mature and with a social position person like himelf cannot even study on his own and spreading half-truth made by "invader" Zainichi Korean whose ancester was "squatter" to Japan some 100 years ago.

I reiterate this for you. If Ahn's testimony that he met Japanese on Ulleundo is true, it means Ahn's Jasando= Matsushima was definately Jukdo. His own statements from both sides(Korean and Japanese) proves this. If Ahn's Matsushima=Jasando was Jukdo, then it is natural that it was in 江原道 on the map of 朝鮮八道図. It perfectly matches. Thanks !!

not anonymous said...

Kaneganese, when Anyongbok confronted the Japanese they said. "...We are staying (living) on Matsushima and we came here (Ulleungdo) by chance or coincidence...."

If the Japanese were staying on an island 2kms away from Ulleungdo don't you think that is kind of a foolish statement. If they came to Ulleungdo by coincidence it must have been somewhat distant. It also doesn't make sense the Japanese would travel 250 kms to Ulleungdo "by coincidence".

It is also rubbish to think the Japanese climbed up a vertical wall, stayed (or lived) on a 30 storey rock, with no fresh water and poor mooring when the best port on Ulleungdo is within visual distance. I would argue it would be impossible to lug all of their gear up this huge boulder.

You are not listening Kanganese. Anyongbok said he left on Ulleungdo on the 15th arrived on Matsushima the same day and left Matsushima on the 16th. This is recorded in the Murakawa documents. By your definition Anyongbok spent a whole day on top of a 100 meter rock just goofing off.

Anyongbokdoc1


Most importantly Kaneganese, Jukdo Islet was never called Matsushima by neither Japanese NOR Koreans. So it is you who is making up strange stories.

I didn't use Hanmaumy's translation for the Anyongbok incident documents I used one of the most comprehensive collections of Dokdo related documents with original images of the documents. The books are called "house of Dokdo"

Anyongbok said he left in the morning and arrived at Matsushima. It does not say he arrived the same morning. If you don't believe me here is image of the original document. I think it's better to post original document images and not cut and past text. Dont' you agree?

Anyongbokdoc2

"Early in the next morning I sailed for Jasando (Japanese name Songdo/Matsushima) and when I got there these Japanese people were stewing  some meat oil in large iron pot..."

Regarding translations. As I've shown the character "住" is used by Koreans to mean stay NOT just live. Pacifist is using this loose translation to rule out Dokdo as Matsushima's identity. This shows we must be careful with his translations especially Korean ones.

pacifist said...

toadface,

The original sentence is as follows:遂以翌曉, 拕舟入子山島.

The first word "遂以" means "at last" and the word "翌暁" means "at the next dawn". And "拕舟" means "pulled a boat", "入" meand "enter".

So the exact translation of the whole sentence should be;
"At last at dawn on the next day, we pulled a boat and entered Josando".

Your version: "Early in the next morning I sailed for Jasando (Japanese name Songdo/Matsushima) and when I got there ..."
Your version seems to be misleading because it sounds like he didn't arrive in the same morning.


The direct translation above (not yours) sounds like he went to a very near island, because it sounds like he arrived at the island at the same morning.

It was the same morning that he pulled a boat and entered Josando. So your version of the translation seems to be a bit misleading.

Gerry Bevers said...

Non-Anonymous wrote:

It is also rubbish to think the Japanese climbed up a vertical wall, stayed (or lived) on a 30 storey rock, with no fresh water and poor mooring when the best port on Ulleungdo is within visual distance. I would argue it would be impossible to lug all of their gear up this huge boulder.

A 1692 Japanese said that the Japanese did use Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, and so did the Koreans. At the time, the Japanese called the island "Ika-shima" or "Iga-shima." You can see the island on a 1724 Japanese map HERE.

According to the 1692 document, Iga-shima (Jukdo) was the first place the Japanese stopped when they arrived at Ulleungdo. When they arrived there, they discovered that someone had left a "large catch of abalone" there. When they traveled to the main island (Ulleungdo) the next day, they discovered Koreans fishing there. The Koreans told the Japanese they were fishing for abalone.

Even before 1692, Korean historical documents say that Koreans lived on Ulleungdo's neighboring island.

An Yong-bok's testimony was full of holes and inconsistancies. I think one time he said he traveled to Usando, and another time he said he didn't. One time he suggested Usando was very near Ulleungdo, and another time he said it was 200 kilometers (50 ri) away, which would have taken more than a day to reach. Regardless of what An Yong-bok may have thought, the Joseon government believed Usando to be Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, as Korean maps clearly show. See HERE.

pacifist said...

toadface,

You can't understand what I explained?

"It says the "next dawn" not the same day".

Next day means the day after the day he met Japanese. Read my translation in my posting:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/09/1696-ahn-yong-boks-second-visit-to.html

Ahn saw Japanese (if his statement was right) on 14th. He went to Matsushima on the next morning (15th). And he set out from Matsushima on 16th and arrived at Oki on 18th.

If he really met Japanese and really went to Matsushima on the next morning (15th), he may have been there for the rest of the day (15th) and set out next morning (16th). The reason is still mystery, Japanese (if they really existed) may have needed time to put away their instruments such as pots and crops.

Anyway, if Ahn really went to the island at dawn on 15th, it was highly likely Jukdo, not Liancourt rocks, because it would only take one day from Liancourt rocks to Oki island but they needed two days.

Kaneganese said...

Wow!
I may have found a critical proof that Ahn's Jasando=Matsushima was Jukdo.

As pacifist explained clearly, according to Ahn's testimony in Oki and Choson, he may have met Japanese on 14th of May on Ulleundo and (left early in the next morning of 15th) and reached to Matsushima(Jukdo) on the next morning at the dawn on 15th, then he left Matsushima next day (16th) to Oki and reached there on 18th. It perfectly makes sense, only if Ahn's testimony is true as toadface says!

toadface said,
"That doesn't make sense. It says the "next dawn" not the same day. It also doesn't tell when he departed, just when he arrived. I'll consider your translation after I verify some things."

He said he left Takeshima(Ulleundo) on 15th and arrived at Matsushima on same day to the Japanese officials in Oki. Though he didn't say what time or how long he took from Ulleundo to Matsushima.
"五月十五日竹嶋出船 同日松嶋江着 同十六日松嶋ヲ出十八日之朝"「元禄九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一巻之覚書」

And he also said that he went to Jasando at dawn in the next morning.
"肅宗 30卷, 22年 9月 25日 戊寅 条 "遂以翌曉, 拕舟入子山島, 倭等方列釜鬻煮魚膏。""

Considering he testified that he commuted from Ulleundo to Matsushima on the same day (15th)earlier, it should be at dawn on the same day when he left Ulleundo. He should have commuted from Ulleundo to Matsushima=Jasando within a few hours (at dawn).

You somehow seem to have a difficulty to understand this simple situation, toadface. I just put two sentences from slightly different but stating same incident together. I didn't make assumptions, while you are making too much assumptions. Take your time and verify the original document and get a good translator for yourself.

Gerry Bevers said...

Non-anonymous wrote:

Gerry as you know, many documents say Usando was Matsushima (Dokdo)

A 1793 Korean document said that Matsushima (Songdo) was Ulleungdo and its surrounding islands. Here is what was written:

臣按本曹謄錄蔚陵外島其名松島卽古于山國也

"The attendant said that according to the Yejo record, 'Songdo' was another name for Ulleungdo and its surrounding islands, which was the old kingdom of Usan."

In 1860, a Japanese mission sent to Korea reported that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island named "Matsushima" (Songdo).

In 1882, King Kojong said that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called "Songjukdo," which was also called "Songdo" and "Jukdo." He also said that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called Usando, but Lee Gyu-won, who was the person the king chose to inspect Ulleungdo, told the king that Ulleungdo had only one island called "Songjukdo," which was also called "Songdo" and "Jukdo." Lee said that Usando was just the old name for Ulleungdo.

Lee's 1882 inspection confirmed that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called Jukdo, which was one of the alternate names for Songjukdo, but that there was no Usando. The Ulleungdo inspector concluded that Usando was just another name for Ulleungdo.

The above evidence, together with Korean and Japanese maps, show us quite clearly that Usando was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo.

By the way, do not use "Anonymous" again.

Kaneganese said...

Toadface wrote;
"Pacifist and Kaneganese, I still don't see you've given me any answer the distance quoted. Anyongbok clearly stated the distance was 50ri not .5ri. It appears your Jukdo theory can't be supported on this premise. It is you who is making assumptions to suit your own agenda. How can you ignore such a glaring error in distance? It doesn't look good on you at all. It seems you are a little confused yourself."

It's getting hirarious !! Are you OK? We've been telling you that Ahn's testimony is too inconsistant to believe. You are the one who insist we need to believe what he said. And VOILA!! You helped me to find the concrete evidence that Ahn's Jasando=Matsushima was Jukdo.

Ahn said "The distance between Takeshima and Choson was 30_ri and the distance between Takeshima and Matsushima was 50_ri"
1696 村上家古文書「元禄九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一巻之覚書」 (Murakawa ducument)
一 竹嶋と朝鮮之間三十里 竹嶋と松嶋之間五十里在之由申候

Don't deliberately omit the first part in order to suit your evil agenda. How can you ignore such a glaring error in distance? It doesn't look good on you at all. It seems you are a little confused yourself. Ahn was a Squatter who violate the Choson law and had been come and go between mainland Choson and Ulleundo many times. Thus the distance between Choson and Takeshima(Ulleundo) should have been more familiar with him. As far as he stated the distance between Choson and Takeshima was 30_ri, it makes the distance between Takeshima and Matsushima was almost 230 km since the real distance between Choson and Takeshima(Ulleundo) was about 140km. I don't want to make assumption, but I would say that he was confused Jukdo(Matsushima/Jasando) with Oki or he was not good at math just like you. All I can say for sure is his sence of distance is wrong.

"However, by your theory Anyongbok sailed all of the way from Jukdo Islet (Ulleungdo) to Oki in two days. The Koreans consistently recorded the time to Ulleungdo as two days in a good wind. This distance to Ulleungdo from the Korean coast is about 130kms. You are saying Anyongbok travelled 250kms (almost double the distance) in the same time. This doesn't make sense."
OMG, previously you said It would be no problem for Anyongbok to go 87kms in one day with winds on his side"”. Besides, Ahn said he encountered strong winds and drifted to Oki. That surely have made his travel time shorter. It is perfectly making sense again, thanks to you. You are the most hiralious person I have seen on the net!!!

Toadface, you are dancing in circles.

pacifist said...

The words Matsu 松(pine wood) and Take 竹(bamboo) are thought to be a couple in Japan. Sometimes Matsu, Take and Ume 梅(plum tree) are thought to be together too. All these words are thought to be related to good luck.

Tsuru (crane) and Kame (turtle) are also thought to be a couple which is related to long life.

If you went to one of traditional Sushi restaurants in Japan, you will find that there are Matsu set of sushi (the highest price), Take set of sushi (middle price) and Ume set of sushi (the lowest price). Matsu, Take and Ume are usually thought and used in this order, Matsu is the superior. If you should name two things, you may name Matsu and Take - for example, the elder brother Matsuo and the second brother Takeo. So if there were two islands in one route on the sea, they would name Matsushima first and then Takeshima second.

But actually, Takeshima was named first, it was because there were lots of big bamboo on the island. If there was Takeshima, Japanese in those days naturally thought another island in the route should be named as Matsushima.

And if Japanese in those days find another island beside Takeshima, it is natural that they named it as Matsushima. So there is a possibility that some Japanese may have called Jukdo as Matsushima.

not anonymous said...

Pacifist, it seems you can't use the Chosun times for departure in connection with the Murakawa papers. The reason is because in the Chosun document Anyongbok states he confronted the Japanese and then followed them immediately to Oki. That would make his departure day from Matsushima on the 15th. However, the Murakawa documents say he reached Matsushima on the 15 and departed on the 16th, the next day.

Kaneganese, read again please. I've said the Koreans could travel from the Korean coast to Ulleungdo in 2 days. That is 130kms in 2 days. You are saying the Anyongbok traveled from Ulleungdo to Oki (250kms) in the same time. I'm saying the distance is too far for such as short time. It also doesn't match with the time it took for Anyongbok to go from Oki to the Japanese mainland (2 days as well)

I say Anyongbok went from Matsushima (Dokdo) to Oki (about 160kms) in 2 days. This is slightly shorter that the 2 and a half days that Japanese recorded it usually took them. This time is plausible and your doesn't match with recorded travel times. It is very illogical to think Anyongbok was declaring Oki Island as part of Chosun territory. It was not the first time Anyongbok had voyaged to Japan.

Kaneganse, the Jukdo theory is lame and I'll spell it out for you why.

First, the Japanese said we stay on Matsushima and came upon Ulleungdo "by chance" Jukdo Islet is 2.2kms away from Ulleungdo. What a silly statement it would be to say you came by chance when this rock is within visual proximity.

Next, Jukdo is a 100 ft vertical wall with no mooring nor fresh water and is surrounded by dangerous rocks as Leegyuwon quoted in his diary. With the Japanese docking about 2kms away, it is rubbish to think they scaled this wall with a huge iron pot to cook their meal. Also look at the picture below. If the Japanese wanted to avoid a confrontation with Anyongbok they surely wouldn't have set up camp within visual distance and earshot. Certainly Anyongbok wouldn't have waited a day to give them the "bum's rush"

Here is a picture of Jukdo Islet from Ulleungdo. You can see the shore of Ulleungdo on the left. Again look how close it is.
Jukdo from Ulleungdo

It was recorded on two separate surveys the island couldn't be climbed. If you look at the picture you can see a cement spiral staircase was installed to climb the sheer face of Jukdo. With no mooring available a cement pier was needed to be installed for light boats to dock there.

As I've said, there is only one access point on Jukdo Islet to get to the top of this huge block of stone. This is on the West side. If you approach at water level you can see what a monumental effort it must have been to climb Jukdo Islet. Notice the shore of Jukdo is a vertical wall right to the water's edge. There is no beach or landing. Notice the black waterline on the rock face, this islet takes a pounding.
Jukdo shore

When we look at Jukdo Islet's rock face at the only access point on this massive rock it is clear it couldn't be climbed without serious effort or danger. Imagine trying to climb this rock face with all of your supplies, gear, water etc. Can you see the cable and box they've installed to carry various supplies upward? Also, imagine mooring your boat there. If any rough weather came in your boat would be dashed to pieces against the rock face or washed away. Anyongbok said he "pulled his boat onto the island" as Pacifist pointed out. Where could he have pulled the boat onto??

Jukdo stairs

Kanganese, try to use the historical facts in conjunction with other relevant data instead of forcibly leading to your own conclusion and then working backwards.

