竹島問題の歴史

1.2.08

San-in Chuo Shimpo: "Usando (于山島) = Jukdo (竹嶼), Documented for the First Time"

The following is a translation of a January 19 article from the Japanese newspaper, "San-in Chou Shimpo":

"Usando (于山島) = Jukdo (竹嶼), Documented for the First Time"

An old Joseon Dynasty document has been found that shows that Usando was the old name for Jukdo (竹嶼 in Japanese or 竹島 in Korean), which is an island off the northeast shore of present-day Ulleungdo. South Korea has claimed that Usando was Takeshima (Dokdo in Korean), the sovereignty of which is claimed by both Korea and Japan. The Takeshima Research Center of Shimane Prefecture has used old maps to claim, "Usando was not Takeshima/Dokdo but Jukdo," but this is the first time a document has been found to prove the claim.

The document comes from the "Ilseongrok (日省錄) ", which was a Korean record of daily affairs of state from 1760 to 1910. American Gerry Bevers (52), who researches the Takeshima/Dokdo issue in South Korea, introduced the document on the Internet.

In an 1807 report in the "Ilseongrok (日省錄), a Korean government official, who surveyed Ulleungdo, described Usando as being to the north of the island and having a circumference of two to three Korean ri (里), which was 800 to 1200 meters (北有于山島周回為二三里許). Jukdo is the only island around Ulleungdo with such a large circumference.

Jukdo is off the northeast shore of Ulleungdo and reaches almost 700 meters from north to south. In contrast, Takeshima/Dokdo is located ninety-two kilomethers southeast southeast of Ulleungdo. Mr. Bevers concluded, "At any rate, this 1807 report says that Usando was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo."

Professor Masao Shimojo of Takushoku University, who served as the chairman of the Takeshima Issue Society, evaluated the document by saying, "Though old maps had already made it clear that Usando was not Takeshima/Dokdo but Jukdo, the document is meaningful because it corroborates the maps." South Korea researchers had been refuting the claims of the Takeshima Research Center of Shimane Prefecture by saying, "More value should be put on documents than maps." Professor Shimojo quoted the Korean refutation and then said, "The opinion of the Takeshima Research Center been proven to be correct."

38 comments:

  1. Thank you, Gerry

    Could you please translate and post the article I found on the Japanese site today? It's an article of 皇城新聞(1906年7月13日) found by Mr.Sugino (Nidanosuke). I think this is a huge finding to prove 石島 in 1900 Imperial Edict was not Takeshima/Dokdo, but just a neighbouring island of Ulleundo.

    The article is here. 皇城新聞1906年7月13日 

    Mr.Sugino's site.

    Thank you, in advance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry, the first link didn' work. Please try this.

    http://ameblo.jp/public/image/displayimage.do?imagePath=/user_images/c3/2c/10046631579.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  3. I found opp's comment on Mr. Sugino's site. He pointed out that 皇城新聞 in 1906年5月9日 called 竹島 as "獨島", but this 1906年7月13日 article called "石島". Seehere (toron's site).

    石島 was not 竹島/獨島 definately.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous3/2/08 07:42

    "北有于山島周回為二三里許"

    '二三里'
    Why this sentence interpret like that?
    2~3 ri (x)
    23 ri(o)

    also your claim is Impossible claim.

    Korean think Dokdo(Liancourt Rocks) is Usando.
    Some Japanese claimed, Usando was not dokdo(Liancourt Rocks). Usando was Jukdo.

    But It is Impossible claim.

    According to Japanese document 元祿九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一卷之覺書, Ahn Yong-Bok said, "Ulleungdo is about 30 ri from Korean peninsula, Dokdo(Liancourt Rocks) is about 50 ri from Ulleungdo."

    In 15 century, Human could not measure sea distance exactly. But, Ahn Yong-Bok's mean, Dokdo(Liancourt Rocks) is very far distance from Ulleungdo.

    Ahn said :
    Korea ~ Ulleungdo distance;30 ri < Ulleungdo ~ Dokdo(Liancourt Rocks) distance;50 ri

    so, Ahn Yong-Bok refered Dokdo(Liancourt Rocks). Not Jukdo.

