gv-06



OccidentalismDuc, sequere, aut de via decede!HomeArchivesHall of Shame화병 FAQTagsTemporary DatabaseLies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 6
October 8th, 2006 . by Gerry-Bevers
Why didn’t Gwaneumdo appear on old Korean maps?

A present-day map of Ulleungdo shows that it has two neighboring islands named Jukdo (竹島 – 죽도) and Gwaneumdo (觀音島 – 관음도). See the following map:


If present-day maps show Ulleungdo with two neighboring islands called “Jukdo” and “Gwaneumdo,” why did old Korean maps show it with only one neighboring island called “Usando” (于山島 – 우산도)? The following are cutouts of Ulleungdo from old Korean maps from the latter part of the Joseon Dynasty:



Even more detailed maps of Ulleungdo showed Usando (于山島) off the east coast of Ulleungdo in a position that suggests it was present-day Jukdo, but they did not show an island representing present-day Gwaneumdo, even though the maps showed smaller offshore rocks. The following are three old Korean maps of Ulleungdo: one from the 1750s, one from 1834, and one from sometime in the 1800s, respectively:







The first Korean map to show the island that is today called “Gwaneumdo” was Lee Gyu-won’s 1882 map. His map showed two neighboring islands of Ulleungdo labeled as Jukdo (竹島 – 죽도) and Dohang (島項 – 도항). “Dohang” means “Island Neck.” The following is the relevant section of Lee’s 1882 map:



The location of Jukdo (竹島) on Lee’s map tells us that it was almost certainly referring to present-day Jukdo, and the location of Dohang tells us that it was almost certainly referring to present-day Gwaneumdo, but what happened to the Usando that had appeared on previous maps?

I think that Usando was just another name for Jukdo. Even King Gojong, in 1882, said that “Usando,” “Songjukdo,” “Songdo,” and “Jukdo” were all names used to refer to Ulleundo’s neighboring island. King Gojong believed Ulleungdo had two neighboring islands, but the man he chose to inspect Ulleungdo, Lee Gyu-won, believed there was only one.

Even though Lee’s subsequent inspection would show that Ulleungdo did, in fact, have two neighboring islands, it is curious that he believed before the inspection that there was only one. I think the reason some people believed Ulleungdo to have only one neighboring island was that, at the time, most Koreans did not consider present-day Gwaneumdo to be an island, but rather just an extension of the main island, given that it was less than 100 meters offshore. In other words, I think people in the Joseon Dynasty considered present-day Kwaneumdo to be “a cape.”

In 1882, even though Lee Gyu-won referred to “Dohang” as an island, he may have only called it an island because King Gojong had told him to look for two islands. Lee may have just assumed that Dohang was the second neighboring island that the king had been talking about. However, one unusual thing about “Dohang” was its name, which translated as “Island Neck.” That was unusual because Koreans would normally name islands by putting “island” at the end of the name. Therefore, rather than “Dohang” (Island Neck), it would have been more appropriate for Koreans to call the island “Hangdo,” which would translate as “Neck Island.” The fact that “Dohang” did not have “island” at the end of its name suggests that the residents of Ulleungdo at the time did not consider it to be an island but something else.

The following is an 1886 Japanese map of Ulleungdo. The map shows “Jukdo” and “Dohang,” but the interesting thing about the map it that it shows a place called Gwaneum-gi (觀音埼 – 관음기), which means “Cape Gwaneum.” Another interesting thing is that it does not show the name “Dohang” next to an island, but shows it next to the name Gwaneum-gi, which suggests that “Dohang” may have been an alternative name from “Cape Gwaneum,” rather than the name of an island. The relevant portion of the 1886 Japanese map follows:



The above Japanese map is the first Japanese or Korean map I have seen that refers to a place called “Gwaneum” (觀音 – 관음), which is the name of one of the present-day neighboring islands of Ulleungdo. In 1886, however, “Gwaneum” was the name of the cape near present-day Gwaneumdo, not the name of the island.

The following 1905 Japanese map of Ulleungdo refers to the present-day island of Gwaneumdo as “Gwaneum Cape,” rather than an island. That was probably because the island was less than 100 meters offshore of Ulleungdo. Here is the relevant portion of the 1905 Japanese map.



Based on the two Japanese maps above and the fact that in 1882 Lee Gyu-won referred to present-day Gwaneumdo as “Dohang” (Island Neck) rather than “Hangdo” (Neck Island), I think old maps of Ulleungdo showed only one neighboring island because Koreans at the time generally considered present-day Gwaneumdo to be part of the main island rather than a separate island. That would mean that the “Usando” on old Korean maps was referring to present-day Jukdo rather than to present-day Gwaneumdo. Accordingly, that would also mean that “Usando” was just another name for Jukdo.

A 1899 Korean newspaper article said that “Usando/Jukdo” (于山島竹島) was Ulleungdo’s most prominent neighboring island. Actually, it is not clear if “Usando/Jukdo” was referring to one island with two names or to two separate islands, but I think the two names were referring to the same island since the map in the geography text referred in the article showed only one island labeled as “Usan” (Usando). Since the map showed Usando to be in almost the exact location as present-day Jukdo, we can assume that Usando was just the old name for Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which is about 2.2 kilometers off of Ulleungdo’s east shore. That would help explain why, just one year later, the 1900 Korean Imperial Edict mentioned Jukdo as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, but not Usando.

The 1900 Imperial edict made Ulleungdo and its neighboring islands a county called “Uldo.” The only islands mentioned in the edict were “Ulleungdo (鬱陵島),” “Jukdo (竹島),” and “Seokdo (石島).” Ulleungdo and Jukdo were obviously present-day Ulleungdo and present-day Jukdo, but “Seokdo” was a new island. Seokdo means “Rock Island,” so it possible that it was just a general reference to all the other rocky islets surrounding Ulleungdo or it could have been referring to a specific island. If it were referring to a specific island, the most obvious choice would have been present-day Gwaneumdo (觀音島), which is Ulleungdo’s second largest neighboring island after Jukdo. So if “Seokdo” was a reference to present-day Gwaneumdo, then where did the name come from? Maybe the following 1909 Japanese navigational map is the key to the orgin of “Seokdo.”



On the above 1909 Japanese map, present-day Gwaneumdo was labeled as “Seohangdo” (鼠項島 – 서항도), which means “Rat Neck Island.” Notice that the “Hangdo” (項島) part of the name used the same Chinese characters that Lee Gyu-won used to refer to Gwaneumdo in 1882, except that the order of the characters were reversed. So how does this explain where the name “Seokdo” (石島) came from? Well, in Japanese “Rat Neck Island” is pronounced as “Sokoutoh,” which sounds very similar to the name “Seokdo.”

