1786 Ulleungdo Inspection: Sea Lions Killed on Ulleungdo

The following is an analysis of the report of a 1786 inspection of Ulleungdo. The report was submitted by Wonchun Governor Lee Chi-jung on July 4, 1786 and was recorded in the Ilseongrok, which was a daily chronicle of selected events and discussions in the Joseon royal court from 1752 to 1910.

One problem with the 1786 report is that it seems incomplete since it fails to describe the east coast of Ulleungdo. For example, there is no mention of “Usando” or “Jukdo,” which were names used to describe a small island off of Ulleungdo’s east coast. This suggests that the inspection party did not survey the east coast. The report mentions nothing about any beaches or rock formations on or off the eastern coastline, which also suggests that the east coast was bypassed. The report also fails to give a distance from the eastern shoreline to the central peak, which is unusual. On old Korean maps of Ulleungdo, distances are usually given to the central peak from the four corners of the island. The 1786 report gave only three.

One island was mentioned in the report. Its name was Bangpaedo (防牌島), which was described as being an island east of a rock off the north shore of Ulleungdo. This suggests that Bangpaedo (防牌島) was a reference to present-day Gwaneumdo (觀音島), which is a small island at the northeast corner of Ulleungdo. The problem with the description of Bangpaedo (防牌島), however, was that it was described as being three ri offshore, which is about 1.2 kilometers. That does not fit the description of Gwaneumdo since it is probably less than 100 meters offshore. It is possible, however, that the three ri description may have included the finger of land that sticks out from the main island toward Gwaneumdo. Of course, it is also possible that Bangpaedo (防牌島) was a reference to present-day Jukdo, which is Ulleungdo’s largest neighboring island and is approximately 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east coast.

The importance of the report is that it says unequivocally that there was a place on Ulleungdo called “Seal Beach” (可支仇味), where riflemen in the inspection party killed two sea lions.  This is important because Korean historians have suggested that references to sea lion hunting in old Korean documents were evidence that Koreans traveled to “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks), but this 1786 report is proof that Koreans were hunting sea lions on Ulleungdo, not Dokdo.

The following is the original Chinese-character based record and my translation, which is based on a Korean language translation that I did not include in this post. After my translation, I will give my interpretation of its contents.

原春監司 李致中 狀啓 鬱陵島 搜討乙巳年爲次第而因嶺東 慘歉前 監司 徐鼎修 狀聞停止今年搜討官當次 越松萬戶 金昌胤牒呈內四月十九日候風于平海丘尾津二十七日午時分四船與倭學李裕文上下員役沙格竝八十名齊發二十八日卯時船格等指曰彼黑雲底乃島中上峯云云未過數時最高三峯宛然入望四更未四船同聚悲喜交極各陳危怖之狀二十九日解纜到苧田洞四船之人沐浴山祭後看審則自洞口至中峯二十餘里重峯疊嶂內外相連中有三峯 最秀此是一島之主鎭而洞裏石城痕周可數三里宛然猶存城內有大錐巖小錐巖石礎苧田等處土地平衍可墾田畓八九石落前進可支仇味則山腰有兩石窟其深難測可支魚驚出投水之際砲手齊放捉得二首五月初一日卯時轉向南邊倭船滄則自洞口至中峯三十餘里皆是殘山石城石塔石葬等遺址宛然轉向前面巖壁削列水邊到長作地竹林處則竹林稀疏元無體大者北到天磨仇味初二日平明省審則有巖屹立水中狀如牛角名以帿竹巖束有防牌島距大島爲三里許初三日到玄作地石山重疊海邊則嚴石而已錐山則山形奇異石色怪黑竹巖則兩巖屹立狀如帿竹傍有孔巖 中通小桶船到黃土仇味則山形重疊谷水成川可畓三十餘石可田數十餘石自洞至中峯三十餘里左右土窟巖石上有前日搜討官等題名初四日轉向香木亭大抵一島周回可百二十餘里南北七八十里東西六七十里四面皆絕壁山形箇箇峻險大溪小澗或瀑或流千丈銀虹萬斗噴玉自待風所望見樹木則冬栢側栢香木 楓木檜木欕木梧桐桑楡檀木羽蟲則島鷗毛族則㹨鼠而已海族則甘藿鰒魚可支魚搜探後同日申時一行齊登壇上謹祭海神掛帆旋歸初五日酉時萬戶船還泊三陟遠德面長五里戌時倭學船二隻來泊亥時下卜船一隻又來初七轉泊待風所初八還鎭所產可支魚 皮二令 靑竹 三箇 紫檀香 二吐莫 石間朱 五升本島圖形一件牒呈上送 備邊司 緣由馳啓

