New Takeshima (Dokdo) Article in Japanese Newspaper
The Japanese newspaper, “San-in Chuo Shimpo,” has posted a new article on Takeshima (Dokdo). You can find the article at the following link:
Here is a draft translation of the article:
Both Japan and South Korea claim Takeshima (Korean name: Dokdo) as their territory, but old Korean maps have been found that refute Korea’s claim. They were submitted on the eve of “Takeshima Day,” which is February 22nd, by Mr. Gerry Bevers, an American who studies the Takeshima problem in South Korea.
Mr. Bevers draws attention to the fact that before 1905, the year Japan annexed Takeshima into the Shimane prefecture, the name “Dokdo” was not found in any Korean documents or on any Korean maps. South Korea claims that is because the name for Dokdo in the old documents and on the old maps was “Usando.”
Mr. Bevers, however, has submitted copies of three old maps stored in Seoul National University’s “Gyujanggak” museum that refute South Korea’s claim. The maps are of the Korean island of Ulleungdo, which is ninety-two kilometers northwest of Takeshima.
One of the maps, which is undated, shows a small island east of Ulleungdo with the following written on it: “The so-called Usando, fields of Haejangjuk.” It is pointed out that Haejangjuk is a kind of bamboo that cannot grow on Takeshima, which is essentially just a cluster of rocks where bamboo does not grow.
The map, dated 1834, has a graduated scale of ten Korean ri (one Korean ri equals 0.4 kilometers). It shows a small island labeled as “Usan,” which refers to Usando, situated about four kilometers east of Ulleungdo. That means the island is not Takeshima, but is Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of “Jukseo” (Jukdo).
Takashi Tsukamoto at the National Diet Library [of Japan], who is familir with the Takeshima problem said, “[Mr. Bevers’ claim] contains a new dicovery based on an investigation that a resident in South Korean can carry out. The map with “fields of haejangjuk” (海長竹田) on it is especially important in that it can prove that Usan was not Takeshima/Dokto.”
Mr. Bevers intially questioned the anti-Japanese feelings in Korea that was triggered by the establishment of Takeshima Day and began his study of Takeshima/Dokto. He publishes the results of his study on the Internet.
Here are the two maps shown in the article with links to my posts explaining them:
UPDATE: Here is a link to a Korean-language article talking about the article in the Japanese newspaper.
Medical Today: ’독도는 한국땅’ 뒤집는 옛 문서 발견…교도통신
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, 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
Gerry, it’s about you.
The article says that an english teacher Gerry beavers has found an old korean map which is unknown to Japanese experts and that he has posted to the “Joong-ang Il bo”.
Congratulation Gerry!
You are a celebritiy now in Japan!
But I don’t think that there is any knew information for you.
Oh no! It is saying that you have submitted three new found old korean maps to the japanese news paper “Sanin Chuo Shinpo”.
Is it true?
Tomojiro54,
Yes, it is true that I sent them three maps as part of an article, but they said they only had space for two.
The maps may be unknown to some Japanese experts, but I think many of the readers of Occidentalism already know about them.
A quick translation. Feel free to correct.
Regarding Takeshima (Korean name: Dokto) of which both Japan and South Korea claim their possession, Korean old maps which overturn South Korea’s claim were found. It was submitted on the eve of the “Takeshima Day” on the 22nd by Mr. Gerry Bevers, an American who studies the Takeshima problem in South Korea.
Mr. Bevers draws attention to the fact that before 1905 in which Japan annexed Takeshima to the Shimane prefecture, the name Dokto was not found in Korean documents and maps, and South Korea claims that the name of Dokto at the time appears as 于山島 in old documents and maps.
Given those facts, Mr. Bevers submitted as counter-eveidence to South Korea’s claim three old maps stored in 奎章閣 at the University of Seoul which depict the Korean territory 鬱陵島 39 kilometers northwest of Takeshima.
Of those maps, one with no date given has 「所謂（so-called）于山島」「海長竹田」 written on
the small island on the east of 鬱陵島. 海長 is taken to refer to a kind of bamboo, and it is pointed out that 于山島 is not Takeshima, which is a lump of rocks where bamboos don’t grow.
