1905 March (隱岐新報): Japan "officially" incorporates "Takashima"

Korea's online edition of the Chosun Ilbo has posted a November 7, 2009 article entitled, "1905 Edition of 'Oki Sinbo' ---Evidence of 'not original territory,'" which says that a researcher at the Korea Maritime Institute's Dokdo Research Center has found evidence in a March 1905 Japanese publication that the Japanese claim that "Dokdo" was "originally" Japanese territory is "a lie."

The researcher, whose name is Yu Mi-rin, supposedly said that the following sentence from a March 1905 article, entitled "Oki Boundary Expanded," in the Oki Sinbo (隱岐新報) is the evidence that Japanese are lying:

It is a happy event that two small islands and several islets, which our islanders have traveled to since ancient times, have been officially named Takeshima (竹島) and made a part of Oki territory.

우리 도민이 예로부터 도항하던 두 개의 섬과 많은 작은 섬들이 공식적으로 다케시마(竹島·독도를 일본에서 일컫는 말)라는 이름으로 오키 영토가 된 건 기쁜 일.

Here is the original Japanese with an English translation (courtesy of Kaneganese):



"Oki News" - March 15, 1905 (16th vol.)


"Expansion of Oki District Territory"

Islets located eighty-five nautical miles to the northwest of Oki, which have been named Takeshima, have been made new Oki territory and put under the jurisdiction of the governor. I must toast it.

To begin with, the two sister islets which make up Takeshima are surrounded by several smaller islets. Though the exact area size is unclear, it is said it is big enough for a shelter. There are almost no profitable land products, but there are marine products. It is said that there is great profit in marine mammals and various kinds of fish.

Originally, a significant number of Oki islanders have long sailed to the islets, thus it has been de-facto territory of Oki from long ago. Considering that fact, it was lamentable that it was not recognized officially as Oki's territory before now. On receiving the notice of official authorization, our islanders cannot help having great expectations. However, the islets are narrow from the start, so we should not compete for a short-term profit while ignoring the long-term since excessive harvesting of the products there could hurt continuing profits. Those autorities in charge should take note of this concern.

Anyway, it is a great blessing that new territory has joined the Oki cadastre, no matter which town or village the islets belong. I cannot help feeling pleased and will congratulate the expansion of Oki's territory by making remarks on this situation. (Weak Fish)

Contrary to what the Korean researcher claims, the above editorial seems to support Japanese claims that Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks) was Japanese territory even before their 1905 incorporation. The rocks seem to have been considered unadministered Japanese territory long before 1905. The incorporation of the rocks in 1905 under Oki administration simply made it offical.

Countries, including the United States, have incorporated and unincorporated territory. Before 1905, Takeshima was essentially considered unincorporated Japanese territory, as is evidenced by a 1878 letter in which Watanabe Kouki (渡辺洪基), who was the Director of the Bureau of Documents in Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said "Hornet Rocks" (Matsushima/Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks) was Japanese territory:

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....

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.

The above 1878 document is evidence that the Japanese considered Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) to be Japanese territory before 1905, even though the rocks were not administered by any particular prefecture. That changed in 1905, when the Japanese government decided, officially, to incorporate Liancourt Rocks into Oki county after receiving a 1904 petition from Japanese businessman Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞), who argued that the rocks would be better managed and protected if they were incorporated.

Mr. Nakai sent his petition to incorporate Liancourt Rocks to the Japanese government because he had been told that the rocks were a part of Japanese territory. That fact is evidence that the Japanese at the time distinguished between incorporated and unincorporated territory. The Japanese believed Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory, but by putting them under the administration of a Japanese prefecture, it became "official."


  1. Gerry,
    Welcome back! Thanks for the interesting topic.

  2. Ms. Yu is illiterate of Japanese or she is simply distorting the text.

    As for 『隠岐新報』Oki Shimpo, Mr. Sugihara, a Vice chairman of Shimane's Takeshima Research Center had already reported it before her.


    According to him, the title of the editorial was "「隠岐国境の膨張」", meaning "Expansion of Oki Country's border". Ms.Yu intentionally distorted the word County, which simply means Oki Region, not Japan.

