竹島問題の歴史

23.10.07

1907年(明治四十年)「朝鮮水路誌」

Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。原文はこちら ↓
Japan's 1907 "Joseon Seaways Directory" (朝鮮水路誌)

「朝鮮水路誌」(第二改版)は、明治政府の帝国海軍によって明治四十年(1907年)3月刊行されました。竹島(Liancourt Rocks)の記載のある部分です。興味深いのは、日本の漁民達は竹島を"リャンコ島"と呼び、韓国人は"獨島"と書いたと記されている事です。これは、1904年の戦艦新高の報告に始めてでてきました。しかし、1903年発行の文書(訳注:『韓海通漁指針』葛生修吉著 。大韓帝国の漁業規則や漁業組合、沿海地理などの漁業に関する書籍。)では、韓国人漁民は、日本人と同じ名称(ヤンコ)を竹島/Liancourt Rocksを指すのに使っていたと書かれています。それはつまり、韓国人が直近にこの岩(竹島)について日本人から教えてもらったと言う事を示唆しています。1903年以前に、韓国人が竹島/Liancourt Rocksへ行った事を示す地図も古文書さえも何一つ無いのです。

ところで、獨島(独島)と言う名前は、そもそも"独立した島"と言う意味で、この名称自体は韓国の古い文献によく使用されているのが見受けられます。事実、鬱陵島自体も"獨島(独島)"として記述されたことがあるのです。韓国人は、後にその名称を竹島/Liancourt Rocksを呼ぶのに採用しました。韓国漁民が竹島/Liancourt Rocksを呼ぶのに"于山島"と言う名称を一度も使ったことが無い、と言う事実は、韓国側の于山島が竹島/Liancourt Rocksの昔の呼び名である、という主張を崩す更なる証拠と言えます。

42 comments:

  1. Good job, Kaneganese. You are fast.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's not 1903 but 1901 that Japanese and Korean call it Lyanco-do?
    ”韓海通漁指針1903” by葛生修吉 quote from 1901/34th of Meiji, 黒龍界's his circle report. http://www.kr-jp.net/meiji/meiji_msc/kuzuu1901.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  3. dokdo-takeshima.com23/10/07 15:20

    I agree with you GMTOR, you can see that Koreans were using the name Yangkodo at in the 1901 issue of the Black Dragon Publication. It appears to have been published in June of 1901. This would push back Korean cognizance of the island to at least the fishing season prior and thus before Chosun Ordinance 41 of 1900.

    I'm betting this reference can be found in earlier editions of the Black Dragon Fishing manual. Maybe the heading of the book explains the origins of the data.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you, Gerry,

    I upload some more when I could get pictures.

    GTOMR,
    Yes, Kuzuu had finished writing them in 1901, I compared both of them.

    It is clear that Korean could have known the existance of 竹島/Liancourt Rocks in 1901 already, but the point is, they didn't call it as Usando, Matsushima, Sokdo nor Dokdo, but as Yanko just like Japanese in 1901 or before. That is a strong proof that 石島 in 1900 edit is not Dokdo/竹島/Liancourt Rocks. This is a huge blow against Korean's "Sokdo is Dokdo" theory. And it supports strongly that Gerry's 石島 was just an catchall name for the rocks around Ulleundo.

    The translations and writing from published book provided by pacifist. Japanese / English

    In 1901 version, some sentences of the part of Ullendo was witten as "(北緯130度45分乃至53分50秒、東経37度34分40秒乃至31分50秒の間に位置し、)平海郡越松浦の南微北に当たり、40余里の海中に在る孤島にして、(韓人は)別名之を武陵又は羽陵とも書す、乃ち古の于山國にして、(支那人は之を)本邦人は松島と呼ぶ (因に記す、)世人(或いは)の本島(を以て)は、大小6箇の島嶼(集合せりものなりとし)、若くは竹島、松島の2島(の総称なりとし)より成れると為し、或は地図に之を記入しあるは往々見る所なれども、此れ等はいずれも誤りなるが如し(甚だしきは往々地図中にも之を並記しあるを見る、此の如きは実に誤謬の大なるものとす)" (Note; Bold letters are original in 1901 and words between ( ) are added to 1903 publised version. Sentences in Liancourt section looks almost same except few words. But the last sentence "(其要領は会報第一集に載せたり参照せよ The points were published in the first edition of the bulletin. Please refer it.))

    Translation by pacifist;
    (1903)And it is an isolated island at around 40-ri south of 平海郡越松浦 on the sea. Koreans call it alias 武陵 or 羽陵, that is Usankoku (Usan-guk) in the old times. Chinese people call it as 松島 (Matsushima, Songdo). Incidentally, people say that this island consists of 6 islands of big and small, or some say that it is a generic term of two islands Takeshima and Matsushima. The most extreme examples are maps which depicted the two islands side by side, which is really one of the biggest errors.

    (1901)And it is an isolated island at around 40-ri south and slighly North of 平海郡越松浦 on the sea. Koreans call it alias 武陵 or 羽陵, that is Usankoku (Usan-guk) in the old times. Japanese people call it as 松島 (Matsushima, Songdo). Incidentally, people say that this island consists of 6 islands of big and small, or some say that it is a generic term of two islands Takeshima and Matsushima. Or it often observed that those (errors) are drawn in old maps, but all of which must be errors. (The points were published in the first edition of the bulletin. Please refer it.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Correction
    The translations and writing from published book provided by pacifist. Japanese / English

    The translations and writing from published book provided by pacifist. English / 日本語

    ReplyDelete
  6. And it also said that
    「数年以前山口県潜水器船の望を●して出漁したるものありしが、」(Several years ago, a ship with diving apparatus from Yamaguchi prefecture went fishing )
    「又た附近に鱶漁の好網代あり、数年以来五六月の候に至れば大分県鱶縄船の引継き之れに出漁するものあり、」(There are good points for wickerwork shark trap around there, longline fishing boats from Oita prefecture went there fishing sharks in May or June since several years before. )
    Those sentences written in 1901 are the clear proof that Japanese fishermen were actively engaging in fishing around 竹島/Liancourt Rocks even before 1899 which is much earlier than 1900.

