竹島問題の歴史

5.12.09

How should 三數十里 (삼수십리) be translated?

On April 7, 1882, King Kojong told Ulleungdo Inspector Lee Gyu-won (李奎遠) that Songjukdo (松竹島) and Usando (芋山島) were islands next to Ulleungdo and asked for their distance and the natural products they produced. Lee Gyu-won reported by saying the following. (The Korean translation is that of Korea's National Institute of Korean History and the English is my translation of the Korean.)

“芋山島卽鬱陵島, 而芋山古之國都名也。 松竹島卽一小島, 而與鬱陵島, 相距爲三數十里。 其所産卽檀香與簡竹云矣。”

“우산도는 바로 울릉도이며 우산(芋山)이란 바로 옛날의 우산국의 국도(國都) 이름입니다. 송죽도는 하나의 작은 섬인데 울릉도와 떨어진 거리는 30리(里)쯤 됩니다. 여기서 나는 물건은 단향(檀香)과 간죽(簡竹)이라고 합니다.”

Usando (芋山島) is just Ulleungdo. Usan is just the name of the capital for the old country of Usan. Songjukdo (松竹島) is just a small island appoximately thirty ri offshore (相距爲三數十里). The products there are juniper (檀香) and pipestem bamboo.

The small island, Songjukdo (松竹島), that Inspector Lee was referring to was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島), which is two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore. In fact, in the same conversation, King Kojong said that Songjukdo (松竹島) was sometimes called "Songdo" (松島) and sometimes called "Jukdo" (竹島). However, the translation of "approximately 30 ri (里)" by Korea's National Insitute of Korean History would be a distance of approximately 12 kilometers, not two. That suggests that there may be a problem with the National Institute of Korean History translation of 三數十里.

In the Chinese phrase (三數十里), the character 里 (ri) was a unit of measure that was approximately 0.4 kilometers, which was different from the Japanese measure of 里. That means that ten ri would have been 4 kilometers. The Chinese characters in front of the 里 (ri) character was the number of ri. The number was 三數十, which literally translates as "three" (三), "number," and ten" (數十). However, instead of translating it as a possible range, the National Institute of Korean History translated it as "approximately 30 ri."

The problem with the Korean translation of "approximately thirty ri" is that it ignores the conventional way that Koreans translate numbers used with 數十 (수십). First, Koreans do not normally use 數十 (tens) with numbers less than ten. Second, Koreans always translate the number in front of 數十 (수십) first and then the "tens" (數十).

When Koreans say 백수십 (百數十), they mean "100 and some tens," which implies that it is more than 100 but less than 200. They could also say 오백수십 (五百數十), which means "500 and some tens" and implies more than 500 but less than 600. Koreans also say 천수백 (千數百), which means "1,000 and some hundreds" and implies more than 1,000 but less than 2,000. If we use the same convention with 삼수십 (三數十), the translation would be "three and some tens," which implies that it is more than three but less than "some tens." However, 삼수십 (三數十) is different from the normal way Koreans use 數十 (some tens) because the number in front of 數 is 3 (三), which is smaller than than the number that comes after 數, which is 10 (十). This suggests a different use of 數.

I think 三數十里 (삼수십리) should be translated as "three to ten ri" (1.2 km to 4 km) since the distance to Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도) from the northeast shore of Ulleungdo is about 2 kilometers, and the distance from Jedong Harbor, which is on the southeast shore of Ulleungdo, is about 4 kilometers. That means that 三數十里 (3 to 10 ri) describes the distance to Jukdo almost perfectly.

Since Lee Gyu-won told King Kojong in 1882 that the distance to Ulleungdo's neighboring island of "Songjukdo" (松竹島) was "3 to 10 ri," we can safely assume that Lee was referring to Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島). And since King Kojong said that "Songjukdo" (松竹島) was "sometimes called Songdo (松島 - 송도) and sometimes called Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도)," we know that Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo was sometimes called "Songgo" (松島 - 송도), which the Japanese pronounce as "Matsushima."

Link to an Old Post of the Subject

UPDATE:

Here is a more detailed explanation of the logic I used to translate 三數十里 as "3 to 10 ri.":

  • 數年(수년) = some years
  • 三數年(삼수년) = 3 and some years
  • 三十數年(삼십수년) = 30 and some years
  • 三百數年(삼백수년) = 300 and some years
    .
  • 數年(수년) = some years
  • 數十年(수십년) = some decades
  • 數百年(수백년) = some centuries
    .
  • 百數十年(백수십년) = a hundred and some decades
  • 三百數十年(삼백수십년) = three hundred and some decades
  • 千數百年(천수백년) = a thousand and some centuries
The above expressions are common Korean expressions, and the unit of measure "ri" (里) can replace "years" (年) without changing the meaning of the rest of the expression. However, the 三數十里 (삼수십리) expression used to describe the distance to Ulleungdo's neighboring island of "Songjukdo" (松竹島) in the 1882 passage is not a common expression and is not used in modern Korean to mean "approximately 30 ri," which was how the National Institute of Korean History translated it. In fact, the 三數十 expression appears only twice among all the entries in the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty. Therefore, when the people at Korea's National Institute of Korean History translated 三數十里 as "approximately 30 ri," they were most likely guesssing, and I think they guessed wrong.