    "It is a happy event that two small islands and several islets, which our islanders have traveled to since ancient times, have been officially named Takeshima (竹島) and made a part of Oki territory."

    I think the word "Expansion" was what Korean wanted to hear as a evidence that Japan snatched it, but this is simply the word which described their joy of Takeshima being officially admitted as Oki's. It was not people in Oki who were permitted by Shogunate to voyage, though many of them were hired by People in Yonago. They were happy that Takeshima was incorporated into Oki officially, not Tottori or other area.

  3. Gerry,

    Thank you for showing us the article of the Chosun-Ilbo.
    I am very happy to here from you.

    Below is my translation of the Chosun-Ilbo article.

    Could you show us Yu Milim’s article on KMI(Korea Maritime Institute)?

  4. 柳美林の『隱岐新報』についての朝鮮日報の記事です。

    "독도 원래 일본땅 아니다" 일본자료 쏟아져…
    유석재 기자  karma@chosun.com
    ユ・ソクチェ記者 karma@chosun.com
    入力 2009.11.07 03:08
    修正 2009.11.07 16:56

    1905년 발간 '오키신보'… "고유영토 아니었음" 입증

    독도(獨島)가 일본 땅이 아니라는 자료는 얼마나 더 쏟아져나올까? 이번에는 1905년 이전부터 이미 독도가 자기들 '고유 영토'였다는 일본의 주장이 거짓임을 입증하는 러일전쟁 당시의 자료가 새로 발굴됐다.

    独島が日本の領土ではないという資料は、さらにまたどれくらいあふれ出ることになるのだろうか?  今度は、1905年以前からすでに独島が自分たちの「固有領土」であったとの日本の主張が偽りであることを立証する、露日戦争(日露戦争)当時の資料が新しく発掘された。

    한국해양수산개발원 독도•해양영토연구센터의 유미림 책임연구원은 "독도가 원래 일본의 영토가 아니었음을 밝힌 1905년의 일본 자료 '오키신보(隱岐新報)'를 찾아냈다"며 자료의 사진을 공개했다.
    韓国海洋水産開発院 独島海洋領土研究センターの柳美林責任研究員は、「独島が本来日本の領土ではなかったことを明らかにした1905年の日本資料『隠岐新報』を捜し出した」として資料の写真を公開した。

    '오키신보'는 시마네현(島根縣) 오키시마(隱岐島)에서 1904~05년에 발간된 잡지다. 1905년 3월 '오키신보' 16호는 '오키 국경의 팽창'이라는 사설을 실었다. "우리 도민이 예로부터 도항하던 두 개의 섬과 많은 작은 섬들이 공식적으로 다케시마(竹島•독도를 일본에서 일컫는 말)라는 이름으로 오키 영토가 된 건 기쁜 일"이라는 내용이다.

    『隠岐新報』は、島根県隠岐島で1904~05年に発刊された雑誌だ。1905年3月『隠岐新報』16号は、「隠岐国境の膨張」という社説をのせた。「私たち島民が昔から渡航した二つの島と多くの小さい島々が、公式にタケシマ(竹島 独島を日本でいう言葉)という名前で隠岐の領土になったのは嬉しいことだ」という内容だ。

    이는 '다케시마가 일본의 고유 영토'라는 주장과 정면으로 배치된다. 이 글은 또 "섬 자체가 매우 작기 때문에 바다짐승(海獸•강치)과 그 밖의 해산물을 함부로 잡지 말아 무한한 이익을 얻는 섬으로 만들자"고 했다. 현재 도쿄대(東京大)가 소장하고 있는 이 잡지는 1904년 1월부터 1905년 3월까지 모두 16호가 남아 있다. 발행인은 당시 '오키도지(島誌)' 편찬을 주도하던 오키도청의 서기관 오사다 와카지(長田和加次)의 형 오사다 요시이치로(長田能一郞)다.
    現在、東京大学が所蔵しているこの雑誌は、1904年1月から1905年3月までのあわせて16号が残っている。発行人は、当時『隠岐島誌』の編纂を主導していた隠岐島庁の書記官、長田和加次(おさだ わかじ)の兄、長田能一郎(おさだ よしいちろう)だ。

    1904년 2월부터 다음해 9월까지 계속된 러일전쟁 당시 급박한 국제정세를 도민들에게 각성시킬 목적에서 발간된 이 잡지는 러일전쟁 발발과 진행 상황, 오키 재향군인회, 오키 출신 전사자와 부상자 등을 싣고 있다.