    Jukdo is near rock of Ulleungdo. Distance is very close.(Actually, Jukdo is attached rock of Ulleungdo)

    According to Japanese document 元祿九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一卷之覺書, it is impossible that Jukdo was Usando.

    Daehanjiji, metioned about Usando. Usando is introduced as Ulleungdo's sister island and it states "Usando is Southeast of that island Ulleungdo" This record as well as these are clear evidence that Usando does not refer to neither Jukdo Islet nor Gwaneumdo Islet as both of these are in northeastern positions.

    In 1900, Korean Government Imperial Ordinance 41, Jukdo, Ulleung-do, Seok-do(Dokdo). 3 islands already incorporated to Ulleung province. Korea already Incorporated Jukdo in 1900.

    so it is worthless theory that if Usando was Jukdo.

    so your claim that, "Usando is not Liancourt Rocs. Usando was Jukdo or Gwaneumdo!"
    Let's clarify this. Your logic start from "Korean did not know Liancourt Rocks existence for thousands of years."
    Let's see this photo[27], Liancourt Rocks cleary visible in Korea terrtory(in Ulleungdo).
    How can Korean did not KNOW this island "existence" for thousands of years? huh? even visible in their territory?
    Your logic is failure logic, because start from inaccurate presumption.

    Last, Whatever you say, You also did not prove that Japan occupied this island, too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous3/2/08 07:50

    < sorry, correct 2 word >

    1. According to Japanese document 元祿九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一卷之覺書, Ahn Yong-Bok said, "Takeshima(Ulleungdo) is about 30 ri from Joseon(Korean peninsula), Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks) is about 50 ri from Takeshima(Ulleungdo)."


    2. Let's see this photo,
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-from-ulleungdo3.jpg

    Liancourt Rocks cleary visible in Korea terrtory(in Ulleungdo).
    How can Korean did not KNOW this island "existence" for thousands of years? huh? even visible in their territory?
    Your logic is failure logic, because start from inaccurate presumption.

    Last, Whatever you say, You also did not prove that Japan occupied this island, too.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous3/2/08 09:35

    "北有于山島周回為二三里許"

    '二三里'
    Why this sentence interpret like that?
    2~3 ri (x)
    23 ri(o)


    Wow. Super Comedy. 2~3 ri? Are you serious? Whahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...........

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous3/2/08 09:46

    아마추어의 한계네요.

    한국어를 알아들을 것 같아서 한국어로 씁니다.

    二三里를 2~3리로 번역하는 것은
    완전히 아마추어의 한계네요.

    이것이 일본 신문에까지 나왔습니까? 일본 신문 기자의 수준도 알만하군요.

    1. 울릉도에서 보이는 섬을, 한국인이 수천년간 저 섬의 존재를 모르고 살았다?? 당신의 논리는 여기서 부터 시작하는데, 이것부터가 문제고요.

    2. 한국은 한번도 섬의 영유권을 방폐하는 '적극적인 행위'를 한번도 한적이 없습니다. 몇가지 글자의 오류를 찾아도 마찬가지군요.

    3. 석도가 우산도였다가, 관음도였다가, 또 이상한 섬에 갖다 붙이고 자꾸 헷갈립니까? 도대체 논리의 일관성이 왜 없습니까?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous3/2/08 10:29

    also 'ilsungrok' is not korea goverment official.
    bcz, ilsungrok is not research document. it mean 'small talk of king'. and not for goverment adminstrarive document.
    Anyway, Must see full text.
    You cut and paste only convenience sentence for you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous, thank you, but please use nickname so that we can know who said which. Or we won't comment on your opinion.

    Anonymous wrote;
    "'二三里'
    Why this sentence interpret like that?
    2~3 ri (x)
    23 ri(o)"

    Please learn how to read Chinese first. It is silly. Even Korean academics admit it is Jukdo(竹嶼, 竹島 in Korean). Read Prof, 呉 相学's article in 2006. Many geographer in Korea admits Usando in Korean old maps are Jukdo, not Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks. Visit Seoul National Uni's site.

    文化歴史地理第18冊第1号(2006) 「朝鮮時態指導に表現された鬱陵島 ・ 独島認識の変化(The Change in Perception of U11eungdo and Dokdo Represented in Maps of the Joseon Dynasty)」(Korean)

    Below are only a few examples from Annals of Choson dynasty. When they want to say 20-30, they usually write "二十三", not "二三". This is not the point we should be arguing at all.