It is understandable that Anyongbok might mistake the distance of 50ri from Ulleungdo to Dokdo. Japanese who continally voyaged to Ulleungdo recorded the distance wrongly at about 40ri. However it is unthinkable Anyongbok would misquote and islet that is 2.2kms away as 200kms, that is quite ridiculous don't you think?

Kaneganse, you shouldn't say things like I have some "evil agenda". That's pretty rude don't you think?

Kaneganese said...

It is true that Choson people took 2 days to travel from mainland to Ulluendo in those days.
130km ÷ 48 h = 2.7 km/h

That was exactly the reason that Pacifist said it was impossible for Ahn to travel from Ulluendo to Takeshima (82km) in a half day, it should have took at least one whole day.
2.7 km/h × 12km = 32.4 km

But YOU insisted that "It would be no problem for Anyongbok to go 87kms in one day with winds on his side".
87km ÷ 12h = 7.25 km/h

So I just borrwed your way of math to calculate.
250 km÷  7.25 km/h = 34.48 hour

Conclusion, if we use your logic(Ahn's travel spped=7.25 km/h), Ahn should have able to travel from Jukdo or Ulleundo to Oki (250 km) within 2 days (34.48 hour).

Toadface, you are making not only Korean , but also American look extremely stupid. Your ability of math is worth than my 13-year-old daughter. I would scold her badly if she made such an easy mistake. Japanese learn this level of math at the age of 11-12. You can't pass any entrance exam for Japanese High School.

Quite honestly, I don't know if this is true or not in my opinion. That's why I'm keep telling that his statement is too inconsistant to believe anything. Besides, he was just a criminal, squattering civilian who were always lying to the officials of both countries, so we should not use anything in his statement for territorial dispute in the first place. But as long as Korean nip/tuck only what is favourable part from his statement and distort the fact, and you insist Ahn could have travelled 7.25km/h in those day, I have to say maybe it is true that he could have travelled from Jukdo to Oki in 2 days. And now, we have all the pieces in a right place as a result, thanks to you !! You are an angel !! (Now I'm not that rude, don't you think? You once called me a nationalist without any evidence, that was unforgivable. I have every single right to be rude to you since you started it. I don't mind Korean take the island as long as they present the evidence to convince me that they should have soverignty over the island. But so far, there are absolutely none unfortunately. I just want to see proper Korean historical record for their own sake. "情けは人の為ならず"

Kaneganese said...

Correction
2.7 km/h × 12km = 32.4 km

2.7 km/h ×  12h = 32.4 km

Kaneganese said...

Toadface,

You are such a liar.

"The reason is because in the Chosun document Anyongbok states he confronted the Japanese and then followed them immediately to Oki. "

immediately ? Where did it say immediately ?
The whole record from official site of the annals of Choson Dynasty by National Institute of Korean History as follows...

肅宗 30卷, 22年( 1696 丙子 / 청 강희(康熙) 35年) 9月 25日 戊寅 2번째기사
○備邊司推問安龍福等。 龍福以爲: “渠本居東萊, 爲省母至蔚山, 適逢僧雷憲等, 備説頃年往來鬱陵島事, 且言本島海物之豐富, 雷憲等心利之。 遂同乘船, 與寧海篙工劉日夫等, 倶發到本島, 主山三峰, 高於三角, 自南至北, 爲二日程, 自東至西亦然。 山多雜木、鷹、烏猫, 倭船亦多來泊, 船人皆恐。 渠倡言: ‘鬱島本我境, 倭人何敢越境侵犯? 汝等可共縳之。’ 仍進船頭大喝, 倭言: ‘吾等本住松島, 偶因漁採出來。 今當還往本所。’ 松島卽子山島, 此亦我國地, 汝敢住此耶?’ 遂以翌曉, 拕舟入子山島, 倭等方列釜鬻煮魚膏。 渠以杖撞破, 大言叱之, 倭等收聚載船, 擧帆回去, 渠仍乘船追趁, 猝遇狂飆, 漂到玉岐島。 島主問入來之故, 渠言: ‘頃年吾入來此處, 以鬱陵、子山等島, 定以朝鮮地界, 至有關白書契, 而本國不有定式, 今又侵犯我境, 是何道理?’ 云爾, 則謂當轉報伯耆州, 而久不聞消息。 渠不勝憤惋, 乘船直向伯耆州, 假稱鬱陵、子山兩島監稅, 將使人通告本島, 送人馬迎之。 渠服靑帖裏, 着黑布笠, 穿皮鞋乘轎, 諸人竝乘馬, 進往本州。 渠與島主, 對坐廳上, 諸人竝下坐中階, 島主問: ‘何以入來?’ 答曰: ‘前日以兩島事, 受出書契, 不啻明白, 而對馬島主奪取書契, 中間僞造, 數遣差倭, 非法橫侵, 吾將上疏關白,歴陳罪状。’ 島主許之。 遂使李仁成, 構疏呈納, 島主之父來懇伯耆州曰: ‘若登此疏, 吾子必重得罪死, 請勿捧入。’ 故不得稟定於關伯, 而前日犯境倭十五人, 摘發行罰。 仍謂渠曰: ‘兩島既屬爾國之後, 或有更爲犯越者, 島主如或橫侵, 竝作國書, 定譯官入送, 則當爲重處。’ 仍給糧, 定差倭護送, 渠以帶去有弊, 辭之。” 云。 雷憲等諸人供辭略同。 備邊司啓請: “姑待後日登對稟處。” 允之。

Where doese it say Ahn followed them immediately ? It only say "倭等收聚載船, 擧帆回去, 渠仍乘船追趁, 猝遇狂飆, 漂到玉岐島". This is only my assumption, so you don't need to agree, but I guess the time when he met Japanese was in the evening (14th of May), so he waited to follow them until next morning(15th). As soon as the dawn came(15th), Ahn left Ulleundo and arrived at Jukdo (15th) before the sun came up. Beautiful, isn't it?

Toadface wrote;
"First, the Japanese said we stay on Matsushima and came upon Ulleungdo "by chance" Jukdo Islet is 2.2kms away from Ulleungdo. What a silly statement it would be to say you came by chance when this rock is within visual proximity."

Excuse me? Now are you admitting that Matsushima(Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks) was Japanese' sole destination? If we follow your logic, it is a concrete evidence that Japanese fishermen were going Matsushima as a sole destination, but came to Ulleundo "by chance"? Thank you, you are absolutely fabulous.

not anonymous said...

It seems you are using a half day to calculate Anyongboks travel time not a full day. I've said Anyongbok could travel faster than the Japanese travel time of one full day but the travel time of 7kms per hour is Pacifists work not mine.

The travel time to Matsushima by Japanese in Saito Hosen Report on Oki is quoted as one day. This was against prevailing winds and currents.
87kms ÷ 24 = 3.625 kms per hour.

The travel time to Dokdo from Oki (160kms) is said to be 2 and a half days against prevailing winds and currents. It is most likely a 24 hour day as a half day was also mentioned.
160kms ÷ 60 = 2.66 kms per hour.

The travel time to Ulleungdo from Korea (130kms) is said to be two days.
130kms ÷ 48 = 2.71 kms per hour.

However you are implying that Anyongbok travelled from Ulleungdo to Oki in two days. This is about double the speed of historical records (see above 2.66kms per hour) Your 7kms per hour rate is about triple.

250kms ÷ 48 = 5.20kms per hour.

Anyeongbok's record says he took 2 days to travel from Matsushima to Oki. If we use an average speed of about 3kms per hours could be assumed from some of the historically verifiable historical records above that is around 144kms. This is very close to the real distance of Matsushima to Oki. This travel time is more in line with historical records.

Anyongbok said he arrived on "Matsushima" on the same day. Who travels 2.2kms and describes this voyage as arriving the same day? How long do you think it would take to travel to this island on a boat Kaneganese? I say literally 15~20 minutes.

http://dokdo-takeshima.com/jukdo-pic02.jpg

The Anyongbok incident was about Takeshima and another island called Matsushima Kaneganese. There are inconisitencies of course, but to throw the baby out with the bathwater is not a good approach Kaneganese. You have insisted Jukdo Islet is Matsushima but it seems impossible given all of the facts. I say Matsushima is the island called Matsushima. Yes the numbers are problematic but it is far more likely to be Dokdo than Jukdo Islet that is for damn sure.

Anyongbok did not suddenly dream up an island named Matsushima. He went directly to Japan to protest his complaints with 10 other men. We know he left Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and arrived on Oki's Matsushima pretty much in the center of the Okinoshima's. Anyongbok's route would have taken him directly past Dokdo considering the Southeast winds of the spring. See map.

Dokdo on route to Oki Island


If you can brush up on your physics skills and dream up a way to lug an iron pot up this 100 vertical meter cliff, I'll promise to study math. Good luck.

Matsushima is not Jukdo Islet Kaneganese

BTW, Kaneganese.

"...All views are welcome, and comments may be made in any language, but personal attacks, foul language, and comments dealing with unrelated issues will be unwelcome and may be deleted. The goal is civil discussion and debate....."

Sound familiar....?

Kaneganese said...

Toadface wrote;
"It seems you are using a half day to calculate Anyongboks travel time not a full day. I've said Anyongbok could travel faster than the Japanese travel time of one full day but the travel time of 7kms per hour is Pacifists work not mine."

「元禄九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一巻之覚書」"五月十五日竹嶋出船 同日松嶋江着"
According to the sentence, it should be almost 12 hours from dawn to sunset. (But it's already known as less than few hours, though.) I know you wanted it longer like whole day to suit your theory, but you can't streatch what's written in record. It wasn't a full day(24 hours), but it should be less than 12-14 hours. You were insisting full-day theory because you wanted Ahn to travel further like 85-92km in order to make Ahn's Matsushima Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks. But as long as it was a half day, it make you are the one who are insisting that Ahn travelled at the speed of 6.5-7.5 km/h. Pacifist said that it cannot be Takeshima/Liancourt but Jukdo since the travel speed was less tha 3km/h for Ahn's ship. Only if you admit that Ahn's Matsushima was Jukdo, the travel speed should be normal as 2.5-3 km/h. But if you want to insist it was Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks which Ahn went to about 12 hours from Ulleundo, then you have to double the speed. You can double the speed up to 5-6km/h if you want, but it make Ahn to be able to travel 250km for 2 days (48 hours) and it fits the Matsushima(Jukdo) to Oki since it is about 250km. Again, it support my theory.

You have to understand this sentence first, or it will be fruitless. It cannot be whole day, but a half day. Do you want Ahn to leave Ulleundo at 0 o'clock and arrive at Matshushima at 0 o'clock ? Then the sentence would be different like "一昼夜" to make him arrice om a same day. Allow him to leave Ulleundo in the morning, it is cruel to make them leave dangerous place like Ulleundo in the midnight. There would be no light house in those days.

OK, my new advice to you. First learn Japanese or get a better translater, then study math.

By the way, where did it say that Japanese in Edo era sailed against the strong winds and currents? I am asking it just out of curiosity. Please present me the original of the record, thanks.

Anyway, I may not be available for a few days. But I will take my PC and write a new post about this new flashy finding and translate some of Gerry and pacifist's post into Japanese.

Kaneganese said...

All views are welcome, but any lies are not welcome.

not anonymous said...

I did not come on this forum to lie. Maybe you should take a break and cool off a little you seem to be losing control of your anger.

The original document of the Anyongbok record I have is as follows.

"...Early in the next morning I sailed for Jasando (Japanese name Songdo/Matsushima) and when I got there these Japanese people were stewing  some meat oil in large iron pot. I picked up a large piece of wood and hit and broke the pot with it while shouting at them. They started packing their belongings in a boat and sailed off. So, I got in my boat and followed them, however I suddenly met with a storm and drifted to Oki Island..."

Anyeongbok


It says he met the Japanese on Ulleungdo. He went to Matsushima the next day, confronted them and then tried to follow them, but met with a storm. If he followed the Japanese he left about the same time. He didn't dawdle on Matsushima for a whole night as the Murakawa record says. There is a difference in travel times between the records as I've said.

Regarding travel times. I say we should use historically verifiable travel times in conjunction with the Anyongbok.
Matsushima to Ulleungdo is said to be a day,
Oki to Matsushima is said to be two and a half days.
Korea to Ulleungdo is about two days.

Trying to arrive at an exact travel speed for this records isn't likely. However, I find it hard to believe that Anyoeongbok took two days to make a journey that is normally recorded as 3 and a half days. That's all.

In addition, the 50ri distance quoted by Anyeongbok kills your Jukdo Islet theory. Even the right-wing Shimane Prefecture newspaper conceded that the Jasando in this document is most likely Matsushima. (Dokdo) It's possible to fugde on the Matsushima (Dokdo) distance because Japanese maps also show this error. Any normal person would concede 2.2kms CANNOT be mistaken for 200kms. Period. So when you are confronted by this wall, you just ignore the fact as a lie. That's flimsy.

On top of that it seems silly to describe going 2.2kms as "arriving the same day" That's like going to the corner store and saying I got there the same day. Again, it doesn't make sense.

Again, Kaneganese, look at this picture and ask youself the followng questions.

Does this island look 200kms away?
Would you row to this island and say you arrived the same day?
Would it be a coincidence to voyage from Ulleungdo from this island?
Is this island 200kms away?

Topography and Geography. When we consider the area you say is "Matsushma" (Jukdo Islet) the nature of this area proves you wrong.

People set up camps at given areas for a reason but usually there are common elements involved. Proximal, potable, fresh water is almost always an essential element for cleaning and bathing. Jukdo Islet has none of course. Shelter is also a critical need. Jukdo Islet has no mooring and the only side of approach is on the windward side (West) of a 100 meter wall face. A beach with a gentle slope to pull your craft ashore is essential.

Again here is Jukdo Islets shore, centuries ago there was no cement dock.
Don't moor here


By the historical maps we have we know the Japanese usually moored on Ulleungdo at the Northeast side on a beach called Waeson Chang. This was just around the corner from Jukdo Islet. Even closer is the excellent mooring at Jukam Beach which has fresh water as well. (Jukam Waterfall).

To get an idea of how close Jukdo is to Ulleungdo's more favourable beaches here is an image. Jukam beach is around the cape straight ahead.
Jukdo to Ulleungdo

Jukam Beach is to the left of this picture.
Cape Gwaneum


Kaneganese, I say the Japanese battled the winds and currents because it is a fact. The winds in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) usually blow from the Southwest or Northwest depending on the season.

Gerry Bevers said...

Non-Anonymous wrote:

Regarding travel times. I say we should use historically verifiable travel times in conjunction with the Anyongbok.
Matsushima to Ulleungdo is said to be a day,
Oki to Matsushima is said to be two and a half days.
Korea to Ulleungdo is about two days.


