靑邱圖 Dokdo Video Maps 1 msg

87 Responses to “Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 1”ponta Says:
August 25th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
great work!!
I am looking forward to the next post.

Dokdo issue raises questions about S.K. naval military strength

Hey, Korean Navy, Japan wants to settle the issue peacefully.
What is ICJ for?

Gerry-Bevers Says:
August 26th, 2006 at 5:07 am
Thank you, Ponta. I think the 1834 map very clearly shows that Usando was Ulleungdo’s Jukdo, not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima).

By the way, my new semester starts on Monday, and I will be doing extra classes this semester, so I will probably not be posting as often. I will try to write something on “Sambongdo” within the next couple of weeks since many Koreans claim that Sambongdo was a reference to “Dokdo/Takeshima.” Sambongdo is not really a difficult topic, but it was a wild goose chase that led to a lot being written about it. In the end, it was essentially agreed that there was no such island, and a man who said he had seen it was executed, and his daughter was made a government slave.

After Sambongdo, I will try to write something about the adventures of An Yong-bok, but that will take a long time since that involves looking at both Korean and Japanese records. Plus, the records, themselves, are somewhat confusing because An Yong-bok’s story was confusing.

Anyway, I hope you and the others who post on this subject keep looking for old maps and documents that might help answer the questions surrounding Dokdo/Takeshima.

toadface Says:
August 26th, 2006 at 8:20 am
Gerry for the purpose of this map it’s clear like many maps of Korea that there was no additional survey done for the Ulleungdo region in the making of this map. It’s obvious the Koreans simply appended former maps onto this one.

You can see it carries with it all of the inherent flaws of the Ulleungdo maps that preceded it. That being all major islands are again mapped on the wrong side. Let me explain.

In 1864 the British Navy submitted a report on Ulleungdo and here is a portion. I think you will find two part relevent.
“Degelet Island is a collection of sharp conical hills well clothed with wood supporting an imposing peak in the center……There are several detached rocks along its shores, principally on the North and East sides, some reaching an elevation of 300~400 feet. They are all like the island steep to and the lead offers no warning……

You can see on the map posted that all of the islands are on the wrong side in addition there is the same number of islands as in earlier inaccurate maps of Ulleungdo. If the scale is used to calculate the size of Ulleungdo it makes the diameter of Ulluengdo about 25kms when in reality the size of the island is about 12kms I think.

If each panel as you say is 70ri wide. If you look at the panel between Ulleungdo and the Korean mainland you can see at a glance the same scale is applied to this distance. From this we can see this map marks the distance between Korea and Ulleungdo as about 100ri or 40 kms. But we know the real distance is about 140 kms or 350ri.

This map as with most Chosun maps of the era moved land masses over for mapping convenience and to denote ownership. I don’t think this map can be used for accurate positional references of neighbor islands or for accurate scale Gerry.

Gerry-Bevers Says:
August 26th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Toadface,

The distance between the mainland and Ulleungdo was not measured, which is why the makemaker used an off-color for the one panel separating the mainland from Ulleungdo. The island was just brought in close for convenient’s sake. However, that was not the case in regard to the distance between Ulleungdo and Usando. Notice that there was no off-color panel placed between the two islands.

Yes, each panel is 100 ri tall and 70 ri wide, but I am not sure what measure was being used for ri, especially in regard to Ulleungdo. I have explained this to you before, Toadface, but I will explain it again.

Koreans normally say that one ri is 0.4 kilometers, but there seems to have also been a smaller ri measure used for islands, at least, for Ulleungdo. For example, old Korean maps and documents often discribe Ulleungdo’s dimensions as fifty ri from north to south and 50 ri from east to west. The actual dimensions of Ulleungdo is about 10 kilometers by 10 kilometers. If we divide 10 kilometers by 50 ri, we get a ri measure of 0.2 kilometers.

The Ulleungdo panels on the map show the main island of Ulleungdo to be about ninety ri from east to west and about fifty-five ri from north to south. If we use the 0.2 ri measure, the dimensions of the Ulleungdo on the map would be about eighteen kilometers by eleven kilometers, and the distance from the main island of Ulleungdo to Usando would be about two kilometers.

Even with the rough measurements of the map, it is obvious that Usando was not “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks). The maps shows Usando only about two kilometers offshore of Ulleungdo, but “Dokdo” is ninety-two kilometers away.

By the way, Toadface, didn’t you say that Jukdo is 2.2 kilometers off the east coast of Ulleungdo? Well, I guess the above map proves that you were right about that.

toadface Says:
August 26th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Gerry, the panel between Ulluengdo has and Korea is measured with the same lines as the adjacent ones you can see the lines on the bottom. The left side includes the shore of the Korean mainland.
As I’ve said Gerry the map is simply a traced appended addition map of Ulleungdo added on to a national map. I think this technique was also used on the Daehanjiji maps of Chosun later on. The incorrect positioning of the nieghbour islands are evidence of this.
I also think the scale of Ulleungdo was done by a four kilometer ri maybe by incorrectly cross referencing earlier maps with a different ri. If you look at the size of Ulleungdo relative to Korea you can see that Ulleungdo is way too large. If Ulleungdo was drawn to the scale you say it would very tiny relative to the Korean mainland.
You finally admit that Chosun cartographers slid over land masses for convenience and to denote ownership. This is a real breakthough for you Gerry.
The map of Ulleungdo is clearly not done from a new survey of the region. That being said the original cartographer who drew the first map of Ulleungdo could have initially been the one to relocate Usando closer to Ulleungdo..

Gerry-Bevers Says:
August 26th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Toadface,

In Chinese characters on the Ulleungdo map, it gives dimensions of 40 ri by 70 ri, which would be a sabang of 110 ri (40 + 70 = 110). Since modern-day Ulleungdo is about 10 kilometers by 10 kilometers, a modern sabang for Ulleungdo would be about 20 kilometers (10 + 10 = 20). If you divide 20 kilometers by 110 ri, you get 0.18 kilometers per ri. That means that the Ulleungdo mapmaker was not using a 0.4 ri for Ulleungdo.

The smaller ri was also used on the following map:

Daejoseonguk Jeondo

Notice the Chinese characters between Ulleungdo and the Korean mainland? It says 水路八百里, which means “sea route is 800 ri.” The distance from Ulleungdo to the closest point on the mainland is 130 kilometers. If we divide 130 kilometers by 800 ri, we get a 0.16 kilometer ri. We can double check this because there is also distance shown from Tsushima (Daemado) to the Korean mainland.

On the map between Tsushima and the Korean mainland is written 水路四百七十里, which means “sea route is 470 ri. The actual distance from Tsushima to Busan is about 50 kilometers. If we divide 50 kilometers by 470 ri, we get a 0.11 kilometer ri.

According to the Korean Web site where the map came from, here, the 800 ri distance from Ulleungdo to the Korean mainland was “exact.” That means there was a shorter ri than 0.4.

The calculations show that a 0.4 kilometer ri was not used on the Ulleungdo map.

