Korean Maps & Documents

Korean Maps

• 1530 - "Paldo Chongdo" (八道總圖 - 팔도총도)
  This was the first Korean map to show Ulleungdo (鬱陵島 - 울릉도) with a neighboring island called Usando (于山島 - 우산도), which Koreans claim was the old Korean name for Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks). The map, however, shows Usando to the west of Ulleungdo, but Dokdo is ninety-two kilometers to the southeast of Ulleungdo.
  .
• 1600s - "Map of the Original Regions of Silla, Goguryo, and Baekje" (新羅高勾麗百濟肇造區域之圖 - 신라고구려백제조조구역지도)
  This map is part of an atlas from the 1600s entitled "Old Maps of China & Joseon" (支那朝鮮古地圖 - 지나조선고지도). The map appears to be a historical map of Korea during the time of Silla, Goguryo, and Baekje. It shows Ulleungdo as a single island off the east coast of Korea labeled as "Usanguk, now Ulleungdo" (羽山國 今 鬱陵島 - 우산국, 지금 울릉도). According to Korea's Korea's Samguk Sagi (三國史記 - 삼국사기), Usanguk was the name of Ulleungdo during the time of Silla.
  .
• 1884 - 1894 - Map of Gangwon Province & Ulleungdo (地圖 - 咸鏡道 - 江原道)
  The maps come from an atlas entitled "Maps - Hamgyeong Province - Gwangwon Province (地圖 - 咸鏡道 - 江原道), which is stored in Korea's Koryo University Library. The map of Ulleungdo (鬱陵島) shows Usando (于山) as a neighboring island off Ulleungdo's east shore. That means that it was almost certainly Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which is located about 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore. Koreans claim that Usando was the old Korean name for Liancourt Rocks, but this map and many others contradict that claim. The map is important in the Dokdo/Takeshima debate because it was made after 1883, which was when Ulleungdo was opened up to Korean settlement.

Questions and Answers (Q&A)

Questions and answers about the sovereignty dispute between Korea and Japan over Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima).

1. Has Dokdo been a part of Korean territory since the sixth century?
   .
2. What is Ulleungdo's largest neighboring island?
   .
3. Why did old Korean maps show Ulleungdo as two islands?
   .
4. Did King Sejong's 1454 geography text mention Dokdo?
   .
5. Did Korea's 1530 "Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungram" mention Dokdo?

1905年 - 外務省通商局編纂「通商彙纂」 第50号

外務省が編纂した領事報告（海外各地に駐在する領事が、本国政府に定期的に送付した現地の通商経済情報や貿易報告）の集大成「通商彙纂」。鬱陵島が"雑"の欄に載っています。1902年のものと較べると、邦人の人数はむしろ減少しているようですが、逆に職種が多岐に渡り、官吏、医師までもが居住していたことが分かります。また、前年12月末の（帰国せずに島で新しい年を越した）人口が260人となっていることや、農業に従事している者がいることから、邦人の定住化が進んでいた様子が伺えます。ただし、四月から六月にかけて人口が増加しており、非定住型の邦人も又多くいたようです（約1/3）。さらに、輸出入の品目が増加しています。
なお、"ニ、　同島の輸出入品"の項の中で、"ランコ島"と言う名称で、竹島(Liancourt Rocks)が言及されています。"「トド」と称する海獣"を"昨年頃より鬱陵島民之を捕獲し始めたり"とありますが、この"鬱陵島民"に韓国人が含まれるか否かは不明です。ただし、この項において他に韓国人に関する記述が一切無いことから、このトド猟についても基本的に邦人の活動について著していると考えるのが自然でしょう。
原文はこちら

雑

鬱陵島現況

人口、本邦人の業務、輸出入品

（三十八年七月三十一日附在釜山駐在領事館報告）

本年に於ける鬱陵島の情況を調査したること左の如し

一、　人口　人口は昨年十二月末の調査に戸数八十五戸人口二百六十人内男百七十五人女八十五人なりしに本年六月末に於いては戸数百十戸に及び人口も三百六十六人となりたり、今本年四月より六月迄戸数並人口の増殖し行く跡を窺はんが為めに左に其統計を挙げん、

　　　　　　　　　　四月　　　　　　　　　五月　　　　　　　　　　六月

戸　数　　　　　　八九　　　　　　　　　九八　　　　　　　　　一一〇

人　男　　　　　一五五　 　　　　　　ニ〇六　　　　　　　　　ニ一九

口　女　　　　　　 九六　　　　　　　 一三五　　　　　　　　 一四七　

合計　　　　　 　ニ五一　　　　　　　 三四一　　　　　　　　 三六六

ニ、　本邦人の業務　

次に同島に於て本邦人が如何なる業務に従事しつつありや又如何なる業務が漸々増加し行くの傾向あるやを知らんか為めに左に本年四月より六月に至る迄職業の種類に関する統計を掲ぐべし但し各種の職業中同一人に於て兼業を為せるもの少なからず

職業名 　　　　　　　　　　 四月　　　　　　　　　五月　　　　　　　　　　六月
官　　　吏　　　　　　　　　　　三　　　　　　　　　　三　　　　　　　　　　　　三

