竹島問題の歴史

4.5.08

1714 Jul 22: "Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island attached to Japnese territory."

According to a July 22, 1714 entry in King Sukjong's "Bo Gweol Jeong O" (補闕正吳), a Korean government emissary to Korea's Gwangwon Province said that the people in the ports there told him the following:

鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境
"Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island attached to Japanese territory."
Except for its neighboring islands, the only island visible to the east of Ulleungdo is Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima); therefore, the above sentence is evidence that Koreans in 1714 recognized Liancourt Rocks as being part of Japanese territory. Also, by mentioning the above quote, the Korean emissary seemed to be warning government officials that Japan was within eyesight of Korean territory (Ulleungdo).

Korean historians mistranslate the above sentence, possibly in an attempt to hide the fact that a Korean document described Liancourt Rocks as being Japanese territory, but it seems quite clear to me that this island east of Ulleungdo was not considered part of Ulleungdo since it was described as being visible from Ulleungdo. Also, by only saying that there was an island visible to the east of Ulleungdo, without giving any distance, suggests that they had not been to the island.

HERE is how Korea's National Institute of Korean History translated the passage:
鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境
울릉도 동쪽에는 섬이 서로 잇달아 왜경(倭境)에 접해 있다.
East of Ulleungdo, islands connect to each other to reach the Japanese border.
Notice in the above Korean translation that nothing was said about the island east of Ulleungdo being visible from Ulleungdo (鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 ). Instead, they translated 島嶼相望 as being a "chain of islands," which is being really ridiculous and is something the National Institute of Korean History should be ashamed of. The fact that the National Institute of Korean History came up with such a ridiculous translation stongly suggests that they realized the important of this sentence, and how it would hurt the Korean claim to Liancourt Rocks.

This passage is one of only two instances in Korean documents prior to 1906 that mentioned seeing an island east of Ulleungdo that was most likely Liancourt Rocks. The other passage can be found in a 1694 Korean document HERE.

Here is my translation of the relevant passage:
Gangwon Provincial emissary Jo Seok-myeong (趙錫命) discussed the neglected coastal defenses in the Yeongdong region. Here is a summary:
I listened carefully to the people in the ports (浦人) who said, "Pyeonghae (平海) and Uljin (蔚珍) are closest to Ulleungdo, and there are no obstructions along the sea route. Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island attached to Japanese territory." In 1708 and 1712, strange-looking ships drifted to the borders of Goseong (高城) and Ganseong (杆城), so we know that Japanese ships frequently come and go. The government, however, says that the vast sea is a barrier, so there is no need to worry, but how can we be sure that a future war will not break out in the Yeongdong region instead of the Yeongnam region? We cannot allow even a little delay in taking measures to be thoroughly prepared.
In accordance with the request, the Myodang (廟堂) requested that Gangwondo be reprimanded to cracked down on its military officials.

辛酉江原道御使趙錫命 論嶺東海防疎虞狀略曰 詳聞浦人言 平海蔚珍 距鬱陵島最近 船路無少礙 鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境. 戊子壬辰 異攘帆穡 漂到高杆境 倭船往來之頻數 可知. 朝家雖以嶺海之限隔 謂無可憂 而安知異日生釁之必由嶺南 而不由嶺東乎. 綢繆之策 不容少緩. 廟堂請依其言 飭江原道 團束軍保.

110 comments:

  1. Gerry,

    Thanks for showing us the interesting document.

    鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境


    The translation of the sentence into Japanese should be:
    "欝陵の東に島嶼を相望みて、倭境に接する" (We can see an island at east of Ulleung, which(=Ulleung) comes in contact with Japan's border).

    Or "欝陵の東、島嶼を相望み、倭境に接する" (The east of Ulleung, where we can see an island, comes in contact with Japan's border).

    In any cases, the author seems to have recognised that Ulleungdo or east of Ulleungdo was the border. Therefore, he must have recognised the island (Takeshima/Dokdo) should be Japan's territory.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Pacifist. I hope you had a nice vacation.

    The Japanese border would not be just one point, but would be more of a line running in northernly-southernly direction. Therefore, I think the passage is saying that Liancourt Rocks would link or connect to that imaginary line.

    By the way, I have just finished adding to the post the Korean translation posted by Korea's "National Institute of Korean History." Their translation of the passage is really ridiculous, in my humble opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gerry,

    Thanks. Yes, I enjoyed holiday in Vietnam very much.

    By the way, the Korean translation seems to be incorrect as usual.

    "East of Ulleungdo, islands connect to each other to reach the Japanese border."

    First of all, it lacks the meaning of "望" which means "see" or "view".

    The word "相" has meaning of "each other" or "together" but it is often used as "no meaning" especially when used before a verb - for example "相成る" (=
    成る), "相変わらず" (=変わらず). I think this was the case in this text.

    So "相望" means just "see" or "view". But the Korean translation lacks this important meaning.

    And "接" means "in contact" or "in touch". It is near to "close to" but original meaning is "contact".
    The word "于" has no grave meaning here - it may only mean "at" or "with".

    So original meanig of the text should be;
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    east of Ulleung (鬱陵之東)

    (one can) see an island/islands (島嶼相望)

    comes in contact with Japan border (接于倭境)
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gerry

    "鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境"

    I think it(島嶼) mentions about Jukdo, not Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks. And the sentence means "In the east of Ulleundo, there is an island(Jukdo) which can seen each other(Ulleundo and Jukdo), and they (Ulleung and Jukdo) comes in contact with Japan's border"

    The reasons are,

    1. Takeshima doesn't locate to the east of Ulleundo, but Jukdo does.

    2. Korean claim the sentence

    "于山武陵二島、在縣正東海中、二島相去不遠、風日清明、則可望見" in 「世宗実録」 地理志 江原道襄陽縣(1454)

    means Ullendo and Takeshima, not Jukdo since it says "風日清明(when it is a clear day)", not always see each other. If we adopt their logic, it definately means Jukdo which is almost always seen frmo Ulleundo.


    I think there was a map which has a note near Ulleundo saying "from here Japanese islands", or something. I think those documents and maps show that Korean had a common sence that beyond Ulleundo and Jukdo, it is Japanese territory.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kaneganese,

    I agree with your opinion - there is a possibility that the island east of Ulleungdo means Jukdo because there is no depiction concerning Jukdo or Usando in the text.

    And I also agree that Korean people in those days recognised that Ulleungdo (and Jukdo) were their boundary - foreigners' territory beyond this point.

    ReplyDelete
  6. dokdo-takeshima.com5/5/08 00:30

    Gerry, et al I totally disagree with your translations after talking with some Koreans on the matter and reading a few of my Dokdo books.

    The book I have translates a little different than Pacifist. However they have a more common sense interpretation. That the border of Japan is beyond the visible island because Ulleungdo and Dokdo are "相望" "facing each other" or visible to each other.

    Remember the islands that are visible are near Japan's border they are not the border. Nor is it said the border is between the visible island and Ulleungdo. Obviously, the visible island to the East would be considered part of Ulleungdo.

    The character "接" meaning 접해 있다 "very near or touches" the border means that the boundary lies beyond the island visible to the East in Korean. Literally it means touches against but it is best translated as very close to, borders or is adjacent to. In the meaning of this document the eastern island is excluded from Japan by being near, bordering or adjacent to.

    Here is an example from Essence Dictionary to explain. "접해있다“

    “북쪽은 시베리아와 접해있다”
    Translated this means "...be bordered on the north by Siberia..." NOT linked to.

    The usage of the word "links" in the translation is too literal and wrong. How can an island "link" to a boundary?

    Kanganese, Jukdo Island is only 2kms from Ulleungdo, it would be silly to call this very near island the boundary of Japan. Also Jukdo Islet is to the Northeast not just east. Dokdo is no more South than Jukdo is North.

    Every island, is Jukdo Island, to Kaneganese.....sigh.....

    ReplyDelete
  7. Welcome back, pacifist!

    Correction

    The above sentence from "世宗実録 地理志" doesn't say "two islands can be seen from each other", but "two islands are not far from each other, thus it can be seen on a clear day."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Remember, Korean already insisted "相" means "each other" in order to claim "two islands are not far from each other", rather than "two islands are not far from mainland of Choson.", which were more common usage in Korean old documents.

    So the sentence "鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境" should be "the islets which locates to the east of Ulleundo can be seen from each other and the island is or they are in contact with Japanese border."

    Besides, Official investigator 張漢相 clearly reported in 1694 that the island which seems to be Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks locates in the southeast of Ulleundo, not east. On the other hand, small island which is almost certainly to be Usando=Jukdo is correctrly said to locate to east.

    "東方五里許 有一小島 不甚高大 海長竹叢生於一面 霽雨?捲之日 入山登中峯 則南北兩峯 岌崇相面 此所謂三峯也 西望大關嶺逶迤之狀 東望海中有一島 杳在辰方 而其大滿蔚島三分之一 不過三百餘里."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kaneganese,

    If the island east of Ulleungdo had been Jukdo, then they would not have say that it was "on the border of Japan" (接于倭境). There was no 200-mile limit back then. Your border extended to your farthest islands. Therefore, this passage was saying that the island east of Ulleungdo represented the Japanese border.

