竹島問題の歴史

27.10.07

"Onshu Shicho Goki" - The different translations

This is an example of how documents are interpretable differently. To follow is the famous part from "Onshu-shicho-goki" by Saito Hosen.



隠岐ノ国ト名付賜フ之
其府者周吉郡南岸西郷豊崎也 従是南至雲州美穂関三十五里
辰巳伯州赤崎浦へ四十里 未申至石州温ノ津五十八里 自子至卯無可往地 戌亥間行フ二日一有松嶋 又一日程有竹嶋 (俗言磯竹嶋多竹魚海鹿) 此二嶋無人之地 見高麗如自雲州望隠州 然則日本乾地以 此州為限矣



I will show my translation first:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/1667-onshu-shicho-goki.html



…named “Oki no kuni” (Country of
Oki
).
Its center is Saigo Toyosaki, south bank of Suki-gun(周吉郡).
If you go 35-ri south you will get to Miho-no-seki of Unshu.
If you go 40-ri Southeast you’ll get to Akasaki of Hakushu (mid-west
of Tottori prefecture
).
If you go 58-ri Southwest you’ll get to Yu-no-tsu of Sekisyu (west of Shimane prefecture).
From north to east there is no place to go.
If you go to northwest you will get to Matsushima in 2 days, and you’ll get
to Takeshima in one more day. (This is so-called Iso-takeshima. Rich in bamboo,
fish and sealions)
These two are uninhibited islands. From there you can view Korea, it is just
like you view Onshu (Oki island) from Unshu (east of Shimane prefecture, mainland of Japan). So then,
the northwest of Japan, we make this place to be the boundary.



The words in green mean the part I added for people who may be not familiar to Japanese names.


Then, please look at the translation from a pro-Korean's site below:
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-saitohosen.html
(Notice: The Chinese characters are scrambled and changed to other characters, but I won't touch them.)



Oki Province is in the middle of the North Sea, so it
is also called Oki Island.
To the South lies a land called Do-Jeon (囑鉐), to
which Ji-bu-gun and Hae-bu-gun belong.
To the East lies a land called Do-Hu
(囑・), to which Ju-gil-gun and On-ji-gun belong.
To the Southeast it is 35 ri to Onshu (Province).
To the Southwest it is 40 ri to the territories of
Baek-ju (Province)
To the Northeast it is 58 ri to On-sein-jin of Seok-ju
(Province) and beyond there is no land.
Going further from there for two
days and one night in the direction of Northwest one reaches Matsushima (Dokdo).
Also there is Takeshima (Ulleungdo) at another day's travel distance.
It is so called Isotakeshima, rich in bamboo,fish, and sealion.
These two islands are uninhabited and getting a sight of Koryo (from there) is like
viewing Oki (Province) from Onshu (Province).
Thus, this "餠" (Oki Province) marks the northwestern boundary of Japan.



The words in red was added by the site owner.


Please take a look sentence by sentence. (I abbreviated the first one or two lines because they were translated from different texts.)
The second sentences in green are from my translation, the third sentences in blue are from the pro-Korean's site.

(1) 従是南至雲州美穂関三十五里
If you go 35-ri south you will get to Miho-no-seki of Unshu.
To the Southeast it is 35 ri to Onshu (Province).

The pro-Korean site owner's sentence has two errors. 南 means south, not southeast. And Miho-no-seki is in Unshu, not Onshu. (Onshu is Oki.)

(2) 辰巳伯州赤崎浦へ四十里
If you go 40-ri Southeast you’ll get to Akasaki of Hakushu (mid-west of Tottori prefecture).
To the Southwest it is 40 ri to the territories of Baek-ju (Province)

The pro-Korean site owner's sentence has an error, 辰巳 means southeast, not southwest.

(3) 未申至石州温ノ津五十八里
If you go 58-ri Southwest you’ll get to Yu-no-tsu of Sekisyu (west of Shimane prefecture).
To the Northeast it is 58 ri to On-sein-jin of Seok-ju (Province)

The pro-Korean site owner's sentence has an error, 未申 means southwest, not northeast.

(4) 自子至卯無可往地
From north to east there is no place to go.
and beyond there is no land.

The pro-Korean site owner's sentence has an error. 自(from) 子 means "from north" and 至 (to)卯 means "to east", so the author wrote about from north to east, not "beyond there".

(5) 戌亥間行フ二日一有松嶋
If you go to northwest you will get to Matsushima in 2 days
Going further from there for two days and one night in the direction of Northwest one reaches Matsushima (Dokdo).

(6) 又一日程有竹嶋 (俗言磯竹嶋多竹魚海鹿)
and you’ll get to Takeshima in one more day. (This is so-called Iso-takeshima. Rich in bamboo, fish and sealions)
Also there is Takeshima (Ulleungdo) at another day's travel distance.
It is so called Isotakeshima, rich in bamboo,fish, and sealion.


(7) 此二嶋無人之地
These two are uninhabited islands.
These two islands are uninhabited

(8) 見高麗如自雲州望隠州
From there you can view Korea, it is just like you view Onshu (Oki island) from Unshu (east of Shimane prefecture, mainland of Japan).
and getting a sight of Koryo (from there) is like viewing Oki (Province) from Onshu (Province).

The pro-Korean site owner's sentence has an error here again. Onshu is Oki, so viewing Oki from Oki doesn't have a meaning. The author is putting emphasis here about viewing Korea (Koryo). He illustrated it as it was seen very near, just like viewing Oki island from mainland of Japan (Unshu).

(9) 然則日本乾地以此州為限矣
So then, the northwest of Japan, we make this place to be the boundary.
Thus, this "餠" (Oki Province) marks the northwestern boundary of Japan.

The word in red is added by the pro-Korean site owner. You may notice how arbitrary the added word is. And the translation of this sentence by the pro-Korean site owner is slightly lack in accuracy. The direct translation is: So then (然則), the northwest land of Japan (日本乾地), with this place (以此州),
(we) make it the boundary (為限). The author didn't say "the northwestern boundary".



The author Saito Hosen put emphasis on "viewing Korea" and it was "just like" viewing Oki from mainland of Japan. So the boundary in the last sentence should be the place where the author saw Korea. It can't be Oki because Saito wrote that it was "just like" viewing Oki, which means it was not Oki he saw. The author only wrote "此州" (this place, or this state, or this island) but the pro-Korean site owner added "Oki Province" intentionally.

So everyone should be alert when you read translated texts. I recommend you to read translated texts from reliable sources and when you read them you should also take a look at the original documents.

   

Addendum: Saito Hosen wrote that the place of "Northwest" should be the boundary. The pro-Korean owner insists that he meant Oki island, but Oki is located just north of mainland of Japan. Please take a look at the map of Japan. The place of "Northwest" of Japan is definitely Takeshima (Ulleungdo).    

43 comments:

  1. dokdo-takeshima.com28/10/07 02:06

    This is hilarious!! What a shabby attempt to single out my website for a translation that is supported by other writers some who are even Japanese. This shows a new level of desperation on behalf of the Japanese Takeshima lobbyists on this forum.

    But actually I flattered because I've noticed a trend lately. The posters here tend to launch personal attacks when they realize they are losing.

    Here is one publication written by a Japanese man who supports my translation.

    Please go to page 17 on this document published by Japanese writer Hideki Kajimura and you will see his translation also makes it clear Oki Island is the boundary of Japan.

    Oki is the Boundary of Japan.

    Korean writer Han Key Lee's publication also supports my translation you can see his translation on page 10 of 55.

    Oki is the Boundary of Japan 2

    Sean Ferns publication cites Shin Yong Ha's translation although I don't agree with eveything Mr Shin says. You can see the reference on page 8 of this document.

    Oki is the Boundary of Japan 3

    Jon Van Dyke's article also accepts Mr Shin Yong Ha's interpretaion Pacifist. He wrote a legal article on the dispute. You can see his citation of Shin Yong Ha on page number 11 of 69.

    Oki is the Boundary of Japan4

    This is why I agree with the more widely accepted Korean translation of this disputed document.

    First Saito Hosen as I've always said uses the character "州" to denote province in this document. He also uses "島“ to denote shima or island. The Japanese contend that "州" means Ulleungdo Island? The sentence before give reference to these two island NOT Ulleungdo.

    How can two islands 90kms apart and in an opposite Westerly direction from each other and a day's travel apart be a boundary Pacifist?

    Here “州” does not mean "place". it means village, state or in this case province just as Saito Hosen consistently used the character at least six times before in his report.

    To kill the Japanese theory entirely, there are absolutely no maps to support the Japanese assertions that in the 17 Century Japan considered Ulleungdo and Dokdo as part of Japanese territory. None.