医　　　師　　　　　　　　　　　一　　　　　　　　　　ニ　　　　　　　　　　　　ニ

輸　入　商　　　　　　　　　　　八　　　　　　　　　　八　　　　　　　　　　　　八

輸　出　商　　　　　　　　　　　五　　　　　　　　　　五　　　　　　　　　　　　七

仲　買　商　　　　　　　　　　ニ一　　　　　　　　　ニ一　　　　　　　　　　ニ一

陶　器　商　　　　　　　　　　　ニ　　　　　　　　　　ニ　　　　　　　　　　　　ニ

荒　物　商　　　　　　　　　　　〇　　　　　　　　　　一　　　　　　　　　　　　一

石　油　商　　　　　　　　　　　一　　　　　　　　　　一　　　　　　　　　　　　一

材　木　商　　　　　　　　　　　ニ　　　　　　　　　　ニ　　　　　　　　　　　　ニ

大　　　工　　　　　　　　　　　七　　　　　　　　　一二　　　　　　　　　　　一二

指　　　物　　　　　　　　　　　三　　　　　　　　　　三　　　　　　　　　　　　三

木　　　挽　　　　　　　　　　四三　　　　　　　　　五〇　　　　　　　　　　五二

桶　　　屋　　　　　　　　　　　〇　　　　　　　　 　　〇　　　　　　　　　　　　一

鍛　　　冶　　　　　　　　　　　五　　　　　　　　　　五　　　　　　　　　　　　五

日　　　雇　　　　　　　　　　　ニ　　　　　　　　　　ニ　　　　　　　　　　　　ニ

飲　食　店　　　　　　　　　　　一　　　　　　　　　　一　　　　　　　　　　　　一

豆　腐　屋　　　　　　　　　　　ニ　　　　　　　　　　ニ　　　　　　　　　　　　ニ

農　　　業　　　　　　　　　　　ニ　　　　　　　　　　三　　　　　　　　　　　　三

潜　水　業　　　　　　　　　　　〇　　　　　　　　　　〇　　　　　　　　　　　　ニ

漁　　　夫　　　　　　　　　　一五　　　　　　　　　ニ七　　　　　　　　　　　三一

海　　　士　　　　　　　　　　　〇　　　　　　　　　三ニ　　　　　　　　　　　三ニ

船　　　乗　　　　　　　　　　　〇　　　　　　　　　三一　　　　　　　　　　　三一

雇　　　人　　　　　　　　　　　ニ　　　　　　　　　　ニ　　　　　　　　　　　　ニ

僕　　　婢　　　　　　　　　　　ニ　　　　　　　　　　一　　　　　　　　　　　　一

和洋裁縫　　　　　　　　　　　ニ　　　　　　　　　　ニ　　　　　　　　　　　　ニ

洗　　　濯　　　　　　　　　　　一　　　　　　　　　　一　　　　　　　　　　　　一

細　工　匠　　　　　　　　　　　一　　　　　　　　　　一　　　　　　　　　　　　一

炭　　　焼　　　　　　　　　　　一　　　　　　　　　　一　　　　　　　　　　　　一

郵便受取所　　　　　　　　　　一　　　　　　　　　　一　　　　　　　　　　　　一

合計　

　　
三、　同島の輸出入品　

次に本年四月より六月に至る同島輸出入の情況を観察する為め昨年の同期に於ける輸出入と比較すること左の如し
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　三十八年四月より　　　　　三十七年四月より

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　六月迄輸出額　　　　　　　　　六月迄同上　　　　　　　比較減△　　

品　　　　　　名　　　単位　　　　　　　数量　　　　　　　価格　　　　　　　　　　　数量　　　　　　　数量の比較

大　　　　　　豆　　　　石　　　　　　ニ一四　　　　一、六〇五　　　　　　　　　四七〇　　　　　　　△ニ五六

槻　　　　　　材　　　　才　　　六二、一一八　　　三、七二七　　　　　三八、三八二　　　　　ニ三、七二六

乾　　　　　　鮑　　　　斤　　　　四、七七〇　　　　四、七七〇　　　　　　　　　　　--　　　　　　　四、七七〇

海　獣（トド）皮　　　　貫　　　　一、ニ七五 　　 一、ニ七五　　　　　　　　　八〇〇　　　　　　　　　四七五

同　　上　　油　　　　 斗　　　　　　四一四　　　　　　　五三八　　　　　　　　　　ニ〇　　　　　　　　　三九四

同　上　〆　糟　　　　斗　　　　　　八〇〇　　　　　　　一六〇　　　　　　　　　　　--　　　　　　　　　八〇〇

合　　　　　　計　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　一二、〇七五

此他に昨年四月より六月までの期間に薪千五百貫、茸二十六貫八百目海苔五十二貫、●一樽、食鹽（しお）三百四十七俵、栂材一萬六千三百八十七才、韓銭二百貫文、黄柏皮八百貫鰑（するめ）八百五十貫海獣肉八百貫の輸出ありたり

「トド」と称する海獣は、鬱陵島より東南約二十五里の位置にあるランコ島に棲息し昨年頃より鬱陵島民之を捕獲し始めたり。捕獲期間は、四月より九月に至る六ヶ月間にして、漁船一組に付き猟手及び水夫等約十人にて、平均一日約五頭を捕獲すと云う。而して、本事業に従事する者三十人あり漁船三組あり又「トド」一頭に付き現今市価は平均三円位なり。

鮑の採取高は本年四月熊本県民吉村某潜水器二個を以て採取に従事し潜水器一個に付一日生鮑平均約三百斤なり又三重県県民濱口某は本年五月漁船二艘に海士三十二人水夫十人を率いて其採取を為し一日平均約五百三十斤内外を採取す生鮑乾上の為斤目の減少は凡そ十分の九にて生鮑三百斤乃至五百三十斤を乾上ぐるときは三十斤及至五十三斤に減すると云ふ同島への輸出は大概釜山よりす今左に前掲期間に輸入せられたる品目数量価格を挙げ昨年四月より六月に至る期間に於ける輸入と比較せんと欲す

