"Korea Maritime Institute(KMI : 韓国海洋水産開発院）, who lacks ability to read their own historical documents, cirticized on Shimane Prefecture. "
On April 27, 2009, KMI issued the article "Shimane Prefecture of Japan intensify the publicity of "Takeshima/Dokdo"only by advantageous historical resources"(Dokdo and oceanic territory briefing" No.09-60), claiming Shimane Prefecture is working on a biased information activities regarding Takeshima Issue. According to KMI's claim, the homepage of Shimane Prefecture "distorts the historical records" by "intentionally dismissing the official documents, such as the passage ban in 1696 or the Dajokan Order(太政官指令) in 1877, which, according to KMI, admitted (!?) that Ulleungdo and Dokto are the Joseon territories", and "especially, presenting 1846 edition of "Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads( 改定日本輿地路程全図)",dismissing the first edition, which, according to KMI again, notes Dokdo as Korean territory (!?)."
However, this KMI's claim is nothing but merely a sophistry for concealing Korea's own acts of invasion, who keeps occupying Takeshima unlawfully. Because the final report of Shimane Prefecture's Takeshima Research Center's "Surveillance study on the Takeshima Issue" and the pａｍｐｈｌｅｔ by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan "１０ Ｉｓｓｕｅｓ ｏｆ Ｔａｋｅｓｈｉｍａ" both empirically proved the fact that Takeshima/Dokdo had never been a territory of Korean before 1905, when Takeshima is incorporated into Shimane Prefecture.
Japan named the Liancourt Rocks, the uninhabited island that was terra nullius as Takeshima on January 28, 1905, and "make it control under the jurisdiction of the local government of Oki island of Shimane prefecture from now on (本邦所属)" based on International Law. On the other hand, South Korea somehow automatically replace all "Usando(于山島)" in the historical documents and maps into Dokdo when they read them and claim Takeshima/Dokdo as their territory while distorting historical records. Because of this distortion, Dokdo/Takeshima was said to have been Korean territory since 6th century(!?) and wrongfully "identified" Usandos even in "Annals of King Sejong (世宗莊憲大王實錄)" and "Dongguk Yeoji Seungram (東國輿地勝覽)" as today's Takeshima.
However, Korea's logical basis, notation of 東国文献備考, had been already exposed as falsification during the process of compilation of the book, and SK had already lost its grounds of an argument in order to claim the sovereignty of Takeshima/Dokdo. What South Korea had to do by all means was to prove the fact Takeshima/Dokdo was a South Korean territory without the notation("輿地志云 鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 于山則倭所謂松島也 (Yojiji says that Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk. Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima. )") of 東国文献備考, which had been exposed as alternation already.
Nevertheless, KMI dodged the controversy which would be fatal for them, taking up "the passage ban in 1696, "the Dajoukan Order(太政官指令) in 1877 and first edition of "Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads( 改定日本輿地路程全図)(1779)", and quibbled "Shimane Prefecture is working on a biased information activities regarding Takeshima Issue."
However, since Takeshima/Dokdo had nothing to do with Korean territory, therefore, the Japanese decision of Takeshima has absolutely nothing to do with Korea naturally. But KMI only argued about the colouration of Ulleungdo and Takeshima/Dokdo on the map and misconstrued/distorted that" Takeshima/Dokdo was described as Korean territory" if it was not coloured. But, the point for interpretation of "Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads( 改定日本輿地路程全図)" is not the colouring but the appendix noted next to Ulleungdo(Takeshima).This additional remark "見高麗猶雲州望隠州" was cited from the "Chronicle of the country (国代記)" in " Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)" compiled by Saito Hosen in 1667(寛文七年), and it states Ulleungdo was Japanese territory. The meaning of this remark is " (These two are uninhibited islands(此二嶋無人之地).) From there(Ulleungdo) you can view Korea, it is just like you view Onshu (Oki island) from Unshu (east of Shimane prefecture, mainland of Japan)(見高麗如自雲州望隠州)." And it is followed by the sentence"So then, the northwest of Japan, we make this island (Ulleungdo) (note : 州 means the island, state, province) to be the boundary(然則日本乾地以此州為限矣)." in Saito's book.
In South Korea, "此州" is interpreted as the Oki islands. Korean translate "" as Oki islands, However, most importantly, this sentence has important and necessary condition that from "this island/state/province", Choson (Korea) can be seen. It is impossible for us to see even Ulleungdo, not to mention Joseon from Oki. Naturally, "此州" should be interpreted as Ulleungdo.