    Here is a map of Japan from 1654. Pacifist do you see the character for North? What island is that right next? If you said Oki Island you are right!!

    17 Century Japanese Map with no Takeshima or Dokdo

    You can also see this map made around 1694 it also shows Oki as the Northwest boundary of Japan. What island is that next to the border Pacifist? If you said Oki Island you are right again!!

    Oki as Japan's border 1694


    Here are prefecture maps of Japan showing that Ulleungdo and Dokdo are not part of any Japanese Prefecture at this time. They are dated around 1660. These prefecture maps amount to the total West coast of Japan, in this area.

    No Dokdo
    No Dokdo 2
    No Dokdo 3
    No Dokdo 4

    This last map is of Oki Prefecture. Do you see any Ulleungdo or Dokdo Pacifist? I don't.

    No Dokdo in Oki

    So now we know Takeshima and Matsushima were not part of Oki. We also have the Shogunates correspondence to Tottori in 1695.

    This document confirms that the islands were not "bestowed" to the Oyas or Murakawas who voyaged from Yonago is Hoki.

    Tottori to Shogunate


    So as you see Ulleungdo and Dokdo were not part of any Japanese Prefecture and thus not part of Japan in the 17th Century.

    Pacifist you shouldn't launch personal attacks on someone for posting a widely accepted interpretation of a historical document. It makes you look very petty and is very cheesy. But I guess desperate people do desperate things....sigh.

    I appreciate you proofreading my website for me. I'll go over it and remove and typing errors. I'll fix any mistakes. But I'm sticking with the more widely accepted and logical translation that can be supported by maps if it's O.K. with you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve Barber,

    I didn't intend to attack a personal, I'm sorry for that.
    I will arrange the posting and erase your name from it.

    I only intended to make it clear that translated texts can be arranged easily, changing its original meaning.

    The Japanese scholar you mentioned, Hideki Kajimura, is one of the far leftist scholars in Japan, as well as Haruki Wada.

    http://haniwa82.hp.infoseek.co.jp/meigen/index.html

    He had supported North Korea and its theory. When North Korea denied the history that China (漢) once occupied north part of Korea and made four counties "漢四郡", he supported North Korea's view without any evidences, although many other scholars didn't.

    http://tsujimoto.asablo.jp/blog/2006/07/05/433161

    So it's a surprise that you only referred to him as a "Japanese scholar". He was not a representative of Japanese scholars. Anyway, there is no ground in his view.

    As to Shin Yong Ha, he has been blamed for arranging the original text of Saito Hosen (erasing the sentences about places of south, southeast etc and connected the first part and the last part intentionally). He is not a reliable scholar.

    As to the maps Steve, I've repeated hundred times that "No maps won't prove anything but a map prove something". Even if you show many maps without Matsushima, we have various maps of Matsushima.

    And in the 18th century, a book mentioned "our Matsushima". It is clear that Japanese in the Edo era believed that Takeshima and Matsushima were Japanese islands and that Takeshima was given away and Matsushima remained in Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve Barber,

    I forgot to comment on the word "州". The word means place, land, island or county, so as you insist, it also means county. But if Saito Hosen intended to indicate the county - Oki county, the county should include Ulleungdo where one could view Korea, because the reason he thought it was the boundary was that he could view Korea from the place.

    So if your insistency is right, it is a proof that Saito Hosen thought that Ullengdo was in the Japanese territory - Oki county.

    ReplyDelete
  4. dokdo-takeshima.com28/10/07 15:35

    Pacifist, you are doing it again you shouldn't discredit someone's research just because their views. Stick with the facts and stop using personal attacks on those who offer alternative opinions. Otherwise you are no better than the Koreans Gerry is always blubbering about.

    I agree one map doesn't seal the deal. However, I have dozens of Japanese maps from three centuries that show Japan excluded both Takeshima and Matsushima from Japanese territory up to 1905. Come to think of it, I can't think of one map that could conclusively be said to be historical proof of Japan's ownership of Dokdo.

    I've collected these maps and arrived at the same conclusion as other historians. Japan did not consider Matsushima as her territory.

    As I've mentioned the previous sentence states "These 2 islands are unihabited. and viewing Korea from there is the same as viewing Oki from Onshu.."Saito Hosen then states "Thus this "州" marks the Northwest territory of Japan.

    First how can the character "州" represent two separate islands Pacifist? They are a full day's travel apart as Saito Hosen mentioned. As I've said, how can 2 islands 90kms apart in straight line away from Japan be used as a boundary? Better yet how do Japanese claim Takeshima is the boundary when Saito Hosen says "These 2 islands?? If you sincerely believe the character "" in the last line is a reference to the sentence prior you are stating both Takeshima and Matsushima are the boundary, which simply doesn't make sense.

    Saito Hosen uses the character "州" to represent province or state no less that six times in this document. He also uses "島" to represent island at least 5 times. Surely if Takeshima was the boundary why didn't he just write 竹島 or at least “以此島” (These islands)? The Japanese usage of 州 in their translation is totally out of context when you consider the rest of the report.

    In Saito Hosen's report he decribes all of the territories surrounding Oki Province. He does not say Takeshima and Matsushima are part of Oki. In fact his attached map of Oki Province does not show Takeshima nor Matsushima. Later in 1695 Shimane replied to the Shogunate that Takeshima and Matsushima didn't belong to either Hoki or Onshu. So, if Takeshima and Matsushima weren't part of Oki, Hoki or Inbashu what part of Japan were they located in?

    The last sentence makes the Japanese translation impossible. Saito Hosen used a visible comparison to determine the territorial boundary. He concluded that because Korea was visible from Takeshima and Matsushima in the same manner that Oki was visible from Onshu, Oki was the boundary. Why would the fact Korea was visible from Takeshima~Matsushima make this a Japanese territory just like Oki Pacifist? The Japanese translation makes Saito Hosen's visual analogy nonsensical.

    More people cite Shin Yong Ha's translation because it makes sense. But he takes it a step further which I don't agree with. He says this document is proof that Takeshima and Matsushima are Koreans territories. I say it is clear proof the islands were excluded by the Japanese. Then I use reams of Japanese maps to buttress this argument.

    In 1785 Hiyashi Shihei drew his famous colour-coded map of Japan. This map also had a version of Saito Hosen's quote on it. It also showed the islands as part of Korea.

    Chosun Land

    ReplyDelete
  5. dokdo-takeshima.com28/10/07 15:40

    Try again.

    Chosun Land

    ReplyDelete
  6. (8) 見高麗如自雲州望隠州
    From there you can view Korea, it is just like you view Onshu (Oki island) from Unshu (east of Shimane prefecture, mainland of Japan).
    and getting a sight of Koryo (from there) is like viewing Oki (Province) from Onshu (Province).

    Steve, what is "there" from which you can veiw Korea in your interpertation?
    Ulleungdo or Oki island?



    (9) 然則日本乾地以此州為限矣
    So then, the northwest of Japan, we make this place to be the boundary.
    Thus, this "餠" (Oki Province) marks the northwestern boundary of Japan.

    Steve, where does 地(place) went in your translation?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve Barber,

    I didn't discredit someone's research. I just showed both of the translations, although I pointed out some erros in the pro-Korean site owner's translation. Readers will judge in the end.

    Steve, I repeat again, even if you bring hundres of maps without Takeshima and Matsushima, your theory is dead when we show you some of the clear maps of Liancourt rocks (you can see them through this Gerry's site).

    If you are so enthusiastic and stick to maps, why can't you succeed in finding Korean maps of Liancourt rocks? Not a map at all. Why, Steve?

    Do you understand? One can't argue about the ownership of a land only depending on maps, Steve.

    At least the following would be essential:
    1) At first one must recognise the land - Japanese recognised Liancourt rocks as Matshushima since the 17th century but Koreans didn't. (They once saw Liancourt rocks from Ulleungdo but they didn't have clear information about them.)

    2) Second, one must effectively control the land - Japanese fishermen used the rocks, which were recorded as documents and maps, but Koreans didin't. (They didn't come to Liancourt rocks until Japanese sealion hunters hired them in the 1900's.)

    Steve, you wrote;
    "As I've mentioned the previous sentence states "These 2 islands are unihabited. and viewing Korea from there is the same as viewing Oki from Onshu.."

    Yes Steve, although it's slightly different - it's viewing Oki from Unshu (not Onshu), as I pointed out before.

    You also wrote;
    "Saito Hosen then states "Thus this "州" marks the Northwest territory of Japan."