　　　　　　　　　　　　　三十八年四月より　　　　　三十七年四月より

　　　　　　　　　　　　　六月迄輸入額　　　　　　　　　六月迄同上　　　　　　　　　比較減△　　

品　　　　　　名 　　　　数量　　　　　　　価格　　　　　　　　　　　数量　　　　　　数量の比較

精 　　 米　　　　　　一ニニ　　　　一、六五ニ　　　　　　　　　四七〇　　　　　　　△ニ五六

糯　　　米　石　　　　　　一　　　　　　　　二五　　　　　　　　　　　〇　　　　　　　　　　　　〇

酒　　 　　同　　　　　 一七　　　　　　　　五二　　　　　　　　　　一〇　　　　　　　　　　　　七

焼　　　酎　同　　　　 ニ〇　　　　　　　　八三　　　　　　　　　　　〇　　　　　　　　　　　　ニ〇

石　　　油　箱　　　　 一八　　　　　　　　六三　　　　　　　　　　ニ〇　　　　　　　　　　　　ニ

砂　　　糖　斤　　　 ニニ〇　　　　　　　 二五　　　　　　　　　一四〇　　　　　　　　　　　八〇

白 木 綿　疋 　　　 五七五　　　　　 八〇五　　　　　　　　　一ニ〇　　　　　　　　　 四五五

白綾木綿　同　　　　　四二　　　　　　二五二　　　　　　　　　　三六　　　　　　　　　　　　六

綿　　　糸　丸　　　　　　五　　　　　　　　一二　　　　　　　　　　　--　　　　　　　　　　　　五

綿　　 　　 貫　　　　　　六　　　　　　　　一二　　　　　　　　　　　--　　　　　　　　　　　　六

織　　　物　反　　　　　一五　　　　　　　　三〇　　　　　　　　　　　--　　　　　　　　　　　一五

鉄　 　　　　貫　　　　　五八　　　　　　　　一九　　　　　　　　　ニニ五　　　　　　　　　一六九

蓆　　　叺　枚　　　　二八〇　　　　　　　ニ一　　　　　　　　一〇一〇　　　　　　　　　七八〇

燐　　　寸　箱　　　　　　 一　　　　　　　　　六　　　　　　　　　　　　一　　　　　　　　　　　　〇

陶　　　器　個　　　　　　不詳　　　　　　　一〇　　　　　　　　　五〇〇　　　　　　　　　　不詳

食　　　塩　俵　　　　　　七〇　　　　　　　　一五　　　　　　　　四五〇　　　　　　　　　三八〇

醤　　　油　石　　　　　　　六　　　　　　　　　九　　　　　　　　　　　 九　　　　　　　　　　　　三

素　　　麺　箱　　　　　　一〇　　　　　　　　二五　　　　　　　　　　　--　　　　　　　　　　一〇

合　　 　計　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　三、一一六

此他三十七年六月より十二月迄の期間に空瓶七百五十本巻煙草百五十本縄百束刻煙草三貫目、杉皮三百五十斤韓銭三百四十五貫文畳四十枚支那米五石六斗酒糟十三石ニ斗酢酸四升の輸入ありたり

1877年 - "松島"に関する様々な意見：「松島巡視要否ノ議」 外務省公信局長 田邊太一

次の文書は当時外務省公信局長だった田邊太一によるものです。この中で、武藤平学によって1876年に提出された"松島"の開拓を願い出る要望書、「松島開拓之議」についての省内での論議を要約しています。文中から分かるように、日本人は武藤の言う"松島"がどの島を指しているのか、明確には分からない状態でした。鬱陵島の于山島であると考える人たちや、記録局長の渡邊洪基の文書にまとめられたように、ある者はそれとは別の無人の島だと考える人たちもいました。

文書はおそらく1877年か1878年に書かれたものですが、1881年にこうした調査の経緯を記した北澤正誠の「竹島考証」の下巻に載っています。以下はその書き起こし文と口語訳です。

（書き起こし)

第二十一号 松島巡視要否ノ議 外務省公信局長 田邊太一

甲云壱日開否ノ略定リテ而後今日視察ノ要否ヲ論スヘシ 聞クカ如キハ松島ハ我法人ノ命ゼル名ニシテ其実ハ朝鮮蔚陵島ニ属スル于山ナリ 蔚陵島ノ朝鮮ニ属スルハ旧政府ノ時一葛藤ヲ生シ文書往復ノ末永ク証テ我有トセラルヲ約シ載テ両国ノ史ニ在リ 今故ナク人ヲ遣テコレヲ巡視セシム 此ヲ他人ノ宝ヲ数フトイフ 況ンヤ跡隣境ヲ侵越スルニ類シ我ト韓トノ交漸ク緒ニ就クトイヘトモ猜嫌猶末永ク除カサルニ際シ如此一挙ヨリシテ再ヒ一隙ヲ開カンコト尤交際家ノ忌ム所ニ出ツルオヤ 仮令該島ヲシテ韓籍ニ属セストモ南無人島ヲ開キ琉球ヲ藩トスルモ識者或ハ其宜ニ非サルヲ論ス 現今ノ務方ニ国脈ヲ静養スルニアリ 鮮ヲ煎テコレヲ擾ス 計ノ得ルモノナラス 松島断シテ開ク能ワス 又開クヘカラス 其不能不可ヲ知テコレヲ巡視スル豈無益ナラサランヤ 況ヤ後害ヲ醸サントスルオヤ

乙云開否ノ略ハ視察ノ後ニ非サレハ定ムル能ハス 版図ノ論今其実ヲ視ス 只ニ蠧紙上ニ拠信スルハコレヲ可トイフヘカラス 況ンヤ我近海ニアリ 我民ノ韓ノ内地ニ航スルモノ露ノ藩地ニ航スルモノ必由ノ途タレハ其地ノ状形ヲ悉サスシテコレヲ不問ニ措ク我吾務ヲ尽ササルニ幾シ 故ニ該島ハ勿論所謂竹島ナルモノモ亦巡視シテソノ今日ノ状ヲ詳知スヘシ 巡視ハ必要スル所ナリ サレトモ英露等ノ船ヲ雇ヒ僅ニ一日半日ノ碇泊ヲナシ一人二人ノ官吏上陸視察ストモ墓々敷事ナキハイフヲマタス 且今日ヲ失フテハ再ヒスヘカラサル機会ナリトイフマテニモアラサレハ西南勦定ノ後海軍モ無事閑暇ノ時アルヘケレハ其時ニ至リ測量製図等ニ熟セル海軍士官ト生産開物ニ明カナル官吏トヲ派差シテコレヲ検セシメ而後コレヲ書図ニ徴シ古文書ニ照シテ初メテ松島ノ蔚陵島ノ一部ナリヤ果テ于山ナリヤ又別ニ一ノ無主地ナリヤヲモ定得ヘク将渡来開墾シテ利益ノ有無ヲモ考得ヘシ故ニ巡視ノ後ニアラサレハ開否ノ議ヲ定メカタシ 松島必巡視セサルヘカラサル也 然レトモ瀬脇氏ノ議ノ如キハ敢テコレヲ可トセス必将ニ它日ヲ竢アルヘシ

