竹島問題の歴史

13.4.12

1893 - "The Empire of Japan" from "The New World Atlas" by The Fuzanbo Publishing Co. shows Matsushima as Ulleungdo, not Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks.

1893 『万国新地図』訂正増補6版 富山房編 東京 小野英之助 明治26 1冊 22cm (普通学全書第16編)1893 「大日本帝国」『万国新地図』訂正増補6版 富山房編 東京 小野英之助 明治26 1冊 22cm (普通学全書第16編)

(above) 「大日本帝国」『万国新地図』訂正増補6版 富山房編 東京 小野英之助 明治26 1冊 22cm (普通学全書第16編)

On 28th March, 2012, Korea’s Northeast Asian History Foundation exhibited 10 Japanese maps and claimed Japanese recognized Takeshima as Korean territory.

"The Empire of Japan" from "The New World Atlas"(189.) by Ono Einosuke marked Japanese mainland, Kuril islands and Ryukyu islands in yellow, but left Korean territory, including Ulleung Island and Dokdo blank. (Donga-Ilbo)


However, as we can clearly see, there is no “Dokdo”, Japan's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks, shown on it. The island labelled “Takeshima” is apparently a phantom island Argonaut, and the other, which is labelled “Matsushima”, is Ulleungdo, which located at 37°30′N 130°52′E. On the other hand, the island Liancourt Rocks located at 37°14′30″N 131°52′0″E.

Because of the confusion of mapping error from western maps in the early 19th century, Japanese started to call Ulleungdo as Matsushima and believed this is a new unknown island which they can log the trees. After the on-site survey of Ulleungdo by the warship Amagi(天城) in 1880, Japanese government finally identified and conclueded that Matsushima is Korea’s Ulleungdo in 1881. At the end of 1881, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Interior confirmed Takeshima and the other island (Ulleungdo=Matsushima) is Korean, revealing “the other island” in 1877’s Dajokan order was not Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks, but Ulleungdo.


In 1883, the instruction which prohibits Japanese from travelling to Matsushima/ the other name Takeshima, which is Korea’s Ulleungdo, was announced officially to not only Shimane but also to the other prefectures like Tokyo and Osaka. The Maps published in the early Meiji era shows this recognition and no wonder this map “The Empire of Japan” shows Matsushima as Ulleungdo. The point is, Japanese Government lost track of Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks, the old name of Matsushima briefly. Japanese started to call the island “Ryanko” or “Ranko”.


1883 0418 読売新聞「日本称松島(一名竹島)朝鮮称蔚陵島の儀は妄に渡航上陸相成らず候條此旨諭達候事 明治十六年四月十八日 東京府知事芳川顕正」(明治十六年四月十八日付記事)1883 0411 大阪府布告「竹島・日本称松島・朝鮮称蔚陵島関連」明治16年4月11日_2


北緯三十七度三十分西経八度五十七分(東京本丸天守台ヨリ起算)ニ位スル日本称松嶋一名竹島、朝鮮称蔚陵嶋ノ義ハ従前彼我政府議定ノ義モ有之日本人民妄ニ渡海上陸不相成候條心得違無之様可致此旨及内達候也
----------------------------------------------------------
The island that Japan calls Matsushima or Takeshima and that Korea calls Ulleungdo, located at 37 degrees 30 minutes north latitude and 8 degrees 57 minutes west longitude (from the castle tower of the keep of Tokyo Imperial Palace), is the island that Japan and Korea had an document of agreement saying that Japanese would not sail to nor land on the island without reason. We hereby notifiy this fact so that there will be no confusion about it.
I have no idea why Korean keeps making such an easy mistakes.

“The New World Atlas(『万国新地図』)” is the 16th series of “The Complete Book of General Studies(『普通学全書』)” published by Fuzanbo(冨山房). According to the production note of the atlas, the first edition was published in 1891.


Ono Einosuke(小野英之介) is a son of Ono Gishin(小野義真), who was one of the promoters of Nippon Railway(日 本鉄道) and the one of the founder of Koiwai Farm(小岩井農場). He invested the money to Sakamoto Kajima(阪本嘉治馬), a representative of Fuzanbo Publishing.

According to the book “50 years of Fuszanbo(『冨山房五十年』)”, Ono Einosuke was born in 1871 and graduated from Tokyo College(東京専門学校), the antecedent of Waseda University(早稲田大学), in 1896(the 28 year of Meiji). It doesn’t make sense that 20 years old student could make such a map in 1891, though.


References;

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) "

1883 - Mar. 1 - The island that Japan calls Matushima or Takeshima and Korea calls Ulleungdo (The Draft of Official Notice : 内達案)

"East Sea and Dokdo in Old Maps " hosted by the Northeast Asian History Foundation_ The 26th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”

164 comments:

  1. I forgot to add that "Most information and translation were provided by matsu."

    I didn't have much time to study on this, so if you find any mistake, please let me know, thanks.

    As for the other 9 maps, Korean news are very inaccurate and confusing, so I couldn't identify the correct maps so far. I'll add them when I get the information.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 祝! 四か月ぶりの投稿(^O^)/

    ReplyDelete
  3. chaamieyさん

    いつもありがとう^^
    助かっています。

    ようやく受験が終わったと思ったらまた用事が出来てしまい…ゴールデンウィーク明けにはゆっくりできると信じて生きています。

    ReplyDelete
  4. 別バージョン?の小野の地図とグーグルアースとの重ねあわせです。
    https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-_btDqdLDfIs/T3aAIT90qsI/AAAAAAAAADA/Ibz-eJPpqSo/s500/%25E5%25B0%258F%25E9%2587%258E.gif

    ReplyDelete
  5. matsuさんが韓国側の報道を詳しく分析して下さったのですが、全10点の地図が公開され、6つについて報道がなされたようです。うち以下の3つは小野英之介の名前で出版されたもののようです。

    ①「大日本帝国」『万国新地図』1893(明治26年)普通学全書16
    ②「大日本全図」『日本新地図』1892(明治25年)日本列島がピンク色
    ③「大日本国全図」1892(明治25年)道別着色。山陰道を黄土色。1枚地図

    ただ、報道によってこれらの情報を混同しているものもあり、実物を確認する必要があると思われます。①は今回出しましたが、②は国会図書館にあるようです。③はoppさんがgifにして下さったものだと思われますが、今のところ現物を確認できていません。出来次第投稿したいと思いますので、その際にはこのgifアニメを遣わせてくださいね。(地図に直接書き込むのは邪道なので、このように重ね合わせるといいですね。分かりやすいですし。)

    ①の地図、matsuさんの翻訳が必要な方はファイルをお送りしますので、ご連絡ください。

    ReplyDelete
  6. matsuさんの代理で投稿します。

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

    ①東アジア歴史財団古地図3点公開まとめ

    3月28日(水)ソウル市西大門区の東アジア歴史財団で記者懇談会。独島領有権を示す3種類の地図が国内で初公開された、という趣旨のニュースですが、東アジア歴史財団は、実際には、10種類の古地図を公開し、そのうち6種類が報道されているようです。

    小野英之助の地図が3枚、その他が3枚です。
    このうち、画像が報道されているのは、小野英之助の3枚だけで、ほかは画像の報道はありません。
    また、●印の①②④が、今回国内で初公開の3点、というもののようです。

    ただし、実際には、③の地図が大きく扱われています。

    小野英之助
    ①●「大日本帝国」『万国新地図』1893(明治26年)普通学全書16
    ②●「大日本全図」『日本新地図』1892(明治25年)日本列島がピンク色
    ③「大日本国全図」1892(明治25年)道別着色。山陰道を黄土色。1枚地図ではなく、冊子

    ④●萩原国三「島根県全図」『分邦詳密大日本地図』1892(明治25年)
    ⑤後藤常太郎『大日本分県地図』1895(明治27年)
    ⑥濱本伊三郎『極東日露清韓四国大地図』1904(明治37年)

    ただし、写真につけたキャプションやコメントが混乱しており、現物を確認しないと、どの記事のコメントが正しいのか、よくわかりません。

    ReplyDelete
  7. ②ソウル新聞
    http://www.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20120329027019&spage=1

    “独島は韓国領土”日本の古地図公開

    1893年製作 日本全図など3点

    東北アジア歴史財団は28日、独島を韓国の領土と表記した日本の古地図3点を初めて公開した。

    東北アジア財団独島研究所のイ・フン所長は懇談会で「独島領有権主張と関連して日本側が不利だと判断して隠してきた日本の古地図10点を最近購入し、このうち3点を公開する。」と明らかにした。


    公開した地図は、オノ・エイノスケが製作した「大日本帝国-万国新地図」(1893年)の中の日本全図と、「大日本国全図-日本新地図」(1892年)、ハナワラ・クニゾが製作した「分邦詳密大日本地図-島根県全図」(1892年)だ。

    ▲ 1892年、オノ・エイノスケの大日本国全図。島根県と隠岐島のように日本領土であるところは赤褐色で色が入っているが、鬱陵島と独島は朝鮮の領土として色を塗らなかった。日本はこの時期まで独島を島根県と関係がないと考えていたことが分かる。
    東北アジア歴史財団提供

    ●「島根県全図」には、独島表示さえ無し

    オノの日本全図で日本本土は黄色で塗ったが、鬱陵島と独島は彩色をしなかった。すなわち、日本領土ではないとの意味だ。

    ハギワラ・クニゾが製作した「島根県全図」でも、日本の北西側に位置する隠岐島までを島根県と同じ色で彩色し、独島はこの地図に表示されていない。

    イ所長は「日本の専門的な地図製作者などや画家は、1905年以前まで鬱陵島と独島が韓国に付いた付属島嶼と把握していて、朝鮮と同じ色を塗っておいた事例が多かった。」とした上で「明治維新以後に日本で近代的に作成された地図の需要が急増したが、その地図は日本の国家アイデンティティを確立するのに重要だっただろう」と話した。

    クァク・ジノ独島研究所研究委員は「これらの地図は、私的に製作された地図で、教科書などに使われたりもしたが、日本政府から許諾を受けて製作が可能だった。」と話した。

    ●日本政府の許諾受けて製作…教科書にも使用

    東北アジア財団は、この日、学術大会も開き「27日に検定を通過した日本の高等学校教科書の特徴は、『独島問題をめぐって、韓国・日本間には葛藤がある。』という表現から一歩進んで、日本政府が主張するように『日本固有の領土だ。』と記述する教科書が増えている。このように記述した教科書は7種で、検定を通過した中学校社会科教科書は2010年公民2種で2011年8種(公民4種、地理3種、歴史1種)に増えた。」と分析した。

    また「地図と写真を掲載した日本教科書が増加する中で、独島を日本の領海と排他的経済水域中に表示する範囲が次第に拡大している。」と憂慮した。

    東北アジア財団は「独島問題は、日本政府が、愛国心の学習より、東アジアの平和と繁栄のための問題という視点で接近してこそ解決策を見出すことができる。30年前に出した隣国を配慮するという『近隣諸国条項』をまた喚起しなければならない。」と話した。

    ReplyDelete
  8. ③東亜日報
    http://news.donga.com/Culture/3/07/20120329/45125274/1

    19世紀日本の教科書には「独島は韓国領土」

    東北アジア歴史財団3種公開…日本本土と違った色で表示

    19世紀末の日本小学校で使った地理附図「万国新地図」(1893年版)に収録された地図「大日本帝国」。鬱陵島と独島が韓国領と表示された。東北アジア歴史財団提供

    日本が27日公開した教科書検定の結果、独島領有権主張を入れた高校社会科教科書が総103種の中で47種と3種増えた中で、独島を韓国領土と表示した日本古地図がのせられた19世紀末の日本小学校の地理附地図教科書3種が公開された。
    日本が1905年、独島を自国領土として強制編入する前までは、独島を韓国領土と表示した地図を教材で使ったことを見せる資料だ。

    東北アジア歴史財団は28日、ソウル、西大門区ミグン洞の財団大会議室で記者懇談会を開き、18世紀末~20世紀始めに製作された日本古地図10種を公開した。このうち、国内一般に初めて公開される3種は、全て1890年代、日本の小学校で使った地理附図教科書に収録された地図だ。

    地理附図「万国新地図」(1893年版)に収録された地図製作者オノ・エイノスケ(小野英之助)の「大日本帝国」には、日本本土とクリル列島、琉球諸島(沖縄)等は黄土色に出てくるが、独島と鬱陵島は韓国領土と同じに無色で描いている。

    同じ製作者が作った「日本新地図」(1892年版)の「大日本国全図」には、現在日本が独島の所属行政区域に編入させた島根県は黄土色である反面、独島は色がない。

    また他の地理附図「분방상밀大日本地図」(1892年版)に記載された「島根県全図」には日本北西の側に位置した隠岐島までが島根県と同じピンク色に塗られていて、独島は表示されていない。

    *日本語版には最後の地図について、「分邦詳密大日本地図」(1892年版)に記載されたハギワラ・クニゾウの「島根県全図」、とあり(地図名の漢字がのっている)、
    さらに、イ・フン所長のコメントと藤村官房長官のコメントがある。
    ただし日本語版には地図の画像がない

    ReplyDelete
  9. ④中央日報
    http://joongang.joinsmsn.com/article/100/7744100.html?ctg=

    1892年日本地図…独島、朝鮮領土表示
    3.29 01:28 /修正2012.03.29 01:55

    東北アジア歴史財団3種公開

    1892年、日本で製作された「大日本国全図」の一部。島根県付近の隠岐島(青色円)を含め、黄土色や赤褐色の表示で日本領土を見せているのと違い、鬱陵島と独島(赤色円)には最初から色を塗らなかった。[写真東北アジア歴史財団]

    独島が韓国領土であることを立証する日本の過去の地図3点が28日初めて公開された。東北アジア歴史財団(理事長チョン・ジェジョン)は、28日、「日本で19世紀末に製作された古地図中、独島を日本領土から除外したり、日本領土と違うように彩色した古地図を発見した」と明らかにした。

    「大日本国全図」(1892)を見れば、日本本土は島根県付近の隠岐島まで含んで黄色や赤褐色で彩色したが、独島は彩色になっていない また「大日本帝国」(1893)地図は、日本本土とクリル列島、沖縄などを黄土色で処理したのに、独島は彩色しなかった。「島根県全図」(1892)には独島が最初から抜けている。

    ReplyDelete
  10. ⑤ハンギョレ
    http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/international/japan/525760.html

    日本1892年地図にも「独島は韓国の地」


    (地図作成者:小野英之助、1892年)

    東北アジア歴史財団3点初公開
    日本本土色と違う表示

    今月27日、日本の高校教科書検定結果でも見られるように、日本の教科書で「独島は日本固有の領土」という記述がますます増えるなかで、こういう主張をひっくり返す根拠になる日本の古地図が公開された。

    東北アジア歴史財団は28日、記者懇談会を開き、独島を朝鮮領土と表示したり日本の領土と関係がない地域と表示した日本の古地図を公開した。

    これらの地図は、18世紀末から20世紀始めまで日本で作られた日本全図で、明治維新前後の日本で教科書および教科書付録として書かれた地図だ。

    特に(地図作成者:小野英之助、1892年)と(萩原クニジョ、1892年)、(小野英之助、1893年)等3点は国内で初めて公開された。

    財団側はこれら地図が独島を日本と関係がない領土と示したり、独島を朝鮮と同じ色で彩色するなど「独島は日本固有の領土」という日本側の主張が虚構という事実を現わす、と明らかにした。

    を見れば、日本本土は彩色されているが鬱陵島と独島は彩色されていない。(下記「竹島問題」のサイトは翻訳誤り)

    もやはり日本本土は彩色したが独島は彩色をせず、付録性格の「島根県地図」でも、隠岐島だけ描いただけで独島は最初から描き入れていなかった。

    イ・フン独島研究所長は「この地図は、韓日強制併合以前には、日本が独島を日本領土でないと認識したという事実を示す」として「日本の独島固有領土論をひっくり返す学術的根拠だ」と話した。

    チェ・ウォンヒョン記者 写真 東北アジア歴史財団提供

    (竹島問題)
    http://k-naname.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2012/03/0328-187e.html
    翻訳あるも間違いあり。

    ReplyDelete
  11. ⑥韓国日報
    http://news.hankooki.com/lpage/culture/201203/h2012032821130384330.htm

    「独島は韓国領土」日本19世紀末の地図公開

    東北アジア歴史財団提供

    19世紀末~20世紀始め、日本人が独島を日本領土と認識しなかったということを見せる日本古地図10枚を東北アジア歴史財団が28日公開した。1892年発行されたオノ エイノスケの「大日本帝国地図」(写真)等3点は、初めて公開されたのだ。これらの地図は、日本本土は黄色などで彩色したが鬱陵島と独島は彩色をしなかった。

    ReplyDelete
  12. ⑦朝鮮日報

    http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/03/28/2012032803025.html

    「独島は韓国の地」19世紀日本地図など国内公開
    チョン・ビョングン記者

    東北アジア歴史財団(理事長チョン・ジェジョン)は28日、日本政府の「独島固有領土論」を反論する18世紀末~20世紀始め日本古地図を公開した。

    写真は、1892年、日本で製作流通したオノにイノスケ(小野英之助)の「大日本帝国'地図」。隠岐島を含んだ日本本土は黄色に塗られているが、左側の上、韓半島に近い鬱陵島・独島は彩られてなく、当時日本領土に含まれないということを見せてくれる。

    ReplyDelete
  13. ⑧MKニュース(毎日経済)
    http://news.mk.co.kr/se/view.php?sc=30000023&cm=%EB%AC%B8%ED%99%94%C2%B7%EC%97%B0%EC%98%88%20%EC%A3%BC%EC%9A%94%EA%B8%B0%EC%82%AC&year=2012&no=195725&selFlag=sc&relatedcode=&wonNo=&sID=507

    「独島は韓国領土」日本の地図発見
    東北アジア歴史財団初公開

    大日本国全図、オノ エイノスケ、1892年 

    独島が日本の土地という日本の主張をひっくり返す日本古地図が28日国内で初めて公開された。

    東北アジア歴史財団は28日記者懇談会を開き、18世紀末~20世紀始めに製作された日本の古地図中に、独島が韓国領土という事実を証明する多様な類型の地図を発見したと明らかにした。

    財団は、今年上半期にかけて、東海および独島と関連した国内外の古地図を何点か収集した。その中に、日本人が製作した地図で、独島を日本領から除外したという証拠としうる3点を入手した。

    これは去る27日、日本文部科学省が新しく出た高等学校教科書を検定し、独島領有権主張を強化した直後に明らかになった事実なので、より一層意味がある。東北アジア歴史財団によれば、これらの地図は、日本の「独島固有領土論」の主張が虚構であるという事実を立証する資料として使われる予定だ。

    財団がこの日初めて公開したオノエイノスケ(小野英之助)の「大日本国全図」(1892)は、普通学全書第16篇「万国新地図」に収録された日本全図だ。日本本土は黄色で彩られたが、鬱陵島と独島は最初から色をつけなかった。

    コト・ツネタロ(後藤常太郎)の「大日本分県地図」(1895)は日本南西部の島根県管内の位置と距離を現わした地図であるが、独島は含まれていなかった。

    ハマモト・イサオ(濱本伊三郎)が出した「極東日露清韓四国大地図」(1904)の右側下段には朝鮮新地図を付録で製作したが、鬱陵島と独島が江原道と同じ薄紫色で表記されている。

    「大日本国」という表現を使った地図でさえ、独島を日本と同じ色で表示しない点は、日本の独島固有領土論が虚構という事実を立証してくれる。

    財団側は、こうした地図について、「独島を日本領土外の島と認識した古地図、日本の領土から独島を抜いてしまった古地図、独島を朝鮮と同じ色で塗った古地図など、多様な類型の地図を通じて、日本の教科書が主張する独島領有権に学術的に反論できるだろう」と話している。

    [イ・ギョンジン記者]

    ReplyDelete
  14. ⑨愛国言論 THE TIMES
    http://www.thetimes.kr/news/article.html?no=15812

    日本古地図「独島は韓国の地」、もう言い張れば“いやいやいやなります”

    カン・ミンギョン記者、登録

    [ザ・タイムズ カン・ミンギョン記者]
    東北アジア歴史財団は、独島を韓国の地だと表現された証拠がのせられた日本の古地図10点を28日公開した。

    財団はこれまで、18世紀末~20世紀始めの独島関連の国内外の古地図200点余りを収集したが、多数の地図が独島が日本と無関係を見せている。

    公開された地図は、明治時代小学校地理附図である「日本新地図」にのせられた「大日本国全図」(1893)だ。この地図には、島根県と島根県北西側の隠岐島を茶色で現わしたが、鬱陵島と独島は朝鮮と同じに彩色をしなかった。

    今回発見された日本古地図により、日本外務省が独島は日本領土だったと主張するのはごり押し主張だということが分かる。

    ReplyDelete
  15. ⑩TVリポート(写真あり)
    http://www.tvreport.co.kr/cindex.php?c=news&m=newsview&idx=210863

    [TVリポート]日本古地図に独島を韓国の地だと表現された証拠が発見された。

    今回公開された地図は1982年日本で作られた大日本国全図だ。地図によれば島根県と隠岐島は茶色で現わしたが、鬱陵島と独島は朝鮮と同じように彩色を塗らなかった。

    すなわち、この時期に、独島を島根県と関係がない島と意識しているという証拠だ。同じ年に作られた地図も、同じように日本本土は赤褐色で描いたが、鬱陵島と独島は彩色をしなかった。

    日本外務省は1905年露日戦争以前から独島が日本土地だったと主張しているけれど、今回発見された日本古地図によれば、これはごり押し主張ということをもう一度分かることができる。

    特に、東北アジア歴史財団が今回初めて公開した古地図は日本の小学校授業時間に使われた地図だとわかった。

    写真=YTN画面キャプチャー
    オンライン ニュースチームnewsteam@tvreport.co.kr

    公開された地図は1982年日本で作られた大日本国前渡だ。 地図によればシネマ現果沖島は茶色で現わしたが、鬱陵島と独島は朝鮮と同じように彩色を塗らなかった。
    すなわち、この時期に独島をシネマ現果関係がない島で移植(利殖)しているという証拠だ。 同じ年作られた地図も同じように日本本土は赤褐色で描いたが、鬱陵島と独島は彩色をしなかった。
    日本外務省は1905年露日戦争以前から独島が日本土地だったと主張しているけれど、今回発見された日本古地図によればこれはごり押し主張というものをもう一度分かることができる。
    特に東北アジア歴史財団が今回初めて公開した古地図は日本小学校授業時間に使われた地図だと知らされた。
    写真=YTN画面キャプチャー

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kaneganese, what is your point? Are you trying to say 竹島 in this map is "Argonaut", 松都 is Ulleungdo and Dokdo was not depicted? If so, you are totally wrong.