It seems more than a coincidence that the Japanese pronunciation of “Rat Neck Island” sounds similar to the “Seokdo” mentioned in the 1900 Korean edict. It also seems more than a coincidence that two of the Chinese characters that Lee Gyu-won used to refer to present-day Gwaneumdo in 1882 were included in the “Rat Neck Island” name. Finally, is it just a coincidence that the other Chinese character used in the “Rat Neck Island” name was the character for one of only three mammals that were native to Ulleungdo, that is, “rats”? In other words, “Rat Neck Island” (Sokouto) seems to have been a perfect name for present-day Gwaneumdo.

Koreans claim that the “Seokdo” in the 1900 Korean proclamation was referring to present-day “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks), but they have no evidence to support that claim. Also, they cannot explain why the proclamation would include “Dokdo,” but not Gwaneumdo. Koreans seem to be hoping that you will just take their word for it.

Japanese Translation Provided by Kaneganese

(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。)

観音島は何故韓国の古地図に描かれなかったのか?

現在の鬱陵島の地図は、竹島(Chukudo)、と観音島と言う二つの付属島があることを示しています。次の地図を見て下さい。

 地図1:鬱陵島

現在の鬱陵島の地図が2つの“竹島(Chukudo)”、と“観音島”という付属島を描いているのに、何故韓国の古地図には、“于山島”という一つの島しか描かれていないのでしょうか。以下は、(李朝)朝鮮時代後期の古地図の鬱陵島部分の抜粋です。

 地図2:(李朝)朝鮮時代後期古地図の鬱陵島部分の抜粋

さらに詳細な鬱陵島の地図では、今の竹島(Jukdo)の位置にあったことを示す鬱陵島東海岸沖に于山島が描かれているのですが、今日の観音島と見られる島は描かれていないのです。観音島より小さな岩は沖に描かれているのにも関わらず、です。

 地図3:海東地圖(1750年代)
 地図4:靑邱圖(1834)
 地図5:韓国古地図(1800年代)

韓国の地図で今日“観音島”と呼ばれる島が初めて現れるのは、1882年の李奎遠による鬱陵島外圖です。彼の地図には、鬱陵島の二つの付属島は、“竹島(Jukdo)”と“島項(Dohong)”と記載されています。“島項”は“島の首”を意味します。下の地図は李の1882年の地図の関連する部分です。

 地図6:鬱陵島外圖(1882)北東部拡大図

李の地図に描かれた竹島(Jukdo)は、ほぼ確実に今日の竹島(Jukdo=Chukudo)を表しています。そして“島項”の位置はほぼ確実に今日の観音島を示しています。それでは一体、それまでの地図に描かれてきた于山島はどうなってしまったのでしょう?

私は、于山島とは単に竹島(Jukdo)の別名だったのだと思います。高宗でさえ、1882年に“于山島”、”松竹島”、“松島”、“竹島”は全て鬱陵島の付属島を示している、と発言しているのです。高宗は鬱陵島には二つの付属島があると信じていましたが、その彼が検察吏に選んだ李奎遠は、一島しかないと信じていたのです。

李は、その後の検察で実際には鬱陵島に二つの付属島があることを確認したのですが、何故検察前に李が一つしかないと信じていたのか、大変興味深いです。私は、今日の観音島が100mしか本島とはなれていないために、当時殆どの朝鮮人は島と言うよりは単なる島の突端だと考えていたのではないか、と思うのです。言い換えれば、朝鮮王朝時代の人々は、観音島を“岬”と認識していたと思うのです。

1882年に李奎遠は“島項”を島、と言っているのですが、それは高宗が二島を探すように命じたからかもしれません。彼は、“島項”が高宗が話していた第二の付属島だとしておいたのかもしれません。しかし、“島項”が普通とは異なっているのは、“島の首”という意味を持つその名称です。韓国人は通常、島には~島と言うように、最後に島の漢字をあてます。つまり、島の名称としては、“島項”ではなく“項島”とすべきなのです。しかし、実際には、“島項”は島という漢字が最後についていないことから、この時代の鬱陵島の住民は観音島を島だとは認識していなかったと考えられるのです。

次にあげるのは、1886年に作成された日本の鬱陵島の地図です。地図には“竹島(Jukdo)”と“島項”が描かれていますが、面白いことに、観音崎と言う名の場所が記載されています。さらに興味深いことには、“島項”と言う名称が島の横ではなく、観音崎と言う名称の隣に記載されている事実です。それは、“島項”が島の名前と言うより、観音崎の別名である、ということを示唆していると思われます。1886年の地図の関連箇所は下の通りです。

 地図7:日本古地図(1886)

上掲の地図は私が見てきた日韓両国の地図のうち、始めて“観音”と言う現在の鬱陵島の付属島の名称が使用されたものです。ただし、“観音”は、島ではなく今日の観音島の近くの岬の名称だったのです。

次の1905年の日本の鬱陵島の地図は、現在の観音島を島ではなく、観音﨑(岬)と記載しています。それはおそらく、この島が鬱陵島とは100mしか離れていないからだと思われます。下にこの地図の当該箇所を表示します。

 地図8:鬱陵島見取図(1905)北東部拡大図

これら二つの日本の地図と、1882年に李奎遠が現在の観音島を“項島”ではなく“島項”と記載したことからすると、当時の韓国人が今日の観音島を単独の島ではなく、本島の一部だと一般的に考えていたために、地図には一島しか描写されなかったのだ、と私は思います。つまり、韓国の古地図にある于山島は、今日の観音島と言うよりは竹島(Chukudo/Jukdo)のことを示していることになります。さらにいうと、“于山島”とは竹島(Chukudo/Jukdo)の別名にすぎない、ということになります。

1899年の韓国の皇城新聞の記事は、鬱陵島には“于山島”と“竹島(Chukudo)”という二つの主要な付属島がある、と記述しています。そのことから、1899年には“于山島”と言う名称は今日の観音島を指しているとも考えられます。でもそうであるなら、何故わずか一年後の1900年に韓国政府は鬱陵島とその付属島2島を江原道に編入する際に“于山島”と言う名称を使用しなかったのでしょうか。1900年に発効された勅令第41号の中で、大韓帝国政府は鬱陵島の付属2島を“竹島(Chukudo/Jukdo)”と“石島(ソクト)”と呼んでいます。では一体“于山島” “観音﨑”はどうなってしまったのでしょう?それに一体、“石島(ソクト)”は何処からやってきたのでしょうか?