    유미림 책임연구원은 "이 사설은 일본이 당시 독도 편입을 '영토의 팽창'이라는 인식하에 강행했음을 드러낸다"며 "일본 정부가 주장해 온 '고유영토론'의 허구성을 다시 한번 입증한 것"이라고 말했다.


    '고유영토론'이란 무엇일까? 독도가 300년 전부터 일본 땅이었다는 억지 주장이다. 일본은 1618년 요나고(米子) 주민 오야 진기치(大谷甚吉) 등이 돗토리(鳥取) 번주를 통해 막부로부터 울릉도 도해(渡海)면허를 받은 뒤 17세기 중엽까지 독도 영유권을 확립했다고 주장한다.

    「固有領土論」とは何だろうか?  独島が300年前から日本の領土であったというごり押しの主張だ。 日本は、1618年米子の住民大谷甚吉(おおや じんきち)等が、鳥取藩主を通じて幕府から鬱陵島渡海免許を受けた後、17世紀中葉までに独島領有権を確立したと主張する。

    하지만 '도해 면허'가 외국에 나가 고기잡이할 때 발급했던 것이므로 오히려 울릉도와 독도를 일본 영토로 보지 않고 있었다는 입증이 된다. 일본에서 독도를 처음 기록한 1667년의 '은주시청합기(隱州視聽合紀)'는 일본의 서북쪽 경계가 오키시마라는 사실을 분명히 했다.


    일본은 러일전쟁 중이던 1905년 1월 28일 내각회의에서 독도를 일본 영토에 편입하기로 결정하고 시마네현의 현보(縣報)에 슬그머니 고시했다. 일본은 이것이 "다케시마 영유 의사를 '재확인'한 것"이라고 말해왔다.


    그렇다면 1905년 '시마네현보 고시'는 정당한 것일까? 그렇지 않다. 이보다 5년 전인 1900년 10월 25일 대한제국은 '칙령(勅令) 제41호'를 통해 울도군(鬱島郡)의 관할구역에 석도(石島=독도)가 포함된다고 명시했기 때문이다. 당시 울릉도 주민들은 '석도'를 훈독해 '돌섬'이라고 불렀는데 이것이 변해서 '독도'가 됐다. '오키신보'의 존재가 알려진 것은 최근 일본 시마네현의 '웹 다케시마문제연구소' 홈페이지에 실린 글이 계기가 됐다. 독도가 일본 땅이라고 주장하기 위해 발굴한 사료가 오히려 일본의 '고유영토론'을 뒤집는 역할을 한 것이다.

    それなら1905年「島根県報告示」は正当なことであろうか?  そうではない。 これより5年前の1900年10月25日、大韓帝国は「勅令第41号」を通じて欝島郡の所轄区域に石島=独島が含まれると明示したためだ。当時鬱陵島の住民たちは「石島」を訓読して「トルソム(石の島)」と呼んだが、これが変わって「独島」になった。『隠岐新報』の存在が知られたのは、最近日本の島根県の「ウェブ竹島問題研究所」のホームページにのせられた文が契機になった。独島が日本の土地だと主張するために発掘した史料が、むしろ日本の「固有領土論」をひっくり返す役割をしたのだ。

    최근 ▲한국측 사료에 나오는 우산도(于山島)가 독도임을 증명한 조선 후기 박세당(朴世堂)의 기록 ▲독도를 조선의 고유 영토로 표시한 19세기 일본 고지도 '조선국도' ▲독도를 조선의 부속 도서라고 밝힌 제정러시아 해군 지도 ▲독도 동쪽에 해상 경계선을 그은 1894년의 프랑스 신문 '르 프티 주르날' 등 일본의 독도 영유권 주장을 무력화하는 자료가 속속 나오고 있다. 올 1월에는 독도를 '일본의 부속 도서'에서 제외한 1951년의 일본 법령 '대장성령 4호'와 '총리부령 24호'의 존재가 밝혀졌다.

