竹島問題の歴史

12.7.08

1928 - The name of Kwannondo(観音島) came from the "Stone Buddhas (石仏)" on the island.

Mr. Sugino(杉野洋明), who found 1906's Korean news paper article, which omits Dokdo from Uldo County (皇城新聞 「鬱島郡의 配置顛末) found new hint for the identity of 石島(Seokdo) in Imperial Edict No.41 in 1900 (大韓勅令第41号) .

According to the article he found this time, there were some Buddha shaped stones (石仏) on Kwannondo(観音島) , and it was started to be called the island as "観音島" later.

As you know, 観音(Kwannon), or 観音菩薩(Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara) is one of the Bodhisattva(菩薩). Technically, Bodhisattva is different from Buddha(仏) itself, but it is sometimes used as one of Buddhas.

Read more about the article : ★大韓帝国勅令41号の「石島」の正体は・・・(Japanese.)

1928年9月、東亜日報が鬱陵島の特集

32 comments:

  1. Kaneganese,

    Thanks for the post. Interesting. What did they pronounce "石仏" in Korean accent?

    BTW, the Japanese article says it was a 1928 newspaper article, not 1906.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've changed the post a bit since I noticed that it was not called 石仏"島". I didn't mean it , but it was misleading, sorry.

    pacifist,

    I don't know what the pronounciation for"石仏" in Korean. Mr. Sugino found 1906 aritcle, too. This time, it is 1928 article. Is it confusing?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for the link, gtomr

    I hope somebody's going to translate them for us.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kaneganese,

    I understand, the first article was in 1906...I misread the post, sorry.
    But the article in the post is talking about the 1928 newspaper article, am I right?

    ReplyDelete
  5. That's right. The article is from 1928 newspaper.

    As gtomr suggested, I think the area near 観音島, which is the north-east part of Ulleungdo, has many placenames related with "石". And as we know, 禹用鼎 didn't inspect south part of Ulleungdo in 1900.

    ReplyDelete
  6. kanaeganese,

    "石佛" is pronounced "Seokbul" in standard Korean.

    Anyway, you should not conclusively say in the title that "1828 - The name of Kwannondo (觀音島) came from the island of "Stone Buddha (石佛)".

    It is just a wild guess of a person who is not even a scholar.

    Besides, there are a few mistakes:

    1828 -> 1928
    Kwanondo -> Gwaneumdo

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you for the pronounciation and correction, raquel

    "It is just a wild guess of a person who is not even a scholar."

    I thought it is what 東亜日報 was saying in the article, isn't it? "観音島" was started to be called because there were many "石仏" on the island. I tried not to sound as if it was called "石仏島", which wasn't actually, but I'll think about the title. Because "島" is very important for the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  8. yabutarou0112/7/08 21:32

    携帯からぶしつけにすいません。杉野氏の記事で紹介されている柳美林氏の論文には何が書いてあるのかどなたか教えていただけませんでしょうか?パソコンの故障でここ一か月家でネットが使えなくて困っています。。。

