竹島問題の歴史

7.12.13

"First discovery of Chinese documents marking Dokdo as Korean territory." Really?

According to a December 1 "Yonhap News" article HERE (a Korean article HERE), a researcher at the Korea Dokdo and Marine Territory Research Center, which is under the state-run Korea Maritime Institute, has published a book of Chinese diplomatic documents, which includes a 1947 document that says the following:
"Jukdo (竹島) is northeast of Ulleungdo; its area is small, but it is a neighboring island of Ulleungdo."  
죽도(竹島)는 울릉도의 동북부에 있는데 면적은 크지 않으나 울릉도의 속도가 된다.
Notice that the English article replaces "Jukdo" (竹島) with "Dokdo," a common, intentional mistranslation in Korea. The researcher is claiming that the "Jukdo" being talked about in the document is "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks), even though the sentence clearly says the island is northeast of Ulleungdo, not southeast, and is named "Jukdo" (竹島), not "Dokdo" (獨島).

Anyone familiar with Ulleungdo knows that there is a small island two kilometers off the northeast shore of Ulleungdo named "Jukdo" (竹島), which just happens to use the same Chinese characters for its name as the Japanese island of "Takeshima" (Dokdo), which is about 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo, not northeast.

Here are some questions to consider when regarding the Korean researcher's claim:
  1. If there was an island named "Jukdo" (竹島) 2 kilometers off the northeast shore of Ulleungdo and an island whose name used the same two Chinese characters (竹島) 90 kilometers to the southeast of Ulleungdo, which one do you think the Chinese would have most likely referred to as "a neighboring island of Ulleungdo"?
  2. If the Korean name for the island 2 kilometers off Ulleungdo's northeast shore was "Jukdo" (竹島)" and the Korean name for the island 90 kilometers to the southeast of Ulleungdo was "Dokdo" (獨島), why would the Chinese use the name "Jukdo" (竹島), instead of "Dokdo" (獨島), if it were referring to the island 90 kilometers away?
  3. If the Chinese document were claiming the island 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, why would the Chinese use the Japanese name "Takeshima" (竹島) to refer to the island instead of the Korean name "Dokdo" (獨島)? 
The 竹島 in the Chinese document was obviously referring to Ulleungdo's neighboring island of "Jukdo" (竹島), which is only 2 kilometers off Ulleungdo's northeast shore, not to Japan's "Takeshima (竹島), which is 90 kilometers to the southeast of Ulleungdo.

In his 1948 book entitled "General Knowledge of Joseon" (朝鮮常識)," famed Korean historian Choi Nam-seon (崔南善)  wrote that Korea's easternmost (極東) island was Ulleungdo's "Jukdo" (鬱陵島竹島) and gave its longitude as "130º 56 min 23 sec East" (東経130度56分23秒). Therefore, if one of Korea's most famous historians was saying that "Jukdo" (竹島), not "Dokdo" (獨島), was Korea's easternmost island in 1948, why would the Chinese have said anything differently in 1947?
 
This is a perfect example of how some Koreans are grasping for straws as they try to prove Korea's claim to Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima / Dokdo). Unfortunately for Korea, instead of finding a document that supports Korea's claim to Liancourt Rocks, the Korean researcher seems to have found yet another document that supports the Japanese claim since the document suggests that even the Chinese had never heard of Ulleungdo having a neighboring island named "Dokdo" (獨島).

 

27 comments:

  1. 무엇보다 중요한 것은 자료 발굴이 이루어지면 즉시 전문가 그룹에 의하여 그 가치 판단 작업이 이루어져야 한다는 것이다. 그 자료가 역사적 사실관계를 입증할 정도로 정확한가,일본 측에 제시하여도 수긍될 수 있을 정도로 객관성을 갖는가, 특히 그 자료가 독도와 직접적인 관련성을 갖는가 하는 것을 확인하여야 한다. 이러한 확인 없이 자료 발굴 사실이 보도되고 그 내용이 과장되어 인용되는 경우, 독도 영유권에 관한 연구를 혼란에 빠뜨릴 수 있다. 어떠한 문건이 독도 영유권 주장을 위한 새로운 근거로 제시되었다가 뒤늦게 확인한 결과 그러한 가치가 없는 것으로 인정되어 허탈감에 빠지는 경우를 가끔 목격하게 되는 것도 그러한 예에 속한다. 이러한 상황이 자주 발생하면 우리의 독도 영유권 주장에 흠집만을 내게 된다.