Look at what you wrote above, Non-Anonymous. You conceded that it took two days to travel from Korea to Ulleungdo and one day from Ulleungdo to Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks), but An Yong-bok said that Matsushima was farther from Ulleungdo (50 ri = 200 km) than the Korean peninsula (30 ri = 120 km), which means if it took An Yong-bok two days to travel from the Korean peninsula to Ulleungdo, then it would have taken him more than two days to travel to his so-called Matsushima. And, as you said, Liancourt Rocks is only a day away from Ulleungdo, which means An Yong-bok's Matsushima could not have been Liancourt Rocks. Also, that would not match up with the dates he supposedly left Ulleungdo and arrived at Oki.

Also, consider the story An Yong-bok told. He said he attacked the Japanese on Jasando (Usando) and then chased away them, supposedly with the purpose of capturing them. If that is true, then why didn't An Yong-bok capture them on Usando instead of allowing them to gather their things together, get in their boat, and escape? That was pretty stupid, wasn't it?

If you compare what An Yong-bok told the Japanese with what he told the Koreans, it is obvious that he was lying one of them because the stories do not match up.

An Yong-bok's life was on the line, so if he thought a lie would save his neck, why not?

Not even the Korean authorities at the time believed An Yong-bok, so why should we? Even after the An Yong-bok incident Korean maps continued to show Usando as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks.

not anonymous said...

Gerry, I'm not going to put my head in a noose and take responsibility for all of the time inconsistencies of Anyongbok's testimony. Also, I didn't come here to answer your hypothetical questions.

Anyongbok's records are separated by decades in time and by different nations, it doesn't surprise me at all they don't all match up.

I'm saying there were two islands involved in this dispute (Takeshima~Matsushima) and we should pool all of the known historical and other known information to arrive at the most plausible identity of "Matsushima" in this document. It is not an option to say Anyongbok's Matsushima doesn't exist because the name is recorded in both Korean and Japanese records of the Anyongbok incident.

First of course is the name Matushima. Dokdo was called Matsushima by the Japanese. This is irrefutable. There is not one concrete piece of clear evidence that shows the Japanese or Koreans called Jukdo Islet "Matsushima" Gerry.

Now I know you are going to cite the confused statements by King Gojong or Leegyuwon, but this evidence can be disregarded as confusion. Japanese~Korean maps show this island to be called Jukdo Islet, Japanese maps show it to be called Iga-shima. Thus it is highly unlikely Anyongbok's Matsushima was Jukdo.

The distance issue also rules out Jukdo Islet no matter how you try to fudge on travle times Gerry et al, you can't manipulate (50ri) 200kms into 2.2km. So you are stuck and thus try to dismiss this critical historical data as just lies. The only plausible island for Matsushima to be was Dokdo I know it's a bitter pill, but if you are trying to say Anyongbok was disputing over Jukdo Islet you are just making yourself look foolish.

The real historical maps of this era show how significant (or not) Jukdo Islet was to those who surveyed the region.

Look at these maps of Ulleungdo.
Japanese Ulleungdo
Japanese Ulleungdo2
Korean Ulleungdo

All of these survey maps suggest the same thing. Jukdo Islet was just a rock and really not much more significant as Gwaneumdo or other surrounding rocks. Thus, from a geographic standpoint Jukdo Islet is a non-issue. Consider the fact that Jukdo Islet is only 2.2kms away from Ulleungdo and only about 400 meters long, wouldn't you think that if Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was part of Chosun Jukdo Island is a "gimmie"?

As I've said. Anyongbok's Matsushima was not fictitious and the only island that even closely fits the bill is Dokdo.

It is not possible that this incident took place on Jukdo Islet. You can see this islet is very difficult to scale and not even worth the effort given its close proximity to Ulleungdo itself.

Notice how high the vertical rock face of Jukdo Islet is in this picture. Note the man circled in blue for scale.

Jukdo Islet Vertical Cliff

Here are some other shots of Jukdo's vertical face.

Jukdo Vertical Face1
Jukdo Vertical Face2

Gerry Bevers said...

Non-Anonymous wrote:

I'm saying there were two islands involved in this dispute (Takeshima~Matsushima) and we should pool all of the known historical and other known information to arrive at the most plausible identity of "Matsushima" in this document. It is not an option to say Anyongbok's Matsushima doesn't exist because the name is recorded in both Korean and Japanese records of the Anyongbok incident.

No, there were three names and three islands: Takeshima, Matsushima, and Jasando (Usando). Just because An Yong-bok said that Matsushima was Usando does not mean that An's Matsushima was Liancourt Rocks. Both Korean and Japanese maps show that Usando was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, not Liancourt Rocks. Also, An Yong-bok said that the distance from Ulleungdo to Matsushima (50 ri = 200 km) was farther than the distance from Ulleungdo to the Korean mainland (30 ri = 120 km). That tells us that An's Matsushima was not Liancourt Rocks since Ulleungdo is closer to Liancourt Rocks (92 km) than the Korean mainland (135 km).

Another interesting thing is that An Yong-bok said that he got up the next morning and boarded a taju (柁舟) to go to Jasando (Usando), where he found the Japanese boiling fish. Then he claimed he yelled at the Japanese and broke their pot. However, he did not capture the Japanese when he had the chance. Why not? In fact, he even allowed them to gather their things together, load them on their ship and sail away. Why?

First, I do not think An Yong-bok sailed 92 kilometers to see if Japanese were really living on Usando. I think he may have rowed four or five kilometers to find the Japanese on Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which Koreans were calling Usando at the time. Second, after An Yong-bok found the Japanese on Usando, I think the reason he did not capture them was that he was not prepared to do so. I think he had to go back to the main island of Ulleungdo to get his "big boat" and some reinforcements. That gave the Japanese time to load up their ship and set sail. Here are my reasons for saying that.

An said he went to Usando by taju (柁舟), which literally translates as a "rudder boat." I am not exactly sure what a "rudder boat" is, but the ju (舟) character means jjok bae (쪽배), which is a small dugout boat. I think a taju (柁舟) may have been one of those small boats that use the rudder as an oar to propel it through the water. Such boats would be all right for crossing rivers and maybe moving around the shores of an island, but only a fool would use one to sail 92 kilometers in the open sea. If I am right, and a taju was just a small boat, then that means that Usando had to be an island very near Ulleungdo.

Yes, the Japanese used Matsushima (Songdo) to refer to Liancourt Rocks, but Korean documents tell us that Koreans used "Songdo" (Matsushima) to refer to Ulleungdo and its neighboring islands (See HERE). Also, in 1870, a Japanese mission to Korea reported HERE that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called "Matsushima" (Songdo).

An Yong-bok did not say that the Japanese called Usando "Matsushima" (Songdo); he said that Matsushima (Songdo) was Usando. In other words, he essentially said that Koreans also used the name "Songdo" (Matsushima) to refer to Usando. Again, it was An Yong-bok who said "Matsushima" was Usando, not the Japanese.

As mentioned above, an 1870 Japanese mission to Korea reported that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called "Matsushima" (Songdo) that was not mentioned in Japanese records. Then in 1882, King Kojong and Ulleungdo inspector Lee Gyu-won both said that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called "Songjukdo," which they said was also called "Jukdo" and "Songdo." Therefore, even the king of Korea said that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called Songdo. You cannot ask for better confirmation than that, can you?

You think the king of Korea and his Ulleungdo inspector were confused, but An Yong-bok, who was an admitted liar and who did not know the location of Liancourt Rocks, was not? Well, I think you are the one who is confused.

Both Korean and Japanese maps show that Usando was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, yet you dismiss the maps in favor of an admitted liar who told different stories to Korean and Japanese officials.

You said that Ulleungdo inspector Lee Gyu-won was confused, yet you link to his map and call it a "real historical map." Yes, Lee Gyu-won's map showed "Jukdo" as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, but remember that he had said that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called "Songjukdo"that was also called "Songdo" and "Jukdo." Jukdo was only one of the alternate names he gave for the island. The reason Lee mapped it as "Jukdo" in 1882 was that, at that time, the name "Jukdo" was the popular one with the residents of Ulleungdo. However, twelve years earlier, according to the 1870 Japanese report mentioned above, Koreans were using the other alternate name, "Songdo" (Matsushima), to refer to Ulleungdo's neighboring island.

By the way, Lee Gyu-won, the maker of your "real historic map," also said that he could find no island named Usando during his inspection of Ulleungdo, and that no one on the island knew where it was. Lee concluded that Usando was just another name for Ulleungdo.

Not-Anonymous wrote:

It is not possible that this incident took place on Jukdo Islet. You can see this islet is very difficult to scale and not even worth the effort given its close proximity to Ulleungdo itself.

I do not understand why you continue to make that silly claim even after I have linked to a Japanese map and document telling us that the Japanese did stay on Ulleungdo's neigboring island of Jukdo, which, at the time, they called "Ika-shima.? This 1724 map shows the island of "Ika-shima" (イガ島) and this 1692 Japanese document said that Japanese fishermen landed on "Ika-shima" (イガ島) and stayed there for, at least, one night. The 1692 document also said the Japanese found evidence that Koreans had been there, too.

In your pictures of the stairs going up onto Jukdo, notice how the cliff face has been away to make room for the stairs. The stairs were built sometime around 1992, I think, but Koreans had been living on Jukdo, at least, thirty years before then, so there was a path leading up onto the island before the stairs. The stairs were simply built for the convenience of tourists when the island was opened up to the public.

There are no old Korean or Japanese maps that show Usando as Liancourt Rocks. All maps, both Korean and Japanese, showed Usando as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. Also, after the An Yong-bok incident, Korean maps started showing Usando as Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (See HERE)

In 1882, King Kojong said that Usando was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, but Lee Gyu-won told him that Usando was just another name for Ulleungdo. Even after his inspection of Ulleungdo, Lee Gyu-won reported that there was no island named Usando. Ulleungdo residents told Lee they had heard Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called Usando, but none knew its location. The reason they had heard of Usando but did not know its location was that it was just an old, forgotten name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo.

not anonymous said...

Gerry, in this 1794 Chosun survey of Ulleungdo by Shim Jin Hyeon it was clearly stated that the rocks on both Jukdo Islet and Gwaneumdo were to jagged to climb. Again in 1882 Leegyuwon surveyed Ulleungdo and also reported that Jukdo Island was both surrounded by dangerous rocks and couldn't be climbed.

When you combine this historical data with the photos I've given it's clear Japanese did not scale this island, especially with a huge iron pot. The Japanese document says the landed at Jukdo it doesn't say they stayed there, it just gives the destination on the next day. It is more likely they went across the bay to either Jukam or Yeomsogol waterfall where there is water and mooring.

Yes your map shows Igashima but if you look at the route it appears to land in either Dodong Harbor or Jeodong.

What I did see on Pacifists translation (if correct) is a trave distance time of 2 days from Ulleungdo to Oki which is different from other documents I've read. It makes Anyeongboks travel time to Dokdo in half day or to Oki in two days. So it confuses the travel time issue further.

Leegyuwon didn't not say there was an neighbour island of Ulleungdo called Songdo. He said he had heard that. In fact when the king asked him if he had talked to anyone who had inspected Ulluengo first hand, he said no. His information was third hand.

The 1870 document said there was a "neighbour" island called Matsushima to Ulleungdo. The character "隣" used to describe Matsushma means adjacent to or beside. It doesn't necessarily mean close to. It is a relative term such as Japan and Korea are neighbour countries. That is your interpretation.

Kaneganese said...

Toadface,

I' not angry at all. Rather, I was euphoric and enjoying to tease you. As long as you and Korean adopt Ahn's inconsistant testimony, you cannot escape from cotradiction. You are destined to shoot your own foot. That is why Japanese don't take him seriously. I keep telling you that, don't I? First of all, I don't believe he actually met Japanese on both island, I think it was his lie for the last resort in order to dodge the life sentence. But I am doing this for you since YOU insist he is telling truth.

Jukdo was full of bamboos and it is the only island fishermen can get the fuels between Ulleundo and Oki. Besides,I think it is not difficult at all for a skilled fishermen and rock climbers to climb up this island, but difficult for the Choson officials who are not used to ships. In fact, there are many records that Jukdo was inhabited by people, this is only one of them. It clearly says that both island was inhabitable.

世祖 7卷, 3年( 1457 丁丑 / 명 천순(天順) 1年) 4月 16日 己酉 3번째기사
"一, 江陵人言, ‘牛山、茂陵兩島可以設邑"

The Japanese academic confirmed there were ladder on Jukdo and one family lived there in 1930. Link

If you don't want me to call you a lier, you need to admit you made a mistake and apologize first. Everyone is allowed to make a mistake, but not to lie or distort the fact.

Toadface wrote:
"The reason is because in the Chosun document Anyongbok states he confronted the Japanese and then followed them immediately to Oki."

And you wrote;
"The original document of the Anyongbok record I have is as follows."
"They started packing their belongings in a boat and sailed off. So, I got in my boat and followed them, however I suddenly met with a storm and drifted to Oki Island..."


Pacifist's translation:
"Japanese took the equipments and loaded them onto their ship, put up a sail and were gone. They rode the ship and chased the Japanese but met a strong wind and drifted ashore to Oki island."
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/09/1696-ahn-yong-boks-second-visit-to.html

The original from official site of the annals of Choson Dynasty by National Institute of Korean History
(肅宗 30卷, 22年( 1696 丙子 / 청 강희(康熙) 35年) 9月 25日 戊寅 2번째기사):
"倭等收聚載船, 擧帆回去, 渠仍乘船追趁 ,猝遇狂飆, 漂到玉岐島"

Can't you see? There are no mention of Ahn's leaving immediately even in your translation at all, nor original. If you say you simply made a mistake, fine, but I need you to admit and apologize. But if you did it intentionally, I call you a big fat liar.

By the way, this is what you wrote only a month ago, let me help you to refresh your memory.
"I suggest that primary documents are used whenever possible. Don't use digitizal transcripts, they are subject to misinterpretations and manipulations."
Now who is the one using digital transcript?

Toadface wrote;
”Kaneganese, I say the Japanese battled the winds and currents because it is a fact. The winds in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) usually blow from the Southwest or Northwest depending on the season."
Give me the original documents, or at least the links that says that Oya and Murakawa clan batteled against the winds and currents before 1696. I think this is very interesting, if it is true. You insisted this twice, then you can surely show me the evidence, can't you?

not anonymous said...

Kaneganese, it is your translation here that contains suppositions not mine. Anyongbok's testimony says the Japanese packed their belongings "So" he chased or followed the Japanese. Where does it say he waited all night or until the next day?

The phrase "They chased the Japanese "But~However" they met with a storm means their pursuit was interrupted. Both Pacifists and mine say Anyoeongbok chased or followed the Japanese. I don't call waiting a day "chasing" or "following" at all.