The map dated 1834 has a graduated scale of ten Korean 里s (1里 is 0.4 kilometers). 于山, which refers to 于山島, is situated four kilometers east of 鬱陵島, and cannot be taken to be Takeshima but 竹嶼, a nearby island of 鬱陵島.
Takashi Tsukamoto at the National Diet Library [of Japan] who is familir with the Takeshima problem said, “[Mr. Bevers' claim] contains a new dicovery based on an investigation that a resident in South Korean can carry out. Especially the map with 海長竹田 on it is important in that it can prove that 于山 is not Takeshima/Dokto.”
Mr. Bevers intially questioned the anti-Japan feelings in Korean which was triggered by the establishment of the Takeshima Day and began his study of Takeshima/Dokto. He publishes the results of his study on the Internet.
Gerry,
Well done! But I thought they would feature longer article than this one. I hope they will feature it someday.
Hi. I’m a new comer from japan to say “Good job!”.
However, We japanese are seriously worried about you.
Can you stay in Korea? Can you escape from Korea in safety?
A 2ch user made this parody describing your situation. Very interesting.
http://up2.viploader.net/pic/src/viploader421440.jpg
Wow, Congratulations!
It is great to see your work is paying off.
>tak
Gerry was fired from his job, but otherwise, he is not in danger in Korea.
Well, they’ve screwed up your name and have you as ゲーリー(Gary?). A very common mistake in Japan, as people here seem to be unable to understand “g” can have a soft sound.
Also, is your surname pronounced “Beavers” as in the Japanese article?
I always figured it was “Bev” as in Beverly.
Avery
Thank you for the link.
The link as it stands looks great, but I would like to point our some minor things.
In fact there are no old Korean maps that actually showed a claim to Liancourt , but even if there are old documents and old maps, in view of international law, it must be accompanied by effective control according to one textbook of international law.
(page 150 Textbook on International Law/Martin Dixon/5th edition)
(And Korea had empty island policy over Ulleungdo until 1881. )
Japanese claim is that Japan had known Takeshima/Dokdo and she had had effective control over Dokdo/takeshima since Edo period and/or 1905.
I am glad to hear that Gerry is not in danger in Korea. I really hope nobody will restrict his freedom of speech on two tiny rocks as it happened before.
Gerry, congratulations.
LOL, that was hilarious. Are there any more?
hige,
About the Japanese pronunciation of Gerry’s name, ponta asked readers in somewhwre in Occidentalism. It was written as Gay-Ree Bee Vers (sorry this is not accurate), so the Japanese pronunciation in the newspaper article seems to be right.
ponta, thanks for your help. I am going to put some more effort into my website in the future, but for now I made the corrections you pointed out.
Hige,
I think the Japanese article got the pronunciation of my name correct. Even though it is spelled as “Gerry Bevers,” it is pronounced as people usually pronounce Gary Beavers /Gae-ree Bee-vers/. Growing up I often had to correct people’s pronunciation of my name and still do.
Tak,
That looks like an interesting cartoon, and the artwork is great, but I feel very safe in South Korea. People shouldn’t judge Koreans by the childish, irresponsible posts of many of their “netizens,” who say many crazy things behind the curtain of anonymity.
By the way, can anyone translate that cartoon for me?
Infimum,
Thanks for the translation, which is very good. However, here is a possible rewrite. Can you or anyone else tell me if my rewrite translates the article correctly?
Could someone translate the captions under the maps for me, or did Infimum already do that?
I would like to thank everyone for their congratulations, though I am not exactly sure what I should be congratulated for. However, I am happy to see that this evidence has been provided to a wider audience because I think is important that people know that Japan’s historical claims on Takeshima (Dokdo) are legitimate. If both Japanese and Koreans know that, then maybe it will help lessen the anti-Japanese feelings in South Korea, which have been aggravated by statement that Japan has no legitimate claims to the islets.
Gerry,
1st caption:
2nd caption:
Today’s actual paper version of the Sanin Chuo Shimpo has two articles directly related to your submission. One is on the first page right below the article which deals with the raise of interest rate by the Bank of Japan. The other is on next to the last page. Your mug shot is shown in this article.
