“Usando and Ulleungdo Are 350 ri to the East”

In 1908, by order of Emperor Kojong, the text Jeungbomunheonbigo (增補 文獻備考) was complied and published. In the Yeojigo (輿地考) section under Uljin (蔚珍), the following was written:

于山島·鬱陵島在東三百五十里 一作蔚 一作芋 一作羽 一作武 二島 一卽芋山 ‘續’今爲鬱島郡

Usando and Ulleungdo are located 350 ri to the east. Written as 蔚, 芋, 羽, and 武, the two islands make up the so-called Usan (芋山), which is now Uldo County (鬱島郡).

Link to the Document (Look at the small characters.)

Notice that the above statement said, “Usando and Ulleungdo are located 350 ri to the east.” Since both islands were said to be 350 ri to the east, that means they had to be right next to each other, which means that Usando was not referring to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). Notice also that it says that the two islands were then Uldo County, which seems to be confirming that Uldo (Ulleungdo) County was made up of only two significant islands.

In 1900, Korean Imperial Edict 41 renamed Ulleungdo (鬱陵島) as “Uldo (鬱島)” and established it as a county. It also said the county office would be located at Taehadong [a place on Ulleungdo] and would have jurisdiction over the island of Ulleungdo (鬱陵島), Jukdo (竹島), and Seokdo (石島). Here is the relevant section of the 1900 edict:

勅令第四一號
鬱陵島를 鬱島로 改稱고 島監을 郡守로 改正할件
第一條 鬱陵島를 鬱島라 改稱하야 江原道에 附屬하고 島監을 郡守로 改正해야 官制中에 編入고 郡等은 五等으로 事
第二條 郡廳位置 台霞洞으로 定고 區域은 鬱陵全島와 竹島石島를管轄할事

Imperial Edict No. 41

Ulleungdo will be renamed “Uldo” (鬱島), and Island Administrator will be renamed County Head

Article 1. Ulleungdo will be renamed Uldo (鬱島) and be made a part of Gangwon Province. Island Administrator will be amended to County Head, and incorporated into the civil service system as a fifth level official.

Article 2. The county office will be located at Taehadong (台霞洞) and have jurisdiction over the whole island of Ulleung (鬱陵全島) and Jukdo/Seokdo (竹島石島).

The Jukdo mentioned in the 1900 edict was present-day Jukdo, which is located 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore. Old Korean maps of Ulleungdo, however, show very clearly that the old name for Jukdo was “Usando.” (See maps here, here, here, and here.) That means that the “Ulleungdo” and “Usando” mentioned as being Uldo County in the 1908 document was a reference to present-day Ulleungdo and its neighboring island of Jukdo. If that is true, then what happened to the “Seokdo” in the 1900 edict?

I think that “Seokdo” (石島) in the 1900 Korean edict was just a catchall word used to include all the other little rocky islets around Ulleungdo. The name “Seokdo” (石島) means “rock island.” Since the Korean language regularly ignores the plural form of words, “rock island” could have also meant “rock islands.” 

One of the reasons I think that Seokdo was just a catchall word, and not a reference to any specific island, is that the name “Seokdo” never appeared on any Korean maps of Ulleungdo and was never mentioned again in any Korean document concerning Ulleungdo. Another reason is that in an 1899 article in the Korean newspaper, Hwangseong Shinmun, Ulleungdo was described as having “six, small neighboring islands,” of which “Usando/Jukdo” was the most prominent. Here is a translation of the relevant section of the newspaper article:

In the sea east of Uljin is an island named Ulleung. Of its six, small neighboring islands, Usando/Jukdo (于山島竹島) are/is the most prominent (崔著者). The Daehanjiji says that Ulleungdo is the old Country of Usan. It has an area of 100 ri. Three peaks stand out (律兀).

Link to the Article

If Ulleungdo had six, small neighboring islands in 1899, then why were the other five islands not mentioned in the 1900 edict? Well, I think they were mentioned in the edict with the catchall word, “Seokdo.”

The 1908 Korean document is important because it tells us a couple of things. First, the 350 ri distance given in the document reconfirms what older Korean maps and documents have told us about Ulleungdo and Usando, which was that they were neigboring islands right next to each other. In fact, old Korean maps of Ulleungdo show very clearly that Usando was Ulleungdo’s present-day, neighboring island of Jukdo, which is 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore. Second, it tells us that Uldo (Ulleungdo) County was made up of only two significant islands, Ulleungdo and Usando (Jukdo).  There was no mention of “Seokdo,” which supports the theory that Seokdo was just a catchall word referring to the remaining small rocky islets around Ulleungdo.