The dictionary defines "chasing" as "...If you chase after someone or thing you run after them quickly in order to catch them.." To follow means to move "behind" someone.

Even you said it was your assumption. I'm staying true the translation and you are embellishing the document by adding an extra day to suit your agenda.

So there was a ladder on Jukdo Islet in 1930? What does that have to do with Jukdo's topography in the 1690? I have given two historical documents that said the island couldn't be climbed. Here again is the vertical face of Jukdo Islet.
Climb this


I'm not saying it's not humanly possible. Again, I'm saying given the fact that fresh water and sheltered mooring were literally 10 minutes away. It's not likely.
On top of that we have a 50ri distance given and the fact that Anyeongbok said he arrived "on the same day" meaning the island was quite distant.

Kanganese. you say Jukdo Island was the only island between Oki and Ulleungdo that had fuel. I'm sorry but I had a great laugh when I read that. You are getting silly now.

Jukdo Islet is not between Oki and Ulleungdo. It is 2.2kms from Ulleungdo.

Here is a picture of Ulleungdo from Jukdo Islet.
Jukdo~Ulleungdo

Kaneganese, read my post above. I don't doubt there are inconsistencies in Anyongbok's testimonies. You want to discard all of this information, which is of course wrong. I say with all the know facts the most plausible identity of Anyongbok's Matsushima was Dokdo.

Yes the Japanese had to go against prevailing winds from the Southwest or Northwest and currents. Historical proof? Have the earth's dominant winds and currents changed dramatically in the last 300 years? If so, you prove it.

You're euphoric? Hmmmm Okay.
Whatever turns you on Kaneganese.

Kaneganese said...

Toadface,

Sigh...

The original from official site of the annals of Choson Dynasty by National Institute of Korean History
(肅宗 30卷, 22年( 1696 丙子 / 청 강희(康熙) 35年) 9月 25日 戊寅 2번째기사):
"倭等收聚載船, 擧帆回去, 渠仍乘船追趁 ,猝遇狂飆, 漂到玉岐島"
There is no "So" in original document, either. Where does it say he chased immediately? Check pacifist's translation if you can't read original. Now, you are a certified liar. Not only you lied that Ahn chased Japanese immediately, but you falsely accused me of making assumption in spite of your incompetence of reading documents. You really need to learn 漢字 if you want to continue to argue with us anymore. Do you realize you are acting childish? This is seriously getting silly. Toadface, please ask someone more knowlegeable to help you. I don't know how to deal with someone like you anymore. I don't get it, why don't you even try to learn 漢文 read original? It is not that difficult to know there are no "immediately" or "so" in the sentence. By the way, who's translation is that?

”Kaneganese, I say the Japanese battled the winds and currents because it is a fact. The winds in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) usually blow from the Southwest or Northwest depending on the season."
I repeat. Give me the original documents, or at least the links that says that Oya and Murakawa clan batteled against the winds and currents before 1696.

By the way, opp has already found about this, so all the credit goes to him.

Kaneganese said...

correction
Where does it say he chased immediately?

Where does it imply he chased immediately?

not anonymous said...

Kaneganse, Anyongbok said he chased the Japanese. He did not say he waited until the next day. Period. That is your assumption.

Mr grandfather used to say "Assumption is the mother of all mistakes"

You are proof my grandfather was right.

pacifist said...

toadface,

Kaneganese didn't write that Ahn didn't chase Japanese but she told you that Ahn may have chased Japanese but not always immediately.

Think about what Gerry thought.
As the original text indicated, Ahn may have used a small boat to visit "Matsushima" (in this case Jukdo) which may have been good to approach the island without being noticed by Japanese.

But after Japanese set off, he may have had to go back to the base in Ulleungdo to catch a ship to go far.

And in those days if it was going to be dark they usually waited until dawn before they go in order to make it a safe voyage.

If Ahn had to return to Ulleungdo as Gerry imagined, it is natural that he started early next morning.

Kaneganese said...

Toadface wrote,
"Kaneganse, Anyongbok said he chased the Japanese. He did not say he waited until the next day. Period. That is your assumption. "

??? No, it's not my assumption. He did say he waited until the next day. How many times do I have to post this original document?Just read the original, not translation. Ahn exactly said he arrived at Matushima on 15th and left the island on 16th in Japanese document. You read only Korean document, didn't you? Read below. I don't have much time to listen to your lie. Just read the original and if you firgure out what you are saying is silly, just apologize to your Granpa or whoever instead.

"五月十五日竹嶋出船 同日松嶋江着 同十六日松嶋ヲ出十八日之朝"「元禄九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一巻之覚書」

By the way, as pacifist pointed out, I never said that Ahn didn't chased Japanese.

And you dropped "immediately"secretly? You are practically admitting you are a liar..

”Kaneganese, I say the Japanese battled the winds and currents because it is a fact. The winds in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) usually blow from the Southwest or Northwest depending on the season."
If it is a fact, then where are documents which says that Oya and Murakawa clan batteled against the winds and currents before 1696? Don't run away. I guess you don't realize what you have wrote. I'm asking you this because I'm really interested in "your fact". Honestly, it's possible, but it contradicts what I have read in the book before.

Anonymous said...

That's funny. Anyongbok was so furious he smashed a stick and destroyed their pot and then he sat around on "Matsushima" for a whole night with the Japanese on the island. Maybe they had tea and cookies on top of Jukdo Islet eh?

Kaneganese, give it up. One document says Anyongbok left the next day. The other says he chased them and makes no mention of waiting until the next day.

Again the definition of chase is to pursue quickly. To follow means to be behind, not to dawdle for a day. He also says after he chased them "However" he met with a storm meaning his pursuit was discontinued.

You are stuck. On top of that, the 50ri measurement in Anyongboks Murakawa documents kill your silly "Matsushima is Jukdo" theory. Also Anyongbok said he arrived on Matsushima the same day. 2.2kms takes about 10 mins Kaneganese you don't walk across the street and say you got there the same day.

Kanganese I asked you before. Does this look like 200kms to you??? Because that is what you are trying to tell us here. Are you serious? Would you say it you arrived here the same day??
This is 200kms???

Kaneganese when you can make 200 kms into 2.2kms let me know!!

not anonymous said...

This is 200kms????

Kaneganese said...

Toadface,

"That's funny. Anyongbok was so furious he smashed a stick and destroyed their pot and then he sat around on "Matsushima" for a whole night with the Japanese on the island."

Yes, it is funny. But I am not allowed to make an assumption, eh? Unfortunately, this is exactly what is written in his testimony.

"Maybe they had tea and cookies on top of Jukdo Islet eh?"
See? You always use "if"s and this time, "maybe", it clearly tells that you are the one who are making assumptions in order to suit your own theory, not me.

He said from Choson to Ulleundo as 30-ri, and it is not correct. It is natural to consider that he was not good at figures just like you. Yes, 50-ri from Ulleundo makes this Flying Usand locate at Oki. It is funny, isn't it? Are you still call Ahn a reliable person?

"You are stuck."
As long as we take Ahn the squatter's inconsistant testimony seriously, we are destined to stuck anyway. Both of us. Take it or leave it, it's your decision. But you are not allowed to nip/tuck only what you want from his inconsistant statement.

”Kaneganese, I say the Japanese battled the winds and currents because it is a fact. The winds in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) usually blow from the Southwest or Northwest depending on the season."
This is fifth time that I ask you this. If it is a fact, then where are documents which says that Oya and Murakawa clan batteled against the winds and currents before 1696?

Kaneganese said...

Gerry,

By the way, do you know what "拕舟" looks like? "拕" means rudder in Japanese, but we usually use "舵" instead. Considering the boat with rudder, it is supposed to be smaller than the boat with a sail in those days, isn't it?

Gerry Bevers said...

Kaneganese,

You are right. The characters in the original should be 拕舟, not 柁舟, which was the characters that appeared in the book I was reading. Of course, in Korean they both have the same pronunciation and probably mean the same thing.

As for my comment concerning 拕舟入于山島, I think I mistranslated it. It should probably be translated as "steered a boat to Usando." In other words, "taju" (拕舟) should not be translated as a specific kind of boat. I am sorry for causing confusion.

Nevertheless, I am suspicious about the expression "taju" 拕舟 since I get the impression that it might be referring to steering a small boat, such as one that would be used to cross a river. For example, I also found it used HERE in an 1697 Korean document taking about crossing a river in a small boat. Here is what was written:

臣所住卽江外也。 爲是疏將渡津而來, 適會江水大漲, 風浪且作。 有兩篙工, 相與行舟, 一者曰: “依吾運柁, 舟可安矣。” 一者曰: “不可不可。

It seems to imply that one person could handle the boat alone. If An Yong-bok had boarded a large ship, I would have expected to see, 昇船 instead of 拕舟.

I think the Koreans may have anchored their large boats off shore and used smaller boats to more around Ulleungdo's inlets collecting abalone. For example, in the 1692 Japanese document, which Pacifist translated HERE, it said that when the Japanese went up on the hill to check on their instruments, they saw eight boats and several other things. When the Japanese asked the reason for those other things, the Korean said they were for travelling around the shoreline, which implies those other things were small boats.

I think both the Japanese and Koreans may have used small boats or rafts to fish for abalone around Ulleungdo's shoreline. I think I remember reading that most of the beaches on Ulleungdo had rocky bottoms, which could damage the hull of a large ship. They may have anchored their ships off shore and used smaller boats to land on Ulleungdo and Jukdo. An Yong-bok do may have used a small boat to go to Jasando (Usando), since it would probably be dangerous to have docked a large boat near the island.

Kaneganese said...

Correction
He said from Choson to Ulleundo as 30-ri, and it is not correct.

He said from Choson to Ulleundo as 30-ri, and it is not correct if Matsushima was Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks since he said it is 50-ri from Ulleundo.

Kaneganese said...

Gerry,

"It should probably be translated as "steered a boat to Usando.""
I agree. If we follow the Chinese grammer, "拕" being used as a verb is more natural.

"I think the Koreans may have anchored their large boats off shore and used smaller boats to more around Ulleungdo's inlets collecting abalone. "
I agree with this too. Ahn came to Japan with other 10 people. So it must be a bigger ship, not a boat. I think it is possible that Japanese frequently used Jukdo to moor a large ship and used smaller boat or raft which has shallow bottom to catch abalones and seaweeds. That explains Jukdo correctly appeared in Japanese map many times. There are some other Rocks in south area of the map, maybe those were the landmark for a mooring. (I can see toadface will start "Don't moor here !" campaign...)

1902 "Trade Documents" by MOFA Section 4 - Boat Moorage
Looks like Dodong(道洞) which locates at the southeast of the island was the only mooring harbour available in 1902.

not anonymous said...

Kanganese, even the pro-Japane right wing newspaper San-In-Chuo from Japan conceded that the Jasando~Matsushima in the documents uncovered in the Murakawa archives were most likely Dokdo.

The translation I've quoted was from a publication at the front they explain the translations were done by a historical publishing committee. The name of the book is "A Collection of Dokdo Related Data" When it comes to translations I've got to go with a published book and translated by professionals. You should also understand this is a Korean document.

Here is the original image from the book that states Anyongbok left right away. The line is highlighted in red.

Anyongbok Translation

Show some class and respect for those who come on this forum and don't call people liars whether you agree or not. Take the time and read the insults you have posted. Never once did I ever insult you. You should be ashamed.

Kaneganese said...

Toadface wrote;
"pro-Japane right wing newspaper San-In-Chuo"

When did 山陰中央新報 became right wing? The newspaper is one of the affiliate of Kyodo News Agency(共同通信) which is very famous for it's left centered tendancy. The Kyodo is the only Japanese new association who has a branch in North Korea !!! 山陰中央新報 deliver the news by Kyodo every day. It is so low to degrade every Japanese by calling "right winger" or "nationalist" only because they try to find the truth and think Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks rightfully belong to Japan. Besides, Japanese Communist Party made a clear statement that the sovereignty claim over Takeshima made by Japanese government is well-grounded. Stop spreading baseless slander !!

Personal attacks made by Toadface before I decide to call you a liar finally.
"Again a little common sense instead of wishful thinking would help your theories."
"It seems you are a little confused yourself."
"Kanganese, try to use the historical facts in conjunction with other relevant data instead of forcibly leading to your own conclusion and then working backwards."

As for the mistake you made which is the base I call you a liar since you never admit you made one, you wrote;
"Pacifist, it seems you can't use the Chosun times for departure in connection with the Murakawa papers. The reason is because in the Chosun document Anyongbok states he confronted the Japanese and then followed them immediately to Oki. "

When I pointed out that there is no immediately in original document, you wrote;
"The original document of the Anyongbok record I have is as follows. "
"...Early in the next morning I sailed for Jasando (Japanese name Songdo/Matsushima) and when I got there these Japanese people were stewing some meat oil in large iron pot. I picked up a large piece of wood and hit and broke the pot with it while shouting at them. They started packing their belongings in a boat and sailed off. So, I got in my boat and followed them, however I suddenly met with a storm and drifted to Oki Island..."

There is no "immediately" even in your translation.
When I pointed this fact to you and warned you I will call you a liar if you don't admit you made a mistake, you shifted that since it says "so" it should have been immediately.
But there was no "so" or any conjunction in the original document.
When I pointed out, you started to shift the responsibility of your mistake to the historical publishing committee now.
You have never admitted that you made a mistake because you cannot read original document even once or say sorry to have made a mistake. That is because I decided to call you a liar. I gave you numerous time to admit your mistake, but you ignored, made excuses and pretended you didn't do nothing wrong.

You wrote;
"Show some class and respect for those who come on this forum and don't call people liars whether you agree or not. Take the time and read the insults you have posted. Never once did I ever insult you. You should be ashamed."

So now you are the victim only because you were accused of not admitting you made mistake when I warned you to call you a liar if you don't do that?

You insulted me many times even before. These are only one of them.
"Read the original documents please."→ I was exactly reading original. You are the one who cannot read original but depend on translation by Korean.

"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." →"blind nationalism"? Prove me !

”Kaneganese, I say the Japanese battled the winds and currents because it is a fact. The winds in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) usually blow from the Southwest or Northwest depending on the season."
If it is a fact, then where are documents which says that Oya and Murakawa clan batteled against the winds and currents before 1696? This is 6th time to ask you this. If you don't want me to call you a liar and feel insulted by that, just show me your claim is based on the fact.

not anonymous said...

Kaneganese, the translation says he left "곧" which means right then and there. This document was translated by professionals from a 750 page collection of Korean Dokdo-related Chosun records.

Is Pacifist a Korean historian or professional translator?
Are you a Korean historian or a professional translator?
Have you published any historical publications or journals?