    ReplyDelete
  7. dokdo-takeshima.com23/10/07 22:50

    Kanganese, it seems the Japanese can no longer say that Koreans were not cognizant of Liancourt before 1900. So what other posters have been saying here has been wrong as shown. I mentioned the Black Dragon guide would have previous editions that would prove this about three months ago.

    How many names did the Japanese have for Dokdo before they annexed the island Kaneganese? Well first some called it Matsushima, Riancoto Rokku, Yankodo and finally Takeshima. Why would it unusual for Korean to have done the same and used other aliases?

    I can't see the Koreans declaring and incorporating an island called Yankodo on an official Korean Government document. The name would be written in Chinese characters which official Chosun proclamations did. Writing Yankodo in Hanja?? Not likely.

    What's even more unlikely is "Seokdo" is a catchall phrase for all surrounding rocks. Ordinance 41 was a declaration to define Uldo County. You do not issue a declaration and say "We hereby declare a bunch of rocks around Ulleungdo as part of this country.." That's a bit silly.

    First if this was true, why not just say "all surrounding rocks?" It would be no problem to write such a phrase with just a few Hanja characters. Second having declared Ulleungdo's furthermost island "Jukdo Islet" as part of the county the other rocks around Ulleungdo would be a gimmie and hardly worth mentioning as included at all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dokdo-Takeshima.com (Steve Barber),

    Seokdo (石島 - 석도) was written to mean "all surrounding rocks."

    The name "Seokdo" (石島) does not appear on any Korean maps or in any Korean document on Ulleungdo, other than the one making "Ulleungdo, Jukdo, and the other surrounding rocks" a county.

    Koreans say that the "Usando" (于山島) in the "Usando/Jukdo" (于山島竹島) reference in the 1899 "Hwangseong Shinmun" (皇城新問) was "Dokdo," and they say that the "Seokdo" (石島) in the 1900 Imperial Edict was "Dokdo," but if that were true, then why were Korean fisherman using the Japanese name to refer to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) in 1901?

    "Usando" was another name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which is why the 1899 Korean newspaper article referred to Korea's most prominent neighboring island as Usando/Jukdo (于山島竹島). The article was showing that the island had two names. "Seokdo" (石島) means "rock island" and was not referring to a specific island in the 1900 Imperial Edict. It was used to include in the county all the remaining rock islets around Ulleungdo. It was a legal catchall phrase.

    The fact that Korean fishermen used the Japanese name to refer to Liancourt Rocks suggests that it was the Japanese who introduced them to the rocks. If the Korean fishermen had their own name for the rocks, why didn't they use it?

    ReplyDelete
  9. toadface (Steve),

    Koreans who recognised Liancourt rocks around 1901 were fishermen who were hired by Japanese. They called the rocks at first as the same as Japanese fishermen called, so these findings are not favourable for your theory, toadface.

    In later years, Korean women went there to catch seaweeds on Japanese ships. I have seen a photograph of Japanese fishermen with a few Korean women in traditional chogoli, which was taken on Liancourt rocks.

    Korea never ever recognised Liancourt rocks as their territory before the dictatorial president Syngman Rhee draw the "Peace line" in 1952.

    The book "朝鮮現勢便覧" (1935) clearly wrote that the eastern limit of Korea was Ullengdo-Jukdo and its location is E.L 130°56' (Liancourt rocks locate E.L. 131°52', clearly out of Korean territory). And the historian 崔南善's book "朝鮮常識問答" (1948) also wrote the same.

    toadface, president Rhee asked for 崔南善's opinion before he draw the line. The president Rhee definitely knew that Liancourt rocks were not Korean territory as well as he knew Tsushima and another imaginary island were not Korean territory.

    I hope all the Korean people will know that the dictator Rhee robbed Liancourt rocks in the turmoil of peace treaty and told their people that the rocks had belonged to Korea but it7s not true. Don't believe the dictator.

    ReplyDelete
  10. toadface,

    You can look at the book 朝鮮現勢便覧 yourself:

    http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/binran-1935/04.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  11. dokdo-takeshima.com24/10/07 23:46

    Gerry, The Koreans were using the name Yangkodo to refer to Dokdo for the same reason the Japanese were. Did the Europeans introduce the islands to the Japanese? Why didn't the Japanese annex the island under the name Yangkodo? Do you get where I'm going?

    The Koreans would not register the island under a Japanese-Romanized name on an official document where all territorial names are written in traditional Hanja characters. Korean governmental documents were written in Chinese characters with some Hangul for articles etc. The Koreans would have given the island a name in traditional characters.

    The Black Dragon Document has a date on the cover saying March 1901 Gerry. This proves Korean cognizance of the island from the fishing season prior. The Koreans Ordinance 41 was declared in October 1900. Thus we know Koreans must have been aware of Dokdo at the time of the declaration. Another Japanese myth bites the dust. I'm sure over the years more documents will surface proving even earlier Korean awareness of Dokdo. Are you trying to tell us the Korean became aware of Dokdo the day the Japanese published the Black Dragon Fishing Guide?

    From these records Japan cannot positively say the island was "ownerless" in 1905.

    Gerry, there are 2 ways of interpreting the Hwaseong Shinmun article. Others say of course Usando and Jukdo are different islands in this document. You know there are many documents that say Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima (Dokdo)

    Here is a document that clearly shows Usando was NOT Jukdo Islet.