By 1908, Koreans would have already known of Liancourt Rocks; therefore, since “Usando” was still being used to refer to a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, the 1908 document is more evidence that “Usando” was not a reference to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).

Japanese Translation Provided by Kaneganese

(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。)

1908年、高宗の命により、「增補 文獻備考」が編纂、出版されます。その中の「輿地考」の”蔚珍”の項に、次のような一文があります。

“于山島と鬱陵島は東の沖350里にあり、蔚、芋、羽、武などの文字であらわされることもある。これらの二つの島で、いわゆる芋山という一つ(の国)を形作っている。現在鬱島郡と呼ばれている。文献への(リンク)”

上記の文で”于山島と鬱陵島は東の沖350里にあり”という箇所に注目してください。両島が350里東沖にあると書かれているということは、お互いにすぐ隣同士になければ意味不明になります。また、両島が鬱島郡と呼ばれているということは、鬱島(鬱陵島)郡が二つの島のみで構成されていることをあらわしている訳です。

1900年、大韓帝国勅令第41号で鬱陵島は”鬱島”と改称し、郡として制定されました。また、郡庁を台霞洞に置き、鬱陵島、竹島(竹嶼)、石島という島々を管轄することとされました。次に1900年の勅令のうち関連部分を揚げます。

“勅令第41号 鬱陵島は鬱島と改称し、島監は郡守と改正する。
第一条 鬱陵島は鬱島と改称し、江原道の附属とする。島監は郡守と改正し、五等の官吏として官僚制度に編入する。
第二条 郡役所は台霞洞に置き、鬱陵島全土と竹島石島を管轄する事とする。”

1900年の大韓帝国勅令第41号で記述されている竹島は、鬱陵島の北東沖2.2kmに浮かぶ隣接島の竹嶼です。
しかし、韓国の鬱陵島の古地図では、竹島の古名は”于山島”であることを明確に示しています(各地図へのリンク)。つまり、1908年の文献に現れる鬱島郡に属する” 鬱陵島” ”于山島”は、現在の鬱陵島とその隣接島である竹嶼のことでしょう。そうだとすれば、1900年の勅令にある”石島”は何を指しているのでしょうか。

私は、この1900年の勅令にある”石島”は鬱陵島の周囲にある多数の岩石島の包括的な名称であると考えています。”石島”は、文字通り石(岩)の島を意味します。韓国語ではしばしば複数形を表しません。ですから、石島が岩石で出来た複数の島嶼を意味していた可能性があるのです。私が”石島”を包括的な名称であって特定の島を指していない、と考える理由の一つに、この”石島”という名称がどの韓国の鬱陵島の地図にも描かれておらず、しかも鬱陵島に関する韓国のどの文献においてもその名称が二度と言及されることはなかったからです。さらにもう一つの理由は、1899年の韓国の新聞、皇城新聞の記事に鬱陵島には”六つの小さな付属の島があり““于山島竹島”とがその最も主要な(顕著な)島である、と記されているからです。つぎに、その新聞記事の関連箇所を揚げます。

“蔚珍の東方沖の海中に、鬱陵と言う名の島がある。その島には6つの隣接した小さな島嶼があり、それらのうち于山島竹島がもっとも主要な島である。大韓地誌には、鬱陵島は昔の于山国ことで面積は100里ある、と載っている。3つの峰がそびえている。記事への〈リンク〉”

もしも1899年の時点で鬱陵島に6つの小さな隣接島があったのなら、なぜ1900年の勅令において、他の5つの島は言及されていないのでしょうか。そう、私は1900年の勅令の”石島”は、これらの島々を表す包括的な名称であった、と思います。

1908年の韓国の文献はいくつかの点でとても重要です。第一に、文章中の350里という距離によって、韓国の古地図や古文献が鬱陵島と于山島という互いに隣り合う二つの島について記載している事柄を、改めて確認することができることです。実際、韓国の鬱陵島の古地図には、于山島は鬱陵島の2.2km東沖に浮かぶ隣接島の、現在の竹嶼(韓国名竹島)であることを、明確に著しています。第二に、鬱島郡が二つの主要な島” 鬱陵島” ”于山島”だけで構成されている、と記述している点です。その中には”石島”についての記述はなく、”石島”が鬱陵島の周囲にある岩石で出来た島嶼を表す包括的な言葉である、という私の仮説を裏づけしてくれます。