정조 10년 병오(1786, 건륭 51)
6
4(병자)

Wonchun Governor Lee Chi-jung reports the following:

The inspection of Ulleungdo was scheduled to take place in 1785, but because it was a year of terrible famine, the previous governor, Seo Jeong-su, asked that it be cancelled. This year the inspection was conducted by Wolsong Commander Kim Chang-yun, who submitted the following report: 

“On April 19, we checked the wind at the Kumi Naval Base in Pyeonghae.  At between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. on the 27th, eighty people, including Japanese specialist Lee Yu-mun, various ranks of officials, sailors, and assistants all divided up, boarded four ships, and departed. Between 5 and 7 a.m. on the 28th, the assistants pointed toward something and said, ‘Below that dark cloud over there is the island’s tallest peak.’ Within a few hours, the island’s three tallest peaks were clearly visible. At about 3 a.m., the four boats assembled. This caused a mixture of extreme joy and sadness as everyone talked about the fears and the dangers each had encountered.”

“On the 29th, we set out again. As soon as we arrived at Jeojeon-dong (苧田洞), everyone got off the boats, took a bath, and made offerings to the Mountain Spirit. Then we began our inspection. It was twenty ri from the village entrance to the central peak, over a series of overlapping peaks weaving in and out. Three peaks were especially towering. In the middle was the island’s main fortress. In a village we found the remains of what obviously was a stone fortress with fairly thick walls. It had a circumference of two to three ri. Inside the fortress were large and small stone pillars, foundation stones, and fields of ramie. The land was flat and wide enough for fields and paddies large enough to produce eight or nine seomjigi.

We advanced to Gaji Beach (可支仇味) and found two caves in the side of the mountain. It was too difficult to calculate their depth. We surprised some sea lions that dashed out (of a cave). All our riflemen fired at once and got two of them before they could get into the water.”

“On May 1st., between 5 and 7 a.m., we changed direction and headed south toward the Japanese boat dock. It was about 30 ri from the entrance (of the Japanese boat dock) to the central peak. The mountains there were left a waste land. There were clear remains of a stone fortress, stone pagodas, and stone-piled graves. We changed direction and headed forward. There was a wall of rock at the water’s edge that looked like it had been craved out. When we arrived at the Jangjakji (長作地) bamboo forest, we found it sparse. The big bamboo that had been there was gone. We headed north and arrived at Cheonmagumi (天磨仇味).”

“At sunrise on the 2nd, we began our inspection. One rock towering in the middle of the sea looked like the horns of a cow. It was called “Hujuk-am” (帿竹巖). Bangpaedo (防牌島) was to the east, about three ri from the main island.”

On the 3rd, we arrived at Hyeunjakji (玄作地), where we found overlapping stone mountains and a rocky coastline. Chusan (錐山) had a strange shape and was made of strange back rock. Jukam (竹巖) was two towering rocks that looked like “Hujuk” (帿竹). Next to Jukam was Gongam (孔巖), through the center of which a small transport boat could pass. When we arrived at Hwangtogumi (黃土仇味), we found overlapping peaks and a mountain stream. There was enough land to farm about thirty seok of rice paddies or tens of seok of fields. It was about thirty ri from the village to the central peak. Above “Cave Rock,” on the right and left, were written the names of previous inspectors.”

“On the 4th, we headed toward Hyangmok Pavilion (香木亭). The circumference of the entire island was about 120 ri. The distance from north to south was between seventy and eighty ri, and from east to west was sixty to seventy ri. All four sides of the island were cliffs and all of the mountains were steep. There were large and small streams falling and flowing down the valleys that looked like a silver rainbow 1,000 jang high. It looked like 10,000 pieces of jade had been spewed up into the air. Looking from Daepungso (大風所), we saw the following trees: camellia, Oriental arborvitae, juniper, maple, hoinamu, kalopanax, paulownia, mulberry, elm, and birch. The birds we saw were crow and seagull. The only wild animals we saw were cats and mice. The sea products were brown seaweed, abalone, and sea lions. After our search, between 3:30 and 4:30 p.m. on the same day, we all went up to the alter and respectfully made offerings to the sea god. Then we set sail and immediately returned.”

