鬱陵島圖形 Dokdo Video Maps 7 msg

76 Responses to “Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 7”pacifist Says:
January 20th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Gerry,

Thanks for the unknown map!

The distance between Ullengdo and Usando in the map doesn’t seem to be so far like 92km (one-day voyage)…. is the National University intentionally deceiving people?

opp Says:
January 20th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Gerry,

GJ!

This is a map which I was looking for. In Korea of this age, the map of public Ullengdo is really few. This is a map that 朴昌錫 who is the serviceman wrote though 朴昌錫’s career is uncertain.
Gerry, can I add this map to my site?

Gerry-Bevers Says:
January 21st, 2007 at 12:10 am
Opp,

The map is stored at Seoul National University’s Gyujanggak. What I posted is just a microfilm printout of that map. I do not care if you add it to your Web site since it is not really my map. Personally, I think you should add it so that people know the truth about Usando.

Pacifist,

I think the claim on the Gyujanggak Web site that the Usando on the map “seems to be Dokdo” is a perfect example of how academic freedom in Korea is being held hostage by nationalistic forces. The Usando on the map is obviously not “Dokdo,” but if a Korean historian at Gyujanggak said any different, his or her career would probably be put in jeopardy.

If the map were really made in 1884, that would mean that the island labeled as “Usando” on the map was the same island that was labeled as “Jukdo” by Lee Gyu-won just two years earlier. Usando and Jukdo were just two names for the same island. Usando was not Dokdo, and the fact that the above map says that there were bamboo fields on Usando clearly proves it.

opp Says:
January 21st, 2007 at 12:45 am
Thank you, Gerry.

If possible, could you send the detailed data of this map, Yeojido (輿地圖)
Joseon Jido (朝鮮地圖), Jiseung (地乘) and Gwangyeodo (廣輿圖) by e-mail?

toadface Says:
January 21st, 2007 at 6:09 am
Gerry the bamboo you mentioned doesn’t really need any special kind of soil to live in.
On this website it says that kindo of bamboo is very tenacious and can survive in all kinds of soil: The plant prefers light (sandy), medium (loamy) and heavy (clay) soils. The plant prefers acid, neutral and basic (alkaline) soils. It can grow in semi-shade (light woodland) or no shade. It requires moist soil. The plant can tolerate maritime exposure. Tolerant of maritime exposure and very hardy and vigorous, this plant can tolerate temperatures down to between -20 and -25°c.

Maybe it is the only type of bamboo capable of living on Dokdo. There was some bamboo on Dokdo. It’s unusual that the mapmaker to specify the kind of bamboo meaning it was possibly different from Ulleungdo’s variety. I also read that Ulleungdo residents would go to Dokdo to harvest some of the plants that grew there as they were very tough and slow growing.

It also looks like this Ulleungdo island has the same 5 phantom islands on the South like the earlier versions of Ulleungdo. It’s doubtful the map was written after a survey like Leekyuwon’s. I’m currently translating the 1794 Ulleungdo survey by Shim-Jin Hyeon. As with Leekyuwon the island’s name to the Northwest was Jukdo Gerry.

It’s best to rely on the first hand Ulleungdo Island reports that some than some of these ancient maps in determining these island identities.

Here is the report stating that Jukdo Island was called Jukdo even one-hundred years before Leekyuwon mapped it the same.

toadface Says:
January 21st, 2007 at 6:10 am
Sorry here is the link with the plant information.

pacifist Says:
January 21st, 2007 at 6:27 am
toadface,

> “I also read that Ulleungdo residents would go to Dokdo to harvest some of the plants that grew there as they were very tough and slow growing.”

I have’t heard of the islanders went to Takeshima/Dokdo before. It is quite interesting.

When did they go there? How did they call the island?
As you already know, there is no Korean name for Takeshima/Dokdo until 20th century. Did they call it in old Japanese name Matsushima?

pacifist Says:
January 21st, 2007 at 6:29 am
correction:

I have’t heard of the islanders went to Takeshima/Dokdo before.

SHOULD BE

I haven’t heard that the islanders went to Takeshima/Dokdo before.

Gerry-Bevers Says:
January 21st, 2007 at 7:06 am
Toadface,

One of the problems with Dokdo is that it is a volcanic rock and does not really have any soil, which is why Koreans started transporting soil to the islets in 1987. Another problem is that the slopes are too steep to hold soil because rain washes away any soil that is there. The steepness of the slopes is also why the little soil that may be on Dokdo is notoriously dry. The rain that falls on the rocks just runs off into the sea. That means the bamboo that was mentioned on the above map could not have grown there since, as your information points out, the bamboo “requires moist soil.”

