There were no islands in the Sea of Japan named "Dokdo" (獨島 - 독도) on old Korean maps, so many Korean scholars claim that an island labeled as "Usando" (于山島 - 우산도) on old Korean maps was today's "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks), even though the island was drawn as one island, not two, and even though it was drawn just offshore of Ulleungdo in a location very near to where Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도) is today. Jukdo is a small island about 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore.
The following is a Japanese video comparing an old Korean map showing "the so-called Usando" (所謂 于山島 - 소위 우산도) just off Ulleungdo's east shore with modern maps of Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima).
Hi Gerry,
ReplyDeleteWelcome back. I hope you have had a wonderful time in your short vacation completely free of the annoying constant surveillance of the Korean National Intelligence Service (國家情報院) agents. :-)
Thank you, Gerry
ReplyDeleteI tried to post it when Yabutarou told me that he could have uploaded to youtube. But I couldn't.
Anyway, thisi is the original flash version he made.
http://outdoor.geocities.jp/yabutarou01/a.swf
And other one.
http://outdoor.geocities.jp/yabutarou01/usann.swf
Good evening.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't mind, I continue my postings for "竹島石島" here.
The Imperial Edicts No. 40 and No. 41 were both announced on October 25, 1900 (광무4년10월25일).
In the Edict No. 40 (칙령 제40호):
"外國語學校와醫學校와中學校" is written with "와".
In the Edict No. 41 (칙령 제41호):
"鬱陵全島와竹島石島" is written without "와" between "竹島" and "石島".
So, can anyone here explain grammatically and logically why "竹島石島" in the Imperial Edict No. 41 means "竹島와石島"?
___________________________________
The original Imperial Edict No. 41 wrote:
"郡廳位置는台霞洞으로定하고區域은鬱陵全島와竹島石島를管轄할事"
But, if it actually meant two separate islands, I suppose that either of the following sentences would have been written instead to avoid confusion:
"郡廳位置는台霞洞으로定하고區域은鬱陵全島와竹島와石島를管轄할事"
"郡廳位置는台霞洞으로定하고區域은鬱陵全島와竹島石島二島를管轄할事"
In my interpretation of "鬱陵 全島 와 竹島 石島" in the Imperial Edict No. 41, "鬱陵" and "竹島" are proper nouns, and "全島" and "石島 are common nouns.
ReplyDeleteSince "石島" is a common noun in my opinion, it only means a rock island. As such, it is not the name of a place, e.g. ,Dokdo.
So, "鬱陵 全島 와 竹島 石島" in the Imperial Edict No. 41 could be interpreted as "울릉 전도 와 죽도(라고 하는) 돌섬".
Actually, raquel, what started bugging me recently is, the question why 鬱陵"全"島 was used for this particlar sentence, while simple "鬱陵島" were used twice in other sentences in Imperial No.41. It is similar with your comment above.
ReplyDeleteAnd why it wasn't described as"竹島와石島" in a July 13, 1906 article in the Korean newspaper, "Hwangseong Shinmun" (皇城新聞)?
Is it possible that 鬱陵"全"島 meant Ulleungdo pluce other rocky islands around?
Anyway, I'm not good at Korean language, so this is just my thought.
By the way, I've checked all the Imperial Edicts published from July to December in 1900. There were many cases that doesn't use to connect two or more nouns with "와" in other Edicts. But it was ceartainly wiered that there is only one "와" in order to connect three nouns. But I only checked them briefly, so it is still inconclusive. I think if you have time, you should check more Edicts and compare all the cases and patterns.
Since we are talking of Jukdo, I post my past posting again:
ReplyDeleteIn 1787, a French explorer, Jean-François de Galaup saw Jukdo and named it "Rocher de Boussole" after his ship "La Boussole", that is, "Boussole Rock" in English.
So, it was possible to refer to Jukdo as a rock island (石島).
kanaeganese,
ReplyDeleteAccording to my interpretation that "the 'entire island' of Ulreung and the 'rock island' (called) Jukdo", I can see that the Imperial Edict #41 took special care to describe its jurisdictional area of the new Uldo county.
So, this is my hypothesis on the inclusions of the words "全島" and "石島" in the Edict.
Regarding your question below, I'm more interested in knowing how the readers of the newspaper comprehended "竹島石島" in the article in 1906.
___________________________________
why it wasn't described as "竹島와石島" in a July 13, 1906 article in the Korean newspaper "Hwangseong Shinmun" (皇城新聞)?