The reason that 三數十里 does not make sense, in the way that the people at the National Institute of Korean History translated it, is the same reason that 三百數千里 (three hundred and some thousands) would not make sense; that is, the number before 數 cannot be smaller than the number that comes after 數 when one wishes to express such a meaning. Therefore, we need to consider another translation for 三數十里.

When Koreans want to say "3 to 4 years," they say 삼사년 (三四年). When they want to say "40 to 40 years," they say 삼사십년 (三四十年). I think 三數十里 (삼수십리) was using the same grammar and that the character 數 was placed between the 3 (三) and 10 (里) to make sure it was read as "3 to 10 ri" instead of as "30 ri." As similar use of 三數十 (삼수십) can be found in the following February 17, 1874 entry in the Annals of King Kojong:

當初被選之人語其久則或過三數十年或在十餘年

If one talks about the length of time of the people first selected, some have exceeded three to ten years, and others have exceeded ten years.

The fact that 三數十年 was followed by 十餘年 (more than 10 years) suggests that 三數十年 meant "3 to 10 years" because if it had meant "approximately 30 years," then there would have been no need for 十餘年 (more than 10 years).

Therefore, I believe Lee Gyu-won's 1874 statement to King Kojong should be translated as follows:

松竹島卽一小島, 而與鬱陵島, 相距爲三數十里

Songjukdo (松竹島) is just a small island and its distance from Ulleungdo is 3 to 10 ri.

The above translation makes the most sense because it describes almost perfectly the distance to Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島), which is the largest of Ulleuungdo two neighboring islands. The other is Gwaneumdo (觀音島), which is only about 100 meters offshore. Ulleungdo has no neighboring island "approximately 30 ri" (12 km) offshore, which is more evidence that Korea's National Institute of Korean History translation is wrong.

3.12.09

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

In 1881, Gangwon Provincial Governor Im Han-ju (林翰珠) received a report from an Uleungdo inspector that Japanese ships had been around and reported to the Joseon central government that seven Japanese were discovered illegally harvesting trees on Ulleungdo, and they sent the letter of protest to Japan under the name of Ministry of Rites, Protocol, Culture and Education(禮曹判書) 沈舜澤. The Joseon government sent Lee Gyu-won to inspect the island in April next year, after which an official protest, was again made against the Japanese government under the name of 李會正, a new Ministry of Rites, Protocol, Culture and Education(禮曹判書), in August probably by the order of Heungseon Daewongun(興宣大院君).

ParkYong-hyo (朴泳孝) , the special envoy (修信使) to Japan, again, strongly protested to Count Inoue Kaoru (井上馨), the Minister of Foreign Affairs, when the ratification of the agreement concerning the Jingo Incident (壬午事変) , or the Imo Incident (壬午軍乱) in Korean, was finished in 1882. Inoue corresponded positively and even asked Prince Sanjo Sanetomi (三条 実美), the Dajo(or Daijo) Daijin (太政大臣) or Chancellor of the Realm, for special consideration for a quick arrangement before the Korean mission left Japan.

On March 3, 1883, the instruction named "The Draft of Official Notice" was issued to each of Japan's provinces prohibiting voyage to Ulleungdo .

Draft of Official Notice

 
The island that Japan calls Matsushima or Takeshima and that Korea calls Ulleungdo, located at 37 degrees 30 minutes north latitude and 130 degrees 49 minutes east longitude, 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 to the director of each local government so that there will be no confusion about it.
 
March 3 1883
The Dajo daijin
------------------------------
 
内達案
 
北緯三十七度三十分東経百三十度四十九分二位スル日本称松島一名竹島朝鮮称鬱陵島ノ儀ハ従前彼我政府ノ議定ノ儀モ有之日本人妄リニ渡航上陸不相成候條心得違ノ者無之様各地方長官に於テ諭達此旨及内達候也

明治十六年三月一日
太政大臣
 
 
 
 
(Translation based on ponta's at occidentalism)

Notice that the Meiji government referred to Ulleungdo as "Matsushima or Takeshima" and that it was located at a latitude of 37 degrees 30 minutes N and a longitude of 130 degrees 49 minutes E, which means that the Japanese government recognized that Ulleungdo was referred to as both Matsushima and Takeshima. The longitude and latitude of the island identifies the island as Ulleungdo, not today's Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks). There is no mention of Liancourt Rocks since Korean government never protested about them, probably because she had little or no knowledge of them.

Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) had never been an issue between Japan and Korea until 1947, the year that the Korean government suddenly began to claim they were Korean territory even though she had no maps or documents to back up the claim.

References:

"朝鮮国所属蔚陵島ヘ我国民渡航禁止ノ件" ( Japan Center for Asian Historical Records, National Archives of Japan : 国立公文書館 アジア歴史資料センター)

清水常太郎の「朝鮮輿地図」について(島根県竹島問題研究顧問 杉原 隆)
1876 - "Argument for the Development of Matsushima" (武藤平学 松島開拓之議)


1877/78 - Watanabe Says Liancourt Rocks are Japanese (竹島考証 : 渡辺洪基 「松島之儀一」)
1880 - Japanese Warship "Amagi" (軍艦天城) Surveys Ulleungdo and finds "Takeshima" is Jukdo.
1881 - Oki & Matsushima Same Color on 1881 Japanese Map ( Geographic Bureau of the Ministry of Interior (内務省地理局) 大日本府県分轄図 大日本全国略図)*
1882 April 7 - King Kojong says Usando Neighboring Island of Ulleungdo (高宗実録 19卷, 19年 4月 7日 壬戌)

30.11.09

How should 大東輿地圖 be translated in English?