1908年までには、韓国人はLiancourt Rocksについて既に知っていたはずですが、その年代においても”于山島”が鬱陵島の隣接島を示すために使用されていた、という事実は、于山島がLiancourt Rocksを示す名称ではなかった更なる証拠である、と言えるのです。

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 by Gerry-Bevers, filed under Verus Historia. Date: May 4, 2007, 11:30 am | 45 Comments »

45 Responses

  1. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Can one of our Japanese commenters please give me a summary of what the following Japanese article is talking about?

    http://www.iza.ne.jp/news/newsarticle/world/korea/50468/

  2. ponta Says:

    Gerry-Bevers

    Can one of our Japanese commenters please give me a summary of what the following Japanese article is talking about?

    The article is basically talking about
    the lie of the dokdo museum.

    Dokdo museum has a plague which simplified the the map 八道総図.
    On 八道総図 Usando is right next to and the west of Ulleungdo
    On the plaque Usnado is the east to Ulleungdo, and the distance tween them is shown to be 87.4 km, which is close to the real distance between Ulleungdo and Takeshima/Dokdo.
    Japanese researchers has pointed out it is malice distortion of history.
    Asked why the location is different from the original one, the researcher of the museum answered that it would be easier for the viewer to look at, but there have been a lot of complainets so we would replace it with a new exhibit.
    Professor Shimojou said at this time of the period, Koreans could not even tell Ulleungdo from Usando, and they didn’t even sure if they are the one and the same island or not.
    Ponta said if the museum did it intentionally, it was too immature. if it did it by accident, it was too immature.

  3. ponta Says:

    sparking Korea blogged about it.

  4. GarlicBreath Says:

    I love the sparking Gorea blog. Very funny and refreshing. I am glad to see more and more people are getting a balanced view of Korea and not just VANK propaganda or the groveling that the marmot does.

  5. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Thank you, Ponta.

    It seems that may be one of the Dokdo articles the Sankei Shimbun reporter was telling me about. She also told me the Dokdo Museum employee told her that they were planning to correct the map model.

    Hopefully, they will start being more honest in other areas, as well.

  6. Ken Says:

    Gerry,
    Following is the translation of an article in a Japanese newspaper of today.
    You know the news, don’t you?

    “Rudimentary mistake?Misinterpretation?It mistakes it to the Takeshima position
    of the Tokto museum.”
    – Exhibition panel and complaint receiving removal

    It was understood that the relief of “Tokto museum” constructed in nearby Misasagishima Takeshima (South Korea greatness and Tokto)(Ullnd) by the South Korea government differed from historical materials, and clarified the removal shortly by the museum. Relief..South Korea..old..map..based on..South Korea..territory..sight..show..make..pavilion..symbol..Japanese..researcher..malignant..historical fact..misinterpretation..)..point out.

    In the relief, “Yamashima” etc. on which a Korean peninsula, Misasagishima, and South Korea insist, “Takeshima is indicated” are simplified and drawn. The relief is produced based on map topography ‘”Total ..eight.. ..road.. figure old astringency of the place of the palanquin (ground of ..dependence..) Masami’ of the eastern country” of Korea that completed in 1481, and has been exhibited at first in 1997 of opening a library in the vicinity of the entrance.
    The relief has Yamashima about Misasagishima in the east side of Misasagishima that hits Takeshima’s position oppositely in the old map though Yamashima is drawn in the next of the west soon. Misasagi?The distance of Yamashima is displayed a figure (87.4 kilos) near an actual distance from Misasagishima to Takeshima, and impresses only Yamashima with Takeshima.
    Because “Eight road total figure” is older in the vicinity than ‘Cacs attention combination record’ (1667) that Japan assumes to be grounds of an argument of the Takeshima owning right insistence for 200 years, South Korea is in of the owning right insistence here. “Eight road total figure” is printed on the cover of the pamphlet of this pavilion.