丙云英国新聞ニ露国ノ東略ヲ預妨セントテ既ニ太平海北部ニ一ノ海軍屯站ノ地ヲ要セントスルノ論アリ 松島等ノ如キ或ハ彼カ注目スル処タルモ知ルヘカラス 且聞該国官船シルビヤ長崎ヨリ韓地ニ航セリト 当時我訳官乗組居ラサレハ何ノ地ヲ航通セシヤヲ知ルニ由ナシ 或ハ該国ヲモ予メ巡視セシメンコト必無トモ信シカタシ サレハ今ニモ英公使或ハシカラストモ他ヨリ該島ニ就キ云々ノ論アルトキ一切知ラスト答ヘンハ頗ル忸怩ナキアタワス 所謂不都合ナルモノナリ 故ニ今日ノ策ハ甲乙ノ所論ノ如キ開否等ノ議ニ渉ラス聊ニテモ該島ノ現状ヲ知ルコトヲ急務トセリ 故ニ誰ニテモ其地ヲ巡視スヘキノ望アルモノ何船ニテモ其近傍ヲ航シ甘ンシ寄椗セントイフモノアレハコレヲ許可シコレヲ雇フヲ可ナリトイヘトモソノ効ヲ収ムルモノハ只ニ前ニ述ル所ノミニ止ルモノナルハ計算上多費ヲ要スルコトハ妙トセス 須ク如此効ヲ収ムルコト若干ノ価アルヘキヲ算シ若干金ヲ瀬脇氏ニ付シ是額内ヲ以テ此挙ヲナスヘキヲ命セハ計ノ得ルモノニ幾カシ 我邦人外国ノ船ニ搭シ韓地ニ至リシトテ韓政府ノ猜嫌ヲ増サントノ過慮ハナキニハラストイヘトモ該島ニ在ル韓民（仮令官吏アルモ）邦人ト外国人トヲ区別スルノ眼晴モアルマシケレハ断然交隣ノ誼ニ於テハ妨碍ヲ生セサランコトヲ信ス

（口語訳）

第二十一号 「松島を巡視する必要があるかどうかについて」 公信局長 田邊太一

意見甲：まるで一旦開発するか否かの概略が定まってから視察の要否を論ずればよいと言っているように聞こえるようだが、松島は我が国の邦人が名付けたもので、実体は朝鮮の朝鮮の蔚陵島に屬する于山である。蔚陵島が朝鮮に帰属するということは、徳川時代に交渉（葛藤）があり、我が国の所有であると証明する文書をやりとりした結果のことであり、それは両国の歴史に記載されていることである。それを今になって理由もなく人を派遣して巡視させることは、他人の宝を数えるようなものである。我が国と韓国とはようやくその交渉が始まったものの、猜疑心がなお除かれておらず、こうした一挙一動でまた間隙が広がることは、両国間の国交を進めている者達にとっては是非とも避けたい事態である。まして、イギリスやロシアの船を雇って赴くことは、彼等が最も忌み嫌うことである。例えその島が韓国に属さないとしても、全くの南の無人島を開発して琉球藩としても識者はそれは間違いであると言うだろう。今我々がすべきことは国を静養させることに務めることで、朝鮮を刺激してかき乱すことは、決して得策ではない。松島は断じて開発できないし、またすべきではない。それを知りながら巡視することは、無益であるのみならず、後々に害をもたらすことになるであろう。

意見乙：松島開拓の是非は視察をした後でないと、決定できない。版図について議論するためにはそれを実際に確認しなければ、紙上に書かれたものだけを元にすることは、やってはいけない。ましてや、我が国近海にあり、日本国民が韓国内地に渡航したり、ロシアの領域に渡航するときに必ず経由するわけであり、そのような島を実際に調べもせずにそのことを不問にするなどということは、我々が公務員としての務めを尽くしていないのも同然である。ゆえに、当該の島（松島）はもちろん、竹島という島についても巡視して、今日の実情を詳しく調べるべきである。巡視は必要であるとはいっても英露の船を雇ってたった一日や半日くらい碇泊し、一人、二人の官吏を上陸させて視察しても大した成果は得られないのは言うまでもない。ただし、今機会を失えば、再びその機会がめぐってこない、と言うほどのことでもないので、西南の役を平定した後、海軍に暇が出来れば、そのときに測量製図に熟練した海軍士官と生産物情報に明るい官吏を派遣して調べさせその後に、書図に認めて古文書に照らし、初めて、松島が鬱陵島の一部なのか、それとも于山なのか、あるいは全く別の島なのか、を決定すべく、また、将来開墾して利益がでるかどうかも考えなければならない。ゆえに、巡視をした後でなければその開拓の是非を決定することが出来ず、松島を巡視するより他の方法はない。しかし、瀬脇氏の意見のようにあえて巡視をよしとしないのは、必ず後々悔いが残ることになるであろう。