    No, this is wrong. As I mentioned in the posting, saito Hosen wrote "日本乾地" (日本= Japan, 乾 = northwest, 地 = land or place). More precisely, it is Japan's northwest land" or "land that locates at the northwest direction of Japan". And then he added, with this 州 (we) make it the boundary.

    Your question was:
    "First how can the character "州" represent two separate islands Pacifist?"

    There are two theories I think;
    (1) If Saito used "州" as an island, it is definitely Ulleungdo. Read his text again, his eyes went to Matsushima, and then to Takeshima (Ulleungdo). And he saw Korea apparently from Takeshima (Ulleungdo). So he meant Ullengdo was the boundary. It is natural, because Japanese fishermen had used to go to Ulleungdo with the permission from the shogunate for almost half a century in 1667 when Saito wrote this book and it was 30 years before the dispute between Japan and Korea began. Until then there had been no Koreans on Ulleungdo.

    (2) If he meant "county" (Oki county), the word 日本乾地 may mean all the territory of Oki county including Matsushima and Takeshima, as Saito Hosen thought it was the boundary because he could see Korea from there. So the county should include Takeshima (Ulleungdo).

    Anyway, Saito Hosen believed Takeshima and Matsushima were in Japan's water as many Japanese in those days believed.

    You wrote;
    "In Saito Hosen's report he decribes all of the territories surrounding Oki Province. He does not say Takeshima and Matsushima are part of Oki".

    Yes, the whole book is about details of villages and temples of Oki county. The two islands Takeshima and Matsushima were uninhibited islands in those days, so there were no villages or temples. Saito Hosen may have thought it was not necessary to write about the uninhibited islands.

    If he thought that Takeshima and Matsushima were not included in Oki county, then you must admit that the 1st theory above (Ulleungdo was the boundary) would be right.


    You wrote;
    "Later in 1695 Shimane replied to the Shogunate that Takeshima and Matsushima didn't belong to either Hoki or Onshu."

    As to this, I and Kaneganese have already told you. Takeshima and Matsushima were exclusively permitted to use for Oya's and Murakawa's families by the shogunate. These lands were called as 天領 (tenryo), which was directly controlled by the shogunate, not local counties. So any counties including Houki or Tottori didn't think they were their territories. It is natural and no wonder.

    You wrote,
    "The last sentence makes the Japanese translation impossible. Saito Hosen used a visible comparison to determine the territorial boundary".

    I can't understand what you are saying, impossible? Are you talking about your own translation? Saito Hosen didn't use a visible comparison, he only mentioned that "One can see Korea very close from the place (Ulleungdo)". And he illustrated how closely one can view Korea, using example of viewing Oki.

    So your insistency;
    "He concluded that because Korea was visible from Takeshima and Matsushima in the same manner that Oki was visible from Onshu, Oki was the boundary"... is completely far from the truth.

    He could see Korea from Takeshima (Ulleungdo) so Oki was the boundary?
    There's an illogical jump in what you say. Do you really think this is true? Nobody can understand you, Steve.

    Steve wrote;
    "Why would the fact Korea was visible from Takeshima~Matsushima make this a Japanese territory just like Oki Pacifist?"

    Can't you understsnad?
    Think of it Steve, the original text says "限" - limit, literally "outer limit". Saito Hosen went to Takeshima (Ulleungdo) where no Koreans live and could see Korea from there. There were no islands between the place where he stood and Korea. It was the limit, the closest place to foreign country. But Oki island was not a limit.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pacifist,
    You are too kind to correct so many of his mistakes. (晒しておけば良かったのに~). Well, there are still plenty.

    Steve Barber wrote,
    "I appreciate you proofreading my website for me. I'll go over it and remove and typing errors. I'll fix any mistakes. But I'm sticking with the more widely accepted and logical translation that can be supported by maps if it's O.K. with you."
    "more widely accepted and logical translation" Which one is your original translation? For your information, the translations by Prof. Naitou and Ikeuchi are not correct at all, and it was not accepted by Japanese academics.

    Over at occidentalism, you degraded pacifist's translations and told "Professional translation services are quite reasonable here in Korea. These people are also free of bias and accountable for what they translate. "  Looks like you didn't hire any translater. Did you lie again?

    Let me refresh your memory.
    toadface Says: June 25th, 2007 at 7:10 am
    "Pacifist, still playing fast and loose with your translations aren’t you? You are contradicting your own translation above. Pretty funny. It seems even the others don’t share your translation.

    Pacifist, the grammar in your translations is continuously doubtful. I recently contacted a professional translator and he stated this “grammar rule” you talked about was incorrect. To support this, your translation of Saito Hosen’s report on Oki is not shared by Japanese who have written articles on Dokdo. When you translate please don’t be blinded by Japanese nationalism because the public can see through your facade.

    So you see Pacifist, it isn’t really necessary to learn Japanese to have an accurate translation done. Professional translation services are quite reasonable here in Korea. These people are also free of bias and accountable for what they translate.

    your translation of Saito Hosen’s report on Oki is not shared by Japanese who have written articles on Dokdo" Who, exactly? I will chechk his translations for you. I have already pointed out Prof,Ikeuchi's critical mistake. Are you talking about Naitou's translation?"

    See? you are the one who discredit someone's research just because their views. All of your explanation are copies from someone. If you want to object his translation, learn Japanese or at least Chinese first and do it on your own word. You din't even know what 雲州 means?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh, you said you adopted Hideki Kajimura's translation? This is hiralious. He is a famous Leftist Japanese scholar as pacifist said. Japan is a free country and there are lots of anti-Japan academics in University. If you keep citing his incorrect translation as "Japanese translation" you will go nowhere. Just learn Japanese first, then you can understand what pacifist are trying to say. See for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  10. dokdo-takeshima.com28/10/07 22:39

    Pacifist I don't deny Korean maps. I don't interpret them as accurate. Gerry posts the same maps over and over again.

    Does he mention there are 5 islands on his maps that simply don't exist? No. Does he mention Chosun maps aren't to scale and show Ulleundo as 3 time too big. No. Does Gerry mention the position Ulleungdo is far too West? No. Does Gerry post the maps that show Usando on the wrong side? No. Does Gerry show maps and docs that show Usando to the South? No. Does Gerry post documents that state Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima. No. Does Gerry mention Anyongbok said Jasando (Usando) was 50 ri away from Ulleungdo? No.

    Ancient Chosun maps show Usando as many things as do Japanese. Gerry's argument for Usando is Jukdo can't be concluded as such.

    Pacifist you are filling in the blanks again.

    Saito Hosen used one word you are omitting. He said "Thus" this province marks the boundary of Japan. He used the fact that Korea was visible from Ulleungdo to determine the boundary. Are you trying to tell me because Korea was visible from Takeshima the same as Oki it was Japanese land?? What a bunch of rubbish.

    The Oyas and Murakawas had nothing to do with Oki. They were from Yonago City in Hoki. This "fuedal tenure" would have been granted to eithier Hoki or Inbashu if at all. Not Oki. However in 1695 it was concluded that both Takeshima and Matsushima didn't belong to either of these prefectures either.

    So no matter what silly games you play Pacifist. The character "州" cannot be said to mean "These 2 islands" you are changing the context of the sentence prior suit your own incorrect translation. You are totally ignoring the consistent use of the characters "州" and "島" to suit your bizarre, self-serving interpretation.

    Saito Hosen said.
    "These 2 islands are uninhabited and getting a view from there is the same as viewing Oki from Onshu. Thus this "州" marks the boundary of Japan.

    Two islands 90kms away from Japan, a days travel, and it straight line from Japan cannot define an "outer limit" no matter how you fudge on your translation Pacifist. Nowhere does he say Takeshima is the boundary. You've added that to suit your wrong interpretation. When somewhen defines a limit they chose a clear concise location NOT two islands 90 clicks apart!!

    Look at this map Pacifist, how can Takeshima and Matsushima be the boundary of Japan??

    Pacifist, in 1695 when the Shognate inquired about the status of Takeshima he wasn't even sure when the Japanese were voyaging to Ulleungdo. He didn't know how big the island was, if it was inhabited or when they went there.

    When the Shogunate inquired about the status of the island he asked Hoki and Inbashu districts NOT Oki.

    If Takeshima and Matsushima were part of Oki why did he inquire to Hoki and Inbashu districts Pacifist? Surely the Shogunate knew which territories Takeshima and Matsushima belonged to, he issued the voyage passes. It's clear Takeshima and Matsushima were not considered part of Japan in 1695. Period.