    Researcher (30) in this pavilion : for the coverage of the Sankei Shimbun about the reason why the position is different though he or she explained, “Those who come to a library are seen easily more”. 「It is scheduled to shortly remove it because there are a lot of complaints, and it becomes the cause of the dispute from the researcher in Japan. It substitutes it for another exhibition within the year. 」As for this pavilion, “Mistake” was admitted a description for the first time.
    When “Eight road total figure” was drawn, the distinction between Misasagishima and Yamashima did not attach, and it was not recognized whether it was a different island in South Korea according to the document.

    Story of well informed Masao Shimojo and professor of Takushoku University about Takeshima problem”The influence of the false exhibition with the official body of museum correctly substitutes or is interesting if it is not possible to measure, to know, and to substitute it really. “

  7. toadface Says:

    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/1644-usando.jpg

    Happy now?

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/anyongbok-doc15.jpg

  8. pacifist Says:

    Thanks Gerry for the great posting.
    Let’s go back to the original topic.
    .
    The theory Gerry showed here that Seokdo may be plural rock islets around Ulleungdo seems to be persuasive.
    I would like to know whether there have been a similar usage of the word “Seokdo” in the Korean documents in the past or not.
    .
    However, only the point that Gerry wrote in the beginning, both Ulleungdo and Usando located 350-ri east, maybe enough to deny that Seokdo was not Dokdo.
    And as 大韓地誌 showed, the Great Korean Empire didn’t recognise Takeshima/Dokdo as Korean territory.
    .
    So Korean insistence that Korea knew Takeshima/Dokdo before Japan officially incorporated it in 1905 seems to be false.
    Usando was not Dokdo and Seokdo was not Dokdo.
    There were no Korean maps of Dokdo with two unique shaped rocks, no Korean documents about Dokdo.
    toadface couldn’t show the evidence that she knew it, could you toadface?
    .
    toadface, the maps with Usando drawn east of Ulleungdo are not a proof of Korean insistence.
    Please look at the opp7s site here:
    http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/index.html

  9. pacifist Says:

    Correction:

    to deny that Seokdo was not Dokdo

    SHOUL BE:
    to deny the theory that Seokdo was Dokdo.
    Sorry.

  10. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 12 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  11. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 10 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  12. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 9 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  13. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 8 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  14. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 7 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  15. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 6 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  16. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 5 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  17. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 4 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  18. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 3 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  19. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 2 Supplement » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  20. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 2 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  21. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 1 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  22. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 9 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  23. Kaneganese Says:

    Gerry, I think “于山島竹圖” in the 皇城新聞 article should be “于山島竹島”.

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

    1908年、高宗の命により、「增補 文獻備考」が編纂、出版されます。その中の「輿地考」の”蔚珍”の項に、次のような一文があります。

    “于山島と鬱陵島は東の沖350里にあり、蔚、芋、羽、武などの文字であらわされることもある。これらの二つの島で、いわゆる芋山という一つ(の国)を形作っている。現在鬱島郡と呼ばれている。文献への(リンク)”

    上記の文で”于山島と鬱陵島は東の沖350里にあり”という箇所に注目してください。両島が350里東沖にあると書かれているということは、お互いにすぐ隣同士になければ意味不明になります。また、両島が鬱島郡と呼ばれているということは、鬱島(鬱陵島)郡が二つの島のみで構成されていることをあらわしている訳です。

    1900年、大韓帝国勅令第41号で鬱陵島は”鬱島”と改称し、郡として制定されました。また、郡庁を台霞洞に置き、鬱陵島、竹島(竹嶼)、石島という島々を管轄することとされました。次に1900年の勅令のうち関連部分を揚げます。

    “勅令第41号 鬱陵島は鬱島と改称し、島監は郡守と改正する。
    第一条 鬱陵島は鬱島と改称し、江原道の附属とする。島監は郡守と改正し、五等の官吏として官僚制度に編入する。
    第二条 郡役所は台霞洞に置き、鬱陵島全土と竹島石島を管轄する事とする。”

    1900年の大韓帝国勅令第41号で記述されている竹島は、鬱陵島の北東沖2.2kmに浮かぶ隣接島の竹嶼です。
    しかし、韓国の鬱陵島の古地図では、竹島の古名は”于山島”であることを明確に示しています(各地図へのリンク)。つまり、1908年の文献に現れる鬱島郡に属する” 鬱陵島” ”于山島”は、現在の鬱陵島とその隣接島である竹嶼のことでしょう。そうだとすれば、1900年の勅令にある”石島”は何を指しているのでしょうか。