Usando and Jukdo were just two names for the same island. Yes, the 1794 report mentioned “Jukdo” as one of Ulleungdo’s neighboring islands, but Korean documents and maps have also mentioned Usando as Ulleungdo’s neighboring island, so I do not understand the point you are trying to make. In fact, Usando was mentioned as Ulleungdo’s neighboring island before Jukdo was, which suggests to me that the Japanese may have introduced the name, “Jukdo,” to Koreans.

Old Korean maps show Usando as a “single” island, not two, just off Ulleungdo’s east shore, which is where Jukdo is. Also, Korean maps did not show Usando and Jukdo together, which again tells us that they were just two names for the same island. Usando was not Dokdo.

Kaneganese Says:
January 21st, 2007 at 7:50 am
(Japanese translation for Gerry’s post)
(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。)

以下の地図は鬱陵島圖形と呼ばれるものです。発行年は不明ですが、地図に押されている押印(備邊司印)から1884年頃のものと考えられています。

 地図1:鬱陵島圖形 (1884頃)

沖にある岩や小島は全て“石峯”と名づけられていますが、象岩のみ“穴岩”と標記されています。

 地図2:北東部拡大図

一つの島だけ名前がついています。

 地図3:南東部拡大図

その島は東の沖にあり、所謂 于山島 - 海長竹田〈いわゆる于山島ー海長竹の竹林)と標記されています。

 地図4:東部沖拡大図

海藏竹(日本名は女竹?)は、高さが20フィート〈約6m9.6cm〉、幅が1.5インチ(約3.8cm)にもなる竹の種類です。学名はPleioblastus simoniiです。

 地図5:于山島拡大図

于山島の竹林は、地図上で唯一竹の種類が記載された場所です。

ソウル大学奎章閣地図文献博物館は、地図の描かれた于山島が“独島”であろう (여기 于山島라 기입한 섬이 바로 獨島를 지칭하는 듯하다)、と述べています。しかし、この地図の于山島は、鬱陵島の隣にある竹嶼と、鬱陵島の東海岸沖のほぼ全く同じ場所に位置しています。それに、この島は6mも伸びる竹林があると書かれていることも合わせて、ソウル大学は、大嘘つき、いえ、お間違えになっている、と思います。

独島(Liancourt Rocks)は、そもそも不毛な2つの岩からなる島で、上記のような竹が生える土さえありません。地図に表された于山島はほぼ確実に、鬱陵島の北東沖約2.2kmというすぐ隣にある竹嶼です。ちなみに、竹嶼は、竹島のことです。

ponta Says:
January 21st, 2007 at 8:00 am
Gerry wrote

because the island is located off the east coast of Ullleungdo in almost the exact location as Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, and because the island had fields of bamboo that could grow twenty feet high,…..Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) is essentially just two barren rocks that did not have the soil to grow the kind of bamboo mentioned above.

Steve Barber wrote

Maybe it is the only type of bamboo capable of living on Dokdo…….

IMO, Gerry won.

I’m currently translating the 1794 Ulleungdo survey by Shim-Jin Hyeon. As with Leekyuwon the island’s name to the Northwest was Jukdo

Wait ,maybe does Steve finally want to support Gerry after the long discussion?

Occidentalism » Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 6 Says:
January 21st, 2007 at 1:22 pm
[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7 [...]

Occidentalism » Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 2 Says:
January 21st, 2007 at 1:27 pm
[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7 [...]

Occidentalism » Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 1 Says:
January 21st, 2007 at 1:30 pm
[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7 [...]

Occidentalism » Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 4 Says:
January 21st, 2007 at 1:34 pm
[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7 [...]

Occidentalism » Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 2 Says:
January 21st, 2007 at 1:48 pm
[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7 [...]

Gerry-Bevers Says:
January 21st, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Did anyone notice the three peaks on the map that are drawn larger and more prominently than the others? I think this was done to recognize the fact that Ulleungdo was also referred to as “Sambongdo” in Korean historical documents. Sambongdo means “Island of Three Peaks.”

Koreans claim that Sambongdo was another name for Dokdo, but almost all the evidence suggests that it was just another name for Ulleungdo.

Two Cents Says:
January 22nd, 2007 at 1:08 am
Gerry,
I also recognized three mountains being drawn on Ulleungdo in Map 6.

pacifist Says:
January 22nd, 2007 at 1:54 am
Gerry,

Yes, I noticed it has three peaks but I didn’t know they exaggerated it…

Anyway, Sambongdo is not Takeshima/Dokdo, nor Usando.
So how can Korean people claim Takeshima/Dokdo?
toadface, can you hear me?

Occidentalism » Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 7 Says:
January 22nd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7 [...]