    Pro-Japanese people are abusing the influence of the westerners' mapping error on Japan to hide the truth and mislead people. In most cases, they automatically insist that 竹島 in the most Japanese maps during Meiji Period are the phantom island, "Argonaut", not Ulleungdo.

    The location and shape of Ulleungd and Dokdo in this map are not accurate at all. It's likely that the cartographer of this map referenced the inaccurate western maps. What is important is the mapmaker had exact perception on the existence and ownership of the two islands in the East Sea.

    The cartographer of this map clearly labelled two islands in the East Sea as 竹島(=Ulleungdo) and 松都(=Dokdo). His intention was supposed to depict Ulleungdo and Dokdo which were called as 竹島 and 松都 respectively by Japanese people. He had no reason to put the a phantom island "Argonaut" which was named by westerners in the map of Japan. I don't think he even knew what "Argonaut" was.

    Kaneganese said there's no Dokdo in this map, which is absolutely wrong. 松都 is Dokdo in this map. There's no, if any, Japanese map without Dokdo along with Ulleungdo in the East Sea. The cartographer of this map had no reason to miss Dokdo in the East Sea.

    It seems true that western mapping error influenced Japan, but the influence was not as high as pro-Japanese people like to believe. For example, Dajoukan Order was not influenced at all. Mutoh Heigaku(武藤平学) was influenced by the wrong map, but many or most Japanese people must had known before 1878 there was no island such as “Argonaut”. Watanabe Kouki (渡辺洪基) said that "Many records say that “Argonaut,” which is the Western name for Takeshima (Ulleungdo), does not exist...."


    Pro-Japanese people are making ill use of the influence of western mapping error
    to deny Dokdo as Korean land in the Japanese maps. Insisting that Japanese cartographers depicted non existent “Argonaut” omitting Dokdo in the East Sea is just nonsense.

    Please stop misleading the world.

    ReplyDelete
  17. sloww says,

    "Kaneganese, what is your point? Are you trying to say 竹島 in this map is "Argonaut", 松都 is Ulleungdo and Dokdo was not depicted? If so, you are totally wrong."

    Yes, exactly. Just check the longitude and latitude of Matsushima and Takeshima. Then read the Instruction ordered by the Dajokan in 1883 which I posted. You'll understand that after the confusion and the debate you mentioned, Japanese government identified Matsushima and Takeshima are Korea's Ulleungdo. There was no old Matsushima(today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks) mentioned.

    It says that
    北緯三十七度三十分西経八度五十七分(東京本丸天守台ヨリ起算)ニ位スル日本称松嶋一名竹島、朝鮮称蔚陵嶋ノ義ハ従前彼我政府議定ノ義モ有之日本人民妄ニ渡海上陸不相成候條心得違無之様可致此旨及内達候也
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    The island that Japan calls Matsushima or Takeshima and that Korea calls Ulleungdo, located at 37 degrees 30 minutes north latitude and 8 degrees 57 minutes west longitude (from the castle tower of the keep of Tokyo Imperial Palace), is the island that Japan and Korea had an document of agreement saying that Japanese would not sail to nor land on the island without reason. We hereby notifiy this fact so that there will be no confusion about it.

    You can read more about the oreder here.
    1883 - Mar. 1 - The island that Japan calls Matushima or Takeshima and Korea calls Ulleungdo (The Draft of Official Notice : 内達案)
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2009/12/1883-mar-1-island-that-japan-call.html

    ReplyDelete
  18. Kaneganese,
    This is such bull.
    Japanese started setting foot on Ulleungdo and Dokdo in the 1600s. (Taking advantage of the fact that Ulleungdo was made a "vacant island" by the Chosun govt.)
    Japanese caught sea lions on Dokdo. They drew many accurate maps of Dokdo, which they called Matsushima.
    Even back then, they knew without doubt that there are only two islands in the mid- East Sea, Ulleungdo and Dokdo.
    They called Ulleungdo Takeshima, and Dokdo Matsushima.

    But when you look at Meiji-era Japanese maps, you see something strange. Ulleungdo and Dokdo are not drawn accurately at all. They are in wrong locations, and their shapes are all wrong as well.

    The only plausible explanation is that Japanese knew the two islands were Korean, so they didn't bother to check their exact locations or shapes.
    (When you look at these maps, everything else is very accurate: it's just Ulleungdo and Dokdo that are drawn inaccurately.
    All the little islands in the Kuriles, and going from the southern tip of Japan all they way down to Taiwan, are all drawn accurately.
    Japanese made very accurate maps by the late 1800s. It's incomprehensible why they wouldn't have drawn Ulleungdo and Dokdo accurately. It's because they knew these two remote islands belonged Korea; so they didn't care.)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Kaneganese,

    Check what? The longitude and latitude of Matsushima and Takeshima. in the map of "大日本帝国" or the real longitude and latitude of Matsushima and Takeshima? The longitude and latitude of Ulleungdo and Dokdo has nothing to do with identifying the existence of Ulleungdo and Dokdo in the most of old Japanese maps.

    I'm sorry you are misunderstanding, knowingly or unknowingly, Dajokan Order which clearly stated "Japan has nothing to do with Takeshima and another island." "Another island" can be identified in the map attached ('磯竹島略図'). If you want to study about it, go to Dajokan Order of 1877


    I read the post you said, and I found Steve Barber gave an exact explanation. "They also continued to map Ulleungdo at Seibold’s locations for long after the Amagi surveyed the region. " This document(内達案) just shows, in some cases, Japanese confusion continued even after Amagi's survey.

    If Japanese called Ulleungdo as Matushima or Takeshima, are you going to say the
    Matushima or Takeshima in "大日本帝国" are both Ulleungdo? It doesn't make sense to you, does it? You already said Takeshima in "大日本帝国" was Argonaut.


    Tryng to prove Takeshima in the Meiji Era maps is Argonaut, not Ulleungdo itself is just irrational and illogical.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Kaneganeseさん。
    地図画像を送付頂ければ、重ねあわせしますよ。

    ReplyDelete
  21. sloww

    You should read the judicial precedent of Palmas("an erroneous attribution of the name“Miangas, even by Dutch cartographers, is easily possible"). The identity of an island is determined by not the name but the geographical features of an island.

    Furthermore, the cause of the error(survey error by Britain) of this map is clear.

    Geographical features, such as latitude, longitude, and a size of the Takeshima and Matsushima of this map prove these islands are Argonaut and Dagere.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Columbus mistook Caribbean Sea islands as islands in India. This does not prove that the islands in the Caribbean Sea is islands in India.

    International law gives priority to the actual condition than nominal condition.

    ReplyDelete
  23. International law gives priority to the actual condition than nominal condition.

    As for the Korean interpretation, this priority is often reverse.

    Field survey record by Chosun government that 86 persons live over other unclear records.
    Maps which drew Usando the west of Ulleungdo proves the absence of the island.

    Priority is given to the map of the governmental field survey which drew chukdo as Usando over testimony of Ahn who is a liar's sinner and punished by Chosun government.

    ReplyDelete
  24. opp,

    Korean maps which sometimes depicted Usando west of Ulleungdo prove that Usando wasn't Jukdo.

    Jukdo is just 2km from Ulleungdo and is always visible from Ulleungdo.
    There is no way in hell Koreans would have drawn Jukdo west of Ulleungdo.

    Dokdo is 90km away from Ulleungdo and is visible from Ulleungdo 3-4 times a month, if you climb up to a certain height. Hence, Koreans were sometimes confused about the exact location of Dokdo.

    However, most Korean maps correctly depicted Dokdo (Usando) east of Ulleungdo.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jk6411 wrote:

    "However, most Korean maps correctly depicted Dokdo (Usando) east of Ulleungdo."

    There are no old Korean maps that show "Dokdo" by any name, not one. Why do you keep repeating that lie? The Usando on old Korean maps was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, just 2 kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore.

    The reason that older Korean maps showed Usando to the west of Ulleungdo was that Koreans once believed that the main island of Ulleungdo was called "Usando" and its neighboring island was called "Muleungdo," which was a misspelling of "Ulleungdo."

    In 1412, a group of twelve sailed into the harbor at Koseong and told officials there that they came from an island named Yusanguk (流山國), whic was a misspelling of Usanguk (于山國), the Country of Usan.

    They also said that a total of sixty people first lived on Muleungdo (武陵島), which was an old spelling of Ulleungdo, but then moved to the "main island," which means that Muleungdo was neighboring island at the time, not the main island. Since they said they came from Yusanguk, not Muleungdo, that means that Yusanguk was main island.

    After the revelations in 1412, Korean started referring to Ulleungdo as "Usan-Muleung," which implied not only that they considered Ulleungdo to be comprised of two island but that they considered Usan to be the larger of the two.

    Since the neighboring island was to the east of the main island, the maps during that time showed Usando (the main island) to the west of Ulleungdo (the neighboring island).

    The confusion continued until the end of the 17th century, when Koreans determined that Usando was actually Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which in two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore. This was confirmed by Ulleungdo Inspector Bak Seok-chang's 1711 map of Ulleungdo, on which he labeled Ulleungdo's neighboring island as Usando (于山島) and described it as having a grove of haejang bamboo growing on it. On Ulleungdo's neighboring island on the 1711 map was written the following:

    "the so-called Usando (所謂 于山島), grove of haejang bamboo (海長竹田)"

    This agreed with a 1694 report in which Ulleungdo Inspector Jang Han-sang wrote the following:

    About five ri (2 km) to the east (of Ulleungdo) is one small island. It is not very big or very high, and it has a grove of haejang bamboo (海長竹) growing on one side.

    Dokdo is 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo, not 2 kilometers east, and Dokdo does not have haejang bamboo on it, but Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo does.

    The 1711 inspector's map of Ulleungdo that first showed Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo labeled as "Usando" and having haejang bamboo on it can be found HERE

    ReplyDelete
  26. opp,

    Do you want to discuss about the International law with this poorly depicted map?

    I meant the longitude and latitude of Ulleungdo and Dokdo in the most of old Japanesemaps are not correct, so that putting much emphasis on the wrong longitude and latitude is meaningless. By the way, is there any old Japanese map showing Dokdo as Japanese land whch located on the perfectly accurate longitude and latitude?


    The size is not correct, but the latitude and longitude are corresponding to those of Takeshima(Argonaut) and Matushima(Dagelet) in the Siebold's map if the latitude and longitude of Ulleungdo written in red in the map given above is right. This means the mapmaker may have referenced the Siebold's map or other maps influenced by Siebold's.

    Siebold mistakenly identified Arogonaut with Takeshima, but it doesn't mean he believed 'Argonaut' was a phantom island thus Takeshima is so. He clearly knew Takeshima and Matsushima were the two really existing islands in the East Sea which Nagakubo Sekisui depicted in '日本輿地路程全図'. Siebold must have referenced
    '日本輿地路程全図' which he took to Europe with him.

    Again, 小野英之助 intended to draw 竹島 and 松島 which are today's Ulleungdo and Dokdo respectively and he had no reason to draw nonexistent Argonaut. If he was really supposed to depict Argonaut, he should have put the name "Argonaut" alone or with "Takeshima" in his map. Doesn't this make more sense? The possibility he intended to draw nonexistent "Argonaut" in the map of Japan is zero.


    竹島 is today's Ulleungdo and 松島 is Dokdo in "大日本帝国" and both are marked as Korean land.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Correction:
    The map Siebold took to Europe was "改正日本輿地路程全図".

    ReplyDelete
  28. sloww

    >Do you want to discuss about the International law with this poorly depicted map?

    Did you read the judicial precedent of PALMAS which I introduced? I cannot think so.

    PALMAS
    This large scale map, prepared evidently for administrative purposes, of which a reproduction has been filed with the Explanations of the Netherlands Government, shows an isolated island “Palmas of Melangis” which, though not quite correct in size and shape and though about 40' too much to the south and 20' too much to the east, cannot but correspond to Palmas (or Miangas), since the most reliable detailed modern maps, in particular the British Admiralty Chart, show no other island but Palmas (or Miangas) between the Talauer or Nanusa Islands and Mindanao.


    The distance between the Matsushima of the map of Ono and survey result of the Argonaut is within 20'. The distance between the Takeshima of the map of Ono and accurate position of the Ulleungdo is within 20'. The map of Ono is accuracy sufficient as a evidence on the international law. And priority is given to the geographical features of a map over a name.
    Please show the evidence of your theory which contradicts the famous judicial precedent. If you cannot that, I should say that your theory is selfish.

    ReplyDelete
  29. jk6411

    I already pointed out that priority was given to concrete geographical features over a name in international law. Why do you repeat the same mistake?

    Study the Gerry Bevers's article.
    Usando before the 18th century is doubled Ulleungdo. This is proved from the geographical features of maps and a field survey by Chosun government before 18th century. Usando after the 18th century is jukdo. This is proved from the geographical features of maps and a field survey by Chosun government after 18th century.
    Chosun investigated Ulleungdo periodically after the incident of Ahn. And when the details of the geography of Ulleundgo became clear, she came to consider jukdo to be Usando.

    You are based only on a name and retroacted the time. Your interpretation is contradictory to the field survey record and maps of each time.

    It turns out that Caribbean Sea islands are not India now. However, this knowledge cannot be traced back to the Columbus era and say Columbus knew that Caribbean Sea islands are not India.

    ReplyDelete
  30. この「小野英之助の地図」(1892~93)は、
    内務省地理局が1881年(明治14年)に作成した『大日本府県分轄図』の「大日本全国略図」を参考にしたものと思われます。

    田中邦貴さんのところに映像があります
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/fukenbunkatsuzu-1881/
    http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/senkaku/fukenbunkatsuzu-1881/map.jpg

    よく似ています。特に、山陰道を黄土色に塗っている地図③が似ています。

    この地図は「最初の官製地図帳」であるようです。
    http://hakuchizu.com/modules/pico01/index.php?content_id=11
    わが国の近代地形図の生い立ちⅠ 明治黎明期
    明治14年    最初の官製地図帳である大日本府県分割図(86万4千分の1)

    「竹島」「松島」を「アルゴノート」「ダジュレー」の位置に描く、この当時の日本のたくさんの地図の「原図」は、この日本政府の作った「大日本全国略図」ではないかと思います。

    ReplyDelete
  31. 1880年(明治13年)、海軍の軍艦「天城」の調査で、日本領であるかもしれないとして開拓の可能性があると考えられていた地図上の「松島」が、実は朝鮮の「鬱陵島」であることが確認されました。

    その翌年に作られた官製地図である「大日本府県分割図」では、
    全体図である「大日本全国略図」で「竹島」「松島」を「アルゴノート」「ダジュレー」の位置に描いて色を塗りませんでした。(隠岐は山陰道の色で塗られている)

    県ごとの地図である「島根岡山二県図」(のちに鳥取が分離したため書き加えて三県に訂正)では、隠岐のみを描き、「竹島」「松島」は描きませんでした。

    「松島」が「鬱陵島」であることがわかれば、日本領土ではない、として、「竹島」「松島」は、日本の領土認識から除外されたのだと思います。

    1905年に「リャンコ島」を編入する時に、古い名前である「松島」にまったく言及していないのは、このためと思われます。
    朝鮮の支配の確認されない、鬱陵島ではない新島を、無主地として編入したのです。

    ReplyDelete
  32. 『大日本府県分轄図』の「大日本全国略図」の復刻版が、国会図書館の地図室にあります。映像が鮮明です。

    https://ndlopac.ndl.go.jp/F/I43D9IAM78HYM7EAXGV47DIRQRCKLQ6EDH6KVG1SRN6EP1PCIV-50031?func=full-set-set&set_number=028297&set_entry=000002&format=999


    ちなみに、「小野英之助」は単なる「発行者」であって、この地図の「地図製作者」ではありません。この部分の韓国側の発表は、間違いです。

    ReplyDelete
  33. unknown comments are matsu's. I hope it won't disappear this time.

    I switched to the opp's GIF animated map, but it doesn't work. Could somebody tell me why? And I also added the translation of Interior Orders in 1883 with minor grammatical changes.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Gerry and opp,

    Usando is not Jukdo. Usando is Dokdo.

    Korea's historical records say so.

    Man-Gi-Yo-Ram (萬機要覽, year 1808) clearly says that Ulleungdo and Usando are both parts of Usanguk, and that Usando is what the Japanese call Matsushima.

    "輿地志云, 鬱陵于山皆于山國地于山則倭所謂松島也"

    Sejong-Sillok 世宗實錄 (1432, recompiled 1454) says that Usando and Mulleung (Ulleungdo) are both in the middle of East Sea, and that the two islands are not far from each other and are visible from each other on a clear day. It also says that the two islands were called Usanguk during the Shilla period and goes on to describe how Usanguk was conquered and incorporated into Shilla in 512AD.

    As I said before, Usando cannot be Jukdo, because Jukdo is only 2km from Ulleungdo and is always visible from Ulleungdo. Dokdo is the island that is visible from Ulleungdo only when the weather is very clear.


    Take a look at these three maps.

    "Dae Joseonguk Jeondo" (大朝鮮國全圖) (Late 19th Century)
    http://blog.naver.com/storyphoto/viewer.html?src=http%3A%2F%2Fblogfiles2.naver.net%2Fdata33%2F2008%2F7%2F20%2F257%2F0020_cms1530.jpg

    1890.08 National Geographic Vol.2 No.4 "Korea" (1890 map)
    http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=cms1530&logNo=10033261020

    "Hae Jwa Jeon Do (海左全圖)" (mid-19th Century)
    http://blog.naver.com/cms1530/10033214692

    On these three maps, Ulleungdo and Usando are both drawn as very mountainous islands.
    Usando has to be Dokdo, since it is so mountainous. Usando cannot be Jukdo.
    Ulleungdo itself is very mountainous, and it is surrounded by rocky islets, but Jukdo is the least mountainous of them.
    Jukdo is a flat-top; there's no way a mapmaker would draw it as a mountainous island.

    The National Geographic map, in particular, correctly depicts Dokdo southeast of Ulleungdo.

    ReplyDelete
  35. (cont’d)

    The fact that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were both Korean territories is backed up by Japanese government documents and maps.

    Japan's 1870 Secret Report on Chosun clearly says that Takeshima and Matsushima are Korean territories.
    Japanese Dajoukan's 1877 order clearly says that Japan has "nothing to do with" the two islands.

    Look at this map.
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WzN3JMZpmGA/TJojaDZ1ONI/AAAAAAAAAyo/fi27KCdr7Y0/s1600/sangoku-tsuuranzusetsu.jpg
    This is the famous Japanese cartographer Hayashi Shihei’s 1785 Illustrated Survey of Three Countries Map.

    This map clearly depicts and labels Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Korean territories.
    (You'll notice that back in the 1700s, Japanese maps weren't too accurate either. You can see that Ulleungdo and Dokdo are drawn very close together, as in old Korean maps.)

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-earliest-records-of-dokdo-ii
    Here you can see the famous Japanese cartographer Nagakubo Sekisui’s 1779 map of Japan.
    On this map too, Ulleungdo and Dokdo are colored and labeled as Korean territories.

    There are many similarly drawn Japanese maps from the late 1700s to mid-1800s, which label Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Korean territories.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/mori-kinsekis-1877-map-of-japankorea
    This is Mori Kinseki's 1877 map of Japan. Here, Ulleungdo and Dokdo are colored in the same color as Korea's Gangwon Province.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/a-1903-japanese-war-map-shows-dokdo-takeshima-as-korean
    In this 1903 Japanese war map, both Ulleungdo and Dokdo are within Korea's boundaries.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/hosaka-map1.jpg
    This 1894 Japanese map of Korea shows the two islands in same color as Korea. Japan is uncolored.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-takeshima-incident-of-1837
    This is a Japanese map relating to the case of Aizuya Hachiemon. Ulleungdo and Dokdo are colored red, same as Korea. Japan is uncolored.

    http://www.dokdohistory.com/upload/board/fckeditor/99-1(2).jpg
    This 1882 map shows the 2 islands uncolored same as Korea. Japan is colored red.

    http://www.dokdohistory.com/upload/board/fckeditor/102-1.JPG
    This 1894 Japanese map clearly includes the 2 islands within Korea.

    http://www.dokdohistory.com/upload/board/fckeditor/106-1.JPG
    Even this 1936 Japanese Army Map shows Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Korean territory.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  37. http://www.dokdohistory.com/upload/board/fckeditor/107-1(2).jpg

    This is a map of Japan’s Shimane Prefecture made in 1946.
    It does not include Dokdo.
    Japan alleges that it incorporated Dokdo (Takeshima) into its Shimane Prefecture in 1905.
    This map was made more than 40 years after the “incorporation” of Dokdo, but it doesn’t show Dokdo anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  39. jk6411,

    "輿地志云, 鬱陵于山皆于山國地于山則倭所謂松島也"

    I have pointed out that priority was given to concrete activity in international law. Why did you mistake again and again.
    Please let me know the sauce of this record. Did Chosun governmant land at Matsushima and did she check? NO. She copy Ahn's testimony. The map which Gery presented is based on the field survey by the Chosun government.


    "Take a look at these three maps."


    Maps do not become in evidence of a sovereignty display. Maps only become the proof which pinpoints a place. Read Palmas case.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Gerry,

    If you can read Korean, you can find an explanation of Inspector Bak Seok-chang's 1711 map of Ulleungdo here:
    http://blog.naver.com/cms1530/10032700058

    Usando on this map cannot be Jukdo.
    It's not drawn in the right place.

    ReplyDelete
  41. jk6411
    "Usando on this map cannot be Jukdo."


    1.The island in which the bamboo has grown.
    2.The conspicuous island in the northeast of Ulleungdo.

    Which island do you think Usando on that map is?

    It cannot deny the whole compatibility by local inaccuracy.

    ReplyDelete
  42. opp,

    On this map, Usando is not drawn northeast of Ulleungdo.
    Usando is drawn SOUTH of Jeo-Dong and Do-Dong, which means Usando is SOUTHEAST of Ulleungdo.

    The compass directions on this map are not exactly accurate. Usando is drawn where it says EAST, but it's actually SOUTHEAST.