私は、“于山島”と言う名称が“竹島(Chukudo/Jukdo)”の別名にすぎないことが判明したために、使用されなくなったと考えています。また “観音﨑”については、地形学的には島に向かって伸びる岬ではなく一つの島である、と判断されたために使用されなくなったのだと思います。1886年の日本の地図が示すように、現在の観音島を指して伸びている本島の伸長部分は、引き続き“観音﨑”、“島項”と呼ばれていたのかもしれません。

さあ、それでは“石島(ソクト)”と言う名前が一体何処から現れたのでしょう?私は、次の1909年の日本の航路図が“石島(ソクト)”が何処からやって来たのかを解明する鍵になると考えています。

 地図9:韓国水産誌「鬱陵島全図」(1909)

上掲の1909年の日本の地図では、現在の観音島が“鼠項島”(鼠の首の島の意味)と標記されています。“項島”という、1882年の李奎遠の地図に観音島を指すのに使われたものと同じ漢字が、順序は逆ですが、使用されていることに注目して下さい。このことが“石島(ソクト)”と言う名称が何処から現れたか、という問題をどう説明しているのでしょうか?そうなのです、“鼠項島”の日本語の発音は、“ソコウトウ”で、”ソクト”と大変よく似ているのです。

1900年の大韓帝国勅令第41号の中で言及された“石島(ソクト)”が、この“鼠項島”の日本語の発音(ソコウトウ)に酷似しているのは、偶然だとは思えません。また、1882年に李奎遠が現在の観音島を示すために使用した“島項”の漢字2文字が、“鼠項島”と共通していることも、偶然だとは考えにくいのです。さらに言えば、鬱陵島に生息するたった3種類の固有動物のうちの一つである“鼠”の文字が、“鼠項島”と言う名前に含まれていることも、偶然とは言い難いのです。言い換えれば、“鼠項島”は、今日の観音島を示すのにぴったりな名称と言えるのです。

韓国人は1900年の大韓帝国勅令第41号の中の“石島(ソクト)”が、現在の“独島”(Liancourt Rocks)である、と主張しますが、そうした主張を裏付ける証拠は何もありません。それに、“独島”が含まれているのに“観音島”に言及されていない理由も説明できないのです。一方で、日本側の“石島(ソクト)”は単に鬱陵島の付属島である観音島を指していると言う主張には、それを裏付ける証拠が存在するのです。

Links to More Posts on Takeshima/Dokdo (With Japanese translations)

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 1

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 4

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 4 Supplement

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 5

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 7

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 8

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 1

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 2

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 2 Supplement

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 3

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 5

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 6

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 8

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 9

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 10

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 11

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12

Posted in Verus Historia | 38 Comments »



38 Responses to “Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 6”
comment number 1 by: ponta
October 8th, 2006 at 5:53 pm

石 was pronounced as Soku by Koreans at the time.

石門洞(韓国語音=ソクムン)
観音島の近くには、亭石浦(日本語読み=ちよんぽどん)(韓国語音=チョンソクポ/toron
This is the record in which Japanese put Korean pronunciation in Japanese style.
You can see the how 亭石浦 and 石門洞 were pronounced by Korean people
at the time in the parenthesis:石門洞 soku-mun 亭石浦 chon-soku-bo

石 is pronounced by Seok by Koreans
chingusai


In Jeodong (저동), the largest village on the island, there are the famous Bongnae (봉래) waterfall and Seokpo (석포) village that provides a beautiful trekking course

石圃」(Seokpo・石浦)/toron

It is most likely that Seokto in 1900 referred to Gwanundo.

On the other hand it is less likely that Soekto referred to Dokdo.
There is a record that as of 1901 Korean people at the time call Dokdo as Yankou.
As of 1905, the largest population were from 江原道慶尚道toron, so there is no reason to suppose that the government took the specific dialect as the name of Dokdo.

In any case, in terms of international law, you need the reference specific enough to leave no doubt as to what is designated, but Korea has no such record.

Great job !! Gerry.

comment number 2 by: tomato
October 8th, 2006 at 6:42 pm

How about “Takeshima” somehow becoming “Dokdo” since Koreans seem to have a hard time differentiating sounds like T/D, P/B, K/G. “Take” becoming “Dok”…

comment number 3 by: Gerry-Bevers
October 8th, 2006 at 7:12 pm

Hi Ponta,

I am not sure I understand what you are saying in the above post, so let me try to confirm it.

Your first link shows a page of Ulleungdo placenames. Among the names I can see that the Japanese pronounced “Seok” (석) as ” ソウ ” (so gu) and “do” as ” ト ” (to), which would mean that Seokdo (석도) would be pronounced as ソウト (So gu to). Is that right?

Was the purpose of that link just to show how the Japanese pronouced the Korean placename “Seokdo” (石島 – 석도)?

Also, I do not know what your third link was trying to say. Could you explain it in a little more detail?

Next, I want to confirm the Japanese pronunciation for 鼠項島 (Rat Neck Island). I remember being told that 鼠項島 was pronunced similar to “Seokdo,” but isn’t the character 島 normally pronouced as “shima” rather than “to”?

Why do you think 鼠項島 appeared on the 1909 Japanese map instead of 石島, which was the name mentioned in the 1900 Korean proclamation?

I really wish I could read Japanese.

comment number 4 by: pacifist
October 8th, 2006 at 7:19 pm

Gerry,

Great job again!

BTW, the pronunciation of 鼠項島 in Japan is “Sokou-tou” (or “Sokoh-toh”, not “Soukou-tou” because “鼠” is pronounced as “So”.

comment number 5 by: tomato
October 8th, 2006 at 11:08 pm

Gerry,

In Japanese, Kanji is usually all on-yomi (Chinese reading) or kun-yomi (Japanese reading). So-kou is definitely on-yomi, so 島 will be read as “tou”. (Likewise, Mt. Fuji 富士山 is usually called Fuji-san instead of Fuji-yama).

So I think ponta is correct.

Also, Japanese almost always ends with a vowel, so something like “Sok” will be pronounced by the Japanese as “Soku” or “Soko”. I don’t know if this will be relevant to the issue, though.

comment number 6 by: ponta
October 9th, 2006 at 12:45 am

Hi Gerry

Your first link shows a page of Ulleungdo placenames. Among the names I can see that the Japanese pronounced “Seok” (석) as ” ソウ ” (so gu) and “do” as ” ト ” (to), which would mean that Seokdo (석도) would be pronounced as ソウト (So gu to). Is that right?

Korean pronounced 石(석)  as Seok, and a Japanese heard it as Soku(ソク), and kept the record of how Korean pronounced it in Japanese letter.

Was the purpose of that link just to show how the Japanese pronouced the Korean placename “Seokdo” (石島 – 석도)?