Avery Says:
January 22nd, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Hey Gerry, you continue following up on maps, but you haven’t yet filled us in on the 20th century history of Liancourt. For example, look at the biased view presented by this page:


The Americans obviously believed that the rocks were property of Japan, and written evidence supports this, yet the only website I could find reviewing this source material is in a rather silly pro-Korean light. The website claims that the Americans decided the rocks were Korean because the Korean government (as opposed to the Japanese) neglected to tell its fishermen that the Americans were bombing it so the Americans told the Koreans they were ending the bombing. But clearly this was due to a mistake on Korea’s part which the United States was forced to remedy, and they never supported Korea’s claim to the rocks. Again, this pro-Korea page is currently the only English website on the Internet which discusses this!

tomato Says:
January 22nd, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Avery:

Although I fear it will be vandalized by Korean ultranationalist net trolls if I post it here, but I will show you one on the Wkipediaa anyways. I think Gerry will get to tha 20th Century in the future.


ponta Says:
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:02 am
Pacifist’s comment on this blog is the best I have seen on the interpretation of SF treaty with regards to Takshikma/Dokdo issue.

toadface Says:
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:12 am
Gerry, As I mentioned the map shows the five islands on the South side as do all incorrect copied maps of Ulleungdo from this era. Lee Kyu won had accurately remapped Ulleungdo by this time. If this map was indeed based on an original survey it would have excluded the five ghost islands on the South side. Usando is a “neighbour island” if you interpret the map as being accurate to scale and distance which we know is not the case with Chosun maps. I looks like there is an island on the Southeast side of “Usando” and another big island drawn East of “Usando”…….?

The fact is any clear documents regarding the identity of Usando say it is Matsushima. Any clear documents regarding the identity of the island on the Northwest side of Ulleungdo state it is Jukdo. So all you are left with is your interpretation of inaccurate maps when clear historical references say otherwise. No slam dunk Gerry. Japanese maps of Dokdo show one island as well and never did they map its shape in true form on their maps.

Avery, Dean Rusk was a staunch anti-Communist who wanted to give Dokdo to the Japanese to posture for the Cold-War. Even his statements show that it would be advantageous to the Americans if Dokdo island were ceded to Japan. Dean Rusk was also responsible for the Americans getting in Vietnam but there are other documents related to Dokdo by the Allies. Read the American’s quote. You can the Amercian’s criteria for determining Dokdo’s owner here.

Personally what the American’s said means jack anyway, IMHO. Hanmaumy’s website has some other related documents here.

If you want to know why Japan “acquired” Dokdo in the first place read this.

opp Says:
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:38 am
LOL. This document digs one’s own grave.

“all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quellait , Port Hamilton and Degelet” , the drafters of the treaty did not include these islands within the area to be renounced.

The following procedures are needed for the amendment of the treaty.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Article 40 Amendment of multilateral treaties
1. Unless the treaty otherwise provides, the amendment of multilateral treaties shall be governed by the following paragraphs.
2. Any proposal to amend a multilateral treaty as between all the parties must be notified to all the contracting States, each one of which shall have the right to take part in:
(a)the decision as to the action to be taken in regard to such proposal;
(b)the negotiation and conclusion of any agreement for the amendment of the treaty.
3. Every State entitled to become a party to the treaty shall also be entitled to become a party to the treaty as amended.
4. The amending agreement does not bind any State already a party to the treaty which does not become a party to the amending agreement; article 30, paragraph 4(b), applies in relation to such State.
5. Any State which becomes a party to the treaty after the entry into force of the amending agreement shall, failing an expression of a different intention by that State:
(a)be considered as a party to the treaty as amended; and
(b)be considered as a party to the unamended treaty in relation to any party to the treaty not bound by the amending agreement.

Article 41 Agreements to modify multilateral treaties between certain of the parties only
1. Two or more of the parties to a multilateral treaty may conclude an agreement to modify the treaty as between themselves alone if:
(a)the possibility of such a modification is provided for by the treaty; or
(b)the modification in question is not prohibited by the treaty and:
(i)does not affect the enjoyment by the other parties of their rights under the treaty or the performance of their obligations;
(ii)does not relate to a provision, derogation from which is incompatible with the effective execution of the object and purpose of the treaty as a whole.
2. Unless in a case falling under paragraph 1(a) the treaty otherwise provides, the parties in question shall notify the other parties of their intention to conclude the agreement and of the modification to the treaty for which it provides.

In a word, if Japan doesn’t agree, it doesn’t have legal force.

Gerry-Bevers Says:
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:08 am
Toadface,

Even Korean historians are beginning to concede that the Usando on Korean maps was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo. I wonder when you will stop playing your silly game and finally admit it.

toadface Says:
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:33 am
Gerry, even Japanese scholars are admiiting that the 1905 Shimane Prefecture Inclusion was an illegal military land grab.