"Dae Dongyeo Jido" (大東輿地圖) is the name of Kim Jeong-ho's famous 1861 map of Korea. It is sometimes translated into English as "Map of the Great Eastern State," but I think it should actually be translated as "Big Map of the Eastern Territory" since the Chinese character 大 seems to be referring to the size of the map rather than the size or greatness of the country. The assembled "Dae Dongyeo Jido" is 6.6 meters high and 4 meters wide.

At a recent exhibition of their "Dae Dongyeo Jido," the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee translated 大東輿地圖 as "Territorial Map of the Great East," which I think is the wrong translation.



UPDATE:

In Korea, the English name for the "Dae Dongyeo Jido" (大東輿地圖) seems to be "Grand Map of Korea," which means it was the map that was "grand," not the country.

Also, there is an atlas in the National Museum of Korea that was labeled "Dong Yeo (東輿 - Eastern Territory), but the large map that the atlas assembles into was labeled "Dae Dongyeo Jido" (大東輿地圖 - Grand Map of the Eastern Territory), which, again, suggests that the 大 (big) was referring to the map, not to the country. The Chinese character 大 (big) seems to be used only with Korea's especially large maps.

It was not until Japan liberated Korea from Chinese suzerainty in 1895 that Korea became "Great" (大), that is, "The Great Han Empire" (大韓帝國 - 대한제국).

"Dongyeo" (東輿) literally means "Eastern Land" or "Eastern Territory," which implies that the name was given to Korea by her suzerain, China. Therefore, it seems that Korea's most celebrated map is also, unfortunately, a reminder of Korea's past subservient relationship with China.

Maybe, the real name for the map should be "The Grand Map of China's Eastern Territory"?

1861 - "Dae Dongyeo Jido" (大東輿地圖) with Unique "Index Map"

On November 20, the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee put on display a copy of Kim Jeong-ho's (金正浩) famous 1861 "Dae Dongyeo Jido" (大東輿地圖) map, one of only 28 complete sets known still to exist. However, the copy at the University of Wisconsin has something that none of the other copies have: an index map (總目全幅).

Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo / Takeshima) does not appear on the Dae Dongyeo Jido (大東輿地圖), or on any Korean map from the Joseon Dynasty, but the index map shown below makes it even clearer that Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo / Takeshima) were not considered a part of Korean territory.

It seems strange that the University of Wisconsin map is the only remaining copy of the "Dae Dongyeo Jido" (大東輿地圖) that has an index map. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that it was brought out of Korea in the late 1800s?





LINK to Korean Article on the map

Columbia Univ. Professor: "Kim Jeong-ho had absolutely no concept of Dokdo"

28.11.09

1882 Aug 2 - Japanese newspaper 自由新聞

According to THIS KOREAN WEB PAGE, the August 2, 1882 edition of the Japanese newspaper "自由新聞" (Freedom Newspaper) had an article in which the following was said:
The cession of territory would create everlasting bitterness, so it would be a fundamentally bad method. However, taking over Joseon's Matsushima (松島) would be a good thing.

The Korean writer claims that the "Matsushima" (松島) in the article was referring to "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks), but, of course, if such a thing was written, it would be much more likely that Matsushima was referring to Ulleungdo since, by 1882, Japanese were referring to Ulleungdo as Matsushima.

Does anyone have any links to the newspaper or know anything about the article mentioned?

The following is supposed to be a photo of the relevant page of the newspaper, which is apparently on display at the National Museum of Korea.

Latter 1800s: "Dae Dongyeo Jido" (大東輿地圖) - Ulleungdo (鬱陵島)

The following map of Ulleungdo (鬱陵島) is from a Korean atlas entitled "Dongyeo" (東輿), which literally means "Eastern Land." The map is believed to have been made in the latter half of the 1800s and is similar to other maps of Ulleungdo made during the 1800s, except that the small neighboring island off the east shore of Ulleungdo was left unnamed on this map. On other similar maps, the small island was labeled "Usan" (于山) or "Usando" (于山島).

Instead of being labeled "Dongyeo" (東輿), the full, assembled map was labeled "Dae Dongyeo Jido (大東輿地圖), which suggests that the Chinese character 大 (big) was used to refer to the size of the map, not to the size or greatness of the country. In other words, "Dae Dongyeo Jido" (大東輿地圖) did not mean "Map of the Great Eastern Land," but "Big Map of the Eastern Territory." The name "Eastern Land" (東輿) was a name for Korea. The atlas is stored in the National Museum of Korea.