石をsokと呼んでいること。石をdokで音読みしている地点が無いことの確認ですtoron

His point on this page is that 石 was pronounced as Soku at the time at Ulleugdo and there is no case where it was pronounced as Dok.
So basically it is refutation against a Korean historian who claims because some people at the time at Ulleungdo pronounced 石 as Dok, 石島=dokdo=独島 holds.
His hypothesis is basically the same as yours.

統監府統治時代、総督府統治時代の観音島は「鼠項島」と呼ばれていたそうです。
鼠項島の韓国語読みは 「ソハンド(Seo-Hang-Do)」で、その初出も竹嶼と同様に『韓国水産誌』とか、、、、。

鼠項島の日本語風の音読みでは、「ソコウトウ sokou-tou」toron

鼠項島 was Kwanundo and it was pronounced as “Seo-Hang-Do” , and when a Japanese hear it , he hear it as sokou-tou.

Also, I do not know what your third link was trying to say. Could you explain it in a little more detail?

Summary
1 The 1900 Imperial Proclamation. It changed the name of the island from 鬱陵島 to 鬱島 and declared that it belonged to 江原道 and and the jurisdiction is over Ulleungdo and Jukdo and Seokto.
2 The purpose of the Proclamation would be that Korean needed to send the officer to control and stop Japanese to fell the trees at Ulleungdo, in order to do that, the island needed to be investigated and be promoted as a province of the county. (It might be also be a case that she wanted to three chinese letters to two chinese letters for some reason.)
(In 1900 禹用鼎 was sent to investigate Ulleungdo, the book called 鬱島記 is said to be kept at 高麗 university. Do you know it, Gerry?)
And 李奎遠 was also sent to Ulleungo and 皇城 newspaper reported it. In the report, six small islands was reported. And the most prominent islands were said to be 于山島竹島.(It might be the case that by 于山島竹島, the author of the report meant one island, that is , it might be that 于山島竹島 was meant to be 于山島 or 竹島)
Anyway, six islands would be these islands on the photo.

3 Seokto has not given any exact location, and it has not appeared in other documents until this time. And the report in June did not mention Dokdo. And based on the report by 禹用鼎, the The 1900 Imperial Proclamation was promulgated, It is unlikely that Seokdo referred to Dokdo.

4 For my part, I think Seokdo was Gwanundo.
My hypothesis is that hearing Koreans pronounce Seokto in the 1900 Imperial Proclamation, Japanese heard it So-kou-to, and wrote it as 鼠-項-島 in the Korea fishery report.
It might be noted that in1882 Gwanundo was called 島項, which is similar to 鼠項島.
It might be also noted that there is a village near Gwanundo called Seokpo石浦, where you can see Gwanundo and Jukdo.

5 Some Koreans claims Seokpo in the 1900 Imperial Proclamation. is Dokdo based on the similarity of the pronunciation. However the claim is doubtful

(1)大韓毎日申報、皇城新聞、梅泉黄玄 complained of the Japanese inclusion of takeshima, but their claim was not based on the 1900 Imperial Proclamation.Hence whatever the object they were complaining of, it is likely that Soekto was not the object of complaint and hence it is not “Dokdo “.
(2) Koreans used to call Dokdo as Yankou at this time.In 1901 record, 葛生修亮 said Koreans called it Yankoutou and in 1904 navy ship Niitaka’s diary, it was said that Korean wrote it as 独島 and called it Li-a-n-Ko-
tou(リアンコ島)
(3) 石 is still pronounced as Soek at Ulleungo. If there have been many people from 全羅道, and if they pronounce it as Dok, it should be written and pronounced as Dok.
We should also note that the pronunciation of the place’s name hardly changes. For instance, Japanese Nara has been Nara though the way of writing it has changed.

In any case, legally The 1900 Imperial Proclamation has little significance because it lacks the specific reference that is needed to claim the title.

Next, I want to confirm the Japanese pronunciation for 鼠項島 (Rat Neck Island). I remember being told that 鼠項島 was pronounced similar to “Seokdo,” but isn’t the character 島 normally pronounced as “shima” rather than “to”?

鼠項島 So-Kou-tou/So-Kou-toh
島 can be read as shima/jima/(japanese way) or Tou/toh(Chinese way)
Both are okay and it depends. And which way is correct differ from case to case.Rebun Island (礼文島, rebuntōbut niijima

Why do you think 鼠項島 appeared on the 1909 Japanese map instead of 石島, which was the name mentioned in the 1900 Korean proclamation?

According to Toron, it seems that Japanese hear Koreans speak Seokto and
hear it as Sokouto. It might be that they looked at the map and found 頁島,…..”here it is, Soukouto must be this island, but “So” is missing, let’s put 鼠 for So,……or something like that. And I am not sure Japanese saw 1900 Korean proclamation because Korea did not send it to Japanese, which incidentally means it has no legal force according to toadface.
But to be honest , I am nor sure why.

comment number 7 by: Gerry-Bevers
October 9th, 2006 at 1:36 am

Thank you very much, Ponta, Pacifist, and Tomato.

Ponta, I want to especially thank you for taking the time to translate all of that. I will change the Japanese pronunciation for “Rat Neck Island” on the maps in the post..

comment number 8 by: mach_schnell
January 6th, 2007 at 4:17 am

Gerry,
your unilateral insistence or interpretation just faithfully follows that Japan insists and in my opinion it’s dangerous. People may get to know, maybe too well, what Japan says about the islets, but that has nothing to do with credibility of the Korean sources or interpretation of them. For example, there is this Japanese map that clearly shows that Dokdo belongs to Korea before 1905;

comment number 9 by: Matt
January 6th, 2007 at 5:47 am

Gerry,
your unilateral insistence or interpretation just faithfully follows that Japan insists and in my opinion it’s dangerous. People may get to know, maybe too well, what Japan says about the islets, but that has nothing to do with credibility of the Korean sources or interpretation of them. For example, there is this Japanese map that clearly shows that Dokdo belongs to Korea before 1905;

Hosokawa Yuji is a nutter. His interpretation of the map is way off. I am kind of tied up so I will leave it to someone else to explain it. Ponta? Sqz? Opp? Pacifist? Tomato?

BTW, what is Hosokawa Yuji’s background? If he is just a regular Japanese guy, he strikes me as very eccentric. He must hate being born a Japanese person.

comment number 10 by: ponta
January 6th, 2007 at 1:00 pm

mach_schnell
Judging from the article you linked, I think Gerry know far better than you think he knows about the Dokdo issue.

Maps are used for many purposes.
My map does not have my house on it. That does not mean my house is not in the Japanese territory.
A tour map for Tokyo has Tokyo Disney land on it. But that does not mean Tokyo Disney land belongs to Tokyo. It belongs to Chiba prefecture.