    Takeshima and Matsushima NOT Japanese Land

    ReplyDelete
  11. dokdo-takeshima.com28/10/07 22:47

    Kanganese, I've cited four sources of published academics that used Shin Yong Ha's translation. These people all had the integrity to publish articles, sign their names and have their work printed.

    You are such a hotshot Japanese historian. Why don't you bless us all and tell us what your name is?

    I mean you and Pacifist have decided all people who don't support Japanese translations of these documents are not credible so you must be a very accredited professional. Both of you have bent over backwards to find out my name and launch personal attacks.

    Now that this has become "personal" please tell us your name. Pacifist feel free to tell the readers on this forum your name.

    My Name is Steve Barber and I have a website called dokdo-takeshima.com

    Who the hell are you???

    ReplyDelete
  12. Steve,

    Don't bust a blood vessel. I have dealt with many of those issues and you know it, and I will deal with more in the future. In the meantime, go back and reread my posts if your memory is really that short.

    Steve, the difference between you and Pacifist is that Pacifist does not post under five or six different IDs.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Steve

    見高麗如自雲州望隠州

    Here is your translation.


    Getting a sight of Koryo (from there) is like viewing Oki (Province) from Onshu (Province).

    Steve according to your interpretation, "there" in (from there) is Ulleungdo, am I correct?

    So it says:
    Getting a sight of Koryo from Ulleungdo is like viewing Oki from Onsyu.


    Note the topic we are talking about
    is Ulleungdo.

    And then, here is the next sentence.


    (9) 然則日本乾地以此州為限矣


    Thus(然則), (this) Japan's (日本)northwest(乾) land(地) marks(為) the boundary(限矣) of  this(此)州(province, island...)

    Or it could be:
    Thus this Japan's northwest land, this 州 marks the boudary.

    Either case, under this context, it seems clear this land,the (Japan's) northwest land, is Ullenungdo.

    Why do you think, under this context, the land/place refers to Oki?
    For that matter, why did you omit to translate the "land/place(地)"?

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's getting really interesting. Now you claim you are not "Wedge or Wedgie" nor Toadface? I think "toadface" admitted his name is Steve Barber already. We don't even know if your real name is Steve Barber or not, actually. Do you have any proof of this? What other ID's you used? I have already told Gerry my name, but I have no intention to share my personal information with unreliable and big fat liar person like yourself.

    Steve Barber said;
    "Korean writer Han Key Lee's publication also supports my translation you can see his translation on page 10 of 55."

    The PDF of Han Key Lee's (李漢基) you gave doesn't do any translations. It write as "Here, 此州(thus or the island or these islands as sinitic characteres can be used either as singular or plural) is erroneously interpreted as the "two islands." This can be rightly interpreted as denoting Oki making the northwestern bounday of Japan." He even doesn't explain the grammatical reason. 慎鏞廈 interpreted "州" as island, what about him?.

    Sean Ferns didn't do any translation either, moreover he made critical mistakes by saying the report says Takeshima and Matsushima were both ascribed to Korea (cites from Shin(慎鏞廈)), which is a fatal mistake Shin made and a total lie. "In Saito's report, Tokdo and Ulleundo were both ascribed to Korea and Oki to Japan as its westernmost border."

    Neither Van Dyke did tranlation on his own but only cited Shin's incorrect translation which hold fatal mistake as I said above. (BTW, He said Korea has good grounds to win in ICJ.)

    Even pro-Korean Japanese academics like Naito and Ikeuchi does admit that the report never says Ulleundo and 竹島/Liancourt Rocks are Korean territory.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Steve barber,

    You wrote;
    "Two islands 90kms away from Japan, a days travel, and it straight line from Japan cannot define an "outer limit" no matter how you fudge on your translation Pacifist".

    You didn't read my posting, did you? Saito Hosen wrote that he saw Korea from Takeshima (Ulleungdo), so he thought that the place (Takeshima = Ulleungdo) should be the outer limit, not Matsushima.

    You also wrote;
    "Are you trying to tell me because Korea was visible from Takeshima the same as Oki it was Japanese land??"

    Don't you understand what I told you?
    Saito Hosen put emphasis on "viewing Korea" from Takeshima (Ulleungdo), the depiction of "viewing Oki" is only an example of how closely Korea was seen.
    Japanese people knew how Oki island could be closely seen from mainland of Japan, so he used the depiction of Oki. His intention was "viewing Korea closely" from Takeshima, so Saito thought this must be the outer limit of Japan.

    As you seem to like maps, look at the map 日本輿地路程全図 by Nagakubo Sekisui. You may have it, Steve? (If not, it's on this Gerry's site. Please click the maps and search for it)

    What do you see beside Takeshima (Ulleungdo)? It reads "見高麗猶雲州望隠州" - "viewing Koryo just like viewing Onshu from Unshu". The words after "just like" is an example of how one can see Koryo closely.

    One more thing, you wrote;
    "Saito Hosen used one word you are omitting. He said "Thus" this province marks the boundary of Japan".

    More accurately, two words - 然 and 則. I once told you before in Occidentalism so I thought you could understand but did you forget what I told you?

    然 reads "shikaraba" and it means "then" and is used as a connecting word with the former sentence - in this case "One can view Korea very closely".
    則 reads "sunawachi" and it means "in other words", "that is", "rightly" or "soon".
    I translated the two words as "So then" in my translation.

    So Saito Hosen intended to say "One can view Korea very closely from Ulleungdo" so then "This place should be the boundary".
    Understand?

    ReplyDelete
  16. dokdo-takeshima.com29/10/07 00:07

    Pacifist, Saito Hosen says.

    These two islands are uninhabited and getting a sight of Korea is the same as viewing Oki from Onshu.

    He doesn't say from Ulleungdo at all. Again you are adding your own words. You are trying to make "these two islands" to mean Ulleungdo. Read what I've written above.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Steve,
    So what is "there" in (from there)
    in your interpretation?

    Linocout Rocks?
    Ulleungdo?

    ReplyDelete
  18. dokdo-takeshima.com29/10/07 00:17

    Kanganese, read what I've read above I don't say Saito Hosen's report is proof of Korean ownership I said it shows the Japanese excluded the territory.

    Right, Saito Hosen said these two islands are unihabited and viewing Korea is the same as viewing Oki from Unshu. THEN he says this is the boundary. How can two islands, a day apart, in an opposite direction be a boundary.

    I've also proved it above with the Tottori to Shimane document and prefecture maps drawn at the same era.

    So you see Kaneganese other people have published articles that contradict your translation. As long as you are just some ghost posting under the name "kaneganese" don't expect to get much respect in the real world.

    Come on Kaneganese why don't you tell us your real name? Dont' be shy, you too Pacifist.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Steve Barber,

    Do you think Korea is visible from Oki island?

    Do you think Korea is visible from Liancourt rocks?

    Saito Hosen was relating about Matsushima and then Takeshima, and then he wrote about viewing Korea.

    Steve, from where do you think Saito Hosen view Korea? 

    ReplyDelete
  20. dokdo-takeshima.com29/10/07 00:23

    Ponta I don't think there is a "there" just a general area. Usually Saito Hosen's quote is drawn somewhere between Takeshima and Matsushima from what I've seen on maps. This is all the more reason to believe where Korea became visible from was not Japan's boundary.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Saito Hosen said these two islands are uninhabited and viewing Korea is the same as viewing Oki from Unshu. THEN he says this is the boundary. How can two islands, a day apart, in an opposite direction be a boundary."

    So at least you have admitted "viewing Korea from there" is not viewing from Oki. That is a great improvement.

    So what we've got is:

    "Viewing Korea from Ulleungdo and/or Linocourt rocks is like viewing Oki from Unshyu."

    Thus (this) northwest place/land ...marks the boundary (....)

    So together with your interpretation above,
    we have:
    Thus (this) northwest place=Ulleungdo and/or Linocourt Rocks ....marks the boundary....

    That proves your interpretation is wrong.

    Now,what should be correct interpretation?
    The possible interpretations would be:
    (1) The boundary was ambiguous concept at that time, so the two islands can be the boundary.
    (2) Two islands can not be the boundary. So Saito must have meant the one island. Under the context, it is safe to say the Ulleungdo is the best candidate; for, we are talking about the boundary, and the
    furthest island he mentioned was Ulleungdo.

    In either case, I think it is clear your interpretation, unfortunately , turned out to be wrong.

    By the way, a nudist put off his clothes voluntarily. You don't have to put off your clothes. Likewise you don't have to reveal your name. But you did. It was your decision. I respect your decision. You need to live up to your decision but you cannot impose
    your decision upon others.