    「독도 영유권 문제 연구의 체계화를 위하여」2012 독도연구저널 20호(겨울)
    http://www.ilovedokdo.re.kr/Boards.do?command=List&bid=journal01



     何よりも重要なのは、資料が発掘されたならば直ちに専門家グループによってその価値判断のための作業がなされなければならないということだ。 その資料が歴史的事実関係を立証するほど正確なのか、日本側に提示しても納得させられるほどの客観性を持つのか、特にその資料が独島と直接的な関連性を持つのか、ということを確認しなければならない。このような確認なしで資料発掘の事実が報道されてその内容が誇張されて引用されれば、独島領有権に関する研究を混乱に陥れることになる。 何かの文書が独島領有権主張のための新しい根拠として提示されたものの、後で確認した結果そういう価値がないと認められて虚脱感に陥る場合を時おり目撃することになるのもそういう例に属する。このような状況がしばしば発生すれば、私たちの独島領有権主張に傷を残すことになるだけだ。

    「独島領有権問題研究の体系化のために」2012独島研究ジャーナル20号(冬号)

    ReplyDelete
  2. 竹島 in the sentence "竹島 is northeast of Ulleungdo; its area is small, but it is a neighboring island of Ulleungdo." is definitely referring to Dokdo even though it’s wrongly described to be located at the northeast of Ulleongdo, not southwest. The reason is very simple.

    The Chinese document including the sentence "竹島 is northeast of Ulleungdo." was published in 1947 when a trusteeship over Korea was discussed. This document also states "Ulleung Island, Takeshima(竹島), and Jeju Island originally belong to Korea. In legal and moral principles, we have to of course say that they belong to Korea. During the trusteeship, the three islands should be governed by the United States or China and otherwise United States should have jurisdiction over Ulleongdo and Takeshima(竹島) and China should have jurisdiction over Jeju Island."

    Does it make sense China wanted to govern Jukdo which is 2.2 km off Ulleongdo in that document? No. It’s completely nonsense. The island which became an issue after Japanese defeat of WW2 was Dokdo /Takeshima, definitely not Jukdo. "竹島" which Chinese document is referreing to was Dokdo/Takeshima which SCAP separated from Japan’s governmental and Administrative right in 1946.

    Besides, Jukdo is not located at the northeast of Ulleongdo. It exactly lies to the east of Ulleongdo. The description "northeast" in Chinese document is just a mistake. Dr. Yoo also made a mistake by not mentioning Chinese document’s mistake to prevent any misunderstanding caused by it. But most Koreans have no problem with it. To Koreans, when the Chinese character 竹島 is referred to, it mostly means Dokdo or Takeshima, not Jukdo because it’s not common to use Chinese characters for referring to Jukdo in Korea.

    My conclusion is "Dokdo“ in English article is not a mistranslation and Dr. Yoo’s claim that "竹島" being talked about in the Chinese document is "Dokdo" is not wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sloww,

    The Chinese document not only said Jukdo (竹島)was northeast of Ulleungdo, but it also said it was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo without giving a distance. The most probably reason a distance was not given is that most normal people would assume "neighboring island" meant the island was near Ulleungdo, not ninety kilometers away.

    If there is a "Jukdo" (竹島) two kilometers off the northeast shore of Ulleungdo and one 90 kilometers to the southeast Ulleungdo, which one would a normal person call a "neighboring island of Ulleungdo"?

    In his 1948 book, "General Knowledge of Joseon" (朝鮮常識), famed Korean historian Choi Nam-seon (崔南善) wrote, "Ulleungdo's (鬱陵島) Jukdo (竹島) in North Gyeongsang Province" (慶尚北道) is Korea's easternmost(極東)island, with an East longitude of 130º 56 min 56 sec (東経130度56分23秒)."

    Notice that Mr. Choi wrote "Jukdo" (竹島), not Dokdo (獨島), which was the name Koreans had been using for Liancourt Rocks since 1904.

    Therefore, if Korea's most famous historian believed that Ulleungdo's Jukdo (竹島), not Dokdo (獨島), was Korea's easternmost island in 1948, why would the Chinese believe any different in 1947? Why the Chinese refer to the island as "Jukdo," instead of "Dokdo" (獨島)?

    If the Chinese had been claiming that that Liancourt Rocks was Korean territory, why wouldn't they refer to it by its Korean name instead of its Japanese name. The reason is obvious; the Chinese, just like Korean historian Choi, was referring to Ulleungdo's neighboring island of "Jukdo" (竹島), which is two kilometers off Ulleungdo's "northeast" shore.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gerry Bevers,

    Please stop misleading the readers. 竹島 in this Chinese document is unquestionably Dokdo/Takeshima, not Jukdo.

    1.You wrote "Jukdo (竹島) is northeast of Ulleungdo; its area is small, but it is a neighboring island of Ulleungdo." and "죽도(竹島)는 울릉도의 동북부에 있는데 면적은 크지 않으나 울릉도의 속도가 된다."

    In Englihs article you linked, there’s no word "Jukdo". You replaced "Dokdo" with "Jukdo". In Korean article, there’s a word "죽도", but the article explains it means Dokdo(독도) by writing 독도 in brackets like "죽도(竹島ㆍ독도)". 죽도 is Korean pronounciation of Chinese characters 竹島, 竹島 is Japanese name for Dokdo and Dokdo is Korean name for 竹島(Takeshima). Therefore, the English and Korean article have no problems.