Anyway what is crucial is
Korea has no map, no document that mention Dokdo before 1905,
Even in 1906,when they mentioned Dokdo for the first time, they did not know where it is
Even after the war, they located Dokdo outside Korean territory.

You can not invade Korea by annexing the islet which had never belongs to Korea.

Japanese government knew Dokdo.
Japanese government had effective control since either edo period, or meiji period at the latest.
That there was confusion among people at a short period of time before 1905 is not essential for the establishment of the territory.

.

comment number 11 by: mach_schnell
January 6th, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Intended or not, all the interpretations here just follow faithfully what Japanese government says about the old maps. Korean interpretation is equally credible as yours or hers.
You may say ‘Korea has no map, no document that mention Dokdo before 1905′, but that’s just what Japanese government claims.
I read all his postings but his interpretation or reasoning is either deficient, lack of underestanding, or just in line of the Japanese interpretations.
It’s no more than that. Got it? The old documets or maps are not in English. So for example his interpretation of Seok-Do in the 1900 incorporation of the Korean Empire is just ridiculous or at best in line of Japanese interpretation.
They just ignore every single Korean arguments, but that does not mean they are right. Here is the same.
BTW, I didn’t ask you to read the article, but look at the map.
I understand what you’re saying, but where would that mapping come from?

comment number 12 by: ponta
January 6th, 2007 at 3:04 pm

You may say ‘Korea has no map, no document that mention Dokdo before 1905′, but that’s just what Japanese government claims.

Then show us the Korean document and map that mention Dokdo. That is all you need to do.So far every debater from Korean side has failed to show it.

I read all his postings but his interpretation or reasoning is either deficient, lack of understanding, or just in line of the Japanese interpretations.

You need to show it. Just saying his interpretation is deficient does not make his argument deficient.

The old documents or maps are not in English. So for example his interpretation of Seok-Doin the 1900 incorporation of the Korean Empire is just ridiculous or at best in line of Japanese interpretation.

Notice there is no mention of dokdo here. The burden of proof is on you to show that Seokdo is Dokdo.Every attempts has failed.
Besides, being in line with J government does not necessarily means it is wrong unless you are brainwashed to believe so.

They just ignore every single Korean arguments,

They don’t ignore Korean argument. Korean argument has failed to show Usan is Dokdo.

but where would that mapping come from?

I am not familiar with Korean. Could you just present argument in English?

Okay, all you need to show is
Korean government had effective control over Dokdo.
Every attempt has failed.
The commenter in the K blogosphere seems to realize that K government has no historical ground but and begin to change the focus to the fact that
K government illegally occupied Dokdo but so what? K gov has it now, and Japan can do anything about it
Probably that is honest opinion.
Yes, K government illegally occupied Dokdo without historical, legitimate ground.
J

comment number 13 by: ponta
January 6th, 2007 at 3:06 pm

→Japan can not do anything about it.

comment number 14 by: mach_schnell
January 12th, 2007 at 10:05 pm

Well ponta, you’re so aggressive and confident. Good for you.

Your saying

‘They don’t ignore Korean argument. Korean argument has failed to show Usan is Dokdo.’

is just what Japan insists. Usan is Dokdo according to Korean interpretation. Why is it so? Ask Japanese government why they think they have historical ground. You may discredit Korean arguments with this and that like here, but you can equally defend them with this and that as there can be more than one theory to interpret old documents or maps. How valid will be those claims here all based on modern criteria on those maps???

comment number 15 by: pacifist
January 12th, 2007 at 11:27 pm

mach_schnell,

We are talking in scientific way. If you insist something, it must accompany an evidence to show the ground, perhaps some maps or documents.

You wrote, “Usan is Dokdo according to Korean interpretation”.
Yes, Korea used to say so but the ground of the interpretation is not clear.
They should show the ground of the interpretation but they can’t.

It has been said that Ahn Yong-Bok was the culprit who misled Korean scholars to believe that Usando is Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo). But he had a false image of Matsushima – he mentioned that it was far larger than Ulleungdo – there was no such island except Oki island in this area. And there was no record that he reached Takeshima/Dokdo. His thought, that Matsushima was Usando, is obviously wrong. But his comment was included in the Korean book in the 18th century and it affected some other books in Korea but it was no ground.

Truth is that, as you’ve read through Occidentalism, Usando in the old Korean books can’t be Usando because they wrote that there were people living and cultivating but it was impossible on the rock formation – Takeshima/Dokdo. And as Gerry showed, Usando in the Korean maps show that it was not Takeshima/Dokdo, it was Jukdo – a small island beside Ulleungdo.
So there is no grounfd for Korea to interpret Usando to be Dokdo.

On the other hand, Japan had documents that two Japanese families were allowed by Shogunate to go to Ulleungdo, as it was believed it was Japanese territory at that time, and they used to go to Takeshima/Dokdo en route to Ulleungdo in the 17th century.
You know, this is an evidence to show that Japan knew and used Takeshima/Dokdo in the 17th century. Also another evidence to show that Japan knew the island is a map of Takeshima/Dokdo comprising two unique shaped rocks – this also shows that Japan knew Takeshima/Dokdo.

There were no maps of Takeshima/Dokdo in Korea with those unique shaped rocks, no documents concerning Takeshim/Dokdo – Korea has no evidence to show that they knew it, or used it.
There is a strong possibility that Korea didn’t know Takeshima/Dokdo until early 20th century when Japanese hired them as fishermen engaging in sealion hunting at Takeshima/Dokdo.

Now, mach_schnell, you see, when looking at the issue objectively there is no ground for Korea to claim Takeshima/Dokdo.

comment number 16 by: pacifist
January 12th, 2007 at 11:30 pm

Correction:

Truth is that, as you’ve read through Occidentalism, Usando in the old Korean books can’t be Usando…..

SHOULD BE:

Truth is that, as you’ve read through Occidentalism, Usando in the old Korean books can’t be Takeshima/Dokdo…..

sorry!

comment number 17 by: Kaneganese
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:16 pm

(Japanese translation for Gerry’s post)
(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。)

観音島は何故韓国の古地図に描かれなかったのか?