Toadface, sliding Ulleungdo over closer to the mainland is different from drawing Ulleungdo and its neighboring islands. First, drawing a map of an island is much easier than drawing a map of a country. For example, you could easily sail around Ulleungdo in one day. Second, Ulleungdo and Usan are drawn on the same panel in the above map, which means there were no islands slid over. Third, if the Korean mapmaker had wanted to draw “Dokdo” on the map, he could have put another blank, off-color panel between Ulleungdo and “Dokdo” The fact that he did not do that means that “Dokdo” was not drawn of the map.

ponta Says:
August 26th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Toadface
You are an honest guy.

it’s clear like many maps of Korea that there was no additional survey done for the Ulleungdo region in the making of this map. It’s obvious the Koreans simply appended former maps onto this one.

That is right. Korean government did not grasp the real geography of this area, much less of Dokdo.
(By the way Korean government HP used to say Korea surveyed the area around dokdo.The description disappeared. I guess it admitted that was a lie.)
I think the Korean empty island policy until 1883(1881) over Ulleugodo made it unnecessary for Korea to survey this area in detail.
And this policy was critical for Korea with regards to the issue of Dokdo.
It made Korea less familiar with geography of this area.
It made Korea lose the effective control over Ulleungdo,it made Korean government impossible to recognize Dokdo.
By the way, for Korea, the limit of Korean territory used to be where you can see from penninsula:and, you can not see Dokdo from the land.
The Korean map makers did not have to locate Dokdo on the map because you can not see it anyway.

Thanks.

p.s.What is the point of British report?

Gerry
I am really looking forward.
I saw you bashed on some forums just because you say Korean claim about Dokdo is wrong.But I think your sincere effort is taking effect.
.

tomato Says:
August 26th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
By the way, so-called Dok-do is uninhabitable (unless you ship supplies all the time, the way the S Koreans are doing now to occupy the island)…it is not spacious…so there is NO way Usan can be so-called Dok-do.

japanesegeisha Says:
August 26th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
i love it

opp Says:
August 26th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Gerry,

Please teach me.
Is Kim Jeong-ho a government official or private person?

tomato Says:
August 26th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Also, it seems from the map that Korea’s claim on the Manchurian land they call Gando and their claims on Tsushima are also ill-founded.

Gerry-Bevers Says:
August 26th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Opp,

Kim Jeong-ho was either a scholar without government office or a scholar/artisan with a talent for engraving. Whatever his status, he had influential friends, including the famous scholar Choi Han-gi, who is believed to have been the one to supply Kim with the history and geography data for his maps. Choi may have even been financing Kim.

In the first half of the Chosun Dynasty, mapmaking was pretty much a government monopoly, but by the 1800s private citizens were also making maps. Kim Jeong-ho may have been a private citizen, but he is recognized as one of the great mapmakers of his time.

tomato Says:
August 26th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
BTW, the map seems very inaccurate compared to the map made by Inou Tadataka in Japan roughly the same time (although you can still understand that Usan is not so-called Dok-do from the map made by the Korean)…just a reminder to some Koreans who think of pre-Meiji Japan as being some backward country…far from it!

Japan was ready for modernization in the late 1800s. Sometimes it serves you well if you really study how Japan modernized rather than just believing those make-belief stories about how advanced Korea was…

opp Says:
August 27th, 2006 at 12:28 am
Gerry,
Thank you very much. He is looks like Ino Tadataka in Japan. Ino began personally the measurement, and made an elaborate Japanese map at the time of beginning of the 19th century.
Ino’s map

More questions, please.
Do you know about “鬱陵島図形” by 朴昌錫?

And I found the record of the Ulleungdo investigation in 1807.
Click here

There are deeply valley more than 10ri. There is Usando, and in the north, surroundings is about 2,3 ri. There is a village when going to the south.

I think this description is corresponde to Kim Jeong-ho’s map. Therefore, I want to read the written character in his map. If you have a detailed map similar to the sixth map, could you show other parts of Ulleungdo?

Gerry-Bevers Says:
August 27th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Oop,

That is really very interesting.

No, I do not think I have heard of or seen a map called 鬱陵島図形.

Anyway, when I get home from work this evening, I will post more links to close-up views of Kim Jeong-ho’s map and another map of Ulleungdo.

toadface Says:
August 27th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
Ponta my point of the British report is that if one were to make generalizations regarding the topography of Ulluengdo they would correlate with the British report.
That being the major islands are on the Northeast of UlleungdoThese maps are not accurate and they consistently make the same errors.
Why are these major islands of Ulluengdo mapped on the wrong side? The Koreans did grasp the geography of the region. They just didn’t apply Western cartography techniques as soon as the Japanese did. Early Japanese maps applied the same techniques of moving over land masses to represent who owned what lands.

Knowing that fact how can we draw the conclusion that Usando on these maps represents Jukdo Islet? That’s a heavy assumption having determined all the other islands are incorrectly mapped. You can’t take the information that supports this theory and then disregard the facts that don’t.
As I’ve pointed out. It is no coincidence that all of these maps show the same errors. I think they were repeatedly copied through the ages carrying with them the inherent flaws of the earlier maps. This is true in maps that show Usando on the wrong side.
Another point. You can’t use Japanese perceptions of what was Usando to suppose what Chosun thought. Some Japanese maps show Usando as a tiny island on the West side of Ulluengdo and include Dokdo as well but that’s an unfair game of connect-the-dots.
Gerry, I think the original copy of the appended Ulleungdo map used a smaller ri Perhaps when it was appended it was drawn to the scale of the larger ri thus the image of Ulleungdo became larger. Look at the size of Ulleungdo compared to the Korean peninsula
We’ve been down this road before and the different ri could explain why Usanguk was said to include Dokdo. Perhaps as the ri changed, so did the defintion of what encompassed the Ulluengdo region. As with Western measurements when men travelled more the need for larger increments became apparent. Perhaps some maps used an ancient ri? However, I think is it very likely that Chosun cartographers would have mapped Ulleungdo and Dokdo with the distances between them to scale.
It just not practical to draw a large scale map of Ulluengdo and then draw in the 92kms between them it scale. You’d end up with a map that would stretch for six feet.

ponta Says:
August 27th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
Toadface
I am sorry I still don’t understand your difficult theory about maps.

But look at the map opp has made. It is convincing for most people except Koreans.
But it is not convincing to suppose that “Koreans did grasp the geography of the region” while ” they consistently make the same errors.”
And if the assumption that Usando on these maps represents Jukdo is heavy, then Korean assumption that Usando represent Dokdo is much heavier than the former assumption. In fact no body can shoulder it except Koreans.
I guess for Korean claim to look reasonable, I suggest Korea to drop the claim that Korea has known Dokdo from ancient times and just claim that Korea got dokdo from Japan as an compensation. Then they will get
at least sympathy by their favorite technique:Japan was so evil, we are victim, we deserve it !!!.Otherwise, I am afraid people all over the world will come to doubt credibility of Koreans themselves.

nigelboy Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 12:15 am
Good work Gerry.

It’s pretty sad that Opp basically had to “draw a picture” in order to prove that the ancient Usan (于山島) is in no way, shape, or form the current day Takeshima (Dokdo).

I’m also aware that Korea will never submit to ICJ with this embarassing argument. At least they are “smart” enough to realize how pathetic and weak their claims are.

Gerry-Bevers Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 3:32 am
Thanks, Nigelboy.
——————-

Does anyone know how the following phrase should be translated?

島嶼鬱陵島在本縣正東海中右于山

Does 右于山 mean “Usan is west of Ulleungdo”?