    2. There’s no any island located at the northeast of Ulleongdo. As I said before, it’s just a mistake. Why should be there the distance for 竹島? Neither Ulleongdo nor Jeju Island have the distance in this document.

    3. In English article you linked, it’s written "Dokdo is located northeast of Ulleung Island. It is not big, and belongs to Ulleung Island," , but you replaced "it is a neighboring island of Ulleungdo" and try to mislead with the distance that Dokdo can’t be a Ulleongdo’s neighboring island because it’s 90 km away from Ulleongdo. Dr. Yoo said that Chinese document wrote 竹島(Dokdo/Takeshima) belonged to Ulleongdo and it means Dokdo belongs to Ulleongdo regardless of the distance, Therefore, your example of a normal person to exclude Dokdo as a neighboring island of Ulleongdo is useless.

    4.Yes, Choi Nam-sun used "竹島" to indicate Jukdo, but that document was written in Chinese. In these days, Koreans don’t write in Chinese. We generally write 죽도(Jukdo), not 竹島. If we see the letter "竹島", in most cases we think of Japanese name Takeshima, not Jukdo.

    If you insist that Chinese document referred to 竹島(Jukdo), not 竹島(Dokdo/Takeshima), how do you think China could know there’s an island called 竹島(Jukdo) in Korea? Do you think China referenced Choi’s book and claimed China and America should govern Ulleongdo and Jukdo just 2.2 km off Ulleongdo along with Jeju Island? It doesn’t make sense at all.

    It’s certain China referenced SCAPINs issued in 1946 when considering this Chinese document was written after Japan’s defeat of WW2 when negotiations to decide Japan’s territory was ongoing. SCAPIN No.677 and No. 1033 defined Japan to exclude Utsuryo (Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks (Take Island) and Quelpart (Saishu or Cheju) Island. And there was the U.S. draft of SF Treaty which said Dokdo(Liancourt Rocks) was Korean land. The island at issue at that time was Japanese calling 竹島(Dokdo/Takeshima), not Koreans calling 竹島(Jukdo).

    It’s also plausible to say China referenced Japanese materials to gain knowledge about 竹島(Dokdo/Takeshima). The Japanese documents and maps show Takeshima(竹島), not Jukdo(竹島). Japanese didn’t call Korean Jukdo 竹島. 竹島 in Japanese materials are unquestionably Takeshima/Dokdo.

    You asked "why would the Chinese use the name "Jukdo" (竹島), instead of "Dokdo" (獨島), if it were referring to the island 90 kilometers away?" The Chinese document didn’t use Jukdo. It used 竹島 indicating Takeshima. Why didn’t they use 獨島(Dokdo)? The answer is simple. After Japan illegally incorporated Dokdo in 1905 and annexed Korea 5 years later, Dokdo became to be called by Japanese name Takeshima(竹島). It's not likely China even knew 竹島(Takeshima) had Korean name Dokdo. Chinese documents says "Ulleung Island, 竹島(Dokdo), and Jeju Island originally belong to Korea. In legal and moral principles, we have to of course say that they belong to Korea." This proves China knew exactly Imperial Japan illegally took Korean island 竹島(Dokdo/Takeshima).

    ReplyDelete
  5. 5. As to the Choi’s description of Korean eastern limit, it was a copied wrong description of the Japanese document published by Japanese Office of the Governors-General of Korea in 1935. In 1930, a Japanese scholar Hibatakke Sekko(桶畑雪湖) wrote "Takeshima(Dokdo) and Ulleungdo are currently Korean land belonging to Gangwon Province of Korea, and they constitute the eastern limit of Korea." in his article "Regarding the relation of Japan&Chosun on Takeshima(Dokdo) in the Sea of Japan". And there are Japanese maps during Japan’s colonial period showing Dokdo/Takeshima belonged to Korea. Choi’s description is not significant. (For your reference, Choi Nam-sun is notoriously famous for his collaborating activities with the Imperial Japan.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sloww,

    You are being silly, again.

    The original document was written in Chinese, not in English and not in Korean. The Chinese document labeled the island as 竹島, which is pronounced as "Jukdo" in Korean and "Takeshima" in Japanese. It was not written as 獨島 (Dokdo).

    It was described as a "neighboring island of Ulleungdo," and Ulleungdo has a neighboring island named "Jukdo," so why would Koreans ignore that fact and translate it as "Dokdo"? Because Koreans are the ones trying to deceive the readers.

    屬島 (속도) means "attached island" (부속한 섬), and even the Korean government translates it as "neighboring island."

    As for the compass direction of "Jukdo" in relation to the Ulleungdo, the Chinese document described it as being "northeast," not east nor southeast, but "northeast," and the location of Jukdo fits that description a heck of a lot better than "Dokdo."