    最近、▲韓国側史料に出てくる于山島が独島であることを証明した朝鮮末期の朴世堂の記録、▲独島を朝鮮の固有領土として表わした19世紀の日本の古地図「朝鮮国図」、▲独島を朝鮮の付属島嶼と明らかにした帝政ロシア海軍の地図、▲独島の東側に海上境界線を引いた1894年のフランス新聞「ル プチ ジュルナル」など、日本の独島領有権の主張を無力化する資料が続々と出てきている。 今年の1月には、独島を「日本の付属島嶼」から除外した1951年の日本の法令「大蔵省令4号」と「総理府令24号」の存在が明らかになった。

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. "오키신보'는 시마네현(島根縣) 오키시마(隱岐島)에서 1904~05년에 발간된 잡지다. 1905년 3월 '오키신보' 16호는 '오키 국경의 팽창'이라는 사설을 실었다. "우리 도민이 예로부터 도항하던 두 개의 섬과 많은 작은 섬들이 공식적으로 다케시마(竹島•독도를 일본에서 일컫는 말)라는 이름으로 오키 영토가 된 건 기쁜 일"이라는 내용이다.

    『隠岐新報』は、島根県隠岐島で1904~05年に発刊された雑誌だ。1905年3月『隠岐新報』16号は、「隠岐国境の膨張」という社説をのせた。「私たち島民が昔から渡航した二つの島と多くの小さい島々が、公式にタケシマ(竹島 独島を日本でいう言葉)という名前で隠岐の領土になったのは嬉しいことだ」という内容だ。"

    This editorial simply supports Japanese MOFA's "Inherent part of territory of Japan" theory.

    It reconfirms that Takeshima had been used economically by the fishermen in Oki before 1905 by assumption that it had been Japanese territory. Nothing in it is to show recognition that it was a territory of Korea. Korean so-called academic researchers and journalists should learn what "Country"in old documents means in Japan by now.

    This Choson Ilbo article simply recomfirms that Ms. Yu is a joke. Do we really have to take her seriously? She and Prof. Hosaka makes a good comedy duo, I guess. They are hiralious.

  7. 島根県web竹島問題研究所掲載の、杉原隆「『隠岐新報』と日露戦争」(2009年8月31日掲載)を改めて見ましたが、柳美林女史が「探し出した」というのは、新資料である『隠岐新報』を探し出したのではなく、「このサイトを探し出した」ということではないしょうか?



    韓国海洋水産開発院 独島海洋領土研究センターの柳美林責任研究員は、(略)1905年の日本資料『隠岐新報』を捜し出した」として資料の写真を公開した。

    『隠岐新報』は、島根県隠岐島で1904~05年に発刊された雑誌だ。1905年3月『隠岐新報』16号は、「隠岐国境の膨張」という社説をのせた。「私たち島民が昔から渡航した二つの島と多くの小さい島々が、公式にタケシマ(竹島 独島を日本でいう言葉)という名前で隠岐の領土になったのは嬉しいことだ」という内容だ。

    現在、東京大学が所蔵しているこの雑誌は、1904年1月から1905年3月までのあわせて16号が残っている。発行人は、当時『隠岐島誌』の編纂を主導していた隠岐島庁の書記官、長田和加次(おさだ わかじ)の兄、長田能一郎(おさだ よしいちろう)だ。


    『隠岐新報』は明治37年1月発刊の第1号から残存する明治38年3月の第16号まで、すべて発行所は島根県周吉(すき)郡西郷町大字西町355番地の隠岐新報社で、発行人は長田能一郎氏である。長田能一郎氏は当時の布施村の出身で、明治期隠岐の地理、歴史を総合的にまとめた 『隠岐島誌』の編集に心血をそそぎ、その時集めた竹島関係の資料を後に島根県へ提供した隠岐島庁書記官長田和加次氏の実兄である。







  8. I asked Shimane's Takeshima Research Center to show the original text. I'll write it up ASAP when I got it.

    As matsu pointed out, this is the concrete evidence that the incorporation of Takeshima in 1905 was absolutely no secret in Japan unlike Korean insist. The no.16 edition in concern was issued in March, 1905.

