Dokdo or Takeshima? Let’s discuss it.
On January 8, 1905, Japan officially claimed Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory and changed the name of the islets to “Takeshima.” Up until then, no other country had claimed the islets, which were little more than two large barren rocks sticking up out of the Sea of Japan. Also, no country disputed Japan’s claim to the islets until just after World War II, when newly elected Korean President Syngman Rhee claimed that the rocks were called “Dokdo” and were part of Korean territory. Rhee seems to have been attempting to grab as much territory as possible from its former ally, Japan, after her defeat by the United States and her allies. After the United States refused to recognize Korea’s claim to the islets, Korea simply took them and has occupied them ever since, in spite of protests from Japan and appeals from the US to take the issue to the International Court of Justice.
With little or no historical maps or documents to support her claim to the islets, Korea still refuses to take the issue to the International Court of Justice, seemingly knowing what the outcome would be. Instead of admitting that her claim is weak, Korean authorities say their reason for refusing to go to the court is that their claim to the islets is “undisputed,” which is ridiculous since even Korean President Roh Mu-hyun has threatened Japan with “diplomatic war” if Japan continues to refuse to accept Korea’s claim to the islets.
With little hope of winning the islets in a court of law, Korea seems to have decided on a strategy that involves using bluster, threats, propaganda, and smoke-and-mirror arguments to persuade Koreans and the ignorant masses of the world to accept her claim to the islets. Korea seems to be hoping that songs, chants, hyperbole, loud proclamations, and media hype will be enough to convince people, but if not, Korean authorities seem willing to silence opposing views by shouting them down, shutting down Web sites, restricting books, and discrediting opponents.
Even though I want people to know the truth, unweaving the web of lies and half-truths that surround “Dokdo/Takeshima” requires more time than I am willing to spend on one post. Instead, I want the comments section of this post to act as a meeting place where evidence can be presented and issues can be discussed. I am hoping that the discussion will be as lively as it was in a previous post on the subject because discussion seems to be the fastest way to the truth.
See you in the discussion section
I’ve read a lot of pages claiming to prove or attack the Korean historical claims, but I haven’t really seen many detailed accounts of Japan’s historical claims. Could somebody provide me with a good link or some information on Japan’s pre-1905 Takeshima-related activities?
James, is a site in Japanese OK?
Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a little one pager (condensed?) explaining it’s stance on the issue that could be what you’re looking for.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html
Hi,Gerry.I saw you comment somewhere about Igashima.
I can not spot it now,what was your question?
It’s not surprising that you don’t see detailed accounts of Japan’s historical claims, especially in English. Most of the interest in “Takeshima”, yes “Takeshima” and NOT “Dokdo”, comes from South Korea. Check out Google trends for Takeshima. http://www.google.com/trends?q=takeshima
The top city is Seoul, South Korea and the top language is Korean, despite the fact that Google has failed to make inroads in South Korea. Google fails to make inroads in South Korea
In other words, the interest in Takeshima comes almost entirely from South Korea and not Japan. I assume the searches coming from the United States and Canada are mostly the result of Koreans living in the United States and Canada. Countries with large Japanese descended populations like Brazil show no interest.
Gerry-Bevers,
In my Encyclopedia Britannica from 1911, the name Hornet Island is in parenthesis under Liancourt Rocks. Can you tell me why?
A site in Japanese might be a bit too much for me. I suck terribly at reading Japanese, and a page about the issue would probably take me forever to read.
That MOFA page is pretty good, but it isn’t as in-depth as the Korean pages that flood English-readers with information. Because the Japanese haven’t gone through much of an effort to great pages explaining their side in English, the Koreans have a near monopoly on English information about the islets. Outisde of Occidentalism and Gerry’s blog it is hard to find any sites that advocate the Japanese position.
Gerry did a great job of attacking the Korea historical explanations on his blog, and I’d love to see some sort of definitive English language page arguing in favor of the Japanese claims. Perhaps a sidebar width mini banner could be made linking to it, so blogs could spread awareness of the issue, and funnel all Korean dokdo flame posters to a single location.
All these desperation of Koreans make it look that it is not theirs, which is, but calm solve everything. Deep inside all know that it is Korean.
BTW, why the comments don’t appear instantly? I’m sure you will delete this comment or not just because I said that?
Comments are being moderated at this time.