    As for Korean historian Choi Nam-sun writing in Chinese, what has that got to do with anything? A lot of educated Koreans read and wrote Chinese in 1948. If Mr. Choi had thought "Dokdo" was Korea's easternmost island, he would have written 獨島, not 竹島.

    Why would a Korean historian use the Japanese name instead of the Korean name if he were talking about Liancourt Rocks?

    If the Chinese were referring Japanese documents instead of Korean, then they would have known that Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima) was part of Japan, not Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sloww wrote: "Choi’s description is not significant. (For your reference, Choi Nam-sun is notoriously famous for his collaborating activities with the Imperial Japan.)"

    If Choi's description was insignificant, then why did the Korean Prime Minister (Jang Myeon - 張勉) under President Rhee Syng-man go to Choi Nam-seon to ask what Korea's territorial boundaries were in preparation for Korea-Japan talks?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sloww wrote:

    "5. As to the Choi’s description of Korean eastern limit, it was a copied wrong description of the Japanese document published by Japanese Office of the Governors-General of Korea in 1935."

    How was it copied wrong and how do you explain the longitude Choi gave for 竹島?

    In 1948, Choi not only wrote that Korea's easternmost island was Ulluendo's Jukdo (鬱陵島竹島), but he also gave its longitude as "130º 56 min 23 sec," which is the exact coordinates for Ulleungdo's Jukdo today.


    The longitude for Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) is 131° 52 min 0 sec," almost a full degree farther east of the longitude given by Mr. Choi in 1948.

    The longitude given by Mr. Choi in 1948 confirms that he was talking about Ulleungdo's Jukdo, not Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gerry,

    We don't see you much around here anymore. I am glad to see you again.

    My guess about the Takeshima of this document is follows.

    1.Chinese Nationalist Party had known SCAPIN677. And she judged the border based on the SCAPIN677. (Scapin 677 had opened. Even Korean private sector (Patriotic Old Man association) knew that.)

    2.However, Chinese Nationalist Party didn’t know the geographical information about Takeshima at SCAPIN677. (This map which often uses for the explanation of SCAPIN677 isn’t the body and the attached map of SCAPIN677)

    3.Chinese Nationalist Party thought the Takeshima of SCAPIN677 is Jukdo from the maps by Governor-General of Korea etc..

    ReplyDelete
  10. Gerry Bevers,

    Yes, the Chinese document labeled the island as 竹島 and it’s pronounced as "Jukdo" in Korean , but 竹島 in this document is prounced as "Takeshima" in Japanese. I already explained why it’s "Takeshima", not "Jukdo".

    You wrote:
    "It was described as a "neighboring island of Ulleungdo," and Ulleungdo has a neighboring island named "Jukdo," so why would Koreans ignore that fact and translate it as "Dokdo"? Because Koreans are the ones trying to deceive the readers."

    It's right to say "It was described as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, and Ulleungdo has a neighboring island named "Jukdo", but it's completely wrong to say "so why would Koreans ignore that fact and translate it as "Dokdo"?" Koreans don’t ignore the fact Ulleongdo has a neighboring island named "Jukdo". Koreans exactly know "Jukdo(竹島)" has nothing to do with Takeshima(竹島) in this document even though they share the same Chinese characters. Koreasn correctly translated Takeshima(竹島) in this document as Dokdo.

    Chinese document says 竹島(Dokdo/Takeshima) is an attached island(屬島) to Ulleongdo, English article translates it as "Dokdo ....belongs to Ulleung Island." and you replaced "Dokdo is a neighboring island of Ulleungdo". In fact, they are all same meaning. The problem is you misuse the term "neighboring" to wrongly justify your claim only Jukdo(竹島) is a neighboring island of Ulleongdo because it’s closer than Dokdo, thus 竹島 in the document is Jukdo. Historical facts support Dokdo is a neighboring and attached to Ulleongdo and belongs to Ulleongdo.


    The Chinese must have referred this Imperial Japan’s map(Link) and could get to know the Chinese characters for Liancourt Rocks(Takeshima) in SCAPINs is 竹島 in Japan and concluded "Ulleung Island, 竹島(Dokdo/Takeshima), and Jeju Island originally belong to Korea. In legal and moral principles, we have to of course say that they belong to Korea." Notice in the map linked, there’s no Jukdo(竹島). There’s Dokdo/Takeshima(竹島) along with Ulleongdo.


    竹島 in Choi’s book is Jukdo which is 2.2 km off Ulleongdo, not Dokdo. I didn’t say 竹島 he was referring to was Dokdo. He wrongly described the Korea’s eastern limit was Jukdo, but it was the copy of Japanese book "朝鮮現勢便覧”. I’m not sure if he truly thought Jukdo was Korea’s easternmost island or not, but his personal view is not significant.