    Usando is Matsushima

    Gerry, even some Japanese records of the 19th Century stated Usando was what Japanese call Matsushima (Dokdo). That being said, we know the Japanese of this era considered the island as appended to Ulleungdo and not part of Japan.

    If you keep using the issue of Usando as proof of anything Gerry you have to draw from the largest pool of historical references instead of G-filing data that damages your assertions.

    Usando is Matsushima

    Nothing could be more ironic than a radical Japanese right-wing lobbyist with the name Pacifist......

    ReplyDelete
  12. toadface (Steve),

    The first document seems to say about today's Jukdo. It referred to six islands around Ulleungdo and then comes the next passage:
    "大小6島あり。その中著名なるを于山島(日本人は松島と名づく)竹島と言ふ。"

    "There are 6 large and small islets. The largest one is called Usando (Japanese call Matsushima)-Takeshima(Jukdo)."

    The largest islet around Ulleungdo is Jukdo. And Jukdo has another name Usando. So the author may have written as Usando-Jukdo. This is not a story of Liancourt rocks, toadface.

    ReplyDelete
  13. toadface (Steve),

    The second document you took is from "Argument to inspect or not Matsushima" by Tanabe Taichi.
    In those days Meiji government didn't have exact information about Takeshima and Matsushima because of appearance of Argonaut and Dagelet islands.

    In this document, Tanabe thought Matsushima they worried about was Usando (Jukdo), the small nighboring island to Ulleungdo. So this document is not related to Liancourt rocks, toadface.

    To follow is my translation:

    As we've heard, Matsushima is the name we Japanese named and the truth is that it is Usan which belongs to Ulleungdo of Chosun. As to belonging of Ulleungdo, the former government (=the shogunate) had a big dispute and after exchanging letters the shogunate promised not to own the island forever, this is written in the history of both countries.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Steve Barber,

    You still don't get it, do you? First of all, Kuzuu didn't say "Yangkodo", he wrote "Yanko". It doesn't mean "Liancourt Rocks", but "Liancourt". You are desperately trying to connect "Yanko" with "Rocks(岩)" which is similar to "石", but the fact is, it doesn't. "Yanko" has no meaning of Rock. Besides, Japanese 岩 is totally different from 石, unfortunatelly. So, "Yanko(Liancourt)" doesn't hold any meaning of 石(Rocks) nor 岩 at all. Even if Korean fishermen learned the word "Yangko" from Japanese in 1901 or before, there is no possibility that it affected "石島" in 1900's Ordinance. Two words have absolutely nothing in common.

    "The Koreans would not register the island under a Japanese-Romanized name on an official document where all territorial names are written in traditional Hanja characters. Korean governmental documents were written in Chinese characters with some Hangul for articles etc. The Koreans would have given the island a name in traditional characters."
    Exactly. That is why we can know they (the officials who wrote the ordinance) didn't know where the 竹島/Liancourt Rocks is. If they knew about "Yanko" and the location of Liancourt Rocks and they believe it to be "于山島", they clearly should have used "于山島" instead of "石島". This is a clear evidence "石島" in Ordinace in 1900 was not 竹島/Liancourt Rocks. Apparently, Korean considered "Yanko" is not what they call 于山島, but a Japanese island.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dokdo-Takeshima.com (Steve Barber),

    I see you are trying to deceive again, Steve. Why didn't you give us the name of the book you linked to and the date it was published? Also, why didn't you post the section on Liancourt Rocks? Or did you not post it because Liancourt Rocks was not described in the section on Gangwon Province? Just posting a link to some document without saying anything about the document is pretty childish, don't you think? What are you afraid of?

    The first document you linked to was simply quoting from the 1899 Hwangseong Shinmun article, and that article was talking about Ulleungdo's Jukdo, which is Ulleungdo's largest neighboring island. As I have said many times before, the "Usando/Jukdo" (于山島竹島) reference in that article was written to show that Ulleungdo's Jukdo had two names: "Usando" and "Jukdo."

    Why don't you tell use the name of the book the link is from and when it was published?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Steve,

    The Japanese started using the Western name to refer to Liancourt Rocks in the early 1880, when they started to use "Matsushima" to refer to Ulleungdo. The name was even written on Japanese maps. It was a conscious decision to change the name. The Korean fishermen on Ulleungdo in the 1900s, on the other hand, were using the Japanese pronunciation for the rocks, and there were no Koreans maps showing Liancourt Rocks by any name, which suggests that the Korean fishermen on Ulleungdo were introduced to the rocks by the Japanese.

    Also, all Japanese maps of Korea showing "Usando" (于山島) showed it as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not as Liancourt Rocks.

    Again, tell us the name and date of the document you linked to. Stop playing games.

    ReplyDelete
  17. dokdo-takeshima.com25/10/07 14:48

    Gerry Bevers and the Beverettes. What I've been working on here is bigger that your narrow-minede approach to the Dokdo problem. The Usando issue is just a small part of the Dokdo issue.

    Pacifist, the Japanese were confused about the identity of Usando. However, what some had concluded in the late 19th Century is that Usando was Dokdo. this clearly shows they did not consider the island Japanese land but rather part of Chosun's Ulleungdo.

    Kanganese, I'm not "desperate" to prove anything. It is Gerry et al that have been trying to sell this BS that "石島" means "all surrounding islands"? That is one of the lamest interpretations to ever come down the pike. How much more plausible is that than Korean assertions that Seok Do is a dialect derivative of Dokdo. At least the Koreans give some actual examples of this usage. Gerry is just blowing hot air.