Gerry
http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/ahn/tenmatu.html
The following is what toron says ant I think what is said is roughly translatoin of the original document by Murakami into modern Japanese.
１６９２（元禄五年) Chosun holded the empty island policy ver Ulleungdo,but some Korean fishermen went to Ulleungdo and meet Japanese.
(Japanese people, please correct my translation if you find any mistakes.or if you have better translation)
Frankly I think we should rope in Russia. They most have some sort of claim as well. For that matter what country called it the “Lioncourt Rocks” where did there claim go?
Can we start a pool on how long it takes for this blog post to be shutdown or hacked in some way?
Thanks for the translation, Ponta.
What I found interesting about the document is that it said that the Japanese fishermen docked at an island near Ulleungdo called “Igashima” (伊賀島), also written as いか嶋 in my version of the document, where the Japanese said they found signs that someone had been fishing for abalone. The reason I found it interesting is that on the following 1724 map, there is an island named イガ嶋, which I think is also pronounced as “Igashima.” That seems to suggest that the island mentioned in the document and the island on the map are the same island. See the following map:
1724 Japanese Map
Notice that イガ嶋 (Igashima) is located at about the same position as present-day Jukdo, which is a small island less than four kilometers offshore of Ulleungdo. This is significant because it suggests that the Japanese were using Jukdo as a kind of base of operations since it was the first island that they docked at on their trip to Ulleungdo. I think that Jukdo may have been the Jasando (子山島) that Ahn Yong-bok claimed was Korean territory in his version of his confrontation with the Japanese.
Another thing that I find interesting about the document it that it says that the Japanese told the Koreans that the island belonged to Japan, not vice versa, which makes me wonder if Ahn Yong-bok may have just borrowed the Japanese version of events to explain his presents in the area. Notice also that the Koreans in the above document excused their presents on the island by saying that they normally fish at an island north of Ulleungdo, which is an excuse similar to the one Ahn Yong-bok said the Japanese gave him.
Anyway, Ponta, can you confirm whether the island mentioned in the document and the island shown on the 1724 map have similar pronunciation? I would appreciate it.
Dram_man,
Naming the rocks and claiming them are two separate things. As far as I know, Japan was the first country to actually claim Liancourt Rocks.
Also, Japan’s 1724 map is the earliest map I have seen that show the islets:
1724 Japanese Map of Ulleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima
Most substantive non-Korean, non-Japanese source on the internet for the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute: http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html which has this to say about the earliest Japanese reference to Dokdo/Takeshima:
“Historical maps show the perception of territory people had in a period of time in history. One of the earliest Japanese records on Ulleungdo and Dokdo is a document entitled, Onshu shicho goki,which was edited by Saito Hosen in the year 1667. This document has a well-known passage that states: ‘Oki is in the middle of the North Sea, so it is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in the direction of northwest one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day´s travel distance. These two islands are uninhabited and getting a sight from Koryo (Korea) from there is like viewing Oki (Island) from Onshu. Thus Oki island is the northwest boundary of Japan.’ This quote is very important, maps of that era and even 150 years thereafter had part of it written next to the islands . The passage was often written in such a manner spanning both islands linking them as a pair. This supports the belief that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were often viewed as ’sister islands.’ The Chinese characters ̸ÍÔÕòë¢ê£ñ¶ØÐëßñ¶ translated means ‘viewing Koryo (Korea) from here is the same as viewing Shimane (Japan) from Oki Island.’ These characters can be seen on the following maps. (David Rumsey Collection)”
captain jack,
I’m not Gerry, but I can answer your question. “Hornet Rocks” (Hornet Island, in this case, being a variant) was the name the British started calling the islets from 1855 onwards, named after the expedition’s ship, the Hornet. As to why the name is in parenthesis, I don’t know, but the French name of “Liancourt Rocks” predates the British name by six years. As I’m sure everybody here already knows, Liancourt Rocks has become the established “Western name” for the islets.
Dram_man, the Russians also gave the islets a name, that being the “Manalai and Olivutsa Rocks” upon sighting them in 1854.
I think the recital by Matt sums it all up.
Also, the Japanese are fast catching up in presenting evidence in English…thanks mainly to the Koreans who make so much fuss about the island and ridicule the Japanese so hiraliously that the Japanese just can’t resist taking affirmative action.