意見丙：イギリスの新聞にロシアの極東拡大を予防するために既に太平洋北部に海軍駐屯地が必要であるとの議論があった。もしかするとイギリスが松島のような島に注目するかも知れない。また、英国官船シルビヤ号が長崎から韓国に渡航したが、そのとき我が国の通訳が乗船しておらず分からないのだが、、松島を通過したかもしれない。或いは英国があらかじめ巡視させていた可能性が全く無いとも考えられず、今にも英国公使に限らず他の人が当該の島について問い合わせをしてきたときに一切知らぬ、と答えるのは大変恥ずかしいだけではなく、大変不都合なことである。ゆえに今まさにすべきことは、松島開拓についての甲乙の意見や論議に関わらず、当該島の現状を知ることが急務である。ゆえに、誰であってもその地を巡視する意志のあるもの、又どの船を使うにしろ島の近くに渡海して碇泊する意志のある者があればそれを許可して、雇うことは可能である。しかし、これによる効果は前に述べた所にとどまるのに、計算上多額の費用を要する。対費用効果を調べてから瀬脇氏に若干の金額を渡し、その金額内で仕事を任せてみてはいかだだろうか。我が邦人が外国の船に搭乗して韓国へ行けば韓国政府の猜疑心が増す可能性も無いことはないが、当該島に在住の韓民（官吏が駐在しているが）が、邦人と外国人とを区別する眼識を持っているはずも無く、友好の妨げには全くならないと信じる。

この文書からわかるように、日本人は松島がどこにあるのか、はっきりとわかっていませんでした。しかし、「鬱陵島の于山島である」という意見がありました。韓国側の歴史学者の中に、このことをもって日本人が于山島を竹島（Liancourt Rocks）であると考えていた、と主張しますが、日本で作成された地図は全て、”于山島”を鬱陵島の隣島の位置に描いています。Liancourt Rocksではありません。実際、日本側作成の地図にはこの”于山島”を鬱陵島の西側に描いたものさえあるのです。つまり、Liancourt Rocksであったはずがないのです。その島は鬱陵島の東南92kmのところにあるのですから。

以下は、于山島を描いている日本の地図です。
地図1) 朝鮮国細見全図(染崎延房編著 1873)
地図2) 朝鮮国細見全図(染崎延房編著 1873) 鬱陵島附近拡大図
地図3) 朝鮮全図(海軍水路寮 1873)
地図4) 朝鮮全図(海軍水路寮 1873) 鬱陵島附近拡大図図
地図5) 原版朝鮮全国之写(陸軍編纂 1877)
地図6) 原版朝鮮全国之写(陸軍編纂 1877) 鬱陵島附近拡大図
地図7) 明治二十七年 朝鮮全図(柴田源三郎編1877)
地図8) 明治二十七年 朝鮮全図(柴田源三郎編1877) 鬱陵島附近拡大図

Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior

The Dajoukan order (太政官指令) is famous because it said that Takeshima and another island were not Japanese territory, and Dajoukan was the superior office in the early Meiji government, ministries were positioned under Dajoukan. So pro-Korean people used to say that Japan admitted that Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Liancourt rocks to be Korean territory. But was the “another island” really Liancourt rocks? We would like to search for the truth about the “another island”.

At first, please look at the translated text of the Dajoukan order.

Dajoukan Order (太政官指令)

20^th march 1877 (the 10^th year of Meiji)

Ministers: Central office:

Cabinet councilors:

Asistant officers:

As to the inquiry by the Ministry of the Interior on the matter of
the land registration of Takeshima and another island in the Sea of Japan that
was attached separately, the former government (= the shogunate) and the
corresponding country (= Chosun) had exchanged opinions since 1692 (the
5^th year of Genroku) when people from Chosun came to the island
(Takeshima = Ulleungdo), and in the end they decided that this country (Japan)
has nothing to do with the island and they stated so. Considering the point of
the inquiry, the following order was made. I would like to ask you to consult
via circular about the matter.

A proposal of the order

Concerning the inquiry about Takeshima and another island, you
should remember that this country (Japan)
has nothing to do with them.

29^th March 1877 (the 10^th year of Meiji)

There was an almost identical document to Dajoukan order in the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior which was compiled in 1877.

http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/2a10kou2032-1877/index1.html

(Part A)

20^th March 1877 (the 10^th year of Meiji)

Ministers: (stamp of “Iwakura”)

Central Office: (stamps of “Hijikata” and “Iwaya”)

Cabinet Councilors: (stamps of “Ohki”, ‘Terajima Munenori” and one unidentified
stamp)

Added “27^th the same month: a stamp of “Muta”.

As to the matter
of “Inquiry to the Ministry of Interior: Registry of land of Takeshima and
another island in the Sea of Japan” that was attached separately, the former
government (= the shogunate) and the corresponding country (Chosun) had
exchanged opinions since 1692 (the 5^th year of Genroku) when people
from Chosun came to the island (Takeshima = Ulleungdo), and in the end they
decided that this country (Japan) has nothing to do with the island and stated
so. Considering the point of the inquiry, the following order was made. I would
like to ask you to consult via circular about the matter.

A proposal of the order:

Concerning the inquiry about Takeshima and another island, you should remember that this country (Japan) has nothing to do with them.

29^th March 1877 (the 10^th year of Meiji) (* written in red) (a stamp of
unidentified person)

(The stamps meant approval by the officials who read the document.)

This was the origin of the Dajoukan order, as the matter was discussed in the Ministry of the Interior and then it was sent to the upper office, Dajoukan. So the key to the truth about another island should be written in the compiled documents. Let’s see the whole compiled documents.

It comprises of 12 parts. I tentatively name them as Part A to Part L, the document above is part A.

Part A: the summary of the discussion, with approved stamps of officials. (20^th March 1877)

Part B: an inquiry about Takeshima and another island from Shimane prefecture to the Ministry of the Interior (16^th Oct, 1876)

Part C: the document “Otsu #28” (乙28号): a document inquiring about Takeshima from the Ministry of the Interior to Shimane prefecture. (5^th Oct 1876)

Part D & part E: the documents explaining about Takeshima made by Shimane prefecture. These two documents are already available from this site:

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/shimane-prefecture-explains-history-of.html

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

(Both of the documents didn’t say the exact dates but these were attached to the part B.)