    But I won't call you Steve if you don't like to be so called. What is your favorite name to be called? The point is you need to unify your names.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Steve Barber,

    You wrote;
    "somewhere between Takeshima and Matsushima from what I've seen on maps".

    I can't understand what you are trying to say.
    Form where Saito Hosen saw Korea?
    Somewhere???

    Look at the map 日本輿地路程全図 by Nagakubo Sekisui again, and you will see the truth.

    You continued;
    "This is all the more reason to believe where Korea became visible from was not Japan's boundary".

    I just can't understand what you are saying. Do you really understand it yourself?

    I repeat again that the word "限" means "limit" or "edge", that is the closest place to the outer world (in this case Korea).

    So Oki island is not so close to outer world, it's near to mainland of Japan. The outer limit is not Liancourt rocks because Saito Hosen could go more far. He thought Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was the outer limit, because he could see Korea very close from there and he couldn't go more far - it was the literally the limit.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Steve Barber wrote;
    "Kanganese, read what I've read above I don't say Saito Hosen's report is proof of Korean ownership I said it shows the Japanese excluded the territory."

    I know what you are saying, but you posted two articles which simply support Shin's incorrect translation, not yours. That means you support his stupid translation( The report says both islands belong to Korea.),too. If you don't want to be included in a same league with them, don't show those incorrect articles.

    So what Lee explains about his translations? You need to show us as long as you support his "translation". Your pdf doesn't say anything about how he translated nor why they think MOFA's translation in incorrect. Can you explain?

    So, what is your proof that you are Steve Barber? not Toadface? The problem is, you use too many IDs even on a same blog and pretend you had never been debunked on a same issue and come to us again and again and again. You(toadface) had promised several times you would correct your mistakes in "dokdo-takeshima.com" but you didn't. But now, you are starting to pretend you had not even said what you clearly said. It is very problematic when you want to debate seriously with someone even on the net.

    ReplyDelete
  24. dokdo-takeshima.com30/10/07 01:16

    Pacifist, even the Shimane Prefecture website itself says the Japanese were only granted permission to voyage to Takeshima. It doesn't say the Japanese were given ownership of the islands. It used to say the Oyas and Murakawas were given feudal tenure of the islands. They must have dropped the reference, maybe the blundering MOFA still clings to this old notion.

    Shimane's website says.

    "...In the year 1618, Jinkichi Oya and Ichibei Murakawa of Yonago City received permission form the Shogunate Government to sail to Ulleung Island in order to catch abalone,sea lions, and to cut down trees and bamboo for lumber. On their way to Ulleung Island, they used Takeshima as a midway port, and also hunted and fished there. In 1661, the Oya Family and Murakawa Family were granted official permission to travel to Takeshima by the Shogunate Government..."

    Sorry, Just Voyage Passes

    If you look at the Shimane Brochure for their claim to Takeshima it makes absolutely no reference to Saito Hosen's Report on Oki.

    In fact, Japan's claim to Takeshima now clings to a thread with the 1905 annexation of Takeshima, and an odd map 1864 map of that shows Ulleungdo as Japanese territory. Most of the Japanese brochure on Takeshima is just potshots at Korea's historical claim without presenting anything of their own prior to 1905. It was very disappointing.

    Kaneganese, Jon Vandykes article doesn't buy Shin Yong Ha's theory hook, line and sinker. He, like me, agrees Saito Hosen's report defines Japan's boundary as Oki and doesn't go so far as saying this means Ulleungdo, Dokdo were thought as Korean land.

    Regardless of where Saito Hosen saw Korea from he does not say Ulleungdo that is a heavy assumption on your part. Nor does that make the character "州" magically change to mean island. The consistent character usage in this document tells us otherwise.

    Kanganese, I don't have to swallow all of Shin Yong Ha's theory and you don't have the right to hold me accountable for all he says. I agree with his theory and translation of Japan's boundary as do some others. I just don't agree with how this exclusion of Takeshima and Matsushima automatically define Korea's territory.

    It was a big mistake for Pacifist to make label the interpretation of Saito Hosen's article as "mine" I have cited this interpretation from other writers and I think there are other Japanese people such as Ikuechi who also agree. If I have typos in my translation, big deal, I'll correct them when I have time. I'm working on other pages now.

    BTW Kaneganese, I didn't get your name...... nor Pacifists. I'm still waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Steve Barber,

    You should read all of my postings about Saito Hosen's book.

    His book is only one of proofs that Japanese people thought Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima were part of Japan.
    So it's not a big deal, Steve.

    But you should admit that the two islands were recognised as Japanese land by Japanese in the Edo period.

    You like maps, so this is a present for you:
    http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_01/takeshima04d.data/5-6-1-02.pdf

    The map 大日本海陸全図 (1864) shows Takeshima and Matsushima were in the Oki county - they were painted in the same colour (yellow).

    ReplyDelete
  26. ”Regardless of where Saito Hosen saw Korea from he does not say Ulleungdo that is a heavy assumption on your part”

    It is not a heavy assumption but a reasonable interpretation.

    In any case, the discussion so far proved your interpretation was wrong.

    I suggest you correct your page before you make another heavy assumption on other pages.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Steve Bareber wrote;
    "Jon Van Dyke's article also accepts Mr Shin Yong Ha's interpretaion Pacifist. He wrote a legal article on the dispute. You can see his citation of Shin Yong Ha on page number 11 of 69."
    "Jon Vandykes article doesn't buy Shin Yong Ha's theory hook, line and sinker. "
    What do you want to say?

    Jon Vandykes wrote;
    "This report stated that the "two islands are uninhabited and geting a sight of Koryo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu"103 The report also noted that Oki island marked the northwestern boundary of Japan." 104 thus acknorledging that Japan did not claim sovereignty over Dokdo and Ulleundo."
    They are both from Shin's incorrect translation. There are many mistakes even in those short sentenses. It is very sad that those incorrect translations are cited in many articles. Those incorrect informations only makes Korean and foreign academics who adopted it stupid, sadly.

    Stev Barber wrote;
    "I have cited this interpretation from other writers and I think there are other Japanese people such as Ikuechi who also agree."
    Who? By the way, you haven't explained about Lee's translations. You need to show us as long as you support his "translation". Your pdf doesn't say anything about how he translated nor why they think MOFA's translation in incorrect. Can you explain? On what point do you think Prof. Ikeuchi agree with your translation? I think it's pretty different.

    So, what is your proof that you are Steve Barber? not Toadface? You have obligation to clarify who you are, since you use too many IDs and pretend you had never been debunked on a same issue and come to us again and again and again. You(toadface) had promised several times you would correct your mistakes on "Dokdo-takeshima.com" but you didn't. But now, you are starting to pretend you had not even said what you clearly said. It is very problematic when you want to debate seriously with someone even on the net. By the way, in case you don't even notice, I have no intention of telling my name on the net.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The point is, there were many opinions that those two islands, especially Matsushima (todays 竹島/Liancourt Rocks) was considered as a part of Oki country. Not only many maps as pacifist pointed out, there are also many documents that tells us Japanese from Edo to early Meiji recognized two islands as Oki's territory. It is very natural that Saito considered that those two islands are part of Oki country.

    1751-63(宝暦年間) 年- 「竹島図説」(Takeshima Zusetsu)
    "隠岐国松島ノ西島ヨリ海上道規凡四十里許リ北方に一島アリ名テ竹島ト曰フ 此ノ島日本ニ接シ朝鮮ニ隣シ地形三角ニシテ周囲凡ソ十五里許リ(中略)伯州米子ヨリ竹島マテ海上道規百六十里許アリ 米子ヨリ出雲ヘ出隠岐ノ松島ヲ歴テ竹島ニ至ルナリ 但隠岐ノ福島ヨリ松島マテ海上道規六十里許松島ヨリ竹島マテ四十里許ト云也" (There is an island about 40 ri north of the west island of Matsushima in Oki country. It is called Takeshima. This island is close to Japan and next to Joseon and is shaped like a triangle. It's circumference is about 15 ri. (partially abbreviated) The distance from Hakushuu's Yonago to Takeshima is about 160 ri by sea. One should go from Yonago to Izumo, and then through Oki's Matshushima to get to Takeshima. They say that the distance from Oki's Fukushima to Matsushima is 60 ri by sea, and from Matsushima to Takeshima is 40 ri.)

    1801(享和元)年 - 矢田高当「長生竹島記(Chyouzyo Takeshima Ki)」
    "竹島渡海之砌竹島丸往き通ひにはかならす此島江津掛りをなしたると云 当時も千石余の廻船夷そ松前行に不(レ点)量大風に被(二点)吹出(一点)し時は これそ聞伝う松島哉と遠見す 本朝西海のはて也" (It stopped by this island by necessity when the ship went to Takeshima. When there was a strong wind, the ship that originally left for Matsumae in Hokkaido, It says that Matsushima is seen far away. It is in the outskirts of the west of Japan.)