That must be some really good stuff Gerry-Bevers is smoking.
How was Japan Korea’s former ally during WWII? Annexation does not make a state an ally. Annexation makes a state no longer an independent state. There was no equal standing between the two countries so you can’t really call them allies.
Melonbarmonster,
I consider the Mark Lovmo site to which you linked to be pretty much of a joke. Mark seems to be a man who has no qualms about manipulating the facts to try to show that Dokdo/Takeshima belongs to Korea. For example, consider the quote you referred to:
Mark gave you the first part of the quote and the last part of the quote, but left out the middle part. The middle part that Mark omitted shows that Oki Island was being used as a reference point to indicate different points of Japanese territory, which would mean that the writer of the 1667 document considered Ulleungdo to be Japan’s northwestern boundary. Not only did Mark leave out an important part of the quote, he also mistranslated the last part. Here is my translation:
If you compare my translation with Mark’s translation, you will notice that he left out the part of the quote that is in boldface type. Also, you will notice that in the last line of this translation, Mark translated “this island” as “Oki Island,” which is not what the original says. If he thinks that “this island” was referring to Oki Island, then he should have, at least, put it in parentheses to let people know that it is just his opinion.
I think “this island” was referring to Ulleungdo because the writer had just finished referring to Ulleungdo as being northwest of Oki. Moreover, Japan referred to the above document as proof of her territorial claim on Ulleungdo during her territorial dispute with Korea some thirty years later, which is more proof that “this island” was referring to Ulleungdo.
As for Mark’s theory that the writing on the maps somehow linked Ulleungdo to Dokdo/Takeshima, I think that is just plain silly. The writing is just a historical note, not some kind of line linking the islands as “sister islands.” If the mapmaker had wanted to say the islands were “sister islands,” why didn’t he just say it instead of writing the historical note?
Gerry
Similarity between Ikashima and Igashima is obvious, I think in this context it is not unreasonable at all to suppose that Ikashima in the original text is the identical with Igashima on the map.
But as soon as I get confirmation from Toron, I’ll let you know.
Some minor correction on the translation
Hamadaura of Seki石州 →Sekisyu石州
since this time since nothing→Since this time nothing..
Gerry or anybody,if you have opinion about about Ahn’s reference to 干山・松島（Usando/Matshima),I would like to know.
As far as I know,there are three interpretation as to which island Ahn refered to by 干山・松島
１）干山＝松島=Dokdo
An Yong-bok went to Ulleungdo again in the 22nd year of King Sukjong (1696).
Korean text粛宗実録 巻三〇 二十二年九月戊寅
http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/ahn/syukusyu.html
http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/ahn/goyaku.html
1a)
Nobody could live in takeshima/Dokdo.
(There could not be many Japanese ships anchored at Ullengdo.because it was forbidden.There are no record that Japanese at this time were punished for tresspassing.Even at a time when it was permitted, only one ship was allowed to sail there at one time.)
There is no place to cook as described at Takeshima/Dokdo.
Supposing he was telling the truth, he was not refering to Takshima/Dokdo.
2)干山=Chukudo
Japanese text 竹嶋紀事 a report about takeshima incident at Tsushima
2a)
(I have no fonfidence about this translation,please correct me if you have found any mistakes)
Chukdo is the northeast of Ulleungdo.
(And dokdo is just two rocks)
(if somebody has documet in which Ahn said Usando is the northeast of Ulleungdo,let me know)
3)干山=Oki
In Korean text ,”辺例集要” of 國史編纂委員會編」『邊例集要』巻17
(Does anybody have an original text?)
http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/ahn/sukoburu.html
3a)
Ahn is said to have testified that sailing from Ulleungdo,after one night having passed since the last supper, he saw the island much larger than Ulleundo in the twlight on the sea
There is no island other than Oki island which is bigger than Ulleungdo between Ulleungdo and to Japanese mainland,Tottori（鳥取）
I am wondering what the unified interpretation.is.
Gerry
BTW
I remember you ponted out that 見高麗如自雲州望隠州 in the document is differnet from the sentence on the map.It was 猶 instead of 如 if I remember conrrectly.
猶１）still as ever 2)much more 3)as a side note,in addition to that 4)with 如 ,as if …
In this context, 猶probably means 3) or 4)
So i thinkeither way it does not affect your interpretation.