    If Usando were Jukdo, it would have to have been drawn half-way between Jeo-Dong and SamSeonAm, or where "red box 4" is.
    So, the two islets in "red box 4" have to be GwanEum-Do and Juk-Do.

    As for the bamboos on Usando..
    If Usando were Jukdo, I don't think it would've said 竹田 (bamboo field); I think it would've said 竹林 (bamboo forest).
    Jukdo is absolutely covered with bamboo (in fact, its name means "bamboo island").
    In Korean, 竹田 (대나무 밭) suggests something smaller in scale than a 竹林 (대나무 숲).

    Who knows? Maybe back in 1711 there were some bamboo growing on Dokdo.
    The 1877 Japanese Dajoukan's order includes a description of Matsushima (Dokdo). It says that "trees and bamboos are few" there.
    Now, why would it even have mentioned "bamboos" if there were no bamboos on Dokdo?

    Today, Dokdo is a barren island. But it's not completely devoid of vegetation.
    The islets are covered with grasses. So, it's not completely implausible that there could've been bamboo growing there in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  43. jk6411
    http://takeshima.cafe.coocan.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/utsu_take_map5.gif

    Which island do you think Usando on that map is? And show the reason about the geographical features of your answer.


    "Who knows? Maybe back in 1711 there were some bamboo growing on Dokdo."

    Murakawa, Ohya and Kameyama have knew. I never need your desire and Probatio diabolica. It is the evidence which you have to show. Kameyama's letter in 1659 recorded that there was no plant on Takeshima(彼島草木も無御座候所).

    ReplyDelete
  44. Jk6411 wrote:

    As for the bamboos on Usando..
    If Usando were Jukdo, I don't think it would've said 竹田 (bamboo field); I think it would've said 竹林 (bamboo forest).
    Jukdo is absolutely covered with bamboo (in fact, its name means "bamboo island").
    In Korean, 竹田 (대나무 밭) suggests something smaller in scale than a 竹林 (대나무 숲).


    You are being ridiculous, JK.

    In his 1694 inspection report of Ulleungdo, Jang Han-sang reported that there was a small island two kilometers east of Ulleungdo that had haejang on one side. He was talking about Jukdo, which is two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore.

    About five ri (2 km) to the east is one small island. It is not very big or very high, and it has a grove of haejang bamboo (海長竹) growing thickly on one side.

    Ulleungdo had many thick groves of bamboo (竹田) on it, but the only reference to "haejang bamboo" in the report was to the bamboo on the small island two kilometers to the east of Ulleungdo.

    On the 1711 inspection map of Ulleungdo, the wording "bamboo field" (竹田) was the way the mapmaker referred to the bamboo groves on Ulleungdo. He did not use the characters (竹林), as you suggested he should have. And just like the 1694 inspection report, the only reference to a "haejang bamboo grove" (海長竹田) on the map was to the bamboo grove on the ONE island just off the east shore of Ulleungdo that was labeled "the so-called Usando" (所謂 于山島)

    Look at the 1711 MAP again. It shows just ONE island labeled Usando immediately to the east of Ulleungdo. It also shows several references to bamboo groves on the main island simply labeled "bamboo fields" (竹田), not "bamboo forest" (竹林).

    As you should know, "Dokdo" is NOT immediately to the east of Ulleungdo; it is 90 kilometers to the southeast and is essentially composed on two islands, not one. Also, Dokdo did not and does not have any bamboo on it, much less haejang bamboo, which can grow six meters tall.

    The ONE island labeled "Usando" on the 1711 map was obviously Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which is only two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore. Look at all the other old Korean maps shown on the right side of this blog. They all show Usando (于山島) as a single island just off the east shore of Ulleungdo.

    Now, please stop being silly, JK6411.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Kaneganese,

    Show me any proof Japanese government after Amigi's survey concluded "other island" in Dajokan Order was not Dokdo. I can refute your any possible lies.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Sloww,
    “Show me any proof Japanese government after Amigi's survey concluded "other
    island" in Dajokan Order was not Dokdo.”


    Why is such a proof required?

    “I can refute your any possible lies. ”

    Read Eastern Greenland case and Pedra Branca case(about middle rock).
    Korean often ignore international law and create original, selfish and delusional theory for their desire. Your this demand, your interpretation about the map of Ono, the duty of notification for the prior occupation, agreement of the s supplemental document about the treaty interpretation etc. etc.

    ReplyDelete
  47. opp,

    It's shame on you as one of the posters in this blog if you don't understand why it's required.

    Is this blog for discussing the international law?

    I don't care at all what you said, but why don't you put in-depth post about international law related to Dokdo issue, so that the ignorant readers can figure out what you insist? Of course you don't need to if you don't want to.

    ReplyDelete
  48. sloww
    “I don't care at all what you said”

    Of course you can't care about me and international law, because you don’t have any knowledge international law and repeat your original, selfish and delusional theory for their desire.

    ReplyDelete
  49. sloww
    “Is this blog for discussing the international law?”

    This blog is for the territorial issue about Takeshima. If you don’t know the international law at all, you should not post about the territorial issue. The only rule of the world which determines a territory is international law. Your comments often have violated international law for your selfish
    desire.

    The international law demands a specific evidence for the abandonment of the sovereignty. When there is no display of the sovereignty by other countries, the lack of the record for several centuries doesn’t mean abandonment. Then your request about the Japanese proof after AMAGI is insignificance. Not the proof of a sovereignty display by Japan but the display of the sovereignty by Korea or a specific evidence for the abandonment by Japan is needed.

    You don't understand what is required for the acquisition of sovereignty.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Sloww wrote:

    Show me any proof Japanese government after Amigi's survey concluded "other island" in Dajokan Order was not Dokdo. I can refute your any possible lies.

    What are you talking about, Sloww? The 竹島考證 (죽도고증) is your proof. It was a study done by Kitazawa Masanari(北澤正誠) for the Japanese Foreign Ministry in 1881, which was a year after the Amagi survey. The report concluded that the island that Mutoh Heigaku (武藤平学) had referred to as "Matsushima" (another island) in his 1876 development petition to the Japanese government was actually Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) or any other island. The following is a translation of the conclusion of the report:

    After having studied all twenty-four documents thoroughly, it is now clear to me that after Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was determined to be Choson's in 1699, no Japanese had an eye for the island, but about 100 years later, Hachiemon of Hamada, Sekishu (石州浜田) talked the domain official, who was stationed in Edo, into giving him tacit consent (to travel to the island). On the pretext of engaging in fishing, Hachiemon loaded many Imperial products and set sail to trade with foreign countries. Because of his illegal foreign trading, he was severely punished. After this incident, there was no one who talked about this island.
    After the Imperial Political Reformation, Toda (戸田敬義), a former samurai family member of the Shimane Domain, submitted a petition to to Tokyo Metropolitan Government in January 1877 to voyage to Takeshima (竹島渡海ノ願書), but in June he received a rejection notice. Since then, no one talked about Takeshima, except for Mutoh Ichigaku (武藤一学) of the Oshu(奥州) Domain and Saito Shichirobee (斉藤七郎兵衛), who claimed that, in addition to Takeshima, there was an island called "Matsushima" (松島) on the route to Vladivostok. (Mutoh) submitted a petition for Sewaki Hisato (瀬脇寿人) to voyage there. As a result, there was so much argument about whether Takeshima and Matsushima were one island with two names or two islands, but there was no conclusion. Finally, opinions on whether to send a survey team to Matsushima was received, as can see in the four opinions (甲, 乙, 丙, and 丁), but the discussion was halted. Then in 1880, the Warship Amagi (天城) was sent to Matsushima, where it surveyed the island finally came to understand that "Matsushima" (松島) was Ulleungdo. Also, other island, which was called Takeshima (竹島), was no more than a rock (竹嶼 - Jukdo or Boussole Rock). Thus, today's Matsushima is the island that was iin 1699 (元禄十二年)called "Takeshima," which has been outside Japanese territory ever since.


    The reference to "Takeshima and another island" in the 1877 document was a reference to Ulleungdo (Takeshima) and the mysterious island referred to as "Matsushima" in the 1876 petition. The reason it was referred to as "another island" instead of "Matsushima" was because the Japanese government was unsure of its location, as the conclusion the the 1881 report said.

    After the 1881 report, the Japanese government started referring to Ulleungdo as "Matsushima" and to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) as "Liancourt Rocks."

    ReplyDelete
  51. Gerry wrote:

    The reference to "Takeshima and another island" in the 1877 document was a reference to Ulleungdo (Takeshima) and the mysterious island referred to as "Matsushima" in the 1876 petition.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-1877-kobunruko-records

    "Attached to the 1877 document was an attached map showing Ulleungdo and Dokdo Islands.
    The form of Ulleungdo is distorted but it is labeled clearly, Dokdo Island’s shape is very clear. This map casts serious doubt on some Japanese assertions that the Meiji Government was confused about the identity of the islands in the East Sea."

    This map makes it very clear that Takeshima and “other island” mentioned in the 1877 Dajoukan order were Ulleungdo and Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  52. http://blog.naver.com/cms1530/10033191520

    Here's another map of Ulleungdo where Usando cannot be Jukdo.
    (As in the 1711 map, the compass directions seem to have been somewhat off.)

    Here, you see Usando is drawn to the south of 佇田洞可居 (Jeo-Dong), 倭船倉可居 (Japanese settlement, Do-Dong), and 刻石立標 (Bak Seok Chang's stele, also Do-Dong).

    (The 1711 map also had "Japanese settlement" and Bak's stele where present-day Do-Dong is.)

    So once again, Usando is not due east of Ulleungdo, but SOUTHEAST of it.


    There are many other circular maps of Ulleungdo such as this one.

    http://blog.naver.com/storyphoto/viewer.html?src=http%3A%2F%2Fblogfiles4.naver.net%2Fdata32%2F2008%2F7%2F19%2F115%2F0014_1736_cms1530.jpg
    "Yeojido" (輿地圖) Atlas (1736 - 1767) :
    Usando is drawn way south of 楮田洞可居 (Jeo-Dong), 刻石立標 (Bak's stele), and 倭船倉可居 (Japanese settlement).

    http://blog.naver.com/storyphoto/viewer.html?src=http%3A%2F%2Fblogfiles2.naver.net%2Fdata35%2F2008%2F7%2F19%2F97%2F0020_1736_cms1530.jpg
    Yeojido (輿地圖) Atlas (1736 - 1776) :
    Usando is drawn south of 楮田洞可居, 刻石立標, and 倭船倉可居.

    http://blog.naver.com/storyphoto/viewer.html?src=http%3A%2F%2Fblogfiles3.naver.net%2Fdata35%2F2008%2F7%2F19%2F242%2F0024_1737_cms1530.jpg
    "Gwang Yeodo" ((廣輿圖) Atas (1737 ~ 1776) :
    Usando is south of 楮田洞可居, 刻石立標, and 倭船倉可居.

    http://blog.naver.com/storyphoto/viewer.html?src=http%3A%2F%2Fblogfiles10.naver.net%2Fdata32%2F2008%2F7%2F19%2F25%2F0004_1700s_cms1530.jpg
    "Paldo Yeojido" (八道輿地圖) Atlas (mid 1700s) :
    Usando is south of 楮田洞可居, 刻石立標, and 倭船倉可居.

    http://blog.naver.com/storyphoto/viewer.html?src=http%3A%2F%2Fblogfiles1.naver.net%2Fdata32%2F2008%2F7%2F19%2F176%2F0026_1776_cms1530.jpg
    "Jiseung" (地乘) Atlas (1776 - 1787) :
    Usando is south of 楮田洞可居, 刻石立標, and 倭船倉可居.

    So on all of these maps, Usando cannot be Jukdo.

    (In fact, all old maps of Ulleungdo seem to have been off in terms of direction. EAST on these maps is not east, but SOUTHEAST.)

    ReplyDelete
  53. Gerry Bevers,

    I'm talking about the truth. OK. I can refute yours,too.

    You wrote:
    The reference to "Takeshima and another island" in the 1877 document was a reference to Ulleungdo (Takeshima) and the mysterious island referred to as "Matsushima" in the 1876 petition. The reason it was referred to as "another island" instead of "Matsushima" was because the Japanese government was unsure of its location, as the conclusion the the 1881 report said.


    This is a clear lie. "Another island" in the 1876 petition was not the mysterious island as you mislead. Shimane Prefecture submitted a document and there's a map attached which clarified the "another island" as Dokdo.

    Click HERE
    to see the attached document.
    Click HERE to see the attached map.

    They will prove you lied.
    -------------------------------

    Now, let me tell you why Kitazawa Masanari didn't confirm "another island" of Dajokan Order as Ulleungdo.

    "Another island" which was asserted by some Japanese MOFA officials and "another island" Dajokan Order stated are not same.

    "Another island" in 竹島考證 is the island Mutoh Heigaku was referring to and "another island in Dajokan Order is the island the Shimane Prefecture inquired if it should be included under their administrative control.

    "Another island in 竹島考證 is Matsushima which was Mutoh Heigaku considered as a new island similar to Korea's Ulleungdo. But "another island" in Dajokan Order is Matsushima traditionally called by Japanese.

    "Matsushima" referred to by Mutoh Heigaku and "Matsushima" traditionally called by Japanese are not same Matsushima. Mutoh Heigaku's Matsushima was found to be Ulleungdo(Takeshima) by Agami, but this doesn't mean the traditional Matsushima(Dokdo) became Ulleongdo due to the Survey's conclusion.

    Mutoh's Matsushima was found to be Ulleongdo, but Dajokan Order's Matsushima was proved to be Dokdo by the attached
    DOCUMENT
    and MAP.

    "Another island "of Dajokan Order was clarified as Dokdo based on the Edo period map and doucument, so there's no room for confusion. On the other hand, the "another island" of 竹島考證 was confused from the beginning.

    If "another island" of Dajokan Order was confirmed as Ulleongdo, Dajokan Order and its attached map and document become rubbish. They should be like this:
    "“…Regarding Takeshima(=Ulleongdo) and another island(=Ulleungdo), you should remember that our country(Japan) has nothing to do with them…”
    "......磯竹島 (Isotakeshima or Isotakejima) has another name, 竹島 (=Ulleungdo). ...... Next, there is “another island” called 松島(=Ulleongdo)"
    磯竹島略図 depicted two Ulleongdos.

    Don't make Meiji Government's official documents rubbish.

    In conclusion, "another island" in 竹島考證 has nothing to do with "another island" in Dajokan Order. Is there any mention of "another island" of Dajokna Order in 竹島考證? To wrongly prove "another island" is not Dokdo in Dajokan Order, pro-Japanese people is making ill use of the confusion caused by Mutoh Heigaku's petition.

    Stop lying!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Sloww,

    The Shimane Prefecture document simply explained what the Japanese already knew about Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo). The Prefecture described Matsushima of having a circumference of only 30 cho and having few plants, which was completely different from the Matsushima described in Mutoh's petition to the Japanese government, which described Matsushima as being much, much larger and being covered in pine trees. The Matsushima described by Shimane Prefecture and the Matsushima described in Mutoh's petition were obviously two different islands.

    The Japanese knew Takeshima to be Korea's Ulleungdo, so it was named in the Dajoukan Instruction (太政官指令), but the Japanese did not know where the Matsushima described in Mutoh's petition was located since its description did not match the description of their Matsushima. That was why the Dajoukan Instruction referred to the mysterious island as "another island" instead of "Matsushima." If they had believed that Japan's Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks / Dokdo) was the island in question, then they would have used the name "Matsushima" instead of "another island." The fact that they did not refer to it as "Matsushima," which was the name given in the petition, is evidence that the Japanese did NOT believe it to be the Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks / Dokdo) described in the Shimane Prefecture report.

    Again, the 1881 Japanese Foreign Ministry report concluded that the Matsushima in Mutoh's petition was Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). Why are you ignoring that fact?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Gerry wrote:

    That was why the Dajoukan Instruction referred to the mysterious island as "another island" instead of "Matsushima." If they had believed that Japan's Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks / Dokdo) was the island in question, then they would have used the name "Matsushima" instead of "another island."
    The fact that they did not refer to it as "Matsushima," which was the name given in the petition, is evidence that the Japanese did NOT believe it to be the Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks / Dokdo) described in the Shimane Prefecture report.


    Gerry, see sloww's post here:
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/argument-about-another-island-details.html

    Also, see his page here:
    http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.com/2012/04/attached-document-to-dajokan-order.html

    The Japanese Dajoukan's order, dated March 20, 1877, reads:
    "As to the inquiry by the Ministry of the Interior on the matter of
    the land registration of Takeshima and another island in the Sea of Japan that was attached separately.."

    The attached document submitted by Shimane Prefecture clearly described "another island" 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 Ri(里). The circumference is 10Ri..
    Next, there is “another island” called 松島. The circumference is about 30町(3.3km). It is on the same sea route as 竹島 [Ulleungdo]. The distance from Oki is about 80里 (149km). Trees and a bamboos are rare. It yields fishes and sea animals, too."

    Gerry, the Dajoukan order said "another island" because the Shimane Prefecture's attached document said "another island".
    But there was no doubt whatsoever as to the identity of this "another island". It was Dokdo (松島, Matsushima).

    This attached map provides further evidence that "another island" was Dokdo (as if we needed any).

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/1877-docmap-2.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  56. Jk6411,
    The Shimane Prefecture documents and map were only part of several documents submitted to try to determine the location of the Matsushima mentioned in Mutoh's development petition. That does not mean that the Matsushima referred to in the Shimane Prefecture document was the Matsushima in the petition or that it was the "another island" in the Dajoukan Instruction.

    Mutoh had asked to develop an island named "Matsushima," not Takeshima (Ulleungdo), so why was Takeshima mentioned in the 1977 Dajoukan Instruction? The reason was that the Japanese government suspected that the Matsushima in the petition was actually Takeshima (Ulleungdo), which the Japanese recognized as Korean territory, but they weren't sure. They needed to do an inspection to make sure, but they did not have a ship available to do it at the time. Therefore, they wrote "Takeshima and another island" as a hedge.

    Again, the "another island" was a reference to the mysterious island in Mutoh's petition that he referred to as "Matsushima," but which did not match the description of the Matsushima that the Japanese knew. In other words, they were unsure of the location of the Matsushima in the petition, so they simply wrote "Takeshima and another island" as a hedge. The fact that they did not write "Takeshima and Matsushima" is even evidence that they considered the Matsushima (Dokdo) mentioned in the Shimane document to be Japanese territory.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Continued--

    Watanabe Kouki (渡辺洪基), who was the Director of the Bureau of Documents in Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the time, described the confusion as follows:

    Concerning Matsushima

    There are several brief descriptions of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) in past records, but there are no discussions of Matsushima. However, these days people are talking a great deal about Matsushima. There are various views. Some say that it is two islands, and some say that it is one island with two names, but I have not heard that it has been decided either way.

    The (mentioned) “Takeshima” is considered to be Chosun’s Ulleungdo, which the Shogunate ended up entrusting to them (Koreans) as a convenient quick fix, without considering future implications. Therefore, if the “Matsushima” being talked about here is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it belongs to them. If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan. It is still inconclusive.

    The location of Matsushima (Songdo) is considered important because it is situated between Joseon and Japan. It is on sea routes between Nagasaki and Vladisvostok and between Shimonseiki and Wonsan, so this is a critical location, where English and Russian warships are frequently seen. So we should be very careful. Even if it is part of Joseon, we still have to protect it. As things stand now, we have no answers to give if other countries ask us about the island. This means the island is ownerless.

    Many records say that “Argonaut,” which is the Western name for Takeshima (Ulleungdo), does not exist, and that “Dagelet,” which refers to Matsushima, is actually Takeshima (Ulleungdo). So what we call "Matsushima” (Liancourt Rocks) is called “Hornet Rocks” by Westerners. Foreign maps show Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory, but there is still no agreement among countries concerning the other two islands.

    We do not have the answers either, so the area should be surveyed to determine under whose jurisdiction it belongs. Therefore, we should first contact Shimane Prefecture and investigate their relationship up to now. At the same time, we need to dispatch a ship to do a survey of the area. If Chosun has already started, we need to determine their progress and consider our options. I respectfully urge that this matter be dealt with as soon as possible.

    Watanabe Kouki, Director of the Bureau of Documents
    LINK

    Notice that Watanabe wrote the following:

    Therefore, if the “Matsushima” being talked about here is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it belongs to them. If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan. It is still inconclusive.

    ReplyDelete
  58. By the way, JK, the Shimane Prefecture document said the following after describing Takeshima (Ulleungdo).

    There is another island called Matsushima that has a circumference of about 30 cho.

    Notice that it said "another island called Matsushima," not just "another island." You cannot simply take out the "English" words you like and ignore the rest.

    Also, you must consider the Japanese. In the Dajuokan Instruction, the Japanese was "竹島外一島" (one island besides Takeshima), but in the Shimance Prefecture document, the Japanese was 次ニ一島アリ 松島ト呼フ 周回三十町許, which translates as "There is another island called Matsushima that has a circumference of about 30 cho."

    Please stop playing silly games.

    ReplyDelete
  59. jk6411

    ”So on all of these maps, Usando cannot be Jukdo.”

    Why don't you answer my question? Then, which island is Usando of this map? Please teach the name of the island which geographical features correspond rather than Jukdo
    http://takeshima.cafe.coocan.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/utsu_take_map5.gif


    This is a map of the Edo period. Sakhalin has connected with the Eurasian Continent.
    http://www.geocities.jp/saitohmoto/essay/hoppo/EzoKarafuto1802BKondoHU.JPG
    However, this inaccuracy does not prove that this land is not Sakhalin.


    Your claim has only given a broad interpretation of very local inaccuracy. Then you can’t answer my question and you and abscond from. Please teach the name of the island which geographical features correspond rather than Jukdo

    ReplyDelete
  60. Gerry said:

    “The Shimane Prefecture documents and map were only part of several documents submitted to try to determine the location of the Matsushima mentioned in Mutoh's development petition. That does not mean that the Matsushima referred to in the Shimane Prefecture document was the Matsushima in the petition or that it was the "another island" in the Dajoukan Instruction.
    Mutoh had asked to develop an island named "Matsushima," not Takeshima (Ulleungdo), so why was Takeshima mentioned in the 1877 Dajoukan Instruction? "

    Gerry, why are you bringing Mutoh's development petition into this? What deceptive game are you playing here?