    朝鮮現勢便覧


    The island at issue after Japan’s defeat of WW2 was 竹島(Dokdo/Takeshima) and China suggested 竹島(Dokdo/Takeshima) should be governed by the United States or China during the trusteeship. The possibility China wanted to govern Jukdo is just zero.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Gerry,

    Yu Milim is introducing a map.

    http://www.kalim.org/xe/70046
    Originally http://premium.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/12/02/2013120200144.html

    I am not sure the relationship between ‘일본 영토 강계도’ and 日本領土處理辨法硏究.

    She said she was not allowed to take photocopy, so this might be her handicraft.


    We are arguing in Japanese.

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2013/11/disposition-of-korean-scholar.html?showComment=1386753687128#c6948695234530140183

    ReplyDelete

  12. Opp,

    I’m sorry to interrupt. I have a question for you.

    Is there any map by Governor-General of Korea which are likely to cause the Chinese to think Takeshima in the map of SCAPIN677 was Jukdo? If you have, could you show it? I wonder if there’s any map Jukdo is drawn in the similar position as Takeshima in the map of SCAPIN 677, so that the Chinese mistakenly considered Takeshima in SCAPIN map was Jukdo.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sloww,

    You cannot say Koreans correctly interpreted 竹島 to mean "Dokdo" (獨島), instead of "Jukdo" (竹島, when the document said the 竹島 being talked about was to the northeast of Ulleungdo, not the southeast. "Ulleungdo's Jukdo (鬱陵島竹島 is to the northeast; "Dokdo" (獨島) is 90 kilometers to the southeast.

    If the document had said "southeast" instead of "northeast," then you might be able to make that argument, but it didn't say "southeast," and you cannot simply dismiss that fact by simply saying, "Oh, well, they made a mistake."

    And, again, the fact they did not give a distance to 竹島 is another indication they were talking about the "Jukdo" two kilometers off Ulleungdo's northeast shore, not the "Dokdo" 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo.

    In the 1935 Japanese document to which you linked, I noticed there was nothing mentioned about Ulleungdo's Jukdo being the easternmost island of Korea. That would suggest that Choi Nam-seon knew that fact without reference to the document.

    And, unrelatedly, I noticed that the document described the shaped of the Korean peninsula as being the shape of a "jumping rabbit." I am curious to know if this was the first time such a description was ever used. I doubt it was, but it is still interesting to see it mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you, Opp, and thanks for posting a link to that map.

    The map seems to show "Liancourt Rocks," but that does not mean the Chinese were referring to Liancourt Rocks, especially since the document said Ulleungdo's Jukdo (竹島) was to the northeast of Ulleungdo.

    I am suspicious of the Korean researcher because in the English article to which I linked, she said an excerpt from the Chinese data cited Ulleungdo as being "87.4 kilometers to the northwest of "Dokdo."

    I am positive the Chinese document, or excerpt, did not said "Korea's island was 87.4 kilometers to the northwest of 'Dokdo'" because Koreans have only recently claimed that distance to be the distance from Ulleungdo to Dokdo. In other words, the Korean researcher just seems to be using her imagination to fill in the blanks.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gerry Bevers,

    "If the document had said "southeast" instead of "northeast," then you might be able to make that argument, but it didn't say "southeast," and you cannot simply dismiss that fact by simply saying, "Oh, well, they made a mistake."

    What fact ? Your fact that Koreans misinterpreted 竹島 in this Chinese document to mean "Dokdo" (獨島)? I didn’t dismiss it because of that mistake. That mistake is not so important. I dismissed the fact you made up because of the historical facts behind the document. You intentionally ignore the important points related such as SCAPINs and trusteeship which are conclusive evidence explaining 竹島 in that document is obviously Dokdo/Takeshima.


    It seems you are not interested in the truth. What you are concerned is to make Koreans or Dr. Yoo ,in particular, immoral and damage intentionally Korean sovereignty to Dokdo. That makes me so sad.


    "In the 1935 Japanese document to which you linked, I noticed there was nothing mentioned about Ulleungdo's Jukdo being the easternmost island of Korea. That would suggest that Choi Nam-seon knew that fact without reference to the document."

    Didn’t you read “極東 慶尚北道鬱陵島竹島東端”? If 竹島 in 朝鮮現勢便覧 is not Ulleungdo's Jukdo, what is it? Please don’t be silly.


    If you are absolutely right, we can hear a news soon from Japan criticizing Koreans or a Korean researcher who misinterpret the Chinese document because it would be a straw for Japan to grasp to enhance their false claim to Dokdo. Good luck!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sorry, Sloww. I did not realize there was a second page in the document to which you linked.

    If Mr. Choe Nam-seon, one of Korea's most prominent historians at the time, wrote the same boundaries for Korea in his 1948 book as was written in the 1935 Japanese document, wouldn't that mean he agreed with the boundaries written in the 1935 document?

    Doesn't it also show that, in 1948, Mr. Choe apparently disagreed with Japan's 1947 claim to Ulleungdo, but did not challenge Japan's claim to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo)? Why would one of Korea's most prominent historians not know about "Dokdo"?