I have found the interesting site that explains the history of 干山 usaondo
oppekepe7 Scroll down, you’ll find a Korean version.(Sorry no English version)
Ponta,
I translated the same documents before in another thread. I’m not sure but I thought the subject of the sentences should be “I” (= Ahn Yong-Bok). (The subjects of sentences are sometimes omitted in Japanese as well as in Korea.)
This document was written by inspection officer in Tsushima. Ahn answered to officer’s questions.
I translated the documents in my way:
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
この度参候島より北東に大きなる嶋これあり候。
In the northeast of of Ulleungdo there is a large Island.
(The same as Ponta’s version)
かの地逗留の内、ようやく二度、これを見申候。
While I was staying there, I managed to see this twice.
彼島を存じたるもの申候は、于山島と申し候通り申し開き候。
One who knew the island said that it is called Usando, I speak (to the officer in Tsushima)
.
終に参りたる事はこれ無く候。
I didn’t go there at all.
大方路法一日路これ有るべく候
They say it would take about one day to get there.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
Thank you, Ponta.
When Ahn Yong-bok referred to Jasando (子山島) in the 1696 incident, I think he was referring to present-day Jukdo, the small island less than four kilometers off the coast of Ulleungdo. The character 子 was almost certainly a mistake for the character 于 in Usando (于山島). At the time, I think Jukdo was being called Usando. Notice that all the following Korean maps show Usando (于山島) just offshore of Ulleungdo at about where present-day Jukdo should be.
Map of Ulleungdo from the 1700s
The writing on the small island just off the east shore says, 所謂于山島,”The so-called Usando.”
Close-up of the 1700s Map
Korean Map of Ulleungdo from the 1800s
Notice that the above map also shows Usando (于山島) about where present-day Jukdo should be.
1834 Korea Map of Ulleungdo
The above map also shows Usando about where present-day Jukdo should be.
Old Korean map of Ulleungdo (date unknown)
The above map also shows Usando where present-day Jukdo should be.
Another of Korean Map of Ulleungdo (date unknown)
The above map also shows Usando where Jukdo should be.
Close-up of Ulleungdo from 1899 Korean Map
The above map not only shows Usando where Jukdo should be, it even has lines of longitude and latitude which should eliminate any possibility that Usando could be Dokdo/Takeshima, which is what Koreans claim. In fact, all of the above maps show Usando just offshore of Ulleungdo, not 92 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo, which is where Dokdo/Takeshima is.
I think Usando was just another name for Jukdo, Ulleungdo’s largest neighboring island. If anyone needs any more proof, here is a quote from an August 1899 Korean newspaper article that talks about a group that had just returned from an inspection tour of Ulleungdo.
Link to a scan of the 1899 article
The portion marked in red is the portion I translated above.
Pacifist
Thanks.It helped a lot.
Gerry
Japanese interpreter tend to play up a Korea text 辺例集要, in which Ahn is said to testify that he saw the island much larger than Ulleungdo.
But I have never seen the original text.Have you ever heard of the text?
(If anybody knew the original text, let me know.I would appreciate it.)
(For Japanese claim, it is suffient to show Ahn did not refer to Dokdo by Matsushima, though)
“Rhee seems to have been attempting to grab as much territory as possible from Korea’s former ally, Japan”
It’s hard to take anything said after that statement seriously. An “ally” is not one forced into subjugation by military power–against their will.
MorgolKing,
In the annexed Korea, there were many Koreans worked for the government. For example, of all the 5693 police officers in the Korean peninsula, 3428 officers (60.2%) were Koreans in 1910. And 31.8% of the superintendents were Koreans. Koreans controlled Korea in a sense.
BTW, do you know how many Koreans volunteered for Japan army in the war-time? In 1941, 0ver 120,000 Koreans volunteered but only 3000 were chosen. Then how many Koreans volunteered in 1942? You will be surprised to know that 230,000 Koreans volunteered! (Only 4000 were chosen.)
And in 1943? Korean volunteers increased to 300,000 (only 6,000 were chosen)!
If you can’t believe it, please see the site below.
http://www.jacar.go.jp/cgi-bin/image.cgi?image=2&refcode=B02031284700&page=17&magnification=100
So at that time, many Koreans were friendly with Japan and they worked for the annexed Korea together. You may be able to say that majority of Korean people were “jin-il pa” at that time.