Good afternoon,
ReplyDeleteIn order to be more precise in my interpretation of "鬱陵 全島 와 竹島 石島" in the Edict No. 41, here is the revised interpretaion with a 'possessive' particle "의":
"鬱陵(의) 全島 와 竹島(라고 하는) 石島"
"울릉(의) 전도 와 죽도(라고 하는) 돌섬"
"the entire island (of) Ulreung and the rock island (called) Jukdo"
___________________________________
"郡廳位寘는台霞洞으로定하고區域은鬱陵全島와竹島石島를管轄할事"
For the Japanese readers here:
ReplyDelete"鬱陵(の) 全島 と 竹島(と云う) 石島"
:-)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo, the whole provision of the Article 2 of the Imperial Edict No. 41 can be interpreted as follows:
ReplyDelete"郡廳(의) 位置 는 台霞洞 으로 定 하고 區域 은 鬱陵(의) 全島 와 竹島(라고 하는) 石島 를 管轄 할 事"
"군청(의) 위치 는 태하동 으로 정 하고 구역 은 울릉(의) 전도 와 죽도(라고 하는) 돌섬 를 관활 할 일"
___________________________________
"郡廳位寘는台霞洞으로定하고區域은鬱陵全島와竹島石島를管轄할事"
Good morning,
ReplyDeletePlease correct me if I'm wrong:
I believe that, when Korea was notified of the formal incorporation of Takeshima/Dokdo by Japan in 1906, Korea never officially protested the Japan's incorporation of the island by quoting from the Article 2 of the 1900 Imperial Edict No. 41 as the legal basis of the Korean sovereignty over the island.
___________________________________
내 주장:
"군청(의) 위치 는 태하동 으로 정 하고 구역 은 울릉(의) 전도 와 죽도 (라고 하는) 돌섬 를 관활 할 일"
한국의 주장:
"군청(의) 위치 는 태하동 으로 정 하고 구역 은 울릉(의) 전도 와 죽도 (와) 석도 를 관활 할 일"
___________________________________
대한제국 칙령 제41호 제2조:
"郡廳 位寘 는 台霞洞 으로 定 하고 區域 은 鬱陵 全島 와 竹島 石島 를 管轄 할 事"
"군청 위진 는 태하동 으로 정 하고 구역 은 울릉 전도 와 죽도 석도 를 관활 할 사"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGood afternoon,
ReplyDeleteHere is another notation from the Article 3 of the same Imperial Edict No. 41:
"江原道 二十六郡의 六 字 는 七 字 로 改正"
In order for us to interprete this notation correctly and precisely, we need to interprete it as follows:
"江原道 二十六郡(이라고 하는 표기)의 六(이라고 하는)字 는 七(이라고 하는)字 로 改正"
"the word (called) 'Six' of (the clause written as) the 'Gangwondo Twenty-Six Counties' is to be amended by the word (called) 'Seven'"
This is to show that my interpretation of the Article 2 of the Imperial Edict No. 41 was done in the same grammatical consistency found above, and I don't see any reason not to interprete the Article 2 as I did by interpreting "돌섬" as a common noun meaning a rock island.
___________________________________
Imperial Edict No. 41 Article 3:
"江原道 二十六郡의 六 字 는 七 字 로 改正"
"江原道 二十六郡(이라고 하는 표기)의 六(이라고 하는)字 는 七(이라고 하는)字 로 改正"
"강원도 이십육군(이라고 하는 표기)의 육(이라고 하는)자 는 칠(이라고 하는)자 로 개정"
Imperial Edict No. 41 Article 2:
"鬱陵 全島 와 竹島 石島 를 管轄"
"鬱陵(의) 全島 와 竹島(라고 하는)石島 를 管轄"
"울릉(의) 전도 와 죽도(라고 하는)돌섬 를 관활"
Good evening,
ReplyDeleteNow, here are the translations:
"강원도 이십육군의 육 자 는 칠 자 로 개정"
"the word 'Six' of the 'Gangwondo Twenty-Six Counties' is to be amended by the word 'Seven'"
"울릉(의) 전도 와 죽도 돌섬"
"the entire island of 'Ulleung' and the rock island 'Jukdo'"
As you see, they have been neatly translated now with the same grammatical consistency.
Good morning,
ReplyDeleteThe question now is why the Imperial Edict No. 41 announced in 1900 added a common noun "dolseom(石島)" meaning a rock island.
To answer this question, we have to remember that the Japanese who had lived or had frequented Ulleungdo around 1900 were referring to Ulleungdo as "Takeshima" which is written "竹島" in the Chinese characters exactly same as Jukdo, the most prominent island belonging to Ulleungdo.
Therefore, the Imperial Edict had to make itself clear which "竹島" it meant by adding the common noun "dolseom" after Jukdo in its description of the jurisdictional area of the new Uldo County.
So, where has Gwaneumdo disappeared?
ReplyDeleteWell, it's been included in the phrase "the entire island of Ulleung", which happens to be also the Korean mainstream interpretation including that of the "Dokdo Guardians(독도수호대)".
At this point at least, we are in total agreement with each other. :-)
Good afternoon,
ReplyDeleteAfter the unexpected visit by the Japan's Shimane Prefectural Inspection Team on March 28, 1906, the then Uldo County governor, Sim Heung-taek(沈興澤) originally from Seoul in his early fifties who had already lived on the island as a governor for about three years by that time and who was responsible as such for supervising either "the entire island of 'Ulleung' and 'Jukdo' AND 'Seokdo'" or "the entire island of 'Ulleung' and the rock island CALLED 'Jukdo' wrote that controversial report containing the phrase in question "'Dokdo' belonging to the County".