    Choe Nam-seon

    In its September 16, 1948 petition to claim "Dokdo," Korea's Patriotic Old Men's Association did not give a distance from Ulleungdo to "Dokdo." The only distance they gave was the distance from Japan's Oki Island to "Dokdo." If they were arguing that "Dokdo" was historically a part of Ulleungdo, why didn't they give the distance from Ulleungdo to "Dokdo," instead of the distance from Japan's Oki Island? The most probably reason was that they did not know the distance from Ulleungdo to "Dokdo."

    Not only did the Koreans apparently not know the distance from Ulleungdo to "Dokdo," but they also did not know the meaning of the name "Dokdo."

    In their 1948 petition, the Koreans claimed that the name "Dokdo" meant "small pot-shaped island" in Korean, but as you know, Sloww, the name "Dokdo" (獨島) means "solitary island," not "small pot-shaped island." Moreover, it is not even close to being shaped like a "small pot." That shows that the people claiming that Dokdo had "historically" been part of Korea had little or no knowledge of the island.

    Korea's historical documents were written in Chinese, so how could the Koreans not know the Chinese characters for "Dokdo" if it was supposedly a historical part of Korea? Probably because it never appeared on any Korean maps and never appeared in any Korean historical documents, except one letter in 1906 from the Ulleungdo Magistrate, who, himself, did not know the location of "Dokdo."

    In summary, the members of the Patriotic Old Men's Society did not seem to know the location of "Dokdo," its distance from Ulleungdo, the meaning of its name, or the shape of the island. They knew almost nothing about the island, yet still claimed it was "historically" Korean territory.

    Of course, the United States did not buy the silly Korean claims to "Dokdo" and "Tsushima," just as it did not buy the "Japanese" claim to Ulleungdo.

    1948 Aug 5 Petition from Patriotic Old Men's Association

    If the Koreans, themselves, knew so little about "Dokdo" in 1948, why would anyone expect the Chinese to know anything about it in 1946?

    The Japanese, in 1935, and Korean historian Choe Nam-seon, in 1948, both wrote that Ulleungdo's Jukdo (竹島) was Korea's easternmost point. They even gave the longitude to show that it was the 竹島 just two kilometers off Ulleungdo's northeast shore. Ulleungdo's "Jukdo" (竹島) appeared on Korean maps as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, but there was no Korean maps showing an island labeled "Dokdo" (獨島). Therefore, the Chinese would have know of Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島), but not of "Dokdo" (獨島).

    ReplyDelete
  17. Gerry Bevers,

    You may say Choi Nam-seon agreed with Japanese wrong description about the boundary of Korea in the 1935 document, but I already said Choi Nam Sun’s personal view was insignificant. Again, it’s useless to use Choi’s book to dismiss China viewed Takeshima(Dokdo) was a Korean island attached to Ulleongdo in that document.


    "Doesn't it also show that, in 1948, Mr. Choe apparently disagreed with Japan's 1947 claim to Ulleungdo, but did not challenge Japan's claim to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo)? Why would one of Korea's most prominent historians not know about "Dokdo"?”

    Wrong. It was Choi Nam-Seon who advised President Rhee to claim for the return of Dokdo during SF Treaty negotiations because he believed Dokdo was historically Korean land. This tells the description on easternmost limit of Korea in his book didn’t reflect his true view on Dokdo. It can be inferred he chose to agree with Japanese book of 1935 to survive the Japan’s harsh colonial ruling on Korea


    You continue to argue over petty things that. They don’t help your claim the Chinese didn’t say Dokdo an attached island to Ulleongdo belongs to Korea. Korea's Patriotic Old Men's Association just cited what Japan’s Cabinet Decision(1905) stated to substantiate Japan robbed Dokdo . He was not asked to give a distance from Ulleungdo to Dokdo.

    Korea's Patriotic Old Men's Association exactly said "Japan, however, never dismiss the fishering profit around the island "Ulleongdo", but planned to occupy a corner of it by some means and became to find out a small island called "Doksum", in Korea name, meaning a small pot-shaped island, near the Ulleongdo, where whales gathered." They didn’t say Dokdo look like a small pot. What they said was "Doksum" in Korean language means a small pot-shaped island, Actually, in Korea "dok" indicates a small or big pot. A small pot-shaped island the Koreans referred to was definitely Dokdo where whales gathered.

    (To be contined)

    ReplyDelete

  18. "they did not know the distance from Ulleungdo to Dokdo." and "the people claiming that Dokdo had "historically" been part of Korea had little or no knowledge of the island.".