Here is the rest of the record, which I found here. It gives Ulleungdo’s area and circumference and then seems to give the history of the island, including Japan’s claims on the island. I cannot understand it all, but one part seems to be referring to Japan’s 1667 document. Can anyone give us a summary of the portion related to Japan?

島嶼鬱陵島在本縣正東海中右于山一云武陵一云羽陵一云艼陵周二百餘里東西七十餘里南北五十餘里三峯岌嶪聳空(倭舡漁探者時到)純是石山自本縣天晴而登高望見則如雲氣便風二日可到倭人謂之竹島與日本隱岐州相近自中峯至正東海濱三十餘里正西海濱四十餘里正南海濱二十餘里正北海濱二十餘里川溪六七竹田五六居址數十有楮田洞孔巖米土窟石葬古址船泊處待風所島之南有四五小島島中皆石壁石澗洞壑甚多有狙鼠極大不知避人亦有桃李桑拓菜茹之屬珍木異草不知名者甚多○新羅智證王十三年于山國恃險不服遣何瑟羅軍主金異斯夫擊降之 高麗太祖十三年芋陵島遣白吉土豆貢方物 顯宗九年以于山國被東北女眞所寇廢農業遣李元龜賜農器 十年于山國民曾彼女眞虜掠來奔者悉令歸之 德宗元年羽陵城主遣子獻土物 仁宗十九年秋七月溟州道都監倉使李陽實遣人入蔚陵島取菓核木葉異常者以獻 毅宗十三年王聞鬱陵地廣土肥可以居民遣溟州道監倉使金柔立往視柔立回奏云島中有大山從山頂東至海一萬餘步西至海一萬三千餘步南至海一萬五千餘步北至海八千餘步有村落基址七所或有石佛鐵鍾石塔多生柴胡本石南草然多巖石民不可居遂寢其議 明宗時崔忠獻獻議以武陵土壤膏沃多珍木海錯遣使往觀之移東郡民以實之及使還多以珍木海錯進之後屢爲風濤所蕩覆舟因還其民居 忠穆王二年東界芋陵島人來朝 辛福五年倭人武陵島留半月而去○本朝 太宗朝聞流民逃于鬱陵島者甚多再命三陟人金麟雨爲安撫使刷出空其地麟雨言丰土地饒沃竹大如杠鼠大如猫桃核大於升凡物稱是 世宗元年武陵島民男婦共十七人行到京畿 平邱驛飢頓 上遣人救之 二十二年遣縣人萬戶南顥率數百人往搜連民盡俘金丸等七十餘人而還其地遂空 成宗二年有告別有三峯島者及遣朴宗元往覓之因風濤不得泊而還同行一舡泊鬱陵島只取大竹大鰒魚回啓云島中無居民矣肅宗二十八年三陟
營將李浚明還自鬱陵島獻其圖形及紫檀香靑竹石間朱魚皮等物浚明乘舡于竹邊串兩晝夜而還 英宗十一年江原監司趙冣等啓言鬱陵地廣土沃有人居舊址而其西又有于山島亦廣闊○土産藿鰒可支魚大小雜魚柏木香木冬柏側柏黃柏梧桐楓檜欕桑楡篁竹朱土鷹烏鷰鳲貍鼠城池邑城周二千五百六十尺井四古邑城東五里周一千二百十尺古城北七里周六百四十尺安逸王山城周七百五十三尺 高麗穆宗十年城蔚珍 麗末連年倭寇人民流散閭里荒墟恭讓王三年於世麟爲縣令修葺城堡撫安遺民 古邑城在平地太祖五年爲倭寇焚蕩張巡烈倡議移邑於山城至今居之鎭堡革廢蔚珍浦鎭一云古縣東南十里 中宗七年築城周七百五十尺舊有水軍萬戶驛站興富驛古云興府北三十里守山驛古云壽山南十里德新驛南三十里革廢祖召驛西六十里今造召院土産弓幹桑漆海松子五味子紫草蜂蜜松蕈石蕈(邑內二七興富三三市梅野一三市)箭竹鰒紅蛤海蔘藿海衣鹽魚物十三種壇壝髮岳新羅祀典在于珍也郡以名山載小祀典故高麗神宗二年溟州盜陷蔚珍 辛禑七年倭寇蔚珍縣權玄龍與戰敗之斬二十級獲馬七十匹八年倭入蔚珍取吾斤畓谷兩倉之穀不克而還

opp Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 5:20 am
Gerry,
I think “右” means not west, but “that” (Ulleungdo),and these descriptions are exracted from geografical records of Koryo(高麗史地理誌).

but one part seems to be referring to Japan’s 1667 document

Is your point is “辛禑七年倭寇蔚珍縣權玄龍與戰敗之斬二十級獲馬七十匹八年倭入蔚珍取吾斤畓谷兩倉之穀不克而還”?
This record is the one in the Koryo period.
Wa forayed 蔚珍縣 at 辛禑七年(maybe 1383). 權玄龍 defeated Wa, he cut 20 people, and captured 70 horses.

Gerry-Bevers Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 6:13 am
Opp,

If 右 means “that,” then how would you translate 島嶼鬱陵島在本縣正東海中右于山 一云武陵一云羽陵一云艼陵? Isn’t it saying the following?

“The island of Ulleungdo is due east of this county in the middle of the sea, west of Usan. It is also called Muleung (武陵), Uleung (羽陵), and Jeongneung (艼陵).”

I cannot see how “that” would make sense in the sentence.

Actually, the part I was wanting to see translated was the following:

(倭舡漁探者時到)純是石山自本縣天晴而登高望見則如雲氣便風二日可到倭人謂之竹島與日本隱岐州相近自中峯至正東海濱三十餘里正西海濱四十餘里正南海濱二十餘里正北海濱二十餘里川溪六七竹田五六居址數十有楮田洞孔巖米土窟石葬古址船泊處待風所島之南有四五小島島中皆石壁石澗洞壑甚多有狙鼠極大不知避人亦有桃李桑拓菜茹之屬珍木異草不知名者甚多

Anyway, thank you for the part you did translate.

opp Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 7:54 am
Gerry,

“右” might indicate writing already because the line writes from the right to the left in japan. I examined the Chinese character dictionary now. This usage seem not to be in the Chinese writing. My mistake.

opp Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 9:05 am
Gerry,

日本の漁師が時折来る。本県の純是石山より、晴天の日に高台に登ると空中にあるように見える。風がよければ2日で到着する。日本人は之を竹島と呼んでおり、日本の隠岐島に近い。東の海岸は30里、西の海岸は40里、南の海岸は20里である。川が6,7、竹藪が5,6、住居跡が10、楮の土地がある。険しく孔の空いた洞があり、土の穴に古い石の墓がある。船を島の南に止めて風を待っていた。4,5の小島があるが、全ての島に石の壁、石の谷、洞が甚だ多い。大きな鼠がおり、人を避けない。又、桃や桑や菜が塀のように育っている。名も知らない珍しい草や木が大変多い。

Japanese fisherman sometimes comes. It seem to be in the air when climbing the height from 純是石mountain on a fine day. It arrives on two days if the wind is good. The Japanese calls this Takeshima, and is near the Oki island in Japan. The coast in the east is 30ri, the coast in the west is 40ri, and the coast in the south is 20ri. There are 6,7 rivers, and 5,6 the bamboo groves, and 10 dwelling sites, and is land of the paper mulberry. There is a cave where the hole becomes empty steeping, and is old gravea of stones in the hole of the soil. The ship was stopped to the south of the island and the wind was waited for. There are 4,5 small islands. All islands have quite a lot of stone valleys, stone walls, and caves. There are big rats, and rats don’t avoid the person. Moreover, The peach, the mulberry, and greens grow up like the wall. There are quite a lot of unusual grasses and trees that do not know the name.