I wonder when you will stop playing your silly game and finally admit it.

Gerry with regard to Usando. I’ve told you before for every map that shows it as Jukdo there are ten that show it as something else. Stop chasing seals and bamboo plants and just find a clear document that says Usando is a neighbor island of Ulleungdo. I’ve given you many other resources that day Usando is Dokdo and is southwest of Ulleungdo.

Gerry-Bevers Says:
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:52 am
Toadface wrote:

Gerry with regard to Usando. I’ve told you before for every map that shows it as Jukdo there are ten that show it as something else.

Gerry says: I have between fifteen and twenty maps showing Usando as Jukdo. Do you have between 150 and 200 showing something else? Even the maps that show Usando to the west of Ulleungdo still show it as a neighboring island. Those maps are proof that the two islands were close enough to cause name confusion.

Toadface wrote:

Stop chasing seals and bamboo plants and just find a clear document that says Usando is a neighbor island of Ulleungdo.

Here is your document:

Annals of King Sejong, June 19, 1436

Gangwon Provincial Governor Yu Gye-mun said: “The land of Muleungdo’s Usan is fertile and has many products. It is surrounded by the sea and is about 50 ri from both north to south and east to west. It is surrounded by rock cliffs, and there are also places where ships can anchor. Please allow me to gather people to settle this place. If we do this and assign a magistrate there, it will likely be a long-lasting endeavor.” The request, however, was denied royal sanction.

And here is your map: Cheonggudo ca. 1834.

Toadface Wrote:

I’ve given you many other resources that day Usando is Dokdo and is southwest of Ulleungdo.

Show me just one resource before the 1950s that said “Usando is Dokdo.” By the way, “Dokdo” is southeast of Ulleungdo, not “southwest.”

pacifist Says:
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:58 pm
toadface,

> “even Japanese scholars are admiiting that the 1905 Shimane Prefecture Inclusion was an illegal military land grab.”

Prof.Emeritus Seicyu Naitoh is not a mainstream scholar in Japan. He had been admitted as one of the pro-Korean scholars. He appeared sometimes at Korean media because he always says opinions that make Korean happy. But his theory is not a mainstream in Japan.


But his presence shows how Japanese society has broad spectrum of opinions. There are various scholars including pro-Korean people, Pro-NK people, pro-Russian people etc as I wrote before.

On the contrary, there is no pro-Japanese scholar in Korean society because if one says a favourable opinion to Japan, he would be accused by the whole society, beated, spat, and thrown away. Books with pro-Japanese opinion are banned to be published.

How can we discuss the matter with these pre-democratic country? Korea should improve herself in democratic way.

sqz Says:
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:53 pm
pacifist wrote:

On the contrary, there is no pro-Japanese scholar in Korean society because if one says a favourable opinion to Japan, he would be accused by the whole society, beated, spat, and thrown away. Books with pro-Japanese opinion are banned to be published.

Yes, Its example is Mr. Gerry-Bevers.
Nobody can do negation.

ponta Says:
January 24th, 2007 at 1:53 am
Steve Barber

I’ve given you many other resources that day Usando is Dokdo and is southwest of Ulleungdo.

And they were refuted many times.

Usando is not Dokdo, judging from the maps and descriptions about it.
“Matsushima” is not Dokdo, judging from the contemporary maps and descriptions about it.

It is only that you can not give any new counterargument.
Hence Gerry won again, IMMO

tomato Says:
January 24th, 2007 at 6:21 am
Maps of Chosun lack the accuracy of Japanese charts due to Korea’s poor development during this point in history. Korean maps used different ways to denote ownership of lands such as positioning islands closer to their ruling territories. For example, the Usando maps at the top of this page show Ulleungdo almost touching the Korean peninsula. In reality Ulleungdo is around 130kms from the Korean mainland. Because of this trait, Chosun charts should not always be construed as true to scale or accurate visual interpretations of Korea’s geography. To best define the territorial perceptions of Chosun, maps must be used in conjuction with historical documents.

Tell me about stretching the point!

GarlicBreath Says:
January 24th, 2007 at 8:05 am
pacifist

On the contrary, there is no pro-Japanese scholar in Korean society because if one says a favourable opinion to Japan, he would be accused by the whole society, beated, spat, and thrown away. Books with pro-Japanese opinion are banned to be published

Spot on Pacifist. The difference is that Japanese lets people dissent. Korea has no dissent on this Takeshima issue. It reminds me difference between England and Iran. In England there is freedom of religion and speach, and you have English muslum imans preaching hate of England. Whereas in Iran, there is no dissent and no possibility at all for a christian to even speak out.