I trust this translation because translation is not a simple as "plugging and chugging" characters into an electric translator. I also trust it more that yours because it was done by Korean historians and professionals. You are niether.

An example would be Pacifists literal translation of the Hanja character "끌" which literally meanse to pull or drag. I found it highly doubtful Anyoeongbok dragged a boat to Matsushima. This word also means "to lead" like in a group so you must be careful not to use only literal translations of these characters. You must have an intimate knowledge of history and language to accurately translate.

However, I still think it's great these documents are being translated by those on this forum. But still I'm very leary of some the translations.

Whether you agree with this book's translation is not the issue here. You accused me of lying and you were wrong, I didn't lie. You should learn to control your temper because it makes you look desperate.

pacifist said...

toadface,

The important thing is that old Koreans wrote the documents in Chinese character. We Japanese and (of course Chinese) can read the documents written in Chinese letter, while a few Koreans now can read them.

You are talking about the translated documents into hanglu and you translated it into English.

You know, translation is always accompanying omission and changing of phrases - if you translate some English text to Spanish by machine translation and then translate it into English again with another mchine translater, the text would be different one.

So usually double-translation is inferior to single translation.
At least, Kaneganese and I are reading the original documents in Chinese letter and translating them directly.

Kaneganese said...

Toadface wrote;
"Kaneganese, the translation says he left "곧" which means right then and there."
Original says "倭等收聚載船, 擧帆回去, 渠仍乘船追趁, " There is absolutely no conjunction in the sentence whatever it is. This very simple grammer. If there is a conjunction in Korean professional translation, they must have put it so that it sounds more smoothly, I guess. But the point is, There were no ”immediately” even in the Korean translation. It was your assumption, apparantely. Anyway, as far as you don't admit you made mistake and apologize, and still try to shift the responsibility of your ignorance to me or Korean historian, I have to keep calling you a liar, unfortunately, so that people who came to this site can know what you says is not based on the fact or original document, but just an assumption.

”Kaneganese, I say the Japanese battled the winds and currents because it is a fact."
If it is a fact, then show me the documents which says that Oya or Murakawa clan batteled against the winds and currents before 1696? This is 7th time to ask you this. Actually, I know the original Japanese document which states completely different, but I am politely asking you to present your evidence first.

Gerry Bevers said...

Kaneganese,

In the Korean translation of 渠仍乘船追趁 HERE, it says the following:

제가 곧 배를 타고 뒤쫓았습니다.

"I immediately boarded the ship and chased them."


The Korean 곧 can mean "immediately" or "soon." However, looking at the original Chinese characters, I do not understand how they came up with the translation "imediately." I think the problem is that Non-Anonymous (Toadface) simply looked at the Korean without considering the Chinese characters.

By the way, how would you translate 渠仍乘船追趁?

Kaneganese said...

"The Korean 곧 can mean "immediately" or "soon." "
Oh, I thought it means "so", "right then" and "there", at least that was toadface explained to me. If that is true, I understand why he said immediately, then.

Kaneganese said...

And as for the 渠仍乘船追趁, I noticed "仍" can be translated as conjunction like "then",I thought it measn "the head and the others rode on the boat and chased them." I think I have to admit I made a mistake in the last comment and apologize to especially toadface on this point. And thank you, Gerry.

Gerry Bevers said...

Kaneganese,

Actually, the Korean translation of 渠仍乘船追趁 is a little bit wrong. Instead of translating it as, "I immediately boarded the ship and chased them," I would translate it as, "He then boarded his ship and gave chase."

The character 渠 should be translated as "He," not as "I." As for the character 仍, I think "then" would be a better translation. Maybe, 仍 was translated as "immediately" because it looks like 乃, which can be translated as "immediately." Or maybe it was common for people to to mix up the use of 仍 and 乃? Anyway, the meaning seems to be pretty much the same.

However, I still do not understand why An Yong-bok would wait for the Japanese to load up their boat and sail off before chasing after them. Such an illogical action is what makes me think that An Yong-bok was either lying or was not prepared to stop them when he was on "Usando," and had to go back and get reinforcements and a larger boat before he could give chase.

By the way, Kaneganese, all of us make innocent mistakes, so do not worry about it. I have already made a few mistakes today. What bother's me about Non-anonymous (Toadface), however, it that I do not think all of this mistakes are innocent.

Kaneganese said...

Thank you Gerry.

The sentence "渠仍乘船追趁" is grammertically irregular, if it used as a conjunction. That was one of the reason I misread it. For example, it was used ad "仍進船頭大喝", "仍給糧" in other sentences in this document.

Anyway, though the word "仍" has meaning of "then", it could have been used in other meaning. It has so many meanings.(But no meaning of immediately, that's for sure.) I will make sure about this tomorrow.

As for "渠" I still thinks it means the head or leader since he was not the only one who came to Japan on the boat. If the word "仍" means "then", not "the others" or "subordinates", it makes Ahn was the only one who rode on the boat and chased.

By the way, I apologized to him only because I made mistakes (actually, we both did) and it might have caused some confusion to the readers. Anyway, as I said before, I too think everyone is allowed to make mistakes, but I also think that if he/she realized he/she did, the person should be admit it and hopefully to apologize so that readers can understand what was mistake. At least this is my stance and it also applys to myself.

I really enjoy debating on this site since I can learn and find more than I study on my own. Especially you and pacifist are here to give me an honest opinion and correct my mistakes. I hope we can enjoy making assumptions more, too, since it is very fun to assume...

Kaneganese said...

Update for the word "仍";

I got an e-mail from my Chinese friend (with a Doctoral degree from Tokyo Uni.) and she said it is only used as "still!" as in "She is still hungry." in modern Chinese. So I looked into the bigger dictionary, and it says this "仍" is only used as a verb and a adverb But it is used when you want to show the causal relationship. Not the relation of time. So it wasn't a conjunction afterall...Anyway, sorry for the confusion. If I found any information, I will update as soon as possible.

not anonymous said...

Wrong Gerry, the diary of Leegyuwon I posted said Jukdo Islet couldn't be climbed and it was dangerous. "..둘레가 십리쯤 되는데 위험해서 올라가지 못하였다..". Really I don't know which translation is authentic because I'd have to see the original text. You saw yourself the link is from toron's website.

One thing is clear Gerry, both Leegyuwon (1882) and Shim Jin Hyeon (1794) made no mention that anyone lived on Jukdo Islet at all.

The issue of the nieghbour island in your documents is disputed by Koreans and Japanese. Some say Dokdo and of course Japanese insist it is Jukdo Islet. But there is no clear proof either way what the identity of this "island" really is.

Now you are using an article about how people in India had to collect water. What the heck is your point? If the ancient Koreans or Japanese on Ulleungdo wanted access to clean fresh water in the area all they had to do was travel a whopping 2kms to Yeomsogol Waterfall. It was actually in visual distance from Jukdo. Better yet they could travel about 5 mins further and go to Jukam Waterfall with excellent mooring and fresh water.

Here is a picture of Ulleungdo from Jukdo. Yeomsogol Waterfall is somewhere along this shoreline. Yet you insist Koreans would rather hump up a 100 meter cliff or drink mucky pond water?? Why bother, Ulleungdo was paradise.

Fresh Water Here


Gerry, try as you might you are sunk. As long as there are documents both Japanese and Korean that clearly state Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima the best you can do is create doubt or a theory.

Usando is Matsushima

Gerry Bevers said...

Non-Anonymous,

Being dangerous and being impossible are two different things. You said that old Korean documents said it was "impossible" to climb up onto Jukdo, which was a lie. One said it was dangerous, and the other said it was difficult, and one version did not even mention it. Can you even admit that?

You are getting ridiculous again, Toadface. Lee Gyu-won and Shim Jin-hyeon do not have to have said that people lived on Jukdo because others before and after them did say that people lived on Ulleungdo's neighboring island and people are living there today, so your statement that it would be better if they lived near Jukam Waterfall is moot.

The people on Ulleungdo's Jukdo use a rain-capture pond for their drinking water. I posted the article about the rain-capture ponds in India to show that it does not require 20th century technology, as you suggested.

Non-Anonymous (Toadface) wrote:

Gerry, try as you might you are sunk. As long as there are documents both Japanese and Korean that clearly state Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima the best you can do is create doubt or a theory.

I do not know how old you are, Toadface, but you write and act like a silly, little kid.

not anonymous said...

Gerry, I thought you could read Korean.

What does "..둘레가 십리쯤 되는데 위험해서 올라가지 못하였다..". mean to you?

From what I understand it means "It (Jukdo) was 10 ri around it was so dangerous so we couldn't climb it..." Right?

I really don't understand why this translation has this line but the other doesn't. Maybe the Hanja text translation left it out. It doesn't seem like an embellishment. I've seen this version on the net for some time. I really don't know. However 4kms around is pretty close to the circumference of Jukdo Islet.

Gerry, you say people lived on Jukdo long ago but your own documents from 1902 say they didn't. You say Jukdo Islet is Usando but clear Japanese and Korean documents say Usando was what Japanese called Matsushima (Dokdo).

You can never build a solid theory on assumptions when historical clear historical documents clearly state otherwise. Just doubt.

I'm not going to respond to your insults.

Gerry Bevers said...

Non-Anonymous,

Here is the translation:

"...위험해서 올라가지 못하였다"

"It was dangerous, so we couldn't go up."


Again, "dangerous" does not mean "impossible, which is what you wrote before. The person who translated the Chinese into Korean used "못하였다," but I think he should have used "않았다" since there was no 너무 used in front of 위험하다. I am not sure if Chinese distinguishes between 못하다 and ~않다, but in Korean there is a difference, which even Koreans ignore sometimes. Here is the translation with 않았다:

"It was dangerous, so we didn't go up."

The above translation does not mean they couldn't go up, but that they chose not to go up because it was dangerous. It does not say that it was dangerous because of the waves or because of the cliffs. It only says that it was dangerous. Even today, boat trips to Ulleungdo's Jukdo are often cancelled because of high waves.

There was no 너무 in the Korean, so your translation of "so dangerous so" is misleading. The original Chinese is needed to make sure. By the way, the 1902 Japanese document said there was no one living on Jukdo in 1902 because there was no water, not because the cliffs were impossible to climb.

I think the reason there are two versions of Lee Gyu-won's diary is that the one on your site was Lee Gyu-won's official, edited report to the Korean king, and the other was a translation of his unedited diary.

Non-Anonymous wrote:

Gerry, you say people lived on Jukdo long ago but your own documents from 1902 say they didn't.

The 1902 document said there was no one living on Jukdo in 1902; it did not say "people didn't live on Jukdo long ago." Again, this another perfect example of how you use faulty interpretations to mislead people.

I do know why you want to talk about Matushima and Usando for the umpteenth time, but the only thing clear about about Usando is that it was shown as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo on both Korean and Japanese maps. There are no Japanese or Korean maps that show Usando as Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima). Do you have such a map? If you do, link to it.

Korean King Kojong also said that "Songdo" (Matsushima) and Jukdo were alternate names for Songjukdo, which he said was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. When Lee Gyu-won inspected Ulleungdo in 1882, he found Jukdo, but he said there was no island called Usando. That was written in his diary. Lee concluded that Usando was just another name for Ulleungdo.

Lee's 1882 survey of Ulleungdo shows that Koreans did not know about Liancourt Rocks at the time. In fact, Koreans most likely never visited the rocks until Japanese fishing boats took them there in the early 1900s, which would explain why Koreans used the Japanese name to refer to the Liancourt Rocks, not Usando.

If you do not want to be insulted, stop making childish comments.

Gerry Bevers said...

Correction: Lee Gyu-won mentioned Usando in a separate document, not in his diary.

not anonymous said...

Gerry writes:

Again, "dangerous" does not mean "impossible, which is what you wrote before. The person who translated the Chinese into Korean used "못하였다," but I think he should have used "않았다" since there was no 너무 used in front of 위험하다. I am not sure if Chinese distinguishes between 못하다 and ~않다, but in Korean there is a difference, which even Koreans ignore sometimes. Here is the translation with 않았다:

Don't edit and replace text to suit your agenda Gerry, that is very shabby. The translation says Jukdo couldn't be climbed that's all. If we view the original document we can go from there but your "editing" and translation are a pretty lame approach to historical study.

The 1902 article says no one lived on Jukdo Islet and it gave a reason why (no fresh water) It is your assumption they did. Clear historical records always take precedent over assumption Gerry,

Your own website header reads:

Personal attacks, foul language, and comments dealing with unrelated issues will be unwelcome and may be deleted. The goal is civil discussion and debate.

Don't shift the blame for your behaviour onto me. Just because you disagree with my comments gives you no right to hurl personal insults. If you do, it makes you look like a hypocrite. I already endured being wrongfully called a liar by Kaneganese on another thread. Be civil.

Gerry Bevers said...

Non-Anonymous,

You do lie, Toadface, and when you lie, people have a right to call you a liar. As for the incident with Kaneganese, I think she admitted her mistake, something that you rarely admit.

Lee Gyu-won's official report to King Kojong did not say Jukdo could not be climbed. The version you linked to is a translation of something that even you are unsure of. I think I have a right to be suspicious of a translation of a supposed diary of Lee Gyu-won that is different from the official report.

I did not edit or replace any text. I think I made it pretty clear that I was only suggesting a possible mistranslation. You, on the other, regularly misinterpret and mistranslate documents and then claim them as "historical fact." Your attempt to misinterpret the 1902 Japanese document is a good example.

I will try to be more civil if you try to be less childish.

pacifist said...

Gerry,

Could you get an original text by Lee Gyu-won?
I think it was written in Chinese letter, so Kaneganese and I would be some of help to give some clue to the interpretation of the sentence.

Kaneganese said...

I 'd like to see the original document, too.

Toadace,

You misconstrued my apology. I apologized for my having misread the word "仍" and making possible confusion. I didn't apologized to you because you didn't lie, but because it is understandable you misread "곧" in Korean at first. But I don't think Korean history foundation used the word "곧" as "immediately". As far as the word "仍" doesn't have any meaning of "immediately" and it is clear that Ahn chased Japanese next day from other document, you should have admit that you misread the word, instead insulting me as making assumption, or shifting blame to Korean history foundation.

Besides, you still haven't showed me which document stated that Japanese in those days sailed against winds and currents to reach Matsushima or Takeshima. Was it done by Murakawa or Oya? This is very important for me if it was true. If you don't want to endure being called a liar by me anymore, you really need to present the document.

not anonymous said...

The translation I cited said he left 곧 means he left "immediately" And I agree with this because it matches the Korean definition of this character and is most suitable for the situation.

You quoted:

"..Where does it say he chased immediately? Check pacifist's translation if you can't read original. Now, you are a certified liar. Not only you lied that Ahn chased Japanese immediately,..."

