According to THIS CHOSUN ILBO ARTICLE, a 1837 Japanese plaque warning Japanese not to travel to "Takeshima," which the article claims was "Dokdo," is being auctioned off. I think the following is a Japanese article talking about it "鬱陵島渡航禁止の触書がオークションに 韓国側の落札懸念"The Korean article says that the sign says, "Dokdo is Korean Land," but I am suspicious, so could someone give me the Japanese and a translation of what the sign really says? If possible, could I have the full text and translation?
Also, there seems to be fears that the sign might go to Korea if a Korean places the highest bid.
UPDATE
THIS ARTICLE from the Chosun Ilbo describes the sign as follows:
The above article is yet another very good example of how the Korean media is either ignorant of or is intentionally distorting the history. The 1837 Japanese sign referred to an island called "Takeshima" (竹島), not "Dokdo," and in 1837 Takeshima was the Japanese name for the Korean island of Ulleungdo. The name Takeshima was not used to refer to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) until 1905, when the rocks were incorporated into Japanese territory."Board Showing Dokdo as Korean Territory Found in Japan"
A wooden board which labels the Dokdo islets as Korean territory has been found in Japan.
According to the Sankei Shimbun, it was made in the 19th century and is due to be sold at auction next month. The plate says that the Dokdo islets belong to Chosun, the name of Korea at the time, and that sailing to the area is prohibited.
The Japanese media insist the islets mentioned on the board are in fact Ulleung Island, not Dokdo.
Arirang News
The Hamada Museum in Shimane Prefecture has a similar sign, which says the following:
"We thoroughly investigated the case of a man named Haji Uemon and others who sailed to Takeshima, to which it is forbidden to sail, and executed them for their crimes. Not only is it forbidden to sail aboard, but it also is forbidden to meet foreign ships."Notice that nothing was said about Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), which the Japanese called Matsushima (松島) at the time. I suspect that the board being talked about in the article says basically the same thing, which would mean the claim in the Korean article is just another ridiculous Dokdo claim.
Here is another article in Korea's KBS WORLD.
The sign does not say "Dokdo is Korean Land", but says "Takeshima is Korean Land".
ReplyDeleteOf course,Takeshima means Ulleungdo,in those days.
That Korean article is wrong.
I have a good feeling this auction company is trying to boost the price up. This is soooo funny. Korean never fail to replace "Takeshima"or "Matsushima" to "Dokdo" automatically and some researchers like 金文吉 is no exception. I don't mind Korean's buying this sign, but I just hope they are not going to burn it down when it turned out what it really says.
ReplyDeleteKorean media is making anti-Japan sentiment of Korean people bigger and bigger.
ReplyDeleteGerry,
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Sankei News article, it was about Aizuya Hachiemon who went to Ulleungdo and excuted in 1836. Kaneganese reported about him at the following posting:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/1836-chronicle-of-takeshima-incident.html
The sign was made and used in Takada of Echizen (today's Niigata prefecture).
And the sign only mentioned not to go to Ulleungdo (Takeshima), it didn't mention Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks). As everyone knows, Aizuya incident showed that Going to Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was banned but going to Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) was not banned.
Pacifist,
ReplyDeleteI am curious if the wording on the sign is the same as the wording on the sign in the Hamada Museum in Shimane Prefecture, which the book I am looking at said was made in 1839. The Hamada Museum sign supposely translates as follows:
"We thoroughly investigated the case of a man named Haji Uemon and others who sailed to Takeshima, to which it is forbidden to sail, and executed them for their crimes. Not only is it forbidden to sail aboard, but it also is forbidden to meet foreign ships."
Also, I want to confirm if the Hamada Museum sign was really made in 1839 or if that date is a misprint. Didn't the article say this new sign was made in 1837?
Gerry,
ReplyDeleteThe Sankei article clearly says that it was made in the 8th year of Tenpo (1837).
The whole wording of the sign was not written in the article but says that the sign was saying about the merchant of Hamada who went to Ulleungdo and excuted. It also says that there is a sentence "元禄之度朝鮮国江 御渡ニ相成候以来渡海停止候" (Since the years of Genroku when they went to Joseon, to go there is banned). It also says that the name of 高田役所 (Office of Takada) so that the sign may have been made by the office of Takada of Echizen (Niigata prefecture) by the order of the Edo shogunate.
Thank you, Pacifist. I suspect the sign says basically the same thing at the sign in the Hamada Museum.
ReplyDeleteGerry,
ReplyDeleteAs you have already stated in the post, the biggest problem is the distortion by the Korean media.