The first document (part D) mentioned Matsushima, where Oya Jinkichi drifted ashore, but it was illogical because he was washed up on the shore of Ulleungdo (Takeshima), not Liancourt rocks. So Shimane prefecture may have had some effects from the western maps which depicted Argonaut island (phantom island) and Dagelet island (Ulleungdo). The part E only related Takeshima.

Part F: a supplementary document perhaps made by Shimane prefecture. It stated that they attached a reduced copy of the map from the Kyoho years (1716-1735) owned by Oya family.

Part G: the old document (#1) from Edo period: how the shogunate transmitted the order not to trespass on Takeshima (Ulleungdo). (date unknown but it was written after the shogunate ordered not to trespass on Takeshima.)

Part H: the old document (#2): a letter from Tsushima to Chosun (date unknown but it was written after the shogunate ordered not to trespass on Takeshima.)

Part I: the old document (#3): a letter from Chosun to Tsushima (date unknown but it said that it was written in March.)

Part J: the old document (#4): a letter from Tsushima to Chosun (January, 1699 the 12^th year of Genroku)

Part K: verbal note. Date not unknown but it seems that it was written just after the shogunate ordered not to trespass on Takeshima.

Part L: the final decision by the Ministry of the Interior. (17^th March 1877)

.

As you may notice, almost all of the documents mention Takeshima but not “another island”. The document only related to “another island” was part D, in which Shimane prefecture reported about Takeshima and Matsushima although the content was illogical. Meiji government knew the illogicality so they didn’t say Matsushima in the title of the document and they didn’t refer to Matsushima in the final document. The “another island” only left in the title because Shimane prefecture used the title in the original inquiry (part B) but in reality they only discussed about Takeshima (Ulleungdo). So “another island” didn’t mean anything, it was just an echo of the phantom island in the western maps.

.

To follow are parts B to L. Please forgive me if the old documents (parts G to K) had some mistakes. These old documents were very hard to understsand and translate, but as a whole it won't affect the "another island" issue because these old documents only related the shogunate's ban to trespass on Takeshima (Ulleungdo).

(Part B)

Inquiry about registration of the land of Takeshima and another island in the Sea of Japan

The officials of geographical room of your ministry (the Ministry of Interior) made their rounds to our prefecture for registration of lands and inquired as the separate paper, Otsu #28, concerning the investigation of Takeshima which is located in the Sea of Japan.
This island was discovered during the Eiroku years (1558-1570) and the merchants in Yonago town, Houki County in our feudal clan, Oya Kyuemon and Murakawa ichibee made voyages to the island every year under the permission of the shogunate and brought back animals and vegetables to sell them in the mainland for 78 years from the 4^th year of Genwa (1618) to the 8^th
year of Genroku (1695). There is a conclusive evidence for that and old
documents and old letters were handed down to their descendants. We first of all
attach separate paper relating the history and a map herewith. We should
investigate the whole island this time and note every detail of it , however it
was not certain that it was under this prefecture’s jurisdiction from the
ancient times. And it is far as over 100-ri in the north sea and sea route is
unclear and usual sailboats can’t make round trips. So we would like to report
the details from the documents which were handed down by those men Oya and
Murakawa later. And as we guess it generally, it locates at the northwest
direction of Oki county so it seems as it should be attached to the west area of
San-in district, we would like to ask about depicting the island in the
prefecture’s map and registration of land. Please give us an order.

Deputy of
prefecture governor Sato Nobuhiro,

Counselor of
Shimane prefecture, Sakai Jiro

16^th
October 1876 (the 9^th year of Meiji)

To Sir Ohkubo
Toshimichi in the Ministry of Interior

(Part C)

Otsu #28

We’ve heard that there is an isolated island which was called as Takeshima in the past at certain direction from Oki county under the jurisdiction of your prefecture. The former Tottori feudal clan’s merchant ships made round trips to there from the ancient times and there was a sea route. About the above, please investigate taking notes (of what people say) and discuss the matter. In addition, although there must be the article 5 in the land registration local officials’ regulations, please discuss the matter aiming at the article 5 for precaution’s sake. And we would like you to investigate old maps and ask this ministry for instructions, so we inquired about this.

5^th October 1876 (the 9^th year of Meiji)

Geographical room, Probationer #12 Tanabe Kenshin

Geography officer Sugiyama Eizoh

To whom in charge of land registration, Shimane prefecture

(Part D)

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/shimane-prefecture-explains-history-of.html

(Part E)

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

(Part F)

(It was) about 78 years from the 4^th year of Genwa (1618) to the 8^th year
of Genroku (1695). (Incidentally, the Benzaiten shrine in Fukuura, Minami-kata
village, Hochi-gun, Oki county was built in those days to pray for peaceful
voyage of Oya and Murakawa families. Still today, they will definitely tell both
families if there would be a need to repair the shrine.) We’ve heard that there
was the incident of Mr. Yanagisawa in those days, so that the shogunate couldn’t
think of the outside (of the government) and at last it resulted in this
situation. We will attach a reduced copy of the map which Oyas had handed down
from the Kyoho years (1716-1735). As to the old documents possessed by the two
families, we will make it complete after making a copy.

(Part G)

(number 1)

28^th January the 9^th year of Genroku (1696)

When Tenryuin-kou (So Yoshizane, the feudal lord of Tsushima) came to the castle of Edo (Tokyo) to see the Shogunate, Toda
Yamashiro-no-kami passed him a note concerning Takeshima before the four Chief Retainers in the room of Hakushoin. Since years ago two merchants from Yonago in Hakushu went over to Takeshima and engaged in fishing but Koreans also came to the island to fish. Toda said to him that because it is useless if Japanese work among Koreans, the Shogunate would prohibit merchants in Yonago from going there from now on.