So I think that the word “ally” is not always inappropriate.
Gerry-Bevers,
You have made two comments without addressing your mistake of calling Korea and Imperial Japan’s relationship an alliance.
I’ve seen Matt make corrections, so I assume you must have the ability but lack the desire to correct the mistake.
The proper thing to do would be to acknowledge the mistake in the comments, correct the mistake, and append a note about the correction in the blog entry. Otherwise, some people will think that you have a distorted view of history and other people not familiar with the issue may come out misinformed.
Emprapter,
Do you agree that Liancourt Rocks is historically Japanese territory or is your view “distorted”?
I have my own view of history, Emprapter, and just because mine may not agree with yours does not mean it is “distorted,” which just happens to be a term Koreans like to use when someone disagrees with their view of things.
The only reason that the Koreans and Taiwanese were not treated as defeated enemies after World War II is that the US and her allies wanted to break up the Japanese empire by pretending that Korea and Taiwan were occupied countries. The United States did not consider them occupied countries before World War II, so why the sudden change?
As for Koreans, hundreds of thousands wanted Korea to become part of the Japanese empire in the early 1900s because they believed it was the only way that Korea could escape the hopeless poverty and corruption that had entrenched itself in Chosun Korea. I have read that approximately 170,000 Koreans even volunteered to fight on Japan’s side during the Russo-Japanese War in 1904.
By World War II, Koreans were solidly on Japan’s side. When Japan lost and Koreans were given the choice of being labeled “defeated enemy” or “victims,” they naturally chose victims. I do not blame them for that, but it does not change the fact that they were allies of Japan during the war.
Imagine if the United States had not been so short-sighted and had allowed Japan to keep Taiwan and Korea. Maybe the world today would be a safer place with millions of lives saved that have died in wars since?
Gerry-Bevers,
You called Korea and Imperial Japan allies.
I said Korea was not an independent state.
Korea was part of Imperial Japan.
No need to get all flustered. Just correct your mistake.
Ponta,
I have heard of the text you are referring to and have read the quote, but I am not sure if I have the full text. I may have it in a book or on my computer back in Korea, but I am not sure. I am not in Korea right now.
Anyway, the account Ahn gave in the 辺例集要 is different from what he gave to Korean authorities. Here is a summary of what he told Korean authorities:
Notice that in his account to Korean authorities Ahn said he went to Jasando (which the Japanese referred to as Matsushima) the next morning. That does not agree with what he said in 辺例集要, where he said he had never been to Usando. That means that either Ahn was lying or that the Usando (Matsushima) where he broke the pot was different from the Usando he had never been to.
By the way, I remember reading that even Korean authorities did not believe Ahn’s story.
Empraptor,
A country does not have to be an independent state to be an ally. Even individuals can be allies.
By the way, what makes you think I was flustered?
Gerry-Bevers,
I said you were flustered because you seemed to go on a long rant bringing up this and that, making excuses for yourself.
Individuals can be allies? Were you talking about individuals when you called Korea and Imperial Japan allies?
Maybe you were referring to administrative organizations set up by Korean resistence movements abroad? But you couldn’t have possibly mistaken them for Imperial Japan’s allies.
1910 annexation makes Korea part of Imperial Japan (if you consider the annexation valid, which I assume you do). Regardless of whether you call it annexation or occupation, there was no independent Korean state at the time. There was no alliance.
What you wrote gives the reader impression that Korea remained an independent state. And this is wrong. And this would be the distorted view of history I was referring to.
Empraptor,
I was not making excuses for myself; I thought I was educating you.
Yes, even individuals can be allies, but I was referring to Korea as a country and to the vast majority of Koreans who supported Japan in her wars in Asia and the Pacific.
I am not sure how valid the 1910 annexation was, but I do know that it was supported by a large number of Koreans.
I think the only reason you got the impression that Korea was an independent state, Empraptor, is that you did not fully understand the meaning of “ally.” Again, a country does not have to be an independent state to be an ally.
ally
n 1: a friendly nation 2: an associate who provides assistance
The second definition is a perfectly valid one that can be applied to Korea.
Gerry
Thanks
I was reading Simojou’s book,probably the original text just said “large island in the twilght on the sea”He was trying to understand the sentence that after about one day he saw the largeisland in the twilight on the sea while he was sailing to Japan.