    Also, the passage in the Sejong geography text was not talking about the distance between the two islands, but about the distance between the Korean mainland and the two islands, which was consider as a 2-island group.

    There is a Korean document that specifically says that Ulleungdo/Usando could be seen from the Korean mainland.

    Steve (Dokdo-Takeshima),

    The Chinese character 接 is 이을 접, and 이을 comes from the Korean verb 잇다, which means "join[link]; connect; piece together" See HERE and HERE.

    The passage was saying that the "Japanese border" extended up to the island. It did not say that the "Korean border" extended up to the island. And there is no "beyond" in the passage.

    It also said that the island was east of Ulleungdo, which means it was not considered part of Ulleungdo. If it were part of Ulleungdo, it could not have been east of Ulleungdo since it could not have been east of itself.

    相望 means "visible to east other," not "face each other." 相面 meets "face each other."

    ReplyDelete
  10. My links did not work, so here they are again:

    Link to 接

    Link to 잇다

    ReplyDelete
  11. Gerry,

    "If the island east of Ulleungdo had been Jukdo, then they would not have say that it was "on the border of Japan" (接于倭境). There was no 200-mile limit back then. Your border extended to your farthest islands. Therefore, this passage was saying that the island east of Ulleungdo represented the Japanese border."

    Considering it is written in 1714, which is only three yeas after the year Jukdo was newly re-recognized and mapped as Usando by 張 in 1711, it is natural that they put emphasis on this tiny island to the east of Ulleundo. I think Korean after 1694 started to have considered Jukdo is the eastern limit or border of Choson, or "farthest islands" in your word. And the sentence means Jukdo is touching to(接于) the Japanese border(倭境), which is not Liancourt Rocks, nor between Ulleundo and Liancourt Rocks, but right eastern limit of Jukdo, or the eastern limit of Ulleundo(= Jukdo). Thats's why they used the Chinese word "接", which suggest it(Jukdo) is in contact with Japanese border. There is no evidence that this island which locates to the east of Ulleundo is Liancourt Rocks.

    It is backed up by the notation of the map "大朝鮮國全圖" in your post "Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 11" The notation on slightly right top of Jukdo says ”東洋中日本諸島” (Japan Archipelago in the East Sea). It suggest that right nex to Usando.

    "Also, the passage in the Sejong geography text was not talking about the distance between the two islands, but about the distance between the Korean mainland and the two islands, which was consider as a 2-island group.
    There is a Korean document that specifically says that Ulleungdo/Usando could be seen from the Korean mainland."

    I know. That's why I put emphasis on "their logic" in my comment. i think this "相" is just a mistake, since all the other documents suggest it is just an exeption. And as you said, it is out of "規式" of the geographical text's logical system if you want to translate it as "two islands are seen from each other".

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous5/5/08 07:58

    「倭境」が「the border of Japan」と解釈されているようですが、「of」は違うと思います。

     「接于倭境」は「ここにおいて倭と境を接する」(여기서 倭하고 境를 接한다.)と読むべきでしょう。여기(境を接する主体)はもちろん朝鮮の土地です。

     では、倭と境を接する主体はJukdoなのかLiancourt Rocks なのかについては、「鬱陵之東 島嶼相望」という表現が非常に簡潔なものであることから、鬱陵島のすぐそばに位置するJukdoを指すものと考えます。本件文書中には、鬱陵島から遠く離れたLiancourt Rocks のことを窺わせる言葉はありません。

     私の読み方としては、「鬱陵島の東に島があるが、そこが日本との境である。(その向こう側は日本である。)」です。




    chaamiey

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kaneganese,

    Yes, Koreans considered Jukdo to be at the eastern limit of their border, and, in fact, Choi Nam-seon wrote exactly that in his book in the late 1940s, but that does not mean that Japanese territory extended to Ulleungdo's Jukdo, just as it does not mean that Korean territory extended to Liancourt Rocks, which is why I think the passage was referring to Liancourt Rocks, not Jukdo. Why would Japanese territory extend up to a Korean island rather than Korean territory extending up to a Japanese island?

    The sea between Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks was not claimed by either Korea or Japan since it was just open sea with little value to either country. What was valuable was the waters around the islands that could be fished for abalone and other sea products. Remember that a 200-mile economic zone is a relatively new concept.

    Also, the passage said that the island "was visible" east of Ulleungdo rather than simply saying "it was" east of Ulleungdo. Being only "visible" suggests that the island was much farther away than one of Ulleungdo's neighboring islands. It also suggests that the Koreans had not been to the island.

    By the way, I guess I misread your comment about Sejong's geography text. I had a terrible headache last night, and I still have one this morning. In fact, it hurt so bad that I could not sleep last night. Also, reading my comments from last night I can see a lot weird mistakes, so I guess I was pretty much out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. dokdo-takeshima.com5/5/08 13:15

    Gerry, your using the literal translation instead of the true usage of “접하다” with relation to borders, territories or 2 objects. It does not mean "linked to" in this application at all.

    Here is how 접하다 is used in this case.

    동쪽은 태평양과 접해 있다. It is bounded by the Pacific on the East.

    Another example is.

    집들이 서로 접해 있다. The houses adjoin (are beside) each other.

    접해있다 is best described to as next to or "next to" "adjacent to"

    See the usage of "접해있다" on the same website you linked me to.

    접해있다Adjacent

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gerry,

    "By the way, I guess I misread your comment about Sejong's geography text. I had a terrible headache last night, and I still have one this morning. In fact, it hurt so bad that I could not sleep last night. Also, reading my comments from last night I can see a lot weird mistakes, so I guess I was pretty much out of it."

    I hope you'll get well soon. Anyway, I don't mind at all your pointng out my mistake, so if you think I'm wrong, you are all welcome to say so. I don't always agree with you, but I think it is OK. We can agree to disagree.

    Anyway, I think "相望" definately suggests those two islands are close to each other, unless "相" was inserted by mistake like Sejong's geography text. And the sentece definately says "島嶼" exist to the east , not visible to the east.

    Compare the sentence

    "鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境"

    with

    "東方五里許 有一小島 不甚高大 海長竹叢生於一面 霽雨?捲之日 入山登中峯 則南北兩峯 岌崇相面 此所謂三峯也 西望大關嶺逶迤之狀 東望海中有一島 杳在辰方 而其大滿蔚島三分之一 不過三百餘里."

    You see "西望""東望", right? So if the author wanted to say "was visible" east of Ulleungdo he should have said "島嶼東相望 ".

    Actually I'm not 100% sure where exactly Korean considered Japanese territory is, since there is almost no clear record of Korean went to Japan on that sea route except for Ahn's inconsistant testimony. Rather I believe they didn't have enough perception what kind of islands exist where in the Sea of Japan between Oki islands. Choson government was interested in the territory which they can protect from Japan, not the islets no man can live on or attacked by Japan. The best explanation is that Korean considered the islands which is nearest to Jukdo (Liancourt Rocks or Oki) is the frontier of Japan and the sea between Jukdo and Japanese territorial islands (Takeshima or Oki) is the boundary. But this sentence clearly tells that Jukdo is the frontier of Choson which touches to the boundary between Japan. In the text, they are worrying about Japanese ships' coming to Choson, but not worrying about Japanese ships are voyaging in the sea of Japan. In 1694, Choson clearly recognised where exactly small island (Jukdo) is (2km east to Ulleundo) and in 1711, they idencified the island is so-called Usando (=Japanese Matsushima=Jukdo)that is the fromtier of Choson, not Ulleundo. They recorded on the official map. They didn't have to say the distance between Ulleundo and Jukdo since it is apparent. This text is confirming this recognition. Since Ulleundo had been still remained unsetteld for almost 200 more years until 1880's, Usando sometimes got ambiguous on Choson people's mind, but the concept that Usando(Jukdo) or Ulleundo which include Jukdo was the frontier of Choson, never had changed. until 1950's when Korean started to be aggressive to try to grab the territories from Japan, Tsushima, non-existant Palando and Takeshima. There is no record that Korean and Choson officials went futher from Jukdo for investigation.

    By the way, chaamiey's opinion is almost same with mine.

    1.  "接于倭境" means "(Here(島嶼), Choson territory (Subject)) is in contact with their border with Japan .

    2. Subject on which Choson territory touhches to Japan as a border is "島嶼". Since the description of this islet is simple as "鬱陵之東 島嶼相望", it is more likelyto be "Jukdo" which is near Ulleundo rather than "Liancourt Rocks". Liancourt Rocks is far from Ulleundo and nothing imply about this islets 92km from Ulleundo in the whole text.

    He says it should be read as "There is an island to the east of Ulleundo, and that is the border with Japan. (or beyond the island , it is Japanese territory.) if you put it simple.

    Anyway, as I said, it is perfectly OK that we don't agree on everything. So I respect your opinion.

    But I'm going to ask Japanese professionals later. I'd like to hear their opinion, too.

    ReplyDelete
  16. dokdo-takeshima5/5/08 15:11

    Kaneganese, when I read your posts I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

    As Gerry, pointed out, it is ridiculous to think Koreans would look at Jukdo Islet which is literally ten minutes rowing from Ulleungndo and deem this rock next to the boundary of Japan.