誰か英語を添削してやって下さい。
Someone, please correct my English.

opp Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 9:54 am
訂正。
晴天の日に高台に登って本県から、この石山を見ると、空中にあるようだ。

Correction

It seem to be in the air when it climbs the height on a fine day and this
stone mountain is seen from this prefecture.

Two Cents Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Gerry,
I am not an expert in reading ancient Chinese, but I found this article that cites the passage “島嶼鬱陵島在本縣正東海中右于山” from 大東地志 as “島嶼鬱陵島在本縣正東海中古于山.”

Since the 大東地志 seems to rely on 高麗史 as one of its source, I think it may be possible that author rephrased the passage from volume 58 in 高麗史, which says “有鬱陵島 在縣正東海中 新羅時 稱于山國 一云武陵 一云羽陵 地方百里,” by replacing “新羅時 稱于山國 (called Usan-koku during the Shilla period” with “古于山 (ancient Usan).” I couldn’t find an image of the original 大東地志 text, so I’m just guessing.

Thanks for the beautiful map. I’ve never seen it before. What a pity that such a great mapmaker was tortured to death on accounts of producing woodblock prints of these maps, but I guess in those days, precise maps were top secret information for a country.

ponta Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Interesting.

純是石山自本縣天晴而登高望見則如雲氣便風二日
The rock mountain looks like coulds floating in the air when seen in a fine day from the high place in our province. It takes two days to reach there, if the wind is calm.

Does anybody have a photo of Ulleungdo or Jukudo from the peninsula?

居址數十有
There are remains of 10 houses.

So this is not Dokdo.

What is interesting is that it seems Korean historians in old times were talking about islands seen from the peninsula
That reinforces Shimojou’s thesis.

ponta Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Gerry

When you have a time, could I have you opinion.?
Do you know 瓮島 near Ulleungdo described in 正祖實錄 卷40?.
Or do you know the map which depicts 瓮島 near Ulleungdo?
The link Two cents put up is written by Taiwanese professor.
His guess is that it is likely that 石島 in the 1900 edict refer to 瓮島, because 瓮 is pronounced Tok in Korean
My opinion is different from him in that I think 石島 referred to Kwannundo,which is 可支島, according to this author.

But I thought it was interesting that among islets like kwanundo,jukudo etc there was islets called Toksum =瓮島 which is different from Dokdo/Takeshima.

正祖實錄 卷40>正祖18年(1794年)6月条25日内容によりますと,鬱陵島以外にも「防牌島、竹島、瓮島、可支島」等の島が登場する。まず,ここの瓮島に注目する必要がある。瓮島の瓮は瓮器を意味する。瓮器(Wong-Ki)を韓国語発音では「Tok」と呼ばれている。この「Tok」には2つの意味がある。瓮器の意味以外にも,韓国慶尚道地方の方言で石を意味する。

Gerry-Bevers Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Gerry,

I think 瓮島 was Jukdo (竹島), 石島 was Gwaneumdo (觀音島), and I suspect that 可支島 was a place near Gadubong (可頭峰), which is on the southern tip of Ulleungdo.

1) 瓮島 was mentioned in the 1794 Korean record as being one of four neighboring islands of Ulleungdo. The first Chinese character in 瓮島 means “clay jar or pot” and is pronounced as “ong” in Sino-Korean and as “dok” in pure Korean. The second character in the name means “island” and is pronounced as “do” in Sino-Korean and as “seom” in pure Korean. Therefore, in Sino-Korean 瓮島 is pronounced as “Ongdo,” in pure Koreans it is pronounced as “Dokseom,” and in a combination of Sino-Korean and pure Korean it is pronouned as “Dokdo.”

In a letter to General MacArthur in August 1948, “Korea’s Patriotic Old Men’s Association” requested that Korea be given “Docksum” as part of the US agreement with Japan. The Koreans said that “Docksum” meant “a small pot-shaped island” and that it was historically a part of Korea.

The 1794 Korean record mentions four neighboring islands of Ulleungdo. One of those islands was 瓮島 (Ongdo/Dokseom/Dokdo), which the record said was off Ulleungdo’s east coast. Well, Jukdo is also off Ulleungdo’s east coast and it does kind of look like a kimchi jar sticking up out of the water. That is why I think 瓮島 was Jukdo. By the way, Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima) looks nothing like a pot.

No, Ponta, I do not know of the map showing 瓮島 (Ongdo/Dokseom/Dokdo) near Ulleungdo, but I would be very interested to see it.

2) 石島 means “Rock Island” and is pronounced as “Seokdo” in Korean. Jukdo (竹島), and Seokdo (石島) were the two neighboring islands of Ulleungdo that the 1900 Korean edict said, together with Ulleungdo, made up Uldo (Ulleungdo) County. The 1900 edict did not mention where the two neighboring islands were located, but present-day Ulleungdo has only two neighboring islands and a few islets or rocks. The two islands are Jukdo (竹島) and Gwaneumdo (觀音島). Since Jukdo is the same name mentioned in the 1900 edict, we can assume it was present-day Jukdo. That means that “Seokdo” was most likely present-day Gwaneumdo.

In 1882, Ulleungdo Inspector Lee Gyu-won also said Ulleungdo had two neighboring islands. He called them Jukdo (竹島) and Dohang (島項). Dohang (島項) means “Island Neck.” The map he drew of Ulleungdo shows that Jukdo was present-day Jukdo and that Dohang was present-day Gwaneumdo. So the question is “how did Dohang (島項) change to Seokdo (石島)? The Toron Talker has a interesting theory that i will summary.

Toron Talker posted this 1909 Japanese Survey Map of Ulleungdo, which shows Jukdo (竹島) and an island called 鼠項島, which means “Rat Neck Island.” In Korean, it is pronounced as “Seohangdo” (서항도), but if I remember correctly, in Japanese it is pronounced as “Soku-shima,” which means “Soku Island.” Notice that “Soku” sounds very similar to the Korean “Seok,” which suggests that Soku-shima was the Japanese pronunciation for “Seokdo” (石島).

Notice that the old Japanese name for Gwaneumdo, 鼠項島, used two of the same characters that Lee Gyu-won used for Gwaneumdo, 島項, on his 1882 survey map. Lee called the island 島項, which means “Island Neck, and the Japanese called it 鼠項島, which means “Rat Neck Island.” I think that is more than just a coincidence.

I think that between 1882 and 1900, Koreans had started using the Japanese pronunciation for Gwaneumdo, which was “Soku-shima.” They probably never bothered to write the Chinese characters for the island, so by the time of the 1900 Korean edict, Koreans probably just assumed that “Soku Island” meant “Rock Island,” which Koreans pronounced as “Seokdo.”