“Between 5 and 7 p.m. on the 5th, the commander’s ship arrived at Jangori in Wondeok-myeon, Samcheok. Between 7 and 9 p.m., the Japanese scholar’s two ships arrived and anchored. Between 9 and 11 p.m, Ha Bok’s ship also arrived. On the 7th, we returned to the cove and anchored, and on the 8th, we returned to our camp.” 

Two sea lion skins, three green bamboo trunks, two blocks of rosewood incense, five seung of red ocher, one map of the island, and a report, were all brought back and given to the Bibyeonsa. That is why I am sending this. 

July 4, 1786

 

 

 

 

The following is a map showing the route that I think the 1786 survey team followed:

Map showing route of 1786 survey       

Between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. on April 27, four ships carrying eighty people departed the Kumi Naval Base at Pyeonghae, which was near present-day Kangneung City, on the east coast of Gangwon Province. Between 5 and 7 a.m. on April 28, some in the group spotted in the distance Ulleungdo’s tallest peak, which means they saw sight of Ulleungdo after seventeen to nineteen hours out at sea. Within a few hours, the island’s three tallest peaks were visible. The mention of Ulleungdo’s three tallest peaks suggests that the “Sambongdo” (三峯島) in old Korean documents was another name for Ulleungdo. Sambongdo means “Three Peak Island.”

At about 3 a.m. (on April 29), the four ships assembled somewhere offshore of Ulleungdo, which means they had been at sea for between forty and forty-two hours. They may have assembled offshore to wait and approach the island in the daytime, or maybe the crew was just too tired to go any farther.  At any rate, they seem to have waited until morning before continuing.

On the 29th, they set out again and finally arrived at Jeojeon-dong, which was on the northeast side of Ulleungdo, maybe near present-day Jukam Beach (죽암몽돌해수욕장). From there they headed inland toward the center of the island. They reported that it was about twenty ri from the shoreline to the central peak on the island. In the center of the island they found flat land suitable for farming and the remains of a stone fortress. From there they headed to Gaji-gumi (可支仇味), which means “Seal Beach”. They reported finding two caves there in the side of a mountain and sea lions. They shot and killed two of the sea lions.

The following 1750s map shows that Jeojeon-dong (苧田洞) was located on the northwest coast of Ulleungdo. It also shows a rock nearby labed 牛角岩(우각암), which means “Cow Horns Rock.”

Jeojeondog

Though “Seal Beach,” is not labeled on any old maps of Ulleungdo, Lee Gyu-won’s 1882 map of Ulleungdo does show three caves on the west side of the island, one of which was labeled 可支窟, which means “Seal Cave.”  It was somewhere near present-day Namyang Beach (남양몽돌해수욕장). There is also a rock in the area called Saja Bawui, which means “Lion Rock.” Since Lion Rock would have been right near Seal Cave, it is possible that the rock was given its name because of the sea lions in the area.

The following 1882 map shows Seal Cave (可支窟) on the west coast of Ulleungdo and a beach called Jangjakji (長斫之) on the southern coast.

Seal Cave

On May 1, the party headed south toward the “Japanese Boat Dock,” which may have been near present-day Tong-gumi. At any rate, the report says that it was about thirty ri from the Japanese Boat Dock to the central peak of the island. From the Japanese Boat Dock, they appear to have gone somewhat inland, where they found remains of a stone fortress, a stone pagoda, and stone-piled graves. Then they changed direction and headed toward Jangjakji (長作地), which was on the southern coast near present-day Sadong Harbor (사동항). From Jangjakji, they headed north to Cheonma-gumi (天磨仇味).

I am not sure where Cheonma-gumi was, but I think it was near where they started their survey on the north shore since the record says there was a rock offshore shaped like the “horns of a cow.” The name of the rock was  Hujuk-am (帿竹巖). I think Hujuk-am (帿竹巖) was present-day Samseon-am (삼선암), which has also been described as looking like the horns of a cow. In fact, on the 1750s map shown above, Samseon-am was labeled as 牛角岩 (우각암), which means “Cow Horns Rock.”The record said that Bangpaedo (防牌島) was to the east of Hujuk-am (帿竹巖). That suggests that Bangpaedo was a reference to present-day Gwaneumdo (觀音島), which is to the east of present-day Samseon-am, but the record also said that Bangpaedo was about three ri from the main island, which would be about 1.2 kilometers if a 0.4 ri measurement were used. That suggests that Bangpaedo was a reference to present-day Jukdo, which is approximately 2.2 kilometers off the east coast of Ulleungdo.