The question here is what wrong impression he wrote so under. Let us find the answer to this question.
___________________________________
"울릉(의) 전도 와 죽도 (와) 석도 를 관활 할 일"
"supervising the entire island of 'Ulleung' and 'Jukdo' AND 'Seokdo'"
"울릉(의) 전도 와 죽도 (라고 하는) 석도 를 관활 할 일"
"supervising the entire island of 'Ulleung' and the rock island CALLED 'Jukdo'"
___________________________________
大韓帝國 勅令 第四十一號 第二絛:
대한제국 칙령 제사십일호 제이조:
"郡廳 位寘 는 台霞洞 으로 定 하고 區域 은 鬱陵 全島 와 竹島 石島 를 管轄 할 事"
"군청 위진 는 태하동 으로 정 하고 구역 은 울릉 전도 와 죽도 석도 를 관활 할 사"
대한민국의 억측:
"군청(의) 위치 는 태하동 으로 정 하고 구역 은 울릉(의) 전도 와 죽도 (와) 석도 를 관활 할 일"
내 억측:
"군청(의) 위치 는 태하동 으로 정 하고 구역 은 울릉(의) 전도 와 죽도(라고 하는) 석도 를 관활 할 일"
"군청(의) 위치 는 태하동 으로 정 하고 구역 은 울릉(의) 전도 와 죽도(라고 하는) 돌섬 을 관활 할 일"
raquel,
ReplyDeleteIt seems you are keeping study a lot. I think it is great. Keep digging, and you might come up with more interesting findings.
I think Shim mistook Jukdo, or 竹島石島 in Imperial Edict no.41 in 1900 with "Dokdo."
July 13, 1906 article in the Korean newspaper, "Hwangseong Shinmun" (皇城新聞) is a key to understand it.
鬱島郡의 配置顛末
統監府에서 內部에 公函하되 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.
If 竹島石島 are two islands, it is very unusual that there are no other omission "와" between two names. Especially, this article was written Korean.
I hope someone would explain why it wasn't written as 竹島"와"石島 if it means two islands.
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/04/hwangseong-sinmun-1899-sep-23-ulleungdo.html
ReplyDelete↑ この記事を見ると産材や交易品の名前は単純羅列で書かれていますね。また、「船匠商客と漁人耕夫が」という記述もあり、そこでは「船匠」と「商客」は続いており「漁人」と「耕夫」も続いています。
そういうふうに、同種の名詞は単純に続けて書くのが普通だったということではないですか。
勅令は法令ですから、分かりやすさは重視されます。「竹島石島」と書いてあれば、誰しも第一印象としては２つの島だと思います。一つの島を書き表すのにそんな難しい書き方はしないはずです。
そう言うと、ではなぜ「鬱陵全島」の次には「と」という接続詞があるのかとおっしゃるかも知れませんが、「鬱陵全島」というのは島の名前ではなく「鬱陵島の全部」という説明用語です。したがって、続けて島の名前を羅列することは適当とは思えません。しかも鬱陵島本島と付属の２島は格が違います。「鬱陵全島と竹島石島」というように、ここで区切ることは自然なことと思います。
kanaeganese,
ReplyDeleteAs a government official of the Great Korean Empire (大韓帝國), he must have used the name "Seokdo" written in the Imperial Edict No. 41 in his referring to the "dokdo" if it was indeed "Seokdo".
I can safely say that, during his three years by that time on the island, he obviously had heard by word of mouth and vaguely knew about an island refered as "dokdo" meaning "lone island" which his subjects hired by Japanese employers had frequented on Japanese ships since around 1900.
___________________________________
I think Shim mistook Jukdo, or 竹島石島 in Imperial Edict no.41 in 1900 with "Dokdo".
chaamiey,
ReplyDelete"鬱陵全島" alone could mean the entire islands of Ulleung including its mainland, Jukdo and Gwaneumdo.
So, if "Seokdo" was "Dokdo" as the Koreans claim, the Imperial Edict No. 41 should have written "鬱陵全島와石島" to avoid confusion.
___________________________________
「鬱陵全島」というのは島の名前ではなく「鬱陵島の全部」という説明用語です。したがって、続けて島の名前を羅列することは適当とは思えません。しかも鬱陵島本島と付属の２島は格が違います。「鬱陵全島と竹島石島」というように、ここで区切ることは自然なことと思います。
By the way, Sim Heung-taek left Ulleungdo in 1906 to become the governor of Hoengseong County (橫城郡) in Gangwondo and stayed in the office until September 6, 1911 when he was discharged from the post by the Government General (朝鮮總督府).
ReplyDeleteIt is not known what happened to him after that, but there are his descendants living in Korea as says the following newspaper article:
http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=200503171749491