現在の鬱陵島の地図は、竹島(Chukudo)、と観音島と言う二つの付属島があることが示しています。次の地図を見て下さい。

 地図1:鬱陵島

現在の鬱陵島の地図が2つの“竹島(Chukudo)”、と“観音島”という付属島を描いているのに、何故韓国の古地図には、“于山島”という一つの島しか描かれていないのでしょうか。以下は、(李朝)朝鮮時代後期の古地図の鬱陵島部分の抜粋です。。

 地図2:(李朝)朝鮮時代後期古地図の鬱陵島部分の抜粋

さらに詳細な鬱陵島の地図では、今の竹島(Jukdo)の位置にあったことを示す鬱陵島東海岸沖に于山島が描かれているのですが、今日の観音島と見られる島は描かれていないのです。観音島より小さな岩は沖に描かれているのにも関わらず、です。

 地図3:海東地圖(1750年代)
 地図4:靑邱圖(1834)
 地図5:韓国古地図(1800年代)

韓国の地図で今日“観音島”と呼ばれる島が初めて現れるのは、1882年の李奎遠による鬱陵島外圖です。彼の地図には、鬱陵島の二つの付属島は、“竹島(Jukdo)”と“島項(Dohong)”と記載されています。“島項”は“島の首”を意味します。下の地図は李の1882年の地図の関連する部分です。

 地図6:鬱陵島外圖(1882)北東部拡大図

李の地図に描かれた竹島(Jukdo)は、ほぼ確実に今日の竹島(Jukdo=Chukudo)を表しています。そして“島項”の位置はほぼ確実に今日の観音島を示しています。それでは一体、それまでの地図に描かれてきた于山島はどうなってしまったのでしょう?

私は、于山島とは単に竹島(Jukdo)の別名だったのだと思います。高宗でさえ、1882年に“于山島”、”松竹島”、“松島”、“竹島”は全て鬱陵島の付属島を示している、と発言しているのです。高宗は鬱陵島には二つの付属島があると信じていましたが、その彼が検察吏に選んだ李奎遠は、一島しかないと信じていたのです。

李は、その後の検察で実際には鬱陵島に二つの付属島があることを確認したのですが、何故検察前に李が一つしかないと信じていたのか、大変興味深いです。私は、今日の観音島が100mしか本島とはなれていないために、当時殆どの朝鮮人は島と言うよりは単なる島の突端だと考えていたのではないか、と思うのです。言い換えれば、朝鮮王朝時代の人々は、観音島を“岬”と認識していたと思うのです。

1882年に李奎遠は“島項”を島、と言っているのですが、それは高宗が二島を探すように命じたからかもしれません。彼は、“島項”が高宗が話していた第二の付属島だとしておいたのかもしれません。しかし、“島項”が普通とは異なっているのは、“島の首”という意味を持つその名称です。韓国人は通常、島には~島と言うように、最後に島の漢字をあてます。つまり、島の名称としては、“島項”ではなく“項島”とすべきなのです。しかし、実際には、“島項”は島という漢字が最後についていないことから、この時代の鬱陵島の住民は観音島を島だとは認識していなかったと考えられるのです。

次にあげるのは、1886年に作成された日本の鬱陵島の地図です。地図には“竹島(Jukdo)”と“島項”が描かれていますが、面白いことに、観音崎と言う名の場所が記載されています。さらに興味深いことには、“島項”と言う名称が島の横ではなく、観音崎と言う名称の隣に記載されている事実です。それは、“島項”が島の名前と言うより、観音崎の別名である、ということを示唆していると思われます。1886年の地図の関連箇所は下の通りです。

 地図7:日本古地図(1886)

上掲の地図は私が見てきた日韓両国の地図のうち、始めて“観音”と言う現在の鬱陵島の付属島の名称が使用されたものです。ただし、“観音”は、島ではなく今日の観音島の近くの岬の名称だったのです。

次の1905年の日本の鬱陵島の地図は、現在の観音島を島ではなく、観音﨑(岬)と記載しています。それはおそらく、この島が鬱陵島とは100mしか離れていないからだと思われます。下にこの地図の当該箇所を表示します。

 地図8:鬱陵島見取図(1905)北東部拡大図

これら二つの日本の地図と、1882年に李奎遠が現在の観音島を“項島”ではなく“島項”と記載したことからすると、当時の韓国人が今日の観音島を単独の島ではなく、本島の一部だと一般的に考えていたために、地図には一島しか描写されなかったのだ、と私は思います。つまり、韓国の古地図にある于山島は、今日の観音島と言うよりは竹島(Chukudo/Jukdo)のことを示していることになります。さらにいうと、“于山島”とは竹島(Chukudo/Jukdo)の別名にすぎない、ということになります。

1899年の韓国の皇城新聞の記事は、鬱陵島には“于山島”と“竹島(Chukudo)”という二つの主要な付属島がある、と記述しています。そのことから、1899年には“于山島”と言う名称は今日の観音島を指しているとも考えられます。でもそうであるなら、何故わずか一年後の1900年に韓国政府は鬱陵島とその付属島2島を江原道に編入する際に“于山島”と言う名称を使用しなかったのでしょうか。1900年に発効された勅令第41号の中で、大韓帝国政府は鬱陵島の付属2島を“竹島(Chukudo/Jukdo)”と“石島(ソクト)”と呼んでいます。では一体“于山島” “観音﨑”はどうなってしまったのでしょう?それに一体、“石島(ソクト)”は何処からやってきたのでしょうか?

私は、“于山島”と言う名称が“竹島(Chukudo/Jukdo)”の別名にすぎないことが判明したために、使用されなくなったと考えています。また “観音﨑”については、地形学的には島に向かって伸びる岬ではなく一つの島である、と判断されたために使用されなくなったのだと思います。1886年の日本の地図が示すように、現在の観音島を指して伸びている本島の伸長部分は、引き続き“観音﨑”、“島項”と呼ばれていたのかもしれません。

さあ、それでは“石島(ソクト)”と言う名前が一体何処から現れたのでしょう?私は、次の1909年の日本の航路図が“石島(ソクト)”が何処からやって来たのかを解明する鍵になると考えています。

 地図9:韓国水産誌「鬱陵島全図」(1909)

上掲の1909年の日本の地図では、現在の観音島が“鼠項島”(鼠の首の島の意味)と標記されています。“項島”という、1882年の李奎遠の地図に観音島を指すのに使われたものと同じ漢字が、順序は逆ですが、使用されていることに注目して下さい。このことが“石島(ソクト)”と言う名称が何処から現れたか、という問題をどう説明しているのでしょうか?そうなのです、“鼠項島”の日本語の発音は、“ソコウトウ”で、”ソクト”と大変よく似ているのです。

1900年の大韓帝国勅令第41号の中で言及された“石島(ソクト)”が、この“鼠項島”の日本語の発音(ソコウトウ)に酷似しているのは、偶然だとは思えません。また、1882年に李奎遠が現在の観音島を示すために使用した“島項”の漢字2文字が、“鼠項島”と共通していることも、偶然だとは考えにくいのです。さらに言えば、鬱陵島に生息するたった3種類の固有動物のうちの一つである“鼠”の文字が、“鼠項島”と言う名前に含まれていることも、偶然とは言い難いのです。言い換えれば、“鼠項島”は、今日の観音島を示すのにぴったりな名称と言えるのです。

