竹島問題の歴史

21.10.09

The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”, Part 2

Below is the second part of the translation of The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao


" Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr.Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)” - Part 2"

(1) Takeshima and Matsushima in the Government Compilation Geography Books

Mr. Park enumerated the article "Oki(隠岐)" of 'Nihon Chishi Teiyo, vol.50 (Japanese topography summary : 日本地誌提要)", which is compiled by the government, as grounds to which the Meiji era government made Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks) "Outside the territory in Japan." In the article of "Islands" of the same book, following "Shimazushima(島津島)" and "Matsushima(松島)", "the adjacent islands/dependencies of Oki" are enumerated as follows.

Ohmori island(大森島). It belongs to Tsuto village of Ochi Town. Twenty-cho north of Matsushima. The circumference is 25-cho and 57-ken. From east to west, it is 7-cho. South to north, 7-cho. ○ The dependency of "This Country(Honshu : 本州)". Chibu town, 45. Ama town, 16. Suki town, 75. Ochi Town, 43. 179 in total. Those are called Oki's small islands, in general. ○ And there are 2 islands, Matsushima and Takeshima, to north-west. According to the local's information passed down, people sail to Matsushima from Fukuura harbour. About 69-ri 35-cho in sea route. (From Oki's Fukuura) To Takeshima. About 100-ri and 4-cho. To Joseon. About 136-ri 30 cho in sea route.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 「大森島。穏地郡津戸村に属す。松島の北弐拾町。周回弐拾五町五拾七間。東西七町。南北五町。○本州の属島。知夫郡四拾五。海士郡壱拾六。周吉郡七拾五。穏地郡四拾三。合計壱百七拾九。之を総称して隠岐の小島と云。○又西北に方りて松島竹島の二島あり。土俗相伝えて云ふ。穏地郡福浦港より松島に至る。海路凡六拾九里参拾五町。竹島に至る。海路凡百里四町余。朝鮮に至る海路凡百三十六里参拾町」

Mr. Park derived the following conclusions from the description of this 'Japanese topography summary'.

It is important that this geography book, compiled by government, described Takeshima and Matsushima separately from the belonging island in the Mainland(本州). If two islands are not dependency of mainland, naturally, they are neither the dependency of Kyushu nor Hokkaido, thus it is understood that both islands were treated as outside of Japanese territory. (p34)

Mr. Park literally interpreted "belonging island in the Honshu(本州)" of the text here as the "Mainland (of Japan)", not "This Country(=Oki)", and interpreted Takeshima and was Matsushima of the following sentence, "○ And there are 2 islands, Matsushima and Takeshima、 to north-west." , are not dependency of Honshu(mainland).

However, "Belonging island in the Honshu" said by "Oki" of
'Nihon Chishi Teiyo' means "Belonging island in Oki Country(=Hon-shu : this country) ". That is apparent since in the article of Oki's "Situation" and "Government", all the word "州" are used for Oki itself, not a mainland of Japan(本州 : Honshu).

Besides, this book enumerates Shimazushima(島津島)", "Matsushima(松島)" and "Ohmori shima(大森島)" followed by the sentence "The dependency of "This Country(=Oki)" because the author meant that "Oki" has 179 tiny islets along with Shimazushima or Ohmorishima and there are two more islands "Takeshima and Matsushima" to the north-west. Thus, there is no trace, as Mr. Park claims, that "Takeshima and Matsushima were separately from the adjacent island in the Honshu(本州). " It is twisting an argument for him to insist that "If two islands are not dependency of mainland, naturally, they are neither the dependency of Kyushu nor Hokkaido, thus it is understood that both islands were treated as outside of Japanese territory."

In addition, in the article of "Oki" of this book, it say "From Takeshima(Ulleungdo) of the two islands to Joseon, it is about 136-ris and 30 cho by the sea." That is the concrete evidence the author of the book considered Takeshima(Ulleungdo) as Japanese territory, or he wouldn't have written the distance from Takeshima to Joseon.

Mr. Park ignored this fact and concluded that both islands were treated as the outside of Japanese territory based on this article of "Oki" of this book. He even cited Tanaka Akamaro(田中阿歌麻呂)'s "Old record of Takeshima of Oki Country"(Journal of Geography, Vol. 17, No. 8, 1905), and claimed that "Tanaka, the geographer of Meiji period, also considered as it was (outside of Japanese territory)".