Regardless of the three ri distance, I think Bangpaedo was a reference to Gwaneumdo. Maybe the finger that extends out from the mainland and points to Gwaneumdo was a part of the three ri calculation, or maybe looking at Gwaneumdo from along the northern shoreline gave the impression it was three ri from the shoreline? I am not sure why three ri was given, but the reason I think that Bangpaedo was a reference to Gwaneumdo is that there was no mention of either Usando or Jukdo in the report. In fact, there was no mention of the inspection party even surveying the east coast of Ulleungdo, where present-day Jukdo is located. The record only said that the survey party headed north from Jangjakji to Cheonma-gumi. Because they made the trip in just one day and because there was no mention of any east coast beaches or rock formations, I think the survey party just traveled straight across the center of the island, not along the east coast.

On May 2, the survey team traveled west from Cheonma-gumi along the northern shoreline, probably on their ships. On May 3, they arrive at Hyeonjakji, which was on the western edge of the northern shore. Along the way they reported passing three rocks: Chu-am, Juk-am, and Gong-am. Juk-am was most likely a reference to present-day Ddan Bawui, Chu-am a reference to present-day Songgotbong, and Gong-am a reference to present-day Gong-am, which is also called Koggiri Bawui (Elephant Rock). All three rocks are on the northern shore, but Juk-am should have been listed before Chu-am since the party was traveling from east to west.

After surveying Hyeunjakji (玄作地), the party headed toward Hwangto-gumi (黃土仇味), where they found a mountain stream, land suitable for farming, and a cave with the names of previous inspectors craved in the rock at the entrance. Hwangto-gumi was located at present-day Taeha Harbor, where there is a cave called Hwangto-gul, which means “Yellow Earth Cave.” By the way, Hwangto-gumi means “Yellow-earth beach. The party reported that the distance from the beach to the central peak was thirty ri.

The following 1882 map shows Hyeunjakji (玄斫之) on the north coast of Ulleungdo and Hwangto-gumi (黃土邱尾) on the northwest corner of the island.

Hwangto-gumi

On May 4, the party headed up to Hyangmok Pavilion (香木亭), which was somewhere on the point up above Hwangto Beach. After that, at between 3:30 and 4:30 p.m., the survey party made offerings to the sea god and set sail for home, arriving back on the mainland on the evening of May 5th, which means they probably had the wind and current at their backs.

The report said that Ulleungdo had a circumference of 120 ri and had a diameter of seventy to eighty ri from north to south and sixty to seventy ri from east to west, but it does not mention how or when all of those measurements were taken. For example, there is nothing in the report that explains how the survey party got the circumference reading, and there were only three, not four, distance measurements to the central peak were given. Also, only one of Ulleungdo’s two islands was mentioned and the east shore was not mentioned at all. It is as if the ships anchored on the northeast shore and waited for the survey party to hike to specific points across the island. When they returned, they sailed west alone the north shore to a point just on the other side of the northwest corner of the island. After they surveyed that area, they sailed home. There is no mention that any ship actually sailed around the island.

As mentioned above, the record of the 1786 survey of Ulleungdo shows that Koreans were hunting sea lions on Ulleungdo, not “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks).