    Here is a picture of Jukdo from Ulleungdo's shore. You can see the shore in the foreground

    JapaneseBorder?

    Knowing there is an expanse of ocean lying beyond Ulleungdo it's pretty silly to assume Chosun thought the border was just a stones throw away. The fact the author mentions visibility leads us to believe the island was distant. You wouldn't describe a rock two clicks away as "visible".

    The best translation is "Visible to the East of Ullengdo is an island that is near, close to, or adjacent to the border of Japan"

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous5/5/08 16:13

    Kaneganese-san,

    Thanks for translating of my opinion into English.




    chaamiey

    ReplyDelete
  18. Steve,

    "Visible to the East of Ullengdo is an island that is near, close to, or adjacent to the border of Japan"

    You wrote the right thing for the FIRST time! This translation is quite near to Kaneganese's opinion.

    It says that the island that is present at east of Ullengdo, Jukdo, is close to the border of Japan. So it means that beyond Jukdo is Japan's territory. And it also indicates that Liancourt rocks belong to Japan.

    Steve made a homerun for the first time! Good job!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Kaneganese, Chaamiey, & Pacifist:

    It is ridiculous to claim that the 1714 passage was saying that Japan's border extended to up Ulleungdo's Jukdo. Why would Koreans have thought that? For example, ignoring Takeshima for a minute,would Japanese have thought that the Korean border extended up to Oki Island? No, right?

    At the time, your border extended up your most remote island, not beyond to someone else's most remote island. Even though Koreans try to make the argument that Liancourt Rocks was Korean territory because it was within eyesight of Ulleungdo, this 1714 passage shows that Koreans considered Liancourt Rocks to be on the border of Japanese territory, which means they believed the island to be Japanese.

    I think you may be looking at this passage from the wrong direction. In other words, I think you may be looking at it from the Korean side instead of the Japanese side. Consider the following:

    The character 接 means to "connect," "join," or "touch," which means, at least, two things or objects are needed to join, touch, or connect. The two objects in the 1714 passage were the island east of Ulleungdo and the Japanese border. Ulleungdo or Korea's border (境) was not mentioned, which means the passage was not talking about the Japanese and Korean borders touching. It was talking about the island east of Ulluengdo and the Japanese border touching or connecting.

    Korea would not have considered Japanese territory extending up to a Korean island, and Japan would also not have considered Korean territory extending up to a Japanese island. Therefore, since the 1714 passage said that the Japanese border touched the island east of Ulleungdo, that means that the Koreans believed the island to be Japanese, not Korean.

    In my opinion, that is the only logical conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At this point, Korea lost one point. I have a stronger logic for you. Read my correct translation.

      http://blog.naver.com/isoword/220557200534

      Delete
  20. Gerry,

    As you wrote, "At the time, your border extended up your most remote island, not beyond to someone else's most remote island".

    So Saito Hosen thought Ulleungdo was Japan's "limit" - he thought Ulleungdo was the most remote island of Japan.

    Looking from Korean side, the most remote island was Jukdo of Ulleungdo. So they thought that Jukdo contacts with the borderline. The area within Jukdo was Korean territory.

    Isn't this logical?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Pacifist,

    Yes, if Saito Hosen believed that Ulleungdo was Japanese territory, then he would have thought that the Japanese border extended to Ulleungdo, but he would not have thought that the Japanese border extended beyond Ulleungdo to the Korean coastline.

    Yes, Koreans would have thought that Ulleungdo's Jukdo was the edge of their border.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Pacifist, you said Jukdo, not me. There is no logical reason why the people from Gangwan who frequented Ulluengdo would consider a large rock only 2kms from Ulleundo to be "near the border of Japan." Especially when we consider they context describes distant Japan and the large expanse of sea beyond Korea. That is pretty ridiculous.

    That means if the Koreans sailed for 20 minutes East they would be in Japanese territory. I totally disagree.

    Gerry, as I've said the character "接" is meant to mean near or adjacent or adjoining to. It is pronounced as 접하다 in this case.

    And if you look at the usage of “접하다” it is different than that of “잇다” In Korean the term "접하다“ is meant for places. (such as In this case means is close to, adjacent to or comes in contact to. In all of these cases the island to the East is outside of Japan's territory and either is near or touches but it is not part of the boundary.

    Adjacent

    The term "잇다“ means connects but it is used for "linking" objects such as strings, threads, tables or pieces of objects. Again check the usage of each form of the character.

    Link

    ReplyDelete
  23. Gerry,

    "It is ridiculous to claim that the 1714 passage was saying that Japan's border extended to up Ulleungdo's Jukdo. "

    I've never said that. I meant I don't know which exactly Korean thought is Japanese frontier island, Liancourt Rocks or other islands or Oki, but this passage tells us that Korean thought Jukdo is their easternmost territory and it is touching the gap(=borderline) between Japan. It only mentions about Korean territory, not Japanese. That is the point we are not in agreement with in the first place, though I'll never going to say it is ridiculous for you to claim so.

    "接于倭境"

    The Chinese caracter "于" in this case means "to" or "with", thus we think the subject of this verb "接" is Korean territory, most likely Jukdo, which locates to the east of Ulleundo and can be seen from each other normally, not only on a fine day, which means the islet locates near Ulleundo. It is highly unlikely to be Liancourt Rocks which can be seen only a few days in a year on a particular weather condition and higher place. Honestly, it is highly unlikely that Korean talks about westernmost islet of Japanese territory in the sea of Japan. Besides, it is gramatically irregular. The sentence should be read as Korean territory is touching the border between Japan. They are talking about how to protect Koren territory.

    "The character 接 means to "connect," "join," or "touch," which means, at least, two things or objects are needed to join, touch, or connect. The two objects in the 1714 passage were the island east of Ulleungdo and the Japanese border."

    Yes it is.

    "since the 1714 passage said that the Japanese border touched the island east of Ulleungdo"

    No it didn't. It said that The island east of Ulleundo touched the border between Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Gerry,

    As you mentioned, Saito Hosen didn't mean that the Japanese border is the Korean coastline. He only meant that Ulleungdo was the outer "limit" (限) of Japan, which means if he goes out of this "limit", it's other country's territory.

    It is same as Korean people's thought that Jukdo is the Korean outer limit. They may have thought that if they went far from Jukdo (went out of the limit), it's other country's territory. This kind of thought seems to be included in the sentence 接于倭境.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Kaneganese,

    I did not mean to hurt your feelings by using the word "ridiculous," but if you did not say Japanese territory extended to Ulleungdo's Jukdo, then it would not apply to you, anyway.

    Also, 倭境 means "Japanese boundary," not "Korean boundary" or "Korean territory." Also, what is connecting (接) is the "island east of Ulleungdo" and "the Japanese boundary," not "Ulleungdo" or "Korean territory." Where does it say "Korean territory," Kaneganese?

    Gerry wrote: "since the 1714 passage said that the Japanese border touched the island east of Ulleungdo"

    Kaneganese wrote: "No it didn't. It said that The island east of Ulleundo touched the border between Japan."

    Gerry Writes: "The border between Japan"? Where is the word "between" in the passage?

    I honestly do not understand why we are having this communication problem.

    Anyway, have a nice evening.

    Steve (Dokdo-Takeshima),

    Can you read a Korean-Korean dictionary? The definitions for 접하다 are as follows:

    1) 이어서 닿다
    2) 가까이 대다
    3) (수학)직선 또는 곡선이 다른 곡선과 한 점에서 만나다.

    접(接)하다 is just the Sino-Korean version of the pure Korean word 잇다.

    Both 닿다 and 대다 mean "touch" or "come in contact with."

    If you wanted to say "near," you would say "근접(近接).

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous5/5/08 22:43

    Well, I try to write my opinion in English, using my poor study. If there were some rudeness, I depend to your tolerant reception.

    Mr. Bevers said that,
    “It is ridiculous to claim that the 1714 passage was saying that Japan's border extended to up Ulleungdo's Jukdo.”

    But, I don’t think that “Japan's border extended to up Ulleungdo's Jukdo.”
    I think people of Korea or Japan in early 18th century didn’t think carefully about the borderline which lies on the sea, especially, wide-spreading sea, such as Sea of Japan.

    So, even if Korean people thought Jukdo is the limit of Korean territory, it doesn’t mean Japan's border extended to up Jukdo. It only means that ”the land or an island” which is beyond Jukdo is in territory of Japan.


    That’s all. I’m afraid I could not write enough to explain what I have intended.
    (It took almost over an hour to write these sentences.)




    Chaamiey

    ReplyDelete
  27. Gerry,

    "倭境" is not a one word. It doesn't simply mean Japanese border. It's more like Korean easternmost islets (Jukdo) is facing the national border with(?)between(?) Japan (the sea between Jukdo and Liancourt Rocks), though Korean recognize Jukdo is within their territory. The author meant "境" for both boderline, Korea and Japan, not Japanese borderline only. Though there is no "between" in the text literally as you say, it was the only word I can think of to express the situation. We should separate the conception between territory and border. I don't think there were clear concept of border"line" of Japanese territory on Choson people's mind. That's why I avoid to use borderline, but used "between" territories instead. I think they thought the border between two countries is vast sea, not line

    This is chaamiey said. And I agree with him.