"In the first year of the Meiji era(1968), the geography division of central government( 正院地誌課) denied Japan's sovereignty of "that(Takeshima=Dokdo, noted by Mr. Park)" and it led the maps published afterward showed the existence of "that" . Miyamoto Sanpei(宮本三平)'s "The map of Japanese Empire", published by the Ministry of Education, depicted it but didn't color it putting outside of the territory of the empire." (p34)

However, notably, Mr. Park used trick into the quote here. He inserted the note "that(Takeshima=Dokdo, noted by Mr. Park)" in Tanaka's article and claimed that Tanaka also considered Takeshima=Dokdo as outside of Japanese territory.

But, it totally disobeys the intention of Tanaka Akamaro. Because Tanaka soon corrected that "Takeshima of Oki" in the former article was not today's Takeshima ,as Mr. Park noted, in the very opening of "Additional remark" in the end of a book, in which he worte the article titled "The geography knowledge of Takeshima of Oki Country"(Journal of Geography, Vol. 18, No. 6, 1906) next year.


According to the article mentioned above, the article "Old record of Takeshima of Oki Country" in the no.200, 201 and 202 of the journal was not about Takeshima, but Ulleungdo. (p419)
------------------------------------------------------------
「以上の記事によれば本誌第二百号二百一号及び二百二号に掲げたる「隠岐国竹島に関する旧記」の記事は全く竹島の記事に非ずして欝陵島の記事なるが如し」(419頁)

As it is clear, Tanaka voluntarily corrected his own mistake of having confused Takeshima with Ulleungdo next year, and corrected in the additional remark. For all the fact, Mr. Park intentionally inserted the deceiving note "that(Takeshima=Dokdo, noted by Mr. Park)". Mr. Park, who twisted the "Oki" 'Nihon Chishi Teiyo' even dishonestly altered the article of Tanaka Akamaro so that he can use it as a logical base for him to claim that Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(today's Takeshima) was made outside of Japanese territory.


Mr. Park has preoccupying opinion that "The Meiji government consistently held fast to the policy of making Takeshima and Matsushima outside the territory of Japan until the "the incorporation of Ryanko-to(Takeshima=Dokdo)" in 1905", and this biased preconception made him arbitrarily interpret and even fabricates the factious history.


However, there were certain recognition that Takeshima and Matsushima were Japanese territory in the Meiji era. It stems from
"Records on Observations in Oki Province (Onshu-shicho-goki : 隠州視聴合記)", which wrote Takeshima and Matsushima are the northwest limit of Japan (note 1), and Ohtsuki Shuhei(大槻修平)'s 'Saikoku Nihon Chishi Yoryaku (Revised Summary of Japanese Topography)' (1875) also follows it.(note 2) Mr. Park's claim, "it is not too much to say that all the governmental organization which has strong relation to Takeshima and Matsushima considered Dokdo to be Joseon territory(p46)", is totally groundless, since it turns out that Matsushima of the "Takeshima and the other island" in the 1877's Dajokan instruction was actually Ulleungdo, not today's Takeshia and this order, "Takeshima and the other island has nothing to do with our country.", didn't include today's Takeshima.

(note 1) Refer to colum no. 6 & 7

(note 2) In "Oki" articles of Otsuki Shuhei(大 槻修平)'s "Revised Japanese topography summary' (vol. 5) , it is recorded as follows. "To begin with, this country is the westernmost and is solitary island in Sea of Japan, and to the northwest sea, it exists both Matsushima Takeshima. It is said that both of them are close to Joseon area, but there are no inhabitants nor government for belonging and people from each area made it as a hunting grounds where they often came to hunt sealions.

“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第22回 朴炳渉氏の「明治政府の竹島=独島認識」(「北東アジア文化研究」第28号)を駁す 下條正男”


Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.



The 24th column “South Korean Government dug their own grave by publishing the English version of "The Dokdo/Takeshima Controversy" by Prof. Emeritus Naito Seichu and Mr. Park Byeong-seop.”