    My point is the Koreans just as easily could have used different names for Dokdo. The Japanese did. Korean assertions that the province of Chollamdo residents may have affected the pronunciation are founded on a sound basis. Unlike Gerry's wild "surrounding islands" theory, the Koreans have steadfastly asserted this for 50 years.

    So now we know Koreans were definitely cognizant of Dokdo for years before Japan annexed the island and during the time Ordinance 41 was declared. We also know that Japan did not consider Dokdo part of Japanese land even months before the seized the island in 1905. This proves that Japan's historical title to Dokdo has zero merit. This proves the island cannot be said to be "terra nullius" beforehand.

    All I see here are a bunch of theories no concrete evidence that Korea did not include Dokod in 1900. The Koreans have solid historical documents that show they considered the islands Chosun land before the Japanese annexed it. Gerry has squat.

    Korea Objected

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dokdo-Takeshima.com (Steve Barber) wrote:

    Gerry Bevers and the Beverettes. What I've been working on here is bigger that your narrow-minede approach to the Dokdo problem. The Usando issue is just a small part of the Dokdo issue.

    Since Korea has no maps or documents to support her claim on Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), you are working on something "bigger"? I think that is called "obfuscation."

    I noticed that you, again, did not give the name and publication date of the documents you linked to yesterday. Did you just forgot? Or is there something you are trying to hide?

    ReplyDelete
  19. toadface (Steve),

    In those days, Meiji government may have lost the location of Matsushima but they knew the island of the new name Liancourt rocks, which was clearly shown not to be in the Korean territory.

    And the Korean empire (大韓帝国) clearly knew their eastern limit was Ullengdo+Jukdo. They knew Liancourt rocks were not their territory, also UK knew it (as seen in their journals).

    In such circumstances how Korea could annex Liancourt rocks in 1900? It couldn't be.

    ReplyDelete
  20. dokdo-takeshima.com25/10/07 22:30

    Gerry, you should know the document I gave you. You posted it first about 5 months ago. When it was translated for you and when you realized it damaged your Usando theory, you G-filed it.

    The record can be found on Hanmaumy's site. Find it yourself I'm not one of your Takeshima errand-boys.

    Gerry "obfuscation" is you coming to conclusions and then working backwards to suit your agenda. A classic example is your Seokdo "" is a collective term for all surrounding rocks.

    Seokdo means rock island. You could not use this term collectively around Ulleungdo because as the publications of the day state, there are not enough rocks around Ulleungdo to even be called or classified as islands. Just Gwaneumdo which was named as such at the time and little more than an extension of Ulleungdo. The rest of the formations are just rocks, not islands.

    The Dokdo issue involves more than Usando.

    It involves the legality of Japanese military activities during the colonial era. It involves Japanese documents that state Takeshima and Matsushima are Chosun land. It involves Koreans claiming Takeshima and Matsushima are Korean territory and Japan not objecting in 1696. It involves the inherent differences between a modern state and a backward underdeveloped nation.

    A lot of the information in this dispute doesn't even involve legal interpretation but rather subjective opinion often with a lack of clear data. The Japanese are demanding Koreans subject themselves to the combovers at the ICJ who are no more knowledgeable on the subject than those who frequent this forum.

    The Japanese have to accept Korea will never allow any foreign organization to define her territorial limits again. Japan must know they will never extend their border 160kms Westward to within visual proximity of land known to be Korean territory since the 6th Century. It is simply not acceptable.

    The has to be a resolution of this dispute between Korea and Japan. And a clear line to designation the border between the two countries. The best solution I've see was suggested by a publication by Jon Van Dyke. He logically concludes Korea and Japan should draw and equidistant line between Oki Island and Ulleungdo. That makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  21. toadface (Steve),

    Japan has evidence to prove that Liancourt rocks belong to Japan (Only Japan knew and used Liancourt rocks since 17th century to 19th century and Japan incorporated the rocks legally in 1905).

    But Korea didn't know the rocks (no name for the rocks until 1900's and they had no maps at all, that means they had no information about the rocks) until the dictator Rhee robbed the rocks in 1952.

    If you want refute, you have to show us the evidence that Korea knew the rocks but you have failed from beginning to today.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dokdo-Takeshima.com (Steve Barber),

    Yes, I had seen the document before, but you are the one who linked to it without any explanation, so you should be the one to give the information on the document if you want to discuss it. If you do not want to discuss it, it is fine with me because I have other things on my mind right now.

    As for Seokdo (石島), the Korean explanation for how "Seokdo" (石島) became "Dokdo" (獨島) is so absurd it is funny. Do they really expect us to suspend all reason and just accept their explanation?

    1) Koreans claim that "Seokdo" (石島) was designated as the official name for Liancourt Rocks in 1900, even though the name was never used before or after that designation and no maps ever showed it.

    2) Koreans claim that "Seokdo" (石島) was designated as the official name for Liancourt Rocks in 1900 even though they had supposedly been using "Usando" (于山島) to refer to the island for centuries. In fact, they claim that an "Usando" reference in an 1899 Korean newspaper (皇城新問) article on Ulleungdo. Are we expected to believe that after centuries of supposedly calling the island "Usando," Koreans just suddenly changed the name to "Seokdo"?

    3) The most ridiculous part of the Korean claim is the explanation for how "Rock Isand" (石島) changed to "Solitary Island" (獨島), which means that not only did the name change, its meaning changed, as well as, as its Chinese characters. The explanation is too long and ridiculous to repeat here, but it basically involves a provincial dialect and a five or six step process of linguistic evolution.

    4) If Seokdo (石島) were really the official name for Liancourt Rocks in 1900, why did the head of Uldo (Ulleungdo) county refer to it as "Dokdo" (獨島) in a letter to his superiors im 1906? Even if Korean fishermen were using the name "Dokdo" to refer to Liancourt Rocks, the official name for the rocks would have still been "Seokdo" (石島), and the county head would have used the official name in his letters to his superiors.