    Not knowing the exact distance from Uleongd to Dokdo is not a big dea. I know you try mislead "Docksum" in their petition means Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo,not Dokdo, but it’s useless. U.S.Acting Political Adviser confirms 'Doksom" in their petition is Dokdo. And the Koreans said "Doksum", ....... near the Ulleongdo, where whales gathered. Whales don’t gather near Jukdo. They also made an important statement conclusively against your claim as follows:

    "In 1904, Japnese fit of Agriculture and sher of Tottoriken named Nakai Yosabur made a cruel programme to seize the Doksum and was practised to submit petitions or requests to the hydrograph of department of Navy, Dep’t of Home Affairs, Dep’t of Foreign Affairs and Dep’t of Agriculture and Commerce, etc. to register the island into Japanese territory.
    At that time, considering the delicate international relations, Japanese officials hesitated to put into practice. Japan, however, guessed the Russian failure in the Russian-Japanese War, and Provincial Notice No. 40 of Tottriken was issued officially as follows: "Islands located 85 miles far from Okishima are hereby called Takeshima and transferred to this province." Thus, these islands were occupied by Japanese Government. This was of so secrecy that not only Korean Government but also either nations could not know it. Furthermore, even if Korean Government turned his attention to it, no policy might be made for it. As above, Japanese wills were completely successful on it."

    Is there anything related to Jukdo? Is there anything not related to Dokdo?


    Who said the Chinese are expected to know anything about Dokdo in 1946? What is certain is the Chinese who wrote the document in question knew Dokdo was Ulleongdo’s attached island belonging to Korea and they suggested China and U.S. should govern Dokdo during trusteeship. Korean Jukdo has nothing to do with Takeshima in Chinese document. The Chinese didn’t read Choi’s book and there’s no island named Jukdo in the Japanese maps or documents they must have referred.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 柳美林『我が史料の中の独島と鬱陵島』知識産業社 2013.11.15刊
    유미림 ‘우리 사료 속의 독도와 울릉도’ 지식산업사
    注文していた本が到着しました。

    「中国の対韓領土認識」311p~347p

    p340~341 注72
    鬱陵島 即古于山国 又名羽陵島 武陵島 鬱陵島位於日本海中 北緯37度27分至34分 東経130度47分至56分 面積73平方公里、海岸線延長45公里、離韓国江原道 竹辺66海里 釜山173海里 日本鳥取県境港172海里 人口17664名 日本人僅642名(1943年)、農産有馬鈴薯玉蜀黍大豆麦等 為島民常食 海産亦相当豊富 毎年漁獲価額 在30万日円以上 該島所属問題 在昔日韓両国 一再攘奪 自1884年以後韓人移住該島者 侵仮増加 勢力日大 争論始平 初属江原道 1907年(韓 隆熙 元年)編入慶尚南道 日韓合併後 1914年(大正 3年)改属慶尚北道 翌年頒布島制 設島司面長等官 以治理之 在日人統治時 尚不敢画帰日本 公認該島為韓国領土 豪無疑義 竹島在該島之東北部 面積不大 為鬱陵島之属島
    『韓国疆域問題意見』

    この文脈からすると、ここに見える「竹島」は明らかに「竹嶼」ですね。
    「日人統治時」に竹島(独島)は島根県に属しており、朝鮮総督府には属していなかったからです。一方で竹嶼は「竹島」とよばれ、確かに「該島之東北部」にありました。

    Gerryさん、正解です!

    327p
    注39
    鬱陵島 原属新羅 慶長之役時 為日軍所占拠 徳川幕府時 復帰還韓国 日本併合朝鮮後 仍属朝鮮慶尚北道管轄、其本島 為7255平方公里 竹島即為属島 人口拠1928年調査 為10466人 日本人 僅佔600名 即鬱陵島竹島 不応画帰日本
    『日本領土処理弁法草案』

    これも、植民地時代の1928年の話なので、この属島である「竹島」は、竹嶼です。


    しかし、この論文の中に現れる、SCAPIN 677関連で出てくる「竹島」は、現竹島=独島であり、柳美林は混乱したまま議論を進めています。当時の中国での議論自体も混乱しているようです。

    当時、「竹島」は二つあったわけで、(今もそうですが)その2つを峻別して史料を読んでいかないと混乱するばかりです。

    柳美林は、あえて意図的に混乱を持ち込んでいる、とも言えます。

    ReplyDelete
  20. この論文で柳美林は、SCAPIN677の「竹島」探しをしています。

    ところが、彼女が見つけた中国史料に出てくる「竹島」が、果たして現竹島=独島なのか、鬱陵島の近くの竹嶼なのかについて、何の吟味もしないままに「独島」であると決めつけています。

    ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
    328~9p
    独島については、簡潔に「竹島はこの鬱陵島の東北部にあり、面積は大きくなく、鬱陵島の属島である。」(注41)としている。ここで「竹島」が鬱陵島の近くの「竹島」ではないことは、この内容が「盟軍総部(連合国総司令部)が1946年1月29日に発表した日本領土劃分之指令」に出てくることと、「この3島は、みな軍事的価値があるが」としていることからわかる。中国は、鬱陵島の歴史的来歴、人口分布をみても韓国領土であり、独島は鬱陵島の属島であると見た。