27.11.09

Nat'l Library of Korea "Map Materials Room" Opens

On November 25, a ribbon-cutting ceremony was held for the new "Map Materials Room" of the National Library of Korea. The 522 sq. meter Map Materials Room is stocked with 9,507 map-related books and 3,277 maps. Also, digital images of the antique maps stored in the National Library of Korea, including the "Cheonggu-do," can be easily accessed with easy-to-use touch screen search technology. The antique map databases of twenty-three other institutions can also be searched by way of the library's Web site.





LINK

Columbia Univ. Professor: "Kim Jeong-ho had absolutely no concept of Dokdo"

At the November 20 "Korea Day Conference" at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, King Sejong Professor Emeritus of Korean Studies at Columbia University, Gari Ledyard, supposedly told a Korean attendee that the famous 19th century Korean mapmaker Kim Jeong-ho (金正浩 ) "had absolutely no concept of Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks).

According to THIS KOREAN LANGUAGE POST, the writer says that after Professor Ledyard's hour-long presentation on Kim Jeong-ho's 1861 "Daedong Yeojido" map, he approached the professor and asked why he had not mentioned anything about Dokdo (獨島) and Gando (間島) in his presentation. He says that Professor Ledyard responded by saying, "Kim Jeong-ho had absolutely no concept of Dokdo and Gando." The writer says he was shocked to hear that America's top expert on the "Daedong Yeojido" did not know that Kim Jeong-ho had drawn "Dokdo" on his 1834 "Jeonggu-do" map of Ulleungdo even though the professor had talked about the "Jeonggu-do" map in his presentation. He says he then showed Professor Ledyard a copy of Kim Jeong-ho's 1834 Ulleungdo map to prove that Kim had known of Dokdo, but that after looking at the map, the professor told him, "Dokdo is not written there." He says that Professor Ledyard then walked away.
The Korean attendee obviously thought that the island labeled as "Usan" (于山) on Kim Jeong-ho's 1834 map of Ulleungdo was proof that Kim had known of "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks) and was "shocked" to hear that Professor Ledyard disagreed. I guess the attendee would also be shocked to know that the head of Korea's Dokdo Museum also said that the island labeled as "Usan" on Kim's 1834 map was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, not Dokdo. Here is what the head of Korea's Dokdo Museum said about the island labeled as "Usan" on Kim's 1834 map in a March 19, 2007 article:
Dokdo Museum Director Lee Seung-jin said, “After confirming the three old maps, it is obvious to anyone that they showed Jukdo, not Dokdo; and even in our country’s academic circles, it is judged to be Jukdo.
By the way, the "Daedong Yeojido" map at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee has a unique index map that provides more evidence that Kim Jeong-ho did not consider Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) to be a part of Korea.

24.11.09

Old Maps at the National Library of Korea

The book on the left was published by the National Library of Korea in June 2009 and is entitled "Bibliography of Dokdo Related Material Housed at the National Library of Korea -- Old Documents Volume"

I have not yet seen the book, but what interests me about the cover is the map on it and the fact that "Old Document Volume" is written on it, which suggests that an "Old Map Volume" may follow.

The library has made many of its old maps available online HERE, but they still have other maps they have not put online, for some reason. Therefore, I would be interesting in seeing the "Old Map Volume" of the book to the left. I wonder when that will come out.

U. of Wisconsin Library Removes "Dok Do" from Map Description

The American Geographical Society Library at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee has corrected the description on its Web site of the 19th-century Korean atlas "Yeojido" (輿地圖). The library had labeled the atlas' map of Gangwon Province as showing "Kangwon Do, Ullung Do, & Dok Do," but now it simply labels it "Kangwon Do, Ullung Do."

The Gangwon Province map in the "Yeojido" atlas shows Ulleungdo with a neighboring island labeled "Usando" (于山島). I had suggested in a post HERE that the library correct their description of the map since Japanese and Korean historians differ on the location of Usando on old Korean maps. Korean historians claim Usando was the old Korean name for Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) while Japanese historians claim it was the old Korean name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo.

By removing "Dok Do" from the description, the library appears to be taking a neutral stance on the territorial dispute, which I think is fair for both Korea and Japan, especially since the name "Dok Do" did not appear on the map.

I thank the American Geographic Society Library at the University of Wisincon - Milwaukee for taking quick action on the issue.

22.11.09

Important Mistranslation of 1694 Ulleungdo Inspection Report

I have found a very likely, important mistranslation of a passage in the "Ulleungdo Sajeok" (蔚陵島事蹟), which was a report of Jang Han-sang's 1694 inspection of Ulleungdo. I am not surprised that Koreans have mistranslated it, but I am surprised that I and others had not noticed the mistranslation before. I think my new translation is a very important piece of evidence supporting the Japanese claim to Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks) and would like others to reexamine the passages I present below.

In 1694, the Korean government sent Jang Han-sang (張漢相) to inspect Ulleungdo. In his inspection report, he wrote the following:

About five ri 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. On a day the rain clouds cleared and the fog settled, we went into the mountains and climbed the central peak. Two tall mountains to the north and south were facing us. This was the so-called Sambong (三峯 - "Three Peaks"). The winding shape of Daegwanryeon (大關嶺 - mountain range on the east coast of the Korean peninsula) was visible to the west. Looking toward the east, there was one island far off to the southeast. The size was only about one-third of Ulleungdo. It was only about 300 ri [120 kilometers] away.