    The Korean explanation for "Seokdo" (石島) all boils down to a bunch of crap.

    Here is my theory:

    The 1899 "Hwangseong Shinmun" article talked about Ulleungdo and its "six neighboring islands," the most prominent of which was Usando/Jukdo. The 1900 edict mentioned "Ulleungdo," "Jukdo," and "Seokdo." Usando was not mentioned because it was just another name for Jukdo, and the other five islands that were mentioned in the 1899 article were not mentioned individually because they were all grouped together in the catchall phrase, "and all other surrounding rock islets" (Seokdo - 石島).

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'd add that 石 was not pronounced as Dok/tok/ but as Soek by then Korean people, and 独 was proununced
    as Tok
    http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/hennyu/soku.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. Gerry wrote;
    "Here is my theory: The 1899 "Hwangseong Shinmun" article talked about Ulleungdo and its "six neighboring islands," the most prominent of which was Usando/Jukdo. The 1900 edict mentioned "Ulleungdo," "Jukdo," and "Seokdo." Usando was not mentioned because it was just another name for Jukdo, and the other five islands that were mentioned in the 1899 article were not mentioned individually because they were all grouped together in the catchall phrase, "and all other surrounding rock islets" (Seokdo - 石島)."

    Gerry, I would say this is very convincing, if you put the theory in this way (no mention of Sokdo→Dokdo theory). Actually, sounds more logical than any other theories including Sokouto→Sokdo theory, which I thought the most provable so far.

    The reson why I believe Gerry's theory as convincing is,

    1) The map of 江原道 in 1899「大韓地誌」  & 1901「大韓地誌」 both described Usan and 5 other small islets around Ulleundo.

    2) The Great Korean Empire Ordinance No. 41 which was suggested by 禹用鼎, who did official survey on Ulleundo few months prior to, but didn't go to 竹島/Liancourt Rocks at all , says that "Article 2. The county office will be located at Taehadong (台霞洞) and have jurisdiction over the whole island of Ulleung (鬱陵全島) and Jukdo/Seokdo (竹島石島)." It only mentions 竹島 and 石島 which had never been reffered to the actual island around Ulleundo so far and Korean doesn't differenciate plural from single noun. 

    3) According to the book 恒屋盛服「朝鮮開化史」1901, the eastern limit of Choson, which include islands, is 130度35分(it exclude 竹島/Liancourt Rocks) and it in the article of Ulleundo, it explains that"金崗山の一支東海に入る六十余里峙立して鬱陵島となる一に蔚稜と書す即ち古の于山国なり後新羅に入る別名は武稜、羽稜共に字昔相近きに因る大小六島あり其中著名なるを于山島(日本人は松島と名く)竹島と云ふ"と鬱陵島を説明している "大小6島あり。その中著名なるを于山島(日本人は松島と名づく)竹島と言ふ。(There are 6 large and small islets. The largest one is called Usando (Japanese call Matsushima)-Takeshima(Jukdo).)". It states again that there are 6 large and small islets and the largest one is called Usando (Japanese call Matsushima)-Takeshima(Jukdo).

    By the way, many sentences of this article is apparently same with 1899 皇城新聞 article . But it clearly states that Usando, which is the most prominent neighbouring islands of Ulleundo is Japanese Matsushima. It perfectly proves that Usand which Choson and Korean people had long believed is not today's 竹島/Liancourt Rocks, but actually Jukdo(Usando). Because the most prominent island around Ulleundo is Jukdo. The only possibility to understand the sentence is Korean Usando which they also believed since 1696 was actually Jukdo. Thank you for reminding us about this book, Steve.

    I hope Korean start finding the report of 1900 『鬱島記』 by 禹用鼎 which 高麗大学 had "lost", but somehow spreading only some parts of it. If Korean "Dokdo-lobbyists" want to be treated their theory fairly , not as propaganda by Japanese, they should open the whole documents, not a part of it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Plus as ponta pointed out above,
    4) Korean on Ulleundo clearly pronounced "石" as "Sok" not "Dok" nor "Tok" in those days. 石門洞 (Sok-Mun) and 亭石浦(Chon-Sok-Po). Name of the places are written Hangul, so it is impossible to refute.. By the way, the first page of this book clearly states that eastern limit of Ulleundo is 130°54′. 1909「「韓国水産誌」

    ReplyDelete
  26. dokdo-takeshima.com26/10/07 13:53

    Gerry five or six steps? The word Chinese character Seok "石島" pronounced as Dok and written as "獨島" What are you talking about? Long and hard to explain maybe for you.

    You shoot down Korean explanation they have maintained for almost 60 years and then you pull this "collective islands" out of your arse with absolutely not basis at all. There is no character meaning "surrounding" prior to Seokdo. If the term was collective and thus plural why didn't they include "들“ after Seokdo? The writing in Ordinance 41 does include some Hangul. Even "를” is written after Seokdo indicating an object.

    Gerry says. "Here's my theory.." Argh he we go again... Just like the time you had us all guessing when you invented the 200 meter "ri". You always work backwards Gerry. 2+?=4 right?

    The historical documents prove Koreans considered Dokdo part of Uldo county before the Japanese annexed the island in 1906. The governor used the name Dokdo much the same as the Niitaka did. From this irrefutable fact we must conclude at one point the Koreans incorporated Dokdo.

    Kanganese, as I've shown before on this forum there were different kinds of residents on Ulleungdo. They came from all over Korea and if you knew anything about Korea (which you don't seem to) you would know there are many dialects from many regions. My wife's family lives about five hours away and speaks totally different Korean than in Gyeonggi Province (Seoul area) It totally plausible there were different dialects on Ulleungdo itself.