That is easily proven to be true because in Kanbun(寛文 ; 1661-1672) years, when Saito Hosen compiled " Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)", Japanese then did have a recognition of Ulleungdo as Japanese territory, and in fact, Saito himself reported the cases of voyage to Ulleungdo in his book. Besides, in 1666（ 寛文六年）, a year before Saito compiled the book, 21 fishermen of the Ohyas(大谷家) from Yonago of Tottori clan, who left for fishing to Ulleungdo, drifted to Janggi(長鬐) in Choson. Edo Bakufu, Japanese government at that time, who was consenting to the seclusion policy, indeed acknowledged this shipwreck incident and Ohya family's Ulleungdo fishing activity as well.
Therefore, the fact there is notation on "Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads( 改定日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo cited from Chronicle of the country (国代記)" in " Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)", is the concrete proof that Nagakubo followed geographic recognition of Saito, who reported Ulleungdo as "the northwestern boundary of Japan", and considered Ulleungdo as Japanese territory.
Nonetheless, KMI disregarded this necessary notation and claimed Shimane Prefecture "dismissed the first edition of "Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads( 改定日本輿地路程全図)", which specially notes Dokdo as Korean territory (!?)". They are apparently racking their brains to manipulate public opinion in order to give people the impression as if Shimane prefecture is doing some kind of document manipulation.
However, what is indispensable for historical study is the existence of the document which can be grounds of an argument. In Saito's "Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)", he stated Ulleungdo as the northeastern limit of Japan, and Nagakubo's"Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads( 改定日本輿地路程全図)" followed him and clearly noted Ulleungdo as the northeastern limit of Japan. Daring to read Ulleungdo in stead of Oki island is only the act of camouflage which try to conceal the fact Takeshima couldn't be Korean territory.
As for this kind of deceptive/fraudulent document manipulation by KMI, it is demonstrated satisfactorily for the interpretation of "passage ban in 1696 and Dajokan instruction in 1877". KMI's interpretation that in those two documents, Japan "admitted that Ulleungdo and Takeshima/Dokto were the Korean territories" is also the malignant/tinpot "Distortion of historical materials".
As a matter of fact, the passage ban in 1696 by Edo Bakufu in concern was for ceding the permission to voyage to Ulleungdo which Edo Bakufu had been giving to Ohya and Murakawa family, thus it has nothing to do with today's Takeshima. The fact that Tsushima clan fought over Ulleungdo, not today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks, against Joseon government also contributes to consolidate Japanese claim. Again it is clear that it was Ulleungdo alone that Edo Bakufu, the government, prohibited to voyage, while Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks was not even hinted in the ban.
The reason KMI insists obstinately, against all the confronting evidences, saying that "It was admitted as Korean territory" is because Tottori clan answered that "Takeshima(Ulleungdo) doesn't belong to Inaba nor Hohki(因幡伯耆)" and "There are no islands as Takeshima, Matsushima and others attached to both (Inaba and Hohki) countries."when Edo Bakufu made inquiry to Tottori clan regarding the title to Takeshima(Ulleungdo). However, the licence to Ulleungdo Voyage was issued to The Ohyas and Murakawas by Edo Bakufu, not to Tottori clan, thus it has nothing to do with Tottori clan in the first place. Consequently, it is natural for Tottori clan to answer "Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks) don't belong to Inaba nor Hohki ". KMI's streaching this as " was admitted they are Korean territory" is an unenlightened remarks by the person who are utterly ignorant of the historical distinguish Japanese feudality system from Joseon's commandery/district system in heavily-centralized nation.Same goes to the distorting interpretation of 1877's Dajokan instruction, which the Cabinet said that "Takeshima and the other island has nothing to do with our country." Korean assumes this "other island" as today's Takeshima and made it as a basis for the claim that Japanese government decided Takeshima was not Japanese territory. Only because "The rough sketch of Isotakeshima (磯竹島略図)" which Shimane prefecture submitted to the government in 1876, described Isotakeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(Takeshima) and both islands are mentioned in the documents submitted, Korean declared Matsushima or "the other island"as today's Takeshima. (* to the left is a cutout from "The rough sketch of Isotakeshima (磯竹島略図)".)
However, the document/text criticism is indispensable for this 1977 Dajokan instruction as well , since the name of Takeshima and Matsushima were already conveyed to the West by means of Siebold's "Map of Japan" in 1840 and those two islands were wrongfully plotted in the western sea-charts and maps at that time. In Siebold's "Map of Japan", Argonaut, which later declined its existence, was depicted as Takeshima and Matsushima was Dagelet(Ulleungdo). This made maps and sea-charts that had been circulated in Japan depict Ulleungdo as Matsushima. In results, Matsushima, "the other island" in Dajokan instruction meant Ulleungdo(Dagelet), not today's Takeshima.