The 23rd column " Refutation against the report of South Korean Yonhap News Agency which misread the Mori Kohan(森幸安)'s "The Map of Tsushima(對馬輿地図)"


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 19th column “"Korea Maritime Institute(KMI : 韓国海洋水産開発院), who lacks ability to read their own historical documents, criticized on Shimane Prefecture. "”

The 18th columnAbsurd and Peculiar Theory of Prof. Hosaka, plus the "Children and textbook nationwide net 21" and others' Getting "Out of Control.”

The 17th column “The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年).

The 16th column ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."

The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"

The 14th column “A reckless Courage of the Professor Kimishima Kazuhiko(君島和彦) of Tokyo Gakugei University(東京学芸大学).

The 13th column “Sins of Asahi Shimbun and Mr. Wakamiya Yoshibumi(若宮啓文).

The 12th column “Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding”

The 11th column “South Korea's Misunderstanding of 'A Map of Three Adjoining Countries (Sangoku Setsujozu 三国接壌図)' by Hayashi Shihei(林子平)”

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)."

Reference :

1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876 (Part 1/2) (島根県 渡航禁止のいきさつ)

1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876 (Part 2/2) (島根県 (竹島の)由来の概略)


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)

1880 - Japanese Warship "Amagi" (軍艦天城) Surveys Ulleungdo and finds "Takeshima" is Jukdo.

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)

20 comments:

  1. Kaneganeseさん

    回復しましたか?


    「卞栄泰 外務長官の声明」について前に議論していたサイトに投稿しました。

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2009/08/21th-column-seeking-truth-based-solely.html

    お読みいただければ幸いです。

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kaneganese様、標題ですが、「22th」ではなく「22nd」ではないかと思います。

    ReplyDelete
  3. pacifist様

    有難うございます。

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kaneganese.

    Long time no see.



    You wrote:

    In addition, in the article of "Oki" of this book, it say "From Takeshima(Ulleungdo) of the two islands to Joseon, it is about 136-ris and 30 cho by the sea." That is the concrete evidence the author of the book considered Takeshima(Ulleungdo) as Japanese territory, or he wouldn't have written the distance from Takeshima to Joseon.

    That is the translation of this sentence :

    さらに『日本地誌提要』の「隠岐」で、「竹島松島の二島」の竹島(欝陵島)から「朝鮮に至る海路凡百三拾六里三拾町」とするのは、竹島(欝陵島)を日本領として認識していた証左で、そのため朝鮮までの海路を「凡百三拾六里三拾町」としているのである。( http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04-2/takeshima05-d.html)


    Your translation is right. But,...
    As you know, 隱州視聽合紀 says :

    此二島無人之地見高麗如自雲州望隱州

    (These two islands are uninhabited ones and looking Koryeo from there is just like looking Oki from Onshu.)



    If the distance from 福浦港 to 松島 is about 69里35町 cho, and from 福浦港 to 竹島 is about 100里 4町, how can '136里 30町' be the distance from Ulleungdo to 朝鮮(Korea mainland)? You will know the distance from Onshu to Oki. Is it much nearer than Ulleung - Joseon ?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry !

    Correction :

    此二島無人之地見高麗如自雲州望隱州
    (These two islands are uninhabited ones and looking at Koryeo from there is just like looking at Onshu(Oki) from Unshu(Izumo).)

    If the distance from 福浦港 to 松島 is about 69里35町, and from 福浦港 to 竹島 is about 100里 4町, how can '136里 30町' be the distance from Ulleungdo to 朝鮮(Korea mainland)? You will know the distance from Unshu(出雲) to Onshu(殷岐). Is it about 136里 30町 or so? And, a 'concrete evidence'?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi, MC

    Sorry that I had overlooked your question.

    First of all, I'm just translating what Prof. wrote. Don't shoot the messanger !! (← I'm joking.)

    Second of all, the book 'Nihon Chishi Teiyo, vol.50 (Japanese topography summary : 日本地誌提要)" was written in Meiji era, so it is a bit strange for me to compare the description of the distance of it with the one in "Onshu Shicho Ghoki" which was written in mid 1600s. The description of the distance very much differs from the early Edo to the late Edo, not to mention of Meiji.