Before this, on 9^th January, Misawa Kichizaemon called Naoemon* and when he was going to Misawa’s house, he met with (Abe) Bungo-no-kami, (a Chief Retainer), who directly asked him about Takeshima. He also talked to the middle class officers, Dewa-no-kami, and Ukyo-dayu.
(*Hirata Naoemon? : chief-retainer of the Tsushima feudal clan who was staying
in Edo)

As to Takeshima, we don’t know exactly. As (they) came from Houki and went fishing there, so we asked Matsudaira Houki-no-kami (the feudal lord), but he didn’t say that it must be attached to Inaba-Houki. We’ve heard that the two merchants of Yonago wanted to go there as before and sent in an application for voyage, as the then feudal lord Matsudaira Shintaro explained, we gave the document (the permission to voyage: http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/permission-given-to-oyas-and-murakawas.html)
to Shintaro before. It must be the era of Daitokuin as Sakai Uta-no-kami, Doi
Ohi-no-kami, Inoue Kazue-no-kami and Nagai Shinano-no-kami signed the document together. Although it was “before”, we don’t know exactly what year it
was.

In this way they had been there and had fished there, it didn’t mean to take Chosun’s island. There is no Japanese resident. When we asked the distance, they say about 160-ri from Houki, and about 40-ri to Chosun. Then it can be Ulleungdo (蔚陵島) of Chosun.

And if there is a Japanese resident, the island should be taken to this country
(Japan) but it’s hard to dispatch people from now and there is no evidence (of Japanese residence), so how about we would not dare to mention it?

As to the matter that Tsushima-no-kami (the lord of Tsushima) wrote the name of Ulleungdo (蔚陵島) in a document, he asked to exclude it and return it but we’ve heard that they keep it because the lord of Tsushima died without receiving a reply.
If so, Mr. Gyobu already told them about the matter, so should we not mention
it? Or do you think that Mr. Gyobu should write a letter about the matter of Takeshima anyway?

Considering about the three intentions above, please think about it, we would like to hear (your opinion) in detail. They only went there to take abalones, it is a useless island. We wonder how it would be if the communications from old times were stopped due to this matter. If we won with our dignity or with our military
power over them, to say illogical things would be worthless.

As to the matter of Takeshima, (there will be) no works and (they) don’t need (to go there) every year. Sagami-no-kami said (to us) to tell them repeatedly not to go there, because foreigners came over.

We wonder what do you think if you engage in useless matter. Mr. Gyobu is square, so he thinks we can’t say it (to ban the voyage) after we already said that
(permitted to go). Don’t worry about it. We will manage the matter, so please
give us your frank opinions. We know all of you so you don’t need to hesitate to
say your opinions. Excuse us for repeating ourselves, but as we have to say it
to foreign country, we need to hear opinions repeatedly. As it is complicated,
we will say this to the shogun after making it in logical order.

They say that what we’ve heard above should be noted for our memory, so a note was directly handed to every one. When I received it and looked at it, the whole story we’ve heard was written on it. I asked, “Then, does it mean that Japanese should not make a voyage to that island?” and they answered, “That’s right”. As they said that the shogunate had repeatedly told for Japanese not to make a voyage to the island, I said, “As to the matter of Takeshima, even if we return it back, it would not affect us, would it?”, they answered, “That’s right too”.

(And he continued), “We didn’t take the island away, so it is illogical to say ‘return it back’. We wouldn’t dare to mention it. We would try not to mention it mistakenly.”

That was slightly different from what we’ve heard but they said that it would be good to say it lightly even if the meaning is slightly different than you say it
gravely. And they added that we should understand the situation. Therefore I set back and said. After I said that I would get back and tell Gyobu-Taifu
(vice-minister of judicial department) about this, I left.

(Part H)

(Number 2)

The former lord sent you a correspondent and negotiated for twice but unfortunately he died so the matter was left undone. When (the new lord) went to Edo he was asked about the geography of Takeshima. He explained it based on the facts. It is far from our country (Japan) while it is nearer to your country (Chosun). We ordered not go to the island because it is troublesome if people from the both countries would be mixed in the island.
Our friendship for 100 years is more valuable than the small island.

(Part I)

(Number 3)

From Chosun Government Councilor. 李　善溥

To Gyobu Taifu, Sir Taira, of Tsushima, Japan

It is a joyful spring time. We are glad to hear that you are okay. Our correspondent told us what your correspondent told him. It is apparent that Ulleungdo belongs to our country as it was written in the map (輿図). Of course it is far from that country (Japan) and near to this place (Chosun), and the boundary is naturally clear. Your feudal clan (Tsushima) already knows that Ulleungdo and Takeshima are one island with two different names. That means it is our land although the name is different.

We are happy that your country ordered their people not to come (to this island) to fish forever. Our country will dispatch the officials to inspect not to mix the two
people. As to the Japanese people who drifted ashore (to mainland of Chosun)
last year, their ship was wrecked by a typhoon so we permitted them to go back
to your country. How do you have doubt with this occasion? If the letter was
truth, there should be a sin of fabrication, so we would punish them. We made an
order to forbid to the coast area. It is our wish that there will be no
trespassing on the boundary. You already met our correspondent but nobody came here after that. That may mean you won’t send a man considering the old promise. I will send a letter to 萊館. I hope you will understand.

Yours sincerely,

March, the year of 戌寅

(Part J)

(Number 4)

From Taira Yoshizane, Gyobu-Taifu Shui, Tsushima, Japan

To sir Chosun Government official

We received your great letter the other day and found your country
is peaceful.

When our correspondent went there and told about the matter of
Takeshima last year, you showed sincerity and good faith in order to communicate with each other for a long time considering the circumstances, which made us very happy. We passed your intention to the shogunate. I would write the details and send it later.

Although it’s a spring time but it is still cold. Please take care of yourself.