    私は、この1900年の勅令にある”石島”は鬱陵島の周囲にある多数の岩石島の包括的な名称であると考えています。”石島”は、文字通り石(岩)の島を意味します。韓国語ではしばしば複数形を表しません。ですから、石島が岩石で出来た複数の島嶼を意味していた可能性があるのです。私が”石島”を包括的な名称であって特定の島を指していない、と考える理由の一つに、この”石島”という名称がどの韓国の鬱陵島の地図にも描かれておらず、しかも鬱陵島に関する韓国のどの文献においてもその名称が二度と言及されることはなかったからです。さらにもう一つの理由は、1899年の韓国の新聞、皇城新聞の記事に鬱陵島には”六つの小さな付属の島があり““于山島竹島”とがその最も主要な(顕著な)島である、と記されているからです。つぎに、その新聞記事の関連箇所を揚げます。

    “蔚珍の東方沖の海中に、鬱陵と言う名の島がある。その島には6つの隣接した小さな島嶼があり、それらのうち于山島竹島がもっとも主要な島である。大韓地誌には、鬱陵島は昔の于山国ことで面積は100里ある、と載っている。3つの峰がそびえている。記事への〈リンク〉”

    もしも1899年の時点で鬱陵島に6つの小さな隣接島があったのなら、なぜ1900年の勅令において、他の5つの島は言及されていないのでしょうか。そう、私は1900年の勅令の”石島”は、これらの島々を表す包括的な名称であった、と思います。

    1908年の韓国の文献はいくつかの点でとても重要です。第一に、文章中の350里という距離によって、韓国の古地図や古文献が鬱陵島と于山島という互いに隣り合う二つの島について記載している事柄を、改めて確認することができることです。実際、韓国の鬱陵島の古地図には、于山島は鬱陵島の2.2km東沖に浮かぶ隣接島の、現在の竹嶼(韓国名竹島)であることを、明確に著しています。第二に、鬱島郡が二つの主要な島” 鬱陵島” ”于山島”だけで構成されている、と記述している点です。その中には”石島”についての記述はなく、”石島”が鬱陵島の周囲にある岩石で出来た島嶼を表す包括的な言葉である、という私の仮説を裏づけしてくれます。

    1908年までには、韓国人はLiancourt Rocksについて既に知っていたはずですが、その年代においても”于山島”が鬱陵島の隣接島を示すために使用されていた、という事実は、于山島がLiancourt Rocksを示す名称ではなかった更なる証拠である、と言えるのです。

  24. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Thank you, Kaneganese.

  25. Apr26 Says:

    National Institute of Korean History is a nice site to visit.
    Here are some of interesting documents.
    1895/5/26 Imperial Edict 98 of 1895 Local System ID: mk_026_001_000_0420

    1895/8/14 Establishment of island supervisor ID: mk_026_002_000_0450

    1895/8/16 Establishment of island supervisor ID: gj_003_1895_08_16_0010

    1895/9/20 Appointment of island supervisor ID: gj_003_1895_09_20_0010

    1896/8/4 Imperial Edict 36 of 1896 Local System ID: mk_026_004_000_0860

    1898/5/99 Amendment of Imperial Edict 36 of 1896 ID: mk_007_005_000_0560

    1898/5/26 Amendment of Imperial Edict 36 of 1896 ID: gj_004_1898_05_26_0010

    1900/10/22 Imperial Edict 41 of 1900 Establishment of Uldo County ID: mk_007_017_000_0130

    1900/12/8 strange? ID: mk_019_003_000_1480

    1905/2/22 Japan includes Takeshima to Shimane Pref. ID:gj_006_1905_02_22_0040

    1906/4/29 Arrival of Shimane Prefecture’s mission ID : mk_002_001_000_0560

  26. pacifist Says:

    Apr26,
    .
    Could you please make them linked to the original site?

  27. pacifist Says:

    toadface couldn’t refute…
    .
    Hey all the Korean patriots, what do you think about Seokdo?
    Was the word “Seokdo” plural rocks around Ulleungdo?
    No refutations?