東方五里許 有一小島 不甚高大 海長竹叢生於一面 霽雨?捲之日 入山登中峯 則南北兩峯 岌崇相面 此所謂三峯也 西望大關嶺逶迤之狀 東望海中有一島 杳在辰方 而其大滿蔚島三分之一 不過三百餘里.

The small island five ri (two kilometers) to east of Ulleungdo, which was described as having haejang bamboo (海長竹) growing thickly on one side, was almost certainly Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島) because Jukdo is two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore and is Ulleungdo's largest neighboring island. The island was labeled as "Usando" (于山島) on Bak Jang-sang's 1711 inspection map of Ulleungdo.

The island that Jang Han-sang described as being far off to the southeast of Ulleungdo, about 300 ri away (120 kilometers), was almost certainly Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima), which are about 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo. Inspector Jang described the rocks as being about one third the size of Ulleungdo, which tells us he did not travel to the rocks because Liancourt Rocks are actually only about 1/390th the size of Ulleungdo. Later, in the conclusion of his report, Inspection Jang seems to refer to the island as being Japanese territory. Here is the quote:

登島山峰審望彼國之域則杳茫無眼杓之島其遠近未知幾許

If one climbs a mountain peak on the island (登島山峰) and looks carefully (審望) at that country's (Japan's) territory (彼國之域), there is a distant, hazy (則杳茫), inconspicuous island (無眼杓之島). Its distance (其遠近) is unknown (未知幾許).

The above quote is my corrected translation of the mistranslation I was referring to above. It was in the conclusion of Inspector Jang's 1694 report. The "distant, hazy, inconspicuous island" was almost certainly referring back to the distant island referred to earlier in the report as being about 300 ri (120 kilometers) to the southeast of Ulleungdo. The fact that he reported seeing the island while looking at Japanese territory suggests that he believed the island to be Japanese.

Also, in a 1714 Korean report, an island visible to the east of Ulleungdo was described as being on the Japanese border, which suggests, again, that they believed the island to be Japanese:

I listened carefully to the people in the ports (浦人) who said, "Pyeonghae (平海) and Uljin (蔚珍) are closest to Ulleungdo, and there are no obstructions along the sea route. Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island that is on the border of Japan." In 1708 and 1712, strange-looking ships drifted to the borders of Goseong (高城) and Ganseong (杆城), so we know that Japanese ships frequently come and go. The government, however, says that the vast sea is a barrier, so there is no need to worry, but how can we be sure that a future war will not break out in the Yeongdong region instead of the Yeongnam region? We cannot allow even a little delay in taking measures to be thoroughly prepared.

In accordance with the request, the Myodang (廟堂) requested that Gangwondo be reprimanded to cracked down on its military officials.

辛酉江原道御使趙錫命 論嶺東海防疎虞狀略曰 詳聞浦人言 平海蔚珍 距鬱陵島最近 船路無少礙 鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境. 戊子壬辰 異攘帆穡 漂到高杆境 倭船往來之頻數 可知. 朝家雖以嶺海之限隔 謂無可憂 而安知異日生釁之必由嶺南 而不由嶺東乎. 綢繆之策 不容少緩. 廟堂請依其言 飭江原道 團束軍保.

Congnamul's Satellite Photo of Ulleungdo

Congnamul has a good satellite photo of Ulleungdo, including its neighboring island Jukdo, but the site charges for its higher resolution photos. The view below is the highest resolution the free version allows.

By the way, Daum Map allows close-up views of Ulleungdo, but, for some strange reason, it does not show Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo on its satellite photos.

Click on the photo to see a larger version.

13.11.09

"Daedong Yeojido" at Univ. of Wisconsin - Milwaukee



On November 20, 2009, the Daedong Yeojido (大東輿地圖), along with other archival Korean maps and photographs, will be on display at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee as part of a "Korea Day Conference." The 1861 Korean map was purchased by the university in 1895 from the father of American diplomat George C. Foulk (1856 ~ 1893), who traveled around Korea in 1884 taking photographs and keeping a detailed journal. To learn more about the Korea Day Conference at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee and the 1861 Korean map, click HERE, HERE, and HERE.

According to THIS KOREAN ARTICLE, the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, the University of California - Berkeley, and Harvard University are the only universities in the United States that have complete copies of the Daedong Yeojido. The article says there are twenty-five complete copies of the map in Korea.

To see the first two horizontal sections of the huge map, click HERE.

12.11.09

Univ. of Wisconsin at Milwaukee Duped by "Dokdo" Advocates



The above map is part of an old Korean map in an atlas entitled "Yeojido" (輿地圖), which is part of the Korean Map Collection at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. The map, which is believed to have been made between 1800 and 1887, shows the Korean island of "Ul-lungto" (菀陵島) and a neighboring island labeled "U San do" (于山島). The description of the map, however, lists the islands as "Ullung Do" and "Dok do," even though Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) does not appear on the map. Notice that the description of the map was "created" on October 7, 2009.

Usando (于山島 - 우산도) was the old Korean name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도), which is Ulleungdo's largest neighboring island and only about two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore. Koreans, however, claim that Usando was the old Korean name for Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo / Takeshima), but have no maps or documents to back up the claim. Liancourt Rocks is essentially two rock islets, not one, about ninety kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo. Korea's old maps and documents show that Usando was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo / Takeshima).