    Shimane Prefecture inquired the Japanese Ministry of Interior, which then relayed this inquiry to the Dajoukan (the highest level of Japanese govt), whether or not to include Takeshima (Ulleungdo, very clearly described) and Matsushima (also very clearly described by Shimane Pref. as Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks) within their territory.
    The purpose of this inquiry was to ascertain if Ulleungdo and Dokdo should be placed under Shimane Prefecture's administrative control. It didn't have anything to do with Mutoh.
    The Dajoukan replied to the Ministry of Interior and Shimane Prefecture that Japan has nothing to do with two islands.

    It's as simple as that. Japan did not consider the two islands Japanese.

    (BTW, Mutoh Heigaku petitioned Japan's MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS for permission to develop "Matsushima".
    Shimane Prefecture wasn’t corresponding with MOFA; they did not submit any documents or maps to MOFA.
    They directed their inquiry to the Ministry of Interior, who then relayed it to Dajoukan, who then provided them the answer.)

    ReplyDelete
  61. (cont’d)

    By the way, here is what the Ministry of Interior said to Dajoukan when they were relaying Shimane Prefecture's inquiry:

    “…Inquiry regarding the compilation of the cadastre for Takeshima and “another island” in the Sea of Japan…”

    “…Shimane Prefecture sent us an inquiry for a judgement on the jurisdiction of Takeshima as per attachments and this ministry has examined the matter.
    Regarding the islands in question, they are known to have nothing to do with our country as per documents prepared in the first month of the 9th year of the Genruko (1696) after the entry of the Koreans into the island.
    1. the purport of the deliberation by the former government 2. notification of the official interpretor translator 3. the official letter from the country involved 4. our country’s reply and report.
    In other words by the 12th year of the Genroku, the exchange of instruments had been completed.
    However, the acquisition or dereliction of a territory being of great importance, we request your instruction on this question with the papers attached hereto.
    March 17th 10th year of Meiji. [March 17, 1877]
    Acting for the Minister of Home Affairs Okubo Toshimichi, Vice Minister of Home Affairs Meijima Hisoka…”

    (source: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-1877-kobunruko-records)


    So, we can see that the Ministry of Interior did not relay the inquiry to the Dajoukan because they had no idea as to the ownership of Ulleungdo and Dokdo.
    Ministry of Interior knew that the two islands were Korean territories. They relayed the inquiry to Dajoukan just to make sure.

    Also, the Ministry of Interior says that Ulleungdo and Dokdo have been acknowledged as Korea's territories from 1696.

    (Gee, no wonder Japan's Ministry of Interior protested so much when the expansionists and hawks within the Japanese government were pushing for Japan to (illegally) annex Dokdo, for military purposes, in 1905.)



    Gerry..
    If Japan really considered Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks not to be Korean territory, as you allege, then why they heck did they wait until Feb. 1905, in the middle of the huge Russo-Japanese War, when they were fighting huge naval battles against the Russians in the viscinity of East Sea (Sea of Japan) and Dokdo, to (very stealthily) annex Dokdo, and then immediately afterwards build naval watchtowers and military facilities on Dokdo? Explain that to me.

    ReplyDelete
  62. opp,
    Please wait a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Gerry,

    Here's the actual 1877 Dajoukan order.

    http://www.dokdohistory.com/02_archive/records_view.asp?i_ident=450&intNowPage=1

    hi-res images here:
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/2a10kou2032-1877/018.jpg
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/2a10kou2032-1877/019.jpg

    As you can see, the final sentence was written in red ink, in large characters, for extra emphasis.

    "CONCERNING THE INQUIRY ABOUT TAKESHIMA AND ANOTHER ISLAND, YOU
    SHOULD REMEMBER THAT THIS COUNTRY (JAPAN) HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM."


    Do you still think the Dajoukan was confused as to the identities of the two islands?

    This was the final word on the issue.
    The Dajoukan gave the order on March 20, 2877.
    The order was received by the Ministry of Interior on March 29, 1877.
    The Ministry of Interior then sent down the order to Shimane Prefecture, which received it on April 9, 1877.

    This is why Shimane Prefecture chose not include Ulleungdo and Dokdo within its territory.
    In fact, no map of Shimane Prefecture included Dokdo, until Japan's (illegal) annexation of Dokdo in 1905.

    ReplyDelete
  64. jk6411
    "This is why Shimane Prefecture chose not include Ulleungdo and Dokdo within its territory. In fact, no map of Shimane Prefecture included Dokdo, until Japan's
    (illegal) annexation of Dokdo in 1905.”


    Even if it assumes that another island is Takeshima, Japanese Takeshima's incorporation is lawful. Show the theory and evidence that Japanese incorporation is illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Jk6411 wrote:

    Gerry, why are you bringing Mutoh's development petition into this? What deceptive game are you playing here?

    Mutoh's development petition was submitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which suspected the Matsushima in question was actually Takeshima (Ulleungdo), but wasn't sure. The ministry wanted to survey the island. In the meantime, the Foreign Ministry asked for information from Shimane Prefecture, which was how the Ministry of Interior became involved. Don't you remember the last part of letter from the Foreign Ministry's Bureau of Documents Director?

    Many records say that “Argonaut,” which is the Western name for Takeshima (Ulleungdo), does not exist, and that “Dagelet,” which refers to Matsushima, is actually Takeshima (Ulleungdo). So what we call "Matsushima” (Liancourt Rocks) is called “Hornet Rocks” by Westerners. Foreign maps show Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory, but there is still no agreement among countries concerning the other two islands.

    We do not have the answers either, so the area should be surveyed to determine under whose jurisdiction it belongs. Therefore, we should first contact Shimane Prefecture and investigate their relationship up to now. At the same time, we need to dispatch a ship to do a survey of the area. If Chosun has already started, we need to determine their progress and consider our options. I respectfully urge that this matter be dealt with as soon as possible.

    Watanabe Kouki, Director of the Bureau of Documents


    Again, Matsushima was not mentioned in the 1877 Dajoukan Instruction. Why not? Because the Japanese government did not know the location of the Matsushima described in Mutoh's petition, so they used the expression "Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and another island."

    It was not until the Amagi went to Ulleungdo in 1880 that the Japanese determined that Matsushima was actually Ulleungdo. The 1881 Foreign Ministry report confirms this.

    It was after this that Japan started referring to Liancourt Rocks by their Western name, "Liancourt Rocks," instead of using the old Japanese name, "Matsushima."

    If the Japan had believed Liancourt Rocks to be Korea's Usando, why didn't it change the name to "Usando" or something instead of "Liancourt Rocks"? Because Japan never considered Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) to be Korean territory.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Jk6411 wrote:

    Gerry..
    If Japan really considered Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks not to be Korean territory, as you allege, then why they heck did they wait until Feb. 1905, in the middle of the huge Russo-Japanese War, when they were fighting huge naval battles against the Russians in the viscinity of East Sea (Sea of Japan) and Dokdo, to (very stealthily) annex Dokdo, and then immediately afterwards build naval watchtowers and military facilities on Dokdo? Explain that to me.


    Because no one was living on Liancourt Rocks in 1880 or using them commercially and, therefore, saw no reason to incorporate them. It was not until after the Japanese government received a petition to incorporate Liancourt Rocks from Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞) on September 29, 1904 that it decided to do so. Nakai wanted the Rocks officially incorporated in order to protect his investment there. You can read Nakai' petition to the government at THIS LINK.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Gerry Bevers,

    Gerry wrote:


    I didn't ignore the 1881 Japanese Foreign Ministry report concluded that the Matsushima in Mutoh's petition was Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). Read what I wrote again. I already mentioned the Matsushima in Mutoh's petition was Ulleungdo which is definitely not Dokdo.

    The clear fact is Matsushima Mutoh was referring to was not real Ulleungdo. He was actually referring to Dokdo, but both Mutoh and some MOFA officials didn't know that. They had no idea that traditonally Japanese called Dokdo as Matsushima. He saw the real Ulleungdo but he thought it was not real Ulleungdo and he thought its name is Matsushima. His confuson was caused by western mapping error. But Amagi's survey corrected his confusion by concluding his Matsushima was not real Ulleungdo. Real Ulleungdo's name was Takeshima before Amagi's survey. Since the conclusion of the survey, Ulleungdo began to be called as Matsushima and the name Takeshima disappeared. Matsushima in 竹島考證 indicates Ulleungdo and Matsushima in Dajokan Order is Dokdo, right?

    Stick to the Dajokan Order's attached document and map without adding absurd logic to them, then you'll find the truth that that the "another island" in 竹島考證 is different from that in Dajokna Order.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Gerry said:

    "Mutoh's development petition was submitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which suspected the Matsushima in question was actually Takeshima (Ulleungdo), but wasn't sure. The ministry wanted to survey the island. In the meantime, the Foreign Ministry asked for information from Shimane Prefecture, which was how the Ministry of Interior became involved. Don't you remember the last part of letter from the Foreign Ministry's Bureau of Documents Director?"

    You're talking about Watanabe Kouki, who was Director of the Bureau of Documents, MOFA in 1878.
    Well, here's the problem. Watanabe's letter was from 1878.
    His 1878 letter says, "Therefore, we should first contact Shimane Prefecture and investigate their relationship [to Ulleungdo and Dokdo] up to now."
    So it means that as of 1878, the MOFA had not yet contacted Shimane Prefecture concerning Ulleungdo and Dokdo.

    But.. Shimane Prefecture sent the inquiry concerning Ulleungdo and Dokdo to the Ministry of Interior in OCTOBER 16, 1876.
    And even that was in response to the Ministry of the Interior's original inquiry to Shimane Prefecture about the island Takeshima, dated October 5, 1876.

    The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was simply not involved in this exchange, or in any aspect of the 1877 Dajoukan order.

    Gerry, you've proven that you're a big fat liar.

    Show me even one piece of evidence that says the MOFA contacted Shimane Prefecture or the Ministry of Interior concerning Ulleungdo and Dokdo, with regard to Mutoh's petition, prior to October 1876.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Gerry wrote:

    "[Japan did not incorporate Dokdo] Because no one was living on Liancourt Rocks in 1880 or using them commercially and, therefore, saw no reason to incorporate them. It was not until after the Japanese government received a petition to incorporate Liancourt Rocks from Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞) on September 29, 1904 that it decided to do so. Nakai wanted the Rocks officially incorporated in order to protect his investment there."

    Shimane Prefecture's inquiry to the Ministry of Interior in October 1876 said that it wanted to register Ulleungdo and Dokdo as their territory and draw them in maps of Shimane Prefecture.
    The Dajoukan said that the two islands are not Japanese. So the Shimane Prefecture didn't.

    As for Nakai Yozaburo..
    As we've discussed before, Nakai originally believed Dokdo was Korean, and he was going to ask the Korean govt for permission to simply lease the island, so he could catch sealions. But he was dissuaded by a Japanese official who persuaded him to submit his request to the Japanese govt instead. Then Japanese Navy Admiral Kimotsuki persuaded Nakai to ask the Japanese govt to outright incorporate Dokdo into Japan.

    (http://dokdo-research.com/page11.html)
    (http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-illegal-1905-annexation-of-dokdo)

    The reason Japan wanted Dokdo was simple. It needed Dokdo for military purposes.
    In 1905, Japan was fighting the huge Russo-Japanese War. Japan was fighting huge naval battles against Russia in the viscinity of East Sea (Sea of Japan) and Dokdo. Japan urgently needed to build watch-towers and communication facilities on Dokdo in order to keep tabs on the Russian Navy.
    This was the main reason Japan annexed Dokdo.
    Admiral Kimotsuki was in fact in charge of building communication lines and facilities in the Korea/Ulleungdo/Dokdo area.

    Going back to Nakai Yozaburo..
    Nakai submitted his petition in Sept. 1904 to the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce.
    But the Ministry of Interior opposed it, since it knew that Dokdo was Korea's. (and feared that if Japan annexed Dokdo it may make Japan look imperialistic in the eyes of Western nations).
    However, expansionist-minded officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (including Foreign Minister Komura Jutaro himself) pushed hard for the petition's approval, and the MOFA eventually approved the petition.
    This is how Dokdo was annexed by Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  70. jk6411
    “As for Nakai Yozaburo..As we've discussed before, Nakai originally believed Dokdo was Korean”

    Do you know why Nakai guessed that Takesima was Korean?

    “Then Japanese Navy Admiral Kimotsuki persuaded Nakai to ask the Japanese govt”
    It is much related to the above reason that he consulted with Kimotsuki.

    But the Ministry of Interior opposed it, since it knew that Dokdo was Korea's.
    Distortion. The Ministry of the Interior has not concluded that Takeshima is Korean. She was indicated that the possibility of the Korean's. She has not acquired the information or proof that Takeshima is Korean.

    ReplyDelete
  71. opp said:
    "The Ministry of the Interior has not concluded that Takeshima is Korean. She was indicated that the possibility of the Korean's. She has not acquired the information or proof that Takeshima is Korean."

    The Ministry of the Interior rejected Nakai Yozaburo's petition for Japan to incorporate Dokdo.

    The Ministry knew that Dokdo had been recognized by Japanese govt as Korean territory, along with Ulleungdo, from way back in the 1690s.

    When Shimane Prefecture inquired the Ministry in 1876 as to whether or not to include Ulleungdo and Dokdo within their territory, the Ministry told them not to. (having made double-sure, by inquiring the Dajoukan, that the two islands "had nothing to do with Japan")

    The Ministry of Interior knew that Dokdo was Korean territory, and was afraid that if Japan stole a neighboring country's territory, the Western nations would suspect Japan having become imperialistic.

    (You cannot claim a piece of land as yours, unless it is absolutely certain that it is owner-less.)

    This is why the Ministry of Interior (rightly) rejected Nakai Yozaburo's application.

    ReplyDelete
  72. JK6411 wrote:

    You're talking about Watanabe Kouki, who was Director of the Bureau of Documents, MOFA in 1878.
    Well, here's the problem. Watanabe's letter was from 1878.


    I assume you are getting your 1878 date for Watanabe's letter from my old 2007 post on this blog, but that date is wrong. I just have not corrected the date, yet.

    There was no date on the Watanabe letter, but the letter was written in response to the September 7, 1876 petition from Mutoh Heigaku (武藤平学) to develop Matsushima, which would mean it was probably written sometime in September 1876.

    If you look in the 竹島考證, you will notice that just before the Watanabe letter the following was written:

    In regard to the two above letters, Watanabe Kouki (渡辺洪基) wrote his opinion in two letters. Items No. 11 and No. 12 are those letters.

    The "two above letters" included Mutoh's September 9, 1876 development petition, which was labeled "Item No. 8." Therefore, if Watanabe's letter was written sometime in September 1876, it preceded Shimane Prefecture's October inquiry to the Japanese Ministry of Interior, which was most likely spurred by a request to Shimane Prefecture from either Watanabe, himself, or from someone else in the Foreign Ministry.

    Except for Watanabe's mention in his letter of his intention to seek information from Shimane Prefecture, I do not have evidence that he actually contacted Shimane Prefecture. However, I do not think it is just a conincidence that Shimane Prefecture became interested in Takeshima and Matsushima just one month after Mutoh's petition and Watanabe's letter.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Jk6411,

    Is your name Steve Barber? I ask because Steve Barber also has a bad habit of calling me "a big fat liar."

    Steve also has an annoying habit of claiming that Liancourt Rocks were incorporated by Japan for military purposes in spite of the fact that the January 28, 1905 decision to incorporate the Rocks clearly stated the reason was in response to Nakai Yozaburo's petition, in which he said he wished to use the islets for a sea lion hunting business.

    The following is a translation of the January 28, 1905 decision:

    28th January 1905 (the 38th year of Meiji)

    We have examined the proposal by the Secretary of the State for Home Affairs, which was about an uninhabited island. As to the uninhabited island, at 37 degree 9' 30" N. latitude, 131 degree 55' E. longitude and 85 sea miles northwest of Oki island, there were no traces of occupation by any other countries and as a Japanese Nakai Yozaburo recently petitoned to incorporate the island and to lend it to him after he began sea lion hunting at the island two years ago in the 36th year (of Meiji, 1903), built a hut for fishery, tranferred laborers and got proper fishing gear, we need to clarify the belonging to which prefecture and the name of the island. The proposal asked us how about to name the island as Takeshima and to make it control under the jurisdiction of the local government of Oki island of Shimane prefecture from now on.


    So we examined the matter and found that there is a fact of occupation under the international law as it is clear from related documents that Nakai Yozaburo moved to the island since the 36th year of Meiji (1903) and has engaged in fishery there. So we think that we may make it belong to Japan and put it under the jurisdiction of the local government of Oki island of Shimane prefecture. So we admit that it is reasonable to let the Cabinet make the decision as the proposal.


    LINK

    ReplyDelete
  74. jk6411

    "The Ministry of the Interior rejected Nakai Yozaburo's petition for Japan to incorporate Dokdo."

    Inoue saied that "韓国領地ノ疑アル(doubt)莫荒タル一箇不毛ノ岩礁ヲ收メテ"

    Hokkaido has the doubt attacked by tsunami, then I rejected the business trip to Hokkaido.


    Did I know what Hokkaido was attacked for by tsunami? No, ”Doubt” shows an unconfirmed information except Korea.

    Inoue's words and your essay are contradictory. Which is righter between the words of the person himself and your essay as Inoue's recognition?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Correction:

    The Mutoh Heigaku (武藤平学)petition to develop an island named "Matsushima was dated July 1876, not September 7, 1976, which means that the Watanabe letter was probably written sometime between July and October 1876. Why October? Because it was in October that Shimane Prefecture wrote a letter discussing Takeshima and Matsushima.

    ReplyDelete
  76. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Gerry said:
    "Is your name Steve Barber? I ask because Steve Barber also has a bad habit of calling me "a big fat liar.""

    No, I'm not Stever Barber. But I highly respect the guy, and I really like his website www.dokdo-takeshima.com.
    He tells the truth about Dokdo, and he's got a lot of juicy information that the Japanese government doesn't want people to see.
    You should go check it out, too.


    Gerry said:
    "I do not think it is just a conincidence that Shimane Prefecture became interested in Takeshima and Matsushima just one month after Mutoh's petition and Watanabe's letter."

    Gerry, Mutoh's petition and the Shimane Prefecture's inquiry to the Ministry of Interior concerning Ulleungdo and Dokdo had nothing to do with each other.

    Mutoh submitted his petition to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
    Does it say anywhere in 竹島考証 Vol.3, which comprehensively recorded the debates within and actions of MOFA concerning Takeshima/Matsushima from 1876 to 1881, that the MOFA ever corresponded with the Shimane Prefecture or Ministry of Interior between July and October 1876?

    The reason Shimane Prefecture sent correspondence to the Ministry of Interior in October 16, 1876 was that Ministry of Interior had contacted it first.

    At the time, Japan's Meiji government was still new. The Ministry of Interior was, among other things, in the process of determining the exact extent of Japan's territories, for mapping and administration purposes.

    On October 5, 1876, the Ministry of Interior sent a letter to Shimane Prefecture, asking for documents and maps regarding Takeshima island, in order to ascertain its ownership.
    On October 16, 1876, Shimane Prefecture sent the reply to Ministry of Interior, including documents and maps of Ulleungdo and Dokdo (Takeshima and Matsushima), and inquiring whether the two islands should be placed under their administration.
    (source) (Parts B & C)

    Then for five months, the Ministry of Interior conducted a thorough investigation concerning the ownership of the two islands, using not only the documentation sent by Shimane Prefecture, but their own historical records dating back to the 1600s, including all the records of diplomatic relations with Chosun.

    Then in March 17, 1877, the Ministry of Interior forwarded the inquiry to the Dajoukan (including all the related documents and maps).
    The Ministry told the Dajoukan that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were "known to have nothing to do with" Japan since 1696.
    But since "the acquisition or dereliction of a territory" was "of great importance", it wanted to make very sure.

    In March 20, 1877, the Dajoukan responded that the two islands "have nothing to do with" Japan.

    The Dajoukan response was sent to the Ministry of Interior, which in turn sent it to Shimane Prefecture, instructing them not to include the two islands within their administration.

    ReplyDelete
  78. jk6411 wrote:

    No, I'm not Stever Barber. But I highly respect the guy, and I really like his website www.dokdo-takeshima.com.
    He tells the truth about Dokdo, and he's got a lot of juicy information that the Japanese government doesn't want people to see.
    You should go check it out, too.


    I have checked out Steve Barber's site. It is full of lies and distortions. Also, Steve is notorious for posting about "Dokdo" under a variety of a aliases, so even though you deny being Steve, I cannot be 100 percent sure. Anyway, it is not important.

    jk6411 wrote:

    Gerry, Mutoh's petition and the Shimane Prefecture's inquiry to the Ministry of Interior concerning Ulleungdo and Dokdo had nothing to do with each other.

    You can't know that. Yes, Mutoh submitted his petition to the Foreign Ministry, but Mr. Watanabe, the Director of Documents at the Foreign Ministry, said in his letter that he intended to contact Shimane Prefecture to ask about Matsushima. We do not know if he contacted Shimane Prefecture directly or through the Interior Ministry.

    jk6411 wrote:

    Mutoh submitted his petition to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
    Does it say anywhere in 竹島考証 Vol.3, which comprehensively recorded the debates within and actions of MOFA concerning Takeshima/Matsushima from 1876 to 1881, that the MOFA ever corresponded with the Shimane Prefecture or Ministry of Interior between July and October 1876?


    Yes, the 竹島考証 author looked at many documents, but he did not include everything. He even said so in his report.

    As I wrote above, I do not have any letters exchanged between the Foreign Ministry and Shimane Prefecture or the Interior Ministry, but in his first letter, Watanabe wrote that he intended to contact Shimane Prefecture. He could have done it directly or through the Interior Ministry.

    Why did Watanabe write a second, more detailed letter concerning Matsushima? His second letter may have been written after receiving a response from Shimane Prefecture.

    jk6411 wrote:

    On October 16, 1876, Shimane Prefecture sent the reply to Ministry of Interior, including documents and maps of Ulleungdo and Dokdo (Takeshima and Matsushima), and inquiring whether the two islands should be placed under their administration.

    Shimane Prefecture did not inquire "whether the two islands should be placed under their administration." Show me your evidence that it did.

    jk6411 wrote:

    In March 20, 1877, the Dajoukan responded that the two islands "have nothing to do with" Japan.

    No, it responded that "Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and another" had nothing to do with Japan. Only Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was named because there was a record of Japan conceding it to Korea, which was mentioned in the instruction.

