Below is a translation of The 10th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao
" A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory”On 3 April, 2008, Korean Maritime Institutes's (韓国海洋水産開発院) "Oceanic fishery trend(海洋水産動向)" (Vol.1256) published the article entitled "Sokdo is Dokdo - Refutation against Japanese negation of "Sokdo=Dokdo" theory" by Ms. Yu (柳美林). This is a rebuttal to the San-in Chuo Shinpo's article on 22 Feb. which reported "Korean newspaper(皇城新聞)'s article on 13 July, 1906 denied Seokdo=Dokdo theory." The article in 1906 said the islands under the authority of the Uldo County were Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島), and that it was sixty ri(24km) from east to west and forty ri(16km) from north to south for a total of 200 ri (80km), thus the San-in Chuo Shinpo concluded it is impossible for Takeshima/Dokdo, which is 92km apart from Ulleungdo, to be Seokdo in Korean Imperial Ordinance No.41.
Ms. Yu explained that the reason that Dokdo was written as "Seokdo(石島)" in the Ordinance No.41 was because "coastal residents in South Jeolla（全羅南道）" witnessed the island "on the way to and from Ulleundo and also " they named the island to where they sometimes casted away, while collecting seaweeds or fishing on Ulleungdo, as "Dok-do or Tol-do", which is their dialects for "石". She also wrongfully claimed that the sentence " it was sixty ris(24km) from east to west and forty ris(16km) from north to south for a total of 200 ris(80km), "meant for the area of Ulleungdo, not the jurisdiction of Uleudo County.
However, this can't be even a refutation at all, considering Korean side is required to prove when to have started the reference "Dokdo(独島)" empirically. Moreover, it need to be "before" 1900 the year Ordinance No.41 was issued, or it means nothing. However, the fact is, the name "Dokdo(独島)" first appeared in the document of 1904, the year Japanese hired Korean residents on Ulleungdo to hunt sealions on "Ryanko-to(Japanese name for Takeshima/Dokdo back then)". Naturally, the former name of Dokdo was not Seokdo, in fact. Discussion for the phonetic relationship or change between Dokdo and Sokdo has nothing to do with Takeshima/Dokdo dispute after all.
In that sense, it is significant that 皇城新聞 reported that (the Korean Interior Ministry answered to Japanese Resident-General) "area under the authority of the Uldo County were sixty ris(24km) from east to west and forty ris(16km) from north to south for a total of 200 ri s(80km)", Because Ms. Yu had to make it clear How 禹用鼎, who was the official inspector from Interior Ministry, recognized the area of Uldo County, since 禹用鼎 was the one who inspected Ulleungdo in June 1900 and suggested that Ulleungdo to be promoted to the "Uludo County". The suggestion by 禹用鼎 actually lead to the promulgation of the Imperial Ordinance No.41.
However, the fact is, 禹用鼎's inspection area was limited to "the circumference of 140-150 ris(56-60km)", which is clearly Ulleungdo alone. This area clearly included Jukdo(竹島) and Sokdo(石島) as the petition by the Minister of Interior 李乾夏 stated as "The area of the island in concern(該島地方) should be 80 ris(32km) in length and 50 ris(20km) in the width.", the petiotion was submitted a day before the Imperial Ordinance was issued. Besides, the reason 禹用鼎 defined Ulleungdo as "the circumference of 140-150 ris(56-60km)" is that he followed the definition by Lee Gyu-won(李奎遠), who was sent to inspect on Ulleungdo in 1882 by the order of Kojong(高宗), that Ulleungdo is "the circumference of 140-150 ris(56-60km)." Their geographical recognition of Ulleungdo reflect on the map "欝陵島外図" by Lee, who was ordered to draw the precise map of Ulleungdo by Kojong. The map "欝陵島外図" depicted Jukdo(竹島, Japanese name 竹嶼) and Do-hang(島項), and it made the range of Ulluengdo, which is supposed to be "the circumference of 140-150 ris(56-60km)" clear.