3) 可支島 was one of the neighboring islands of Ulleungdo mentioned in the 1794 Korean record. The record did not say where the island was, but 可支島 means “Seal Island” and is pronounced in Korean as “Gajido.” I am not exactly sure where Seal Island was, but I think it may have been near 可頭峰, which is at a point on the southern tip of Ulleungdo. The reason that I think “Seal Island” may have been there is because of an 1863 British map that referred to that point as “Seal Point.” You can see the map here. It is the ninth map down on the page. You might also look at the Japanese map just below the British map to see what the Japanese were calling “Seal Point.”

I am not sure how the Japanese pronounce 可頭峰, but I do notice that the first character in 可頭峰 and the first character in 可支島 are the same. I do not know if that is important, but I just wanted to point it out.

opp Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Two Cents,

I think that “古于山” is a correct answer. If it is a meaning of west of 于山, “于山右” is general.

Gerry-Bevers Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 2:52 am
Ponta,

I think I may have been wrong about 可支島 (Seal Island) and maybe even 瓮島 (Pot Island). I have just finished reading a record of an inspection to Ulleungdo that seems to be describing “Seal Island” as Gwaneumdo (觀音島).

The record also says that 防牌島 (Bangpaedo) is to the east and is about 3 ri from the “big island.” Three ri would be about 1.2 kilometers or 0.6 kilometers, depending on whether the long ri was used or the short ri.

Anyway, I will study the record more and let you know what I find. I will probably even translate it. Anyway, it is an interesting record that I hadn’t read before. The record is describing a 1786 inspection of Ulleungdo.

ponta Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 5:13 am
Gerry Thanks. I thought if Toksum 釜島 can be explained away, it will help clear the misunderstandings about Dokdo/Takeshima.

As for 鼠/島/項, most Japanese would read it as “so/.tou/kou”, which is very similar to soekto in pronunciation.

And I have found a Japanese map which has 島項 near 観音崎.(The map was in this siteI guess the map was drawn around 1886, you can see jukdo竹島 in the right way below. and on the left upper side of jukdo is 島項)

As for 可支島, this Taiwanese professor says;

(1)It is written that Korean group went from Ulleungdo to 可支島, hunting seals, returned to Ulleungdo in one day. So it must be very close to Ulleungdo. Hence it is not Dokdo/Takeshima.

(2)Just because seals are living only at Dokdo/Takeshima at present, it does not mean that seals were not living at an islet like 可支島;in fact, in 古今釋林28, 東韓譯語, 釋獸>条 it is written 可之。 新羅同文廣考曰:于山國, 亦名羽陵島, 今稱鬱陵島, 海中有牛形大獸, 赤眸無角, 群臥海岸, 見獨人害之, 遇多人走入水中, 名曰:可之 ( I am not sure which book he is referring to–ponta).Hence Kagi=可支=可之=seals were living around Ulleungdo. And kwanundo is also called Kak-Sae Sum because there are a lot of Kak-Sae, and Kak-Sae is a seal. Hence ,it is reasonable to assume 可支島 is Kwanundo.(But there is no document yet discovered as to when and why kagido changed to Kwanundo)

I thought you might find it interesting.

Gerry-Bevers Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 7:55 am
Ponta,

I think you got the order of the Chinese characters wrong for 鼠項島. On the 1909 Japanese map, the name of Gwaneumdo is written as 鼠項島, which means it would be pronounced as So-kou-tou, using the Japanese pronunciation you posted.The character 島, which means island, should come last. And So-kou-tou does sound a lot like Seokdo.

The 1886 Japanese map you posted is great, but look at it closely.It looks like the little arm sticking out from the main island is called Gwaneum Point (観音崎) and the island close to that point is called 島項 (Island Neck), or is it the reverse? Isn’t 崎 used to mean “point” or “cape” in Japan, not island?

Yes, Gwaneumdo is also called Ggaksae-seom (깍새섬), but where did you hear that ggak-sae means “seal”? According to Korean web sites, ggaksae was a bird.

In Korean, sae means “bird,” but their is something strange about the description of ggaksae. According to this web site, Koreans used to catch ggaksae on Gwaneumdo by hitting them with “clubs,” which sounds very strange. How likely is someone going to kill a bird with a club? That makes me think that a ggaksae really was a “seal,” which can be killed with a club. Here is the bird that Koreans say was a ggaksae, but the real name of the bird is seumsae.

I am very suspicious of Koreans when they talk about “Dokdo” because I have seen so many lies about it. If it turns out that ggaksae really was a “seal,” not a bird, then that will be a new low as far as lies go. If you could give me some more information on it, Ponta, I would really appreciate it.

ponta Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Gerry,
Thanks
I made mistakes.
(1)You are right about 鼠項島 so/kou/tou
(2) Taiwanese professor ’s link should be
this, and it says:

このKak-Saeはあざらしの韓国語発音で,漢字名では可支(Ka-Gi)とも呼ばれている

Translation

Kak-Sae is Korean pronunciation of a seal, in Chinese name, it is also called 可支(Ka-Gi).

Hmmm.Sae means bird? How about ggak ? it sound similar to kagi.
Does it mean cow or something? It might be possible that they thought the seal was like a big bird in sesame street? Or it might means seal and bird island?—-I don’t know, but it is interesting.

ponta Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
The 1886 Japanese map you posted is great, but look at it closely.It looks like the little arm sticking out from the main island is called Gwaneum Point (観音崎) and the island close to that point is called 島項 (Island Neck), or is it the reverse? Isn’t 崎 used to mean “point” or “cape” in Japan, not island?

As you pointed out, 崎 means cape.not island.We can see the small islet betweenr 観音崎 and Jukdo/竹島、Maybe that might be 島項 the map maker meant? —I am not sure.

Oh by the way,on the same map, I found the 倭船倉(the place for Japanese ship?) in the north.(北)
I also found 観音浦 in the southeast.

Anyway it is interesting, i’ll chech other old maps.Thanks

wjk Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Gerry, I still think that despite your work, that Dokdo is Dokdo.

Because, you show no evidence that Japan even had knowledge of Takeshima before the time of what would be around late 1880s to early 1900s.

Do you have such evidence? Please show us again, if you do.

Gerry-Bevers Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Wjk,

Please look for the evidence yourself. If you do not see it in the main posts, then look in the comments’ section.It is there.

Your post shows me that you are either ignorantly claiming “Dokdo is Dokdo” without knowing the history, or else you are here for the purpose of distracting discussion. In either case, I will let someone else waste their time playing with you.

ponta Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
WJK
For your reference
Japanese maps that have takeshima/Dokdo on them before the time of what would be aroud late 1880s It is written in Japanese but you can see the number (before 年.). That is the year the map was drawn.1864 Japanese map
Chronological Table of Takeshima

wjk Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Thank you, Ponta. No thanks to you, Bevers.

1618 as the first sighting of Takeshima for fishing in Ulung Do, a Korean island, to legally argue that this is a Japanese island?

Kind of weak, man.

It’s not like this island suddenly popped up in 1618. Scientists, not historians, can prove that.

Bevers is just hammering the Korean claim, while the Japanese claim is also dubious at best.