A korean who spoke outside of the official propaganda/dogma would be tarred and feathered.

wiesunja Says:
January 24th, 2007 at 8:11 am

wiesunja Says:
January 24th, 2007 at 8:12 am
A korean who spoke outside of the official propaganda/dogma would be tarred and feathered.

That is the essence of Korea summed up to a T. Korea is definitely not a first world nation…more like a third world banana republic dictatorship from the Cold War.

Gerry-Bevers Says:
January 25th, 2007 at 1:55 am
Kaneganese,

I just want to thank you again for your translations. They may not only help Japanese who cannot read English understand the issues better, but may also help Koreans who cannot read English but can read Japanese. Many older Koreans fall into this category.

Kaneganese Says:
January 25th, 2007 at 4:00 am
Gerry,

I haven’t thought that way, but maybe you are right.
I hope old people get access and read your honest opinion through my translation.
Maybe they are the only one who can foresee what this kind of historical distortion by government cause in the end.

I don’t think all Japanese did during those period was good at all. I believe there were a lot of Korean who actually suffered. In fact, I somehow came to think Japan’s lost to the war and Korea’s independance from Japan was even a cereblation for both countries after all because we are too different. But I think distortion the historical fact by authority is like a suicide for democracy. It only benefits the communists and socialists like North Korea and CCCP.

By the way, I have finished Video5 post translation last night, but I am still checking a few point. I am hoping I would finish all of them until the end of this month. Could I ask you how you translated 渡辺洪基’s letter ?

Two Cents Says:
January 25th, 2007 at 5:20 am
Kaneganese,

I somehow came to think Japan’s lost to the war and Korea’s independance from Japan was even a cereblation for both countries after all because we are too different.

I totally agree. Japan should have heeded the words of Marquis Ito when he said there was no way you could assimilate a group of people with such strong sense of identity.

Gerry-Bevers Says:
January 25th, 2007 at 5:54 am
Kaneganese,

Yes, there were probably Koreans who suffered during the colonial period, and Koreans may have been treated like second-class citizens, but I do not think the colonial period was as bad as Koreans would have people believe. One reason I feel that way is that Koreans tend to refer to the period in general terms rather than specific terms. When I ask for specifics, they do not talk about specific murders or rapes, but, instead, mention the name-registration law and having to learn the Japanese language in school as examples. Those two examples do not sound that terrible to me.

Another example they give me is the ‘March 1 Movement,’ where, according to Koreans, Japanese police killed thousands, a number that is not supported by the police records of the time. I think hundreds were killed, but the question then is who killed them and why? It was a violent riot that lasted for months. Deaths were almost inevitable. For comparison, hundreds died in the 1980 Gwangju riots in just a few days time.

Koreans also talk about “comfort women” and forced mobilization. Though these are two subjects I do not know much about, I think the Japanese side of the comfort women story has yet to be fully told, at least in English. I have read the testimony of one comfort woman who said she supported Japan’s war and said that she and the other women would get excited and cheer when they heard news of Japanese victories.

As for forced mobilization of Koreans, I do not really see any real problem with that. At the time, Koreans were Japanese “citizens,” and Japan was at war. Even the United States has also used forced mobilization during time of war. There would, of course, be a problem if Koreans suffered some kind of discriminatory abuse. However, I wonder if Koreans suffered more abuse than blacks did in the United States at the time?

Anyway, now that I have said that, here are some changes I have made to my “Video 5″ post. They involve my interpretation of the 1899 newspaper article:

————————————

In the sea east of Uljin is an island named Ulleung. Of its six, small neighboring islands, Usando and Jukdo (or Usando/Jukdo) are/is the most prominent (崔著者). The Daehanjiji says that Ulleungdo is the old Country of Usan. It has an area of 100 ri. Three peaks stand out (律兀). Its products are ….. In the past, “water animals” (水獸) that looked like “cows without horns” (牛形無角) lived there and were called “gaji” (可之).

I think that the Usando-Jukdo (于山島竹島) reference in the article was meant to be a reference to one island with two names rather than a reference to two separate islands. In other words, Ulleungdo’s most prominent neighboring island was called both “Usando” and “Jukdo,” which means that Usando was once another name for present-day Jukdo (竹島). Many Koreans may stubbornly claim that Usando was a reference to “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks), but the article pours cold water on that claim when it talked about “gaji.”

The “gaji” in the above article was a reference to sea lions. Notice that the article said that sea lions “used to live” on Ulleungdo, which meant they no longer lived there. That means that the Usando-Jukdo, which the article described as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, could not have been “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks) since there were still sea lions on “Dokdo” at the time.

—————————————-

Notice that I now believe that the Usando-Jukdo reference in the article was referring to one island, not two.