Japanese Translation Provided by Kaneganese

(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。)1786年の鬱陵島検察:鬱陵島で射殺されたアシカこれから紹介するのは、1786年に行われた鬱陵島の検察報告の分析です。この報告書は、原春の監司、李致中によって1786年7月4日に提出されました。これは、1752年から1910年の間の朝鮮王朝の宮廷での出来事や議論が、日記風に記録されている“Ilseongrok(日省録)”に収録されています。1786年の報告について一つ問題があるのは、鬱陵島の東海岸の描写が欠けており、不完全であることです。例えば、“于山島” と“竹島(Jukdo)”は、それまで鬱陵島の東海岸にある小さな島として名前が上がっていたのですが、この報告書では触れられていないのです。 これは、検察団が東海岸を見回っていなかったことを示しています。この報告では、東海岸沖の浜や岩などについて何一つ記述しておらず、このことからも東海岸の検察が省略されたことが伺えます。報告書には、東海岸から中峰までの距離が提示されておらず、不自然です。韓国の鬱陵島に関する古地図には、東西南北の角から中央の峰までの距離が、たいてい記入されているのですが。1786年の報告では、3箇所からの距離しか分かりません。報告書では、一つの島について触れられています。名前は防牌島です。その島は、鬱陵島の北岸沖の島として描かれています。これは、防牌島が、鬱陵島の北東角にある小さな島である現在の観音島のことを示していると思われます。しかし、防牌島の描写で問題になるのは、それが3里(約1.2km)沖にあると書かれており、100m以内の海中にある観音島とは異なるのです。ただし、この里という表現には、観音島に向かって突き出した鬱陵島の突端部を含めている可能性があります。もちろん、防牌島が鬱陵島の最大の付属島で、東岸2.2km沖に浮かぶ今日の竹島(Jukdo)である可能性もあります。この報告書の中で重要なのは、鬱陵島の可支仇味(アシカ入江)と言う場所があったことをはっきりと記述していることです。検察団の銃手は、可支仇味で2頭のアシカを射殺したと書かれています。これは、とても重要です。というのも、古い文献でアシカ猟の記述があることは、韓国人が“独島”(Liancourt Rocks)へ渡航していた証拠になる、と韓国の歴史学者は言っているからです。しかし、この1786年の報告書は、当時の韓国人が独島ではなく鬱陵島でアシカ猟をしていたことの証拠になります。以下は、漢文で書かれた報告書と、韓国語訳から英語にした私の訳です。翻訳を終えてから、その内容を解釈していこうと思います。

“原春の監司、李致中が鬱陵島の検察報告を致します。
鬱陵島の検察は1785年に行われる予定でしたが、その年は大変な飢饉でしたので、前任の徐鼎修がその年は停止することを願い出ました。今年は、越松の長官(萬戶)、 金昌胤が検察を行い、この報告書を作提出しました。

4月19日、平海の丘尾津で、風をチェックした。27日午前11時から午後1時の間に日本語通訳の李裕文、各階級の役人、船員、助手達が全員で80人ほど、4隻の船に分乗して出航した。28日午前5時から7時の間に、助手が前方の何かを指差し、こういった。‘あそこの真っ黒な雲の下に、島の一番高い峰が見えます。’数時間後には島の3つの高い峰がはっきりと見えた。午前3時頃、4つの船が全て集まった。皆がそれぞれ体験した出来事の悲喜交々を語り合った。

29日にまた出発した。苧田洞に着いてすぐ皆下船し、沐浴してから山の神に祈りを捧げた。その後、検察を始めた。村の入口から中央の峰までは、小さな峰や山がいろいろ重なり合って20里あった。3つの峰は格別に高く聳えていた。中央には島の主要な砦があり、その中の村には、昔の石の砦と思われるものが、かなり厚い壁とともに残っていた。周囲の距離は2から3里あった。その砦の内部には、大小の石の柱と基礎石そして苧(麻の一種?)の茂みがあった。その土地は平坦で、8、9石の水田を作るのに充分な大きさだった。

それから我々は可支仇味へと進み、2つの洞窟を山側に確認した。奥行を測るのは困難だった。アシカが何頭か驚いて(洞穴から)飛出てきた。銃手が全員同時に発砲して、うち2頭を海に逃げ込む前にしとめた。

5月1日午前5時から7時の間、南へ方向を変えて倭船滄へと向かった。洞窟の入口から中央の峰までは約30里だった。そこに残された山は、放棄された土地だった。石の砦、石塔、石積みの墓などの跡がはっきり残っていた。我々は方向を変えて進んだ。そこには水際に削られたような岩壁があった。長作地の竹林に着いたが、まばらに生えていた。そこに生えていた大きな竹は無くなっていた。そこから北へ向かい、天磨仇味(天磨入江)に着いた。

2日の明け方、検察を再開した。海中に聳える牛の角にみえる岩は、帿竹巖と呼ばれる。防牌島はその東にあり、本当から3里沖にある。

3日、玄作地に着いた。そこには折り重なるような岩山と、ごつごつした海岸線が広がっていた。錐山は奇妙な形で、恐ろしげな黒色の岩で出来ている。竹巖は帿竹にそっくりな二つの聳え立つ岩だ。その隣は、孔巖で、その穴の間を小さな船が通り抜けることが出来る。黃土仇味(黃土入江)に着くと峰々が重なり合い、谷水が集まって川となっている。30石の水田もしくは10石の畑を耕すのに充分なほどの広さの土地が広がっている。そこから中央の峰までは約30里あり、左右の洞穴の岩の上部には前任の検察史達の名前が刻まれている。