Gerry-Bevers Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
Ponta,

I have read that 池田藩 sent a map to the Shogun entitled “竹島松島地圖.” I am not sure of the year, but the Korean text referred to it as the “hyeongbo” (형보) year. Anyway, on that map there is a place on Ulleungdo labelled as “Gangchi Place.” I do not know how it is written in Japanese, but “gangchi” was supposed to be a Japanese word for “seal.” Have you heard of this map or of the word “gangchi”?

bad_moon_rising Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Thank you, Ponta. Thanks to you, Bevers. Keep up the good work. No thanks to you, wjk.

1618 as the first sighting of Takeshima for fishing in Ulung Do, a Korean island, to legally argue that this is a Japanese island?

That’s a pretty strong argument, man! Especially since Koreans don’t even mention the island Dokdo anywhere from the same time period or even hundreds of years afterwards.

It’s not like this island suddenly popped up in 1618. Scientists, not historians, can prove that.

Wjk is just hammering the Japanese claim, while the Korean claim is dubious at best.

I hope this comment is as insightful as the comment by wjk.

Gerry-Bevers Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Can anyone tell me what the following is saying?

石島と観音島
Yahoo!掲示板「竹島」1619
2003年5月02日

  半月城です。
  鬱陵島のすぐ東にある観音島ですが、この島を代表する鳥 Ggak sae につ
いてネット上で問い合わせたところ、さっそくアドバイスがありました。それ
によると Ggak saeは方言で、標準語は Seom saeというそうです。Seom saeを
意訳すると島鳥になりますが、日本語では俗称カツオドリ、正式にはアホウド
リと同じ属のオオミズナギドリというそうです。この島について、韓国語サイ
トにこう書かれてありました。

Ggak sae seom または観音島
  初期開拓民182名の命をつないだのが、ニンニク科の Myong i 草と動
物性タンパク質を提供した Ggak saeであった。この Ggak saeが集団で棲息し
ていたのが Ggak sae seomである。今は観音島と呼ばれている。
<わくわくする鬱陵島ー観音島(韓国語)>

観音島
  北面 Seon chang(Seom mok,島の喉)前方、約 100mの海上に位置するこ
の島は、林野込みの高さ 100m、面積 21,600坪で、竹島のつぎに大きい島であ
り、Gkak saeが多く棲息したということから Gkak sae seomともいう。
  ここには椿、ススキ、山菜である Bu ji gaeng i、ヨモギなどが多く自生
する野生植物の天国であり、高さ 14m の天然洞窟2か所が穿たれており観音
双窟とよばれる。
<観音島案内(韓国語)>

  さて、観音島は昔も今も Ggak sae seomと呼ばれているうえに、上記のよ
うに野生植物の天国であってみれば、下條正男氏がこじつけるような、この島
が石島と呼ばれた形跡はまったくありません。
  なお、観音島と鬱陵島との間の 100m たらずの狭い水域は Seom mok すな
わち「島の喉」と呼ばれています。これはその水域に両島の崖がせまって喉の
ような景観をなすことから命名されました。つまり、観音島は鬱陵島とほとん
ど一体同然に見なされていたわけです。こうしたことから勅令41号ではこと
さら観音島の名を明記せずに「鬱陵島全島」という表現に含めたとみられます。
  以上のように、地理的な考察からも石島を観音島とすることが困難なので、
塚本孝氏は石島の比定を避けたのではないかと思われます。やはり、石島を竹
島=独島とするのは妥当なところです。

  (半月城通信)http://www.han.org/a/half-moon/

Two Cents Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Gerry,
I never would have wasted my time translating Hangetsujo, if it weren’t for you, but here goes.

———————————

Sokdo石島 and Gwaneumdo観音島
May 2, 2003

My name is Hangetujo (half-moon castle)

I have made an inquiry on the Internet regarding a bird called Ggak sae, which is a representative bird inhabiting Gwaneumdo, the island immediately east of Ulleungdo, and I soon received some advice. According to the reply, the name Ggak sae is the name in local dialect, and it is called Seom sae in standard Korean. Seom sae literally means “island bird.” In Japanese, it is commonly called gannet (katuodori), and more formally known as the streaked shearwater (Oomizunagidori), which belongs to the same species as the albatross. At a Korean site, the following information was given on this island.

Ggak sae seom or Gwaneumdo
What sustained the lives of the 182 early pioneers were the Myong i plant (a type of garlic) and Ggak sae, which supplied them with animal protein. Ggak sae seom was populated by the Ggak sae in large numbers. It is presently called Gwaneumdo.

Gwaneumdo
This island which is located approximately 100 meters offshore to the north across the Seon chang (Seom mok, “throat of island”) has an elevation of 100 meters above sea level with an area of 21,600 tsubo [translator’s note: unit equivalent to 3.3 square meters] including the forests and fields, and is the second largest island after Takeshima. Since it was populated by a large number of Gkak sae, it was also called Gkak sae som.

The island is a haven for wild plants, and indigenous plants such as camellia, pampas grass, Bu ji gaeng I (a wild vegetable), and wormwood can be found. There are two natural rock caves, 14-feet high, which are called the Twin Caves of Gwaneum (観音双窟)

Now, since Ggak sae seom is and has been called Gwaneumdo from the past ato present, and since it is also a haven for wild plants, there is no evidence that this island has ever been called Sokdo (石島), as in Mr. Masao Shimojo’s far-fetched claim.

Furthermore, the narrow waterway between Gwaneumdo and Ullengdo and is called Seom mok, or the “ island’s throat.” This has been so named due to the throat-shaped landscape created by cliffs closing in on the waters from both coasts. In other words, Gwaneumdo has always been regarded as a set with Ullengdo, and that is why in Ordinace 41 the name Gwaneumdo was not explicitly stated, and instead the term, “the entire Ullengdo island” was used.

As stated above, it is difficult to identify Sokdo as Gwaneumdo from geography, and so I believe that Mr. Takshi Tsukamoto avoided the identification of Sokdo. Thus, I think it is reasonable to conclude that Sokdo = Dokto.

ponta Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Gerry

Can anyone tell me what the following is saying?

石島と観音島

Summary

this is half-moon.
I asked about Gak-sae on the net to Koreans, and I got the answer.
Ggak sae is a dialect and in standard Korean, it is Seom sae.which roughly means a bird island. When frontier entered this island, what saved their life was the plant ” Myong i ” and the bird “Ggak sae”

Kwanundo
It is the second largest island near Ulleungdo. Because Ggak Sae was living, it is also called Ggak Sae seom…..

As you see, Kwanundo has been called Ggak Sae, so it is not Sokdo as Simonjou says.

As a side note, the area between Ullenngo and Kwanundo is called “Seom mok”, that is, it the island’s throat. Thus it shows that Kwanundo and Ulleungdo were regarded as one and the same body of the island..For this reason Ordinance 41 did not mention Kwanundo in particular.
Therefore , It is valid to assume that Soekdo is Dokdo/Takkeshima.

Two Cents Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
pontaさん、被ってしまいましたね・・・。

Gerry,
Correction to my above translation.
In the description about Gwaneumdo, Takeshima should be Jukdo.
“[Gwaneumdo] is the second largest island after Jukdo (竹島).”

Gerry-Bevers Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
Two Cents & Ponta,

I am sorry I asked you to waste your time translating what appears to be a pretty much useless post. The guy seems to have only been repeating what Korean “Dokdo” Web sites claim.

Does anyone really believe that 182 pioneers survived on Ulleungdo by clubbing birds? Why didn’t they club and eat the seals that were on the island, instead? The more I think about it, the more suspicious I get of the word “ggaksae.”