You called me liar simply because I cited a translation and that is so mannerless. You never even gave me a chance to explain, you just run off at the mouth.

The translation from the historical committee that translated this document in the publication said 곧 meaning immediately. I still stand by their translation.

곧=immediately

From other information I've seen the character "仍" (잉) means "그대로 따르다" in Korean meaning "likewise", "copied", "did the same thing or in the same way."

It would read like "I likewise got into my boat and chased them.." or "In the same manner I got in my boat and took chase." I did the same and got into my boat and followed them.

At any rate, none of these translations even remotely indicate Anyongbok sat around for another night on Matsushima at all. That is only your translation and a very weak one at that.

Regarding the travel times and wind direction. The only fact I was stating is the winds in the East Sea travel predominantly come from the Southwest in spring and the Northwest in fall. That's all.

You asked me how I knew the Japanese of the Edo Era would have battled winds to reach Takeshima and Matsushima and I used the known weather pattern of this region to explain. Even the Murakawa records of the Anyongbok incident recorded the strong western winds. This was typical weather of this time or year in the East Sea, and it still is today.

Gerry Bevers said...

Pacifist,

Yes, Lee Gyu-won's diary was written in Chinese characters, and I have the version that was submitted to the Korean king, but if the Korean translation that Non-Anonymous (Toadface) linked to is to be believed, then the version submitted to King Kojong may be an edited version. I do not know why the original version of that translation is not on the Web.

By the way, I have noticed over the past few months that the Korean government, media, and Web sites have essentially stopped talking about the historical issues related to Dokdo/Takeshima. I have also noticed that Korean maps on the Web seem to be disappearing, as well as online access to original Korean documents. For example, Seoul National University has essentially closed its Kyugangak map and document room to online visitors. Also, the site's s online search function no longer works.

It seems the Korean government and "educational institutions" may have decided that public access to Korean maps and documents was hurting Korea's Dokdo cause more than helping. Now Dokdo/Takeshima-related news seems to be limited to talking about Dokdo festivals and pep rallies. In other words, Korean Dokdo advocates now seem to think it is better to nurthur Dokdo cheerleaders rather than Dokdo scholars. And I guess that is a smart thing to do because the more you learn about Dokdo, the more you realize that it was Japanese territory.

not anonymous said...

Gerry, the more you study Dokdo the more you realize Japan had no claim to Dokdo before the Japanese military annexed the island during the Russo~Japanese War. Thus we know Japan's involvement on Dokdo was simply a stepping-stone in their overall plan to control and colonize the Korean peninsula.

The Truth of Japan's Clain to Dokdo

Japanese historical maps do not show Dokdo as part of Japan prior to their military seizing the island.

No Dokdo1
No Dokdo2
No Dokdo3
No Dokdo4

Gerry, you've often stated the Japanese colonization of Korea was a good thing. However, the rest of the free world doesn't agree because the colonial era is over.

Gerry Bevers said...

Non-Anonymous (Toadface) wrote:

Japanese historical maps do not show Dokdo as part of Japan prior to their military seizing the island.

From whom did the Japanese military seize Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima)? From Korea? Japan officially incorporated Liancourt Rocks in 1905, and Korea did not even know about it until more than a year later in 1906? Is that what you call a "military seizure," Toadface?

Japan officially incorporated Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takesima) into a Japanese administrative district in 1905, but Japan considered the rocks "unincorporated" Japanese territory even before then, as was indicated in the 1878 letter from the Director of the Japanese Foreign Ministry's Document Division (See HERE). Here are the relevant quotes from the letter:

The (mentioned) “Takeshima” is considered to be Chosun’s Ulleungdo, which the Shogunate ended up entrusting to them (Koreans) as a convenient quick fix, without considering future implications. Therefore, if the “Matsushima” being talked about here is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it belongs to them. If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan. It is still inconclusive.

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.


As said above, Japan did not officially incorporate Liancourt Rocks until 1905, but before that there were Japanese maps that showed Liancourt Rocks and those that did not. The reason the rocks did not appear on all Japanese maps was most likely due to the fact that Liancourt Rocks was just a small grouping of unihabited, barren rocks that was "unincorporated territory." Think about it. How many maps of the United States show the unincorporated territory of Midway Island belonging to the US? And Midway Island is even bigger than Liancourt Rocks?

There is not even one old Korean map that shows Liancourt Rocks, and there is no record that Koreans even visited the rocks before the Japanese took them there in the early 1900s, so how many people do you think your "selected" Japanese maps and silly theories will convince?

Non-Anonymous wrote:

Gerry, you've often stated the Japanese colonization of Korea was a good thing. However, the rest of the free world doesn't agree because the colonial era is over.

I see by the above irrelevant statement that you are still being childish. Anyway, why don't you link to some of those quotes, so that we can see in what context they were made?

not anonymous said...

“Incorporate?” Isn't that a convenient word Gerry. Why don't you enlighten us as why Japan "incorporated" Takeshima in 1905 at the height of the Russo~Japanese War in 1905?

I suppose you going to regurgitate the rubbish statements of Japan's MOFA that Japan wanted to enter the lucrative "seal hunting" industry as 500,000 soldiers massed in Mukden, China, the Pacific Fleet lay in besieged Port Arthur, and the Baltic Fleet rapdily approached. Yeah OK Gerry, whatever.

Now you are comparing Midway Island to Takeshima. Gerry how far is Midway from the nearest American landfall? It would have been no problem for the Japanese cartographers to include Matsushima~Liancourt Rocks on maps of Shimane Prefecture. After all these charts had appended maps of Oki Island and tiny Minoshima. Face the facts Gerry, Japan has zero historical claim to Takeshima prior to 1905. You've stated that yourself.

Are you still cutting and pasting that old Watanabe Kuoki document Gerry? First he said "Foreign maps showed these rocks as Japanese Territory" Second he thought there may have been another island in the East Sea. Third after they surveyed the region the issue of "Songdo" was dropped and all maps of Japan or Shimane failed to show Liancourt Rocks as part of Japan.

Probably the most instrumental person in the annexation of Dokdo had to be Admiral Kimotsuki of the Japanese Navy's Hydrographic Department. He was the man in charge of pushing through Nakai Yozaburo's application to "incorporate" Dokdo. He was the one who ordered a construction survey to be undertaken an reported by the Warship Tsushima.

Admiral Kimotsuki also stated Liancourt Rocks were "completely ownerless" in September of 1904. This kills any assertions by Japanese of a historical land claim Gerry.

The documents are far and few between, but we know Koreans were at the very least cognizant of Dokdo before the Japanese Navy annexed the island. Thus Japan's terra nullius claim cannot be supported. If Japan's historical claim is a sham and their ownerless territory claim is questionable why should Korea go to the ICJ?

Let's not and say we did......

Gerry Bevers said...

Non-Anonymous wrote:

Why don't you enlighten us as why Japan "incorporated" Takeshima in 1905 at the height of the Russo~Japanese War in 1905?

I have already enlightened you, but here it is again:

Petition to Incorporate Ryanko-to (Liancourt Rocks)

Non-Anonymous wrote:

The documents are far and few between, but we know Koreans were at the very least cognizant of Dokdo before the Japanese Navy annexed the island.

Yes, I said that Koreans started traveling on Japanese ships to Liancourt Rocks in the early 1900s, so some Korean fishmen, at least, were cognizant, but there is no evidence before 1905 that the Korean government was cognizant. Also, the Korean fishermen used the Japanese name to refer to the islets, which suggests that it was the first time that the Koreans had ever seen or heard of the islets.

Non-Anonymous wrote:

Face the facts Gerry, Japan has zero historical claim to Takeshima prior to 1905. You've stated that yourself.

Have you taken any drugs tonight, Toadface?

Kaneganese said...

Toadface wrote;
"The translation I cited said he left 곧 means he left "immediately" And I agree with this because it matches the Korean definition of this character and is most suitable for the situation."
No, it doesn't. He left Matsushima next day. And the original word "仍" doesn't have the meaning of immediately. See the original not confusing translation.
"五月十五日竹嶋出船 同日松嶋江着 同十六日松嶋ヲ出十八日之朝"「元禄九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一巻之覚書」

”Kaneganese, I say the Japanese battled the winds and currents because it is a fact. The winds in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) usually blow from the Southwest or Northwest depending on the season."
"Regarding the travel times and wind direction. The only fact I was stating is the winds in the East Sea travel predominantly come from the Southwest in spring and the Northwest in fall. That's all.
You asked me how I knew the Japanese of the Edo Era would have battled winds to reach Takeshima and Matsushima and I used the known weather pattern of this region to explain. Even the Murakawa records of the Anyongbok incident recorded the strong western winds. This was typical weather of this time or year in the East Sea, and it still is today."

Mmmm...So you only assumed it. That was so disappointing to me, and it clearly shows how ignorant and inconsistant you are. I hope you would apologize this time.

This is what you wrote, too;
"You can never build a solid theory on assumptions when historical clear documents clearly state otherwise. Just doubt."
Sounds familiar?

The reason I wanted to know if it is true or not was because I knew that Japanese traditional ships couldn't sail against strong winds until the mid-Edo era. That is why there are so many descriptions on the maps the place of waiting for winds. They had to wait until the favorable winds come, sometimes it was for weeks. The Edo Bakuhu prohibited Japanese shipwright to change the structure of the ships like Western or Chinese ships. But it looks like Japanese in mid-Edo era started to invent the new system of the sail so that they can use the against winds. I was curious since I thought these invention only applied to the bigger ships like ove 1000-Koku grade vessels, but Oya and Murakawa clan's ships were only 200-Koku as far as I read. This is one of some examples. 「伯耆民談記」松岡布政(Houki folklore by Matsuoka Nobumasa) in 1742 says that the people who go to Takeshima in March or April had to go to Oki first and wait for the strong Southern winds and left for the sailing."渡嶋の者、三、四月頃先隠岐国へ渡り居、強き南風を待て、とも綱をとき押渡る。"
You can see the whole documents on the new WebTakeshima Research Center site. It openend 28th of September.

By the way, Kimotsuki Kaneyuki was not Admiral as pacifist already told you, but he did became Vice Admiral years later. He was an expert of the surveying, and was a director of the department of surveyrance(水路部長) of the Japanese Imperial Navy at the time. He must have had known the eastern limit of Choson (130°35′) excludes Liancourt Rocks since the the waterway guide published by the department in 1894 clearly tells that. It is natural that the director advised Nakai that the Liancourt Rocks was not Korean territory. It is always fun to hear the conspiracy theory, but the prevailing facts clearly tells that was not the case. As long as there is no single evidence that Korean officials even knew where it was, no maps which depict the island with geographical accuracy, no documents which tells Korean had ever been there before Japanese did without doubt nor Korea had ever sovereignty over the island, it only shows that how excellent Mr. Kimotsuki was as a surveying engineer. No wonder he became the Mayor of Osaka city later. Korean head official on the Ulleundo didn't even know where the island was even in 1906. Korean official geography text in 1899 and 1907 clearly exclude the island from it's eastern limit of territory.

"tiny Minoshima"
What is Minoshima? You are not possibley talking about 見島 in Yamaguchi, right? The island locates only 45km offshore of Mainland of Japan and the size is 7.73 square kilometres with the population of more than 1000 people. It is almost 40 times as big as Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks. It is natural those two islands (Oki and Mishima) were included in the maps since they are big enough and locates within the limit of the paper. I have told you before that even today's geographical maps used in Junior high school doesn't describe Takeshima in the Chugoku area(中国地方) maps, but they does in the Japanese territorial maps. Those maps you are proudly showing are useless for territorial claims. "Maps are made for various purposes. Your map won't be nothing even if it doesn't depict the island. But if some maps show the island while others don't, they will be a proof that some mapmakers knew the island. here are old Japanese maps that show Liancourt rocks, but NO Korean maps that show the island. toadface, to relate about maps will be disadvantage for you." (by pacifist),

Here are the Japanese maps which include Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks in Japanese territory between 1850-1930.

The maps which include Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks in Japanese territory between 1850-1940. (Many of them are from Web Takeshima Research Center site. There are so many newly found maps !! I'm going to translate them as soon as possible. )

1857 「亜細亜小東洋圖」 
1861 佐藤政養 「新刊輿地全図」
1862 井上治兵衞「日本郡國一覽」
1864 逸見豐次郎「増訂 日本輿地全圖」
1864 「大日本海陸全図」 
1865 松川半山譯 「新刻 大日本程路全圖」
1873 Meiji government 「L'Empire du Japon」  
1874 葎窓貞雅「大日本西国四国九州地図」
1876 「小学用地図」 
1881 内務省地理局「大日本府県分轄図」(Great Japanese Map of Prefectures) 
1907 川岡清助「島根県精図」 
1907 川岡清助「島根県図」 
1909 陸地測量部「東亜輿地図」【ヨ292-187A】  松江
1909 大阪毎日新聞社「大阪毎日新聞社新撰訂刻 世界交通全図」 
1912 島根県隠岐島庁「隠岐全図」
1923 島根県隠岐島庁『隠岐島報』第12号所収「隠岐及竹島全図」 
1924 島根県『島根県警察統計便覧』所収「島根県全図」
1924 荒木市之助商店「隠岐国地図」
1934 島根県『島根県隠岐島統計一覧表』所収「隠岐及竹島全図」
1934 島根県『島根県隠岐島統計一覧表』所収 島内略記(竹島)
1936 島根県『島根県産業要覧』所収「島根県産業地図」
隠岐堂「隠岐島全図」

Gerry Bevers said...

Wow, Kaneganese! There are some great maps at that site:

Link to Japanese Maps

pacifist said...

Gerry,

There are also great maps of Korea in the same site.
http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_01/takeshima04d.html

not anonymous said...

Kanganese, I've given you 2 translations one published that show nowhere in Anyongbok's Chosun documents does it say he waited overnight. The Japanese got into their boat and left. Anyongbok also got in his boat and followed them but lost chase because of a storm.

Thanks for the good laugh with the maps Kaneganese. Any Japanese map that shows Takeshima 竹島 as Japanese territory (which almost all of the maps you've posted do) aren't worth the paper they were scrawled on. Everyone on this forum knows Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was Korean territory even in the eyes of Japanese.

Seriously, who do you think you are kidding by posting those maps? These maps show exactly how desperate Shimane Prefectre is in keeping alive their flimsy claim to Dokdo. They are even trying to mislead their own people into thinking the Japanese considered Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was Japan's land in the 19th Century. What a joke!!

Of course some post 1905 maps of Shimane show Takeshima, by then the island had been annexed. What's your point on those maps is beyond me. I posted the maps above to show Japan had no claim to Liancourt prior to 1905 and I've proved it quite well.