    "肅宗 16卷, 11年(1685 乙丑 / 청 강희(康熙) 24年) 11月 15日(辛未) 1번째기사
    ○辛未/上以先后祥日之近, 命進素饌。 藥房都提調金壽興等請對, 以爲: “上候方在未寧中, 自今行素, 必多傷損。” 力請減其日數。 上初甚持難, 後乃許。 自二十三日行素。"

    "肅宗 23卷, 17年(1691 辛未 / 청 강희(康熙) 30年) 12月 30日(庚戌) 2번째기사
    ○上以秋曺獄囚多滯, 命各該司速行疏放。
    肅宗顯義光倫睿聖英烈章文憲武敬明元孝大王實錄卷之二十三終"


    Anonymous wrote;
    "1. According to Japanese document 元祿九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一卷之覺書, Ahn Yong-Bok said, "Takeshima(Ulleungdo) is about 30 ri from Joseon(Korean peninsula), Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks) is about 50 ri from Takeshima(Ulleungdo).""

    If the distance from Choson penninsula to Ulleundo was 30 ri (140km), then 50 ri makes about 240km. It is Oki islands.

    As for 「元禄九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一巻之覚書」,
    It records Ahn's testimony as follows.
    "5月15日、竹島を出港、同じ日に松島へ着く。" (He left Takeshima in 15th May, and arrived at Matsushima on a same day.)

    Later, Ahn testified to the Choson Officials as follows.
    「肅宗実録 22年9月 25日 戊寅 条」"遂以翌曉, 拕舟入子山島" (next dawn, I dragged the boat and went to Jasando.

    Thus, his travel time was less than few hours since he testified that his travel time from Takeshima(Ulleundo) to Jasando was only within few hours. Besides, if it was Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo as you say, you cannot "drag the boat" to the island. The Chinese "拕" exactly means "drag with a rope or somethins", not row, or even sail. His testimony itself proves that Ahn didn't even go to Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo. It is impossible.

    "Liancourt Rocks cleary visible in Korea terrtory(in Ulleungdo).
    How can Korean did not KNOW this island "existence" for thousands of years? huh? even visible in their territory?"

    Nobody says it is invisible from Ulleundo. The poin is, visiblity has nothing to do with sovereignty of the land. Korean need to present clear evidence that they owned the island effectively before Japanese did in mid-1600s.

    As I've said above, the new evidence that proves Seokdo was within few kilometers from Ulleundo was found last night. Please read the article from 皇城新聞(1906年7月13日) 
    http://ameblo.jp/public/image/displayimage.do?imagePath=/user_images/c3/2c/10046631579.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous3/2/08 16:48

    Kanganese, I've asked you at least five times on this forum to show proof of Japanese sovereignty over Matsushima in the 17th Century yet I've seen nothing from you at all.

    The distance given by Anyongbok was 50ri. Japanese maps show the distance as 40ri which is also quite far.

    Are you trying to tell us Anyongbok went to Oki and declared Oki as part an part of Gangwando? This is ridiculous.

    You also say Anyongbok "pulled" a boat to Jasando by rope? Whatever island you insist Anyongbok was talking about he certainly didn't "pull or drag" it there by boat. The charcter "拕" you refer to is translated in my book as sailed to. This term probable refers to how they steered or propelled the boat manually.

    Anyongbok went to Japan and stated "Takeshima ( Ulleungdo 竹島) and Matsushima (松島 Dokdo) are part of Gangwando Province. You can see the original document here.

    Anyongbok-1

    Surely if the Shogunate thought Matsushima was part of Japan he would have disputed Anyongbok's assertions in his correspondence but they said nothing. This means either they (the Japanese didn't care) or the island was a non-issue.

    The Japanese only visited Matsushima en route to Ulleungdo, (Takeshima) after ceding Ulleungdo they had little reason to voyage 2 days to barren rocks without fresh water. The most plausible interpretation is the Japanese just considered the rocks attached to Ulleungdo and a non-issue.