Also, “Seom-mok” (Island Neck) is just the pure Korean word for 島項 (Dohang), which Ulleungdo Inspector Lee Gyu-won referred to as an island, not a waterway. Actually, I think “seom-mok” would be a good name for the finger of land that points toward Gwaneumdo, not the waterway that separates Gwaneumdo from Ulleungdo. You can see the “finger” I am talking about on this map.

I have always been suspicious of the name “Dohang” (島項). When naming islands, Koreans almost always put the 島 (do) part of the name last. Therefore, 項島 (Hangdo) would make more sense than 島項 (Dohang). I get the feeling that there was miscommunication when Lee Gyu-won asked the people living on Ulleungdo in 1882 the name of the small, neighboring island. In fact, I am wondering if it were not the Japanese on the island at the time who told Lee the name since that “neck” of the island was their territory. Maybe they wrote it down in Chinese characters, and Lee read the characters backwards? In his diary, Lee said that he did not have a Japanese translator with him, so maybe Lee could not understand what the Japanese said and had to rely on what they wrote down.

Finally, let me give you a theory I have on the meaning ofggaksae.

According to a Korean Web site, people on Kwaneumdo captured ggaksae by building a fire at night, which attracted the them. When the ggaksae came in close to the fire, the Koreans would club them to death. Now, does that sound like birds? Or, maybe, does it sound more like rats the size of cats?

According to Korean historical documents, Ulleungdo had a lot of rats living there that were “as big as cats.” Also, a Japanese map labeled Gwaneumdo as 鼠項島 (Sokoudou), which means “Rat neck Island.” I am wondering if the two are related and if ggaksae might have been a reference to “rats”?

By the way, Ponta, in Korean, “ggak” is the sound that a magpie or crow makes.

ponta Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Gerry

I have read that 池田藩 sent a map to the Shogun entitled “竹島松島地圖.” I am not sure of the year, but the Korean text referred to it as the “hyeongbo” (형보) year. Anyway, on that map there is a place on Ulleungdo labelled as “Gangchi Place.” I do not know how it is written in Japanese, but “gangchi” was supposed to be a Japanese word for “seal.” Have you heard of this map or of the word “gangchi”?

I ‘ve searched the word and the map, but I am sorry so far I could not find any relevant information. The only similar pronouciation for gangchi is gankutsu, which means a cave; a cavern.When I find some more useful information, I’ll let you know.

And as for the translation above, Two cents’ is much better.
(As for half-moon castle, he is a representative of Korean claims in Japan. I consult his essay when I try to understand Korean claims.)

Two cents.
I didn’t notice. I feel a sort of ashamed when mine is put beside your
excellent translation. (^_^;)

Two Cents Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
Gerry,
Would 享保 be read as “hyeongbo” in Korean?
If it is, then I believe the map you (they) are talking about is this map of 1724 (9th year of 享保).
But I see no names near Takeshima (present-day Ullengdo) that can be read as Gangchi Place.

唐船鼻 Karabunebana (Chinese Boat Point)
竹嶋 Takeshima (Bamboo Island)
間ノ島 Manojima (Middle Island)
イガ島 Igashima (This one is only represented phonetically, so I do not know what is means.)

Gerry-Bevers Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 1:20 am
Hi Two Cents,

In Korean, 享保 would read as “hyangbo,” which means the first character is different.

I also have this map, which I think was made in 1696, but it is too small to read. I cannot remember where I found it.

According to the book I have, the map had a few more Islands on it, inculding 병저포, 대판포, 북포, 유포, 북국포, and 죽지포. The name that means “Seal Place” is 강치장. That means there should be at least seven names on the island. I am sorry, but I do not have the Chinese character names.

Does 間ノ島 have another pronunciation that sounds like “gangchi”?

Matt Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 1:23 am
Does 間ノ島 have another pronunciation that sounds like “gangchi”?

Just kan-no-shima or ma-no-shima as far as I know. “Gangchi” seems an impossible pronunciation.

Gerry-Bevers Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 1:33 am
Thanks, Matt.

What do the Japanese call the southern point on this 1867 map? The Bristish were calling it “Seal Point.”

ponta Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 2:03 am
Gerry
Hmmm.Ggak/Gak has nothing to do with a sea lion. Hmmmm.So that professor may be wrong.
But 可支gaji means a seal and there is islet called seal point in British map.
It probably corresponds to karabunebana 唐船鼻
(間の島=manojima=mano/shima=kan/no/shima=kan/no/tou=(probably)kwanundo as you had already noticed.)
(Anyway his point was 可支島  does not refer to Dokdo though some
Koreans claim it does, and his conclusion still holds.)
And it is interesting to speculate things, and’ll keep checking when I have a time.Thanks.

WJK

I don’t think the issue of Dokdo is not hard to understand.
Korea claims that Dokdo belongs to Korea, historically and legally.
Japan claims that Dokdo belongs to Japan, historically and legally.
So let’s examine it.
As Gerry has shown Korea’s claim that Dokdo belong to Korea has no ground.
Look at the maps. The maps are not legally so important but As Mark said on his site, the maps reflect a national’s cognizance of geography .
Korean has no map that had Dokdo/Takshima on it.
Japan has many.

It is true, as Mark stated on his site, some Japanese maps lacks takeshima/dokdo around the late 19 century because of the influence of western maps and because Japanese government was transforming from old shogunate government to a totally new Meiji government.
But that some maps lacks Dokdo is much better that no map has Dokdo on it.

Mark also points out, Japan abandoned dokdo by 1877 documents.

Japanese side has a counter argument. but okay. let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, Mark is right.

And let’s examine the issue legally.
For the territory to legally belong to a state, the state must exercise effective control.(you can check it in any text book of international law)

Around 1905 Japanese fishermen was hunting seals.
In 1905 Japanese government confirmed that Dokdo belonged to Japan.
Since then Japan had had effective control until 1945.
And these Japanese claims are very hard to refute because the reference is accurate, and there are a lot of official documents.

On the other hand Korean claim is very weak.
(1)
1900 edict is legally useless because the reference is not clear.
(It is legally invalid according to Toadface because Korea did not notify it to Japan.)
It is historically dubious that Sokto referred to Dokdo/Takeshima because it is most likely that it designated Kwanundo.
Most importantly Korea has no evidence that it had effective control over dokdo.

(2)If Korea protested effectively, 1905 Japanese inclusion is invalid

(a)But Korea did not despite the fact she protested on other matters.

(b)Suppose, for the sake of argument, Korea could not because Korea was deprived of any means to protest. In this case, the point is whether Korea had a ground for protesting. But as Gerry showed, Korea had none. It is closer to the truth that .Korea did not even recognized Dokdo;The local government official did not even know the location of Dokdo.

(c)Suppose, for the sake of argument that Korea did protest effectively, then the day it proteseted is the critical date.Then we go back to historical records until this day.
(ⅰ)Japan has historical clear histrical records about dokdo,though some are disputed by Toadface and Mark.
(ⅱ)Korea has none..

(3)Besides, Korea has documents that clearly locates Dokdo outside of Korean territory.