    Pacifist not less than three times someone has stated Dokdo was Japanese land from the 17th Century and evey time I asked for proof. But to this day I've seen nothing on this forum to prove this absurd claim. I'm still waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Steve.
    The same refuted argument again?

    石=Tok argument is very weak.
    As you admit, "there were different kinds of residents on Ulleungdo. They came from all over Korea", it might be true small number of people pronounced 石 as Tok, but the people related to fishing pronounced 石 as Sok as Japanese document shows.

    And you can't refer to the object you have never recognized nor thought:Lianocourt Rock had never been mentioned in Korean document.Therefore it is far from reasonable that they were referring to Linacourt rock by 石島。

    Besides, you need such a clear reference that leave no doubt to be
    judged as having effective control over the island:Korea had no such clear reference.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous,

    Please use the "Other" option to post with a nickname other than "Anonymous" since it would be difficult to distinguish you from another person using "anonymous."

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ops,,,
    Sorry,
    It's me.

    ReplyDelete
  30. toadface (Steve),

    You know, it was not under the strict international law today but Japanese people believed Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Liancourt rocks) were in the Japanese water. If they were not, they wouldn't call the islands with Japanese names. We have not Japanese names for 済州島 or 巨済島, as we knew they were Korean islands.

    As "Onshushicho-goki" directed, they thought that Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was the boundary in the 17th century.

    But after the Takeshima dispute, the shogunate gave Takeshima to Korea, but they didn't give Matsushima, so it remained in the Japanese territory. There are various maps of Matsushima (Liancourt rocks) in Japan, which should be a supporting evidence.

    In Japanese people's mind, the memory like "Matsushima remained in Japanese territory" or "Matsushima belongs to Japan" may have survived.
    So when the turmoil about the names of islands in the Meiji era occured, they thought "how to develop Matsushima (but it was Ulleungdo after all)" etc.

    But look at Korea, toadface. They didn't reach Liancourt rocks before the 20th century. They didn't have exact information - the shape of the rocks and the location. They didn't even have a name for the rocks.

    toadface, how can you insist "Dokdo belongs to Korea"?

    ReplyDelete
  31. dokdo-takeshima.com27/10/07 00:15

    Ponta, Japanese documents I've seen now indicate the Koreans were cognizant of Dokdo by at least 1900. Gerry Bevers still desperately clings to the notion that even six years later the Koreans did not know Dokdo existed. Well, he knows he's wrong but he just keeps on posting the same old "bamboo map" and repeating himself.

    石=Tok is weak? Ponta what is weak is "石島“=all surrounding islands. I showed some Korean friends of mine what Gerry stated and they just scratched their heads and said "What's this guy talking about??" At least the Koreans can show some acutal examples in Korea where this 石島 = tok dialect actually occurs. Gerry's theory is unsubstantiated and unproven.


    Korea doesn't need to prove anything. This is not the ICJ. The Japanese need to present a historical case of their own prior to the military annexation of Dokdo in 1905.

    Pacifist, stop trying to sell this notion Saito Hosen's Report of Oki marks the boundary of Japan. This has been disproven by both Korean and Japanese scholars alike.

    Takeshima was considered Japanese land??

    Where's Dokdo? 1
    Where's Dokdo? 2
    Where's Dokdo? 3
    Where's Dokdo? 4

    Oki was always considered the boundary of Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Steve Barber wrote;
    "Kanganese, as I've shown before on this forum there were different kinds of residents on Ulleungdo. They came from all over Korea and if you knew anything about Korea (which you don't seem to) you would know there are many dialects from many regions. My wife's family lives about five hours away and speaks totally different Korean than in Gyeonggi Province (Seoul area) It totally plausible there were different dialects on Ulleungdo itself."
    So? I have presented concrete evidence that Korean on Ulleundo clearly pronounced "石" as "Sok" not "Dok" nor "Tok" in those days. 石門洞 (Sok-Mun) and 亭石浦(Chon-Sok-Po). Name of the places are written Hangul, so it is impossible to refute.. What you have to do is to find actual example like us that Korean on Ulleundo actually pronounced the place name of "石" as "Dok" or "Tok"which you had failed so far. Insted, you started to quote your Korean wife, and her relatives and your Korean friends personal views. Are you saying all of them used to live on Ulleundo 107 years ago? And addition to that, you also need concrete evidence that when, how and why Korean started to use "独" instead of "石" which was supposed to be a official name. If you allow something absurd and childish like this, everyone can claim other's property. You need to present concrete evidence to back up your theory, not a sophistry.

    Everyone knows that Japanese had effective control over Matsushima(竹島/Liancourt Rocks) throughout Edo and Meiji, Taisho and Showa era from the middle of 1600s to 1952 until Korea military grabbed the island from Japan. There are many maps, documents and records Japanese used the island as an landmark, relay point and the destination to get marine products. The point is, though Japanese actually recognized and used periodically both Takeshima(Ulleundo) and Matsushima(竹島/Liancourt Rocks) in Edo era, the ownership inside Japan was very fuzzy because of the special state of the islands and the complicated land distribution system adopted by feudalistic Shogunate rule. The word "country" didn't mean "nation" in Edo era, basically. That makes the understanding the ownership of 竹島/Liancourt Rocks within Japan difficult. But apparently, there is no record that Shogunate considered Matsushima(竹島/Liancourt Rocks) is outside Japanese territory even after they banned Japanese to go to Takeshima(Ulleundo) in 1696, That is the reason Japan claim their historical ownership.