    「接于倭境」
    「ここにおいて倭と境を接する」
    (여기서 倭하고 境를 接한다.)

    Anyway, have a nice evening, too.

    ReplyDelete
  28. chaamiey さん

    被っちゃいましたね。失礼。英語で説明するのは難しいですね。なかなか通じません。そもそも島嶼をリアンクールと解釈されていることが最大の原因なんですけれど。

    ReplyDelete
  29. Pacifist,

    Did the Japanese really believe that their border and the Korean border touched? Or did they simply believe that they were not supposed to go beyond their border?

    I think that both the Koreans and Japanese simply believed that they were not supposed to go beyond their borders, not that their borders touched. I think the reason Koreans never had a name for Liancourt Rocks, even though they might have been able to see it once in a blue moon, was because they believed it was beyond their border, which they were prohibited from crossing. I think that is why, in 1694 and 1714, Koreans were only able to refer to the island as "an island visible from Ulleungdo."

    ReplyDelete
  30. Chaamiey

    You write English quite well, and I think I understand what you, Pacifist, and Kaneganese are concerned about, but I think the only border between Korea and Japan was the sea between Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks, which is a pretty wide borber. So it sounds like we are in agreement.

    Good night to all.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Gerry,

    I don't know whether Japanese people believed that Korean border and Japanese border were touched. Saito Hosen just wrote that Ulleungdo was the "limit".

    But the author of the sentence 接于倭境 may have thnought that Korean border and Japanese border was touched. Jukdo (or Ulleungdo as a whole) was the eastern limit of Korea so that the author wrote that it touches Japan's border - if one goes east from this island and out of the limit, he/she would go inside Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  32. dokdo-takeshima.com6/5/08 00:31

    Gerry, I've got plenty of Korean dictionaries in front of me, I've also got a lovely Korean wife who is an honours English graduate to explain to me the true application of these words in actual usage and to be frank you are wrong.

    I gave the Korean to English version for you because you don't understand Gerry.
    The definitions you gave are correct literal translations however, as my Korean wife says the only reasonable translation is adjacent, near or comes into contact to.

    Bearing this in mind, the limits of Japan come into contact with the island to the East but this island is NOT part of Japan. There is no definitive line here but a area of sea slightly beyond the East Island not before.

    In this context 2 places that are very close to each other are said to be "접해있다“

    Kaneganese, Gerry has a valid point, nowhere does it say "between" Japan.

    It is the island to the East that is near, adjacent to, or in contact with the boundary of Japan. This East island is not part of the boundary, nor is it across this boundary. This "boundary" would be a general area and not a precise line of course.

    The situation in this document would be best illustrated by this picture. The blue line indicating the general boundary starting Japan's territory.

    JapanBoundary

    ReplyDelete
  33. Steve (Dokdo-Takeshima),

    How can my definitions be wrong when I copied them directly from a Korean-Korean dictionary?

    By the way, the third definition I gave you means "tangent," which means two objects come together and share one point on a line.

    ReplyDelete
  34. dokdo-takeshima.com6/5/08 13:41

    Gerry, your problem isn't definitions anyone can plug and chug words to translate. Your problem is using the right usage of the term in the correct context given.

    I know the term "接“ has many usages, however you are using the wrong one. Read the examples I've given you of 접해있다 and how they relate to territorial limits, places and boundaries and you have the most applicable definition of the word.

    Take the time to read the examples I've given. They best explain the meaning.

    동쪽은 태평양과 접해 있다. It is bounded by the Pacific on the East.
    Adjacent1

    This means it is next to or adjacent to.
    Adjacent2

    With relation to territories lands and countries we could also say "접해있아“ can mean "to border on something"

    BorderOnSomething

    In this case we could say, the island to the East "borders on" Japan's limit. However, it is not "linked to" or "connected to" and thus marginally outside of the territory of Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I spent this evening to study the usage of "相望" in the Annals of Sukjon throughly. And my conclusion for which islet(s) "島嶼" refer is "it cannot be Liancourt Rocks". Excuse me for my poor English.

    The usages of "相望" in 肅宗実録 are categorized into four pattern according to National Institute of Korean History's translation.

    ① happens one after another; continuously appear

    ② mutually; with [to] each other; with [to] one another.

    ③ facing each other; can be seen from eacn other

    ④ ambitious

    Plus, "相" itself has the meaning of "~ing". So "相望" can simply be translated as...

    ⑤ being visible

    First of all, in ① and ②, which are basically same meaning, "島嶼" has to be plural and also those islets must be continuoulsy or one after another. So if you put it into the sentence in concern "鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境", those islets should be continuously appear (chain) from the east of Ullendo to the border with Japan. In that case, "島嶼" cannot be the Liancourt Rocks since there are no continuousely appearing islets between Ulleundo and Liancourt Rocks.

    Next, in ③, the islets, which form Liancourt Rocks, are facing each other, but in that case, the meaning of "view from Ulleundo" disappear and only "East" remains in the sentence. Liancourt Rocks are not locate to the east of Ulleundo, thus this "島嶼" cannot be Liancourt Rocks.

    Thirdly, "相" before verb often reminds of this no.5(⑤) usage. If it is used in this sentence ( "being" visible to the east of Ulleundo), "島嶼" should be being visible to the east Ulleundo "almost always", not " about 10 days a year on a special weather condition (fine day) from the higher place" of the Ulleundo. Thus, it cannot be Liancourt Rocks.

    In conclusion, "島嶼" (= islet(s)) in this sentence is not Liancourt Rocks. I think it is Jukdo and the meaning of "相望" is ③ or ⑤, since it perfectly make sence.

    Reference : all the sentences from "粛宗実録" I checked are here  

    ReplyDelete
  36. dokdo-takeshima.com7/5/08 01:31

    Kaneganese, we've already established the National Korea Institute's translations have some trouble. And now you are citing them?

    Jukdo Islet is not even toward Japan, is Northeast and only 2kms at that. Only from the very tip of the most Northern part of Ulleungdo is Jukdo Islet, East. If we are anywhere else on Ulleungdo, Jukdo Islet appears North because if its proximal location to Ulleungdo and northeast location.

    Those Koreans who voyaged from Gangwando (Pyeonghae~Uljin) travelled about 2 days or 160kms to reach Ulleungdo and yet you are trying to tell us when they reached Ulleungdo they perceived Japan's territory to be about 2kms away. Give us a break will you Kaneganese? Korean seafaring people's territorial perceptions weren't as small as you would like us to believe.

    Here is a picture of Jukdo from Ulleungdo's east coast. This is looking North.

    JukdoNorth

    Here is another picture showing Jukdo to the North from near Wal-dali Ulleungdo again see how close Jukdo Islet is. This cannot be near the border of Japan Kaneganese, please combine historical document with the geographic reality of the region and not just your wishful thinking.

    NotJapaneseBorder

    From Ulleungdo, Dokdo Island is on a direct route to both the Oki Islands, Imbashu and Hoki Districts from where Japan trespassers voyaged to Ulleungdo from. Thus it only makes sense Koreans considered an island en route to Japan "near the border" of Japanese terrtitory. Jukdo Islet is not toward Japan at all, Japan is southeast (like Dokdo) from Ulleungdo, not northeast.

    Those Koreans who voyaged 160kms from Pyeonghae or Uljin territory was limited to 2kms East of Ulleungdo? That's so wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Steve (Dokdo-Takeshima),

    Good. So if my definitions are correct, then the English definitions would be as follows:

    1) touch (come in contact with)
    2) be adjacent to (be next to)
    3) be tangent to (be on)

    Now, which definition was used depends on whether the Koreans believed the island to be Korean, Japanese, or neutral.

    * If Koreans believed the island to be Korean, then the sentence could be translated as: "next to the Japanese border."

    * If Koreans believed the island to be Japanese, then the sentence could be translated as: "on the Japanese border."

    * If the Koreans believed the island to be neutral, then the sentence could be translated as: "touches the Japanese border."

    So what did the Koreans believe?

    It is unlikely the Koreans believed Liancourt Rocks to be neutral territory since there is no record of their ever travelling to the island before the 1900s. Also, there are no examples of Korea and Japan recognizing any other island or rock as being neutral territory, so "touches the Japanese border" would not really be an accurate translation.

    Steve, in a reply to Keneganese, you wrote the following:

    Kanganese, Jukdo Island is only 2kms from Ulleungdo, it would be silly to call this very near island the boundary of Japan.

    I agree. Koreans would not have described their territory as being "very near" or "next to" the Japanese border. Therefore, if Koreans believed Liancourt Rocks to be a part of Ulleungdo or their territory, then they would not have described it as being "very near" or "next to" the Japanese border, either. That leaves only one translation for 鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境, which is as follows:

    "Visible to the east of Ulleungdo is an island that is on (tangent to) the Japanese border."

    Therefore, the above sentence is evidence that Koreans in 1714 recognized Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory.

    ReplyDelete
  38. To avoid any confusion, I have changed my translation of the 1714 passage to the following:

    "Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island that is on [tangent to] the border of Japan."

    My reasoning is explained in my previous comment to Steve.

    ReplyDelete
  39. dokdo-takeshima7/5/08 14:53

    Gerry, the usage of "접해있다“ in tangent as you say is used for math generally not in describing land or territory. This application talks about 2 lines meet, it is an intersection point. It also does not imply "link" or attached to as you wrongfully quoted at the start of this posts.