    The Dajoukan Instruction did not mention the name "Matsushima," so we do not know to what "another island" was referring. If they had wanted to be clear, they would have written the name of the other island, so we can assume they did not know the location of the other island and chose instead to refer to it vaguely as "another island."

    The "another island" was almost certainly referring to the mysterious "Matsushima" from Mutoh's petition, which many people suspected was actully, Ulleungdo (Takeshima). Their suspicion turned out to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  79. ”Is your name Steve Barber? I ask because Steve Barber also has a bad habit of calling me "a big fat liar."

    It is doubt that ‘jk6411’ is Steve's fake ID. Of course, I do not know that he is Steve. “Doubt” shows that the information is uncertain.

    By the way, the method of distortion of Steve and ‘jk6411’ is same. Steve propaganda sight says about Boggs’ Office Memorandum July 13, 1951 as follows.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-japan-peace-treaty-and-dokdo
    “Boggs’ reply is special. Being a State Department Geographer his rationale behind defining Japan’s territory represents a practical approach to the dispute not tainted by military ambitions but rather on the geopolitical reality of the region. His memorandum foreshadows the potential for conflict the Dokdo Takeshima dispute had even decades ago. S.W. Boggs’ solution remains a logical answer to the problem even today. He knew declaring the border of Japan~Korea between Ulleungdo and Dokdo would have been a huge mistake. In the end, the modern border between Japan and Korea is right where Bogg’s suggested and to this day we have a fair boundary considering the region’s geography.”

    Various matters are examined for decision-making. In an examination process, a policy is often corrected. And final decision-making is made after these examinations and many twists and turns. Of course final conclusion is more important than the process, especially legal. The conclusion of this Bogg’s case …
    In spite of Bogg’s suggestion, the drafter of the treaty determined not to add Takeshima as a Japanese renounce territory.
    This is evidence which proves SF treaty treated Takeshima as Japanese territory. Steve uses the undecided argument in the examination process for rejecting the conclusion (TREATY). Furthermore, Steve's data interpretation does not meet the fact. Jk6411 also has the same feature. Boggs has sent another letter three days after the letter that Steve presented. Boggs’ real intention is written to this letter.
    https://picasaweb.google.com/104901006821890355877/2012421?authuser=0&feat=directlink

    Boggs: “If it is decide to give them to Korea, it would necessary only to add “and Liancourt Rocks” at the end of Art. 2, para.(a) ”
    Boggs is neutrality whether Takeshima is the Korean territory or a Japanese territory. He only did advice about the text of an article technically. The conclusion (TREATY) didn’t add the word. His neutral suggestion from the geographical viewpoint is effective in a treaty interpretation.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 31
    1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.


    Ordinary meaning of the SF treaty about Takeshima is Japanese territory.
    Jk6411 also use this trick for the Nakai’s episode.

    ReplyDelete
  80. ‘jk6411’ is using the completely same distortion technique as Steve.

    [fact]
    1.Nakai thought that Takeshima might be the Korean territory. The reason was a hydrographic chart.

    2. The fishery bureau chief advised that it could not be said as the Korean territory.

    3.For this reason, Nakai consulted with Kimotsuki of the navy Hydrographic Department. The hydrographic chart at that time was created by the navy Hydrographic Department.

    4.Kimotsuki explained that incorporation was possible from that there is no effective control by other country, and approachability. (Approachability is Kimotsuki's mistake. Approachability can’t become the territorial title)

    5. Since the Department of the Interior had doubt that it was the Korean territory, she did not receive the request of Nakai.

    6. Yamaza of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs approved of incorporation of a territory.

    7. Yamaza and Kuwata explain to the Department of the Interior, and the Department of the Interior agrees with incorporation.


    Jk6411 gives priority to an intermediate argument over a conclusion. And he omits a word with "doubt" and deceives like definite information.

    ReplyDelete
  81. opp wrote:

    1.Nakai thought that Takeshima might be the Korean territory. The reason was a hydrographic chart.

    Wrong. Nakai knew Dokdo was Korean territory, because he had been living and fishing on Ulleungdo.
    "Japanese sources have also described him as a "resident" of Ullungdo." (http://dokdo-research.com/page11.html)
    He was one of many Japanese fishermen who were (illegally) operating from Ulleungdo at the time.
    He knew Dokdo well, because Dokdo is in the middle of the sea route between Japan's Oki Islands and Korea's Ulleungdo island.
    Japanese fishermen used Dokdo as a stopover point on their (illegal) travels to and from Ulleungdo.
    So they knew very well whose island Dokdo was.

    From http://dokdo-research.com/page11.html :
    "For the purpose of submitting his lease request to the Korean government, Nakai travelled to Tokyo in the early fall of 1904, whereupon an Agriculture Ministry official from Nakai´s home on Oki Island suggested that he meet with the Fishery Bureau Director Maki Bokushin at the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce to discuss his intentions. Director Maki had a long career as the highest fishery administrator and was a leading figure in promoting Japan´s deep-sea fishing industry and its expansion into Korean coastal waters. Maki agreed that Nakai should ask to lease the Dokdo islets, but thought that it might be more opportune, for everyone involved, to submit the request to the Japanese government.

    The Fishery Director proceeded to ask assistance from an Imperial Navy Hydrographic Department bureaucrat, Admiral Kimotsuki Kenko. Although he was in charge of Japanese waterway administration in peacetime, Admiral Kimotsuki was at the time involved in military operations in the coastal waters of Korea for the Hydrographic Department. What happened next, quickly changed Nakai Yozaburo´s simple lease of Dokdo into the total incorporation of the islets into the Japanese Empire; for the Japanese military saw an opportunity to grab a strategic territory. "
    (bold and italics mine)

    Admiral Kimotsuki was head of the Japanese Navy’s Hydrographic Dept.
    During the Russo-Japanese War, that Dept was involved in military operations in the coastal waters of Korea, and among other things was laying communication lines and building military facilities all along the coasts of Korea and Ulleungdo.

    (Shocking, isn't it? Korea hadn't been colonized yet, as of 1904-5, but Japanese were already in Korea and building military and communications facilities all over Korea and Ulleungdo.
    Japan was fighting a big war against Russia. It was fighting huge naval battles against Russia in the seas around Korea, so that's all that mattered.
    Korea's sovereignty was not even on their mind.)

    (http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-military-land-appropriation-dokdo-i)
    (http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-military-land-appropriation-dokdo-2)
    (http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-military-land-appropriation-dokdo-3)

    ReplyDelete
  82. (cont’d)

    Admiral Kimotsuki wanted Dokdo. He convinced Nakai that Dokdo was a completely ownerless island, and that since Nakai, a Japanese national, was "managing" the island, he should ask the Japanese govt to incorporate Dokdo into Japan.
    But was Nakai really “living on and managing” the island?

    (From http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-takeshima-x-files-i)

    The Japanese Navy surveyed Dokdo for the first time in Sept. 1904.
    At the time, the Japanese warship Niitaka was building naval watchtowers and telegraph lines on Ulleungdo island.
    During this mission, the Niitaka surveyed Dokdo island for the first time.
    They surveyed the island, and also asked the locals on Ulleungdo about Dokdo.

    They learned that Koreans called the island "Dokdo", while Japanese called it "Lianko".
    They learned that Korean and Japanese fishermen were fishing and catching sealions on Dokdo, but that the fishermen never stayed long on Dokdo. The environment was too harsh and there was no fresh water on Dokdo, so the fishermen stayed on Dokdo for about ten days at a time (and only in the summer). The fishermen always operated from Ulleungdo. Ulleungdo was their base.
    The Niitaka also learned from the locals that Russian ships were sometimes visiting near Dokdo.
    The ship reported all this to the Japanese Navy.

    So.. there were no permanent residents on Dokdo. The fishermen who were operating on Dokdo were always using Ulleungdo (a Korean island) as their base. (Nakai was no exception.)
    (This was for obvious reasons. There was no drinkable water on Dokdo, so they had to bring all the water from Ulleungdo, the nearest island from Dokdo.
    Also, Dokdo was often battered by strong winds and waves. When the weather was bad, the fishermen had to evacuate to Ulleungdo.)

    Furthermore, Koreans were clearly aware of and visiting Dokdo at the time.
    And Nakai originally knew that Dokdo was a Korean island.
    (But when Japan annexed Dokdo, they never once consulted with Korea. They never asked Korea if Dokdo was Korean territory. Japan was blinded by its imperialistic, expansionist fervor.)


    With the backing of Maki and Kimotsuki (both expansionist-minded officials), Nakai submitted his "Request for Territorial Incorporation of Liancourt Island and Its Lease" on September 29, 1904 to the Japanese Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    The Ministry of Interior rejected his petition, because it knew that Dokdo was Korean territory.
    (Give me a break. When Shimane Prefecture inquired the Interior Ministry in Sept. 1876 concerning the ownership of Ulleungdo and Dokdo, the Interior Ministry carried out a five month-long thorough investigation into the matter, using all available documents and maps. They decided that the two islands 'had nothing to do with" Japan. But just to make very sure, they inquired the Dajoukan, who also said that the two islands "have nothing to do with" Japan.
    So the Interior Ministry knew for certain that Dokdo was Korea's.)

    ReplyDelete
  83. (cont’d)

    So, the Interior Ministry rejected Nakai's petition.
    But Nakai was then helped by Yamaza Enjiro, the Japanese Foreign Ministry’s Political Affairs Director. (who was a right-wing nationalist and expansionist-minded)
    At the Japanese Foreign Ministry, Yamaza pushed hard to have Nakai’s petition approved.
    Yamaza said that "The incorporation [of Dokdo] is urgent particularly under the present situation, and it is absolutely necessary and advisable to construct watchtowers and install wireless or submarine cable and keep watch on the hostile warships."
    (http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-illegal-1905-annexation-of-dokdo)

    Yamaza and Japan's Foreign Minister, Komura Jutaro (who was also expansionist-minded), played key roles in having Nakai's request approved by the Japanese govt.

    (Komura was deeply involved with Japanese interests in Korea and the Asian mainland well before the incorporation of Dokdo. He was involved in increasing Japan's influence in Korea since the 1890s, and played a central role in the colonization of Korea.)

    (from http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-illegal-1905-annexation-of-dokdo)

    "Records from Japan’s Russo~Japanese War (1904~1905) archives detail how Komura Jutaro received telegrams on an almost daily basis reporting the location of Russia’s approaching Baltic Fleet.
    A mere two weeks before annexing Dokdo, Komura Jutaro was sent a message confirming Russia’s Navy would be sailing through Dokdo’s adjacent waters en-route to Vladivostok.
    To help posture for the battle Komura Jutaro with the help of Admiral Kimotsuki surveyed Dokdo, annexed the island and then installed watchtowers there."

    (The battle that Japan was preparing for was the Battle of Tsushima, the decisive naval battle of the Russo-Japanese War, which took place in May 1905.)

    (http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-russo-japanese-war-dokdo-i)
    (http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-takeshima-x-files-ii)

    In 1904-1905, Japan was fighting the Russo-Japanese War. It was fighting naval battles with Russia in the Korea/East Sea region.
    After successfully engaging the Russia's Vladivostok fleet in August 1904, it was installing watch towers and telegraph lines in Ulleungdo and all along Korea's coasts.
    In Sept 1904, while Japanese warship Niitaka was performing this mission, it initially surveyed Dokdo. (It also found that Russian warships were frequenting the area, and reported it to the Navy).
    The Japanese Navy then performed a full survey of Dokdo and deemed it suitable for military use, and submitted a feasibility report for the construction of naval watchtowers and telegraph station on Dokdo to Admiral Kimotsuki on January 5th 1905.
    Japan then annexed Dokdo in Feb. 1905.

    So, Nakai Yozaburo's request to lease Dokdo just happened to come at a really opportune time, for the Japanese govt.
    It was perfect timing, really.
    The Japanse govt had huge military reasons to annex Dokdo. And it would have done so, whether Nakai asked it or not. (If not Nakai, it would've just found another excuse.)

    Some in the Japanese govt opposed the incorporation of Dokdo, believing that Dokdo was Korean territory.
    But expansionist-minded politicians (including some right-wing nationalists) prevailed, and the Japanese govt decided to annex Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  84. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  85. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Gerry said:

    "Shimane Prefecture did not inquire "whether the two islands should be placed under their administration." Show me your evidence that it did."

    Gerry, did you even look at that link I gave you?

    (source) (Parts B&C)

    This is Shimane Prefecture's letter to Ministry of Interior:

    "Inquiry about registration of the land of Takeshima and another island in the Sea of Japan

    The officials of geographical room of your ministry (the Ministry of Interior) made their rounds to our prefecture for registration of lands and inquired as the separate paper, Otsu #28, concerning the investigation of Takeshima which is located in the Sea of Japan.
    This island was discovered during the Eiroku years (1558-1570) and the merchants in Yonago town, Houki County in our feudal clan, Oya Kyuemon and Murakawa ichibee made voyages to the island every year under the permission of the shogunate and brought back animals and vegetables to sell them in the mainland for 78 years from the 4th year of Genwa (1618) to the 8th year of Genroku (1695). There is a conclusive evidence for that and old documents and old letters were handed down to their descendants.
    We first of all attach separate paper relating the history and a map herewith. We should investigate the whole island this time and note every detail of it , however it was not certain that it was under this prefecture’s jurisdiction from the ancient times. And it is far as over 100-ri in the north sea and sea route is unclear and usual sailboats can’t make round trips. So we would like to report the details from the documents which were handed down by those men Oya and Murakawa later.
    And as we guess it generally, it locates at the northwest direction of Oki county so it seems as it should be attached to the west area of San-in district, we would like to ask about depicting the island in the prefecture’s map and registration of land. Please give us an order.

    Deputy of
    prefecture governor Sato Nobuhiro,

    Counselor of
    Shimane prefecture, Sakai Jiro

    16th
    October 1876 (the 9th year of Meiji)

    To Sir Ohkubo
    Toshimichi in the Ministry of Interior "
    (emphasis mine)

    As you can see, it says it right there in the title.
    Shimane Prefecture wanted to register the two islands within their territory and depict them in their maps.

    By the way, they kept mentioning Takeshima only.
    This was probably because this letter was a response to the Ministry of Interior's original inquiry to Shimane about Takeshima island. (See ‘Part C’ in the source I gave you.)
    The Interior Ministry only inquired about Takeshima island. So Shimane just talked about Takeshima island.
    (But as the title of Shimane's letter clearly shows, Shimane was inquiring whether to include both Takeshima and Matsushima within their Prefecture. They included a map which clearly showed two islands labeled Takeshima and Matsushima. They also included a document which clearly described Takeshima and Matsushima. here)

    ReplyDelete
  87. (cont’d)

    Interior Ministry asked Shimane about Takeshima.
    Shimane asked Interior Ministry about Takeshima and "another island".
    Interior Ministry investigated for five months, and came to conclusion that Takeshima and "another island" have nothing to do with Japan. But just to make sure, Interior Ministry asked Dajoukan about Takeshima and "another island".
    Dajoukan said that Takeshima and "another island" have nothing to do with Japan. (in big, red letters)
    Interior Ministry receives order that Takeshima and "another island" have nothing to do with Japan, and orders Shimane not to register Takeshima and "another island" within their territory.

    Now, if “another island” was Matsushima, all this makes perfect sense.
    But if "another island" really was an unknown, mysterious island as you claim, all this becomes:

    Interior Ministry asked Shimane about Takeshima.
    Shimane asked Interior Ministry about Takeshima and "unknown mysterious island".
    Interior Ministry investigated for five months, and came to conclusion that Takeshima and "unknown mysterious island" have nothing to do with Japan. But just to make sure, Interior Ministry asked Dajoukan about Takeshima and "unknown mysterious island".
    Dajoukan said that Takeshima and "unknown mysterious island" have nothing to do with Japan. (in big, red letters)
    Interior Ministry receives order that Takeshima and "unknown mysterious island" have nothing to do with Japan, and orders Shimane not to register Takeshima and "unknown mysterious island" within their territory.

    Doesn't this sound really silly to you?

    ReplyDelete
  88. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  89. jk6411
    “Wrong. Nakai knew Dokdo was Korean territory, because he had been living and fishing on Ulleungdo.

    竹島経営者中井養三郎氏立志傳(The biography of Nakai in 1906)
    “海図によれば、仝島は朝鮮の版図に属するをもって(According to the hydrographic chart, it is a Korean territory.)”
    “加ふるに朝鮮人にして従来同島経営に関する形跡なきに反し、本邦人にして既に同島経営に従事せるものあるが上は、(Although there is no trace that Koreans managed the island, Japanese people are already engaged in the management of the island.)

    Nakai knew that there is no evidence of Korean effective occupation. Your essay is contrary to the fact.

    ReplyDelete
  90. jk6411
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-russo-japanese-war-dokdo-i
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-takeshima-x-files-ii


    The essay of a fabrication site is unreliable. And the information of the site is old or he selected information for his desire. For example, he has ignored another Boggs memo and 竹島経営者中井養三郎氏立志傳. His essay contradict these materials.
    Show the original text or the image data of the material, if you want to discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Steve Barber,

    If you're reading this..
    There are some pages at your website (www.dokdo-takeshima.com) that need some upkeep.
    There are some non-working links.
    Could you fix them?

    Thank you very much.

    ReplyDelete
  92. In my previous post, I cited the following webpages which prove that Japan annexed Dokdo in 1905 purely for military reasons.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-takeshima-x-files-i
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-takeshima-x-files-ii
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-military-land-appropriation-dokdo-i
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-military-land-appropriation-dokdo-2
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-military-land-appropriation-dokdo-3

    http://dokdo-research.com/page11.html
    ("Who Was Nakai Yozaburo?"
    An explanation of the circumstances and nature of Imperial Japan´s incorporation of Dokdo in 1905.)

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-illegal-1905-annexation-of-dokdo
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-russo-japanese-war-dokdo-i
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-russo-japanese-war-dokdo-ii


    In these pages, there were some non-working links. Here are the working links:

    "The name of Dokdo was also used by Governor Shim Heung Taek, The Domestic Affairs Office and national newspapers when they objected to the illegal annexation of Dokdo in 1906."
    (link: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/korean-objections-to-japans-1905-claim)

    "the 1903 Black Dragon Fishing Manual of 1903"
    (link: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-in-the-early-20th-century)

    "Japanese Navy had already installed watchtowers on Ulleungdo Islands north and southeast points"
    (link: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-in-the-early-20th-century)

    "The Niitaka’s mission was not only to survey Dokdo but to also install telegraph lines on Ulleungdo Island. As recorded above 13 Techinicians were dispatched to Ulleungdo for military communcations equipment. A map of these telegraph lines can be seen here."
    "A map of the occupied Jukpyeon Harbor with Japanese Naval watchtowers and telegraph lines can be found here."
    "Later as in this map the naval telegraph lines extended to Dokdo~Matsue Japan."
    "submarine cable linking Dokdo to Ulleungdo"
    (link: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-military-land-appropriation-dokdo-i)
    (link: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/telegraph-overall-map2.jpg)

    "logbooks of the Japanese Warship Niitaka"
    "In early September of 1904 the Japanese warship Niitaka reported Russian warships were seen near Dokdo Island."
    (link: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-takeshima-x-files-i)

    "the Japanese Imperial Navy had successfully engaged Russia’s Vladivostok Fleet near Ulsan, Korea."
    "We must remember Japan was at war with Russia at this time.."
    (link: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-russo-japanese-war-dokdo-i)

    "it was reported Liancourt Rocks were suitable for building military structures"
    "The Japanese navy then ordered a survey of Dokdo in November and submitted a feasibility report for the construction of naval watchtowers and telegraph station on Dokdo to Kimotsuki Kaneyuki on January 5th 1905."
    "The captain [sic] of the Japanese Warship Tsushima would survey Liancourt Rocks and submit his survey for military watchtowers to Director Kimotsuki in January of 1905."
    "The Tsushima’s captain reported that although there was some topographical difficulty, it was possible to build a structure on the East Islet."
    (link: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-takeshima-x-files-ii)

    ReplyDelete
  93. (cont’d)

    "On September 25th the logbook recorded that those who hunted seals on Liancourt Rocks used Ulleungdo Island from which to conduct their activities.."
    (link: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-takeshima-x-files-i)

    "The “house” Nakai Yozaburo refers to on his application was little more than a temporary shack. In fact, the logbooks of the Japanese Warship’s November 20th (link) survey describe this “house” it states.."
    (link: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-takeshima-x-files-ii)

    "Above all, given Japan’s prevailing perception that Dokdo belonged to Korea, (link) or at least its doubts regarding the ownership of Dokdo (link).."
    (link: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-in-the-early-20th-century)

    "It was the coerced Japan~Korea Protocol of February 23, 1904, that “legitimized” Japanese land appropriation for military purposes."
    (link: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/koreas-political-situation-dokdo)
    (link: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-involvement-in-korea-1870-1905)

    ReplyDelete
  94. >In my previous post, I cited the following webpages which prove that Japan
    >annexed Dokdo in 1905 purely for military reasons.
    >http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-takeshima-x-files-i

    Don't use the distorted essay as source. Never quote his essay and his interpretation. Use only the link of original source. looks like follows.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/overall-telegraph-map-1905-1.jpg

    Takeshima also had the economic value of sea lion hunting and had worth of a military side. The distortion site is going to deny the purpose depended on economic merit. Either cannot be denied by either. Nakai demanded admission for the purpose of sea lion hunting and Shimane Prefecture licensed to sea lion hunting. This fact cannot be erased.
    The utility value of a military side and territory recognition are considered.
    If Japan considered that Takeshima was the Korean territory, why did Japan need to incorporate Takeshima for the military purpose? Though Japan recognized Ulleungdo and 竹邊 as the Korean territory, did Japan incorporate these areas for the military purpose?

    ReplyDelete
  95. JK6411 wrote:

    On October 16, 1876, Shimane Prefecture sent the reply to Ministry of Interior, including documents and maps of Ulleungdo and Dokdo (Takeshima and Matsushima), and inquiring whether the two islands should be placed under their administration.

    The Shimane Prefecture reply was entitled "Inquiry about registration of the land of Takeshima and another island in the Sea of Japan," not "the two islands," which you wrote were Ulleungdo (Takeshima) and Dokdo (Matsushima).

    The "another island" was not named, so we only know that they were referring to Takeshima (Ulleungdo). In fact, in the letter, itself, Takeshima was the only island referred to: "... we would like to ask about depicting the island (Takeshima) in the prefecture’s map and registration of land."