Good Job!
tak,
That looks pretty good! Let’s hope that reality doesn’t come to that.
I think Gerry is safe, though. Most of his harassers are probably internet addicts who don’t get out of the house long enough to pose a physical threat to anyone.
Hmm it seems there is another article about takeshima in today’s Sanin.shinpou
Can any Japanese uproad another article so that Gerry can read it? Please.
It appears that the last sentence from the first paragraph is missing on the translation. It says “The submissions include the previously unknown map(s), and the findings are attracting (Japanese) researchers attentions.
I think most people here congratulating Mr. Bevers for being recognized academically. Good going!
Congratulations Gerry! And Happy Takeshima Day!
RC
If the lies of Korean government regarding dokudo/Takeshima are exposed and Korea loses the island, the shock of Korean people would be 100 times bigger than Hwang Useok case. I can not expect that magnitude. It must mean the collapse of national identity……
Congrats, Gerry. I’ve mentioned this before, but I do hope you get to publish your research in book form someday. And hopefully, in Japanese, English, and Korean versions.
Tak, that’s a cool manga drawing. Is the artist a professional mangaka? If he’s just an amateur, I’m doubly impressed.
According to Some Korean, the following map is the Acient Korean collnies.
If so, Lol!
http://photoimg.enjoyjapan.naver.com/view/enjoybbs/viewphoto/phistory/78000/20070223117216038501688500.jpg
Some suggestions
It is translated as
“They were submitted on the eve of “Takeshima Day”Okay,
→ it is saying , they were submitted before(前）Takeshima day.
I am not sure how I can get the meaning across, but it is like “They were submitted in the midst of nearing Takeshima day”
The sentece above is missing.This should come
after ….”an American who studies the Takeshima problem in South Korea.”
And it means, there are some maps who are introduced for the first time in Japan, they drew attention from the experts.
Mr. Bevers, who works as an English teacher at university in Soeul,
That means the island is not Takeshima,
→、Considering the distance(距離的に）,that means the island ……
Free free to make further correction.
Gerry.
1. Have you ever seen this map?
It is a written copy of Dae-dong-yeo-ji-do(大東輿地圖) made by Jeong-ho Kim, which is one of the collections possessed by National Assembly Library of Japan(日本國會圖書館).
This reveals that the ‘BIG’ Woo-san-do(于山島) appearing in many ancient maps of Chosun dynasty was NOT the present ‘TINY’ Juk-do(竹島).
You changed the wrong description (by those who couldn’t find the Dok-do) to the right one, so threw the justifiable claim of Korean historians about Dok-do into a trashcan of lies.
2. When you discussed about Daijoukan(太政官) documents, you should have mentioned this map, which is appended within it. Can you see an island with ‘松’ letter, and one with ‘島’ letter? The twin island ‘松島’ means clearly so-called ‘外一島’ in that document. Do you agree with me?
I presented two points. I want to hear about your opinions for each. Have a nice day.
Opp,
Jukdo is in fact larger than Liancourt Rocks, right?
Usando was not Jukdo, much less dokdo. So what does it show?
We all know the map, toadface,a.k.a Steve Barber, presented it. We have discussed it and the conclusion is that that does not show Korea had the title to Dokdo.
Do you want to present a new argument ?
myCoree,
As to the map you showed, it is interesting but the island looks quite different from Takeshima/Dokdo. It may be an imaginary island.
Anyway, it only shows that Usando is not Takeshima/Dokdo today.
As to the Dajoukan document, the map you showed was attached to the original document from Shimane prefecture. I don’t know whether it was attached again to the Dajoukan document issued by the Ministry of Interior.
Anyway, as you can see, Ulleungdo in the map was written as “Isotakeshima （磯竹島）”, the name of the islands differs from the document, this was because the map maker, presumably persons from Oya’s family or Murakawa’s family, and the document writer, a public servant of Shimane prefecture, were differnt people. The docement writer may have not known all the information about the islands Takeshima and Matsushima.
Hi MyCoree,
Yes, I have seen that map before, and if it was make by Jeong-ho Kim, then it was made by the same person who made the second map in my post above. That may be why the shape of Usando is similar on both maps.