干山 is JUkudo by most of Ahn’s description about it.
The only description which does not fit is that on the way to Japan.he saw the large island.干山,twice in the twlight after about one day distance form Ulleungdo
As you pointed out,probably he lied or his memory was confused.
Thanks
.
nation
1. people in land under single government:2. people of same ethnicity :……5. group with common interest:
if by nation we mean the second definition. the first definition of “ally “would be also valid one.
Gerry Beaver,
The portion that was left out doesn’t add much to the issue at contention. What’s important is that Lovmo and you both seem to agree that the text in question lays out the boundaries of Japanese territory. We can all agree on this it seems.
The real issue here is where the northwest boundary lies according to this text. If the author outright stated “oki” or “takeshima” instead of “this island” we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Here’s the portion of the text(your translation) that’s most important: “These two islands are uninhabited. Koryo can be seen from here, similar to how Shimane can be seen from Oki Island. Therefore, Japan’s northwest boundary is from this island”.
The writer describes the location of Matsushima and Takeshima. He then states, “Koryo” can be seen from
. “Here” is referring to both Takeshima and Matsushima. Hopefully we can agree on this.
The writer then makes a comparison between Oki island and mainland Japan with Takeshima, Matsushima and the Korean mainland. I hope we agree on this.
The next and last sentence of the text in question states Japan’s boundary “is from this is island”. What island is the text referring too? There are only 3 candidates: Matsushima, Takeshima and Oki.
1. There’s no way to distinguish Matushima and Takeshima from each other in their perspective liklihood that the text is referring to either of these islands. The text dealt with these two islands jointly, e.g. “here”, “these two islands” and the author just doesn’t deal with either of the islands separately.
2. The third candidate absolves the ambiguity of the text and the candidacy of Matsushima and Takeshima because of the comparison made by the text. This comparison is important because it leads the author to the conclusion that Japan boundary is from “this island”. If you look at the geography of the islands in question, you realize why the author of this text is making this comparison. The only way Matsushima and Takeshima can be compared to Oki’s relation to Japan’s mainland is if the author was referring to both Takeshima and Matsushima together in its relation to the Korean mainland. This makes all the more sense in light of the text’s previous joint references to Matsushima and Takeshima. Therefore when the author makes this comparison and concludes that the northwest boundary of Japan’s territory from this island, the most realistic candidate is Oki. Otherwise the comparison is nonsensical and the text is just illogical and miswritten.
Regarding Korea being an ally of Japan before annexation,
There were Korean revolutionary groups that were definitely pro-Japan at the turn of the 20th century. But you have to understand that context of the times. The fact was that Yi dynasty was falling apart and that everyone was splintering into pro-(something) factions during this time. If you say Korea was an “ally” of Japan, you would also have to say that Korea was also an “ally” of China and Russia as well various domestic interest factions.
Regarding issue of Korea’s lack of protest to Japan’s 1905 claim on Takeshima,
Korea didn’t protest because the 1905 terra nullis claim was made under coersion. Korea had long lost its sovergnty by 1905 and was not in a position to contest Japan’s claim: Japan kept an army in Korea which pretty much gave them effective control over Korea following the war with Russia, had murdered the Korean Empress who was the de facto ruler.
CHeck out this map it’s a Imperial Army Map from 1936 that clearly shows Takeshim within Korea boundaries.
1877 Japanese map showing Takeshima as Korean territory
Melonbarmonster,
The text that Mark Lovmo left out was very important to the meaning of the passage because it showed that Oki was being used as a reference point, not as a boundary. I believe that Mark’s intent was to deceive people, especially since he did not use any ellipsis to show he was omitting text. Moreover, he wrote “Oki” instead of “this island” in the last line of the text in what I believe was a further attempt to deceive. He could have easily put “this island” in the text with “Oki” in parentheses to show that he believed the island to be Oki, but did not. You should ask yourself why he did not.
The last part of the passage says the following:
Since Koryo (Korea) can only been seen from Ulleungdo, not Dokdo/Takeshima, the island being referred to in that clause could have only been Ulleungdo. Moreover, Ulleungdo is ninety-two kilometers farther northwest than Dokdo/Takeshima, so if you are going to designate an island as your northwest boundary, Ulleungdo would have been the obvious choice.