As for 渡辺洪基’s letter, I do not remember where I got that. I translated a portion of the letter from a book entitled, “獨島와 竹島,” which is a Korean translation of a Japanese book; however, I think I “borrowed” the last part of the translation from a site I cannot remember. Did you find some mistakes in it?

Two Cents,

Yes, Koreans may have had a strong sense of identity, but it seems that they were assimilating quite well. It would be interesting to read a comparison study between Korean colonization and Philippine colonization under the United States.

Kaneganese Says:
January 25th, 2007 at 6:33 am
Gerry,

In Watanabe’s letter, I can’t understand the sentence 「彼国ナラン歟又保護ヲ加ヘサル可ラス」 very well. Your translation is ” Even if it is part of Chosun, we still have to protect it.”
I may be totally wrong, since I’m not good at 古文or 漢文 at all, but it seems like saying ” we cannot protect it.”.

I’m asking for help in opp’s site, but there’s still no answer. If anyone understand this sentence, please explane it to me.

Aki Says:
January 25th, 2007 at 6:48 am
Kaneganeze,
In modern Japanese, that sentence is “かの国だろうか。(そうであっても)やはり保護を加えないわけにいかない”.

Kaneganese Says:
January 25th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Aki,

Thank you so much!
二重否定なんですね!

Gerry, thanks to Aki, I understood the sentence and your translation is correct. I’m sorry, but I just wanted to make sure.

opp Says:
January 25th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Kaneganese,

I’m asking for help in opp’s site, but there’s still no answer. If anyone understand this sentence, please explane it to me.

掲示板?間違えて消しちゃったかな。ごめん気がつかなかった。

sakovich Says:
January 25th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Trying again…

For a look at Shimane Prefecture’s official position on Takeshima, try this site.


Matt Says:
January 25th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Trying again…

Worked the first time.

pacifist Says:
January 25th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
sakovich,

It is quite an interesting site!

Kaneganese Says:
January 26th, 2007 at 1:07 am
opp san

I deleted it by myself just after Aki gave me an answer.
ご心配お掛けしました。

sakovich san

Kaneganese Says:
January 26th, 2007 at 1:17 am
sakovich san

Your site looks great. I liked Matsuri entry. I call them Omatsuri.
And thank you for your warm attitude towards Japanese culture.
I don’t mind critical view from foreigners as long as it is based on evidence, but these warm words from them are especially grateful.

I will definitely read your Takeshima article. It looks great.

Gerry-Bevers Says:
January 26th, 2007 at 1:37 am
I have changed the date of the map from circa 1884 to 1711 after finding some additional information on the map. The 1711 date makes much more sense, given that the 辛卯五月十四日 date was written at the end of the book the map was in. 1711 was a 辛卯 year. Here is the full message that was at the end of the book:

辛卯五月十四日自倭舡倉移舟待風所拙書 一句以標日後(刻立卯岩木於方上)萬里滄溟外將軍駕桂舟平生伏忠信履險自無漫搜討官折衡將軍三陟營將兼水軍僉節制使朴昌錫軍官折衡朴省三金壽元倭學朴命逸

I am sorry for the confusion, but there appears to have been another map with the same name made in the 1880s.

opp Says:
January 26th, 2007 at 2:48 am
Gerry,
Is there a possibility of other ages because there is “辛卯” once 60 year?

Aki Says:
January 28th, 2007 at 2:08 am
Gerry,

As opp mentioned, the year of “辛卯” comes every 60 years.
“辛卯” is a name of “干支” (eto in Japanese). The table in the following page shows how to know 干支 (eto) of a given year.

Tabele for calculating 干支 (eto)

To know 干支 (eto) of a given year, divide the year by 60 and find the remainder from the above table. The Chinese character written in the same panel as the remainder is the 干支 (eto) of the year.

For example, dividing 2007 by 60 gives 33 with remainder of 27. By finding 27 in the above table, you can know that this year (2007) is “丁亥” year. In the same way, dividing 1711 by 60 gives 28 with remainder of 31. The table above shows that the year with the remainder of 31 is 辛卯. However, 1771, 1831, 1891, and so on, are also 辛卯 years since year of 辛卯 comes every 60 years.