    This interpretation agrees with the 1695 documents between Dottori and the Shogunate that also stated Takeshima and Matsushima were not part of these prefectures.

    Dottori

    Kanganese, the document you cite appears way off. The distances I see given are 60ri (24kms) and 40ri (16kms). This is at least double the size of Ulleungdo.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous3/2/08 18:00

    Kaneganese


    "'二三里'
    Why this sentence interpret like that?
    2~3 ri (x)
    23 ri(o)"

    do you think it is really 2~3 ri?
    Are you serious?
    Please learn proper chinese language.
    and you must know

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous3/2/08 18:05

    and do you think, 17 century asian could sea distance exactly?
    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous3/2/08 18:10

    Let's suppose your logic is 100% true
    (korean did not know this island existence for thousands years, even visible in their territory),

    When 1905 japan incorporate this island, then why korean protest to this? huh? even they did not know island.

    Wow. comedy. Comedy.

    When kore goverment aggressively throw away this island? none.

    also you did not prove japan occupied this island too.

    i can borrow your logic, i can prove that japan did not know this island existence for thousand of years.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous3/2/08 18:22

    this is 磯竹島略圖 picture.

    http://dadembi.com/data/board/image/2006/1237988922.jpg

    http://img.khan.co.kr/news/2006/09/13/6i1409c.jpg

    "Ulleungdo and one other island are not Japan territory -by Japanese govemenrt-" cleary prove this.

    and i already said,
    Usando = Jukdo theory is impossible.

    In 1900, Korean Government Imperial Ordinance 41, Jukdo, Ulleung-do, Seok-do(Dokdo). 3 islands already incorporated to Ulleung province. Korea already Incorporated Jukdo in 1900.

    so it is worthless theory that if Usando was Jukdo.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Kaneganese,

    That article is quite interesting because, if the date is correct, then it would seem to be confirming that the newspaper, at least, did not consider Seokdo (石島) to be Dokdo (獨島) since the same newspaper had used the name Dokdo just a couple of months earlier and would not be switching back to Seokdo if they were referring to the same place. Also, the article does not mention anything about Dokdo, which would suggest that Dokdo was not considered a part of Uldo (Ulleungdo) county.

    It is a little difficult to read the article because some of it is blurred, but I will try to translate what I can. How is it translated in Japanese?

    Also, it seems that there may be more to the article. I am curious to know what motivated the reporter to write the article? Had a survey been conducted to see if Dokdo was really a part of Ulleungdo?

    ReplyDelete
  16. dokdo-takeshima3/2/08 21:42

    Anonymous, the map you are referring to are part of the Kobunruko documents of 1877. This report concluded Ulleungdo and "another island" were not part of Japan (Shimane Prefecture)

    I agree with you that Japan clearly excluded Matsushima (Dokdo) from part of Japan in this report.

    You can see the original report and map here. Notice the maps of Shimane Prefecture all excluded Matsushima from Japan's territory.

    Kobunruko doc1

    In fact all maps of Shimane Prefecture before 1905 excluded Dokdo from Japan's territory.

    Shimane Maps

    The entire report was compiled and translated in Korea on Mr Cho's website.

    Kobunruko doc2

    ReplyDelete
  17. As to the 公文録 (Kobunroku), you should read all of the documents in the book. We already reviewed it here:
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/argument-about-another-island-details.html

    It comprises of 12 parts of documents and only one document referred to "another island", in which Shimane prefecture asked the government about the sovereignty of Ulleungdo (Takeshima) and another island. Shimane prefecture wrote: "And as we guess it generally, it (Ulleungdo) 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".

    At this point, Shimane prefecture didn't think Ulleungdo (and another island) didn't belong to Japan.

    Other 11 documents didn't mention "another island" except the title of the final document.
    All of the other documents only mentioned Ulleungdo (Takeshima).

    It is natural because they studied about how the shogunate gave Takeshima (Ulleungdo) away to Korea and the history only indicated the Edo shogunate banned to trespass on Ulleungdo but not on Liancourt rocks.

    The final document says, "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 5th 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".

    So the book 公文録 indicated that Shimane prefecture asked about the belonging of Ulleungdo and "another island" and the Meiji government studied about the records concerning the history how the shogunate banned to trespass on Ulleungdo. So it didn't mean Laincourt rocks didn't belong to Japan. It only stated that the shogunate gave up Ulleungdo, so it didn't belong to Japan or Shimane prefecture.