    And lastly, maybe I should have made it clear that the distance to Takeshima is not from Oki, but from Matsushima. Usually, distance of the two islands were written as so unless clearly described that it is from Oki to Takeshima. Sometime, the Subject is omitted in Japanese. I believe Korean does it, too.

    Anyway, the answer to your question is this. You totally miss the point. The point is not the distance, but the facts that in this book, those two islands(Matsushima and Takeshima) are written under the category of the islands of Oki Country(本州=隠岐州), unlike Mr. Park distorted. That's why it was written as "(From Ulleungdo) to Joseon, the distance is 136 ris and 30 Cho. " The sentence itslf exclude Takeshima from Joseon.

    Still, a lots of thanks for reading the article. It was very nice of you. And sorry for my humble translation since it caused you the confusion. (I'm staying at my parents's house for a vacation, so I won't be online often. But I'll try to be here as much as possible.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kaneganese. Thank you for answering me and sorry for being late.
    1. You said :
    First of all, I'm just translating what Prof. wrote. ...

    Yes, you're right. You are not responsible to my question. You are only responsible to your translation aprofessor's article of a professor into English. I think your translaton is perfect. I can't find any mistakes in your translation. But, I thought you are able to answer my question. So, my Q to U is much improper but a little proper.


    2. You said :
    The description of the distance very much differs from the early Edo to the late Edo, not to mention of Meiji.

    If so, how much is 1里 in those sentences in modern standard measure unit?
    ① 1里(Japan)=36町×360(尺/町)×(10/33)(m/尺)=(43.2/11)km=3.927km
    ② 1里(Korea) ≒ 0.4km
    ③ 1里=1浬 =1海里(nautical mile) =1.857km

    And, I will quot some part in the same book page 70/177

    :
    知夫(チブリ)島ハ 出雲島根郡加賀浦ノ正北壹拾壹里三拾町ニアリ、
    Chiburi Island is located in 11 ri 30 cho at the right north of 加賀 Harbor,, Tottori, Isumo.

    In that part, the distance between Oki(隱崎) and Izumo(出雲) is 11里30町. In the other hand, at the same part "Oki(隱崎)", the distance from Ulleung to Joseon is 136里 30町(海路凡百三拾六里三拾町)?

    Different unit or same? What unit? I'm very curious.


    3. You said :
    Sometime, the Subject is omitted in Japanese. I believe Korean does it, too.

    What was omitted? Not 'from Fuku-ura'? Is this wrong? :
    穩地郡 福浦港~松島 : about 69ri 35cho(274.8km),
    穩地郡 福浦港~竹島 : about 100ri 4cho(393.1km),
    穩地郡 福浦港~朝鮮 : about 136ri 30cho(537.3km)
    * I adjusted 1里=36町= =1浬 = 1mile=1,857m unit to this calculation.

    4. You said :
    those two islands(Matsushima and Takeshima) are written under the category of the islands of Oki Country(本州=隠岐州), unlike Mr. Park distorted.

    I also think 本州 means 隠岐(Oki). I don't think 本州 means 本州島(the main island of Japan).
    We can summarize like this :
    Large-sized : Tojen島前(知夫島, 西島, 中島), Togo島後
    Middle-sized : Shimazu島津, Mastu松, Ohomori大森
    Small-sized : 179 islands in total.
    And, 松島 竹島 ! (is this mini-sized?)

    There are many sections as follows. :
    疆域, 形勢, 郡數, 戶數, 人口, 田圃, 租稅, 縣治, 軍鎭, 學校, 海路, 山嶽, 鑛山, 瀑布, 海灣, 岬角, 海峽, 島嶼, 巖草, 神社, 物産

    There are no mention in all sections except 島嶼. And, the book discribed nothing but direction and distance.

    And, the book quotted the residents' saying : 土俗相傳テ云フ。~~~ (The residents say that ... )

    My last punch today!

    疆域 means :
    1 土地のさかい。また、境界内の土地。The border of a land. Or, the land within a border.
    2 分野。領域。Area. Territory.