    After Japan opened its long closed country to outside of the world in 1867, Meiji Governement and Japanese struggled to build up modern and strong country in order to avoid to be colonized by Western imperialistic countries. While they are experiencing paradigm shift from feudal era to modern westernization, Japanese started to collect lots of information from Western and Eastern world. When western maps which mislocated islands with confusing islands names which some of them actually share with historical Japanese names in different location were introduced, they got confused and made maps with 竹島/Liancourt Rocks with Western names labelled or even some maps which doesn't show 竹島/Liancourt Rocks. Since they clearly came to notice that location of 竹島/Liancourt Rocks and it is outside of Korean territory by the British sea directory and their own survey, they decided to officially incorporate 竹島/Liancourt Rocks into Japanese terriroy following international rule that Feudal Shogunate Officials had failed to do properly. As I said, though Japan had long known about the island, they once got confused of the location and the names of the island. That is the reason Japan claimed it as "tella nullis" in 1905 when they incorporated the island.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Ponta, Japanese documents I've seen now indicate the Koreans were cognizant of Dokdo by at least 1900"


    Which Japanese document?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dokdo-Takeshima.com (Steve) wrote:

    You shoot down Korean explanation they have maintained for almost 60 years and then you pull this "collective islands" out of your arse with absolutely not basis at all. There is no character meaning "surrounding" prior to Seokdo. If the term was collective and thus plural why didn't they include "들“ after Seokdo? The writing in Ordinance 41 does include some Hangul. Even "를” is written after Seokdo indicating an object.

    Steve,

    Seokdo (石島) can also be used as a descriptive, collective noun, just like Jukdo (竹島). You do not need a 들 after Seokdo because Koreans regularly use singular nouns as implied plurals. In fact, Korean maps show Seokdo (石島) used in the plural sense. Besides, if Seokdo were really Liancourt Rocks, it would not be referring to just "one" rock islet, it would be referring to dozens.

    No, there is nothing that says "surroundings" in the edict, but it is implied. For example, we know that Jukdo is a neighboring island of Ulleungdo even though the edict does not specify that. If you want, you can translate the sentence as, "Ulleungdo, Jukdo, and the rock islets."

    Your comment about 를 is just silly. Yes, 를 is an object marker in Korean, but "rock islets" is also an object.

    ReplyDelete
  35. If 石島 really refers to the singular object as Steve claims,
    it can not be Linocourt Rocks. Dokdo is two rocks.

    ReplyDelete
  36. dokdo-takeshima.com27/10/07 15:31

    Ponta, welcome back to the show.

    Recently an earlier edition of the Black Dragon Fishing Manual was posted. The date on the cover was Spring of 1901. The information in this document contained the same quote "Koreans and Japanese fishermen call these rocks Yangkodo". We know this information came from the fishing season prior as fishing in this area starts around March~April.

    Koreans were verifiably cognizant of Dokdo at least six years before the Japanese annexed the island and at least at the same time that Ordinance 41 was declared. You can already see the posters on this forum squirm and shift tactics to counter the truth already.

    Kanganese, said.

    Everyone knows that Japanese had effective control over Matsushima(竹島/Liancourt Rocks) throughout Edo and Meiji, Taisho and Showa era from the middle of 1600s to 1952 until Korea military grabbed the island from Japan.

    Ya ya ya........whatever.

    Kanganese, I've asked posters on this forum to put their money with their big mouths are put forth some evidence to support this and I've received no proof whatsoever. I posted around 50 maps above to show the Japanese did not consider the islands part of their territory. All I see from the people on this forum is the erroneous interpretation of Saito Hosen's report on Oki and incorrect Japanese maps that show Ulleungdo as Japanese territory which we know is wrong.

    Listen to Gerry Bevers and the Beverettes double talk. "Seokdo can refer to collective rocks, however it can't refer to Dokdo because it has two rocks.... duh.
    What a bunch of double talking B.S. You guys are so desperate.

    Steve Barber
    The Truth of Dokdo

    ReplyDelete
  37. Blackdragon, Yes I remember

    Some Koreans employed by Japanese called Linocourt " Yanko"in 1901

    How does it show 石島 referred to Linocout in 1900?

    The 1900 edict talks about 石島Soekto, not Yanko, which is Linocourt rocks. That proves Korean officials was not cognizant of Linocourt rocks. That proves Korean officials didn't have Linocourt rocks in mind when they referred to 石島.






    ""Seokdo can refer to collective rocks, however it can't refer to Dokdo because it has two rocks.... duh."

    The point is that your argument is wrong.

    Suppose, as you claim, that石島 refers to the singular object, it can not be Dokdo;for Dokdo is two rocks. Under this assumption, the most likely candidate is 観音島.

    If 石島 can be plural, contrary to
    your claim, since Gerry's argument is reasonable ,it refers to islets surrounding Ulleungdo.
    In either case, your theory fails.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ponta,

    I know the pro-Japanese people are desperate to deny Seokdo is Dokdo, but your logic is very absurd.

    Suppose, as you claim, that石島 refers to the singular object, it can not be Dokdo;for Dokdo is two rocks.

    -->Do Japanese have two different names for each islet of Dokdo?
    Why do you use singular name 'Takeshima' for two rocks of Dokdo?
    Seokdo definitely indicates Dokdo.

    If 石島 can be plural, contrary to your claim, since Gerry's argument is reasonable ,it refers to islets surrounding Ulleungdo.
    --> If Seokdo refers to islets surrounding Ulleungdo, there's no need to mention Jukdo. Seokdo definitely indicates Dokdo.

    Do you know that fact that the Japanese officials from Shimane Prefecture notified Ulldo Governor Shim Heung-taek that Dokdo became Japanese territory in 1906 and Governor Shim reported to the Korean government that Dokdo belonging to Ulldo County became Japanese territory?