    1823(文政六)年 - 大西教保「隠岐(遠記)古記集」
    "亥ノ方四十余里にして 松島あり 周り凡壱里程にして生木なき岩嶋という 又酉ノ方七十里余に竹嶋といひ伝ふ竹木繁茂して大島の由是より朝鮮を望めば隠州より雲州を見るより尚近しと云今は朝鮮人来往すと云と 愚諸国の船人に問尋するに方角誠に然り 秋晴天北風の日に大満寺山の頂上より望み見は松島は遙かに見へんという竹島は朝鮮の池山に懐かれ遠く望めば朝鮮地と見ゆる由 愚按当国にて古より磯竹と云伝へあり" (40 ri to North by Northwest, there is Matsushima. It's a rocky island with no trees and circumference is about 100ri. And there is Takeshima about 70 to the west, and there are many bamboos and trees and it is big. Thus, if you see Choson from this island, it is said that it is nearer than seeing Unshuu from Onshuu. It is said that Choson people comes to this island now. Asking seamen from many countries, and the direction must be correct. It is said that on a fined day in Autumun with Northern breeze, Matshushima can be seen in distance from the top of Daimannji Mountain...)
    This document clearly says that Matsushima is part of Oki country.

    1878(明治十一)年1月 - 河田羆「日本地誌提要」(Geographical book of Japan by Kawata Takeshi)
    和銅の風土記につぐ日本全土の官撰地誌とされる。「山陰道」隠岐國島嶼の項に「又西北に方リテ松島竹島ノ二島アリ。土俗相傳フ、穩地郡福浦港ヨリ松島ニ至ル。海路凡六拾九里三拾五町。竹島ニ至ル。海路凡百里四町餘。朝鮮ニ至ル海路凡百三拾六里三拾町。」 The official geographical book of Japan made by Japanese governement. In the article of Oki's islets, it says that there are tow islands, Matsushma and Takeshima in Northwestern direction. Local people says that form Fukuura in Oki to Matsushma about 69 ri 35 chou in Sea ri, and about 104 ri 4 chou to Takeshima, and 136 ri 30 chou to Choson."

    1906 - 徳川光圀「大日本史」巻308,志3、隠岐国4郡( The History of Great Japan by Tokugawa Mitsukuni)
    1657年徳川光圀が尊王の目的で編さんを始め、1906年に完成した歴史書。"国郡誌"は、長久保赤水によって草稿が書かれ、明治時代に粟田寛によって新たに編修された。"隠岐国4郡"の項に"別に松島、竹島があり、これ(隠岐国)に属する(隠岐古記、隠岐紀行、案ずるに隠地郡の福浦より松島に至るには海上69里、竹島に至るには100里4町である。韓人は竹島を称して鬱陵島という。すでに竹島といい、松島といい、我が版図となした。智者を待つが知れない。ついては、以て考えに備える)" In the article of "4 districts of Oki country", it says that there are Matsuhima and Takeshima additionally, and those islands belong to Oki country.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Brilliant, Kaneganese!
    You should make one post with these documents.

    BTW, in the document 1823(文政六)年 - 大西教保「隠岐(遠記)古記集」, the circumference of Matsushima seems to be about 1-ri (周り凡壱里程) not 100-ri.

    ReplyDelete
  30. pacifist,

    Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Actually, I've been working on making a post about those maps and documents which especially favours Japanese claim for the last few days, but there are too many. When I finish it, I hope you will proofread it as always.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Steve Barber,

    Why are you silent?
    Do you admit Japanese in the Edo period believed that Takeshima and Matsushima were Japanese territory?

    If they thought these two islands were Korean islands as you insisted, the dispute in the 1690's wouldn't happen.
    The dispute itself was the evidence that Japan believed Takeshima was Japan's territory.

    In 1693 when Ahn Yong-bok was arrested in Takeshima (Ulleungdo), the lord of Tsushima warned Korea.

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/08/1693-1696-takeshima-incident-1st.html

    And even the Korean official sent a letter to the lord of Tsushima saying "But now these fishing boats went to Takeshima in your
    territory. And you sent them back to us from the far place. We thank your friendship".

    This proves Japan believed Takeshima (and of course Matsushima) were Japanese territory and Korean official recognised the name of Takeshima as Japan's island (although this was a political gimmick).

    It is no doubt that Japanese people in the Edo period believed Takeshima and Matsushima were Japanese islands. Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was later given away to Korea and Matsushima (Liancourt rocks) remained in Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  32. dokdo-takeshima.com31/10/07 00:47

    Kaneganese, Oki's Matsushima in that reference is the Matushima of the Okinoshima's not Korea's Dokdo of today. The route you describe is identical to the route on this map. The route to Matsushima and then Takeshima took them through the Okinoshima's first. By your definition the travelled directly to Dokdo which from the maps I've seen the Oyas and Murakawas didn't.

    Check the travel route it's identical. Yonago, Idzumo, Oki (Matsushima) and then onward. The Oki in this document is the Matsushima of the Okinoshima's island group.

    Oki's Matsushima is not Dokdo

    The rest of the references list both Takeshima and Matsushima was Japanese land. We know the Japanese had long since "ceded" Takeshima-Ulleungdo as Korean land since 1696 so these can be dismissed as wrong and unreliable. Right?

    Any post 1696 document or map that claims Takeshima was Japanese land isn't worth the paper it was written on. However, did you ever notice whatever side the Japanese declared the islands as they were always listed or coloured as a set or couple. This clearly demonstrates how the Japanese percieved these islets as inseparable.

    Pacifist the lord of Tsushima had been trying to grab Ulleungdo for hundreds of years before Anyongbok. In the 15th Century the Koreans told them to take a hike.

    Anyway, I'm busy working on some PDFs these days. Debunk you later.

    Listen as long as you guys post under your fictitious names your opinions mean nothing.

    See ya:
    Steve

    ReplyDelete
  33. Steve Barber,

    "Listen as long as you guys post under your fictitious names your opinions mean nothing."

    Ha ha, so you denied what you wrote under the name of toadface, dokdo-takeshima.com, frogmouth, and many other pseudonyms, I see.

    But Steve, think it over again. Why the dispute happen in the 1690's? Why Murakawas arrested and brought Ahn Yong-bok to Japan in 1693? Why the Korean official apologised to Japan?

    If Japan thought Takeshima was Korean island, these couldn't happen. It so simple. You lost again, Steve.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Steve Barber,

    You should read this:
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/okis-matsushima-in-18th-century.html

    Oki's Matsushima was Liancourt rocks.

    Also read this:
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/shimane-prefecture-explains-history-of_02.html

    Shimane Prefecture explained to Meiji government that the shogunate recognised Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as Japan's territory.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Steve Bareber wrote;
    "Kaneganese, Oki's Matsushima in that reference is the Matushima of the Okinoshima's not Korea's Dokdo of today. The route you describe is identical to the route on this map. The route to Matsushima and then Takeshima took them through the Okinoshima's first. By your definition the travelled directly to Dokdo which from the maps I've seen the Oyas and Murakawas didn't."

    Actually, the description in "Takeshima Zusetsu" exactly fits with the description of "Masushima" in your map and with 竹島/Liancourt Rocks. Takeshima is from 40 ri north of the "west" island of Matsushima in Oki country. It is identical what it says in the map. Yes, there are several Matsushimas in Oki, but Liancourt Rocks is the only one whic has "west" island. Can you see the sea route in your map comes from "West" island of Oki's Matsushima(today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks) to Takeshima(Ulleundo). As for the route, it is possible that the author only dropped to mention about Oki since it was not even an obligation to go to Oki before Matsushima. They were only using Oki's Fukuura to wait for a good winds. So it was very possible that if they had an good winds in Izumo, they sailed directly to Matsushima(Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo).

    "However, did you ever notice whatever side the Japanese declared the islands as they were always listed or coloured as a set or couple. "
    This is not true. The old documnts of Oyas tells us they, especially the Murakawas were engaging in fishing and trade in Matshushima alone. And there is an Map of Matsushima (松島絵図)1656 c.a." by the Murakawa Clan(村上家)"(Web Takeshima Research Center). If you compare it to modern map, you will be surprised how they drew the island accurately. The biggest reason Japanese tend to mention those two island as a set is that Ulleundo was bigger and more economically beneficial island, not because they thought they are twin or a set.