Yours sincerely,

January, the 12^th year of Genroku (1699)

Taira Yoshizane, Gyobu-Taifu Shui, Tsushima

(Part K)

Verbal note

1. There are various opinions concerning Takeshima for several years. Contrary to our expectation, the shogunate ordered to listen to them well. So we spoke to the Korean correspondent about it. It was passed to them and a letter came from
them. It was not a good letter but it went well thanks to Gyobu-Taifu (vice
–minister of the judicial department) who endeavored hard. This time we are
going to send a reply.

The matter of Takeshima has just completely finished. It went as the country of Chosun wanted, so it’s just the big happiness for both countries.

Takeshima was at first discarded by your country for years and it was gradually forgotten, so Japanese has been there for 80 years. A few years ago, people from Inaba (Japan) captured Korean fishermen, brought them back and reported to the shogunate. The shogunate ordered to tell Chosun that “fishermen from your country must not to come over to the island repeatedly”. Therefore, the former lord of Tsushima sent a messenger and told this to them. They sent a reply and it said, “We understood. To go to Takeshima is bad thing, so we will punish them. We firmly said that they must go there from now on.”

But there was an unclear part in the letter and we thought that if we let it be there would be a trouble in the future, we dispatched a messenger. After this, they changed the contents of the letter and sent us a letter which was saying “Japanese came over the border, so order them not to come over”. So this was transmitted to Tsushima and a messenger was dispatched but while he couldn’t receive the reply unfortunately the former lord of Tsushima died.
So the messenger returned to Tsushima without receiving it.

However, as to Takeshima, I’ve heard that it is without doubt Ulleungdo in your country. Fortunately the Gyobu-Taifu was staying in Edo so he told the shogunate the above. He said, “As Takeshima has been discarded by Chosun for years and after that they didn’t tell us when they had to tell us, so it went as like Japan’s territory. So it is very reasonable that we claimed, but it was drawn in the map輿地図 and is Chosun’s territory without doubt. And we have
communicated with them with sincerity, so please understand and if you ordered
Japanese not to make a voyage to the island, it would be much honored.”

As I’ve been pleaded in secret, I told the superior retainer about it courteously and sincerely. Then soon it was conveyed to the shogun and he said, “For the friendship with the neighboring country, we will prohibit Japanese people from making voyages (to the island) from now on”.

Fortunately a Korean official were invited. And (the shogunate) said that when he came here we would tell him in details, so I told him so in previous year. So then I would expect they would thank us but he only wrote “it doesn’t say forever but otherwise it is good” without a thankful intention, which seemed not good. And I think it created an insincere impression in our mind.

Your country lacked in intention to examine the island and no thoughts. And you didn’t reflect on all you’ve done at all. The things are exaggerated and what you said at the beginning and what you said at the end are not consistent and
inconvenient. If we said this directly to you it would not only be unsuccessful
but also things won’t go smoothly. And since then the shogunate had the bad
impression on Chosun. But the Gyobu-Taifu performed his duty, treating the
shogunate with the utmost courtesy and he made every effort to advise that what
Chosun had said was reasonable. So it went well.

Concerning the belonging of Takeshima, about which your country didn’t consider, it returned to your country wholly thanks to the Gyobu-Taifu. It would be a grave mistake if you thought that this matter was done by Chosun or it was reasonable. I won’t explain in detail because you know it, if you think the profit considering the consequences, you will understand.

A letter, in which they wrote that the matter of Takeshima, could be brought by a messenger but when they told the Korean official about it (without a messenger), it was because they thought they should not use messengers on the matter out of the agreement, so it is natural for you to think they should use messengers to send messages.

As we’ve heard, a motion the shogunate makes is used to be passed to the assembly by a messenger, but the Korean official had been invited as mentioned above, so he was fortunately invited.

Then the shogunate thought that if he appears they can talk over this matter, it’s the same as the communication through a messenger, and they ordered to do so.

So they talked to the official. It’s not because the shogunate thought that they prohibited to use messengers except for the matters in the agreement. If they needed they can’t help dispatching a messenger. Because our thoughts are different as you can see in this matter, we would like to tell you this for future references. Please keep this in mind.

The matter went well as above mentioned, so what
we told may seem to be needless. But it is our duty, so we saw and heard from
the beginning how were the thoughts of both countries. There was a difference
between your country’s thought and Tsushima’s
thought, if there will be a difference in an intention and if they won’t
communicate for many years it won’t be successful to make an agreement.

This is for our future’s sake. So please translate
our thought and transmit to 東萊 and the government. That’s all.

And to follow is the final document. Please note that they didn't mention Matsushima or another island.

(Part L)

Inquiry about the land registration of Takeshima and another island in the Sea of Japan (日本海内竹島他一島地籍編纂方伺)

As to the jurisdiction of Takeshima, as Shimane prefecture reported in the separate paper, the matter of the island is judged as follows:

In 1692 (the 5^th year of Genroku) Koreans came to the island as you can read in
the separate report.

In January 1696 (the 9^th year of Genroku), as the document number 1 indicated, the former government had a conference and the decision was transmitted to the
Korean official as the document number 2 shows. As the document number 3, which was sent from the country (Chosun), and number 4, the reply from Japan, and the verbal note show, in 1699 (the 12^th year of Genroku) after the
communications with each other, it was said as “This country has nothing to do
(with the island)”.

To take or give a territory is an important issue, so I would like to inquire about this matter, as I attach the separate papers by way of precaution.

Deputy of Sir Okubo Toshimichi in the Ministry of the Interior,

assistant secretary of the Ministry of the Interior, Maejima Hisoka

17^th March 1877 (the 10^th year of Meiji)

To Superior Minister (右大臣) Iwakura Tomomi

As to the inquiry, the matter of Takeshima and another island, understand that this country has nothing to do (with it/them).

29^th March 1877 (the 10^th year of Meiji) (written in red)