Lee Gyu-won reported the livelihood of the residents of Ulleungdo was "building boats, collecting seaweeds, abalones and medicinal herbs", and 禹用鼎 himself reported that the taxes on the island was mainly seaweeds. According to U, the fishery what Korean on Ulleungdo engaged in was collecting seaweeds in 1900 the year Imperial Ordinance No.41 was issued. They just started to go to Ulleungdo only because they were hired by Japanese who had engaged in hunting sealions on Takeshima/Dokdo in 1904. The Korean's claim that Korean fishermen were fishing on Takeshima/Dokdo and Dokdo changed into Sokdo is just a nothing but a imagination. Moreover, the theory which seek the relationship between Dokdo and Sokdo from the dialects of South Jeolla area has no grounds at all. Both of them are far-fetched interpretation in the end.
“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第10回 「石島＝独島説の誤謬」 下條正男”
Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.
Other Column of the Series:
The 22th column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
The 21st column " Refutation against "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”
The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”
The 16th column ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."
The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"
The 12th column “Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding”
The 10th column " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory”
The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”
The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"
The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."
FYI, Mr. Sugino provided us the URL for original article by Yu.
ReplyDeleteKaneganese are you going to do any original research or keep regurgitating the propaganda of Professor Shimojo forever?
ReplyDeleteBTW the 200ri in this report is simply the size of Ulleungdo taken from many old maps of this era.
ReplyDeleteI don't know your nationality but i am sure you are a Japanese.
ReplyDeleteI can see how much you are in favor of Japan from your ??research??. You are not explaining things objectively. You have criticized all the information in favor of Korea; however, you have NEVER criticized any of your information in favor of Japan. I hope you could ever get better then your harsh, selfish, and uncivilized ancesters or predecessors. But I doubt you would ever gonna be.. I will just pray for you.
'Web Takeshima Research Center' is distorting the article of Hwangseong Shinmun by wrongly, intentionally or not, interpreting the original text.
ReplyDeleteThe original text is : " .....江原道 三陟郡 管下에 所在 鬱陵島에 所属島嶼와 郡廳設始 年月을 示明하라는 故로 答函하되、光武二年五月二十日에 鬱陵島監으로 設始 하였다가 光武四年十月二十五日에 政府會議를 經由하야 郡守를 配置하니 郡廳은 台霞洞에 在하고 該郡所管島는 竹島石島오、東西가 六十里오 南北이 四十里니, 合 二百餘里라고 하였다더라."
This is Gerry Bevers' interpretation of above text at http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/02/july-1906-korea-omits-dokdo-from-uldo.html
"what islands belonged to Ulleungdo, which is under the administration of Samcheok County in Gangwon Province, and the year and month the county office was established....It said the islands under the authority of the said county were Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島), and that it was sixty ri from east to west and forty ri from north to south for a total of 200 ri.
There's no such a word indicating 'area' which was added in 'Web Takeshima Research Center's interpretation. Mr.Sugino also wrongly interpreted by adding 'で' in Japanese version of the article. ( 護郡所管島はチュク島と石島で、東西が六十里で南北が四十里なので,合せて二百余里だという)
The sentence "the islands under the authority of the said county were Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島)", and the sentence "it was sixty ri from east to west and forty ri from north to south for a total of 200 ri" are just two separate sentences with no relevance each other.
If, as Japan insists that the numbers indicate the area of Ulldo County, why is that so? What does " 合 二百餘里" mean?
It's hard to say exactly what "東西가 六十里오 南北이 四十里니, 合 二百餘里" indicates, but the sure thing is this phrase was cited from Korean document and is related to Ulleungdo. In Korean geography book "朝鮮地誌(1895)“ has the identical phrase. 朝鮮地誌 states:
"鬱陵島는 蔚珍에 在하니 周回-二百余里니 東西-六十余里오 南北이 四十余里라” (Ulleungdo is at Uljina and its circumference is about 200 ri, so from east to west it is about 60 ri and from south to north it is about 40 ri.)
Therefore, "東西가 六十里오 南北이 四十里니, 合 二百餘里" has nothing to do with the area under the authority of the Uldo County as 'Web Takeshima Research Center' insists.
Pro-Japanese don't need to abuse Hwangseong Shinmun article to deny Dokdo was a part of Ulldo County, instead just ask why Japanese officials from Shimane Prefecture notified Ulldo County Government Shim Heung-taek that Dokdo became Japanese land in 1906 if they had known Dokdo wasn't included in Ulldo County. Then you'll know truth.
'Web Takeshima Research Center's seeking truth based on the misinterpretation or distortion of Hwangseong Shinmun article is nothing but a Japan's false and misleading propaganda to deny the fact Dokdo was a part of Ulldo County and Korean territory,