Moreover, the Japanese referred to the above passage as evidence of their claim on Ulleungdo during their territorial dispute with Korea some thirty years later, so the Japanese obviously considered Ulleungdo as their northwest boundary.
emperator,
In those years, majority of Korean people fought against USA and allied nations, as members of Imperial Japan. As I posted before, many young Koreans volunteered to be Japanese soldiers (in order to fight against USA). They didn’t fight against Japan until the end of the war.
Gerry wanted to say that Koreans who fought together with Japan turned to be against Japan after WWII and claimed Takeshima/Dokdo, which seems to be strange.
James,
In this context, the second definition is invalid. That’s why the first one specifies “country” while the second “associate”.
Gerry-Bevers,
Everyone makes mistakes. Some correct them when they realize they were wrong. Others don’t. Go figure out which one you are.
melonbarmonster,
The 1877 map by Kinseki Mori didn’t say that Takeshima/Dokdo belonged to Korea.
The location of Matsushima is closer to Korea than real Takeshima/Dokdo (Liancourt rocks).
Do you know about the legendary two islands called Argonaut island (found by UK in 1789) and Dagelet island (found by France in 1787)?
These two islands were later found to be identical one – Ulleungdo, in 1854 when Russians suveyed the area. They found that the location of Argonaut island was wrong, so after this survey the name of Argonaut island dissappeared from western maps in the 1870’s.
The trouble is that western maps depicted two islands, including the “illusional” island, for many years until late 19th century and they affected Japanese maps.
The map by Kinseki Mori is just one of them. Takeshima/Dokdo was first called as “Matsushima” in early years but these days it was called “Ryanko-to” (Japanese pronunciation of Liancourt rocks) and the name of “Matsushima” became illusional one just as Argonaut island.
The Japanese government didn’t have exact information about these islands including illusional one, so they surveyed the area around Ulleungdo in 1880 and found that one of the two islands was not existent. They dropped the name of Takeshima and named Ulleungd as Matsushima while Takeshima/Dokdo is called Ryanko-to or Liancourt rocks.
So there were confusion regarding the names of islands: Ulleungdo was first called as Takeshima, and then Matsushima (the name of Takeshima dissppeared). And the name of Takeshima/Dokdo was first called as “Matsushima”, then “Ryanko-to” (Liancourt rocks) and finally the name of Takeshima was given to this island in 1905.
melonbarmonster,
Although the map from 1936 seems to give an impression that supports your point, the 1877 map could have an alternate explanation.
The Oki islands （隠岐諸島 Oki-shotou）, which was governed as the Oki domain (like states and provinces of today) (隠岐国 Oki-guni) is included in the Shimane prefecture today. The Shimane prefecture lays claim to Takeshima/Dokdo, and Takeshima/Dokdo was originally considered to be part of the Oki islands. Since the Oki islands are colored blue on the map, Takeshima/Dokdo being colored blue may suggest but doesn’t prove it to have been considered part of the Kangwon province.
I think it’s not entire inconceivable that the colors chosen (I believe) arbitrarilty to distinguish neighboring areas were just confusing.
As for the 1936 map, it may be possible that the islands were included on the part with the Korean peninsula for convenience’s sake, since adhering to border lines when divvying up would force the inclusion of a large chunk of nothing Northwest of the Shimane prefecture.
Again, a little contrived, but not implausible, so the map alone is not definite proof of anything either ways.
Emprator:
Are you a native English speaker? Certainly you realize that associate doesn’t have to mean a single person, and nation/country doesn’t have to mean an independent state.
How exactly would colonial Korea not be considered an associate? Using even the most negative view of Japan’s dominance of Korea, the dictionary.com definition of associate as ‘n. A member of an institution or society who is granted only partial status or privileges.’ would certainly apply to Korea, which was annexed by Japan at that time. As previous posters have stated, thousands of Koreans served in the Japanese Imperial army as volunteers or conscripts. I think that would most certainly qualify as providing assistance. It may seem twisted to you, but Korea under Japanese colonialism was an associate/nation that provided assistance to Japan: an ally.
Can anyone tell me what Toron Talker is saying at the following link?
http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/tizu/rekireki.html
I wish I could read Japanese because Toron Talker’s site looks quite interesting. By the way, does Toron Talker introduce himself on his site?