    And even after 1696, the records and trial documents of 1836 incident when Aizuya Yaemon was executed for sailing to Ulleundo clearly tells us that Japanese officials and civilians didn't consider Takeshima and Matsushima as a set, and they clearly thought Matsushima was Japanese land and not even banned to travel.

    "Any post 1696 document or map that claims Takeshima was Japanese land isn't worth the paper it was written on. "
    So you at least admit that Takeshima was Japanese island before 1696? That is a progress and really good to hear.

    "Listen as long as you guys post under your fictitious names your opinions mean nothing."
    If our ppinion doesn't mean anthing to you, that's perfectly fine with us. Then why bother refuting our posts and comments? You are acting like a child, do you know that? It only makes you look stupid. Think our IDs like an pen name. Me and pacifist haven't changed our IDs even once on this site. And we use same IDs on other forums which deals with same topics(Takeshima), though this is not an obligation, but at least you should be responsible what you said before.. If we want to change our Ids, we will inform our reader so that they can trace what we have said. The problem of you is, you use multiple IDs even on this one forum, to say nothng on other forums on same Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo, and you pretend like you have never said what you said before pretending it was not your ID.
    You still haven't proved you are really Steve Barber, and not Toadface nor Wedgie, and other multiple names under which you have been varbally attacking Japanese. What happened with your previous IDs you were using on this forum? You are sick.

    ReplyDelete
  36. dokdo-takeshima.com1/11/07 00:04

    So you see, Kaneganese the historical reference you made can't be only be interpreted as Matsushima (Dokdo) this was a very generous interpretation on your behalf.
    Here is your translation again.

    There is an island about 40 ri north of the west island of Matsushima in Oki country. It is called Takeshima. This island is close to Japan and next to Joseon and is shaped like a triangle. It's circumference is about 15 ri. (partially abbreviated) The distance from Hakushuu's Yonago to Takeshima is about 160 ri by sea. One should go from Yonago to Izumo, and then through Oki's Matshushima to get to Takeshima. They say that the distance from Oki's Fukushima to Matsushima is 60 ri by sea, and from Matsushima to Takeshima is 40 ri.

    There are two Matsushimas in this document. There is the Matsushima found on this map. This island is en route to Dokdo and as you see it was a point of interest after Idzumo.

    Check the number 8 island on this map.
    Oki's Matsushima

    It is exactly in the same location as the route on the maps I showed you before.
    Oki's Matsushima2

    Now you are saying "it is possible...this..." and it is possible that..." Kaneganese once again you've shown Japanese historical claims prior to the military annexation of Liancourt Rocks are non-existent. That is why they have now shifted their tactics from trying to make false claims to attacking Korea's claim. Japan has nothing.

    Kaneganese, the Oyas and the Murakawas never voyaged to Matsushima as a sole destination especially during the 17th and 18 Century. It was impossible to sail this distance return at this time. Dokdo has no water or shelter. I've heard they fished around the islands during the late 19th Century but we know Japan did not consider the islets during this era.

    So the one reference that says the Japanese voyaged to Matsushima turns out to be a lie. That's all. What Japan needs for a historical claim is some proof of historical ownership not records of cognizance. The lack of ban to voyage is not the equivalent to proof of title. Effective title must be proven as continuous. There are scores of maps that disprove Japan's flimsy claim to title.
    So you at least admit that Takeshima was Japanese island before 1696? That is a progress and really good to hear..! Kaneganese you wishfully misinterpret my comments much like historical records.

    Kaneganese says I'm sick???

    Here is what's sick. Some Takeshima lobbyist scouring all expat websites trying to dig up some ancient post of mine in a shabby attempt to label me as anti-Japanese. I can't believe you did searches on other expat websites looking for old quotes of mine...

    That is creepy Kaneganese. Seriously, do you have screw loose?

    BTW, I'm still waiting to hear your name...

    ReplyDelete
  37. Steve Barber,

    You insist that there are two different Matsushimas in the text:


    (1) "There is an island about 40 ri north of the west island of Matsushima in Oki country."

    This Matsushima is definitely Liancourt rocks, as it says Takeshima was 40-ri from the west island of Matsushima, and it says Matsushima in Oki country. So Liancourt rocks are in Oki country, do you admit?


    Then, let's look at another "Matsushima";
    (2) "One should go from Yonago to Izumo, and then through Oki's Matshushima to get to Takeshima".

    If Oki's Matsushima is a small islet inside the Oki islands as you insist, the "Matsushima" must have some harbours or piers but there is no records about them at this small islet. It is highly likely an uninhibited islet. They would stop at Fukuura or somewhere in Oki island, so it's silly to think this Oki's Matsushima was a small islet beside Oki island. It says Oki's Matsushima was on the route to Takeshima (..through Oki's Matsushima to get to Takeshima).
    So it is natural to think that this Oki's Matsushima was Liancourt rocks.

    And of course, the Matsushima in the next text is definitely Liancourt rocks;
    (3) "They say that the distance from Oki's Fukushima to Matsushima is 60 ri by sea, and from Matsushima to Takeshima is 40 ri."

    Steve, you should read the documents as naturally. Your desperate endeavour seems great but it produces nothing. It was natural for the Japanese in those days to say Oki's Matsushima, because it was famous that Takeshima was given away to Korea but Matsushima remained.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Steve Barber wrote;
    "Here is your translation again. "
    Actually, it's not my translation, pacifist's. Didn't you read his post? He kindly showed you where it is.

    Do we have to give you another free Japanese lesson? First of all, do you understand what "隠岐国松島ノ西島" means? It means Oki's Masushima has West island. West island is sub category under Masushima. It doesn't mean the island which locates to west of Matsushima. Which one of the islands in your map fits to this description? There is no West island in Matsushima, the island no.2 in your first map. And island which has a sea route from Izumo and to Dozen in your second map(1724年「竹島考圖説」『竹島松島之図』) is not Matsushima, but Tiburi. And you should know 竹島図説 is not 竹島考. They are different documents.

    Steve Barber wrote;
    "There are two Matsushimas in this document. There is the Matsushima found on this map. This island is en route to Dokdo and as you see it was a point of interest after Idzumo. "

    Really? The island en route to Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo and a point of interest after Idzumo is not Matsushima, but Chiburi, as I said.
    Besides,
    "There is an island(Takeshima) about 40 ri north of the west island of Matsushima in Oki country."
    "They say that the distance from Oki's Fukushima to Matsushima is 60 ri by sea, and from Matsushima to Takeshima is 40 ri."
    In both sentences, the distances from Masushima to Takeshima were described as 40 ri. It is same, They are same Oki's Matsushima.
    I don't know why you are insisting those weird things. Even Zainichi pro-Korean Dokdo lobbyist like half-moon has no doubt of it. It is impossible to read this Oki's Matsushima is not Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks. Whose theory you are depending on now?

    Steve Barber said;
    "Now you are saying "it is possible...this..." and it is possible that..." "
    There are some Japanese other than the Oyas and Murakawas who were going to Ulleundo without licence even before 1696. It is recorded in Oyas documents. And after 1696, some Japanese and Choson people both prohibited to go there by each government were engaging in contraband. I thought you knew that since you mentioned this when we were talking about if 安龍福 really met Japanese on Ullendo after 1696's ban or not. To prove this, there are many Ulleundo maps by Japanese newly made even after 1696. Beside, the sentence "伯州米子ヨリ竹島マテ海上道規百六十里許アリ " in this document itself suggest that there were direct route from Yonago to Takeshima.

    "Kaneganese, the Oyas and the Murakawas never voyaged to Matsushima as a sole destination especially during the 17th and 18 Century."
    Yes, they did. There are many documents from Oyas collection that clearly tells tha Murakawas and Oyas started to go to Matsushima as a sole destination. It was supposed to start in mid-1650s. It was Murakawas who started to voyage to Mashushima as a sole destination, and Oyas followed them. They had to negociate how they run the Matsushima buisiness with Bakuhu official, Abe.
    I haven't finished writing and translating all of them, but this is only one of the documents. Here you are.

    1650年頃 - 鳥取の商人石井宗悦から大谷道喜当て書状(A letter from Ishii ,trader in Tottori to Oya)
    "松島へ七八拾石之小船遣、鉄砲ニ而ミち打申候ハハバ、小島之事ニ候間、竹島江ミちにけさり、竹嶋之納所大分候ハんと市兵衛望被申候..."村川市兵衛が盛んに松島でアシカ漁をしている事を示すものがある「新修鳥取市史」 (I (Murakawa Ichibee) sent a 70-80 Koku ship to Matsushima and tried to sealion hunting, but this island is small. Then we went to Takeshima to hunt them, and we finally got many.) This letter shows Murakawa clan were actively hunting sea lions with rifles on Matsushima(today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks), but when they couldn't get enough sealion, they went to Ulleundo.