Sensing that Korea has no hope if we focus on the period before 1945, Toadface once claimed, probably out of desperation, that Dokdo was up for the grab, it was not owned by any state, (which incidentally meant he admitted that Korea had not owned Dokdo either,) when Japan was occupied by Allies. But I think you have seen this argument has failed.

These are my reasoning about Dokdo and why I think Japan’sclaim is stronger than Korea’s.

Two Cents Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 2:27 am
Gerry,
The portion of the 1867 map simply seems to be a translation of a British Navy map made in 1863.
The southern point is labeled セール崎 (Seal point) and the northwest point is labeled ボウソルロック (Boussole Rock); the katakana expression indicating that the two names are foreign words. To the west is the name of the island, 松島 (Matsushima). The others are all numbers, which are, clockwise from top, 三百六十 360, 四百 400, 三百三十 330, and 六十 60 (distances to land, maybe?).

And Matt and ponta are right about 間ノ島. It can’t be read gangchi. In fact, I haven’t been able to find any word that could correpsond to “ganchi” that means seal in Japan. Ashika (海鹿), todo (トド), umiuso (海獺), and michi (海驢) mean seals in Japan, and “ashika” was mostly likely used during the time.

ponta Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 2:37 am
Gerry
I agree with Two cents.
1867 map is difficult to read, but I could decipher 崎
And
this is 1870 map. It says セユル-崎(seeru-saki/seyuru-saki) which seems to be a translation of seal point.

opp Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 3:39 am
誰か翻訳頼み。

1828年に編纂された「竹嶋考」に享保9年(1724年)に幕府の命令で、漁師たちが竹嶋・松島の図を差し出したとの記録あり。また、竹嶋考には幕府に差し出した図を簡略化した地図を掲載している。その概略図が、この地図である。→click

また、鳥取藩の藩主であった池田家に竹嶋・松島の地図が残っており、ゲリーが提示したこの地図はその一枚。他に「享保9年に江戸に差し出した書類の写し」と明記された地図と、より詳細な情報が記載された地図が池田家文書に残っている。
その詳細な地図には、アワビやアシカの漁場を詳しく書き入れたものがある(私も画像は未見)。この詳細図と同系統の地図として個人が所蔵していた地図がある。この個人の所蔵していた地図の画像には、「鮑抱場(アワビの漁場)」が明記されており、ゲリーの言う「Gangchi Place」はこのことではないかと思う。
アシカの漁場も書かれているはずだが、字を崩している上に不鮮明でよくわからない。

Gerry-Bevers Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 4:19 am
Opp,

Great map. I cannot read anything on it, but it looks like a great map. How do you find this stuff?

Do you know the date of the map on the third link? Did you mention it in your comments?

What are the names of the two neighboring islands?

I hope someone can translate the third map for me. It’s great.

Two Cents Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 4:42 am
Opp,
有名なオッペケペーさんの文章を、不肖ながら私が訳させて頂きます。

In the Views on Takeshima (Takeshima-ko, 竹嶋考) compiled in 1828, there is a record that some fishermen submitted a drawing of Takeshima and Matsushima in 1724 (2nd year of Kyoho享保) by orders by the Tokugawa Shogunate. In the Takeshima-ko, the government included a simplified version of this map. The following is the schematic diagram. (click)

Furthermore, copies of the Takeshima and Matsushima maps submitted by the fishermen also have been kept by the House of Ikeda, who were the lords of the Tottori-han at the time. The map presented by Gerry (click) is one of them. Besides this, there are also a map on which it is clearly written, “This is a copy of the papers submitted to the Edo government in the 2nd year of Kyoho (1724),” and another map with more detailed information preserved by the Libraries of the House of Ikeda.

The elaborated map contains one which shows detailed information on the fishing grounds of abalone and seals (I have not yet seen this image.) A map similar to the elaborated map has been kept privately by an individual. The latter map (click) clearly shows the location of “abalone fishing grounds (鮑抱場),” which I believe might correspond to the “Gangchi Place” in Gerry’s comment.

The map should also show the hunting grounds for seals, but it cannot be deciphered since the kanji characters have been abbreviated and are also smudged.

Two Cents Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 5:15 am
Gerry,
The map enlarged in the upper right reads, from left to right:
Matsushima 松島
Mooring wharf 船着き場 (not sure about the middle letters)
Sanmatsu-cho, O-shima, Matsushima 松島大島三松町
 (Three-Pine town, Big Island, Matsushima).

I can so far decipher only one word in the bottom-left map, which is the shorter word on the left written vertically at the bottom, next to the small island. It says とうせんくら in hiragana, which probably corresponds to 唐船倉 (Chinese chip warehouse). Thus, it appears that 唐船 in my previous comment is not read as “karabune” but “tousen.”

Two Cents Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 5:40 am
I have to correct my previous post.
The word on the right in the top map is 松島大廻り三拾町 (I may be wrong about the 廻り), in which case it means that the distance around Matsushima is 30 cho, or about 3.3 km.

I realized my mistake when I found a similar expression in the bottom map, at the center of the island. It says ?竹島 大廻り七里半, meaning that the distance around Takeshima is 7.5 ri, or about 30 km.I can’t figure out what the letter in front of 竹 is.

ponta Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 9:32 am
opp a great map!

Two cents a great translation!


I can’t figure out what the letter in front of 竹 is.

My guess is that it is 磯[iso/a (rocky) beach; a (sea) shore]

Gerry
As for Gajido/可支島(seal island), maybe your first guess is correct: seal point is 可支島.

How likely is someone going to kill a bird with a club? that they were also living at Gwanundo.

I am not sure about Ggaksae, but in case of short-tailed Albatross, many people say that people hit the birds to catch them.
(The bird was stupid to be caught with a club, so it is called a stupid- bird/ahou-dori in Japanese)
At the same time since in old times, seals was living around Ulleungdo according to 古今釋林, I think it is highly probable that they were also living at Kwanundo.

Gerry-Bevers Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Two Cents,

Thanks for the translation. You seem to be pretty good at that.

Ponta, Two Cents, & Oop,

Congratulate me.

I think I have found 可支島 (Gajido) on the west coast of Ulleungdo. These days it is called “Saja Bawui” (사자바위), which means “Lion Rock.” In Korean, a sea lion is called either gangchi (강치) or bada saja (바다 사자). Bada saja literally means “sea lion,” which is probably why the rock is called “Lion Rock.”

It looks like Lee Gyu-won mapped 可支島 in 1882. The following is a link to a portion of Lee Gyu-won’s “Ulleungdo Oido” (鬱陵島外圖) map. The map shows what looks like three caves. I know it is hard to see, but I am pretty sure 可支島 is written in front of the middle cave.

Lee Gyu-won’s 1882 Map of Ulleungdo (可支島)

This may be a better map.

I think this proves that “Gajido” (可支島) was not a reference to “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks), as Koreans claims.

My question is this. If I can find Gajido on my poor copy of Lee Gyu-won’s 1882 map, why can’t Korean historians find it on, what I am sure is, their much better copy?

Gerry-Bevers Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Correction

After looking at Lee Gyu-won’s 1882 map more closely, it looks like the characters are 可支窟, which means “Seal Cave.” However, Korean documents talking about “Gajido” (可支島) said that there were two caves that the seals came out of, so I am almost possible now that 可支窟

  • 最終更新:2009-03-01 15:28:58

このWIKIを編集するにはパスワード入力が必要です

認証パスワード