    I've given you three different sources clearly stating "접해있다“ is translated as "bordering on" when used in this (land territory) context. Please read above again.

    On tangent to, bordering on, adjacent to, touching on, near to...

    However you want to translate this character Gerry, this passage describes the island to East and Japan's border as separate. Not "connected" or "as one"

    We can know from this document those who resided in the coastal areas of Korea know Liancourt Rocks was both visible from Ulleungdo and that this island was not part of Japan.

    Gerry says "The above sentence is evidence that Koreans believed Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory"

    Stop being so slippery by misleading others to believe the Koreans thought Liancourt Rocks was Japanese. The document says nothing of the sort. It says the island is next to, adjacent to, bordering on the Japanese limit. Nowhere does it say the island is part of Japan, it does however clearly exclude the island from Japan by describing the island and the border as separate, invidual objects.

    Gerry. Stick to the translantion and aviod "this suggests..." or "Koreans would have" "it's unlikely" or "if Koreans..." These are your opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Steve (Dokdo-Takeshima),

    Why don't you just admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about?

    Just look up 接 in a Chinese character dictionary. For example, look HERE.

    Then ask your beautiful, English Honors student, Korean wife what the following words mean, especially the ones in boldface.

    ㉠잇다
    ㉡접붙이다
    ㉢접하다
    ㉣홀레하다
    ㉤접촉하다, 체험하다, 견문하다
    ㉥사귀다, 교제하다
    ㉦대접하다, 대우하다
    ㉧대답하다, 응대하다
    ㉨모으다, 모이다, 회합하다
    ㉩가까이하다, 가까이 가다
    ㉪받다, 받아들다
    ㉫빠르다, 신속하다
    ㉬엇걸리다, 교차하다
    ㉭접(椄)

    ReplyDelete
  41. dokdo-takeshima.com8/5/08 00:09

    Gerry, seriously I'm speechless. You are going to tell me you speak better Korean than a native Korean? Even one of my student's mothers who is a Yonsei Grad who worked at the U.S. Embassy says you are wrong.

    Do you know how arrogant you are? Are you a native speaking Korean Gerry? How would you feel if one of your students told you that you can't speak English?!!

    The first bold example "잇다“ is used for "linking" lines or objects.

    The second example “접붙이다” is used also used for objects, links and grafting trees.

    The third example "접하다“ the applicable one I've cited it is used for territories.

    Here they are again. Both of these are published dictionaries.

    Adjacent

    BorderOn

    The example "엇걸리다“ and "교차하다” are used for roads, or paths intersecting.

    The last "접“ is never used alone, Gerry so the last example doesn't apply.

    Again, this document shows the island to East was "bordering on" "adjacent to" or "adjoining" Japan's boundary. It is NOT part of the boundary or Japan's territory.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Steve (Dokdo-Takeshima),

    The people at the Institute of Korean History are also Korean, yet look how they screwed up the translation.

    I have shown you the definitions of 接 that included "join" and link. The borders of two countries can only touch, but an island or river can link to a border or be part of the border. You did notice that 잇다 (join or link) was the first definition on the list I showed you. Yet, you were claiming that 接 could not mean that.

    If Koreans in 1714 recognized Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory, then my translation is correct, and yours, your wife's, your student's mother, and any other Korean who may want to deny the obvious is wrong.

    I have already explained this to you, but here it is again.

    * If the Koreans believed the island to be Korean, then the sentence could be translated as: "next to the Japanese border."

    * If the Koreans believed the island to be Japanese, then the sentence could be translated as: "on the Japanese border" or "a part of the Japanese border."

    * If the Koreans believed the island to be neutral, then the sentence could be translated as: "touches the Japanese border."

    If they had believed the island to be Korean, then they would not have said that it was next to the Japanese border, just as they would not have described Ulleungdo as being next to the Japanese border if Liancourt Rocks did not exist. Borders did not extend up to another country's islands.

    It is also unlikely that the island was considered neutral and a marker for the Japanese border since borders at the time did not extend out into the middle of the ocean. Therefore, that means that the Koreans in 1714 must have considered the island to be Japanese.

    ReplyDelete
  43. dokdo-takeshima.com8/5/08 01:49

    Gerry, again I'm not interested in your opinions. Just the correct interpretation of this document. That's all.

    You say "잇다“ means link. Well is does, but in the case of territories but rather objects such as string etc., Here is the definition. Do you see any reference to territories or land here Gerry?

    LinkObjects

    The next applicaiton also means attach but it has to do with "grafting" NOT territories.

    The last means road intersections

    For the 10th time Gerry, in this case the word "접해있다“ means "borders on" or "adjacent to" or "adjoins to" in the case of terrtorial boundary.

    AdjacentTerritory

    BorderTerritory

    Translation is about usage of vocabulary Gerry. You are totally taking the wrong usage of the character "接“ meaning. It means "borders on" "adjacent to" or "adjoins to" when we talk about territorial borders.

    Knowing this, it's clear the island to the East "borders on" Japan's boundary but is not "linked to" or "joined to" as you wrongfully insist.

    Again read the link to "link"

    ReplyDelete
  44. Steve (Dokdo-Takeshima),

    Have you recently had a head injury?

    The Chinese character was 接 (접); it was not 접해있다, 접하다, or even 잇다.

    接 has many meanings, including 접속하다 (接續), so you have to consider the character in the context of the sentence, and your translation and the translation of Korea's Institute of Korean History make no sense.

    The Japanese border would not have extended out 157 kilometers from Japan's nearest island if Takeshima had not been Japanese territory. Agree or disagree?

    By the way, one of the definitions in your 접하다 link was "piece together; connect."

    And what do you think you prove by giving me the definition of the English word you want to translate 接 as?

    ReplyDelete
  45. dokdo-takeshima.com8/5/08 12:05

    Gerry, these Hanja characters are translated as "접해있다“ plain and simple. Even one of the most authoritative publications on Dokdo related ancient Korea documents translates this line as "접해잇다”

    Please see this translation. It was done separate from the Korean Institute of History.

    1714DocTranslation

    So knowing this means "접해있다“ we can go with the real translation. Visible to the East the is an island that is "adjacent to" "bordering on" or "adjoining to" the border of Japan.

    This document proves Liancourt Rocks was outside of Japan's territory in the eyes of Korean coastal fishermen at this time.

    With regard to the "connect, join" reference you mention under my link. This is a totally different synonym of "접하다“. Yes this means to connect but "결합하다” is used when we talk about connecting objects by welding or fusion etc.

    Here is a link that describes this kind of "접하다“ connecting unrelated to territory.

    ConnectingObjects

    "접속“ is again not related to territory Gerry. It is used for connecting wires or telephone lines.
    ConnectWire

    “접촉하다” means touching but it is used for people or the surface of something.

    By giving you English examples I'm showing the Korean usage of the word. If the usage doesn't apply to land, territory or borders, it's safe to say it's not the right definition. So from above we know "접해있다“ means "bordering on" "adjacent to" or "adjoining to" Gerry.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Steve (Dokdo-Takeshima)

    Aren't you getting your double talk mixed up?

    Steve, earlier in this thread you wrote the following:

    "Kaneganese, we've already established the National Korea Institute's translations have some trouble."

    However, Steve, now you link to a translation that is the exact same translation as that done by Korea's National Institute of Korean History and use it as an example to prove your point while saying it is "one of the most authoritative publications on Dokdo related ancient Korea documents."

    The translation to which you linked was as follows:

    울릉도 동쪽에는 섬이 서로 잇달아 왜경(倭境)에 접해 있다.

    "East of Ulleungdo, islands connect to each other to reach the Japanese border."


    If you think that is the most authoritive translation, then why did you give your own translation as follows?

    "Visible to the East the is an island that is "adjacent to" "bordering on" or "adjoining to" the border of Japan."

    Notice your inconsistency?

    The reason the National Institute of Korean History came up with such a ridiculous translation is that they know the Japanese border would not have extended out 157 kilometers into the middle of the Sea of Japan unless Liancourt Rocks was considered Japanese territory. That is why the Korean History Institute translated it as "islands connect to each other to reach the Japanese border," even though there is not a chain of islands out there and nothing was mentioned about the island being visible from Ulleungdo.

    By the way, did you notice that what you described as "one of the most authoritative publications on Dokdo related ancient Korea documents" translated the sentence as "섬이 서로 잇달아," which means "the islands connect to each other"?

    Your translation, Steve, makes no sense because you cannot explain why the Japanese border would have extended out 157 miles into the middle of the Sea of Japan if the Koreans had not considered Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory.

    Anyway, I think I have wasted enough time on you, so you can continue your double talk, but do not expect anymore responses from me.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Correction: It should be "157 kilometers."

    ReplyDelete
  48. dokdo-takeshima.com8/5/08 21:58

    Gerry, what we've established is crystal clear. Both the Korean National Institute and a respected published book's historical committee translated the character "接" as “접해있다”

    Notice again the translation from the book.

    DocTranslation

    The definition of "접해있다“ is "adjacent to" "adjoining to" and "bordering on" when we used "접해있다” when we talk about territorial limits Gerry. Here are the examples.