  9. 일본은 300년 전부터 Takeshima/Dokdo를 일본의 영토로서 취급해 왔다. 그 영유권을 명확하게 하기 위해서, 1905년에 공식적으로 영토에 편입했다. 이러한 단순한 일본 정부의 주장을 유미림책임 연구원도 조선일보도 이해할 수 없다.



  10. matsuさん





  11. Kaneganeseさん、いつもながら手早いですね。韓国側の歪曲や捏造解釈に対しては、史料を示しつつ的確に反駁しておくことが必要と思います。



    SCAPIN677が根拠となるかというと、これも根拠とはなりません。領域主権が支配権(統治権)と処分権より成ることを理解せず、"Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan"という標題の"Separation"という言葉に反応して「統治権が分離され、1948年8月13日の建国と同時に米軍政庁から引き継ぐことで返還されたのだ」と言っていますが、そうはならないのですよ。SCAPIN677は単に支配権の行使を停止するよう命じているものの、領域主権の移動については何ら示していません。韓国に返還するなんてどこにも書いていません。それどころか「この指令中の条項は何れも、ポツダム宣言の第8条にある小島嶼の最終的決定に関する連合国側の政策を示すものと解釈してはならない。」と明記されています。韓国はこれを無視して「SCAPIN677により返還された」と嘯いているのですが、この主張を認めたら国際法の存在意義がなくなってしまいます。日本の竹島領有の主張を韓国は「帝国主義の復活」だとか、「版図拡大の野望」だとか、あるいは「再侵略を目指したおこない」などと批判しますけど、韓国の行為こそ「版図拡大の野望」を顕わにしたものだし、帝国主義的行動ですね。韓国の竹島領有の主張に法的正当性はありません。法的正当性がないのですから、このまま支配下に置いておけば自国領になると考えているようですが、それもありません。この点、日本はもっと強調すべきです。


  12. Makotoさん







  13. matsuさん、興味深い情報をありがとうございます。



  14. 島根県から送られてきた「隠岐新報」のコピーをKaneganeseさんからみせていただきました。まもなくポストされると思いますが、



  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. 竹島資料室から隠岐新報原文を見せて頂いたので、以下に書き起こしと英訳を載せます。書き起こしに関しては上にもありますように、matsuさんに原文とともに確認頂いたので、問題ないかと思います。解釈があっているかどうか、英文を参考にご意見頂ければ幸いです。英文のチェックもどなたかお願いできないでしょうか。よろしくお願いします。(これは剽窃研究者柳氏、もしくは誤報新聞社朝鮮日報(←さて、どちらの責任なのでしょうか。前回は朝鮮日報の誤報でした。)の主張とは全く正反対の、隠岐の島民が竹島を領土編入以前から事実上隠岐国領土だとみなしていた大変重要な資料です。日本人が竹島をどの国に属すか明確ではない、もしくは公式に決定されていないけれど、確かに日本領土であると認識していた、この事実を非常にシンプルにあらわしていますね。とにかく朝鮮領土だなどという意識が微塵もないことが分かります。)