The tile of the article "Board Showing Dokdo as Korean Territory Found in Japan" should be "Board showing Ulleungdo as Korean Territory Found in Japan".
These distortions may be made intentionally in order to make Korean innocent people to believe "Dokodo is Korean territory".
Innocent people who read such articles time by time should firmly believe that "Dokdo" is Korean territory. This is brainwashing itself.
The most important problem in Korea is that media itself is doing brainwashing of their people.
翻字した原文を此方にも投稿しておきます。
ReplyDelete大田□□
今度 松平周防守元領分 石州
濱田松原浦ニ罷在候 無宿八右衛門
竹島江渡海致し候一件 吟味之上
右八右衛門其外 夫々厳科被行候 右嶋
往古は伯州米子之者も渡海魚漁
致し候得とも 元禄之度朝鮮國江
御渡ニ相成候 以来渡海停止被
仰付候場所ニ在之候 都異國渡海之儀
重御制禁候条 向後 右嶋之儀も同様
相心得 渡海致ましく候 勿論國々之
廻船等海上において異國船に不出會様
乗筋等心がけ可申旨 先年も相触候通
弥相守 以来は 可成たけ嶋 沖乗
不致様、乗廻り可申候。
右之通従 公儀被 仰出候間
常々無忘却 可相守者也
天保八年□月 高田役所
小嶋日向守さん、
ReplyDeleteあの看板の文字を判読なさったのですか。お疲れ様でした。まぎれもなく鬱陵島渡航禁止の件ですね。朝鮮日報の報道がウソ八百であったことが確定しました。
ありがとうございます。沖乗り関連で
ReplyDeletehttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=26948035&postID=8390302959507300862
13日にあちらにも投稿したのですが、問題は本文13行目ですね。
何度見直しても越後高田藩の高札は、完全に、「可成たけ嶋 沖乗」です。
大阪高麗橋のものも、「可成たけ島沖乗」で同じですが、
加賀藩で高札場に掛けられた御触書の史料集では、「可成たけ遠沖乗」です。
また、浜田の高札本体も「可成丈 遠沖乗」であるようです。
なお浜田のものについては「御触書御請印帳」という史料もあり
http://www.kr-jp.net/edo/tenpou8hure.pdf
こちらでは、「可成たけ遠沖乗」とひらがなが確認できます。
「嶋」か「遠」の一文字違いですが、テキストが二種あるようです。
なお題字は「大田舟□」かも知れません、
末尾の月は「八年四月」だと思います。
ところで、「右嶋」を曲解して現竹島と解釈するなどとは話にならない水準なのですが
http://dokdo.wiki.fc2.com/wiki/10082271071
こちら抔(など)を見ますと、韓国人は信じているようです。
幕府の指令は一種類だったはずなんでしょうけどねえ。何で土地によって文面が違うことになったんでしょうか、謎ですね。まあ、竹島領有権論争には影響のない部分ですが。
ReplyDeleteなお、「生かじり（수박 겉핥기）」氏は独島韓国領有権派ではありますが、日本語を良く解する人なので、さすがに「右嶋」の件については、朝鮮日報の記事に対して「残念だがそうは言えない」と言っています。
ああなるほど、「手足が縮む独島立て札の秘密」のほうに図解してあるのがその説明だったのですね。機械翻訳らしき日本語文が酷すぎて勘違いしました。
ReplyDelete私の不注意でした。수박 겉핥기さんごめんなさい。
またhttp://www.kr-jp.net/edo/tenpou8hure.pdf
にあるものは文面がほぼ同じなので石見浜田のものかと思いましたが、加賀藩のものだったようです。
高田藩のものは、本文末尾が「常々無忘却 可相守者也」と比較的シンプルです。
「嶋」と「遠」を比べてみますと、意味的には本来は、「なるべく竹島沖乗」の方が自然で本来のものだったような気がします。ですからどちらかというと、韓国側としては、松島や他の島々の沖合乗り入れも全てなるべく自粛すべきとも読み取れる、「遠沖乗」バージョンの方が購入する価値が高い高札であったかもしれません。つまり越後高田藩のものは、浜田の高札より、竹島(鬱陵島)だけに限定している要素が強く、その分、松島(現竹島)の沖乗りについては何ら問題にしていない要素が強いわけで、韓国側の主張をより否定する面の強い証拠となりました。
韓国側が自国の主張を補足するために取り上げた証拠が却って、またしても日本側の主張を補強する証拠となってしまったようです。