    If the "another island" was referring to Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks), why wasn't it named? Since the map of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) included Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, the "another island" could have been referring to that unnamed island or it could have been referring to Mutoh's mysterious Matsushima, the one many believed to be Ulleungdo.

    Anyway, it was the Ministry of Interior that asked about Takeshima and another island. There must have had a reason for its doing so. I think the reason was that it had received a request from the Foreign Ministry (Watanabe) asking for information on Takeshima and Mutoh's mysterious Matsushima.

    I wonder if anyone has checked the records for both the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the months of July, August, and September 1876 for a request from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Ministry of Interior for information on Takeshima and Matsushima.

    ReplyDelete
  96. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Gerry,
    I see that you're not really reading my comments.

    Shimane Prefecture's letter was entitled "Inquiry about registration of the land of Takeshima and another island in the Sea of Japan".
    Attached to the letter was this document, which described the two islands. (here)
    In this document, it said, "There is another island called Matsushima that has a circumference of about 30 cho. It is located on the same line as Takeshima and is a distance of about 80 ri from Oki." (emphasis mine)

    They also attached this map.
    http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/2a10kou2032-1877/
    (The map image is divided into 4 quadrants. Click on any one quadrant to get an enlarged image.)
    On this map, you clearly see Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo).


    You said:
    "it was the Ministry of Interior that asked about Takeshima and another island."

    No, Ministry of Interior did not ask Shimane about "another island".
    They only asked about Takeshima.
    The letter is here:
    (http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/argument-about-another-island-details.html) (Part C)

    In the letter, they never mentioned "another island" or "Matsushima".

    ReplyDelete
  98. opp said:
    "Don't use the distorted essay as source."

    The website dokdo-takeshima.com is full of truth about Dokdo, backed up by tons of original documents.


    "Takeshima also had the economic value of sea lion hunting"

    Yes, that's true. But Japanese had known about Dokdo and had been visiting Dokdo since the 1600s.
    If Japanese knew that Dokdo was ownerless, why didn't Japan incorporate Dokdo back then?

    It's because Japanese knew that both Ulleungdo and Dokdo were Korean territories.
    This is proved by many Japanese maps which depicted the two islands as Korean.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-takeshima-incident-of-1837
    These two Japanese maps relating to the case of Aizuya Hachiemon clearly show Ulleungdo and Dokdo depicted as parts of Korea.
    (As you know, Aizuya Hachiemon was executed for illegally travelling to Ulleungdo.)

    Here I've listed many more Japanese maps which show Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Korean.

    Let's face it. Japan is a country that's always been avid to expand its territory.
    (In fact, the first thing Japan did after becoming a unified country (under Toyotomi Hideyoshi) was to invade Korea with the goal of invading and conquering China.)
    Japan has even grabbed tiny islands and coral reefs almost 2,000km away from itself, in order to secure the EEZ's around the islands.

    Dokdo is only about 200km from mainland Japan, and Japanese have been cognizant of and been involved with Dokdo since the 1600s.
    So why did Japan wait until 1905, during the heat of the Russo-Japanese War, to annex Dokdo?
    Simple. Because it knew Dokdo was Korean.

    This is also the reason why Japan annexed Dokdo so secretly.
    Japan annexed Dokdo very secretly. They didn't even tell Korea about it until one year afterwards.

    It was so secret that almost no Japanese knew about it, let alone other countries. (Even today, not many Japanese know about Dokdo/Takeshima.)
    It was so secret that even maps of Shimane Prefecture made in 1946, more than 40 years after the annexation of Dokdo, failed to include Dokdo.

    Korea didn't learn about the annexation of Dokdo until 1906 (and even that was by accident).
    But as soon as the Magistrate of Ulleungdo learned about the annexation, he urgently sent a dispatch to Korea's king, notifying him of this. The Korean king and central govt. were shocked.
    (http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/korean-objections-to-japans-1905-claim)
    But the Korean gov't couldn't do anything about it, because by 1906 Japan had established a protectorate over Korea (in preparation for the annexation of Korea) and was in firm control of Korea's affairs.

    Koreans back then knew very well that Dokdo was Korea's. Japan stole it from them.

    ReplyDelete
  99. (cont'd)

    "Though Japan recognized Ulleungdo and 竹邊 as the Korean territory, did Japan incorporate these areas for the military purpose?"

    Japan eventually annexed all of Korea in 1910.
    But as for Dokdo, Japan felt that it could get away with secretly annexing it in 1905, since Dokdo was a tiny rock islet that was faraway from Korea.

    Japan couldn't just rob a large island like Ulleungdo from Korea, because the Western powers were keeping a close eye on Japan and were suspicious that Japan was becoming imperialistic.

    That's why Japan annexed Dokdo so secretly.
    At the time, the internationally recognized name for Dokdo was "Liancourt Rocks". But Japan didn't tell anyone that it had incorporated "Liancourt Rocks" into Japan.

    When Japan "announced" the incorporation of Dokdo, they did so in a tiny ad in a small regional Japanese newspaper.
    They said they had incorporated 竹島 (Takeshima) into Japan. Back then, did anyone know that 竹島 was the name for Dokdo? No.
    (For hundreds of years, Japanese had called Dokdo 松島 (Matsushima). Westerners knew Dokdo as Liancourt Rocks.)

    If Japan really believed Dokdo was an ownerless island, and it was completely legal for Japan to incorporate Dokdo, why did it keep it such a secret?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Gerry Bevers,

    Gerry Bevers,

    You must be desperate to deny "another island" in Dajokan Order (太政官指令) is Dokdo and to hide the truth.

    I'm sorry there's no any Japanese who can stop him distorting seriously Japanese official document.

    ReplyDelete
  101. jk6411:But as for Dokdo, Japan felt that it could get away with secretly annexing it in 1905, since Dokdo was a tiny rock islet that was faraway from Korea. Japan couldn't just rob a large island like Ulleungdo from Korea, because the Western powers were keeping a close eye on Japan and were suspicious that Japan was becoming imperialistic.

    Takeshima's military facilities cannot be hidden from Western countries. This essay is also denied by Watanabe's 2nd proposal. Western countries paid attention rather than Ulleungdo.

    Watanabe's 2nd proposal. “this island(present Takeshima) situates at almost midpoint between Japan and Chosun, and it is in the sea route from San-in in our country to 朝鮮咸鏡道永興府,'Rasareo' port. It is sure that the day to sail from Nagasaki to Vladivostok would come in near future, and its importance is higher by several times than that of Takeshima(Ulleungdo). Therefore Britain and Russia pay attention.”


    Moreover your essay has denied by 立志傳. Japan incorporated Takeshima because there no evidences about the effecitive control by Chosun.
    By Japan-South Korea protocol of 1904, Japan could build military facilities at the Korean territory. Equipment was actually installed at Ulleungdo and竹邊 without problems. If Japan thought Takeshima was Korean territory, Japan could build without incorporation according to the Japan-South Korea protocol without problems.
    Then, Incorporation proves that Japan didn’t think Takeshima as Korean territory. Think logically based on the historical materials.

    ReplyDelete
  102. jk6411: That's why Japan annexed Dokdo so secretly.

    Do you think that the watch tower of the island used as the index of the shipping route can be hidden from Western powers?

    ReplyDelete
  103. "Think logically based on the historical materials."

    The fact that Japan waited until the middle of Russo-Japanese War, when they were fighting naval battles in the viscinity of Dokdo, to incorporate Dokdo is proof that they annexed Dokdo purely for military reasons.

    Nakai Yozaburo originally wanted to lease the island from Korea. (He could've caught all the sealions he wanted, after leasing the island from Korea.)
    But he was persuaded by a Japanese Navy admiral to instead ask the Japanese govt to incorporate the island into Japan and then lease it to him.

    (This admiral was at the time in charge of laying communications lines and building military facilities in the Korea/Ulleungdo area.
    He recognized the strategic importance of Dokdo, and he took Nakai's lease application as a perfect excuse to grab Dokdo.)

    Japan's Ministry of Interior opposed the incorporation of Dokdo, knowing that Dokdo was Korean.
    But expansionist-minded officials such as Yamaza Enjiro pushed hard to have it approved, arguing that "The incorporation [of Dokdo] is urgent particularly under the present situation, and it is absolutely necessary and advisable to construct watchtowers and install wireless or submarine cable and keep watch on the hostile warships."


    "Do you think that the watch tower of the island used as the index of the shipping route can be hidden from Western powers?

    A watch tower on Dokdo.
    Did it have a large Japanese flag flying over it? Otherwise, how could anyone know that it was Japanese?
    If a watchtower on Dokdo was the only sign that Japan gave other nations that it had incorporated Dokdo, then it really was being secretive.

    ReplyDelete
  104. jk6411:The fact that Japan waited until the middle of Russo-Japanese War, when they were fighting naval battles in the viscinity of Dokdo, to incorporate Dokdo is proof that they annexed Dokdo purely for military reasons.

    Japan installed military facilities even in the Korean territory according to the treaty. For this reason, incorporation is a evidence which prove Japan considered Takeshima as terra nullius at that time.


    jk6411:Nakai Yozaburo originally wanted to lease the island from Korea. (He could've caught all the sealions he wanted, after leasing the island from Korea.)But he was persuaded by a Japanese Navy admiral to instead ask the Japanese govt to incorporate the island into Japan and then lease it to him.

    http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_01/index.data/08.pdf
    Your essay differs from a historical fact. Though he knew that Korea didn’t control effectively, he thought that Takeshima was Korean for the hydrographic map. Nakai was checked with Kimotsuki of the navy Hydrographic Department which had published the the hydrographic map. Kimotsuki who knew international law was sure of Takeshima's not being the Korean territory, and explained to Nakai. Nakai and the Department of the Interior have been convinced, and included Takeshima.


    jk6411:Japan's Ministry of Interior opposed the incorporation of Dokdo, knowing that Dokdo was Korean.

    Wrong. She was "having doubed."  And the doubed was solved. There is no evidence of the effective control by Chosun.


    jk6411:Did it have a large Japanese flag flying over it?

    Have all the South Korean islands the large flags? International law doesn’t demand the flag as external display.
    Pedra Branca Case[Military communications equipment of Singapore]
    The Court is not able to assess the strength of the assertions made on the two sides about Malaysia’s knowledge of the installation. What is significant for the Court is that Singapore’s action is an act à titre de souverain.

    Any country can see the watchtower and check.

    ReplyDelete
  105. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  106. opp saith:
    "incorporation is a evidence which prove Japan considered Takeshima as terra nullius at that time."

    Maybe before annexing Dokdo, Japan should have asked Korea whether Dokdo is Korean territory or not.

    The Korean government would have told Japan that under Korea's 1900 Imperial Edict No.41, Dokdo was incorporated into Korea's Uldo County along with Ulleungdo and Jukdo.

    ReplyDelete
  107. jk6411:Maybe before annexing Dokdo, Japan should have asked Korea whether Dokdo is Korean territory or not.

    MAYBE? International law denies this your desire clearly. There is no such duty for prior occupation. International law is demanding effective control for prior occupation.


    jk6411:The Korean government would have told Japan that under Korea's 1900 Imperial Edict No.41,

    PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN
    The Court finally observes that it can only consider those acts as constituting a relevant display of authority which leave no doubt as to their specific reference to the islands in dispute as such. Regulations or administrative acts of a general nature can therefore be taken as effectivirés with regard to Ligitan and Sipadan only if it is clear from their terms or their effects that they pertained to these two islands.


    There are no specific evidences which prove that 石島 of the Imperial Edict No.41 is present Takeshima and Korea control effectively. And historical materials deny the Korean dialect theory.

    1.The pronunciation of 石 by ulleungdo residents was not “DOK” but “DOL”.
    http://takeshima.cafe.coocan.jp/wp/wp-content/gallery/jpn_20c_maps/jpn_1906_map_okuhara.gif

    2.Most of the residents of Ulleungdo in 1900 was from Gangwon(江原道) and Gyeongsang (慶尚道). The pronunciation of these districts is “DOL” (or seok). Read “竹島及鬱陵島” and “江原道鬱陵島新入民戸人口姓名年歳及田土起墾數爻成” etc.

    ReplyDelete
  108. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  109. opp said:
    "Most of the residents of Ulleungdo in 1900 was from Gangwon(江原道) and Gyeongsang (慶尚道). The pronunciation of these districts is “DOL” (or seok)."

    The original residents of Ulleungdo were mostly from Cholla Province.
    When Lee GyuWon inspected Ulleungdo in 1882, he found that 82% of the Korean residents were from Chollado.
    (http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/koreas-ordinance-41-from-1900)

    Yes, it's true that when Korea started re-settling Ulleungdo in 1883, Koreans from Gangwon and Gyeongsang Provinces were sent to live on Ulleungdo, as well as people from Cholla Province.
    But the original residents (from Cholla) named Liancourt Rocks "Dokdo".

    When the Japanese warship Niitaka was surveying Dokdo in 1904, it found that Koreans on Ulleungdo called Liancourt Rocks "Dokdo" (獨島).
    When Ulleungdo Magistrate Shim HeungTaek wrote to the Korean king in 1906 to alert him that Dokdo had been incorporated into Japan, he wrote Dokdo as 獨島.
    "內開에 本郡所屬 獨島가 在於 外洋 百餘里 外.."
    (And the Korean king clearly understood what 獨島 was.)

    獨島 is what the Ulleungdo locals called Liancourt Rocks. In Cholla dialect, 獨島 means "rock island".
    In Korea's 1900 edict, they took the meaning of "rock island" and wrote it as 石島.
    石島 and 獨島 were the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  110. jk6411:The original residents of Ulleungdo were mostly from Cholla Province.
    When Lee GyuWon inspected Ulleungdo in 1882, he found that 82% of the Korean residents were from Chollado.


    Read well Lee GyuWon's report. Most of person from Chollado was sailor(6 shipowner and 109 sailor) and did not reside permanently. They came to Ulleungdo in spring, made ship, took seaweed and fish and they returned to Chollado.

    53 first migrants in 1883 ware written by "江原道鬱陵島新入民戸人口姓名年歳及田土起墾數爻成冊" There are no migrants from Chollado.

    "通商彙纂" at 1902 shows that 11 the migrants, only 1 person came from Chollado and others came from Gangwon.

    "竹島及鬱陵島" at 1906 described that the most of regiments of Ullengdo came from Gangwon.

    "朝鮮誌" at 1991, described that the most of regiments of Ullengdo came from Gangwon and North Gyeongsang.


    "暮らしのなかの技術と芸能" published Koreans' interview. The Korean says that person from Chollado has been young and not resided permanently.

    This is the typical technique of distortion by Koreans. They extract a part of record and give a broad interpretation. And they conceal other concrete records which is contradict their essay.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Jk6411, (Part 1)

    The October 25, 1900 Imperial Edict did not mention "Dokdo" as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. It mentioned only the "whole island of Ulleungdo," its neighboring island of Jukdo, and its surrounding rocky islets.

    ARTICLE 2: The county office will be located at Taehadong (太霞洞), and will have jurisdiction over the whole island of Ulleungdo (鬱陵全島), Jukdo (竹島), and its rock islets (石島).

    The "Sokdo" (石島)reference was just a catchall used to include all the other rocky islets around Ulleungdo, including Ulleungdo's second largest neighboring island Gwaneumdo (觀音島), which was also mentioned Inspector Lee's 1882 inspection report of Ulleungdo.

    In the sea east of Uljin is an island named Ulleung. Of its six, small neighboring islands, Usando/Jukdo (于山島竹島) is the most prominent (崔著者).

    Notice that the newspaper article said that Ulleungdo's "most prominent" neighboring island was "Usando/Jukdo (于山島竹島)," which tells us that Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo was also called Usando.

    Why did the 1900 Edict not mention either Usando or Gwaneumdo? Because Usando was just another name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, and because Gwaneumdo was included in the reference to Ulleungdo's "rocky islets" (Seokdo/석도/石島).

    Koreans had never traveled to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) before Japanese started taking them there on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s. Before that Koreans knew them only as a small, unnamed Japanese island faintly visible on the horizon from Ulleungdo. In fact, Koreans first referred to Liancourt Rocks by the Japanese name.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Jk6411 (Part 2)

    A 1903 Japanese fishing guide said that both Korean and Japanese fisherman used the Japanese name "Yanko" to refer to Liancourt Rocks.

    Korean and Japanese fishermen call it “Yanko”, its length is about 10-cho.

    By 1904, Koreans apparently started referring to the Rocks by the name "Dokdo," which means "Lonely Island," not "Rocky Island."

    The Japanese incorporated Liancourt Rocks into Shimane Prefecture in February 1905. In Apri 1906, Ulleungdo Magistrate Shim Heung-taek learns about it and told his superiors that the Rocks were part of his county and was called Dokdo, but Shim apparently did not know the location of the Dokdo. He thought the Rocks were only 100 ri away, though they were actually more than 200 ri away.

    I think the Japanese told Lee that the Rocks were 100 ri away, and Lee simply reported that to his superiors, not realizing the Japanese probably used "ri" to mean kilometers, not the Korean "ri." Also, Lee probably just assumed Dokdo was part of his county since Japanese fishing boats were carrying Koreans from Ulleungdo to fish there.

    Anyway, Lee's claim was reported in Korean newspapers, which apparently caused the Japanese Resident-General to ask the Korean Ministry of Interior to clarify what neighboring islands were part of Ulleungdo.

    In spite of having been told about "Dokdo" just a few months earlier, the Korean Ministry of Interior did not include Dokdo as one of Ulleungdo's neighboring island. In fact, the Korean ministry defined the size of Uldo County as being only 60 ri (24 km) east to west of 40 ri (16 km) north to south, which means it excluded "Dokdo" since Dokdo is 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo. Here is a translation of the July 13, 1906 Korean newspaper article:

    Facts on Arrangement of Uldo County

    The Resident-General sent an official letter to the Interior Ministry asking it to clarify what islands belonged to Ulleungdo, which is under the administration of Samcheok County in Gangwon Province, and the year and month the county office was established. The response was that the post of Ulleungdo Administrator was established on May 20, 1898, and then on October 25, 1900, the government decided to post a county magistrate with the county office being at Daehadong (台霞洞). It said the islands under the authority of the said county were Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島), and that it was sixty ri from east to west and forty ri from north to south for a total of 200 ri.


    No country, including Korea, contested Japan's incorporation of Liancourt Rocks.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Gerry said:

    "The "Sokdo" (石島)reference was just a catchall used to include all the other rocky islets around Ulleungdo"

    You're just making that up. Show me even one map where Ulleungdo's surrounding islets were collectively labeled as 石島.
    There aren't any. Because every one of Ulleungdo's islets has a name.
    Ulleungdo’s surrounding islets were never collectively called 石島.


    ”Why did the 1900 Edict not mention either Usando or Gwaneumdo?”

    In the 1900 edict, Usando's name was changed to Dokdo/Seokdo (same name, "rock island").
    The 1900 edict mentioned Ulleungdo and the two largest islets, Jukdo and Dokdo.
    (GwanEumDo wasn't included because it's too small and insignificant.)


    By 1904, Koreans apparently started referring to the Rocks by the name "Dokdo," which means "Lonely Island," not "Rocky Island."

    Here and here I provided plenty of examples of "rock island"s in Cholla Province which are named Dok-Seom or Dok-Do. (In Cholla dialect, “Dok” means “rock”.)


    [Ulleung Magistrate Shim Heung-Taek] probably just assumed Dokdo was part of his county since Japanese fishing boats were carrying Koreans from Ulleungdo to fish there.

    "Just assumed"?
    When Shim alerted the Korean king that Dokdo had been incorporated into Japan, the king clearly recognized Dokdo and replied, "[The Japanese'] word that Dokdo has become Japanese territory is a totally unfounded allegation, recheck the island and action of Japanese people.”

    The Korean newspaper Daehan Maeil Shinbo also reported on Dokdo's annexation, reporting that the Korean govt's Domestic Affairs Office (Interior Ministry) was shocked and confounded by the Japanese' claim that they had incorporated Dokdo.
    (http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/korean-objections-to-japans-1905-claim)

    A 1906 Korean Interior Ministry record regarding the annexation says, "The fact Dokdo has been incorporated into Japan is surprising and confounding. We cannot understand the reason for it."

    內部大臣의 指令文, 1906.
    "遊覽道次에 地界戶口之錄去? 容或無怪어니와 獨島之稱云日本屬地는 必無其理니 今此所報가 甚涉訝然이라."

    So Shim knew, the King knew, and Korea's Interior Ministry knew that Dokdo was Korea's territory.
    (They knew for certain, because Korea’s 1900 edict said that SeokDo was part of Ulleung County, and Seokdo was Dokdo.)

    And they weren’t the only Koreans who knew of Dokdo.
    A Korean scholar named Hwang Hyeon also recorded in his journal in May 1906 that, "About 100 ri East of Ulleungdo there is a small island called Dokdo. Since long ago, this island has belonged to Ulleungdo. However, Japanese came and surveyed the island insisting without grounds it was their territory…”

    距鬱陵島洋東百里 有一島 曰獨島 舊屬鬱陵島 倭人勒稱其領地 審査以去

    (http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/korean-objections-to-japans-1905-claim)

    ReplyDelete
  114. (cont’d)

    ”Anyway, [Shim's] claim was reported in Korean newspapers, which apparently caused the Japanese Resident-General to ask the Korean Ministry of Interior to clarify what neighboring islands were part of Ulleungdo.”

    Gerry, you're making me laugh here.
    You really think that an article in a Korean newspaper would have caused the Japanese govt to reconsider its annexation of Dokdo?
    (You’re talking about a country that used really deceptive tactics and unfair treaties to make Korea its “protectorate” and eventually outright annexed Korea in 1910.
    And once it made Korea its colony, it brutally repressed all the peaceful Korean independence movements.)

    If Japan had really wanted to be that transparent concerning its incorporation of Dokdo, it would have checked with the Korean govt before incorporating Dokdo.

    As you yourself said, fishermen who fished on Dokdo operated from Ulleungdo. Which means that Dokdo was very tightly associated with Ulleungdo. (it always has been.)
    Ulleungdo is the closest land from Dokdo, Ulleungdo has always been the “sister island” of Dokdo, and Ulleungdo is a Korean island.
    If Japan really wanted to be open and transparent concerning its incorporation of Dokdo, it would have contacted Korea first, before incorporating Dokdo.