It is extremely disappointing to see that the people at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee have allowed "Dokdo" advocates to misrepresent the Korean map on the University's Web site. I hope the university quickly corrects the error and is more diligent in the future in guarding against the antics of Korea's "Dokdo" advocates.

9.11.09

The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”, Part 4

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

" Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)” - Part 4"

(3) Department of the Navy's recognition of "Takeshima and Matsushima"

Mr. Park wrote, " It is noteworthy that Liancourt Rocks was described only to 'Joseon waterway magazine(朝鮮水路誌)', and had not been described to 'Japanese waterway magazine "(p45) He assumed it as a evidence that "Hydrography Department considered Liancourt Rocks, that is, Takeshima = Dokdo outside a Japanese territory." (p46)

However, this is groundless claim since his interpretation of the description of 'Joseon waterway magazine' was strained. The article "Situation" in 1894 edition of the book clearly described that territory of Korea is, " From 124º 30'E longitude to 130º 35'E". Naturally, Liancourt Rocks which situate in 131°55" E is not included in Korean territory.

Besides, the article "Japan Sea", in which Liancourt Rocks are listed, also list "Ulleungdo(another name Matsushima)" and "Waywoda Rock(ワイオダ岩)" as well. According to 'Joseon waterway magazine', "The Waywoda Rock, above water, was originally reported by the Russian corvette Veovoda, in 1859, as situated in lat. 42°16' N., long. 137°18' E." and "The Sea Chart of Hokkaido and Northeastern Islands(北洲及北東諸島)"(1893), which was drawn based on Admiralty Chart No.2405(1895), placed it between Hokkaido and Amur Coastal State(黒龍沿岸州).

"Waywoda Rock" was simply listed as the dangerous rocks(暗岩危礁)" in the Sea of Japan, and Liancourt Rocks was listed by the same reason. It can't be any kind of "evidence" that the author considered it as Joseon territory only because it was included in "Joseon waterway magazine".

On the other hand, Liancourt Rocks was discovered by French whaling ship Le Liancourt in 1849 and Takeshima, Matsushima and Liancourt Rocks are drawn in "Complete Map of Pacific Ocean" of French naval forces in 1851. Takeshima(Argonaut) disappeared from around Admiralty Chart No.2347 `JAPAN- NIPON, KIUSIU & SIHOK AND PART OF KOREA` (1876), and it described Matsushima(Uleungdo) and Liancourt Rocks. It was one year before Dajokan instructed "Takeshima and other island" and 4 years before Meiji government confirmed that Matsushima was Ulleungdo as well.

Therefore, Liancourt Rocks was actually "Terra nullius" that did not belong to the country at the time. It cannot be an invasion even if Meiji government had named it as Takeshima and incorporated into Shimane Prefecture as "Terra nullius" in 1905. Because there are no

historical grounds that make Liancourt Rocks a Korean
territory in South Korea, and
"Dongguk Munheon Bigo東国文献備考)"(1770)'s annotation, which SK had been relayed on as grounds of an argument, is already proved as the falsification of posterity.

Recently, Korean started to claim that Dokdo(=Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks) as their "inherent territory", and Mr. Park even wrote that "it is needless to say that this is contradictory to "Takeshima as inherent territory" by Japanese government (p49). However, the only country which is qualified to claim it as "inherent part of the territory" is Japan. The term "Inherent Territory(固有の領土)" indicate the territory which have never been ruled by any other country either like northern territories. As for Takeshima, which had been "Terra nullius" in 1905, Japan was ruling effect from at least 1905 to prewar day. Japanese government has a right to claim Takeshima as "Terra nullius, but South Korea, who invaded Japanese territory in 1954, is apparently disqualified to do claim Dokdo as her "inherent territory" at all.

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

In conclusion, it is clear that Mr. Park's claim that "theMeiji government consistently held to the policy of making Takeshima and Matsushima outside the territory in Japan until incorporation in 1905" (p36) and they made Korean territory as Japanese territory justifying it as it was "Terra nullius" in the middle of Russo-Japanese War is baseless claim. His article "The Meiji Government's Recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" (Studies of the cultures in Northeast Asia, no.28, 2008, pp.33-49.) was only a political advertisement that fabricated the falsified history, which confused the Takeshima issue as the history issue, too.

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


Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.


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


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


The 22th column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

The 21st column " Refutation against "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”

The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 10th column " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory

The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”

The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"

The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"

The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."

Reference :
1656 - "Yojiji (輿地志)" by Ryu Hyung-won (柳馨遠) didn't say "Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima."