    BorderOn1

    BorderOn2

    BorderOn3

    Whatever your translation of this "island chain" Gerry, the island even you admit was Liancourt Rocks was clearly described as "접해있다“ This means in the eyes of those Chosun fishermen who voyaged to Ulleungdo, Liancourt Rocks was adjacent to or outside of Japanese territory NOT part of Japan.

    Sorry Gerry, you have to correct your incorrect translation above......again.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Pacifist, Kaneganese, GTOMR, or Anyone,

    I would like to discuss again the 1714 Korean document, in which Korean fishermen told a government emissary the following:

    --------------------------
    鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境

    "There is (are) an island (islands) visible to the east on Ulleung that is on the Japanese border."
    --------------------------

    At the time, the concept of territory was that your territory extended to your farthermost island, which means that the sentence was saying that Liancourt Rocks was Japanese territory. I think that makes this an important document in the Dokdo/Takeshima debate.

    Also, the fact that Korean fishermen said this just a few years after the An Yongbok incident suggests that An Yong-bok's Usando (于山島) was not Liancourt Rocks.

    Korean fishermen most likely recognized Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory because they frequently saw Japanese fishing boats coming from that direction.

    Anyway, I think this is an important document, especially considering that Korean historians seem to have intentionally mistranslated it, so I am worrying what the Takeshima Research Center or other Japanese historians say about this document. Does anyone know?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Gerry,

    Unfortunately I couldn't find the same document in the site of Shimane prefecture.

    By the way, the island at the east of Ulleungdo won't be always Liancourt Rocks - doesn't it say about Jukdo?

    Jukdo is the place where Japanese used to reach first, as seen in the 1693 report of Oya/Murakawa families.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Pacifist,

    Yes, Jukdo is also east of Ulleungdo, but why would Koreans think of Jukdo as Japanese territory, especially since by 1714 it was appearing on Korean maps as Usando? Also, it was just too close to Ulleungdo.

    As I said, Koreans most likely frequently saw Japanese fishing boats coming from the direction of Liancourt Rocks since that was the route Japanese fishing boats took. It would, therefore, have been natural for them to assume that Liancourt Rocks was Japanese territory. The would have probably even assumed that Liancourt Rocks were inhabited since they would not have been able to judge the size of Liancourt Rocks from Ulleungdo. In fact, the Korean inspector in 1694 judged Liancourt Rocks to be about one third the size of Ulleungdo.

    Anyway, I wonder if the Japanese historians realize what this document means.

    ReplyDelete
  52. One of the clues to determining if a document is important in the Dokdo/Takeshima debate is to see if Koreans have mistranslated it, and they have mistranslated this document.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Gerry,

    The text says that the island in the east "touches" or "contacts with" the border of Japan.

    So if the island is Jukdo, it seems reasonable, because Japanese always come beyond Jukdo from the direction of east...

    ReplyDelete
  54. I think 倭境 means only Japan border????

    I think 倭境 means Japan's territory,or Japan's place.
    境 means not only border but also place. e,g, 辺境
    So we know the word of 倭船倉

    So this phrase remind me of the map like this,

    ReplyDelete
  55. Pacifist,

    If the Japanese are coming to Ulleungdo's Jukdo and then later going back the way they came, that would suggest that Jukdo was not Japanese territory since it would have been evidence that the Japanese were not living there, but were only coming there to fish.

    Do you really think the Japanese government recognized Ulleungdo as Korean territory, but not its neighboring island of Jukdo?

    Remember. Koreans were doing surveys of Ulleungdo by this time, and, therefore, would not have considered Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo to be Japanese territory.

    ReplyDelete
  56. GTOMR,

    Back then, borders were islands. There were no economic zones stretching into the middle of the sea back then, which means that when the Korean fishermen said, "There is (are) an island (islands) visible to the east of Ulleungdo that is on the Japanese border," they were essentially saying that the island was the Japanese border, which means they were saying that the island or islands were Japanese.

    If they had believed the island to be Korean, they would not have said 倭境; they would have said something like 我國境.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Mr,Gerry
    Simply I mean "境"'s mean is not only "border" but also "place".
    (Im not sure Korean dictionary ,but in Chinese dictuonaly and Japanese dictionaly have it)

    Every koraen detail map of Ullegundo has 倭船倉 east of Ulleungdo facing with UsandoJukdo like the map I posted above.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Gerry,

    I think it was written from the Korean side - I mean it says that "If you go beyond this point, it's Japan's territory (so do not go beyond this island)".

    Yes, Ulleungdo was recognised as Japanese territory in Japan until the late 17th century, I think it included Jukdo. But Korea had a different opinion so that there had a first dispute in the 17th century.

    If the island in the text meant Jukdo, it says that Jukdo contacts with Japan's border (or Japanese territory according to GTOMR's opinion) which means if you go out of Jukdo even one step in the direction of east, you will violate the border of Japan.

    Doesn't this make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  59. GTOMR,

    Ah, I see what you are saying now.

    Yes, 境 can also mean "place" in Korean, but it would not make sense in this sentence because it said 島嶼 was "connected" (接) to 倭境, and the island would not have been connected to itself.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Pacifist,

    No, it does not make sense because by 1714, Ulleungdo was already recognized as Korean territory by both Korea and Japan. Japan recognized it as Korean territory in 1697 or 1698, I think.

    The Korean emissary was trying to determine the weaknesses of Korean defenses, and he seemed to feel uneasy about the fact that a Japanese island was in sight of Ulleungdo, which was obviously why he reported the information to his superiors.

    Actually, it seems that you and Kaneganese do not want to recognize that the fisherman was talking about Liancourt Rocks instead of Ulleungdo's Jukdo? Why?

    This is evidence that Koreans thought of Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory. Isn't that a good thing?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Gerry,

    "Actually, it seems that you and Kaneganese do not want to recognize that the fisherman was talking about Liancourt Rocks instead of Ulleungdo's Jukdo? Why?"

    That's not true. I don't really mind if the fishermen were talking about Takeshima, since it was already recorded in 1694 document. I only want to interpretate the sentence correctly.

    In this case, "境" means place, not border. (I was wrong before, sorry.) And "倭境" means Japanese land.

    So, basically it means "Seeing from the east of Ulleungdo, it connects to Japanese islets."

    I know it sounds strange to you, since Jukdo is apparently not Japanese island, but this is the only interpretation. I don't think the author considered Jukdo was Japanese territory, but he was just talkin about the protection of the border, not the territorial issue. It only means that Korean then had very vague conception of the eastern islets of Ulleungdo.

    Japanese scholars don't use this as a proof that Korean considered Takeshima/Liancout Rocks as Japanese islet, since it is clear that the documents are not talking about Takeshima/Dokdo presicely and we know that they didn't have any clear knowledge of Takeshima/Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Let's look at the whole text:

    辛酉江原道御史趙錫命 論嶺東海防疎虞狀略曰 詳聞浦人言 平海蔚珍 距鬱陵島最近 船路無少礙 鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境. 戊子壬辰 異攘帆穡 漂到高杆(手へん)境 倭船往來之頻數 可知. 朝家雖以嶺海之限隔 謂無可憂 而安知異日生釁之必由嶺南 而不由嶺東乎. 綢繆之策 不容少緩. 廟堂請依其言 飭江原道 團束軍保.

    At the first sentence, 使 seems to be 史 if you read the original text (photo):
    辛酉江原道御使趙錫命...
    should be
    辛酉江原道御史趙錫命...
    So I changed the Chinese character.

    Are there anyone who can translate this?

    It says that the nearest island from Ulchin is Ulleungdo but there is no regular service and the island in the east of Ulleungdo is touching Japanese border. In the year of 壬辰 (1592) foreign sailing ships came to our border. Japanese ships are very frequently coming. Even the Joseon's head family with a limit of the sea.... (the rest is uncertain)

    It seems to me that the text is saying about the national defence and Ulleungdo is far from the peninsula and Japanese visited frequently there and the Japanese border is very near....

    As a whole, it doesn't look like mentioning Liancourt Rocks, but Ulleungdo in the view of the protection of Joseon.
    Considering this point, the island at east of Ulleungdo must be Jukdo. And Jukdo is touching Japanese territory (or Japanese border) and Japanese are frequently coming...

    ReplyDelete
  63. Gerry,

    Please forget my very early comment that the island at east should be Japanese island.

    I think that the island at east of Ulleungdo is not Japanese territory but it contacts with Japanese territory or Japanese border.

    As I wrote before, it may mean that if you go out of Jukdo even one step to eastern direction, it's Japanese territory.

    As I think the whole text is mentioning the Joseon's national defence, the sentence was put to lay emphasis on the dangerous state of Ulleungdo, where has an island at east which touches Japanese territory and Japanese ships are frequently coming beyond the place.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Pacifist & Kaneganese,

    How can Ulleungdo's Jukdo be "connected" to Japanese islets? By water?

    By refusing to except the fact that Liancourt Rocks was apparently visible from Ulleungdo, you seem to be forced, I am sorry to say, to come up with these unrealistic interpretations. By making such interpretations, you hurt your legitimate claims since few will buy this claim and may assume that your other claims are equally unrealistic.