    His statement "Dokdo belonging to Ulldo County became Japanese territory" clearly proves Seokdo in Ordinance No.41 indicates Dokdo.

    Gwaneumdo(観音島) didn't become Japanese territory.

    Trying to deny Seokdo is Dokdo testifies Japanese absolute lack of evidence to prove Dokdo is Japaese territory.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Wow. Very informative blog. As far as I'm concerned, Japan can submit this blog when the case goes to the ICJ. Every argument I've read for the Korean side has Usando ("a.k.a. Dokdo") assumed as a given fact. All the Japanese seem to have to do is to blow that assumption out of the water.

    The one argument of Gerry et al. that I have trouble grasping is Gerry's 'Seokdo' theory. I obviously don't speak Korean, so words acting as a "catchall phrase" is hard to comprehend. If Seokdo is actually, let's say, Gwaneumdo... now that makes sense in English. But, a word meaning "catchall phrase of all surrounding rocks" is a very foreign concept & hard to comprehend.

    Having said that, all you really need to do to convince someone like myself of your theory is to show another example of a word like that being used in Korean-- in other words, a short lesson in the Korean language is in order. Examples of "catchall" words/phrases will help. Even better, though, is an example of a Seokdo type word/phrase on a Korean map of one of their other 'non-disputed' islands.

    I'm sold on Takeshima being Japanese. But if I were arguing for the Korean side, I would go with the Seokdo = Dokdo argument ...with the Usando = Dokdo assumption already blown out of the water. That would be all I have left that I can see to go with thinking I have any chance of winning a case.

    Your Seokdo theory just doesn't sound as convincing as any of your other arguments... at least to me. If you can convince us on the explanation of Seokdo, this blog itself would be a complete homerun for the Japanese side's argument.

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hi, slump

    Thank you for your compliment and we acturally exchange information with Shimane Prefecture for the last few years. I hope Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan make use of information on this blog, too.

    As for identity of Seokdo in Korea's Imperial Edict 41(大韓勅令第41号) in 1900, there are many possibilities pointed out so far. But it's Korea's responsibility to prove their claim, "Seokdo" was today's Takeshima/Dokdo, without any doubt/argument. However, in Korea's official document, there are no Seokdo as Takeshima/Dokdo before and after 1900. Moreover, Lee Geon-ha(李乾夏), a Minister of Internal Affairs of Korea, who submitted the petition for the ordinance, stated that "The area of the island in concern(該島地方) should be 80 ris(32km) in length and 50 ris(20km) in the width" in the Imperial Edict. So it's impossible that Seokdo in the ordinance could be today's Takeshima.

    1900 - Oct. 22 - A petition by 李乾夏 "鬱陵島를鬱島로改稱하고島監을郡守로改正에關한請議書", which excluded Dokdo from Uldo County.
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2010/02/1900-oct-22-petition-by.html

    I personally consider that Seokdo was adjective which makes "竹島石島" "rocky Jukdo". Shimane identified it as Kwanundo. The point is, it is highly unlikely to be Takeshima/Dokdo, but still, we enjoy free discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Slump wrote:

    The one argument of Gerry et al. that I have trouble grasping is Gerry's 'Seokdo' theory. I obviously don't speak Korean, so words acting as a "catchall phrase" is hard to comprehend. If Seokdo is actually, let's say, Gwaneumdo... now that makes sense in English. But, a word meaning "catchall phrase of all surrounding rocks" is a very foreign concept & hard to comprehend.

    Hi slump,

    I assume you have heard of a "catch-all clause" in a contract, right?

    The link defines "catch-all" as follows:

    intended to include all possibilities: "a vague catch-all clause in the contract" and "a catch-all term"

    In a 1899 Koran newspaper article, Ulleungdo was described as having six neighboring islands, including the largest neighboring island of Jukdo (Usando). In that were the case, why were only Jukdo and "Seokdo" (rocky island) named in the 1900 Korean edict?

    Jukdo was named because it was Ulleungdo's largest neighboring island, but instead of naming all the other smaller rocky islets, they used the general term "rocky islets" to include all those other islands. In other words, they described Uldo (Ulleungdo) County as being "the main island of Ulleungdo, Jukdo, and its rocky islets."

    The word "Seokdo" literally means "rocky island" (石島 - 석도) or "rocky islands" since it can be both singular or plural.

    You asked, "Even better, though, is an example of a Seokdo type word/phrase on a Korean map of one of their other 'non-disputed' islands."

    If you look at THIS OLD KOREAN MAP, you can see six small, unnamed islets described as "Seokdo" (石島 - rocky islets). That was just used as a general term to describe them as insignificant "rocky islets," suggesting that they were not inhabitable.

    As Kaneganese wrote, some people argue that "Seokdo" was a reference to "Gwaneumdo," Ulleungdo's second largest neighboring island, but then why weren't the other rocky islets named? If it was a reference to "Dokdo," then why wasn't Gwaneumdo named?

    For me, the only logical explanation it that "rocky islets" was used as a catch-all phrase.

    You can see more of my argument HERE.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Slump,

    I would just like to add that "Seokdo" could not have been "Dokdo" because in 1906 the Korean Ministry of Interior defined the boundaries of Uldo County (main island of Ulleungdo, Jukdo, and Seokdo) has being an area of 24km x 16km. That would exclude "Dokdo" since it is 90km southeast of Ulleungdo.

    Also, if "Seokdo" was a reference to "Dokdo," then why wasn't its location described with a bearing and a distance, considering the fact that it is 90km southeast of Ulleungdo?

    Below is a link to a July 13, 1906 Korean newspaper article reporting on the Korean Ministry of Interior's description of Uldo County (Ulleungdo County).

    "July 1906, Korea Omits Dokdo from Uldo County"

    ReplyDelete