Yes, the size of Usando is exaggerated, but I do not think that is very important. The location shows it to be approximately where Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo is today. One thing is certain; the Usando on the map was not Dokdo/Takeshima because the island was drawn too close to Ulleungdo and it was drawn as one island, not two. As you probably know, Dokdo/Takeshima is essentially two large rocks next to each other.
I do not understand what you mean when you say I “changed the wrong description to the right one.”
Yes, the 松島 (Songdo/Matsushima) on the second map you linked to was referring to present-day Dokdo/Takeshima, but that does not mean that it was the “another island” being talked about in the Daijoukan document. Think about it. If the document were referring to Dokdo/Takeshima, then why didn’t they use the name for Dokdo/Takeshima instead of the phrase “another island”? The map proves that they had a name for Dokdo/Takeshima, so why didn’t they use it in the document? I think the reason they didn’t use it was that they were unsure of where the other island was.
Japanese documents at the time show that the Japanese were unsure of what island was being referred to. Some people thought it was referring to Ulleungdo, some thought it was referring to a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, and some thought it was referring to a non-existence island. I think that is why they finally decided to use the phrase, “and another island.”
MyCoree,
As Ponta said, this attached 磯竹島略圖 is already presented by Toadface, and the way he does in his site is very misleading because it is too small to read the Chinese caracter on it. You can see more clear and accurate one here. As you can see there are two small islands near Ulleundo and one is labelled as “マノ島” and other is not labelled. And Takeshima/Dokdo is labelled as 松島. If it was attached to the Dajoukan document, I think there is even possibility that ” the other island” was meant to the unlabelled island which locates south to Ulleundo in the map and clearly not Takeshima/Dokdo, considering Meiji Ministry of Interior actually knew the name of Takeshima/Dokdo as 松島.
By the way, MyCoree, I realized you have mentioned about “邊例集要 권17 雜條 附 鬱陵島, 蔚陵島事蹟” before. Where did you get it from? If you know the site, could you give me the link to the site? Thank you !!
Tomato.
What I mean is that if the present Juk-do has no need or probability to be expressed so bigger than its real size.
Ponta
I just showed that Gerry’s claim is false. Gerry said that the present Jukdo is EQUAL to Usando in ancient Korean maps. But, the present Jukdo is expressed to the right position and right size. But, the the position and size of Usando on the map is much farther and bigger than those of the present Jukdo.
As for Daijoukan documents in 1877, I’m saying Japan acknowledged that Dokdo is out of her territory.
Pacifist
What I mean is that ancient Korean regarded another island (not Jukdo) as their territory. The another island is Dokdo today. And Kaneganese gave me very good link. It will be good for you.
Gerry-Bevers
1.
No, it’s important. As you can see, Ulleungdo and other neighboring islands was drawn very correct in size and location. But the “Usando” was not the right location and size. Why? Can you explain it? I can. It means that they clearly depicted an other island which you regarded as Jukdo.
2.
I roughly read the whole series of dicision. I think it’s reasonable to understand “竹島外一島” as “Ullengdo and Dokdo” if you know the context.
Kaneganese
Thank you for your good link. I can find an island “マノ島”. “マノ竹” is a kind of bamboo. Right? So, I think “マノ島” is the present Jukdo. But, I don’t think “一島” of “竹島外一島” is the “マノ島”.
I found the answer for you – within your comment.
1st
=> 2nd => 3rd(here)
Please understand my long-time-no-response. I want to have free days. Happy weekend.
Hi Gerry,
The following is a very trivial speculation related to the bamboo on Jukdo.
Some of old Japanese maps labeled Jukdo as Mano-shima (マノ島 or 間ノ島 = Mano Island). I have noticed that there was a bamboo species called Mano-take or Mano-chiku (まの竹 = Mano-bamboo) by Japanese locals in Shimane area. I think that it is possible that the Jukdo’s Japanese name, Mano-shima (Mano Island), was from the Mano-bamboo which grew on the island.