    Actually, I am a little disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Simply I ask a question,
    Which is the proper Grammatical analysis for the phrase of 鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境?

    1.鬱陵之東 島嶼相望
    鬱陵之東 接于倭境

    2.鬱陵之東 島嶼相望
    島嶼   接于倭境

    ReplyDelete
  66. GTOMR,

    Here is how I translate it:

    鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境

    鬱陵之東 (울릉의 동) - East of Ulleung

    島嶼相望 (서로 보이는 섬이) - islands are visible

    接于倭境 (왜경에 접해있다) - that connect to the Japanese border

    ReplyDelete
  67. Gerry,
    1.islands are visible each other,
    2.that connect to the Japanese border

    So you recognized Islands are connecting to Japanese border/area,
    It means you analysis the phrase as follows?
    2.鬱陵之東 島嶼相望
    島嶼   接于倭境

    The main issue on this phrase is gramatically,

    Where is connecting with Japan's border or area(倭境)
    a East of Ulluegndo(鬱陵之東)
    b Islands (島嶼)

    I think, east of Ullungdo, islands visible each other, (east of ullungdo) connect with Japan's area(倭船倉)

    Even though 張漢相 witnessed a island considered liancourt Rocks, there are no report about a island after that. so I guess they couldn't recognized it so they just simply said that there are Japanese border or place at the east of Ulluengdo.

    I want to know how everyone recognize the grammer and the text.

    ReplyDelete
  68. GTOMR,

    接 means "connect to" and 倭境 means "Japanese border."

    There are no islands east of Ulleungdo that are visible with each other. It was talking about the islands being visible from Ulleungdo.

    And if there are islands east of Ulleungdo that "connect to" to the Japanese border, it means that those islands are the Japanese border.

    ReplyDelete
  69. GTOMR,

    Isn't the 倭船倉 a place name in Ulleungdo, where Japanese ships can stay?

    I don't think 倭境 is not that place, I think it's literally the Japan's border or Japan's territory.

    Gerry,

    "And if there are islands east of Ulleungdo that "connect to" to the Japanese border, it means that those islands are the Japanese border".

    The things that "touches" or "connected with" are not always land or island. Sea itself can be a border.

    I think the sentence means, as I repeatedly wrote, "if one goes out to easter than this place - there will be Japanese". Remember that they are talking about self defence of Joseon from outer world, perhaps especially from Japan. The writer laid emphasis on the danger of Ulleungdo and Joseon herself because plenty of Japanese are there beyond the island beside Ulleungdo.

    ReplyDelete
  70. 鬱陵之東 島嶼相望

    If they recognized there are liancourt Rocks, they would wrote the Liancourt Rocks ,similar like Tushima island. But we know they wrote only UsandoJukdo(Boussole Rk)

    I think 倭境 means ,Japanese area.Considering what is Japan's place would be;
    a.UsandoJukdo, which Korean recognized as Japan's Matsushima.
    b.倭船倉

    Those "a" and "B" is east of Ullungdo,so I judged the grammatical compose would be
    鬱陵之東 (島嶼(于山島)相望) 接于倭境.

    Do you know (関係形容詞)?(sorry I dont know how to call in English)

    Pacifist
    yes, it is Japanese shipping place. but you know many Korean Detail map of Ulleugndo emphasiss on 倭船倉 and 刻石立標, so they would recognized as the place.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Pacifist,

    During that time, borders were not imaginary lines drawn in the middle of the sea, borders were the country's farthermost islands.

    Don't you remember the sentence from the 1667 Japanese document 隠州視聴合記?

    然則日本乾地以 此州為限矣

    ReplyDelete
  72. Gerry,

    The 限 (limit) from the "Onshu Shicho Gouki" is literally a limit, not the border line. Saito Hosen meant Ullengdo was the place of outer limit to Japan.

    On the other hand, 境 (of 倭境) means border or boundary. In addition, as GTOMR pointed out it may have a meaning of some area surrounded by borderlines.

    My interpretation is the latter as a Japanese area is just behind Jukdo.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Gerry,

    Is it possible for you to consult this with any specialist? Actually, I did and I realized I made mistake that I've read "境" as border, which should be translated as place or territory. I hope you would do the same and discuss this with specialist. And I'm sorry if I sound somehow forcible to you in the former comment, which I didn't intend to.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Kaneganese,

    May I ask you about your opinion after consulting with a specialist?

    My interpretation: At east of Ulleungdo, an island can be viewed, which touches Japan's area (territory).

    (= Beyond the island which is located at east of Ulleungdo, there are Japanese.)

    How do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  75. pacifist,

    I'll send a e-mail to you. I'm really sorry that I totally forgot about the interpretation of this sentence, which I've already asked him few month ago...

    ReplyDelete
  76. Kaneganese,

    I do not know any specialists, but Korea's Northest Asian History Foundation HERE, which is essentially Korea's history consultant on "Dokdo," translates the sentence as follows:
    -----------------------

    鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境

    울릉도 동쪽에는 섬이 서로 잇달아 왜경(倭境)에 접해 있다

    "Islands east of Ulleungdo link together to connect to the Japanese border."
    -------------------------

    Even though the Korean translation is wrong when it talks about islands "linking together," they are translating 倭境 (왜경) as "Japanese border."

    Can your expert give an example of a Korean document or map that uses 倭境 (왜경) to refer to any other place in Japan that is not on the border?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Gerry,

    I promise I'll ask him about it.

    Anyway, if you have a chance, please ask someone professional about it, hopefully, in U.S.. I really would like to here non-Japanese or non-Korean specialist's opinion either.

    ReplyDelete
  78. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Othere example which use 倭境 for Japan's area or place.
    [漂民故漂委折, 不爲措語, 統制使尹得逵, 從重推考, 令廟堂更爲嚴飭]

    一. 政院啓曰, 嶺南沿海奸民輩, 故漂倭境, 而漂民之還, 每有差倭, 差倭之來, 又從以故漂我境之沿邑, 其所爲弊, 每多如此故, 昨冬賓筵, 大臣出擧條申飭, 而今此統制使尹得逵狀啓中, 漂民之故漂與否, 初不詳査論列, 揆以事體, 誠甚疎忽, 事係邊情, 原狀啓. 雖不得不捧入, 當該帥臣, 不可無警, 從重推考何如. 傳曰, 年前飭敎不但申嚴, 大臣出擧條嚴飭之後, 身爲帥臣, 不有廟堂知委, 循例措語, 其不能檢飭可知, 極爲駭然, 當該帥臣, 越俸一等, 此後令廟堂更爲嚴飭可也.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Thank you, GTOMR,

    Gerry,

    高麗史35卷-世家35-忠肅王2. 1333
    三月右丞相燕帖木兒奏于皇太后皇太子曰 "高麗隣于倭境今其王久箏下請令還國." 制可.

    I googled it and came up with this sencence. Somehow, 朝鮮王朝実録 site doesn't work properly, so I can't check the original. But this "倭境" means Japan, not Japanese border, definately.

    ReplyDelete
  81. GTOMR,

    Is that a Korean document and can you translate the Chinese phrase?

    Also, you have to remember that the sentence (鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境) said that the "islands" east of Ulleungdo touched (接) the 倭境.

    Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島) is only one island, not "islands" (島嶼), which means the islands would have had to be Liancourt Rocks.

    And if the islands were Liancourt Rocks and we translated the sentence the way you, Pacifist, and Kaneganese want to translate it, then it would be saying that Liancourt Rocks was not Japanese territory.

    ReplyDelete
  82. 鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境

    これ文章の構成上、接于倭境は
    鬱陵之東 にかかっているのか?
    それとも、
    島嶼相望 にかかっているのかキチンと説明できる方いらっしゃいます?

    ReplyDelete
  83. GTOMR,

    読み下し文にすると、「欝陵の東、島嶼相望みて 倭境に接す」となります。Gerryの言う様に島嶼が大小の島々(複数)なら竹嶼だけではなく観音島も含んでいるのかも知れませんが、もしそうなら、「欝陵島の東で、島々が(竹嶼と観音島が?)相対して見え、倭境に接している」という意味でしょうか。

    GTOMRさんが仰るように、「倭境に接して」いるのが欝陵島なのか、島々なのか、欝陵島の東なのか、これは文法的にはどれもあり得ると思いますが意味の上からは島々というのが近いのではないかと思っています。

    前段が欝陵島のことを述べていますから、欝陵島の東側が倭境と接するという解釈も地理的にはあり得ると思いますが(日本側にとってもありがたいですが)、そうなると何故ここで島嶼のことを持ち出したのかがわからなくなります。

    Gerry,

    As you say, 島嶼 means originally islands including large and small islands. If this 島嶼 means plural (large and small) islands, it may mean Jukdo and 観音島. (It may mean an island, large or small, in some cases although.) If they mean these two islands, 相 may mean each other.

    If so, the text may mean;
    At east of Ulleungdo, islands are viewed each other which touch Japanese area.

    These islands seem not to be Japanese territory, they only "touch" Japanese area. So I think they are islands around Ulleungdo including Jukdo.
    Anyway, it says that if someone goes beyond the islands, it is Japanese area.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Pacifist, Kaneganese, & GTOMR,

    Looking at the way you guys are interpreting this sentence, I am realizing that it is not only Koreans that can be blinded by nationalism when it comes to the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute.