    But, see here p.70/177 ~ p.71/177 :

     知夫(チブリ)島ハ 出雲島根郡加賀浦ノ正北壹拾壹里三拾町ニアリ、

    周回六里三拾壹町壹拾九間、東西壹里壹拾五町、南北貳拾五町、

    西ノ島ハ東北一峽ヲ隔テ知夫島ニ對ス、周回貳拾里貳拾六町五拾六間半、東西三里貳拾町、南北貳里、

    中ノ島ハ西島ノ東壹拾貳町ニアリ、周回壹拾六里貳拾壹町壹拾壹間、東西壹里三拾町、南北壹里貳拾四町、

    以上三島ヲ島前ト云、島後一島ハ中島ノ東北三里餘ニアリ、周回三拾里壹拾七町五拾四間半、東西四里、南北四里三拾町、

    島前海士郡知知井村ヨリ島後隱地郡都萬村ニ至ル 海上直徑四里三町

    Did it include the two islands?
    Is it possible that some lands out of one's territory can be one's territory?
    Isn't is a nonsense? Isn't it a self-contradiction?


    Oh, my bullets are almost gone. I will not be back for the time being until I fill them. So, don't expect my quick reply. So long.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi MC,

    You don't have to be sorry at all. The later the better for me since I'm also extremely busy.

    As for the distance from Kaka to Chiburi, it looks like 65km or less. So "11 ri 30 cho" is probably used in Japnese ris( 1 ri = 4km). I couldn't precisely locate where is "加賀浦", so I used "加賀" shrine instead. It is not the right south of Chiburi, so the distance could be shorten compared to 64.29km.

    The distance from Chiburi to Yatuka of Shimane

    As for the distances between islands, it is not nautical miles nor old ris, I guess. It does say that distances are "on the sea" and they are recorded "according to locals". So the distances are not accurate in the first place. The distance from Oki to Matsushima is too short if the distance from Joseon to Takeshima is right.

    In Meiji era, the whereabouts and the identity of the two islands were extremely comfused in Japan, though the description of the islands in this book are almost certainly about Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks since it is based on the story of locals. As you know, when in 1877, Dajokan asked about Takeshima and Matsushima( or Takeshima and another island : both islands were identified as Ulleungdo later ), Shimane prefecture answered about ancient Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks), but Dajokan order didn't mention about ancient Matsushima since it is uninhabitable island and doesn't fit with the description with Matsushima the central government knew. Doajokan Order in 1877 only says that Takeshima and othe island (both Ulleungdo) are not Japan's. In 1880, warship Amagi found that Matsushima was Ulleungdo and Takeshima(phantom island Argonaut) on the western maps doesn't exist, but it was just a rock near Ulleungdo(竹嶼 : Korean name 竹島). However, those coufusion still remains in many books and maps throughout Meiji. For example, Yoshida Togo, Hibata sekko and even Tanaka Akamaro first wrongfully wrote as ancient Matsushima (Tanaka later corrected the mistake, but Mr. Park intentionally ignored this correction. This kind of distortion is not acceptable), all of them whom you guys always cite as a evidence of Matsushima in Meiji was Liancourt Rocks, Moreover, "竹島" and "松島" themselves are common names for islands as you yorself have shown in the post 1823 - "Haedong Yeoksa sok" (海東繹史續). We always have to be careful for the true identity of Matsushima in Meiji era or you'll make fool out of yourself as Mr. Park does.

    As for your "last punch ", it only mentions about the main islands of Oki. Oki consists of 180 tiny islands and thousands of rocks, so it is not that odd that those two islands afar were not mentioned in this part. What I believe is that in this book, Liancourt Rock was included in Oki, but to tell you the truth, it was not always the case. The ownership of the land in feudal Edo era was extremely complicate. Tottori clan considered not theirs. Edo Shogunate considered Tottori's. Murakawa and Ohya family considered theirs. Saito Hohsen, the author of Onshu shicho Gohki seems to have considered Oki country's. Some seems to have considered it doesn't owned by anyone as we can see on some of the old maps which left those two islands uncoloured. However, there are no trace that Japanese considred Liancourt Rocks as Joseon's territory. After the Meiji restoration, ancient Matsushima was almost ignored and it was apparently not considered to be the adjacent island of Ulleungdosince it was not economically important until Japanese from Oki started to hunt sealions around 1903. That's why Japanese government officially incorporated the island as terra nullis into Shimane according to international law.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anyway, I'm sorry that I couldn't give you more clearer answer about the distance of the islands. This is the best I could do at the moment. If I could get more detailed information, I'll inform you ASAP.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Correction.
    島根郡= Shimane (Tottori=鳥取縣. confusing ! *_*)

    Anyway, good morning.