Since the bamboo name, まの竹 (Mano-bamboo), is not used in present Japanese, I cannot determine the scientific name of the bamboo. However, if the island’s name, Mano-shima, was taken from the name of the bamboo on the island, it seems that the Mano-bamboo was the same species as Haejangjuk (海長竹, 海蔵竹) described in the map you presented.
The bamboo name, まの竹 (Mano-bamboo) can be found in the following page describing about Sanbutsu-cho (産物帳 = List of Products) written by villagers in Shimane prefecture in 18th century.
http://www2.pref.shimane.jp/kodai/kinsei.html
Initial part of the above page says the followings, which are followed by the list of products described in the Sanbutsu-cho of a village in Shimane prefecture.
Thank you very much, Aki, for the information on the “Mano-take” or “Mano-chiku” bamboo. I do not consider that a trivial piece of information at all because it would explain the origin of the name “Mano Island,” a name that I have been curious about since I first saw it. It may even be the source of the current name of Korea’s current name for the island. In other words, Koreans may have heard the Japanese refer to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island as “Mano (bamboo) Island” and simply translated it into Korean, “Jukdo” (Bamboo Island).
The pieces of the puzzle seem to be coming together.
myCoree
Thanks.
So you admitted that Usando was not dokdo.I am glad.
I know what you wanted to say, what is your counterargument against your claim?
myCoree, I truly understand that you want to have a good weekend without any PC. Usually, I get away from Tokyo on weekend to get a fresh air too. But when you have time, could you please show me the link to “邊例集要 권17 雜條 附 鬱陵島, 蔚陵島事蹟” which you mentioned here? I need more information.
And as for “マノ島”, it is very posssible that the island is Jukdo/竹嶼 as you say honestly, but I also think it is possible it to be today’s 観音島 considering “間ノ島” also pronounced as “Kan-no-tou” in Japanese. Moreover, can you see the smaller island, which is UNLABELLED, to the south of Ulleundo? What I was actually saying was, since this unknown island is the only island which is unlabelled in the map, it is more likely that “the other island” meant this strange unlabelled island, not the island labelled as “マノ島” nor “松島”. And I honestly think it is the least possible that “the other island” meant “松島”because it is clearly labelled and made of two island. And if the “マノ島” is 観音島, what is the sothern island indicate? Can you see the island locates between 浜田浦 and 竹?浦. I suspect this island might be meant to be Jukdo. But at the same time, the sothern tip of the Ulleundo labelled as 唐松が鼻. So, that is definately southern part of Ulleundo…
Well, since the Ulleundo itself is not correctly drawn, it is hard to tell which one was the unnamed island actually. Rather, we can simply say that Japanese Government was very confused about the island’s location and that why Ministry concluded as “the other island”.
Mycoree you are right about the 1877 document and here is why.
The reason for the inquiry to begin with was for the remapping of Japan prefecture by prefecture so Shimane was questioning to the home ministry as to which adjacent islands should be included on the maps.
The Japanese Takeshima lobbyists are playing the classic “island shell game” with this “other island” phrase.
However, there are only two possiblities here.
1. Dokdo is included as part of Shimane
2. Dokdo is not.
All maps of Shimane Prefecture after the 1877 request to the Home Ministry DO NOT show Dokdo despite the fact other minor islands such as Minoshima are included.
You can see the details here.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-1877-doc.html
Every one,
As I once wrote above, the 1877 document and the map differ in the names of islands. In the document Ulleungdo was “Takeshima” and in the map it was drawn as “Isotakeshima”. Both indicate Ulleungdo but why did they use different names for official use?
The map maker, maybe from the Oya’s family or Murakawa’s, had accurate information about the islands – Ulleungdo with tiny islands beside it and Liancourt (Matsushima) in a little distance from it, whilst the document writer, a civil servant under new Meiji regime, seems to have not accurate knowledge about the islands.
The civil servants may have not known about the treaty between the Shogunate and Chosun in the late 17th century, which meant Ullengdo became Chosun’s territory (but not Takeshima/Dokdo). And in around 1877 they used to believe that there was “ghost” Ulleungdo as western maps showed.(Argonaut and Dagelet islands)
So they had to write vaguely as “Takeshima and one island” but as this document was to re-confirm the late 17th century treaty, it couldn’t include Takeshima/Dokdo (Matsushima in the 17th century).