    ReplyDelete
  18. dokdo-takeshima.com4/2/08 13:49

    Pacifist, Shimane inquired to the Shogunate about whether Ulleungdo and "another" island were included as part their prefecture.

    In this document Liancourt Rocks is clearly Matsushima. This is clear by the shape form and distance given on the accompanying map. It correlates with the distances and discription on the attached documents. On many maps of the late 19th Century the Japanese still continued to use the name Matsushima on their maps.

    Here is the map.

    Kobunruko Map

    In the end the Japanese government decided that Ulleungdo and "the other island" did not belong Pacifist. Please enlighten us, when you look at the attached map which "other island" were they referring to?

    The purpose of this inquiry was to help Shimane remap their prefecture. All maps of Shimane Prefecture made afterward fail to show Liancourt Rocks and/or Matsushima.

    Shimane Maps

    The Japanese did not consider ANY islands beyond the Okinoshimas as part of Japan until they seized Liancourt Rocks during the Russo~Japanese War.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Kaneganese, Pacifist, or anyone:

    Can someone please explain the following Japanese post for me? Is it just an imaginary conversation?

    指令第三号と新聞記事

    ReplyDelete
  20. Gerry,
    Yes, they are only imaginary conversations. Though it makes sence to me...

    (By the way, I'm not going to respond to "anonymous" anymore who is apparently using anonymous more than twice. This is confusing. I hope you deal with this problem.)

    This is the page of the article. The date of the article is correct.(光武十年(1906)七月十三日)

    I'll try the translation. Please correct my translation if you find any. (I was kind of hoping that you would give me a translation.)

    "鬱島郡の配置顛末(The whole story of how Uldo County was settled)

    「統監府で内部に公○された江原道三陟郡管下に所在する鬱陵島に所属島嶼と郡廳設始月は示明する○故○○図され、光武二年五月二十日に鬱陵島監に設證され、光武四年十月二十五日に政府会議を経由して郡守を配置するので郡廳は台霞洞に置き、護郡所管島はチュク島と石島で、東西が六十里で南北が四十里なので,合せて二百余里だという」(Translation by Mr,Sugino)

    統監府 opened internal documents to the public and it says that the date of the planning(?) of opening the county agency of Ulleundo and adjacent islands which belong to (under the jurisdiction of )江原道三陟郡 started ????? And on 光武二年(1898)五月二十日, Ulleundo'島監 (island administrator) )was opened and the county agency was setlled in 台霞洞 in order to dispatch the head of the island via the government conference on 光武四(1900)年十月二十五日. The islands under the county jurisdiction, are 竹島 and 石島, which is 60 ris from east to west, 40 ris from south to north, thus about 200ris altogether. "

    I guess this is the report of journalist from 皇城新聞 who inerviewed the 統監府 after their 9th May artricle. And I also guess this internal documents was the result of the communication between 統監府 and Choson government who investigated the 鬱陵島監 and its jusirdiction. I guess Choson government realized that "Dokdo" which 沈興沢 reported to the 春川郡守 李明来 was not under the jurisdiction since the range of the jurisdiction of the Ulleundo County is only 200ris. It is still unknown which island 石島 is, but Central government of Choson who ordered to investigate the shape and the Japanese activity on the island in concern (「指令第三号」by 議政府参政大臣 李齋純 on 20th May. ) must have realized this Dokdo is not their territory after receiving report from 春川郡守 李明来 who received the order(指令第三号). It makes perfectly sence why Choson government didn't do any proper action after they ordered 春川郡守 to investigate the island.

    Anyway, I've already sent an e-mail to the researchers hoping we could get more professional opinion on this article. We need more information, since there are too many bugs in the formar part of this article.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Correction

    統監府 opened internal documents to the public

    統監府 opened its documents internally

    ReplyDelete
  22. I don't want to respond to somebody too but I would like to appeal all the readers that the map somebody shows was not made by Shimane prefecture to prove "another island" was Dokdo or not. It was brought for a reference to show the island (Ulleungdo) in the issue looks like. It was an old map from Oya family, as it was mentioned in the 6th document in the 公文録: "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".