    I will upload my comment.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 1.
    Translation of the phrase "土俗相傳テ云フ。(土俗相伝えて云ふ。)" :

    You translated it as 'according to the locals, ...'. Very simple, but need to be more precise. Just a minor point.
    I will tranlate it like this :
    It is said that some sayings are handed down hereditarily among the local people as follows.

    2.
    Major point !!
    I said :
    穩地郡 福浦港~松島 : about 69里 35町(274.8km),
    穩地郡 福浦港~竹島 : about 100里 4町(393.1km),
    穩地郡 福浦港~朝鮮 : about 136里 30町(537.3km)
    I applied Japanese ri, not nautical mile. (Sorry!) When we apply nautical mile, it will be as follows.
    穩地郡 福浦港~松島 : about 69里 35町(129.6km),
    穩地郡 福浦港~竹島 : about 100里 4町(185.4km),
    穩地郡 福浦港~朝鮮 : about 136里 30町(253.4km)

    You and 下條正男 said :
    穩地郡 福浦港(Oki)~松島(Dokdo) : about 69里 35町(not accurate),
    松島(Dokdo)~竹島(Ulleungdo) : about 100里 4町(not accurate),
    竹島(Ulleungdo) ~朝鮮(Joseon mainland) : about 136里 30町(not accurate)

    「竹島松島の二島」の竹島(欝陵島)から「朝鮮に至る海路凡百三拾六里三拾町」とするのは、竹島(欝陵島)を日本領として認識していた証左で、そのため朝鮮までの海路を「凡百三拾六里三拾町」としているのである。
    it say "From Takeshima(Ulleungdo) of the two islands to Joseon, it is about 136-ris and 30 cho by the sea." That is the concrete evidence the author of the book considered Takeshima(Ulleungdo) as Japanese territory, or he wouldn't have written the distance from Takeshima to Joseon.

    At least, you seem to be responsible for this comment :
    And lastly, maybe I should have made it clear that the distance to Takeshima is not from Oki, but from Matsushima.

    But, you said like this
    The distance from Oki to Matsushima is too short if the distance from Joseon to Takeshima is right.

    Yes, very odd. :
    from Oki to Matsushima : 160km → 69里 35町,
    from Joseon to Takeshima : 130km → 136里 30町

    And, you said:
    In Meiji era, the whereabouts and the identity of the two islands were extremely comfused in Japan, ...

    Are you confused? But, the description of the islands in this book is never confusing to anyone. Aren't you dumping the 'accurate' description into the 'inaccurate description' group 'by mistake'? The distance may be inaccurate. I measured the shortcut from Oki :
    to Dokdo 160km(as you know), to Ulleungdo 242km, to Korea mainland 330km.
    160 : 242 : 330 km≒ 274.8 : 393.1 : 537.3 km(from Japanese ri) ≒ 129.6 : 185.4 : 253.4 km(from nautical mile)
    The proportion is "not" the same?

    The shortcut of Oki ~ Dokdo ~ Ulleungdo ~ Korea mainland is well known to most of commenters as follows. :
    160 : 90 : 130 km 274.8 : 393.1 : 537.3 = 129.6 : 185.4 : 253.4 (下條正男 and U)

    Do you think it matches? Should I listen to the answer to my question from the great Shimojo Masao(下條正男 is a wizard who can change a hard measuring stick into a elastic 'rubber band'!)? I want to answer from a common-sensed guys.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 3.
    You said :
    Yoshida Togo, Hibata sekko and even Tanaka Akamaro first wrongfully wrote as ancient Matsushima

    I don't know who 'Hibata Sekko' is. And, I know Tanaka Akamaro had some confusion about the island names. But, Yoshida Togo (吉田東伍) was not the case. He has an accurate knowledge and history about the two island as well as Oki. He showed that there was not the two island under the category of Oki and they belonged firmly to Korea at the time he wrote the book 大日本地名辭書(1900~1901).