    隠岐新報 明治三十八年三月十五日発行 第十六号

    The 16th of issue, Oki new report, March 15, 1905
    Expansion of the Oki Country's Territory
    The islet which locates 85 sea miles to the northwest of Oki is named as Takeshima and made under the jurisdiction of the governor of Oki islands as a new territory. I cannot help congratulating by reflecting Venus onto the glass and drinking it up all at once. To begin with, two sister islets which consist Takeshima are surrounded by the numerous tiny islets sporadically. and when it comes to the area, it is yet known precisely, though it is said that it's not impossible to pitch a tent to tide over and live. Therefore, there are almost no profitable land products, but as for marine products, it is said that there are brilliant profit such as marine animals etc.. Originally, not a small number of the islanders of our Oki sailed to the islets for a long time, thus it has been de-facto territory of Oki from a long time ago. It had been lamentable that it was not recognized officially as Oki's territory notwithstanding the fact. Now, on receiving the order of the official authorization, our islanders cannot help expecting very much. However, the islets is narrow from the start, so it is required not to compete for a short-term profit ignoring the infinite profit, since the excessive products harvesting doesn't bring any everlasting profits. The authority person/ person in concerns should note this respect. Anyhow, it is one large blessedness that a new territory joined the cadastre of Oki, no matter to which town and village the islets belong. I cannot help feeling pleasant and am going to congratulate the expansion of Oki's territory by making remarks on this situation. (Weak Fish)

  18. 何度も書き損じて削除しました。すみません。


  19. Thank you for that translation, Kaneganese.

    It is interesting to me that the writer wrote "de facto territory of Oki" rather than "de facto territory of Japan." Again, that suggests that Liancourt Rocks were considered unincorporated Japanese territory and that Oki felt they had the better right to have the rocks incorporated under their administration.

  20. kaneganeseさん、良い資料の紹介ありがとうございます。転載させていただきました。


  21. chaamieyさん

    東大の所蔵と言うことで原文画像を出しづらいのですが、近い将来何らかの形でまとめなおして投稿したいと思っています。ところで、chaamieyさん、いくつかタイプできなかった旧漢字を直して頂けないでしょうか? ご協力頂けるようでしたら原文画像を送りします。出来るなら統一したいと思うのです。

  22. kaneganeseさん、



  23. new version of Oki Shinbo

    Thanks to chaamiey, some Chinese characters were switched to the old characters used in the original text.


  24. Kaneganese,

    I made some corrections to your translation. Please check it to make sure I did not change something I should not have. Also, the part I marked in red does not make much sense to me. Could you please check the translation, again?

  25. Mr.Bevers,

    「I cannot help celebrating it by reflecting Venus onto the glass and drinking it up all at once.」


    축배를 올려 축하하지 않을 수 없다.

    「Though the area is precisely known , it is said that it's not impossible to pitch a tent to tide over and live.」


    넓이는 아직 분명하지 않지만, 사는 것이 불가능한 것이 아니다고 한다.


  26. Thank you, Chaamiey. I have made the corrections.

  27. Thank you so much, Gerry. This is perfect.

    "it is said it is big enough for a shelter"
    The original text doesn't say "big", but it could be since it mentions area ahead of this part.

    Anyway, the document is so important for the issue and I'm so happy to have carried out work well with cooperation of everybody here. Thanks guys. And thank to Ms. Yu and Choson ilbo who made alert that this editorial was important for the issue. They should have just ignored the document, not pretending they "found" the evidence which favours Korea.

  28. Gerry,

    Could you get rid of "H" from the Japanese title? ("H"隱岐國境土の膨張)


  29. Gerry don’t be silly.

    The Japanese considered Dokdo as part of Japan before 1905? This is nonsense. Some misinformed locals may have considered Ulleungdo AND Dokdo as part of Oki but this is proven false by the Japanese government’s decisions in 1695, 1837 and 1877. Any records showing Ulleungdo and Dokdo as part of Japan prior to 1905 can be dismissed as nonsense.

    Are you still posting the confused report by Watanabe Kuoki as proof of Japanese sovereignty over Dokdo Gerry? When are you going to stop purveying this tired old falsehood?

    Watanabe Kuoiki was citing foreign maps that showed three islands in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) He wasn’t even sure of the situation in the region and his opinion was one of three. Others said to survey the region and still another thought Dokdo was Matsushima and attached to Chosun’s Ulleungdo. When the Japanese surveyed the region (Amagai) the issue of Dokdo was dropped and Dokdo was consistently excluded from Japanese territory until 1905. Some Japanese records even showed the islands under Korea’s Gangwan Province.

    The Chosun Ilbo is right. Japan has absolutely no historical title to Dokdo. Those Japanese trespassers of Oki who clandestinely voyaged to Ulleungdo (not Dokdo) had no respect for the territorial limits of Japan or Korea. It is ridiculous to use the illicit activities of Japanese poachers, squatters and trespassers as expressions of national historical title over Dokdo.