1667 - Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)

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)

1893 - "The Sea Chart of Hokkaido and Northeastern Islands(北洲及北東諸島)" plots Waywoda Rock far outside of Korean territory

1853-1922 - Kimotsuki Kaneyuki (肝付兼行)

8.11.09

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):

隱岐國境土の膨張

  隱岐の西北八十五浬を距る海洋に存在する島嶼を竹島と命名し隱岐の新領土として隱岐島司の管轄に屬せしめられぬ、吾人豈太白を浮べて祝せざるを得んや、抑も竹島の地たる姉妹二つの島嶼、數多の小島嶼以て點々包圍せられ、其面積の如き未だ詳にせずと雖も、棲居敢て凌ぎ得ざるにあらずといふ、而して陸産としては殆んど利するものなきも、海産に於ては海獣其他漁利鮮なからずと聞く、由來我島民中夙に仝島に航して獲たる所のもの少なからず、事實上隱岐の領土に屬し居りしは既に久し、然るに公然之を認められざりしは遺憾の感ありしに、今や公認の令に接するを得たる上は我島民たるもの大に期する所なかるべからず、然れども仝島固と狭小なり、産物の濫採は永久の利を得る所以にあらざれば一時の利を競ふて無限の利を顧みざるが如きことなきを要す、當局者たる者亦大に此點に留意する所なかるべからず、兎に角隠岐の地籍に新領の上るは何れの町村の所属となるにせよ、確かに隱岐の一大幸福たり、吾人は快感禁じ難く玆に一言を陳じて隱岐境土の膨張を祝す、(弱魚)

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

Editorial

"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."

6.11.09

Man Arrested for Planning to Torch Japanese Embassy

According to THIS KOREAN ARTICLE, on November 5th, Korean police requested an arrest warrant for a 38-year-old Korean man named Jang, who had been detained the night before, for planning to set fire to the Japanese Embassy in Seoul to protest Japanese "distortion of history and the Dokdo dispute." The man was also accused of planning to take embassy employees hostage.

However, before Mr. Jang was able to carry out his plans, he was arrested by police, who had learned of his plans and traced his whereabouts through his cell phone.

In a statement to police, Mr. Jang reportedly said, "It is vexing and regrettable that I was caught before I was able to carry out the criminal act, but I will keep trying and will not give up until the Japanese attitude changes."

It seems that Mr. Jang had planned to set fire to the embassy, take a hostage, and then hold a press conference to protest Japanese history books and Japanese claims on Dokdo.

According to THIS ENGLISH ARTICLE, when Mr. Jang was apprehended, he was carrying a knife, a lighter, and a copy of a handwritten press statement. The article also says investigators are checking to see if Mr. Jang has any history of psychiatric illness.

5.11.09

The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”, Part 3

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


" Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)” - Part 3"

(2) "Dajokan Instruction for "Takeshima and the other island""

In 1877, Shimane Prefecture submitted "Consultation for the Compilation of Land Registration of Takeshima and the other island" in order to ask if they should include to the west of the San-in region since it locates to the northwest of Oki Country, which is within the jurisdiction. In response, Dajokan instructed "Takeshima and the other island has no relation to Japan."

However, there are room for the misjudgement. As Mr. Park himself wrote that " in those days, the number of civilians who gradually called Ulleungdo as Matsushima began to increase under the influence of the wrong western maps." (p44), the geographical recognition of Takeshima and Matsushima was intricate.

It is possible to catch a glimpse of confusion even in Dajoruiten(太政類典), compilation of selected documents of Daojkan, which includes Dajokan instruction in concern. "A Sketch Map of Isotakeshima(磯竹島略図)" which Shimane prefecture submitted, described traditional Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo). On the other hand, the document compiled by Shimane prefecture, Ulleungdo is likely to be misconstrued as Matsushima. For example, the documents continues the story about Takeshima(Ulleungdo), which was the name in Edo era, immediately after Matsushima was described.

The beginning of the confusion was for the Argonaut island, that became the island of the phantom later, and the Dagelet island to be drawn in Siebold's "Complete Map of Japan" in 1840, and to have added the island name of Takeshima and Matsushima, respectively. Later, Takeshima (Argonaut island) was described as "Unconfirmed", shown in the short dashed line in the chart etc. , and Ulleungdo, which had been called "Isotakeshima" or "Takeshima" from the early modern age, started to be labelled as "Matsushima". "The influence of the wrong western maps", which Mr. Park says, was the maps at that time which labelled Ulleungdo as "Matsushima" and Phantom island Argonaut as "Takeshima". It was obviously different from Takeshima and Matsushima that had been recorded in a chart etc. at that time were completely different from Shimane Prefecture's geographic understanding that made "Takeshima" of today "Matsushima".

The error in the chart etc. was corrected according to the measurement of the Amagi warship in 1880. The report by Amagi concluded that Matsushima was Joseon's Ulleungdo, and it was adopted in the book "Takeshima Hanzu Shozokuko(竹島版図所属考)" by Kitazawa Masanari(北澤正誠), a official of MOFA who investigated the issue by the order of Ministry of Foreign Affairs when the deforestation by Japanese on Ulleungdo became problem. Kitazawa lastly concluded that "Matsushima" is Joseon's Ulleungdo.

Then, the Meiji era government sends a secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs Higaki Naoe to Ullungdo to evict Japanese on the island. Kitazawa wrote that " it is necessary to know from old times Matsushima=Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks, was outside of our territory from old times. (「古来我版図外の地たるや知るべし」)". Mr. Park disregarded this and concluded that "A related organization such as Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Army, Naval forces and Dajokan thought this island to be a Korean territory" based solely on Dajokan instruction in 1877.