Gerry-Bevers Says:
January 28th, 2007 at 3:19 am
Hi Oop & Aki,

Yes, I know about the 60-year cycle, but I came up with the 1711 year based on the following comment on Seoul National University’s Gyuganggak’s site:

지승(地乘)〈奎 15423〉 에서 : …의식을 반영한다. 1711년 박석창이 수토후 제작한 「울릉도도형」(규장각 소장)에는 中峰이…

It says, Ulleungdo-Dohyeong was made after Pak Seok-chang’s (should be Pak Chang-seok) 1711 inspectioin. The link leads to a blank page, so I am not sure if the comment is considered accurate or not, especially since Empas has this to say about the map:

이 지도와 동시에 그렸다고 추정되는 〈울릉도도형 鬱陵島圖形〉 뒷면에 영장(營將) 박창석(朴昌錫) 소작이라고 밝혀 있고, 지도에 비변사인(備邊司印)이 있는 것으로 보아, 1884년(고종 21) 울릉도 개척령이 공포된 전후에 제작된 것으로 생각된다. link

The above quote says that the map seems to have been made sometime about 1884 because the stamp on the map refers to Bibyeonsa; however, 1884 was not a 辛卯 year.

Anyway, there are, at least, two dates for the map on the Internet: 1711 and 1884. I am not sure which date is correct, but the shape of Usando on the map looks similar to the shape of the island on other maps in the 1700s and early 1800s. Also, 1711 matches the 辛卯 year reference, which makes me think it might be 1711. To be sure I think more research is necessary.

Occidentalism » Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 1 Says:
February 5th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7 [...]

yunjune Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 12:17 am
I think you have strangely prejudice on Korea. Probably there would be a few of mistakes korean made. But the most of parst korean claim for the dokdo and colonial periods are based on the facts, not forgery. I would show you one thing from japanese site(http://www1.ocn.ne.jp/~sinryaku/abasiziwoutu.htm ) which demonstrates dokdo is belonged to korea. Moreover, it also shows japan’s aggression into Korea very sharply with a bunch of photos. Please. Don’t deceive yourself and netizen watching your site.

ponta Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 12:31 am
yunjune
Japan is a democratic country. There are pros and cons about everything. I am glad of it. Saying there is a Japanese site in which Japanese people claim Dokdo belongs to Korea does not prove it belongs to Korea. Besides, looking at the site, their argument has been refuted on this blog.

BTW I am glad they are safe and their occupation are protected in Japan: Gerry, who disagree with Korean nationalist assumptions was rejected renewing the contract just because he wrote on the two rocks on the Internet.
The past atrocity is important, but the pressing issue is how to deal with the present atrocity to the freedom of speech in some nations. I wonder why the site you cited
does not complain of that.

pacifist Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 3:06 am
yunjune,

Welcome to our discussion.
We will be willing to hear your opinion why you believe that Korean claims are based on facts.

Could you please tell us the “facts”, especially the facts you believed that Dokdo is Korean territory?

We have proved that Usando in the old Korean books were not Takeshima/Dokdo and Usando in the Korean maps were not Takeshima/Dokdo.
The Great Korean Empire (1897-1910) excluded Takeshima/Dokdo from their territory as seen in the book “The Great Korea Geographic Book” (1899).

Therefore it is natural to think that Korea didn’t know the island or she thought that it was Japanese territory.

If you have some evidence to refute the above, please let us know. Thank you.

pacifist Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 5:37 am
yunjune,

You repeatedly wrote in another thread that You believe that there are some “facts” for Korea to own Takeshima/Dokdo.

But still you have not shown the “facts” here. Are you lying that you have some “facts”? Why don’t you show the “facts” here?

yunjune, I’m waiting for your reply.

Occidentalism » Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 6 Says:
February 16th, 2007 at 7:32 am
[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7 [...]

New Takeshima (Dokdo) Article in Japanese Newspaper » Occidentalism Says:
February 21st, 2007 at 8:14 am
[...] Here are links to my posts explaining the two maps shown with the article: First Map [...]

WDSCz Says:
February 21st, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Gerry Bevers Wrote: In fact, Usando was mentioned as Ulleungdo’s neighboring island before Jukdo was, which suggests to me that the Japanese may have introduced the name, “Jukdo,” to Koreans.

I say…

죽도고 ・ 도설( 竹島考・圖說 )의 죽도・송도 지도(竹島・松島之圖)와 신각 일본여지노정전도(新刻 日本輿地路程全圖, 1791년), 그밖의 일본의 고대문헌을 보면 알 수 있듯, 일본은 분명히 울릉도를 죽도(竹島)로, 독도를 송도(松島)로 인식하고 있었다.

일본은 과거에 독도를 ‘마츠시마(松島)’로, 울릉도를 ‘다케시마(竹島)’로 불렀으나 서양 지도와 해도에서 다케시마(竹島)가 존재하지 않는 섬 ‘아르고노트(Argonaute)’에 맞춰졌다가 아르고노트가 사라지면서 일본지도에서는 다케시마도 함께 사라졌고, 대신 마츠시마(松島)가 울릉도를 가리키는 다줄레(Dagelet) 섬에 대응해 사용됐다. 과거 일본 고지도에서 독도를 가리키던 마츠시마(松島)라는 명칭이 울릉도로 옮아간 결과가 된 것이다. 그리하여 독도에 대해서는 어떤 동양 명칭도 사용되지 않게 됐다.