The diary of Nakai Yozaburo records the Japanese Navy's Hydrographic Department Director. Kimotsuki told Nakai that Liancourt Rocks was "ownerless".

Japan's then Political Affairs Bureau Director Yamaza Enjiro. He said the incorporation was urgent particularly under the present situation, and it is absolutely necessary and advisable to construct watchtowers and install wireless or submarine cable and keep watch on the hostile warships..

The Home Ministry authorities had an opinion that the gains would be extremely small while the situation would become grave if the acquisition of a barren islet suspected of being Korean territory at this point of time [during the Russo-Japanese War] would amplify the suspicions of various foreign countries that Japan has an ambition to annex Korea. Thus, Nakai's application was rejected.

On November 20th 1904 Yamanka Shibakichi surveyed Dokdo and concluded watchtowers could be built on the East Islet. Who did he submit this report to?? You guessed it the Director of the Japanese Navy's Hydrographic Department. The Hydrograhic Dept. was an organ of the Japanese military during the Russo~Japanese War.Here is a copy of the November 20th map.

Japanese surveymap

The result of the Japanese Warship's survey was submitted to the Hydrographic Department on January 5th 1905. Here it was concluded how and where to construct watchtowers. Also included was a report on the status of fresh water on Liancourt Rocks.

Dokdo military report1

Dokdo military report2

In fact even as early September 1904 the Japanese Navy had already determined that "Liancourt Rocks' East Island was suitable for the construction of military buildings.."

Nitaka Report

All of these military activities above took place before the annexation proving without a doubt Japan's annexation of Dokdo was nothing but a military land grab undertaken during the height of the largest war in Japan's quest to colonize the entire Korea peninsula.

The colonial era is over Takeshima lobbyists. Take off your rising flags you have rapped around your heads. The truth of Japan's military involvement on Takeshima is killing their claim.

pacifist said...

toadface,

Are you still insisting the childish opinion concerning the Russo-Japanese war?

If Korea was under Japanese control already in 1905 (as you've insisted), why did Japan need to incorporate the Liancourt rocks in order to build watch towers? There was no need to incorporate it.

As a matter of fact, the wacth tower was built in Ulleungdo on 3rs August 1904 (established on 1st September 1904). It was built at Chejudo on 27th August 1904 (established on 20th September 1904). These were built before the rocks were incorporated.

BTW, do you know when the watch tower was built on the Liancourt rocks, toadface?

It was on 25th July 1905 (established on 19th August 1905), it was after the incorporation.

So it is a silly opinion that Japan needed to incorporate Takeshima (Liancourt rocks) to build watch towers, as they already built on Korean islands in 1904.

And after the incorporation of an "ownerlesee" (that means it was not Korean territory) island, it was free to build anything on it.

not anonymous said...

Pacifist, I've cited enough documents that predate Japan's incorporation to prove Japan's motives for incorporation. That was my whole point. The Tsushima's November survey and report issued January 5th 1905 all predate Japan's incorporation showing the navy's military agenda for Takeshima was anything but an afterthought. But nice try anyway Pacifist.

One of the focuses of these documents was to investigate Japan's activities prior to February 23 1905 in an attempt to ascertain why Japan as a nation felt an urgent need to annex these islands.

The Japanese were constructing facities during all stages of the Russo~Japanese War. Ulleungdo's work started in 1904 and ended late in 1905 because more watchtowers were added as they went along. They were continually improving their defence systems and Ulleungdo ended up having three watchtowers.

You put forth a good question though. Why didn't the Japanese Navy put up the watchtower right away when their November 20th survey concluded the East Islet's topography was suitable?

The first reason was weather. The waters surrounding Ulleungdo and Liancourt are very heavy seas during the winter. There is a lot of snow and visibility is quite often poor at this time. Dokdo's topography made it very difficult to engage in construction work during heavy seas.

The second reason was proximity. The waters around Liancourt Rocks were hostile compared to the South. And although the Vladivostok Fleet was not that much of a threat, Russian warships were still spotted in the Ulleungdo region as recorded in the Niitaka's November logbooks.

The other reason is war. The Japanese Navy were busy engaging Russia's Pacific Fleet in Port Arthur (Dalian). On top of that the Japanese were very busy preparing for Russia's other fleet (the Baltic Fleet) which was rounding Africa's Cape Horn around January.

No Takeshima was not the big prize. But with watch towers on these rocks they could link both communications across the East Sea and maintain a band of visibility from the Korea's Jukbyeon Harbor to Matsue Japan. No Russian ships could pass through without being detected unless visibility was limited by poor weather.

Note how these 1905 Japanese naval maps show how they tracked the Baltic Fleet as they raced to assist the Pacific Fleet in Port Arthur (Dalian)

Baltic 1

Baltic 2

As I've shown on this forum the Japanese Navy was up to their "armpits in alligators at this time" They were busy conducting manouvers, training for shelling, and meticulously mapping and zoning the East Sea as well as the Southern coast of Korea.

This Japanese Naval map from January 1st 1905 shows how Japan zoned and mapped the East Sea. Naval regiments were assigned to each region. Note the waters surrounding Liancourt Rocks were also zoned although these waters were not part of Japan.

East Sea Warzone

Included with the map above were maps of Korea's southeast coast that was also zoned for the Japanese Navy's various regiments.

South Coast Warzone

This map shows how the Japanese Navy's zoned Korea's Jinhae Harbor where Admiral Togo's fleet was stationed in wait for the Baltic Fleet.

Korea's Jinhae Warzone

As I mentioned before Pacifist, Political Affairs Bureau Director Yamaza Enjiro said

"....The incorporation was urgent particularly under the present situation, and it is absolutely necessary and advisable to construct watchtowers and install wireless or submarine cable and keep watch on the hostile warships. This was at least five months before Japan annexed Dokdo..."

pacifist said...

toadface,

So, what is your point?
Japan desperately prepared for the battle to survive. It is natural for a small country in order to win the battle with the huge empire. That's all, it's not related to the ownership of the barren rocks.

toadface, I will let you know that if Japan's navy eagerly want to incorporate it, it would be due to a fear that Russia would occupy the rocks beforehand. Of course, the rocks were in Japan's territory, at least it was known that they were out of Korean territory, but they were not officially declared to be Japan's rocks. So navy wanted the rocks, but it was not for the watch towers.

And I will repeat this again, the rocks had never ever been owned by Korea. They were not related to Korea. (Please read my posting about Usando.)

not anonymous said...

It's nice to see you finally admitting Japan's 1905 annexation of Dokdo was just a military land grab Pacifist. It is your first step to salvation.

There are problems for Japan in basing their claim to Takeshima on the Japanese Navy's military annexation of Dokdo.

The first would simply be public opinion. The international community will never support Japan's claim to Takeshima when they come to the realization that Japan is demanding islands seized during a major war at the height of her expansionist era. As these facts become more common knowledge all of the lobbying in the world won't amount to much public support and will continue to degrade Japan's image especially in Asia.

The next problem are the issues involving the legality of territorial land acquisitions during wartime and the colonization process of Korea. The documents I've cited above are proof-positive Japan's seizure of Takeshima was an inseparable part of Japan's colonization of Korea.

So whether Dokdo was part of Korea (or not) in 1905 is really not what's at issue here. What has proven is Japan's claim is rotten at the core. For Japan to demand that the ICJ help them reclaim territories they grabbed during the colonial era is appalling and it's not surprising Koreans get furious when Japan demands this.

It gives me great pride to have one of the first English websites to post the ugly truth to Japan's claim to Takeshima. It 's a great thing that the public can now view the primary documents that expose Japan's military past. Koreans have long known about the historical circumstances surrounding Japan's involvement on Ulleungdo~Dokdo in 1905.

The Koreans Know the Truth

The Japanese Don't Know

But now is the time for the rest of the world to know.

The Truth 1
The Truth 2
The Truth 3
The Truth 4
The Truth 5
The Truth 6

pacifist said...

toadface,

Read my posting carefully. I didn't say it was a military purpose. Liancourt rocks had been in the Japan's territory for 400 hundred years but it hadn't been officially declared to be Japan's land. (As a matter of fact, people didn't pay much attention to the barren rocks, I think.)

Russia once approched Tsushima and now their powerful fleet was coming. Japan tried to be a fair country in the world because the top of the military was planning to end the war with Russia in a short time. In order to cease the war in the stage of Japan's victory, they needed the world to be Japan's side.

So navy may have thought to incorporate the rocks officially before Russia takes it. If Russia declared it to be Russian island, actually they once "discovered" the island before, it would be troublesome.

But it was navy's reason. Navy wanted to be fair, that's all.

And your childish opinion concerning the watch towers and radio stations are not related to the incorporation.

It is a fact that Japan offically incorporated the rocks according to Nakai Yozaburo's plea.

pacifist said...

toadface,

Now that it has been apparent that Korea has no right to own Liancourt rocks, why don't you blame the military occupation by the dictator of South Korea - I Seung-man (Rhee Syngman)?

He did the military annaxation of Liancourt rocks and killed Japanese fishermen. Why do you praise such a dictator?

not anonymous said...

Japanese territory for 400 years Pacifist. Why don't you prove it?

Yes that's right Pacifist, the just and fair Japanese Imperial Navy~Army of the colonial expansionist era. The same Navy that stormed into Incheon, marched into Seoul and demanded that Koreans allow Japan to seize Korean territory. The same Navy that slaughtered 5000 Russians in the East Sea while three months earlier the Japanese Army killed about 30,000 Russians in Mukden, China. Yet you blubber about 40 plus fishermen

Pacifist, have done even a rudimentary historical study of the events happening in Korea/China 1904~1905 in Northeast Asia?? Because to be honest I'm getting tired of teaching you? What do they teach you Japanese in history class anyway? It's so shameful you don't know anything about the history of Japan's colonial~expansionist era.

Pacifist here is a list of the military locations Japan built on strategic coastal Korean~Chinese areas during the Russo~Japanese War:

Dalian, Uldo Island, Cheju Island, Udo, Hongdo, Palpo, Wonsan, Yeongheung, Hoeryeong, Hamheung, Gyeongseong, Bukjeong, Cheongjin, Jukpyeon, Ulsan, Jinae, Geomun Island, Baekryoeng Island, Ulleung Island, Pohang, Jinae and Pusan. The records of all these installations on Korean land are found within the same files concerning Liancourt Rocks.

And during this all of these military appropriations you still insist that Japan's annexation of Liancourt Rocks was a separate event. You are fooling nobody Pacifist. With all of the reams of documents I've posted above you and your Takeshima lobbyists' denial campaign is simply not working anymore. Sorry....

Kaneganese said...

Toadface wrote;
"Dalian, Uldo Island, Cheju Island, Udo, Hongdo, Palpo, Wonsan, Yeongheung, Hoeryeong, Hamheung, Gyeongseong, Bukjeong, Cheongjin, Jukpyeon, Ulsan, Jinae, Geomun Island, Baekryoeng Island, Ulleung Island, Pohang, Jinae and Pusan. The records of all these installations on Korean land are found within the same files concerning Liancourt Rocks."

??? Are you okay? Japan didn't incorporate those places, moreover for military porpose. The incorporation of Takeshima has nothing to do with installationsof watchtowers. You need to study again. I know you are caucasian, and it is extremly racialistic for you to totally ignore the massive Imperial Russian expansion towards Asia and only demonize Japanese unecessarily. Do you know what happened at 龍岩浦 in 1903? Russian "military grabbed" Korean land and opend their port. You are perfectly OK with Russian Imperial expansionism and grabbing Korean land? This is sad.

Besides,The Protocol Signed Between Japan and Korea of 1904 (日韓議定書) was signed on February 23, 1904, a year before the incorporation. It clearly states that Japan had obligation to protect Korea from other countries' invasion, and it had right to occupy the Korean territory for strategic reasons.

"Article 4. In case the welfare of the Imperial House of Korea or the territorial integrity of Korea is endangered by aggression of a third power or internal disturbances, the Imperial Government of Japan shall immediately take such necessary measures as circumstances require, and in such case the Imperial Government of Korea shall give full facilities to promote the action of the Imperial Japanese Government. The Imperial Government of Japan may, for the attainment of the above mentioned object, occupy when the circumstances require, such places as may be necessary for strategic reasons."

Japanese Meiji government had no need to "military grab" any land of Korea for strategic reasons. Actually, Japanese didn't incorporate Ulleundo when they built the watch tower. If they wanted to expand the territory, they must have incorporated the Ulleundo in the first place, but the fact is, they didn't.

Nakai Yosaburou was a head of Saigo town in Oki and the leader of the local fishery cooperation. He had been hunting seals from 1902 or 1903 and when many other Japanese started to hunting, he begun to worry about extinction fo the seals. So he decided to receive a licence to him so that he can run the business as a sustainable fishery. He established the company called "竹島漁猟合資会社" and continued his business until around 1925. There are lots of documents that show he was running decent private business on Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks. Hashioka Tadashige later took over Nakai's business and run the busines throuout Showa era.
The list of Takeshima fishery documents (「竹島貸下・海驢漁業書類」)
http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_01/takeshima04c.data/4-2-03.pdf
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/yonago/

When Nakai went to see Kimotsuki Kaneyuki, the director of the department of surveyrance(水路部長) of the Japanese Imperial Navy, he advised Nakai that the island should belong to Japan since it is nearer from Jaoanese mainland and there is no trace of Korean owned it but Japanese are already running". He had been working for the department since 1872 so he must have had known the eastern limit of Choson (130°35′) excludes Liancourt Rocks since the the waterway guide published by the department in 1894 clearly tells that. It is very natural that the director advised Nakai that the Liancourt Rocks was not Korean territory. There is absolutely no trace of "military grab" in his statement.

Stop spreading propaganda, toadface. Every time you are cornered you start screaming the conspiracy theory. Please stick to the fact, not assumptions. And when you made mistakes you should correct them.

pacifist said...

toadface,

Japan's militarism or expansionism began later (1920's or 1930's), the Russo-Japanese war was nothing to do with the expansionism.

As Kaneganese already pointed out, Russia had the expansionism. Western countries worried about her expansionism. They made railroads in Siberia, grabbed the lands along the north Pacific Ocean, then progressed to Manchuria and Korea to grab more.

If Japan didn't defeat Russia, Korea would be occupied with them and Japan couldn't survive. Actually, when Japan defeated Russia, many people in the various countries praised Japan - even people in Korea including the terrorist who assassinated Itoh Hirobumi.

The victory gave hope to Asian countries - India, Indonchina, Turkey, and even north Europe countries.

toadface, stop propagating Korean nationalistic view.

not anonymous said...

Pacifist, if you don't know the truth about Japanese expansionism just say so and I'll be glad to tell you.