    (But in fact, Korea only found about about Dokdo's annexation one year afterwards. And even that was BY ACCIDENT.)
    (http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/korean-objections-to-japans-1905-claim)

    The reason the Japanese Resident-General asked the Korea's Interior Ministry to clarify which islands were part of Ulleung County was probably that Korea's Interior Ministry protested to Japan about the annexation of Dokdo.


    "In spite of having been told about "Dokdo" just a few months earlier, the Korean Ministry of Interior did not include Dokdo as one of Ulleungdo's neighboring island. In fact, the Korean ministry defined the size of Uldo County as being only 60 ri (24 km) east to west of 40 ri (16 km) north to south, which means it excluded "Dokdo" since Dokdo is 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo."

    The Korean Interior Ministry said that included within Ulleung County are Jukdo and Seokdo (Dokdo).

    Uldo County being described as "60 ri by 40 ri" was not talking about the dimensions of entire Uldo County, but Ulleungdo island only.
    Go to: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/korean-objections-to-japans-1905-claim
    Look at the two maps of Ulleungdo at the bottom of the page. Both maps say that Ulleungdo's dimensions are '60 RI by 40 RI'.

    Korea only stated the dimensions of Ulleungdo itself, because Ulleungdo was the main island, and all the islets were tiny in comparison.

    (It's silly to think that Korea might have tried to calculate the entire sea area encompassed by Uldo County, back in 1900.
    Back then, Korea didn't have steam ships or the technology required to calculate distances at sea accurately.

    Shim Heung-Taek and Hwang Hyeon said that Dokdo was located 100 RI from Ulleungdo. That was the best guess that Koreans could make at the time as to the distance from Ulleungdo to Dokdo.)


    No country, including Korea, contested Japan's incorporation of Liancourt Rocks.

    I say that Korea did protest. Japan probably hushed it up.
    (By 1906, Korea had become Japan's "protectorate". The Korean peninsula was absolutely crawling with Japanese soldiers.)

    As for other countries, well, they didn't even know that Dokdo had become Japanese territory. (Heck, even Japanese citizens didn't know about it.)

    ReplyDelete
  115. (cont'd)

    By the way... If you need further proof that 石島 in Korea’s 1900 edict was Dokdo,
    Just look at what the Westerners named the island.

    French named the island 'Liancourt Rocks'.
    English named it 'Hornet Rocks'.
    Russians called it 'Menalai and Olivutsa Rocks'.

    You see? They all called it "ROCKS".
    So 石島 (“rock island”) makes perfect sense.

    ReplyDelete
  116. By the way... If you need further proof that 石島 in Korea’s 1900 edict was Dokdo,

    A Korean dialect theory is denied by historical materials. Korean call "石" not "dok" but "dol". See above and this map.
    http://takeshima.cafe.coocan.jp/wp/wp-content/gallery/jpn_20c_maps/jpn_1906_map_okuhara.gif

    ReplyDelete
  117. >Examples of the Character “石” pronounced as “Dok”
    >① Dok-gol 石洞 : a village in Boseong-Gun, Mundeok-Myeon, Unpo-Ri
    >② Dok-gol 石谷 : a village in Boseong-Gun, Mundeok-Myeon, Unpo-Ri
    >③ Doldokgeori 擧石里 : a village in Boseong-Gun, Nodong-Myeon, Geoseok-Ri
    >④ Doksalmae 石山里 : a village in Shinan-Gun, Anjoa-Myeon, Hyangmok-Ri
    >⑤ Doksan 石山洞 : a bridge in Shinan-Gun, Jido-Myeon, Seondo-Ri
    >⑥ Dokmae 石山里 : a village in Muan-Gun, Samhyang-Myeon, Wongsan-Ri
    >⑦ Doksalmae 石山 : a village in Shinan-Gun, Anjoa-Myeon, Daewoo-Ri
    >⑧ Dolgogae 石峴 : a hill in Weondo-Gun, Gogeum-Myeon, Gagyo-Ri
    >⑨ Dokbaegi 石峙洞 : a village in Gangjin-Gun, Doam-Myeon, Yonghwa-Ri
    >⑩ Dokbaegi 石田平 : a field in Boseong-Gun, Hwaecheon-Myeon, Gunpung-Ri
    >⑪ Dokteumi 石間洞 : a field at Gangjin-Gun Gundong-Myeon, Seokgyo-Ri
    >⑫ Dokdari 石橋里 : a bridge at Haenam- Gun, Munnae-Myeon, Seokgyo-Ri
    >⑬ Dokdarigol 石橋里 : a stone bridge at Jindo-Gun, Imhwae-Myeon, Bukgyo-Ri

    It is necessary to prove that the dialect theory changed the notation by pronunciation. But these examples prove that the notation was still a "石" regardless of pronunciation. That is, these examples have denied the dialect theory. Furthermore, Ulleungdo residents' pronunciation was ”DOL”.

    ReplyDelete
  118. "Uldo County being described as "60 ri by 40 ri" was not talking about the dimensions of entire Uldo County, but Ulleungdo island only."

    This is the sentence after 石島 and 竹島 answer as an attached island. In Chinese writing, when changing the subject, it writes clearly. Then, it is the range of Ulreung which includes attached island from grammar.
    Moreover, Japan didn't ask about only Ulleungdo island. For this reason, your interpretation is contextually impossible too.

    If your interpretation is right, 竹島 of this Korean answer become out of 60 ri by 40 ri too. Which island do you consider this 竹島 is?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Jk wrote:

    As you yourself said, fishermen who fished on Dokdo operated from Ulleungdo. Which means that Dokdo was very tightly associated with Ulleungdo. (it always has been.)

    It was the Japanese operating from Ulleungdo, not Koreans. Koreans were farmers, not fishermen. Japanese fishermen traveled passed Liancourt Rocks on their way to Ulleungdo.

    Koreans did not fish Liancourt Rocks until after the Japanese started taking them there on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s. Even Koreans admit that the residents of Ulleungdo were not fishermen. For example, in his book "The History of Dokdo & Ulleungdo, Kim Ho-dong (김호동), who is the head of the Dokdo Research Center at Yeongname University in Korea, candidly wrote the following about the settlers of Ulleungdo:

    From the beginning, the settlers avoided the seashore and went deep into the valleys to continue the same kind of farming life they had had on the mainland. They plowed fields they had slashed and burned, built dugouts, and worked hard until the winter, but the only thing they got in return was cold and starvation. They could not return to the mainland, so it is said that one after another they starved to death. Actually, if you look at an April 29, 1902 article in the Hwangseong Sinmun (皇城新聞), it says that among the August 1901 Customs Official Dispatch (海關派員士) articles, there was an article that said, “The Japanese population is about 550 people, who are all shipbuilders/loggers (造船伐木者)…. The Koreans are about 3,000 families, but they are all tenant farmers (佃戶農氓).” From this we can know that most of Ulleungdo’s residents at the time were farmers who lived a difficult life of jeon-ho, that is, tenant farming. At that time, they survived on wild edible greens and ggak-sae (a kind of seabird), which were their salvation. In spite of suffering this kind of starvation, it is said that the settlers would not fish. Even though the Japanese were gathering abalone and squid from right under their noses, the settlers did not take notice, and if their children tried to imitate the Japanese by trying to fish, they got their calves beaten until they bled in order to stop them from imitating disgusting sailors. It is said that the people on Ulleungdo did not start trying to fish until after the start of Japanese imperialism. Through testimony saying that the settlers shunned fishing because they came as emigrant farmers, we can determine that instead of Ulleungdo fishermen taking the lead in fishing the waters around Ulleungdo and Dokdo, Japanese fishermen, violating international law, illegally took the lead. We probably have to view the ill-conceived settlement policy at the time as what finally led to Japan’s declaring Dokdo ownerless in 1905 and incorporating it into her territory.

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

    개척민들은 처음부터 해변을 피하고 깊은 산골로 들어가 뭍에서와 같은 농촌생활을 이어가려고 했다. 그들은 화전을 일구고 움막을 짓고 겨울이 오기 전까지 열심히 일했으나 찾아온 것은 굶주림과 추위였다. 육지로 되돌아갈 수도 없어 굶어죽는 사람들이 잇따랐다고 전한다. 실제 “황성신문”[皇城新聞] 1902년 4월 29일자의 기사를 보면 1901년 8월 해관파원사(海關派員士) 기사 가운데 “일본인구 약 550인이 모두 조선벌목자 (朝鮮伐木者)이고 (중략) 한민(韓民)은 대략 3,000구에 이르나 모두 전호농맹(佃戶農氓)이라”고 한 것은 당시 울릉도민이 대부분 농업을 생업으로 하고 전호, 즉 소작농으로 존재하면서 어려운 생활을 하였음을 알 수 있다. 이때에 개척민들의 목숨을 이어준 것이 명이라는 산나물과 깍새였다. 이 같은 굶주림에 시달려도 개척민은 물고기를 잡지 않았다고 한다. 일본인들이 코 앞에서 전복과 오징어를 거두어 가도 거들떠보지 않았고 아이들이 일본인을 흉내 내어 고기를 잡으면 종아리에 피가 맺히도록 때려 비린 뱃사람 흉내를 내지 못하게 했다. 그러다가 울릉도 사람들이 고기잡이에 손을 대기 시작한 것은 일본 제국주의시대에 들어와서 이루어졌다고 한다. 개척민이 농업이민이었기 때문에 어업에 종사하는 것을 꺼렸다는 증언을 토해 독도를 비롯한 울릉도 해역의 어업은 울릉도 어민의 주도하에 이루어지지 않고 알본어민들이 국제법을 위반하면서 불법적으로 주도하게 되었음을 알 수 있다. 이러한 잘못된 개척정책으로 인해 결국 1905년 일본이 독도를 ‘무주지(無主地)’라고 하여 자국의 영토에 편입시킬 수 있었다고 보아야 할 것이다.

    ReplyDelete
  120. opp said:

    "But these examples prove that the notation was still a "石" regardless of pronunciation."

    Did you even look at all the examples I provided of small, rocky islands in Cholla Province which are named Dok-Seom or Dok-Do but written as 獨島?
    (here)
    (They were written as 獨島, to emphasize the pronunciation of the name. Because 獨 is the Chinese character that is actually pronounced as 'Dok' in Korean.)

    (Back in the past, Koreans didn't use the Korean alphabet. They wrote using Chinese characters.
    So often, especially when writing Korean place names, they had to write them using the Chinese characters whose pronunciations most closely matched the Korean name.)

    石島 to emphasize the meaning "rock island". 獨島 to emphasize the pronunciation, "Dok".


    There are so many islands in Korea named Dok-Seom. All of them are small, rocky, uninhabited islands.
    Here are just a few of them:

    `독섬; 경남 통영군 사량면 돈지리 `독섬; 경남 통영군 용남면 화삼리

    `독섬; 경북 선산군 선산읍 독동리 `독섬; 경북 안동군 남후면 검암리

    `독섬; 전남 고흥군 과역면 연등리 `독섬; 전남 고흥군 금산면 오천리

    `독섬; 전남 고흥군 도화면 지죽리 `독섬; 전남 고흥군 동강면 장덕리

    `독섬; 전남 고흥군 봉래면 사양리 `독섬; 전남 담양군 금성면 봉서리

    `독섬; 전남 보성군 벌교면 대포리 `독섬; 전남 신안군 비금면 수치리

    `독섬; 전남 해남군 산이면 금호리 `독섬; 전남 해남군 화원면 산호리

    `독섬; 전북 부안군 변산면 마포리 `독섬; 전북 옥구군 옥도면 비안도리

    `독섬; 충남 태안군 근흥면 가의도리

    As you can see, there are some in Gyongsang Province as well.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Gerry said:
    "It was the Japanese operating from Ulleungdo, not Koreans. Koreans were farmers, not fishermen."

    Really?
    You think Koreans are landlubbers?
    You should know better, having lived in Korea yourself.
    Have you never been to a Korean market? There are so many different seafoods, I don't even know the names for many of them.
    Korea is a peninsula, surrounded by the sea on three sides.
    Koreans love seafood, always have. They have always fished.

    Even today, Ulleungdo's livelihood revolves around fishing. (Without fishing, Ulleungdo's economy wouldn't exist.)
    Ulleungdo is a rocky island, with little soil. If Koreans were just farmers, they never would have gone to live in Ulleungdo.

    Ulleungdo has been inhabited since 3000 years ago, at least. There are still numerous tombs there from the Shilla period.
    Many artifacts have been found there.
    (some pictures: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/why-japan-cant-have-dokdo-iii)

    The ancient state of Usanguk (Ulleungdo & Dokdo) thrived until the second millennium AD.
    They were conquered by Shilla in 512AD, and sent tributes every year to Shilla capital.
    We know that farming was very difficult on Ulleungdo.
    So what the heck do you think Usanguk lived on?

    Even when Korea instituted "vacant island" policy for Ulleungdo in the 1400s, Korean fishermen still illegally went there to fish. (Remember Ahn Yong Bok??)

    You really have no conscience, saying that just because the Korean settlers who were transplanted to Ulleungdo at the end of 19th Century were farmers who initially refused to fish, that Koreans on Ulleungdo never fished.
    They were farmers who were suddenly transplanted to an island. So of course it took them time to adjust and change their lifestyle.

    You really think Japanese are the ones who taught Koreans how to fish?
    Give me a break. Korea is thousands of years older than Japan.
    Koreans started sailing way before Japan even existed as a nation.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Gerry Bevers,


    Japan didn't exactly say Dokdo was ownerless in 1905. Japanese Cabinet then said "There were no traces of occupation by any other countries....", which was a lie.

    There were many traces of occupation of Dokdo by Korea.

    Do you want me to show a list of traces of occupation of Dokdo?

    ReplyDelete
  123. JK wrote:

    You really have no conscience, saying that just because the Korean settlers who were transplanted to Ulleungdo at the end of 19th Century were farmers who initially refused to fish, that Koreans on Ulleungdo never fished.

    Did you not understand what I wrote? I quoted from a book written by a "KOREAN" Head the of Dokdo Research Center at Yeongnam University. That's a Korean University run by Koreans. The head of that university's "Dokdo Research Cener" wrote in his book that there were no Korean fishermen living on Ulleungdo in the in 1902. It was the Japanese who were fishing the island.

    Read the quote again, and keep in mind that it is a quote from the "KOREAN" Head of the Dokdo Research Institute at Korea's Yeongnam University, not my quote. I simply translated it.

    From the beginning, the settlers avoided the seashore and went deep into the valleys to continue the same kind of farming life they had had on the mainland. They plowed fields they had slashed and burned, built dugouts, and worked hard until the winter, but the only thing they got in return was cold and starvation. They could not return to the mainland, so it is said that one after another they starved to death. Actually, if you look at an April 29, 1902 article in the Hwangseong Sinmun (皇城新聞), it says that among the August 1901 Customs Official Dispatch (海關派員士) articles, there was an article that said, “The Japanese population is about 550 people, who are all shipbuilders/loggers (造船伐木者)…. The Koreans are about 3,000 families, but they are all tenant farmers (佃戶農氓).” From this we can know that most of Ulleungdo’s residents at the time were farmers who lived a difficult life of jeon-ho, that is, tenant farming. At that time, they survived on wild edible greens and ggak-sae (a kind of seabird), which were their salvation. In spite of suffering this kind of starvation, it is said that the settlers would not fish. Even though the Japanese were gathering abalone and squid from right under their noses, the settlers did not take notice, and if their children tried to imitate the Japanese by trying to fish, they got their calves beaten until they bled in order to stop them from imitating disgusting sailors. It is said that the people on Ulleungdo did not start trying to fish until after the start of Japanese imperialism. Through testimony saying that the settlers shunned fishing because they came as emigrant farmers, we can determine that instead of Ulleungdo fishermen taking the lead in fishing the waters around Ulleungdo and Dokdo, Japanese fishermen, violating international law, illegally took the lead. We probably have to view the ill-conceived settlement policy at the time as what finally led to Japan’s declaring Dokdo ownerless in 1905 and incorporating it into her territory.

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

    개척민들은 처음부터 해변을 피하고 깊은 산골로 들어가 뭍에서와 같은 농촌생활을 이어가려고 했다. 그들은 화전을 일구고 움막을 짓고 겨울이 오기 전까지 열심히 일했으나 찾아온 것은 굶주림과 추위였다. 육지로 되돌아갈 수도 없어 굶어죽는 사람들이 잇따랐다고 전한다. 실제 “황성신문”[皇城新聞] 1902년 4월 29일자의 기사를 보면 1901년 8월 해관파원사(海關派員士) 기사 가운데 “일본인구 약 550인이 모두 조선벌목자 (朝鮮伐木者)이고 (중략) 한민(韓民)은 대략 3,000구에 이르나 모두 전호농맹(佃戶農氓)이라”고 한 것은 당시 울릉도민이 대부분 농업을 생업으로 하고 전호, 즉 소작농으로 존재하면서 어려운 생활을 하였음을 알 수 있다. 이때에 개척민들의 목숨을 이어준 것이 명이라는 산나물과 깍새였다. 이 같은 굶주림에 시달려도 개척민은 물고기를 잡지 않았다고 한다. 일본인들이 코 앞에서 전복과 오징어를 거두어 가도 거들떠보지 않았고 아이들이 일본인을 흉내 내어 고기를 잡으면 종아리에 피가 맺히도록 때려 비린 뱃사람 흉내를 내지 못하게 했다. 그러다가 울릉도 사람들이 고기잡이에 손을 대기 시작한 것은 일본 제국주의시대에 들어와서 이루어졌다고 한다. 개척민이 농업이민이었기 때문에 어업에 종사하는 것을 꺼렸다는 증언을 토해 독도를 비롯한 울릉도 해역의 어업은 울릉도 어민의 주도하에 이루어지지 않고 알본어민들이 국제법을 위반하면서 불법적으로 주도하게 되었음을 알 수 있다. 이러한 잘못된 개척정책으로 인해 결국 1905년 일본이 독도를 ‘무주지(無主地)’라고 하여 자국의 영토에 편입시킬 수 있었다고 보아야 할 것이다.

    ReplyDelete
  124. jk6411
    Did you even look at all the examples I provided of small, rocky islands in Cholla Province which are named Dok-Seom or Dok-Do but written as 獨島?


    1. People from the Cholla was sailor and stayed in Ulreung some seasons and went back to Cholla. Most of the Ulleungdo residents were from kohgendo. This is proven by historical materials("江原道鬱陵島新入民戸人口姓名年歳及田土起墾數爻成冊","通商彙纂","竹島及鬱陵島","朝鮮誌","暮らしのなかの技術と芸能"). Please show me the evidence that prove the most of the Ulleungdo residents ware from Cholla.

    2.The residents of Ulleung had called 石 "DOL". This is the evidence
    http://takeshima.cafe.coocan.jp/wp/wp-content/gallery/jpn_20c_maps/jpn_1906_map_okuhara.gif
    Show the evidence which prove Ulleungdo residents had called "DOK".

    3. There is no example which changed the "石" to "独" by pronunciation. Please show me evidence which proves that such change could be happened.

    I already showed the direct evidences about pronounciation about "石" by Ulleungdo regidents and residents from. Please show evidence of your essay. I never want an essay.

    ReplyDelete
  125. sloww
    "There were many traces of occupation of Dokdo by Korea"

    Lie. There is no evidence which show the Korean effective control even now. Nakai said so too.

    ReplyDelete
  126. opp,

    What is your definition of "effective control"?

    ReplyDelete
  127. What is your definition of "effective control"?

    My and World’s definition about effective control and occupation is International law.
    Of course. The activity of the Korean fisherman employed by Japanese can't admit.

    ReplyDelete
  128. The judicial precedent about effective control

    [THE MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE]
    What is of decisive importance, in the opinion of the Court, is not indirect presumptions deduced from events in the Middle Ages, but the evidence which relates directly to the possession of the Ecrehos and Minquiers groups.

    Of the manifold facts invoked by the United Kingdom Government, the Court attaches, in particular, probative value to the acts which relate to the exercise of jurisdiction and local administration and to legislation.


    [CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN]
    The Court finally observes that it can only consider those acts as constituting a relevant display of authority which leave no doubt as to their specific reference to the islands in dispute as such. Regulations or administrative acts of a general nature can therefore be taken as effectivirés with regard to Ligitan and Sipadan only if it is clear from their terms or their effects that they pertained to these two islands.

    There is no specific evidence which proves the effective control by Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  129. opp,


    Nobody except pre-Japanese people like you considers the illegal fishing activity in foreign country is effective control over the land.

    Let me show you just three traces of occupation of Dokdo.

    1.
    How Takeshima & Matsushima Became Part of Joseon(朝鮮国交際始末内探書. 1870)

    2.
    Dajokan'sOrder(太政官指令,1877)

    3. The New Detailed Map of Japan, Russia, China and Korea(日露清韓明細新図, 1903)

    Additionally, Japanese MOFA is currently proving Japanese Cabinet lied in 1905 by shamelessly claiming Japan established sovereignty over Dokdo in the late 17th century.

    What is more shameful act of Japanese government today is teaching the 100% lie to the Japanese young generation. It's sure Japan has no other way except lying to tell her people Dokdo is Japanese land.

    Is Japan qualified to be called as one of the leaders of the world?

    ReplyDelete
  130. sloww
    Nobody except pre-Japanese people like you considers the illegal fishing activity in foreign country is effective control over the land.


    FOREIGN COUNTRY? NOBODY? International law denies your presumption. Effective control by foreign countries prove that Takeshima have been foreign courtier’s area. But there is no evidence which prove effective control by foreign countries.

    sloww
    1.How Takeshima & Matsushima Became Part of Joseon(朝鮮国交際始末内探書. 1870)
    2.Dajokan'sOrder(太政官指令,1877)
    3. The New Detailed Map of Japan, Russia, China and Korea(日露清韓明細新図,
    1903)


    Can’t you understand the definition of the world about effective control?
    [THE MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE]
    Of the manifold facts invoked by the United Kingdom Government, the Court attaches, in particular, probative value to the acts which relate to the exercise of jurisdiction and local administration and to legislation.

    Did Korea license the fishing? Did Korea collect the tax? Did Korea regulate the sea lion? Did Korean officer land on and survey? Did Korea register with the cadastre?
    ”The exercise of jurisdiction and local administration and to legislation” means these specific activities. What kind of activities by Korea does the Japanese data which you showed record? Furthermore, your opinion is based on presumption.
    You fabricate the rule which is contradictory to international law. You do not recognize your fabrication, either. I must say that your knowledge about the international law is very poor. Study the international law.

