竹島問題の歴史

22.4.08

The 6th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)"

Below is a translation of The 6th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

"Records on Observations in Oki Province (Onshu-shicho-goki : 隠州視聴合記)" and the "Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads(Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu : 日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水).

The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a booklet called “Ten Points for Understanding the Takeshima Issue ” in February. It could be the first step toward enabling a dialogue with South Korea based on universal values, which former Korean President Roh Moo-hyun continually sought from Japan. I heartily welcome this action. I suspect that South Korea would also understand my reaction. Some in South Korea are calling for a change in course from President Roh’s political manipulation of this historical problem.

President Roh’s negative legacy for the Japan-Korean relationship still remains, however. The traveling exhibition of old maps of Ulleungdo and Dokdo, now in Suwon, is a case in point. This exhibition conducted by the Dokdo Museum contains not a single old map on which Dokdo is shown—it consists entirely of photographs. Nor do any exhibits in the Dokdo Museum have items showing that Takeshima was Korean territory. That is the reality of the Dokdo Museum, which focuses exclusively on the Takeshima (Dokdo) issue.

Another example of the negative legacy from Roh era is shown clearly on the Japanese-language website of the Dokdo Protection Squad, which distributed pamphlets during the Takeshima Day ceremony on February 22nd.

.

Here is their explanation of the Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads compiled by Nagakubo Sekisui:

“In particular, the notation, 'Viewing Koryo (Korea) is the same as viewing Onshu (Oki island) from Unshu,' also appears in the Onshu-shicho-goki (1667). This reconfirms that Dokdo is Korean territory”.

The Dokdo Protection Squad believes that the Onshu-shicho-goki and the Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads, both of which Japan used as the basis to prove that Takeshima (Dokdo) was Japanese territory, instead are the basis to prove that Dokdo is Korean territory. The interpretation of the sentence “Viewing Koryo is just the same as viewing Onshu (Oki island) from Unshu (Izumo) [見高麗猶雲州望隠州]” makes it clear, however, to which of Japan or Korea the place where one could view Koryo belonged.

Nagakubo Sekisui made that notation next to Ulleungdo when quoting from the Onshu-shicho-goki because he believed that Ulleungdo was Japanese territory--he wasn’t reconfirming that Dokdo was Korean territory.

.

Indeed, Saito Hosen, the author of Onshu-shicho-goki, also wrote in the book the fact that the Oya family from Yonago of the Tottori domain frequently visited Ulleungdo. He had no doubt that Ulleungdo was Japanese territory. And when one of the Oya family’s ships drifted ashore in Korea in 1666, one year before the publication of Onshu-shicho-gouki, the Korean government graciously returned it. The Edo Shogunate grasped the meaning of that event and also recognized that Ulleungdo was Japanese territory.

.

The Dokdo Protection Squad interpreted another sentence from the Onshu-shichou-goki to mean that Oki Island was the northwest limit of Japanese territory, and that Ulleungdo and Takeshima were Korean territory. But their interpretation is wrong. This sentence should be read, “After a voyage of two days and one night northwest of Oki Island is Matsushima (now called Takeshima), and after a voyage of one more day is Takeshima (Ulleungdo). These two islands are uninhabited, and viewing Koryo from there is the same as viewing Oki Island from Izumo. Therefore, this island is the northwest boundary of Japan.”

.

The Dokdo Protection Squad’s misinterpreted the document because they swallowed whole the mistakes of Shing Yong-ha and others from the Dokdo Society. Building a practical Japanese-Korean relationship requires that we wipe the slate clean of such preposterous statements. To achieve this, both Japan and Korea should begin a dialogue for creating a future-oriented zone of shared empathy.

実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第6回 『隠州視聴合記』と長久保赤水の『日本輿地路程全図』 下條正男
Translated by Pacifist
Edited by William Sakovich Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center

Other Column of the Series:

No.16 "'Dokdo Month without any historical grounds'"
No.15 " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"
No.14 " A Reckless Courage of the professor Kimishima Kazuhiko(君島和彦) of Tokyo Gakugei University(東京学芸大学).
No.13 "Sins of Asahi Shimbun and Mr. Wakamiya Yoshibumi(若宮啓文)”
No.12 " Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding
No.11 “South Korea's Misunderstanding of 'A Map of Three
Adjoining Countries (Sangoku Setsujozu 三国接壌図)' by Hayashi Shihei(林子平)”
No.10 "
A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory

No.9 "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”
No.8 "The Historical Facts"

No.5 "South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan'"

No.4 "Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."