    ReplyDelete
  9. yabutaroさん

    取り合えず、abstractは以下の通りです。

    Abstract : The Korean scholars have insisted that Seokdo, which had appeared in Imperial Ordinance No. 41, indicate Dokdo. But after a Japanese newspaper named the San-in Chuo Simpo reported they had discovered a new historical materials that could break the Korean claims,
    ‘Seokdo=Dokdo’ controversy is running high.
    The San-in Chuo Simpo made an assertion that Korean’s claim, ‘Dokdo is a Korean territory’, is broken in the end, quoting a Japanese ordinary man’s internet blog which analyzed Whang-sung Sinmun’s article(13th July, 1906).
    Imperial Ordinance No. 41 contains calling for ‘the changing of the name of island, from Ulleungdo to Uldo and the upgrading of the status of dogam to gunsu’. And Tonggam-bu(Japan’s ruling organization to
    intervene in Imperial ’s domestic politics) established in 1906 had ordered Nae-bu(內部) to give an explanation of when the islets that belongs to Ulleungdo and a small office(군청) had established, to investigate the
    Ulleungdo’s present state.
    After knowing the fact of Tonggam-bu’s order to investigate
    information on Ulleungdo, Whang-sung Sinmun asserted that the facts Jukdo and Seokdo are contained in Ulleungdo’s jurisdiction, carrying the
    article which named “the Details of Uldo gun’s Arrangement” again.
    However the San-in Chuo Simpo insisted that “if the figures meant the scope of Uldo gun, Korean’s claims are broken because the present Dokdo is located 92 kilometer southeast of Ulleungdo”. Their grounds lie
    in Whang-sung Sinmun’s article, which says, “Uldo gun’s jurisdiction islets are Ulleungdo, Jukdo and Seokdo. And the scope of Uldo gun is 60 lee(里) from east to west, 40 lee(里) from south to north, and 200 lee (里) in circumference.”
    But the distance had been referred in the newspaper must not be interpreted as the jurisdiction scope of Uldo gun, but the scope of Ulleungdo. Since the figures referred above did not make a difference from the present scope of Ulleungdo.
    We can prove it by historical documents of Chosun dynasty which
    Chosun’s investigator directly had surveyed Ulleungdo area by
    themselves. We should make a profound study why the distance which had not been referred in Imperial Ordinance No. 41 became appeared in Whang-sung Sinmun.

    韓国語は読めないので、機械翻訳して”We can prove it by historical documents of Chosun dynasty which
    Chosun’s investigator directly had surveyed Ulleungdo area by
    themselves.”が何なのか解読してみます。その価値があればいいんですけど。

    ReplyDelete
  10. ↑ 仮訳掲載中
    http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/chaamiey

    ReplyDelete
  11. chaamieyさん

    ありがとうございます。余りの長さにコピペ作業だけで疲れてしまったところです。続く、以降を楽しみにしています。(ブログも。)おそらく、今までのパターンからすると下條先生が反論をお載せになるかと思います。モグラタタキのようなものでしょうか。

    ReplyDelete
  12. yabutarou0113/7/08 21:38

    kaneganeseさん、chammydさん早速の対応ありがとうございました。どうもたいしたことは言っていないようです。。

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Donga Ilbo column by Yi Gil-yong from Sept. 8, 1928 is somewhat misleading.

    I think Yi Gil-yong should have written "Gwaneum Seokbul(觀音石佛)" instead of just "Seokbul(石佛)" which the name of Gwaneumdo had originated from.

    If Yi had written more precisely, I guess the Japanese blogger would not come up with his wild theory. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. raquel,

    Where did you find the word of "Gwaneum Seokbul(觀音石佛)" ?

    I could not find this word (觀音石佛) in the Donga Ilbo column written by Yi Gil-yong.

    ReplyDelete
  15. smartlespo,

    That's my point.

    Yi Gil-yong did not write it although he should have.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So, the title should be "The name of Gwaneumdo originated from the Gwaneum Seokbul (觀音石佛) in the island", which can not be a news title at all because it's not a news. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  17. raquel

    I'm not with you. Could you translate the article for me?

    ReplyDelete
  18. kanaeganese,

    What I mean is like this:

    Seokbul(<-Gwaneum Seokbul) -> Gwaneumdo

    The Column writer did not write the full name of the "Stone Buddhas", that is.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Perhaps, the Japanese blogger is just looking for his own publicity though his "sensational "findings".

    This time, I think, he was too quick to bite.

    ReplyDelete
  20. raquel

    "Seokbul(<-Gwaneum Seokbul) -> Gwaneumdo

    The Column writer did not write the full name of the "Stone Buddhas", that is."

    Mmmm. I still don't get it. Did he incinuate full name "観音石仏" is in the column? Where it is? By the way, "観音石仏" sounds a bid weird to me. If it is Japanese, it should be "石仏観音" instead.

    ReplyDelete
  21. kanaeganese,

    You should put aside your Japanese logic for the Korean things.

    It is "觀音石佛" in Korean.