    4.
    And, you said :
    "so it is not that odd that those two islands afar were not mentioned in this part.
    What I believe is that in this book, Liancourt Rock was included in Oki, but ..."

    That is a kind of nonsense, no matter what you 'believe'.

    5.
    And, you said :
    Some seems to have considered it doesn't owned by anyone as we can see on some of the old maps which left those two islands uncoloured.

    Yes.
    "Those two islands uncoloured" = 竹島松島 in 隱州視聽合紀 = ... = 竹島松島(竹島外一島) in ‘太政館文書(1877)’ = 竹島松島 in 大日本地名辭書 = 鬱陵島 于山島

    If the islands were emptied by Japan, the map with 'those uncoloured islands' will never exist. But, it is natural to be known to Japan by whom and for what the two islands were emptied and that they are not terra nullis.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi, MC,

    As for 1, I understand that you suggest to add the expression to show that Matsushima=Liancourt Rocks is historical story in Meiji. It's a good point. I'll think about what you suggested.

    As for 2, it is not Prof Shimojo who considered the description is from Takeshima to Ulleungdo, not Fukuura to Ullgundo. He doesn't mention about it in Japanese. It is me who considered it is a distance from Takeshima since this sentence omit the where this distance is from. Usually, local people of Oki and Tottori measures the distance to Ulleungdo from Matsushima(=Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima). If the proportions from Oki matches more accurately, it is possible that it is from Fukuura. But you should know that Prof. simply didn't mention where it is from. You don't need to get excited about nor so cynical about what he didn't say. That is what I read in original Japanese and tried to explain to you. You can read Japanese, so you should know he didn't mention where it is measured from. The accuracy of the distance is not the point here. You are barking at the wrong tree.

    As for 3, Yoshida partly referred the sentence from this book, saying that those two islands are categorized under Oki Country, and added his own opinion. He acutually said that Matsushima must be 三峰島 in 輿地勝覽. In 16th year of Meiji(1877), two countries of Japan and Korea, they negociated about this island and (Japanese government) decided it to be Korean.

    吉田東伍『大日本地名辞書(増補版)第三巻』の該当ページ(434P-435P/竹島=独島の記述部分)

    "、明治維新後、又漁民の来往するものあ
    りて、地誌提要には隠岐国の下に附鼓して日く、
     土俗相伝ふ、福浦より松島に至る海路凡六十九里、
     竹島に至る、海路凡百里、朝鮮に至る、海路凡百
     三十六里
    と、松島とは輿地勝覧の三峰島なるべし、明治十六
    年、更に日韓両政府の談判あり、我往漁の舟を遺
    して、再往するなからしめ、明に朝鮮の所属と為し
    ぬ。"

    As you know, Matsushima in this Nihon Chishi Teiyo is today's Takeshima, the ancientl Matsushima, but Yoshida confused it with Matsushima in Meiji era, which is Ulleungdo in fact. As you know, 三峰島 is Ulleungdo's anothe name, and it was Ulleungdo Japanese government ordered to have nothing to do with Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Another island = Matsushima=Ulleungdo was shown in the pile of documents below. I'm going to post about this in the next few months.

    「竹島外一島之儀本邦関係無之について」再考−明治十四年大屋兼助外一名の「松島開拓願」を中心に− (Japanese)

    In 1870s, Japanese goernment argued about what this Matsushima, on which many Japanese were "cutting trees = reclamation", is. They were not talking about the two barren rocks in the middle of the sea, even though the information on ancient Matsushima was passed to them by Shimane. As Watanabe Kouki said ( If Matsushima in question was Hornet Rocks, it is Japan's according to western maps), Japanese government never considered Liancourt Rocks to be Korean.

    1880 - Japanese Warship "Amagi" (軍艦天城) Surveys Ulleungdo and finds "Takeshima" is Jukdo.

    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) "

    As for 4, I don't understand what you say.

    As for 5, I said some . Do not twist my word. As I showed above, 松島(竹島外一島) in ‘太政館文書(1877)’ is Ulleungdo and the second 松島 in 大日本地名辭書 is Ulleungdo as well.