韓国人は1900年の大韓帝国勅令第41号の中の“石島(ソクト)”が、現在の“独島”(Liancourt Rocks)である、と主張しますが、そうした主張を裏付ける証拠は何もありません。それに、“独島”が含まれているのに“観音島”に言及されていない理由も説明できないのです。一方で、日本側の“石島(ソクト)”は単に鬱陵島の付属島である観音島を指していると言う主張には、それを裏付ける証拠が存在するのです。

comment number 18 by: Kaneganese
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:33 pm

correction

現在の鬱陵島の地図は、竹島(Chukudo)、と観音島と言う二つの付属島があることが示しています。次の地図を見て下さい。

 地図1:鬱陵島

現在の鬱陵島の地図が2つの“竹島(Chukudo)”、と“観音島”という付属島を描いているのに、何故韓国の古地図には、“于山島”という一つの島しか描かれていないのでしょうか。以下は、(李朝)朝鮮時代後期の古地図の鬱陵島部分の抜粋です。。


現在の鬱陵島の地図は、竹島(Chukudo)、と観音島と言う二つの付属島があることを示しています。次の地図を見て下さい。

 地図1:鬱陵島

現在の鬱陵島の地図が2つの“竹島(Chukudo)”、と“観音島”という付属島を描いているのに、何故韓国の古地図には、“于山島”という一つの島しか描かれていないのでしょうか。以下は、(李朝)朝鮮時代後期の古地図の鬱陵島部分の抜粋です。

comment number 19 by: toadface
February 15th, 2007 at 11:39 am

Gerry, Leekyuwon said there were 2 islands on the shore of Ulleungdo in his diary. Dohang was not a cape but an island in both his diary and his map.

Here is the text from his diary dated May 9th

길이는 오륙백보이고 사람들이 도항(島項, 섬목)이라 하고 또 한섬은 죽도(竹島, 댓섬)라 한다. 둘레가 십리쯤 되는데 위험해서 올라가지 못하였다. 이 안으로 포구의 이름이 와달리(臥達里) 웅달구미(雄達邱尾 와다리 움달금)인데 물살이 강해서 배가 동요하기를 표주박을 띄운 것 같아서 극히 조심해야 할 곳이다. 좌우 돌벽들을 살펴보니 크고 작은 층층의 암석들 모양이 위험기괴한데 파도가 암석에 부딪히며 내는 소리가 음악을 연주하는 것 같다. 배를 타고 내려가니 항주석종산(抗州石鍾山) 절벽같다. 이날 둘러본 각 포구 연변에 아홉개의 굴이 있는데 해구(海狗)의 산육처(産育處)라. 섬에 들어온 조선자(造船者)들이 총으로 잡아다가 고기를 먹는다고 한다. 해가 저물어 그만두고 숙박코자 하나 머무를 곳이 없고 더 가려하니 물길이 수상하여 죽암으로 되돌아와 뭍으로 내려 움막을 치고 잠을 잤다.

comment number 20 by: Gerry-Bevers
February 15th, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Toadface,

Read my post again. I did not say that Lee referred to Dohang as a cape. Here is what I said:

The first Korean map to show the island that is today called “Gwaneumdo” was Lee Gyu-won’s 1882 map. His map showed two neighboring islands of Ulleungdo labeled as Jukdo (竹島 – 죽도) and Dohang (島項 – 도항). “Dohang” means “Island Neck.” The following is the relevant section of Lee’s 1882 map:

comment number 21 by: pacifist
February 16th, 2007 at 2:46 am

gerry,

This is an article of the newly found map of Takeshima/Dokdo (circa 1656).
Such a precise map has not been found in Korea.


comment number 22 by: Gerry-Bevers
February 16th, 2007 at 6:08 am

Pacifist,

Yes, I saw that map and read a Korean article talking about it. What does the Japanese article say about the map? I assume it talks about how accurate the map was. Is it the eariest known map of present-day Takeshima (Dokdo)?

Not only does Korea not have a “precise” map of Takeshima (Dokdo) before the 20th century, it does not even have an “imprecise” one, which is just one of the things that makes so ridiculous Korea’s historical claims on the islets.

comment number 23 by: Gerry-Bevers
February 16th, 2007 at 7:45 am

Kaneganese,

I have made the following revisions to the above post:

Originally

A 1899 Korean newspaper article said that Ulleungdo’s two most prominent neighboring islands was “Usando” and “Jukdo.” That suggests that in 1899 the name ”Usando” was being used to refer to present-day Gwaneumdo. However, just one year later, in 1900, why did the Korean government drop the name “Usando” when it made Ulleungdo and its two neighboring islands a county of Gangwon Province? The 1900 Imperial Proclamation said that Ulleungdo’s two neighboring islands were called “Jukdo” (竹島 – 죽도) and “Seokdo” (石島 – 석도). So what happened to “Usando” and “Cape Gwaneum”? And where did “Seokdo” come from?

Now

A 1899 Korean newspaper article said that “Usando/Jukdo” (于山島竹島) was Ulleungdo’s most prominent neighboring island. Actually, it is not clear if “Usando/Jukdo” was referring to one island with two names or to two separate islands, but I think the two names were referring to the same island since the map in the geography text referred in the article showed only one island labeled as “Usan” (Usando). Since the map showed Usando to be in almost the exact location as present-day Jukdo, we can assume that Usando was just the old name for Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which is about 2.2 kilometers off of Ulleungdo’s east shore. That would help explain why, just one year later, the 1900 Korean Imperial Edict mentioned Jukdo, but not Usando as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo.

The 1900 Imperial edict made Ulleungdo and its neighboring islands a county called “Uldo.” The only islands mentioned in the edict were “Ulleungdo (鬱陵島),” “Jukdo (竹島),” and “Seokdo (石島).” Ulleungdo and Jukdo were obviously present-day Ulleungdo and present-day Jukdo, but “Seokdo” was a new island. Seokdo means “Rock Island,” so it is possible that it was just a general reference to all the other rocky islets surrounding Ulleungdo or it could have been referring to a specific island. If it were referring to a specific island, the most obvious choice would be present-day Gwaneumdo (觀音島), which is Ulleungdo’s second largest neighboring island after Jukdo. So if “Seokdo” was a reference to present-day Gwaneumdo, where did the name come from? Maybe the following 1909 Japanese navigational map is the key to the orgin of “Seokdo.”

I am mentioning the revisions in case you want to change your translation.