    The map is not proving anything.

    I won't argue any more with somebody about this matter, as we have reviewed all the 公文録 documents and it is clear that it only mentioned that Ulleungdo was Korean territory (not Liancourt rocks).

    ReplyDelete
  23. dokdo-takeshima.com4/2/08 22:43

    pacifist, the map I cited above wasn't included with the documents for the Dajokan to blow his nose on. It was included for reference. It was by looking at that map that the Japanese came to the conclusion that other islands outside of Shimane were not part of Japan.

    Kaneganese, the Koreans were not exact in their distance of Dokdo from Ulleungdo. We've known this since reading Shim Heung Taek's objections to the annexation of Dokdo.

    This document clarifies first the theory that Seokdo is a "catchall" phrase to mean all surrounding islands is wrong.

    It also shows that Korea's limits extended well beyond the shores of Ulleungdo. Ulleungdo was not the boundary of Chosun as some have stated on this board.

    If Seokdo was not Jukdo, it must be either Gwaneumdo or Dokdo. If it was Gwaneumdo it would not have been necessary to extend the jurisdiction of Uldo so far beyond Ulleungdo's shores.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thank you, Kaneganese.

    Steve Barber,

    How does the document prove that "Seokdo" (石島) was not a catchall phrase for the various "rocky islets" around Ulleungdo? You forgot to tell us.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 東西が六十里で南北が四十里なので,合せて二百余里だという

    1861-1863大東方輿図


    I remind of Korean's ulluengdo's map which shows the Ullunegdo's area and distance.

    P/S 祭りに乗り遅れた・・・・

    ReplyDelete
  26. 金正浩's another map 「大東輿地図」(1861) has same description.

    ReplyDelete
  27. By the way, Nidanosuke wrote on his blog, Chosun-Ri朝鮮里 is 0.2Km OR 0.4Km,
    >
    当時の韓国の里法では1里=0.2km、若しくは1里=0.4kmですが、ここでは、0.4kmと仮定します。

    I also longly questioned that the Map of Ulluengdo's distance because the actual one ri里 is around 0.213km~0.23km on my calculation.

    Is there any articles explains 1里=0.2km?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yes. the actual diameter of Ulleundo is about 10 kilometers from west to east. If it is 60 ris, it makes almost 0.2km/ri. I thought the region of Uldo County defined by this is about 20kms (0.4km ×60ris), making about in the range of 5-6km around Ulleundo.

    ReplyDelete
  29. dokdo-takeshima.com5/2/08 22:40

    Kanganese, you are cutting off the toes to fit the shoes.

    A Chosun ri is .4kms a Japanese ri is 4 kms and a ocean ri is 1.852kms.

    Here is a chart from a 19th (1894)Century Japanese map. Japanese ri on top, Chosun ri below, kilometers on the bottom.

    Ri Chart

    Gerry, the newspaper article in question shows Jukdo and Seokdo written next to each other. The Hwaseong Shinmun article says Jukdo and Usando written in the same manner. This shows Usando and Jukdo are not considered the same island in the 1899 article.

    Ulleungdo Island was said to be 100ri in area. This article shows Uldo County to be considerably larger to accomodate outlying islands. They must have considered Seokdo to be somewhat distant.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Steve Barber,

    The names Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島) being written next to each other does not disprove that Seokdo most likely meant "rock islets." I do not understand your logic.

    Also, you are confusing "area" and "circumference." The area of Ulleungdo was reported to be 100 ri, but the circumference of Ulleungdo was reported to be 200 ri, which is about fifty kilometers. Circumference is the distance around the island, and that circumference would certainly not include "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks).

    Today, the shoreline of Ulleungdo measures 56.5 kilometers.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Correction: 200 ri would be 80 kilometers.

    Also, Usando was another name for Jukdo, which is why it did not appear in the 1900 proclamation, even though Usando/Jukdo was described as Ulleungdo's most prominent island in the 1899 newspaper ariticle. That article used the Usando/Jukdo combination to show that there were two names for the same island.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I calcurate most of the Ullungdo's detail maps which discribed distance from Songirbo to each place of Ulluengdo

    It show almost 1里=0.2Km

    Wrote 1里 is sometimes 0.2Km.
    Is there any information about 1里=0.2km?