Japan's first plan to colonize Korea started almost immediately after the Meiji government first was formed the late 1860s. In fact the very document that states Takeshima and Matsushima are part of Chosun also contained some of the first plans for the invasion of Korea.

It was the Japanese who first "opened" Korea when they deliberately provoked Korea in Chemulpo. Haven't you guys heard of the Gangwha Treaty?? The Japanese ship Unyo deliberately provoked the Koreans into an altercation in Incheon and then demanded Korea compensate the Japanese for this attack. This was the Japanese version of "gunboat diplomacy" the Americans had used against Japan in the mid 19th Century.

The Japanese expansionist era started in the 1920s?? Is that a joke? When did the Japanese take Taiwan Pacifist? When did they grab Hokkaido from the indigenous people? When did they take the Liandong Peninsula from the Chinese. Didn't you ever hear of the Triple Intervention? The Japanese were grabbing land well before the turn of the century.

Kaneganese, the Koreans did not call on the Japanese to defend them. The Imperial Navy landed on Korean soil unannounced and uninvited. Then they sank Russian boats that were anchored in Korea. After the Japanese secured Incheon, troops marched into Seoul and after weeks intimidation demanded Korea sign the treaty. Here is how the Japanese announced war.

War declared on Korean soil

Nakai Yozaburo was one of Ulleungdo's squatters who decided to switch to seal hunting when the price of seal oil went up. He like the others first conducted their business from Ulleungdo. He was not a conservationist. The Japanese sealers drove the seal to the brink of extinction on Liancourt Rocks. They overharvested thousands of seals every year. Nakai wanted to monopolize the industry, that's all.

Nakai's diary records facts both Pacifist and Kaneganese can't run and hide from. Most importantly is the quote from Political Affairs Bureau Director Yamaza Enjiro. He said "the incorporation was urgent particularly under the present situation, and it is absolutely necessary and advisable to construct watchtowers and install wireless or submarine cable and keep watch on the hostile warships..."


Kanganese if the Japanese incorporation had nothing to do with the installation of watchtowers then why did the Vice Commander of the Japanese Warship Tsushima do the construction survey of Liancourt Rock on November 20th 1904. Here is the watchtower construction map Yamanaka Shibkuchi drew for watchtower construction. Can you see the dotted lines showing range of visibility? Can you see the points (a) and (b) on the East and West Islands showing best watchtower locations??

Nov/1904 Survey Map

Here is what he said in his report submitted two months before the Japanese took Liancourt:

"...For construction sites that can be protected from the wind and waves somewhere else only two areas below are feasible.

(a) On the East side of the West Islet stands a peak whose side is so steep that the upper part cannot be climbed upright, but the lower part is gradual enough to make the way up to the middle of it. Geologically it is made up of strong stone here, and about 3 pyeong (unit of land) of level area can be made of it if some work is done on it.  Winds from every direction can be blocked except from the East.

(b) At first glance the top of the East Islet seems to have a number of flat areas, and thus seems to be suitable for construction of structures. However, a survey of this islet reveals that an enormous amount of construction is needed for a path to access a certain area. Although it is inevitable that the islet is exposed to, and thus affected by bad weather, on the South is a flat area of about 3~4 pyeong (a unit of land), and one side of the northwest appears to be isolated..."


Here is the original copy of the report.

Dokdo Report 1

Dokco Report 2

This report was submitted to Dept of Hydrographics director Kimosuki a man who was instrumental in the pushing forth of Shimane's annexation of the island. It was submitted on January 1st 1905. All before the annexation.

So you see, Japanese War records show without a doubt their Imperial Navy's agenda was the real driving force behind the annexation of Dokdo Island.

Kaneganese said...

Conspiracy theory, again?
Stop spreading propaganda, toadface. Please stick to the fact, not assumptions. And when you made mistakes you should correct them.

Toadface wrote,
"This report was submitted to Dept of Hydrographics director Kimosuki a man who was instrumental in the pushing forth of Shimane's annexation of the island. It was submitted on January 1st 1905. All before the annexation."
So? What do you want to mean, actually? Kimotsuki Kaneyuki, the director of the department of surveyrance(水路部長) of the Japanese Imperial Navy, advised Nakai that the island should belong to Japan since it is nearer from Jaoanese mainland and there is no trace of Korean owned it but Japanese are already running". He had been working for the department since 1872 so he must have had known the waterway guide (朝鮮水路誌), published by the department in 1894, clearly tells that the eastern limit of Choson (130°35′) excludes Liancourt Rocks. No wonder that the director advised Nakai that the Liancourt Rocks was not Korean territory. It was his job to survey the Korea scientifically and he clearly knew that the island was outside of Korean territory. None of pro-Korean have succeeded to show us the clear evidence of Korean ownership even in today. There is absolutely no trace of "military grab" in his statement, there were no need to grab in the first place. There were no one to grab it from.

You need to study the history in the whole context, not only in the small world of the anti-Japan context. As I said already, you need to be careful since being caucasian and ignoring all the aspects of Russian Imperial expansinism makes you totally racist. You should learn all aspect of the situation of 100 years ago if you want to lecture someone. You know what Владивосток means? You should know that. If you want to make Korea better and help them to survive for the upcoming unstable Eastern Asian political situation, Korean really need to outgrow from shortsighted anti-Japan feeling. They need to know what really happened 100 years ago when they lost their short lived ( less than 13 years) independence. What you are doing now is only spreading propaganda that makes Korean frog in a well.

The Protocol Signed Between Japan and Korea of 1904 (日韓議定書) was signed on February 23, 1904, a year before the incorporation. It clearly states that Japan had obligation to protect Korea from other countries invasion, and it had right to occupy the Korean territory for strategic reasons. There were no need for Japan to incorporate the island for strategic reasons at all.

"Article 4. In case the welfare of the Imperial House of Korea or the territorial integrity of Korea is endangered by aggression of a third power or internal disturbances, the Imperial Government of Japan shall immediately take such necessary measures as circumstances require, and in such case the Imperial Government of Korea shall give full facilities to promote the action of the Imperial Japanese Government. The Imperial Government of Japan may, for the attainment of the above mentioned object, occupy when the circumstances require, such places as may be necessary for strategic reasons."

pacifist said...

toadface,

It is amazing how you are weak in understanding. Japan's navy may have wanted to install watch towers and radio stations on the islands and coast lines of Japan Sea because one of the biggest fleet was coming to fight. It is natural, can't you see?

They searched every places to install these instruments and one of them was Liancourt rocks. That's all. but they didn't need to incorporate the rocks to install the instruments, as I've shown you, do you forget the things you heard a minute before?

And as to Taiwan and the Liandong Peninsula, don't you know that it was concluded as a treaty after the war? The treaty was concluded under the international law.

It was unlawful for three countries to interfere with the treaty and ordered Japan to give back the peninsula, it was against the international law but Japan couldn't do nothing but to obey. They (especially Russia) wanted the peninsula instead, that was the expansionism of Russia.

It was natural for the country defeated to give some lands after the war in those days. If Qing defeated Japan, they would get Chosun and some of Japan's land, such as Ryukyu (Okinawa) or Kyushu...

So it was nothing to do with expansionism. Japan didn't invade Taiwan. It was given to Japan as a compensation of the war. You must learn true history, without prejudices viewing from Korean side.

not anonymous said...

Kanganese, you are right. Japan had no need to annex Dokdo at all. But their Navy did. That is why they Cairo Convention is such a significant document, it states Japan should be expelled by territories seized by greed and violence, which the Japanese did during the Russo~Japanese War. Whether Korea owned the island or not is moot. Territorial acquisitions must be part of a natural peaceful process as Max Huber once stated.

I mentioned to you before. Korea did not ask Japan to barge into their political affairs in 1905. The Japanese Navy stormed into Incheon, marched straight into Seoul and demanded Korea sign the 1904 Protocol.

Do you know what coercion is Kaneganese? Treaties that are imposed on nations under duress are not legal.

Stop calling me anti-Japanese I'm not against Japan at all. I'm against colonialism both Western and Japanese. If Russia had annexed Dokdo in 1905 I'd be equally opposed. What Japan did in the late 19th Century and after was exactly what the white Europeans did across Asia, Africal and the New World. The difference is the Western world has and does admit this was wrong and has returned some of these lands. Japan is asking to redraw territorial boundaries to the colonial era and this is unacceptable.

Kaneganese, because of people like you, Japan can never move forward and Asia can't heal. Ask many Chinese or Koreans what they think of Japanese even today and you will see there is still bitter hatred in Asia toward Japanese. Why? Japan has to stop blaming the rest of Asia for these feelings and look at what they, themselves are doing wrong. Especially with regard to foreign political policy.

The Japanese who are in charge of foreign policy are totally incompetent. With America's footprint in Asia shrinking every day, China's power increasing, and Japan's influence going down Japan had better find a friend close to home.

It seems you already have some racial issues to deal with of your own. First you said a while back that I'm American. Well I'm not. Second you say I'm caucasian. Really....?

pacifist said...

toadface,

You don't understand the true history of Far East Asia.

Japan had annexed Korea but it was quite different from western countries' colonization. Japan tried to unite the both countries using lots of money (that was taken from Japanese citizens as a tax).

If Japan didn't do this, Korea would be collapsed. Japan didn't want to do such a costful thing but if she didn't do this, Korea would disappear and Russia or Qing would take over it, which is a menace to Japan's security.

You must learn how miserable Korean dynasty in the late 19th century to early 20th century. These facts were not taught in Korean schools because of their pride, but I think they should teach them the truth. They couldn't manage a country without a help from some other country.

After the WW II, Japan had to give up all the facilities and paid compensation. But how did UK pay something to India? No. How could India get her independence? It was a independent movement by Indian people, who were influenced by Japan's victory over Russia.

pacifist said...

toadface,

Here is a website about one of the leaders of Indian independent movement, Virendranath Chattopadhyaya:

http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/katori/Chatto.html

"He belonged to the early generation of Indian independence movement which was strongly inspired and influenced by the Japanese victory against Russia in 1905."

pacifist said...

And one more article for you;

http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200709280279.html

"Jawaharlal Nehru, who later became India's first prime minister, wrote during his imprisonment in the 1930s: "The victory of Japan, an Asian country, had a major impact on all Asian countries. I often told you how, as a child, I was moved." "

"The Chinese revolutionary and political leader Sun Yat-sen (1866-1925) pointed out that Japanese victory not only affected its Asian neighbors but also motivated independence movements in Egypt, Turkey and Afghanistan. In short, he said it gave hope to people of color who had been suppressed by the Western powers. Black American intellectuals also praised the feat by "yellow people." "

"I also remembered Phan Boi Chau (1867-1940), who led the Vietnamese independence movement from French colonial rule. Upon learning of Japan's engagement in the Russo-Japanese War, Chau secretly left Vietnam in early 1905 and arrived in Japan in the spring."

Kaneganese said...

Korea and China are just 2 countries out of 22 countries in Asia. They are the only countries in the world that are brainwashing their kids to dislike Japan. Korean hating Japan doesn't mean Asian people do the same. It only makes Korean and China exceptional even in the world.

Global Poll by by BBC finds Japan is the most well-regarded country in the world(BBC World Poll, March 05, 2007)

"Japan
Japan remains one of the most positively viewed countries worldwide. On average this year, 54 percent gave Japan a positive rating, while just 20 percent say its influence in the world is mainly negative. Out of 27 countries polled, 24 give Japan a positive rating, with just two giving it a negative and one divided. Among the 19 countries polled in both 2006 and 2007, positive views of Japan slipped slightly by 1 percentage point.

The two exceptions to this positive reputation for Japan continue to be its neighbours, China and South Korea, where majorities rate it quite negatively. Views are somewhat less negative in China compared to a year ago (71% down to 63% negative) and slightly more negative in South Korea (54% to 58% negative).

While the overall picture remained the same, positive views of Japan increased significantly in Turkey (42% to 51%), France (47% to 55%), Canada (62% to 74%), and Great Britain (57% to 63%); while positive views decreased somewhat in India (48% to 37%) and Brazil (73% to 64%).

In contrast to China and South Korea, other countries in the Asia/Pacific region have quite positive views of Japan including Indonesians (84%), Filipinos (70%) and Australians (55%). Indians also lean positive (37% positive to 16% negative).

Positive views of Japan’s influence in the world remained largely steady among Americans (66%), Russians (56%), Germans (54%), and Italians (52%). Japan is also well-regarded in the Middle East, with majorities in Lebanon (58%), the United Arab Emirates (56%), and Turkey (51%) as well as a plurality in Egypt (33%) having positive views."

And when Korean media report this, they hide the truth that Japanese are most well-regarded along with Canada in the world from Korean people and only write what they want selectively. No wonder Korean are brainwashed and don't even know that only Korean and Chinese hate Japan even in Asia.

It goes with the poll done last year, either.
Global Poll Finds Iran Viewed Negatively US Continues to Get Low Marks
Views of China, Russia, France Down Sharply
Europe and Japan Viewed Most Positively (World Public Opinion.org February 03, 2006)

Cache

More than 90% of South East Asian countries think relationship between Japan is favourable. (96% in Indonesia and Thai, 92% in Vietnam 91% in Malaysia, 89% in India) (Yomiuri Shinbun, Korean news paper"韓国日報社"and the Gallup Organization. Japanese) 

82% thinks Japan is favorable country (Gallup organization, 2007) cache

India : Japan is the most liked country in the world by Indian people. (2000)

Mongol : A public opinion study indicates an extremely high sense of affinity toward Japan. (Image of Japan Study in Mongolia by MOFA, 2005) 

I can give you a long list of the strong relationship between Asian countries and the cases favored to Japan, not Korea. See yourself.
Regional Affairs by MOFA

Toadface, because of people like you, Korea can never move forward and can't heal. Ask many Asians except Chinese or Koreans what they think of Japanese today and you will see there is favorable feeling toward Japanese. Korea has to stop blaming Japan for their own inferior feelings and look at what they, themselves are doing wrong. Especially with regard to foreign political policy.

Toadface wrote;
"Japan had no need to annex Dokdo at all. But their Navy did. "
Navy didn't incorporated Takeshima. Ministry of Internal Affairs did. Both "Japanese Sea directory" and "Korean Sea directly" which made by Japanese Navy in 1907 mention Liancourt Rocks. It suggests that Navy was not the one who lead neither the incorporation nor the conspirator for the so-called "secret land grab" at all.

Toadface wrote;
"It seems you already have some racial issues to deal with of your own. First you said a while back that I'm American. Well I'm not. Second you say I'm caucasian. Really....?"
If you don't want to be misunderstood by others, try not to use multiple sock IDs on a same site. If you keep using so many names on a similar issue(Korea-Japan relation) even on different sites, you are subject to be mistaken for a wrong person. But thank you for your personal information, anyway.

GTOMR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.