Also, I changes the last two sentences of the final paragraph to the following:

….Also, they cannot explain why the proclamation would include “Dokdo,” but not Gwaneumdo. Koreans seem to be hoping that you will just take their word for it.

Sorry for the revisions, but I have changed my views over the last couple of months and felt like they needed to be made.

comment number 24 by: New Takeshima (Dokdo) Article in Japanese Newspaper » Occidentalism
February 21st, 2007 at 6:31 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6 [...]

comment number 25 by: GTOMR
March 16th, 2007 at 10:34 am

I just find the charctor of 雙燭石 near the 観音島 which resembles charactor of “獨”島 and “石”島.  

1902”通商彙纂” by Office of Internal trade,Minirtery of Foreign Affairs of Japan Imperial.
 
 Suppliment:”Report of Ullungdo,Korea)
  First Geography of Ullungdo.
 
1902 外務省通商局編纂 通商彙纂 (1902年)
 付録 韓国鬱陵島事情
第一:鬱陵島の地勢
(中略)
「ヲツセミ島ハ臥達里ノ前洋ニ在リ本邦人之ヲ竹島と俗称ス周回三拾X余「タブ」女竹繁スト雖トモ飲料水ナキヲ以テ移住スルモノナシト云フ、又亭石浦ノ海上ニ雙燭石及島牧ノ島xアリ周回二十丁本邦人之ヲ観音島と称し其岬ヲ観音岬と云ヒ其ヲ観音ノ瀬戸ト呼ヘリ、又雙燭石ハ三岩高ク樹立スルニヨリ三本ノ名アリ、其他 周園ノ海岸ニx筒ノ峻巖アリシモ一モ名称ナク唯タ光岸ノ前面ニ俵島アレトモ至ヲ小島ナリトス」

There is a discription about 三仙岩 near by 亭石浦 and 観音島 as Twin candle stone雙燭石.(sou-dok-sok)(1902)?
It seems to be something relation with the name and pronunsation below?

Cf 項島Kotou
獨島dokto(1903)獨(isolated)
鼠項島Sokotou(1909))Rat-Neck Island.

If it is an idiot,plz just ignore.

comment number 26 by: Kaneganese
March 16th, 2007 at 6:26 pm

Thanks, GTOMR

I don’t think your comment is “idiotic” at all. It is interesting to know that 観音島 was also called 雙燭石 which shares similar characters with 獨島 and 石島. Though we cannot conclude anything from those documents, at least we can exchange our findings and ideas, and those communication might lead something important.

“女竹繁スト雖トモ” It is interesting to know there was 女竹 on Jukdo. But it says that Jukdo was inhabitable. And from “其ヲ観音ノ瀬戸ト呼ヘリ”, we can tell 観音島 was also called as 観音ノ瀬戸(kan-non-no-seto). Seto sounds like Sokdo too.

And I just realized that Gerry revised his post on 16th Feb. I will translate them later. I hope it is not too late.

comment number 27 by: GTOMR
March 17th, 2007 at 3:20 am

Thx for yr reply.Kaneganese.

I just checked the discriptions about 雙燭石及島牧ノ島(三仙岩) and 観音島 are assumed one of two prominent small islet of Ullungso like 竹島Jukdo is so.

They think much importance on the North East area bcoz of aid to navigation.The rock are good for signs.

In 1909,『鬱陵島全図』on 韓国水産誌 ,There are 竹嶼jukdo、鼠頂島Sokotou,三本立、竹岩 and 孔岩 in the Map

In 1905,『鬱陵島見取図』,survey to Ullungdo and Liancourt Rocks by Shimane Prifecture team,there are 竹嶼Jukdo,観音崎,三本立,一本立,俵島 in the Map.

In 1903, Daily record of battleship 日高,they discribe they heard from the people who visit Liancourt rocks ,in Ullungdo,about 獨島 as Liancourt rocks that korean fisherman says.

1902 外務省通商局編纂『通商彙纂』第234号(10/10)they wrote about 観音島、観音崎、雙燭石及島牧ノ島嶼,the discription seems as if they belongings to one area group.

1900.大韓勅令41号 鬱島,竹島 and 石島.one prominent islet is Jukdo,whic islet the others?

1899 皇城新聞 they report prominent 2 are 于山Usando and 竹島Jukdo in the 6 subordinary small islet of Ullungdo

1882 Diary of 李奎遠 when he inspected 鬱陵島,there is discriptions about 松竹島(Jukdo),島項(観音島?)and 形状奇怪,有燭台双立(三仙岩).

『鬱陵島圖形』by 朴昌錫,there is so called(所謂)于山島 and 刻石立標円 near 于山島 

On 1724 『竹島松島図』 have 3 small island of o竹島Jukdo and 間ノ島(assumed 観音島?)and one island in the south cape.

On 1476『成宗実録』(巻72)成宗7(1476)年10月丁酉條
二十五日 西距島七八里許到泊 望見則 於島北 有三石列立 次小島 次巌石列立 次中島 中島之西又有小島 皆海水通流 亦海島之間 有如人形 別立者三十 因疑惧 不得直到 畫島形而来 臣等

It is obvious that 竹島 and 観音島 are prominent subordinary islet of Ullungdo.竹島Jukdo is most often shown in the Maps or record,second is 観音島 and third is 三仙岩. 

In addition,雙燭石(sou-shok-sok?) is very resemble Chinese Charactor to Tokdo”獨”島 that korean said it is Sokdo石島 in 大韓勅令41.

comment number 28 by: Dokdo Museum Head Admits Maps Show “Jukdo, not Dokdo” » Occidentalism
March 20th, 2007 at 6:58 am

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6 [...]

comment number 29 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 8 » Occidentalism
April 7th, 2007 at 9:16 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6 [...]

comment number 30 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 8 » Occidentalism
April 13th, 2007 at 9:08 am

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6 [...]

comment number 31 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 9 » Occidentalism
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:45 am

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6 [...]

comment number 32 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 10 » Occidentalism
April 25th, 2007 at 8:36 pm

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6 [...]

comment number 33 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 11 » Occidentalism
April 26th, 2007 at 9:25 am

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6 [...]

comment number 34 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 12 » Occidentalism
April 29th, 2007 at 8:04 am

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6 [...]

comment number 35 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 9 » Occidentalism
May 1st, 2007 at 8:56 am

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6 [...]

comment number 36 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 10 » Occidentalism
May 4th, 2007 at 11:49 am

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6 [...]

comment number 37 by: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 11 · Occidentalism
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:31 am

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6 [...]

comment number 38 by: Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 | Occidentalism
May 20th, 2008 at 3:42 am

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6 [...]

  





Search this blog:

  • 最終更新:2009-08-22 10:41:23

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