    Isn't there anyone at the Takeshima Research Center who translates the sentence similar to my translation?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Gerry,

    It is not nationalism that cause the interpretation gap between us and you. I think the interpretation of the word "境" is not always the same as "border".

    We usually use the word as an area that has some extent - for example, 魔境 - a place infested with demons, 秘境 - the unexplored [untrodden] regions. So we understand easily that 倭境 may mean the Japanese area, or you may say a place infested with Japanese (if you are Koreans who detested Japanese)...

    ReplyDelete
  86. Gerry,

    One more thing, the word "接" means literally "touch", it doesn't mean the same as the things you touch, I mean the two islands, large and small, are touching 倭境 but those are not included in the 倭境.

    If you can easily understand if 倭境 was 魔境 (maybe almost the same to Korean people in those days), I would rewrite the text as following;

    At the east of Ulleungdo, large and small islands can be viewed each other, which touch the place infested with demons (Japanese).

    Can you understand what I mean?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Good evening,

    The Chinese character "接" in "接于倭境" simply means "be close to" in my opinion.

    And "倭境" means "(barbaric) Japan's domain"
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  88. So, beyond the "島嶼", somewhere close in the wide sea starts to be the "倭境":

    http://photo.naver.com/view/2008061820384158413

    ReplyDelete
  89. Gerry,

    All I can say now is I just hope you would seek any English speaking experts' opinion on this sentences, that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Kaneganese,

    I did not get your e-mail. How does your expert translate the sentence?

    Also, could an island touch the border of Japan without the island being Japanese territory? In the past, did the Korean border run right up to the shores of Oki Island?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Gerry,

    Sorry, it was directed to pacifist.

    Anyway, I believe "倭境" is not Japanese border. It is Japanese land.

    I've already wrote the translation in the comment before. I sent pacifist the original Japanese translation I've got. I didn't open it to public because it was done during personal communication. And I kind of think it is beyond my ablity to convey his translation prorpely in English. In fact, you seem not to be happy with it. So I thought it is the best way for me to ask you to seek expert's opinion in English.

    It seems the harder I try to explain it, the more confused it gets. I don't want to be labelled as nationalist by you again, since it's too sad for me and I feel really tired now. So I just leave it as it is. It's really unfortunate that I don't agree with your translation, but I can't lie that I do. I hope someday you can get an opportunity to ask some expert, and it will be clear. Or someday, my English improves a lot and I can communicate with you without any misunderstandings. Maybe, it's not too late to discuss about it after that? The document won't go anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  92. raquel,

    Yes, it's near to "close to", but the word means actually "touched" (or you may say "very very close to") so, in my opinion, the text means if you go beyond the place even one inch beyond, you would be in the other's territory.

    Gerry,

    Can't you understand what I mean?

    ReplyDelete
  93. pacifist,

    "接(is close)于(to)倭境(the Japanese zone)" is the correct way to interprete "接于倭境".

    "倭境" does not mean the Japanese border or territory, but it means the zone or area where the Japanese were active and dominant in the Korean conception of that time.

    From this sentence, I can read that the Koreans in those days had the conception that Japanese were very active close to their homeland or that its author at least tried to emphasize how close the Japanese were getting by writing "接于倭境" in exaggeration.

    Anyway, the "島嶼" in this sentence is Jukdo located in "鬱陵之東".

    ___________________________________

    in my opinion, the text means if you go beyond the place even one inch beyond, you would be in the other's territory.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Kaneganese,

    You cannot translate 倭境 as "Japanese land" because the islands (島嶼) do not "touch" (接) any land. The are surrounded by water, and the nearest Japanese land is 157 kilometers away.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Gerry,

    Kaneganese wrote as "Japanese land" by which she meant Japanese territory, and it includes lands and the sea around them.

    The word 境 here seems to have a meaning of "area", so 倭境 is Japanese area.

    raquel,

    I agree, I have the same opinion as yours. The author is telling about the menace of Japan and telling that Ulleungdo is dangerous because Japanese are coming beyond the islands at east of Ulleungdo.

    By the way raquel, as Gerry already pointed out 島嶼's original meaning is "plural islands" (島 is a large island, 嶼is a small island) although it has also a meaning of a single island sometime.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Pacifist,

    Is there really any difference between the island "touching Japanese territory" and "touching the Japanese border"?

    ReplyDelete
  97. Gerry,

    The result is the same - if the islands at east of Ulleungdo touch Japanese area (territory) or Japanese border, beyond the islands lied Japanese territory although the islands were not Japanese territory.

    But you meant "border" by islands or lands, didn't you? Actually it was not.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Pacifist,

    Using your logic, that would mean that this sentence is saying that the island (Liancourt Rocks) was not Japanese territory.

    You cannot claim that the island being talked about here was Ulleungdo's Jukdo (竹島) because that would mean you are allowing Japan to have territorial waters (領海), but not Korea.

    From what I understand, islands were the borders of both Korea and Japan back there and the water between the two countries' islands was open water. Therefore, Ulleungdo was Korea's eastern-most border and Oki Island was Japan's, if you ignore Liancourt Rocks.

    Borders did not extend out into the middle of the sea. By saying that the island touched the Japanese border or Japanese territory, the fisherman was saying that the island was Japanese. If the fisherman had believed the island to be Korean, he would have said 接我國境.

    Think about the longitudes given for Korea's eartern border in the old documents. They stopped at Ulleungdo, and I am pretty sure that they stopped at the edge of Japan's farthermost islands, too.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Gerry,

    "Borders did not extend out into the middle of the sea".

    I don't think so. Just beyond the islands east of Ulleungdo was the area where lots of Japanese were going up and down with their ships - it was the 倭境, Japanese area.

    In my opinion, 倭境 is different from today's Japanese territory. It was literally the area where Japanese were and it included the sea.

    If it didn't include the sea, how one island contacts with the "border"? The distance from Jukdo and Liancourt Rocks is 90km distant and from Liancourt to Oki another 80-90km.

    ReplyDelete
  100. pacifist,

    I agree with your interpretation.

    "接" in this sentence means "is VERY close" because the author had to exaggerate in explaining the worrying Japanese activities in the area "just next" to the Korean homeland.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Gerry,

    "Using your logic, that would mean that this sentence is saying that the island (Liancourt Rocks) was not Japanese territory".

    If the island(s) in the text meant Liancourt Rocks, you are right but I don't think it was Liancourt Rocks.

    "You cannot claim that the island being talked about here was Ulleungdo's Jukdo (竹島) because that would mean you are allowing Japan to have territorial waters (領海), but not Korea".

    I can't understand what you are saying. Why not Jukdo? I didn't talk about teritorial waters. The倭境 is different from today's territorial waters.

    Simply the text means that Korean people were afraid of Japanese who were coming from the direction of islands east of Ulleungdo.

    In my opinion, the island(s) should be Jukdo (and 観音島?) because Koreans knew that aother island (Usando) was there but they didn't know Liancourt Rocks.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Gerry,

    This sentence is saying that the "島嶼" is the Korean land (땅, ttang) and, beyond the "島嶼" somewhere very close in its author's conception, there existed the Japanese Area (倭境).

    ___________________________________

    this sentence is saying that the island (Liancourt Rocks) was not Japanese territory.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Think whatever you want, Pacifist. I don't want to talk about it, anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Gerry,

    Please calm down, we are talking about just the interpretation of the text.

    As Kaneganese suggested, please consult someone who is an expert of Chinese language and please ask him about the interpretation of 倭境. I hope you will understand what we are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Pacifist,

    It seems there is no need to talk about it anymore until I find my "expert."

    ReplyDelete
  106. Hi everybody,

    This is not something to lose sleep over.

    I'm sure that, if the author meant the Japanese territory, he would use a word such as "倭之地" instead.

    ReplyDelete
  107. If the sentence was written "鬱陵之東(南) 島嶼相望 接于倭境", the "島嶼" would surely mean the Liancourt Rocks.

    Unfortunately for the Korean claim, however, it says only "東 = east".

    ReplyDelete
  108. So, the sea area somewhere beyond Jukdo in the photo below is "倭境" in a Korean conception of that time:

    http://boomfiles.naver.net/exphoto01/2008/6/18/237//%C1%D7%B5%B5%B9%D9%B4%D9_go2338.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  109. "境" is originally changing from "疆" the meaning of territory, or area.(界 is similar concept)
    then they add another meaning of "border" so "境" can be possible to show "Terrotory or Area" as well;

    For example,


    ?經齋全集 題安龍福傳後  成海應
    安龍福傳。載於李孟休所著春官志。我之欝陵島。不被倭人侵牟。龍福功也。考龍福所抵伯耆州。?倭山陰道中一州也。考其界。似與我關東。隔一海耳。甞聞襄陽人漁採。爲風所驅。過水宗甚峻。舟?之上下。遂至倭境云。想伯耆境耳。


    碩齋稿 碩齋稿卷之九 海東外史> [安龍福] 287_146d ???(尹行恁)
    ?不發。龍福獨前憤罵曰。何故犯我境。龍福追至松島又罵曰。松島?芋山島。爾不聞芋山亦我境乎

    ReplyDelete