    1681(延宝九)年 -大谷九右衛門勝信(Oya Kyuuemon Katsunobu) 「延宝九年酉ノ歳二御順見様宿申上候覚(A note of the inspectors stay in 1681)」
    一、厳有院様御代竹嶋之道筋ニ弐十町斗廻リ申小嶋御座候 草木茂無御座岩ニ而御座候 廿四五年以前阿部四郎五郎様御取持を以拝領船渡海仕候 此小嶋ニ而茂みち之魚之油小宛所務仕候 右之小嶋江隠岐国 嶋後福浦より海上六十里余茂御座候御事( In the time of General Iemitsu (from 1623 to 1651), an islet with circumference of 2tyou(2km) was discovered, no plant has grown there. This islet looks like a big rock. I received the islet(?) 25 years ago from a vassal of the shogunate and started the passage. In this small island, there were lots of sealions we presented the oils of them to (Shogunate; note;I'm not perfectly sure about this one sentence.) From Fukuura in Oki to this tiny island is about 60 ri on sea. )

    There are more. But please read Kawakami's book. And as I said, my translation is not perfect yet. If my translation makes you comfused more, please let me know. I will try to explain. But I'm still in the middle of translating them. I will make a post when I finished in the future. Please wait for that, but until then, read Kawakami's book.

    If you don't like our using alias IDs, then just don't comment. I strongly suggest you not comment under multiple IDs and stop denying what you have said before. Besides, this is not your blog. If you want to talk about Russo-Japan war, do it on your own blog, not here. And unlike you, I have a normal memory to remember most of what you have said within a year or so. On the other hand, you seem to have extremely short memory that makes you don't even remember your own IDs. Don't shift the blame on others. Maybe you think you could wiggle out by creating other IDs and pretending nothing happened when you are debunked, but it doesn't work like that in a normal society, even on the net.

    So, where is your proof that you are a Steve Barber, not Toadface nor Wedgie? You denied those two IDs are not yours, thus you have obligation to show us if it is true. Demanding my name doesn't make you excused from the responsibility you have. Don't shift the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Oh, by the way, you haven't explained about Lee's translations yet. You need to show us as long as you support his "translation". Your pdf doesn't say anything about how he translated nor why they think MOFA's translation incorrect. What about Shin's? Why did you present Sean Ferns and Van Dyke articles which cited Shin's incorrect translation even if you don't support Shin's translation? Can you explain? On what point do you think Prof. Ikeuchi agree with "your" translation?

    ReplyDelete
  40. dokdo-takeshima.com1/11/07 22:06

    Kaneganese, all of your views that Japanese voyaged Matsushima and considered it Japanese land in 17th Century are killed by Tottori's reply to the Shogunate in 1695 so really all this speculation is waste of time on your behalf.

    First Shimane Prefecture doesn't even buy your nonsense. Even they have the common sense to have dropped the silly fuedal tenure claims of the past part of their arugument.

    Shimane Accepts the truth

    Japan's Mofa Drops Tenure

    You can see what has happened Kaneganese. Just about 3 months ago the Japanese MOFA website used to claim the Oyas and Murakawas had been given "feudal tenure" of Matsushima and Takeshima by the Shogunate. Why did both Shimane and MOFA drop this assertion? Because the Tottori documents have been circulated a lot lately and killed Japan's 17th Century claims.

    Now the Japanese

    Did the Japanese fish around Matsushima? Maybe. Did they consider it Japanese land. No. Matsushima was a place to take a break en route to clandestinely voyage to a place they knew it was illegal to travel to.

    Would the Japanese consider a tiny rock with no shelter, no fresh water and within visual proximity of a land forbidden to travel to as Japanese land? No.

    Kaneganese, Anyongbok went to Japan and declared that Takeshima and Matsushima were Korean land. You have argued that Takeshima and Matsushima in these documents were other islands. Well apparently Shimane Prefecture acknowledges that Takeshima was Ulleungdo and Matsushima was Dokdo.

    Shimane's Acceptance

    That being so, if Japan truly considered Matsushima as part of Japan at this time why didn't they protest Anyongbok's claim? This is what amounts to acquiescence.

    Kaneganese, Are you the same Kaneganese who frequently posted on Occidentalism supporting the Japanese side issues like the comfort women issue? That is a very creepy racist website you supported. Do you think anyone believes anything you say when you supported occidentalism??

    Do you know what people say about occidentalism?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Steve Barber,

    The Shimane prefecture's site you quoted says "Given the historical background of Takeshima, there is no doubt that it belongs to Japan".

    Thank you, Steve.

    Steve, I repeat again. Why the dispute between Japan and Korea in the 1690's began? - It was because both of the countries believed that Takeshima or Ulleungdo was their territory.

    It is a historical fact that Japan believed Takeshima (and Matsushima too) were Japan's territory until the shogunate gave up Takeshima for friendship with Korea, but they didn't give Matsushima away. So that Matsushima remained in Japanese territory. (BTW, it hadn't belonged to Korea in the history ever.)

    Steve, Tottori replied to the government that Takeshima and Matsushima were not their territory but they didn't say they were not Japanese land.

    They knew that the two families were permitted to go to Takeshima and when they went to Takeshima for hunting sea lions, Tottori feudal clan lent rifles for hunting. They knew the families went to shogunate's land and backed up the families. Takeshima and Matsushima were special islands for people of Tottori, but it doesn't mean they were Korean's, Steve.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Steve Barber wrote;
    "Did the Japanese fish around Matsushima? Maybe. Did they consider it Japanese land. No. Matsushima was a place to take a break en route to clandestinely voyage to a place they knew it was illegal to travel to."
    "Would the Japanese consider a tiny rock with no shelter, no fresh water and within visual proximity of a land forbidden to travel to as Japanese land? No. "
    That's all? It getting really childish of you. If you refute to my concrete evidence, do it properly and present evidence along with.
    So, you finally admit that 隠岐の松島(Oki's Matsushima) means Japanese considered Mashishima within Oki? Good. Then, tlanslation of Onchu Shicho Goki is simple.

    Concrete evidence Japanese went to Masushima as a sole destination 「松島絵図」(Map of Matsushima = Today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo)

    Concrete evidence that Japanese considered Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory.

    Concrete evidence Japanese considered Matsushima=today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo as Oki's island and Japanese territory.

    If you want to know more about the concrete evidences that show Japanese had sovereignty over Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks, please read Kawakami's book first. Or there are some in Prof. Ikeuchi's article, too. I'm working on them, but actually, there are too many and I'm getting overwhelmed.

    Steve Barber wrote;
    "Kaneganese, Are you the same Kaneganese who frequently posted on Occidentalism supporting the Japanese side issues like the comfort women issue? That is a very creepy racist website you supported. Do you think anyone believes anything you say when you supported occidentalism?"
    Yes, I am the same Kaneganese who made comments on occidentalism. Unlike you, I don't change my ID so easily. Wait, haven't you realised that until today? You really has a short memory. Oh, Yes ! You are not Toadface who were keep commenting on Occi anymore. You had metamorphorsed into a new version of you. Or you were not toadface in the first place? Nice try, to pretend like you were not a commentator"toadface" on occidentalism, though it is transparent. Anyway, I'm confused, but it is clear that you are the one who are the most creepy person I have ever seen.

    And if you have any problem with occidentalism, say it to Matt, not me. But why on the earth are you commenting here? This site had sort of branched off from occidentalism in order to specialize in Takeshima/Dokdo dispute. Gerry, pacifist and me are all from occidentalism. If you want to keep coming here, deal with it.

    Now, back to the topic, if you still want to comment here, off course.

    Please explained about Lee's translations of Onshu Shicho Gohki which you blindly believe. Your pdf doesn't say anything about how he translated nor why they think MOFA's translation incorrect. What about Shin's? Why did you present Sean Ferns and Van Dyke articles which cited his incorrect translation if you don't support Shin's translation? Which part you don't agree with him? Can you explain? On what point do you think Prof. Ikeuchi agree with your translation?

    ReplyDelete
  43. dokdo-takeshima.com27/6/08 23:08

    This post is nonsense Kaneganese. The Takeshima Incident of 1837 was clear proof that the Japanese considered Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) as Chosun land. I see you used the black and white map for your article.

    If you had posted the color coded map of Japan Korea that was drawn during this dispute you would see the truth. Also read the related documents.
    Please read the truth here

    TakeshimaIncident

    ReplyDelete