On the other hand, the existence of Liancourt Rock, which was renamed as "Takeshima" and incorporated into Shimane in 1905, was ascertained by Le Liancourt, the French whaling ship, in 1849. Accordingly, 1864 edition of British Royal Navy's Sea-chart described Liancourt Rocks(today's Takeshima) along with Takeshima(Argonaut) and Matsushima(Ulleungdo). Among those three islands, Takeshima(Argonaut), which couldn't be identified, disappeared from 1876 edition of British Navy Sea-chart, and since then, Matsushima(Ulleungdo) and Liancourt Rocks were described on the sea-charts. In results, the maps produced referring to the chart prior to 1876 version didn't describe today's Takeshima.
This fact leads the same conclusion that Matsushima(Dagelet island), "Takeshima the other island has nothing to do with Japan" in 1877 Dajokan instruction meant Ulleungdo(Dagelet), not today's Takeshima. This was officially confirmed by the Warship Amagi's surveillance on Ulleungdo. The Amagi confirmed not only Matsushima being Ulleungdo but also "Jukdo(竹嶼/ Korea's 竹島)" which locates 2km away from Ulleungdo. This surveillance record was adopted by Kitazawa Masanari, a MOFA employee, in his book "A Study of Takeshima (Takeshima Kosho:竹島考証) " and "A Study of the Territorial Sovereignty on Takeshima (Takeshima Hanto Shozoku Koh : 竹島版図所属考)". And this Japanese decision led 竹嶼/Jukdo written as 竹島/Jukdo in place of their current/old name of Usando(于山島) in Korea.
As has been seen, the Meiji government confirmed that "Matsushima" was in fact a Ulleungdo, not old Matsushma/today's Takeshima based on Kiatazawa's book "A Study of the Territorial Sovereignty on Takeshima (Takeshima Hanto Shozoku Koh : 竹島版図所属考)". On the other hand, KMI, ingoring this historical fact, distorted and got it into their head that Dajokan, the top policymaking group in Japan, said today's Takeshima was unrelated to Japanese territory,
The territorial issue of Japan-South Korea would never be solved as long as South Korea neglects the document criticism and moreover, in Korea, propaganda and the historical study are not distinguished. The South Korea's KMI made a wild and wrong guess, criticizing the homepage of Shimane Prefecture as " Strengthen the publicity of "Takeshima/Dokdo"only by advantageous historical resources", and it stems from their lack of ability of historical resources. Keeping cheating the international society as South Korea's repeating "Misinterpretation of historical materials" remarkably ruins the national interest of South Korea herself. What KMI should do is not to fabricate a groundless history nor to continue spreading the propaganda to criticize Japan, like they are doing up to now. What they are required to do is to demonstrate the validity of their claim, if Takeshima really was their territory, by the evidence of historical documentation.
“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第１９回 文献が読めない韓国海洋水産開発院の島根県批判について 下條正男”
Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.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)."
References :
Shimane Prefecture (Eng. Jap. & Kor.)
Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Eng.)
1696 - Ordinance Prohibiting Voyages to Takeshima (幕府 渡航禁制令)
1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)
Q1: Has Dokdo been a part of Korea since the sixth century?
Q 2: What is Ulleungdo's largest neighboring island?
Q 3: Why did old Korean maps show Ulleungdo as two islands?
Q 4: Did King Sejong's geography text mention Dokdo?
Q 5: Did Korea's 1530 "Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungram" mention Dokdo?
1656 - "Yojiji (輿地志)" by Ryu Hyung-won (柳馨遠) didn't say "Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima."
1667 - Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)
1667 - "Onshu Shicho Goki(隠州視聴合記)" - The different translations
1905 - January 28th: the decision to incorporate Takeshima in to Shimane by a Cabinet meeting （公文類集第29編 竹島編入閣議決定）
1881- Kitazawa Masanari(北澤正誠), a official of MOFA concluded that "Takeshima" is Jukdo in "A Study of Takeshima (Takeshima Kosho 竹島考証) "
1882 April 7 - King Kojong says Usando Neighboring Island of Ulleungdo (高宗実録 19卷, 19年 4月 7日 壬戌)
5th images from the top is a "1876 (British) Royal Navy chart" and it is from Steve's site. If anybody know any information of 1876 british seachart or 1864 one, please let me know. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Kaneganese.
ReplyDeleteProf. Shimojo took good points, these points have been basis for young Korean's opinions concerning the reasons why Dokdo belongs to Korea.