Melonbarmonster,
The 1936 Japanese Army map is not a political map, but is a grid map used for military purposes. The square grids on the Korean peninsula certainly do not represent any kind of political authority. Japan incorporated Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima) in 1905, so what would make you think the 1936 map represents some kind of change-in-mind on the part of Japan?
I find it funny that you and many Koreans have to point to Japanese maps to try to show that Dokdo/Takeshima was Korean territory. The reason you do, of course, is that Korean maps did not show Dokdo/Takeshima. Yes, Koreans stubbornly claim that the “Usando” on their maps is Dokdo/Takeshima, but their reasons for making such a claim border on the ridiculous since almost all of Korea’s maps show Usando as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not some lonely island ninety-two kilometers to the southeast. Here is a link to a nice collection of Korean maps:
Korean Maps from 1530 to 1899
Notice that some of the early maps show Usando to the west of Ulleungdo. I think this is evidence that the islands were close enough together to cause name confusion. This map shows that the confusion continued up at least until 1710. By the way, the line on the map connecting Usando and Ulleungdo to mainland Korea says that it is a 2-day trip to the two islands, which again suggests that the two islands were neighboring islands. If either of the two islands had been Dokdo/Takeshima, it would have required, at least, another day in travel time.
That name confusion between Usando and Ulleungdo seemed to have disappeared at about the time the following map came out:
Map for Ulleungdo from the 1700s
Close-up 1700s map showing Usando right next to Ulleungdo
On the island of Usando it says, “the so-called Usando,” which suggests that the mapmaker felt he had finally solved the mystery of Usando. At any rate, starting from sometime in the 1700s, almost all Korean maps started showing Usando to the east of Ulleungdo. Here are a few more examples:
Korean Map of Ulleungdo from 1800s
1834 Korean map of Ulleungdo showing Usando as a neighboring island
Map of Ulleungdo with Usan as a neighboring island
Map of Ulleungdo with Usan as a neighboring island
Sometime after 1894
From an 1899 Korean geography textbook
Ulleungdo is only about 10 kilometers wide, so the scale of all the above maps show that Usando could not have been Dokdo/Takeshima since Dokdo/Takeshima is 92 kilometers away, yet, amazingly, many Koreans will still point to these map and say that they show the “precise” location of Dokdo/Takeshima. Their belief is so strong that they seem blind to the evidence.
What about you, Melonbarmonster? Don’t the above maps convince you that Usando could not have been Dokdo/Takeshima?
Gerry
一云武陵 一云羽陵 二島在県正東海中 三峯及業掌空
南峯梢卑 風日清明則峯頭樹木 及山根沙渚 歴々可見
風便則二日可到 一説干山 鬱陵 本一島
(original text 「東国輿地勝覧」巻の４５ 蔚珍縣)
(BTW do you have English translation of this text?)
一つに武陵と云い、一つに羽陵と云う、二島は県の正東の海中に在り。
三峰及業（きゅうぎょう）として空を支え、南峰梢卑（ややひく）し。
風日清明なれば即ち峰頭の樹木及び山根の沙渚歴々見るべし。
風便なれば則ち２日にして至るべし
(translation of orignal text)
…….
In a good wather, you can see trees and sany beach(?) clearly…
…………………
この記述では、于山島の名前は記されているが、見えると言っているだけで、その于山島を説明した記述はない。
In this description, the name 干山 is mentioned,but there is no explanatory remark about it except “you can see”
快晴の日には「峰頭の樹木と山根の沙渚が歴々と見える」と書いてあるが、竹島は岩礁からできている。砂浜や樹木は無い！
于山島を竹島とするのは無理だ。
It says you can see sandy beach and trees,but there is no sandy beach and trees at Takeshima/Dokdo! So it is impossible to regard 干山 as Takeshima/Dokdo
「于山とは本一島」とする一説があると書いてある。
この一説に従えば、于山島と鬱陵島は同島異名と言うことであり、于山島は竹島（独島）では無くなる
It mentions the interpretation that 干山 and 欝陵 are one and the same island,according to this interpretation, 于山島 and 鬱陵島 are the identical island which has different names and thus 干山 is not Takeshima/Dokdo
toronThe site’s purpose,roughly 1) to examine the different perception of history, historical event.2)to talk about history of Japan and its neighboring countries.
Korean version(the part of the Japanese version)