tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post5753419156780354012..comments2024-01-26T17:48:29.804+09:00Comments on Dokdo-or-Takeshima?: The 19th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”Gerry Bevershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-89587240337287123482012-03-23T23:53:15.159+09:002012-03-23T23:53:15.159+09:00Regarding Prof. Shimojo's interpretation of &q...Regarding Prof. Shimojo's interpretation of "The rough sketch of Isotakeshima (磯竹島略図)"<br /><br />Who said Prof. Shimojo is intelligent? He lies about things which could be very easily revealed. It's Prof. Shimojo who distorts the Dajokna Order of 1877. <br /><br />In 1877, Dajokan instructed Japans Ministry of Interior to remember that 磯竹島(Ulleungdo) and another island in the sea of Japan(East Sea) have nothing to do with Japan and attached 磯竹島略図 to clarify what the another island is. 磯竹島 and 松島 in 磯竹島略図 are today's Ulleugdo and Dokdo, respectively which Edo Bakufu disputed with Korea and prohibited Japanese to voyage in 1696 because they are Korean territory.<br /><br />松島 in 磯竹島略図 definitely corresponds to today's Dokdo. The reasons are:<br /><br />1. Prof. Shimojo showed in his column just the cutout of 磯竹島略図. The whole map of 磯竹島略図 is <a href="http://dokdostudy.net/images/iso_md01_2.jpg" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>. <br /><br />松島 in 磯竹島略図 consists of two islets. Its Today's Dokdo that consists of two islets, not Ulleungdo. If this map was influenced by wrong western maps as Prof. Shimojo insists, 松島(=Prof. Shimojo's Ulleungdo) shouldn't have two small islets. <br />There were no western maps which depicted Ulleungdo(Dagelet) as an island with two small islets. 磯竹島略図 has nothing to do with western mapping error.<br /><br />2. There is an attached document to Dajokan Order which verifies 松島 in 磯竹島略図 is today's Dokdo. The attached document explains 'another land' as follows:<br /><br />“…磯竹島 (Isotakeshima or Isotakejima) has another name, 竹島 (=Ulleungdo). It is north-west of Oki province and the distance from Oki is about 120里. The circumference is 10里...................... Next, there is “another island” called 松島 (=Dokdo). The circumference is about 30町, It is on the same sea route as 竹島 (Ulleungdo). The distance from Oki is about 80里. Trees and a bamboos are rare. It yields fishes and sea animals, too."<br /><br />According to this description, "another island" is definitely 松島 and 松島 is today's Dokdo which Japanese voyaged to during 17th century and 松島 was clearly depicted in 磯竹島略図. This document wasn't affected by western wrong maps as Prof. Shimojo misleads.<br /><br />3. Dajokan didn't conduct a new investigation to make 磯竹島略圖. 磯竹島略圖 was the result of referencing the old document and map. Of course, Japan's old documents and maps of 17th century weren't influenced by western mapping error which happened in 19th century.<br /><br />磯竹島略圖 is known as the copy of Kotani Ihei (小谷伊兵衛)'s map(小谷伊兵衛より差出候竹嶋之絵図) which Tottori clan submitted to Edo Bakufu in 1696. The image of Kotani's map is <a href="http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/tottori-museum/1696-01/8443.jpg" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>.<br /> <br />In 磯竹島略圖, there are wordings such as "about 80里 from Fukuura in Oki island to Matsushima(松島=Dokdo)" and "about 40里 from Isotakeshima(Ulleongdo) to Matshshima(隠岐島後福浦ヨリ松島ヲ距ル. 乾位 八十里許/. 松島ヨリ磯竹島ヲ距ル. 乾位 四 十里許)". Those wordings were cited from those of Kotani's map. <br /><br />In other words, 磯竹島略圖, was influenced by the Japan's old document and map of 17th century, not by western mapping error of 19th century.<br /><br /><br />Taking those facts into consideration, Prof. Shimojo's assertion that Ulleungdo was depicted as 松島 in 磯竹島略図 because of Japanese geographical confusion resulted from western mapping error is nothing but one of the examples of his academic dishonesty.<br /><br />Dajokan Order of 1877 and '磯竹島略図' clearly confirmed Dokdo is Korean territory. It's solid truth. As long as Dajokna Order and 磯竹島略図 exist, Japan's incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 can never be justified as legal.<br /><br />I'm sorry for those who follow Prof. Shimojo's distorted claim and Japanese who are unknowingly misled by him.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-49200632311451759892009-06-17T00:49:07.273+09:002009-06-17T00:49:07.273+09:00Thanks, GTOMR
I've read his article before an...Thanks, GTOMR<br /><br />I've read his article before and it is exellent. But I was surprised to know they don't have British Navy Charts in 1800s. His flowchart of British Naval seacharts is very useful.Kaneganesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533339719864245857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-4869526996114854142009-06-17T00:22:06.649+09:002009-06-17T00:22:06.649+09:00Still I couldnt find chart 2347 ver.1876.
Before...Still I couldnt find chart 2347 ver.1876. <br /><br />Before I told the story of chart and if you want to know details please see here.<br /><br />http://www1.kaiho.mlit.go.jp/GIJUTSUKOKUSAI/KENKYU/report/rhr43/rhr43-01.pdfGTOMRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06881539471132140299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-39018462494342501252009-06-16T23:54:26.139+09:002009-06-16T23:54:26.139+09:00Thanks, Kaneganese.
Prof. Shimojo took good point...Thanks, Kaneganese.<br /><br />Prof. Shimojo took good points, these points have been basis for young Korean's opinions concerning the reasons why Dokdo belongs to Korea. <br /><br />Now Usando was not Liancourt Rocks, "Onshu-shicho-goki" didn't mention that Dokdo belonged to Korea (it meant merely Ulleungdo belonged to Japan), the two islands that the Meiji government admitted to be Korean territory didn't mean Liancourt Rocks belonged to them.<br /><br />Korea's claim is now proved to be nothing. <br />How do they justify Korea's occupation of Liancourt Rocks by force? <br />If Liancourt Rocks haven not been Korea's territory, isn't it an invasion?pacifisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14100903035796287895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-34149096210308977932009-06-16T23:45:44.272+09:002009-06-16T23:45:44.272+09:005th images from the top is a "1876 (British) ...5th images from the top is a "1876 (British) Royal Navy chart" and it is from Steve's site. If anybody know any information of 1876 british seachart or 1864 one, please let me know. Thanks.Kaneganesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533339719864245857noreply@blogger.com