So anyway, toadface and myCoree, it won’t be favourable documents for you.
In post 37, here, Aki wrote about a Japanese document that refers to a list of products from Shimane Prefecture from about 1735. Included on the list was まの竹 (mano bamboo). Here are the bamboo products from the list:
Aki pointed out that “Mano-shima” (Mano Island) was the old Japanese name for Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島), which is about 2.2 kilometers off of Ulleungdo’s east shore. He mentioned that マノ島 or 間ノ島 were other Japanese spellings for Mano Island. However, today I noticed that this 1696 Japanese map on Opp’s Web site shows Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo labeled with a name that begins with the same まの (Mano) used in the 1735 product list.
Can someone tell me if the Chinese character after the まの (Mano) on the map is the Chinese character for “island” (島), or is it another character? I cannot read those grass characters very well.
Aki suggested that mano bamboo (まの竹) may have been the old Japanese name for haejang bamboo (海長竹), which was writen on the island labeled as Usando (于山島) on the 1711? Korean map shown in the above post. Since the Usando on the map was almost certainly Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, I think that it is logical to assume that mano bamboo and haejang bamboo may have been referring to the same type of bamboo.
Aki, how did you find that? Is this a topic of discussion among Japanese historians? It is a very interesting discovery.
I think it is very possible that the name “Mano [bamboo] Island” was later just called “Bamboo Island” (竹島). In other words, Takeshima (Jukdo).
http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/japan/Edo/img/edo_ihei_ori.jpg
Looks to me like まの嶋,which is basically same as 島
It is hard to read all the sentence but it scarcely reads as 鮑浦○ ○○里, which may mean the distance from some point (beach?) of Ulleungdo.
Thank you, Ponta & Pacifist.
Yes, it looks like 嶋 (도), which is just an alternative character for 島 (도), as far as I know.
Also, I noticed that the name of Ulleungdo on the 1696 map seems to be 磯竹島 (기죽도), which seems to have been the old name for Ulleungdo. I am curious about the 磯(기) character. Does anyone know what it meant or why it was dropped from the name later?
Could 磯竹 have also been an old Japanese name for a type of bamboo?
いそ【×磯】Iso
(rocky) beach; a (sea) shore
磯伝いに
along the beach
磯の香りがする
We can smell the sea.／There is the smell of the sea in the air.
磯釣り｜fishing from rocks along the seacoast; surf-fishing
http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E7%A3%AF&enc=UTF-8&stype=0&dtype=3
I checked isotake but so far I couldn’t find this kind of bamboo. Maybe we need a dictionary of botany or something special.
Thank you, Ponta. Anyway, it is something to consider.
Ponta, Pacifist, Aki, or anyone else:
Can anyone tell me what the writing means on the five small islets drawn off what looks to be the southern shore of Ulleungdo on this Japanese map on Opp’s Web site?
I am curious because there are also five unnamed islets drawn off the southern shore of Ulleungdo on the 1834 Korean map in my post above.
I think on the five islands is written the same
letters:シマ,meaning island. It is the way 島 is read.
As ponta wrote, the Chinese charcter written on all the tiny islands is “island” (シマ or 島), except the northest one 間島 (Manoshima).
Gerry,
I happened to find that Web page by just googling with “まの竹”. Since there is a common bamboo species called “Shino (しの)” in Japan, I thought that there could be a bamboo called “Mano (まの)”. I don’t know whether any Japanese historian has ever disccussed about the linkage between the Mano island and the Mano bamboo.
By the way, I found a description about “Mano” in my Japanese-Japanese dictionary, 日本国語大辞典. The “Mano” which is written as “真箆” in Chinese character is a bamboo species used to make shafts of arrows. It is also used for making shafts of writing brushes. Bamboos thinner than “Mano” is called “Shino” that I mentioned above.
The bamboo for making arrows is called “Yadake (矢竹)” in present Japanese. Its scientific name is Pseudosasa japonica. Its appearance is similar to Pleioblastus simonii, isn’t it?