Reference : "Onshu Shicho Goki" - The different translations

9 comments:

  1. dokdo-takeshima22/4/08 21:16

    Pacifist, it is Professor Shimojo's interpretation of Saito Hosen's translation that is wrong. Nowhere in this document does it say "Therefore this island marks the Northwestern boundary of Japan..." Period.

    It says "This "州“ is the boundary of Japan" The character "州” most commonly means territory or province such as "Oki Prefecture" in fact the report is about Oki "州“

    Throughout the entire text of Saito Hosen's report the character "州“ is consistently meant to represent district numerous times. In addition, the character ”島“ is without exception used to represent island.

    The last lines read.."These 2 islands are uninhabited and viewing Goryo from there is the same as viewing Onshu from Oki. Therefore this "州“ marks the northwestern limit of Japan.

    How can 2 islands a day's travel apart, in a straight line away from Japan make a boundary? Nowhere at all does it say "Takeshima" is the boundary of Japan at all.

    Saito-Hosen

    Saito Hosen's quote continued to be printed on Japanese maps long after the Shogunate ceded Ulleungdo to Chosun, even as late as 1870. Many mapmakers put this statement next to both Ulleungdo and Dokdo to show both the strong visual bond between Korea and the Ulleungdo~Dokdo region and to demonstrate the inseparability of the islands. Shimojo is also wrong on that point.


    The Oyas and Murakawas did in fact voyage to Ulleungdo and Dokdo. However in 1695 before the second Anyongbok incident it was stated the islands did not belong to neither Inaba nor Hoki. This is where all voyages to Takeshima~Matsushima originated from. It is believed the Shogunate ceded Takeshima to Chosun on the basis of this correspondence.

    In fact, the Dottori documents also recorded that those from Yonago voyaged to the Matsushima and still they concluded the islands were not part of Japan.

    Dottori Doc

    Tell Mr Shimojo there is no "Dokdo squad". Many scholars of the Dokdo Takeshima problem besides Shin Yong Ha, dispute Shimojo's erroneous translation of Saito Hosen's 1667 Report on Oki. Korean AND Japanese alike...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pacifist, Kaneganese, or anyone:

    Has Professor Shimojo Masao or any Japanese historian seen a copy of U Yong-jeong's full Ulleungdo inspection report (鬱島記)?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gerry,

    I have no idea, but I think it is highly unlikely. It wasn't on the list of Takeshima Research Group.

    I sent a mail to ask if anyone of Web Takeshima Research Center knows about it. Hopefully, we'll get a swift reply.

    Anyway, we already know that Koryo Uni nor Dokdo Center haven't lost it and hold a copies of it. So it will be revealed anytime soon, I hope.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've got a reply and guess what? They kindly showed me the site it is available.

    独島学会(http://www.dokdoinkorea.com/)"独島叢書第7巻"

    I take it theyd don't know more than we do.

    ReplyDelete

  5. Prof. Shimojo said:

    Nagakubo Sekisui made that notation next to Ulleungdo when quoting from the Onshu-shicho-goki because he believed that Ulleungdo was Japanese territory--he wasn’t reconfirming that Dokdo was Korean territory.


    How can Prof. Shimojo who is teaching students at college mislead the Japanese by saying such an untruthful thing. If Nagakubo Sekisui believed Ulleungdo was Japanese territory, why didn't he mark Ulleongdo as Japanese land in his map "日本與地路程全圖(1846)"?

    日本與地路程全圖 1 2

    "隱州視聽合紀" clearly meant the northwest boundary of Japan was Oki island and Dokdo was Korean land. That's why Nagakubo Sekisui didn't include Ulleongdo and Dokdo in the Japanese land and wrote the phrase "見高麗猶雲州望隠州 (Viewing Koryo (Korea) is the same as viewing Onshu (Oki island) from Unshu) from "隱州視聽合紀" in his map.