    Also are those here trying to insinuate that this local rag with a circulation of probably a dozen local islanders can be interpreted as an open and public display worthy of announcing a 160km expansion of a country’s national border??? Seriously, I got a good snicker over that one.

    Kaneganese, the title “Expansion of Oki Country’s Boundary” is correct. The character “国” literally means country not region (州). You are harping on the author’s English translation in order to divert attention away from the damagind truth of this article.

    It is also worthy to note Dokdo’s incorporation was described as an “expansion” (膨張) and not an incorporation of affirmation.

    The point stands. This record clearly shows Dokdo was not considered as part of Oki Region nor the nation of Japan prior to 1905. There may have been a few Japanese locals who felt a sense of entitlement to BOTH Ulleungdo and Dokdo Islands because the secretly voyaged there but they were wrong. No national maps of Japan show voyage routes beyond Oki. These same maps show ship routes extending to other Japanese outlying islands such as the Ogasawaras, Ryukyus and the Izu Seven.

    Maps of Oki Region themselves show the Japanese were cognizant of Dokdo and Ulleungdo but did not openly voyage there. The Hachiemon Incident of 1837 showed what happened to those Japanese who dared to violate the Shogunate’s travel ban on voyaging far from the Japanese mainland.

    So Kaneganese, you can feign confidence and call other researchers childish names. However, the truth remains, this one piece of historical evidence is yet another record among mountain of evidence burying Japan’s MOFA’s false claims of ancient title over Dokdo AND Ulleungdo. It also shows how Japan expanded her territory without sufficient announcement.

  30. Gerry,

    Maybe we should switch "District" to "Province", or beginners, including MS. Yu and Choson Ilbo journalists, who are ignorant of Japanese history doesn't understand what 国 in Japan means. ”国”in the title apparently used for old Oki Country. Sometimes, we still use "国 (kuni)" for the province from which we came from.

    ex. "お国はどちらですか? "
    "Which country/province are you from?"

    In Japan, "国" is also used for a domain owned by feudal lord. Some lord governed multiple "国", such as Hohki and Inaba Countries by Lord of Tottori(鳥取藩主) or Tottori clan(鳥取藩) .

    【国 】 (研究社 新和英中辞典)
    1 〈国土〉 a country; a land; soil
    2 〈国家〉 a state; a nation
    3 〈国籍〉 one's nationality
    4 〈故国〉 one's (home) country; 〈故郷〉 one's (old) home; the part of the country (that) one comes from; one's home province; one's birthplace
    5 〈地方〉 a province
    ex. 武蔵の国 Musashi province; the province of Musashi.

     【領国】 ryōgoku
    * territory; fiefdom; feudal domain

    Oki Province

    Oki Province (隠岐国, Oki no kuni?) was an old province of Japan, which consisted of the Oki Islands in the Sea of Japan, located off the coast of the provinces of Izumo and Hōki.

    The Oki Islands comprise two relatively big islands and some smaller ones. The capital of the province was located where the present-day city of Saigo stands, but few relics of the old capital have been found, apart from the provincial temple, which remains today in Saigo city.

    Oki was an exile site, and both Emperor Go-Toba and Emperor Go-Daigo were exiled to this province.

    From the Kamakura Period Oki Province was governed primarily by the shugo of Izumo Province. In the Muromachi Period, it was ruled successively by the Sasaki clan, the Yamana clan and the Kyogoku clan. In the Sengoku Period the Amago clan held this province. After they fell and the Tokugawa Shogunate arose, the Shogunate declared the province a dominion of the shogun and appointed as governor Matsue han, a daimyo belonging to the Matsudaira clan, relatives of the Shogun. At this time the rice production from Oki province was calculated at five thousand koku per year.

    Today it is Oki District, Shimane, a part of Shimane Prefecture.

  31. 『山陰新聞』 明治38年2月25日にのっている「小絃」という論説を起こしておきます。句読点を補いました。(小弦ではなく小絃でした。)










Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.