    Cf:Occidentalism

    When I calcurate the distance, I realize that 三数十里 means 30里(from 中峯 to 臥達里/石浦)+@(from 臥達里/石浦 to 竹嶼Jukdo).
    Cf:1882 April 7 - King Kojong says Usando Neighboring Island of Ulleungdo

    ReplyDelete
  33. dokdo-takeshima.com6/2/08 15:39

    Gerry, the size of Ulleungdo in Chosun documents was said to be sa-bang 100 ri. This was a circumference NOT an area.

    This was most likely done by sailing around the island and measuring north~south and east west. Then they added the four sides to arrive at a circumference.

    Perhaps this article calculates the same. 60x2=120 + 40x2=80 put together equals 200ri in perimeter not circumference?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Steve, you are confused.

    "Sabang" (四方) referred to the area of the island, and "juhoi" (周回) referred to the circumference, which is a synonym for perimeter.

    If you look at the map that GTOMR linked to HERE, you will see the following is written:

    東西六十餘里南北四十餘里周二百餘里

    East to west about 60 ri,
    東西六十餘里
    South to north about 40 ri,
    南北四十餘里
    Circumference about 200 ri
    周二百餘里

    Notice that it gave both the area and circumference of the island.

    The east-west and south-north distances added together equal 100 ri, which was how they calculated the area (四方) of the island. The 周 character refers to circumference.

    I am surprised you still do not know this because I have explained it to you several times.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Correction: Circumference is "juwui" (周圍).

    ReplyDelete
  36. Gerry,

    There was a new information. Mr. Sugino deciphered most of them with a help of "chaamiey" who is a frequent commentator of Yahoo! BBS. (Though he admit he assumed some of them.)

    "鬱島郡の配置顛末

     統監府から内部に公照された江原道三陟郡管下に所在する鬱陵島の所属島嶼と郡廳設始月を示明せよとの故に答酬され、光武二年五月二十日に鬱陵島統監として設證され、光武四年十月二十五日に政府会議を経由して郡守を配置したが、郡廳は台霞洞に置き、該郡所管島はチュク島と石島で、東西が六十里で南北が四十里なので、合せて二百余里だという。" (New translation by Mr. Sugino)

    "鬱島郡の配置顛末
     「統監府から大韓帝国内部(内務部)に対して公式照会のあった江原道三陟郡管下に所在する鬱陵島の所属島嶼と郡庁設置月を明示せよとの件で、大韓帝国政府から回答が出され、それによると、経緯は、光武二年五月二十日に鬱陵島統監として設置され、光武四年十月二十五日に政府会議を経て郡守を配置した。郡庁は台霞洞に置き、郡の所管島はチュク島と石島で、東西が六十里で南北が四十里なので、合せて二百余里だという。" (translation to modern Japanese by chaamiey)

    This is my new translation.

    "The whole story of how Uldo County was settled.
    統監府 made an official inquiry to the Ministry of Internal Affair of Korean Empire government (内部) to clarify the adjacent islands to Ulleundo, which is under the jurisdiction of 江原道三陟郡, and the date of the opening of county agency. They answered that it was set as a Ulleundo administrator(鬱陵島統監) on the 20th of May, 1898(光武二年) and county head(郡守) was dispatched via the government conference on 25th May, 1900(光武四年). And they also answered that county agency(郡廳) was setlled in 台霞洞, and the islands under the jurisdiction of county in concern(該郡所管島) are 竹島 and 石島, thus it is 60 ris from east to west, 40 ris from south to north, thus about 200 ris altogether. "

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thank you, Kaneganese. I have posted my translation of the article. Let me know if anyone finds any mistakes.

    Happy new year.

    ReplyDelete
  38. dokdo-takeshima.com8/2/08 17:24

    Gerry, you are arguing with yourself.

    The point I'm making is this document shows Ulleungdo was not the boundary of Uldo county but rather it extended further outward. This is the same as Shim Heung Taek asserted in 1906.

    200 ri is double the circumference of Ulleungdo and if the West coast of the island were said to be one limit, the east boundary would extend far beyond Ulleungdo.

    ReplyDelete