    I wonder how the Japanese history textbooks tell the Japanese young students about "隱州視聽合紀" the first Japanese document which said Dokdo was Korean land.

    ReplyDelete
  6. All of Japanese can read and understand easily the original old document of this 隱州視聽合紀.
    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

    Last sentence is very important.
    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
    Most of Chinese who learned some proper nouns will understand easily this sentence too.
    Yes, it clearly states the northwest boundary of Japan is Takeshima(now Ulleungdo) and Matsushima((Liancourt Rocks) is Japanese land.

    Poor Korean who abandoned Chinese characters can not understand this simple document.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Correction : "日本與地路程全圖(1846)" should be corrected as “改正日本與地路程全圖(1779)”.


    小嶋日向守,

    You should explain why the last sentence can be interpreted as " The northwest boundary of Japan is Takeshima and Matsushima. Don't play with the Chinese letters.

    Let me give you one more evidence Prof. Shimojo was wrong. If Nagakubo Sekisui considered Ulleongdo and Dokdo as Japanese land, why didn't Inou Tadataka (伊能忠敬) include those two islands as the Japanese land in his famous map? I read Ino referenced “改正日本與地路程全圖".

    ReplyDelete
  8. sloww,
    You Koreans can't distinguish Chinese character 輿 from 與, 与, 興.
    I give an example.
    http://blog.daum.net/zhy5532/15972122

    與 is wrong.
    輿地 means 大地(ground, earth or Atlas).
    On the other hand, 與 means "give" which is a basic word.
    It seems that Koreans lack the ability to understand the classics.

    Anyway, The author said in 1667, “After a voyage of two days and one night northwest of Oki Island is Matsushima (now called Takeshima), and after a voyage of one more day is Takeshima (Ulleungdo). These two islands are uninhabited, and viewing Koryo from there is the same as viewing Oki Island from Izumo. Therefore, this island is the northwest boundary of Japan.”

    Therefore an old Korean author申德函 wrote following sentences in 1697.
    王若曰、欝陵島退在東海中。輿地勝覧屬之江原道。雖云我國地而水路険遠人烟不通。祖宗朝刷還逃民遂虚其地矣。
    近来倭人貪其篠蕩鰒魚之利假名竹島指為厥土請禁我民越境漁採屡遣。近侍暁諭 竹欝之虚宲境界之有別。而終無聴順之意頗有生梗之端。

    Do you understand?

    By the way, look at several editions of 日本輿地路程全図 at Waseda University Library.

    安永4[1775]
    http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ru11/ru11_01137/ru11_01137_p0001.jpg
    寛政3[1791]
    http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ru11/ru11_00032/ru11_00032_p0001.jpg
    寛政3[1791]
    http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ru11/ru11_00705/ru11_00705_p0001.jpg
    http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ru11/ru11_00705/ru11_00705_p0004.jpg
    天保4[1833]
    http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ru11/ru11_01140/ru11_01140_p0001.jpg
    弘化元[1844]
    http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ru11/ru11_00056/ru11_00056_p0001.jpg
    http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ru11/ru11_00705/ru11_00705_p0004.jpg
    弘化3[1846]
    http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ru11/ru11_00959/ru11_00959_p0001.jpg
    http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ru11/ru11_00959/ru11_00959_p0003.jpg
    http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ru11/ru11_01151/ru11_01151_p0001.jpg
    嘉永5[1852]
    http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ru11/ru11_01097/ru11_01097_p0001.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  9. 小嶋日向守,

    I think this place is not for bragging how much you know the Chinese letters. Koreas can happily live without knowing the Chinese. It seems you can't.

    You still didn't explain why the last sentence can be interpreted as " The northwest boundary of Japan is Takeshima and Matsushima.

    Thank you for showing so many versions of "日本輿地路程全図". Thankfully, all of the depicted Ulleongdo and Dokdo as Korean land except 4 maps published after Nagakubo died.

    By the way, can I ask you a question? Is the first Nagakubo's map the one published in 1775? I heard so, but I just want to confirm. You don't need to answer if you don't want to.

    ReplyDelete