그 후, 일본은 시마네현 고시로 독도를 무주지로 억지 상정하여 그들의 영토에 편입하게 되면서, 독도의 명칭을 죽도(竹島)로 공식화 하였다. 옛지명에서의 竹島와 松島의 이름이 완전히 서로 뒤바뀌어 버리는 어처구니 없는 일이 벌어진 것이다.

Only for Gerry Bevers who even understand the Old Style Hanmun(漢文古語), believe or not… PPP.

ponta Says:
February 21st, 2007 at 5:21 pm
WDSCz
Sorry you have completely missed Gerry’s point.
there.Probably Gerry will explain it.

… PPP.

Are you a Korean thug?
A lot of Japanese is beggining to be concerned about Gerry’s safty.

Korean History Group Responds to Japanese Article on Usando » Occidentalism Says:
February 24th, 2007 at 11:05 am
[...] On the map in question, which you can see here, Usando and the large rocky islets clearly visible off the north shore are labeled. Usando is, of course, labeled as “Usando,” and the rocky islets off the north shore of Ulleungdo are simply labeled as “stone peaks” (石峯), which suggests that that those rocks were clearly sticking out of the water. That is why I think the unamed “islands” to the south of Ulleungdo were just rock formations near the surface of the water, which may have been mapped because they could have been a danger to ships. A study of the waters off the southern shore of Ulleungdo would probably reveal the truth. Therefore, I think the suggestion that the map was not made from an actual survey is a groundless supposition, especially since Usando and the islets off the northern shore are drawn quite accurately. [...]

Dokdo Museum Head Admits Maps Show “Jukdo, not Dokdo” » Occidentalism Says:
March 20th, 2007 at 6:57 am
[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7 [...]

Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 3 » Occidentalism Says:
April 7th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7 [...]

Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 8 » Occidentalism Says:
April 7th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7 [...]

Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 8 » Occidentalism Says:
April 13th, 2007 at 8:56 am
[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7 [...]

Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 5 » Occidentalism Says:
April 13th, 2007 at 9:26 am
[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7 [...]

Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 2 Supplement » Occidentalism Says:
April 13th, 2007 at 9:37 am
[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7 [...]

Historical Distortion or Ignorance? » Occidentalism Says:
April 27th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
[...] The following 1711 Korean map shows a small island just off the east coast of Ulleungdo in a location that is very close to where Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo is today (See more of the map here.) On the island is written the following: 所謂 于山島 - 海長竹田 (소위 우산도 - 해장죽전) [...]

Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 12 » Occidentalism Says:
April 29th, 2007 at 8:14 am
[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7 [...]

Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 9 » Occidentalism Says:
May 1st, 2007 at 8:55 am
[...] Korean maps tell us that Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which is located about 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s northeast shore. (See maps here, here, here, and here.) In 1903, two kilometers was equal to five Korean ri, so it seems very likely that the island that was supposedly 40 to 50 ri northeast of Ulleungdo was actually 4 to 5 ri northeast of Ulleungdo. Usando was simply an old name for Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, and was a name no longer used by Ulleungdo residents in 1903 and 1913. [...]

Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 9 » Occidentalism Says:
May 1st, 2007 at 5:01 pm
[...] Korean maps tell us that Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which is located about 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s northeast shore. (See maps here, here, here, and here.) In 1903, two kilometers was equal to five Korean ri, so it seems very likely that the island that was supposedly 40 to 50 ri northeast of Ulleungdo was actually 4 to 5 ri northeast of Ulleungdo. Usando was simply an old name for Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, and was a name that Ulleungdo residents in 1903 and 1913 apparently no longer used to refer to the island. [...]

Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 10 » Occidentalism Says:
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:16 am
[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7 [...]

Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 9 » Occidentalism Says:
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:19 am
[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7 [...]

Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 10 » Occidentalism Says:
May 4th, 2007 at 11:30 am
[...] The Jukdo mentioned in the 1900 edict was present-day Jukdo, which is located 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore. Old Korean maps of Ulleungdo, however, show very clearly that the old name for Jukdo was “Usando.” (See maps here, here, here, and here.) That means that the “Ulleungdo” and “Usando” mentioned as being Uldo County in the 1908 document was present-day Ulleungdo and its neighboring island of Jukdo. If that is true, then what happened to the “Seokdo” in the 1900 edict? [...]

Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 11 · Occidentalism Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:32 am
[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7 [...]

  • 最終更新:2009-03-01 15:31:19

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