  28. GTOMR Says:

    To :pacifist
    Imput the ID as follows;
    http://www.history.go.kr/openUrl.jsp?ID=

    For e.g.
    Apr26 said:

    1900/10/22 Imperial Edict 41 of 1900 Establishment of Uldo County ID: mk_007_017_000_0130


    Imput the I.D number like below;
    http://www.history.go.kr/openUrl.jsp?ID=mk_007_017_000_0130
    Reading the doccuments around 1900,
    Korean irretted and concerning about Ullungdo because Japan and Russia had confliction about Ullungdo’s resource, problem Japanese behabior and so on. Those reason made them establised Imperial edict #41.

  29. pacifist Says:

    GTOMR,
    .
    Thanks a lot!

  30. toadface Says:

    Paicfist, Hanmaumy debunked Gerry’s “collective rocks” theory before.

    Koreans had characters to add onto words to indicate plural forms as such.

    Gerry’s thoughts are just a theory and a wild one at that.

  31. opp Says:

    Everything cannot help becoming a hypothesis because there is no material that shows the latitude longitude, shape, and the size of 石島. Therefor, there is no evidence that Gerry’s insistence can be denied either.
    I also think that the possibility of Gerry’s hypothesis is high. Imperial Edict No. 41 is based on 禹用鼎’s investigation report.
    However, in the Ullengdo investigation by 禹用鼎, there is no information about Takeshima.
    By the way, presumption can’t become evidence in International Law.

  32. pacifist Says:

    toadface and hanmoumy,
    .
    As a speaker of the same kind of Asian language, I think it is right to say “it usually has characters to add onto words to indicate plural forms” but it depends on circumstances.
    .
    In Japanese language, in this case 竹島 他石島 (Jukdo and other stone islands) or 竹島 及び諸石島 (Jukdo as well as various stone islands) would be adequate if you mean it includes plural islands.
    However, there are cases to write nouns without such adjectives or characters – it’s case by case.
    .
    For example, if you have a car or two cars you would say simply 車を持っている (I have a car/cars), in this case 車 means cars or a car, both singular and plural forms.
    .
    So problem is whether the word 石島 (Seokdo) is a common noun as “car” or not, not a proper noun as Takeshima.

  33. Apr26 Says:

    Thank you, GTOMR.

    1895/5/26 Imperial Edict 98 of 1895 Local System http://www.history.go.kr/openUrl.jsp?ID=mk_026_001_000_0420

    1895/8/14 Establishment of island supervisor http://www.history.go.kr/openUrl.jsp?ID=mk_026_002_000_0450

    1895/8/16 Establishment of island supervisor http://www.history.go.kr/openUrl.jsp?ID=gj_003_1895_08_16_0010

    1895/9/20 Appointment of island supervisor http://www.history.go.kr/openUrl.jsp?ID=gj_003_1895_09_20_0010

    1896/8/4 Imperial Edict 36 of 1896 Local System http://www.history.go.kr/openUrl.jsp?ID=mk_026_004_000_0860

    1898/5/99 Amendment of Imperial Edict 36 of 1896 http://www.history.go.kr/openUrl.jsp?ID=mk_007_005_000_0560

    1898/5/26 Amendment of Imperial Edict 36 of 1896 http://www.history.go.kr/openUrl.jsp?ID=gj_004_1898_05_26_0010

    1900/10/22 Imperial Edict 41 of 1900 Establishment of Uldo County http://www.history.go.kr/openUrl.jsp?ID=mk_007_017_000_0130

    1900/12/4 strange? http://www.history.go.kr/openUrl.jsp?ID=mk_025_015_000_0800

    1905/2/22 Japan includes Takeshima to Shimane Pref. http://www.history.go.kr/openUrl.jsp?ID=gj_006_1905_02_22_0040

    1906/4/29 Arrival of Shimane Prefecture’s mission http://www.history.go.kr/openUrl.jsp?ID=mk_002_001_000_0560

    I connot read Korean, but guessing from Chinese characters, 1900/12/4 documnt, 1905/2/22 document and the last part of 1906/4/29 document look interesting.

  34. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 11 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  35. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 11 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  36. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 7 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  37. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 6 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  38. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 5 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  39. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 4 Supplement · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  40. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 4 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  41. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 3 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  42. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 2 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  43. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 12 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  44. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 8 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]

  45. Absurd claims - Korea Times | Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10 […]