    Oh, please do'nt tell me even you claim that 三峯島 was Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks. 金漢京 recognized about 30 Joseon people dressed in white on the island and witnessed the smoke of the house. Sealions don't make fire or dress in white shirts. It was definately Ulleungdo. I know there are many decent Korean scholars who considers at least this 三峯島 is not Takeshima of today.

    1470 - "Sambongdo(三峯島)" was just an another name of Ulleundo, not Takeshima/Dokdo

    ReplyDelete
  15. correction

    金漢京→金自周

    ReplyDelete
  16. Around 1877, as Yoshida said, two countries decided Matsushima=Ulleungdo was Korean, but never mentioned Takeshima of Today. You can read it in the Korean article below. Joseon didn't really know about the island.

    島嶼巡礼
    鬱陵島方面(5) 第七隊 李吉用

    ReplyDelete
  17. BTW, MC,

    Do you have any access to the documents(newspaper article, govenmental documents, etc.) which shows what exactly Korean Forces said about Takeshima/Dokdo on 27th Feb. 1953? We have this Dongo Ilbo article, but it is not enough for us to understand what really happened.

    獨島漁民 恐怖一掃 空爆演習中止를 美軍서 保障

    ReplyDelete
  18. I changed the lines below according to MC's advice. Thank you, MC.

    According to the local, people sail to Matsushima from Fukuura harbour. About 69-ri 35-cho in sea route. To Takeshima. About 100-ri and 4-cho. To Joseon. About 136-ri 30 cho in sea route.

    According to the local's information passed down, people sail to Matsushima from Fukuura harbour. About 69-ri 35-cho in sea route. (From Oki's Fukuura) To Takeshima. About 100-ri and 4-cho. To Joseon. About 136-ri 30 cho in sea route.

    2010.01.10

    ReplyDelete
  19. Prof. Shimojo wrote "隠州視聴合記" said Takeshima and Matsushima are the northwest limit of Japan. He is totally wrong.

    "隠州視聴合記" didn't write "Takeshima and Matsushima are the northwest limit of Japan." "隠州視聴合記" did say "此州( 此州 literally means this province.) the northwest limit of Japan." Japan claims this province is Takeshima(Ulleongdo) and Korea claims it's Oki island. In other words, Japan claims "隠州視聴合記" did consider Dokdo as Japanese land while Korea claims "隠州視聴合記" did consider Dokdo as Korean land.

    Let me prove why "此州" is Oki and "隠州視聴合記" did consider Dokdo as Korean land. Look at the map 改正日本輿地路程全図(1779) 1 and 2 which published in 1779 by 長久保赤水.

    This map didn't mark Ulleongdo(竹島) and Dokdo(松島) as Japanese land. There is a phrase "見高麗猶雲州望隠州" from "隠州視聴合記" next to Ulleongdo and Dokdo. If 長久保赤水 considered "隠州視聴合記" wrote Dokdo belonged to Japan as today's Japanese claim, he should have marked Dokdo as Japanese land.

    ReplyDelete

  20. There is one more evidence Prof. Shimojo‘s insistence "「隠州視聴合記」 said Takeshima(Ulleongdo) and Matsushima(Dokdo) are the northwest limit of Japan. " is wrong.

    If 「隠州視聴合記」said Dokdo was Japanese land, the Japanese official maps such as published before and after the publication of 「隠州視聴合記」should include Dokdo as Japanese land. But they didn't.

    Ironically, he proves himself what he said was a lie by writing in the "Japanese Web Takeshima Research Center" that " Takeshima which was the ownerless when incorporated into Japanese land based on the international law in 1905. Thus, it's not strange there's no Takeshima in the Japanese maps made before 1905. (無主の地であった竹島は、国際法に依拠し、1905年、日本領に編入された。従って、1905年以前に作成された日本の地図に竹島が描かれていなとしても、不思議ではない。)."

    His saying Takeshima was ownerless at the time of Japanese incorporation of 1905 is also a contradictory to his statement "「隠州視聴合記」 said Takeshima(Ulleongdo) and Matsushima(Dokdo) are the northwest limit of Japan."

    This is the way Prof. Shimojo's logic of sovereignty claim on Dokdo is made.

    ReplyDelete