Because of these confusing description of the documents, I simply wrote " it is not clear if Takeshima of today is indicated or not", avoiding concluding, in my book "Takeshima, which country owns it. Japan or South Korea?" and also wrote that "it is possible that this indicate today's Takeshima" in Shimane Prefecture's brochure "Hasshin Takeshima(発信竹島)". However, when there is more spaces to go into details, such as journal "Shokun(諸君)", presenting the basis before and after, I summarized that "both "Takeshima and the other island" indicated today's Ulleungdo." It is sophistry of him to criticize that "It is too exceptional for changing own view so often" (p38)

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


Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.


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

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

The 22th column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
The 21st column " Refutation against "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”
The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 10th column " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory

The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”

The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"

The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"

The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."
Reference :
1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876 (Part 1/2) (島根県 渡航禁止のいきさつ)

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

1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)

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

1881 - Kitazawa Masanari(北澤正誠), a official of MOFA concluded that "Takeshima" is Jukdo in "A Study of Takeshima (Takeshima Kosho 竹島考証) "

23.10.09

2009 - Oct. 25 - 日韓の和解と友好を考えるマラソントーク (Marathon talk "For Reconciliation and Friendship of Japan-South Korea - )

2009 - Oct. 25 - 日韓の和解と友好を考えるマラソントーク (Marathon talk "For Reconciliation and Friendship of Japan-South Korea - Sovereignty of Japan that keeps being violated-")

UPDATE
ご報告です。

当日参加してきましたので簡単ですがご報告いたします。

前半は学生中心でしたが、後半に自民党衆議院議員新藤義孝氏、島根県議上代義郎氏、県土竹島を守る会の方々が登壇され、大変興味深いものとなりました。新藤先生は竹島の歴史について正確な知識をお持ちのようで、韓国の主張、特に于山島が現竹島であるなどという説が、如何に歴史的事実に反する妄言であるかをお話していました。韓国側、日本の外務省にも働きかけを行っているようですから、私も一国民として応援していこうと思いました。上代先生と守る会の方々のお話からは、島根県が国内からの様々な逆風に耐えて筋を通し竹島の日を制定したそのご苦労、そしてなかなか国が動かない、国民レベルの運動に広がらないといった焦りが窺えました。


実は今回学生以外にも、明らかに右翼と分かる方々も沢山登壇されました。下條先生が2月の竹島の日記念式典で野次を飛ばした右翼団体の方々に「こんなところで騒ぐくらいならもっときちんとした場所で主張してみよ」と発言の機会を与えた、と聞き及んでいます。正直私としては大いに違和感を感じるものでしたが、普段街宣車に耳を塞いできた自分にとっては、ある意味で勉強になったことも多々ありました。

竹島は我が国固有の領土であることは、3年以上この問題の歴史的背景を独自に学んできた私としては、ゆるぎなき事実であるとの認識です。領土・領空・領海を守ることは、国民として当然のことで、それはなんら隣国に対して脅威をもたらすものではありません。しかし竹島は韓国に不法占拠されている状態が続いており、韓国政府に対して各方面から強く要求し続ける必要があります。その思いを前提として今回の経験をまとめるならば、島根の関係者の方々、右翼も含めた真に国の行く末を案じる方々が孤立しないよう、そして特に先鋭化しないで良い方向に向かっていくよう、自分なりの方法で側面支援していこう、との思いを新たにする良い機会になった、と言うことです。

歴史的資料の発掘、韓国側重要書類の入手、「竹島問題に関する国際法論文選」出版プロジェクト2009、ブログでの研究成果の出版、韓国人の若者との対話の機会を設ける、ネットで活動している竹島研究家の方々や学生たちとの研究ネットワーク作り、竹島みやげの開発、等等沢山アイデアがありますが、こうした考えを一つ一つ実現して行きたいと思っていますので、是非皆様のご協力をお願いしたいと存じます。

(追記、ここまで)

10月25日、韓国の「独島の日」にあわせて拓殖大学下條教授と有志の方々が以下のイベントを開催します。学生さんたちが中心に、島根県議なども参加されるようですので、ご興味のある方は是非ご参加下さい。
Marathon talk "For Reconciliation and Friendship of Japan-South Korea - Sovereignty of Japan that keeps being violated-" to be held in Takushoku University on Sat Oct. 25 at 13:00

日韓の和解と友好を考えるマラソントーク ― 侵され続ける日本の主権 ―

●日時
10月25日(日)13:00~16:00(12:30~受付開始)

●場所
拓殖大学文京キャンパスS館4階401教室(東京メトロ丸の内線「茗荷谷」下車)

●登壇予定者
拓殖大学、早稲田大学、慶応大学学生及び大学院生。島根県議ほか。

●会場整理費
一般 500円
学生 無料

●主催
拓殖大学下條研究室

●後援
特定非営利活動法人日本領土領海戦略会議

21.10.09

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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


Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.



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


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


The 22th column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

The 21st column " Refutation against "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”

The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 10th column " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory

The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”

The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"

The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"

The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."

Reference :

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

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


1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)

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

1881- Kitazawa Masanari(北澤正誠), a official of MOFA concluded that "Takeshima" is Jukdo in "A Study of Takeshima (Takeshima Kosho 竹島考証)