    (注41)「竹島在該島之東北部 面積不大 為鬱陵島之属島」『韓国疆域問題意見―駐日代表団』

    ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

    この中国史料の「竹島」が「鬱陵島の東北部」にあって「東南部」ではないことについてさえ、柳美林は何の吟味も加えていません。
    また「この3島は、みな軍事的価値があるが」という部分には注釈もつけず、どの史料によっているかも書いていません。
    「盟軍総部(連合軍総司令部)が1946年1月29日に発表した日本領土劃分之指令」はまさにSCAPIN677のことと思われますが、SCAPIN677にはこうした「軍事的価値」についての記述はないでしょう。


    柳美林はこの論文で、2007年に南京で調査したことを記し、たくさんの史料の名前を紹介しています。しかし、その全文を載せていません。複写が許可されず、筆写した、とあるので、ここの翻刻に、いかなる「誤謬」も、あるいは恣意的な「改竄」もないことを担保する意味でも、本人筆写の印影を載せるべきでしょう。
    原資料は、中国は決して二度と出して来ることはないでしょうから。

    ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
    312p 注7
    筆者は、韓国海洋水産開発院に在職していた2007年、中国・南京の第二歴史档案館の資料を調査したことがあった。档案館の外交部の目録には、約3500件の文件が載せられているが、このうち対日平和条約および領土関連文件は10余件である。文書形態は筆写とタイピングの2種類であるが、大部分、複写を許されず、筆写も一部のみが許された。

    326p 注36
    『有関日本疆域問題的資料』『旧日本領土』『日本領土処理弁法研究』『機密 日本領土処理弁法研究』『機密 日本領土処理弁法草案』『韓国疆域問題意見―駐日代表団』『対日和約国各方意見輯要』『対日和約草案』『有関対日和約資料』
    上の文書のうち、一部は複写が許されず、筆写した。すべてを筆写することができず、再び訪問したが、中国は入館を許可しなかった。
    ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

    ReplyDelete
  21. 中国も、戦後の日本領土の行方をめぐって、SCAPIN677を検討したのだと思います。そこに出てくる、鬱陵島、竹島、済州島について、(そればかりではないはずですが)、その来歴を調べた資料がこの一群の資料集なのでしょう。

    ところが、「竹島」について、朝鮮の資料を調べていくうちに、もう一つの「竹島」すなわち竹嶼に当たってしまった。朝鮮側の資料で鬱陵島の近くの竹島を調べれば、当然、竹嶼が「竹島」として出てくるわけで、それをそのまま記録しているのが、これらの資料なのでしょう。
    日本側まで広げて調べれば、本来の、SCAPIN677の言うところの「竹島」、すなわち島根県の竹島=独島に当たったのでしょうが、そうした吟味をせずに資料を集めていた段階の記録が残っているのかもしれません。
    中国が集めた資料をもっと詳細に見ていけば、あるいは島根県の竹島について書いてある記述もあるのかもしれません。

    よって、この資料の、「属島としての竹島」は、竹嶼のことについて書いてあるだけであって、柳美林の議論は、全くの誤謬です。史料の都合の良い所だけ拾う、というのは研究者としての史料操作における初歩が出来ていないということでしょう。

    ReplyDelete
  22. MatsuさんもChaamieyさんも
    ご苦労様でした。
    すっきりしました。

    ReplyDelete
  23. 小嶋日向守さま
    Chaamieyさま

    ありがとうございます。

    ここのコメントは本来以下の続きのものです。
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2013/11/disposition-of-korean-scholar.html?showComment=1389650242602#c9084213097674618218
    2013年12月4日以降のコメント

    そこにも書きましたが、中国が終戦直後のこの当時、日本領土の「尖閣」について、どのように書いていたか、非常に興味があります。あるいは「なにも書いていない」のではないかとも思います。
    中国が、柳美林の2度目の訪問を許可しなかったのは、その部分を公開されると「非常にまずい」からではないでしょうか。

    「歴史を鏡」とするためにも、ぜひ中国には、この文献を公開してほしいものです。

    ReplyDelete
  24. Gerry,

    I got Yoo Mirim’s book and saw the Chinese document found by her.
    I put the document in the above Comment.

    You are right,

    “The 竹島 in the Chinese document was obviously referring to Ulleungdo's neighboring island of "Jukdo" (竹島), which is only 2 kilometers off Ulleungdo's northeast shore, not to Japan's "Takeshima (竹島), which is 90 kilometers to the southeast of Ulleungdo.”

    ReplyDelete
  25. matsu,

    Please show the evidence on your conclusion if you can.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sloww,
    I explained above. Sorry I wrote in Japanese.

    Please also see my comments below;
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2014/01/original-text-of-chinese-documents.html
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2013/11/disposition-of-korean-scholar.html

    ReplyDelete
  27. matsu,

    Sorry, but I can’t figure out what your points are. Please explain them in Japanese again if you can, then let me translate them into English.

    Is your conclusion is same as Mr. opp's?

    ReplyDelete