    Also for "竹島石島" in the Imperial Edict No. 41, it means two separate islands if you read it with your Japanese logic, but it does not necessarily mean two separate islands with the Korean logic. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  22. So, my wild theory is that, if Japan had pointed it out to the Koreans that "竹島石島" does not necessarily mean two separate islands, Korea might have panicked and it might have changed the course of the Liancourt Rocks dispute between Japan and Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  23. raquel,

    I don't mind changing the title as you suggested as long as you give me more logical explanation. You need to explain why you think the column writer wrote, or should have written "観音石仏", not "石仏" in the article.

    As for 竹島石島, I checked Japanese scholar who's good at Korean and Chinese and he did admit it is gramatically possible to be one island(竹島=Jukdo).

    ReplyDelete
  24. kanaeganese,

    You don't seem to understand my point.

    What I'm saying is that it's not even a news.

    Gwaneumdo has its namesake in the (Gwaneum) Seokbul found in the island.

    Is this a news? I don't think so.

    If you wish to insist that "Seokbul" has something to do with "Seokdo", you better come up with a better proof.

    ReplyDelete
  25. kanaeganese,

    That's a good sign. :-)

    ___________________________________

    As for 竹島石島, I checked Japanese scholar who's good at Korean and Chinese and he did admit it is gramatically possible to be one island(竹島=Jukdo).

    ReplyDelete
  26. raquel

    "You don't seem to understand my point."

    No I don't. I'm keep telling you that. The point is, there were stones shaped like Bhuddha(石仏) on 観音島. At least, it is news to me. I didn't know that. I thought it was Japanese who named the island as "観音島" or "観音崎".

    By the way, Mr. Sugino, a blog owner said it is just a hint, not a proof. And he did say that it is his wild guess, too.

    ReplyDelete
  27. kanaeganese,

    I read his blog with a Korean friend from Japan, and the newspaper article is too weak to suggest that Gwaneumdo was once called "Seokdo".

    If the blogger had found a newspaper article that says Gwaneumdo was once called "Seokbuldo", then it would be a news to me.

    ___________________________________

    "石島と呼ばれていたと類推出来るような資料"

    ReplyDelete
  28. Again, the Japanese blogger is too conclusive with regard to the Donga Ilbo column from Sept. 8, 1928.

    I would not jump into such a conclusion that the document suggests which island "Seokdo" is.

    This is really a "wishful reading" rather than a wishful thinking. :-)

    ___________________________________

    "石島がどの島なのかを示唆する文献を、新たに発見することが出来た"

    ReplyDelete
  29. Above survey that you did wrote 'between Japan and Korea over Liancourt Rocks, which is a small group of rocky islets located in the Sea of Japan'.
    this, not Sea of Japan.
    This ocean is 'the East Sea'.
    please correct a manuscript:)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Korean,

    Thank you for your opinion, but the Sea of Japan is the international naming rather than East Sea.

    Please look at this site (Korean language):
    http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/maritime/japan/video_k.html

    And here is the United Nations' comment:

    "In response to the enquiry by the Government of Japan, the United Nations Secretariat officially replied on 10 March 2004, that 'Sea of Japan' is the standard geographical term and as such is to be used in official documents of the United Nations. It is confirmed that the name 'Sea of Japan' is authorized by the United Nations which is the most comprehensive and neutral international organization with the participation of 192 member states including both Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK), and the most proper forum to represent the collective will of the international community".

    Anyway thank you for your interest and thank you for using your ID. Please keep giving us your opinion, especially on the Takeshima/Dokdo issue.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anyone please advice where is the 龍岩谷 on this newspaper as follows;
    http://db.history.go.kr/front/dirservice/ibrowser/viewIpqDataNP.jsp?pItemCode=np_da&pIpqParam=np_da_19340207_z0001&pLevel=6&pDatabaseID=np_da&pRecordID=np_da_1934_02_07_0010&pTitle=%EB%8F%99%EC%95%84%EC%9D%BC%EB%B3%B4+%3E+1934%EB%85%84+%3E+02%EC%9B%94+%3E

    In the newspaper, they said something about South-myon Wadari(南面臥達里), so 龍岩谷 nearby Wadari(臥達里)?

    ReplyDelete