Now Usando was not Liancourt Rocks, "Onshu-shicho-goki" didn't mention that Dokdo belonged to Korea (it meant merely Ulleungdo belonged to Japan), the two islands that the Meiji government admitted to be Korean territory didn't mean Liancourt Rocks belonged to them.
Korea's claim is now proved to be nothing.
How do they justify Korea's occupation of Liancourt Rocks by force?
If Liancourt Rocks haven not been Korea's territory, isn't it an invasion?
Still I couldnt find chart 2347 ver.1876.
ReplyDeleteBefore I told the story of chart and if you want to know details please see here.
http://www1.kaiho.mlit.go.jp/GIJUTSUKOKUSAI/KENKYU/report/rhr43/rhr43-01.pdf
Thanks, GTOMR
ReplyDeleteI've read his article before and it is exellent. But I was surprised to know they don't have British Navy Charts in 1800s. His flowchart of British Naval seacharts is very useful.
Regarding Prof. Shimojo's interpretation of "The rough sketch of Isotakeshima (磯竹島略図)"
ReplyDeleteWho said Prof. Shimojo is intelligent? He lies about things which could be very easily revealed. It's Prof. Shimojo who distorts the Dajokna Order of 1877.
In 1877, Dajokan instructed Japans Ministry of Interior to remember that 磯竹島(Ulleungdo) and another island in the sea of Japan(East Sea) have nothing to do with Japan and attached 磯竹島略図 to clarify what the another island is. 磯竹島 and 松島 in 磯竹島略図 are today's Ulleugdo and Dokdo, respectively which Edo Bakufu disputed with Korea and prohibited Japanese to voyage in 1696 because they are Korean territory.
松島 in 磯竹島略図 definitely corresponds to today's Dokdo. The reasons are:
1. Prof. Shimojo showed in his column just the cutout of 磯竹島略図. The whole map of 磯竹島略図 is HERE.
松島 in 磯竹島略図 consists of two islets. Its Today's Dokdo that consists of two islets, not Ulleungdo. If this map was influenced by wrong western maps as Prof. Shimojo insists, 松島(=Prof. Shimojo's Ulleungdo) shouldn't have two small islets.
There were no western maps which depicted Ulleungdo(Dagelet) as an island with two small islets. 磯竹島略図 has nothing to do with western mapping error.
2. There is an attached document to Dajokan Order which verifies 松島 in 磯竹島略図 is today's Dokdo. The attached document explains 'another land' as follows:
“…磯竹島 (Isotakeshima or Isotakejima) has another name, 竹島 (=Ulleungdo). It is north-west of Oki province and the distance from Oki is about 120里. The circumference is 10里...................... Next, there is “another island” called 松島 (=Dokdo). The circumference is about 30町, It is on the same sea route as 竹島 (Ulleungdo). The distance from Oki is about 80里. Trees and a bamboos are rare. It yields fishes and sea animals, too."
According to this description, "another island" is definitely 松島 and 松島 is today's Dokdo which Japanese voyaged to during 17th century and 松島 was clearly depicted in 磯竹島略図. This document wasn't affected by western wrong maps as Prof. Shimojo misleads.
3. Dajokan didn't conduct a new investigation to make 磯竹島略圖. 磯竹島略圖 was the result of referencing the old document and map. Of course, Japan's old documents and maps of 17th century weren't influenced by western mapping error which happened in 19th century.
磯竹島略圖 is known as the copy of Kotani Ihei (小谷伊兵衛)'s map(小谷伊兵衛より差出候竹嶋之絵図) which Tottori clan submitted to Edo Bakufu in 1696. The image of Kotani's map is HERE.
In 磯竹島略圖, there are wordings such as "about 80里 from Fukuura in Oki island to Matsushima(松島=Dokdo)" and "about 40里 from Isotakeshima(Ulleongdo) to Matshshima(隠岐島後福浦ヨリ松島ヲ距ル. 乾位 八十里許/. 松島ヨリ磯竹島ヲ距ル. 乾位 四 十里許)". Those wordings were cited from those of Kotani's map.
In other words, 磯竹島略圖, was influenced by the Japan's old document and map of 17th century, not by western mapping error of 19th century.
Taking those facts into consideration, Prof. Shimojo's assertion that Ulleungdo was depicted as 松島 in 磯竹島略図 because of Japanese geographical confusion resulted from western mapping error is nothing but one of the examples of his academic dishonesty.
Dajokan Order of 1877 and '磯竹島略図' clearly confirmed Dokdo is Korean territory. It's solid truth. As long as Dajokna Order and 磯竹島略図 exist, Japan's incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 can never be justified as legal.
I'm sorry for those who follow Prof. Shimojo's distorted claim and Japanese who are unknowingly misled by him.