    ReplyDelete
  131. [PALMAS]
    “The growing insistence with which international law, ever since the middle of the 18th century, has demanded that the occupation shall be effective would be inconceivable, if effectiveness were required only for the act of acquisition and not equally for the maintenance of the right.”

    [Legal Status of Eastern Greenland]
    “Consequently, both the elements necessary to establish a valid title to sovereignty - the intention and the exercise - were present, but the question arises as to how far the operation of these elements extended.”

    “It is impossible to read the records of the decisions in cases as to territorial sovereignty without observing that in many cases the tribunal has been satisfied with very little in the way of the actual exercise of sovereign rights, provided that the other State could not make out a superior claim. This is particularly true in the case of claims to sovereignty over areas in thinly populated or unsettled countries.”


    These are very famous judicial precedents. International law demand effective control for the acquisition and the maintenance of the sovereignty. There is no evidence which prove effective control by Korea. But Japan have the evidence.
    This is the reason the South Korean government avoids the ICJ. She can’t prove her sovereignty.

    ReplyDelete
  132. The judicial precedents are not favorable to Japanese claim on effective control of Dokdo.

    Japanese version of effective control on Dokdo is Japanese fishermen's fishing activities on foreign land in 1600s and illegal incorporation of Dokdo in 1905.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Japanese version of effective control on Dokdo is Japanese fishermen's fishing activities on foreign land in 1600s and illegal incorporation of Dokdo in 1905.

    You cannot present the basis of international law, either but only repeat your desire.

    ReplyDelete
  134. The record of Tottori Han and Edo Bakufu in 1696 proves Japanese fishermen did fishing activities in the foreign land.


    To the inquiry of Bakufu about the ownership of Takeshima(Ulleongdo) and Matsushima(Dokdo), Tottori Han clearly answered "It's told going to Matsushima(Dokdo) for a fishing activity is doing fishing activities by stopping by Matsushima because it's located on the way to Takeshima." Tottori Han also said "Matsushima doesn't belogn to any province (of Japan).
    (松島は、何れかの国に附属する島ではないと聞いています。一 松島へ猟に行っているというのは、竹島へ渡海する時の道筋であるためで、立ち寄って猟をしています)."


    And, next year, Edo Bakufu issued an ordinance prohibiting Japanese to go to those two islands. Since then, no Japanese fishermen went to Takeshima and Matsushima.
    Japanese fishing activity on Dokdo has nothing to do with effective control and sovereignty over Dokdo.


    Tottori&Bafuku Records of 1695


    Japan had never officially included Dokdo as Japanese land until the illegal incorporation of Dokdo in 1905.


    On the other hand, Korean government promulgated Korean Empire's Ordinance No 41. in 1900 which renamed Ulleongdo as Uldo and placed Dokdo(Seokdo) under the jurisdiction of Uldo County. This is one of the evidence Korean effective control over Dokdo.


    Korean Empire's Ordinance No. 41 of 1900

    ReplyDelete
  135. To the inquiry of Bakufu about the ownership of Takeshima(Ulleongdo) and Matsushima(Dokdo), Tottori Han clearly answered "It's told going to Matsushima(Dokdo) for a fishing activity is doing fishing activities by stopping by Matsushima because it's located on the way to Takeshima." Tottori Han also said "Matsushima doesn't belogn to any province (of Japan).

    1.The President asked whether Midway Island was a territory to the California governor.
    2.The California governor answered that the Hawaii island and Midway Island were not the territories of a state.

    Does this reply mean that Hawaii and Midway are not U.S. territories? You do not understand the difference of state and a country.


    And, next year, Edo Bakufu issued an ordinance prohibiting Japanese to go to those two islands.

    Please show the original text which ordered prohibiting Japanese to go to TWO islands.

    3.The President issued an ordinance prohibiting American to go to Midway.

    Does this issued mean the prohibiting American to go to Midway Hawaii?

    On the other hand, Korean government promulgated Korean Empire's Ordinance No 41. in 1900 which renamed Ulleongdo as Uldo and placed Dokdo(Seokdo) under the jurisdiction of Uldo County. This is one of the evidence Korean effective control over Dokdo.

    [THE MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE]
    "What is of decisive importance, in the opinion of the Court, is not indirect presumptions deduced from events in the Middle Ages, but the evidence which relates directly to the possession of the Ecrehos and Minquiers groups.”
    [CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN]
    "The Court finally observes that it can only consider those acts as constituting a relevant display of authority which leave no doubt as to their specific reference to the islands in dispute as such. Regulations or administrative acts of a general nature can therefore be taken as effectivirés with regard to Ligitan and Sipadan only if it is clear from their terms or their effects that they pertained to these two islands.

    Korean dialect theory is poor as a pressumption.
    1. People from the Cholla was sailor and stayed in Ulreung some seasons and went back to Cholla. Most of the Ulleungdo residents were from kohgendo. This is proven by historical materials("江原道鬱陵島新入民戸人口姓名年歳及田土起墾數爻成冊","通商彙纂","竹島及鬱陵島","朝鮮誌","暮らしのなかの技術と芸 能"). Please show me the evidence that prove the most of the Ulleungdo residents ware from Cholla.

    2.The residents of Ulleung had called 石 "DOL". This is the evidence
    http://takeshima.cafe.coocan.jp/wp/wp-content/gallery/jpn_20c_maps/jpn_1906_map_okuhara.gif
    Show the evidence which prove Ulleungdo residents had called "DOK".

    3. There is no example which changed the "石" to "独" by pronunciation. Please show me evidence which proves that such change could be happened.

    Presumption can't becomes the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Sloww:And, next year, Edo Bakufu issued an ordinance prohibiting Japanese to go to those two islands.

    This is the original text about prohibiting Japanese to go to the Takeshima (Ulleungdo) island.

    先年松平新太郎因州伯州領知之節相窺之伯州米子之町人村川市兵衛大屋甚吉竹嶋江渡海至爾今雖致漁候向後竹島江渡海之儀制禁可申付旨被仰出之候間可被存其趣候

    There is no mention about Matsushima(present takeshima).
    I should say that Sloww is liar, paranoia or loose head.

    ReplyDelete
  137. opp,

    You need my help? Go to http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/ordinance-to-prohibit-voyages-in-1696.html?showComment=1337645745483#c2115720234960962608.

    ReplyDelete
  138. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Sloww

    I understand that you can't show the original text and you run away. Then I should say that you are liar.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Sloww,
    Ascertain the original decree text.
    以来は、なるべく竹嶋 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
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2009/03/1837-japanese-sign-to-be-auctioned-off.html
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2010/02/1966-2.html
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2011/08/1902-on-coasts-of-cathay-and-cipango.html
    http://www.cwo.zaq.ne.jp/oshio-revolt-m/kosatu2.htm

    ReplyDelete
  141. 小嶋日向守,

    You must know the Edo Bakufu's sign prohibiting Japanese to travel to Ulleongdo has a passage like "都而異國渡海之義者重キ御製禁ニ候条" which means "It's strictly forbidden to sail to foreign land."


    Ulleongdo was definitely foreign land to Japanese and Dokdo was, too. Tottori Han and Edo Bakufu clearly declared not only Ulleongdo but also Dokdo was foreign land. Thus, there's no doubt the voyage ban to Ulleongdo includes the ban to go to Dokdo.


    Japanese claim that voyage to Dokdo was not banned because there's no specific mention in the Edo Bakufu's ordinance prohibiting voyage to Ulleongdo is just wrong. Edo government clearly excluded Dokdo as part of Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Sloww,

    It's wrong.
    "Korean government clearly excluded Dokdo as part of Korea."
    Rather Korean government didn't know that existence.
    Please show me a dokdo map or a documentary evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  143. 小嶋日向守,

    Tell me how it's wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  144. 1. International law about voluntarily abandonment
    [CASE1: Eastern Greenland ]
    As regards voluntary abandonment, there is nothing to show any definite renunciation on the part of the kings of Norway or Denmark.
    During the first two centuries or so after the settlements perished, there seems to have been no intercourse with Greenland, and knowledge of it diminished; but the tradition of the King's rights lived on, and in the early part of the XVIIth century a revival of interest in Greenland on the part both of the King and of his people took place.

    [CASE2: Pedra Branca]
    Singapore government didn’t published the map which include Pedra Branca included her territory until 1995. However the court admitted the Singapore’s sovereignty about Pedra Branca because of the activities on the islands till 1980.

    2. International law about the belonging island
    [CASE3: Ligitan and Sipadan]
    The Court observes that these three islands are surrounded by many smaller islands that could be said to "belong" to them geographically. The Court, however, considers that this cannot apply to Ligitan and Sipadan, which are situated more than 40 nautical miles away from the three islands in question.
    [CASE4: Pedra Branca]
    The distance of Pedra Branca island and Middle Rock is 0.6 nautical miles. The court admitted the sovereignty of Singapore about Pedra Branca. Singapore said that the Middle Rock is her territory, because Pedra Branca island and Middle Rock are the same legal unit.
    JUDGEMENT: “As the Court has stated above (see paragraphs 273-277), it has reached the conclusion that sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh rests with Singapore under the particular circumstances surrounding the present case. However these circumstances clearly do not apply to other maritime features in the vicinity of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, i.e., Middle Rocks and South Ledge.”


    Sloww:And, next year, Edo Bakufu issued an ordinance prohibiting Japanese to go to those two islands.

    Though Bakufu ordered to prohibit Japanese to go to Takeshima(Ulleundgo), she never ordered to prohibit Japanese to go to Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks). International law demands the definite renunciation for the voluntarily abandonment.(See CASE1)

    Sloww: :If you don't know why Japan needs to have the maps, I mean the old maps, depicted Dokdo as Japanese land, it means you are not ready to discuss Dokdo issue here.

    Japan never need such maps, because International law doesn’t demand such maps. (See CASE2)

    Sloww: My point is your Edo government proved Japanese old maps showing Japanese recognition of Dokdo is not related to Japanese sovereignty on it.

    Effective control was prior than maps. If you want to prove Japanese voluntarily abandonment. you must show the evidence which show the definite renunciation. (See CASE1)

    Sloww: Japanese claim that voyage to Dokdo was not banned because there's no specific mention in the Edo Bakufu's ordinance prohibiting voyage to Ulleongdo is just wrong. Edo government clearly excluded Dokdo as part of Japan.

    International law demands such specific mention for the voluntarily abandonment.(See CASE1)

    Some Koreans: Takeshima is an island belonged to Ulleungdo. For this reason, Bakufu abandoned Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks) together with Ulleungdo.

    Takeshima isnot an island belonged to Ulleungdo according to the international law.(
    See CASE 3,4).

    Conclusion
    Koreans' claim is always contradictory to the international law. they cannot present effective evidences according to the international law, This is the true reason why they avoid ICJ.

    ReplyDelete
  145. One of the most silly questions pro-Japanese people ask is "Why doesn't Korea go to the ICJ?" Why should Korea go?

    ReplyDelete
  146. Sloww
    One of the most silly questions pro-Japanese people ask is "Why doesn't Korea go to the ICJ?" Why should Korea go?

    Korea can stop waste of a tax looks like the armed police on Takeshima. Korea can get the binding legal effectiveness as to the world. If she will win the trial.

    However Korea must lost the trial, because she don't have the evidence and the principle of the law according to the international law. You are same. Your claim is always breaking international law. See just above my topic. You cannot refute according to the international law, and you change the subject like this meaningless comment.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Addition
    [CASE2’ :Pedra Branca]
    Three months later, in a letter dated 21 September 1953, the Acting State Secretary of Johor replied as follows:
    “I have the honour to refer to your letter . . . dated 12th June 1953, addressed to the British Adviser, Johore, on the question of the status of Pedra Branca Rock some 40 miles from Singapore and to inform you that the Johore Government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca.”

    The court did not apply this letter to the Middle Rock. This judicial precedent show that the international law demand specific mention for the voluntarily abandonment too.
    I always have shown the historical evidence and judicial precedent which proved my theory of the law. And I have also shown the judicial precedent which proved that Sloww's selfish theory contradicted to the international law. However, Sloww was not able to present the evidence of his theory of the law at all.
    These prove how he is biased. He creates the delusional theory for Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  148. opp,


    I'm not interested in your theory of the law because proving Dokdo is Korean land doesn't need your theory of the law.


    I found very interesting map of Korea published by Asahi Newspaper in 1910.

    Map of Korea 1
    Map of Korea 2
    Map of Korea 3


    In this map of Korea, Takeshima(Dokdo) is included as Korean land. Japanese Cabinet incorporated Dokdo because there is no traces of occupation, but
    this map clearly shows Dokdo was Korean land before and even after Japanese incorporation of Dokdo in 1905.


    According to international law which is your favorite subject, can this map be something proving Japanese incorporation of Dokdo was illegal or not? Does the international law regard the incorporation of land which had owner as the evidence of effective control?


    If this map is not good enough, I can provide more evidence proving Japan incorporated Dokdo in spite of Korean effective control on Dokdo as shown in Korean Ordinance No.41.


    You don't need to answer my question if you don't want to.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Sloww:I'm not interested in your theory of the law because proving Dokdo is Korean land doesn't need your theory of the law.

    Do you know that “Sovereignty” is the term of the international law?
    My theory is same as the international law. Then you said that you are not interested in the international law. If you want to discuss the sovereignty of the Takeshima, you must study the international law. Your theory and interruption always violated to the international law.

    Sloww: I found very interesting map of Korea published by Asahi Newspaper in 1910.
    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7hRT6L_5aO8/T8YglPyYPcI/AAAAAAAAAH4/P6wAhmfXH_c/s1600/%EC%95%84%EC%82%AC%ED%9E%883.jpg


    Labels of islands are “竹嶼(Tikusyo), 鬱陵嶋(松嶋)(Uturyojima(Matsushima))”.

    Sloww: In this map of Korea, Takeshima(Dokdo) is included as Korean land.

    Are you under an illusion that 竹嶼(Tikusyo) is Takeshima?

    Sloww: If this map is not good enough, I can provide more evidence proving Japan incorporated Dokdo in spite of Korean effective control on Dokdo as shown in Korean Ordinance No.41.

    Off course maps is meaningless about the sovereignty according to the international law.
    [CASE5:Palmas]
    “Any maps which do not precisely indicate the political distribution of territories, and in particular the Island of Palmas (or Miangas) clearly marked as such, must be rejected forthwith, unless they contribute—supposing that they are accurate—to the location of geographical names.
    Anyhow, a map affords only an indication—and that a very indirect one—and, except when annexed to a legal instrument, has not the value of such an instrument, involving recognition or abandonment of rights.”


    Then show the evidence of the effective control by Korea according to the international law.
    [CASE6:Eastern Greenland]
    “Consequently, both the elements necessary to establish a valid title to sovereignty - the intention and the exercise - were present, but the question arises as to how far the operation of these elements extended.”
    “It is impossible to read the records of the decisions in cases as to territorial sovereignty without observing that in many cases the tribunal has been satisfied with very little in the way of the actual exercise of sovereign rights, provided that the other State could not make out a superior claim. This is particularly true in the case of claims to sovereignty over areas in thinly populated or unsettled countries.”

    ReplyDelete
  150. Sloww,

    竹嶼 (죽서) was the Japanese name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島). It is only 2km off the east shore of Ulleungdo. Can't you see that the island is labeled "Ulleungdo" (鬱陵嶋)?

    ReplyDelete
  151. I'm sorry it's my mistake, but I'm not under an illusion that 竹嶼 is Takeshima. I'm not in this blog without being able to distinguish Dokdo from Jukdo.

    The Chinese letter in the cutout of this map is not so clear to read that I just carelessly concluded 竹嶼 as 竹島. I think it was because the Japanese map with 竹嶼 is rare, so that I simply assumed it was 竹島 without giving even a thought to the possibility it might be Jukdo. Besides, the owner of this map unknowingly misinformed me it was 竹島. He doesn't know even what 竹嶼 is. It's my fault that I didn't check it throughly. It may sound like I'm making excuses, but it's true.

    Anyway, the Asahi Newspaper must have clearly recognized Dokdo became Japanese land no matter how illegal it was.

    This time I show you another map of 1905 which proves Japanese incorporation of Dokdo was illegal.

    日本海大海戰圖1
    日本海大海戰圖2
    日本海大海戰圖3

    Sorry again for my very stupid mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Sorry again for my very stupid mistake.

    You have repeated the same mistake. The geographical information (location, shape, size) of Takeshima and Matsushima of Japanese maps in the 19th century show a Dagelet island and the Argonaut island. International law gives priority to geographical information on maps than the name.

    “The Chinese letter in the cutout of this map is not so clear to read that I just carelessly concluded 竹嶼 as 竹島”

    Did you verify the location of the “竹嶼” on the map? If you know the right location of Takleshima, you can understand that “竹嶼” is not Takeshima without the clear Chinese letter. This comment proves that you neglect the geographical information of the map.


    This time I show you another map of 1905 which proves Japanese incorporation of Dokdo was illegal.

    Does it become illegal if Japan draws Takeshima on her map? Show the evidence (judicial precedent, textbook of international law) which support this strange theory.

    ReplyDelete
  153. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Sloww,
    Never mind.
    I think the Chinese letter in the cutout of the map is so clear to read.
    However, you are not stupid because most of Korean don't know the true place of Takeshima.
    They profess innocence usually.

    獨島守護天使金泰熙
    http://www16.tok2.com/home/otakeshimaoxdokdox/ANM/KimtaeheedokdopropagandaTshirt.gif
    李明博韓国大統領
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2008/08/another-picture-of-map-mural-at-blue.html

    Their islands are 鬱陵島 and 竹嶼 any time.

    ReplyDelete
  155. opp & 小嶋日向守,

    Reading your responses, I feel I made a really big stupid mistake leading you to believe I don't know the location of Dokdo.

    What's big deal my confusion on Chinese letters of 竹嶼 and 竹嶋? It still looks like 竹嶋 to me in this cutout. ( In my previous comment, I used 竹島.)

    It's stupid of you to say I don't know the location of Dokdo. If you review my previous comments and follow my comments to come, you can know if I really know the location of Dokdo or not.

    The lesson I got today is "Don't make any mistake in this blog. Even a sincere apology is not accepted."

    ReplyDelete
  156. Sloww,

    Sloww: Reading your responses, I feel I made a really big stupid mistake leading you to believe I don't know the location of Dokdo.
    What's big deal my confusion on Chinese letters of 竹嶼 and 竹嶋? It still looks like 竹嶋 to me in this cutout. ( In my previous comment, I used 竹島.)


    You mistake my indication. Off course, your conclusion was a mistake. But I pointed out that your thought processes which was rely only on the “superficial name” was wrong too. Do you think that the Takeshima is so close to the Ulleungdo? Why didn’t you entertain the geographical information of the map? International law does not do such a stupid thing. International law is judged from geographic information of maps.
    [PALMAS]
    “in particular the British Admiralty Chart, show no other island but Palmas (or Miangas) between the Talauer or Nanusa Islands and Mindanao.”
    “an erroneous attribution of the name “Miangas”, even by Dutch cartographers, is easily possible.”


    This is completely the same as the case of Argonaut and Dagelet on Japanese maps in the 19th. example is here These islands are Argonaut and Dagelet from the geographical information of the map according to the standard of the international law.


    There are some Japanese maps and records which labeled “竹島” to Jukdo

    Example


    Do you think the “竹島” on the map is Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks) according to the “superficial name”?

    ReplyDelete
  157. correction

    Example of the Japanese map which labeled "竹島" to Jukdo is here.

    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka47/ullungdo-1917/03.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  158. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  159. opp wrote:

    This is completely the same as the case of Argonaut and Dagelet on Japanese maps in the 19th. example is here.

    The map you show as an example is a clear evidence Ullongdo and Dokdo are Korean land. This map is using Japanese traditional names Takeshima(竹島) and Matsushima(松島) for Ullongdo and Dokdo respectively. They are in the positions of Siebold's map.

    Don't you know Siebold mistakenly drew Ulleongdo in the Argonaut position of western maps and Dokdo in the position of real Ulleongdo and Japanese unknowingly referenced it ? If you don't know go
    HERE

    Pro-Japanese people is trickly making ill use of the influence of western mapping error.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Slow: This map is using Japanese traditional names 竹島 and 松島 for Ullongdo and Dokdo respectively. They are in the Siebold's position.

    Siebold depicted islands in the potion of Argonaut and Dagelet. Then the geografial information of the Japanese map are the Argonaut and Dagelet.
    Interanationa law prior to the geographical information then the name.

    [PALMAS]
    “in particular the British Admiralty Chart, show no other island but Palmas
    (or Miangas) between the Talauer or Nanusa Islands and Mindanao.”
    “an erroneous attribution of the name “Miangas”, even by Dutch
    cartographers, is easily possible.”

    If you would like to continue the silly claim, show the judicial precedent which judged that prior to the name than geographical information.
    And answer my old question before your new question. Don't change subject. This case proves the irrationality of your silly logic very well. Is this "竹島" Takeshima? Don't run away

    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka47/ullungdo-1917/03.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  161. opp,

    I gave you all possible answers to your questions except your irrational and silly questions including international law you like. You can talk about the international law as much as you want, but don't force me to respond to it.

    I told you international law is not favorable to Japan's claim on Dokdo and proving Dokdo is Korean land doesn't need international law. Facing you with your nonsense questions is just waste of my time.

    I didn't change the subject. I just responded to what you are talking about which needs my opinion.

    You wrote "Is this "竹島" Takeshima? Don't run away". No, it's Jukdo not Dokdo. Is this the answer you want? My answer is correct, right?

    ReplyDelete
  162. Sloww
    "No, it's Jukdo not Dokdo"

    According your silly logic which based on only the "NAME", it becomes the Takeshima. Why did you change your silly logic? Show the reason which you judge that the "竹島" is Jukdo.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Sloww,

    I told you international law is not favorable to Japan's claim on Dokdo

    Please prove this silly logic with the evidence. Two kinds of evidence are required of the proof.

    1. Evidence for the historical fact
    Data for proving the past fact. The evidence for the historical fact is the past document.

    2. Evidence for the logic
    The interpretation rule of the past data. And the standard which judges whether the past data correspond to the acquisition of sovereignty. The evidence for the logic is the judicial precedent of international law and a scholar's work.

    You told international law. But you never prove your logic with evidence. I show always the evidence which prove your logic is against the international law.

    ReplyDelete