4日に、香木亭に向かった。島全体の周囲は約120里、また、南北の距離は70から80里、東西は60から70里だ。島の四方は全て崖になっており、山や皆大変険しい。大小の谷川が千丈の虹のように流れている。大風所から見渡すと、様々な樹木が確認出来る。冬栢、側栢、香木、楓木、檜木、欕木、梧、桐、桑、楡、檀木などである。鳥はカラスと鴎が生息し、野生動物は猫と鼠のみ確認出来た。海産物は昆布、鮑、アシカである。同日3:30から4:30頃、検察の修了後、皆で祭壇に上がり、海神に祈りを捧げた。そして出帆し、帰路に着いた。

5日の午後5次から7時の間、長官の船は、三陟の遠德面長五里に到着した。7時から9時の間、日本の学者の船が2隻到着し、停泊した。9時から11時の間、下卜の船も到着した。7日に入江に戻り、停泊した。8日には基地に戻った。

持ち帰ったアシカの皮、青竹3本、紫檀香2個、朱黄土5升、島の地図一枚と報告書、以上が持ち帰ったもの全てで、故に備邊司様にお送りいたします。

1786年7月4日”

下の図は、1786年の検察団が取ったと思われる検察順路です。

図1:1786年の検察団の検察経路推測図

27日午前11時から午後1時の間、80人ほどを載せた4隻の船が、平海の海軍基地を出航しています。この場所は、現在の江原道の東海岸にあるKangneung市の近くです。28日午前5時から7時の間に、一行のある者が、遠めに鬱陵島の最高峰を見つけていますが、それは17、8時間の航行のあとに鬱陵島が視界に入ったことを示しています。その数時間後に島で最も高い3つの峰がはっきりと目に入ります。この、鬱陵島の三つの高い峰という表現は、こうした韓国の古文献に見られる“三峯島”が鬱陵島の別名であることを示唆しています。

29日に彼等はまた出発し、現在のJukam浜の近くと思われる、島の北東にある苧田洞に最終的に到着します。そこから島の中央に向かって内陸を進みます。彼等は島の海岸から中峰まで約20里、と報告しています。島の中央部で、平坦な耕作適地と砦があるのを発見しています。そこから”アシカ浜、もしくは入江”を意味する”可支仇味に向かいます。そこでは山側に洞窟2つと、アシカ数頭を見つへ、アシカを2頭射殺しています。

次の1750年代の地図で、苧田洞が鬱陵島北東部にあることが分かります。また、牛角岩と標記された岩が近くにあるのも分かります。

図2:海東地圖(1750頃)北東部拡大図

“可支仇味”と言う名前は韓国の古地図には記載されていませんが、李奎遠が作成した1882年の鬱陵島外圖には、島の西側に3つの洞穴が描かれており、そのうちの一つに“アシカ洞穴”を意味する“可支窟”と言う名称が併記されています。現在のNamyang浜の近くのどこかだと思われます。その地域に“獅子岩”と言う名の岩もあります。獅子岩がアシカ洞穴のすぐ近くにあった、と思われることから、この名前から、アシカがその地域に生息していたということが推測されます。。

次の1882年の地図には鬱陵島の西海岸に可支窟が、南海岸に長斫之という名の浜がそれぞれ描かれています。

図3:鬱陵島外圖(1882)南西部拡大図

5月1日、一行は倭船滄(日本船倉)へと向かいます。おそらく現在の桶邱尾の近くであったと思われます。どのような測定をしたのか、報告ではここから中央の峯まで約20里ある、としています。どうやら彼等は、そこから内陸部へ向かったようで、石の砦、石塔、石積みの墓などの跡が明確に残っていたと記述しています。彼等はそれから方向を変え、現在の沙洞港に近いと思われる、島南部の長作地へと向かいます。そこから北へ向きを変え、天磨仇味へと向かいます。この天磨仇味が何処なのか、よく分からないのですが、“牛の角のような形の岩が沖にあった”と伝えていることから、おそらく一行が検察を始めた最初の場所に近かったのではないか、と思われます。その岩の名前は、帿竹巖というのですが、私はそれは同じく牛の角によく似た様子で描かれている、現在の三仙岩ではないかと思うのです。事実、上掲の1750年代の地図では、三仙岩は牛角岩と記されているのです。

記録では、防牌島は帿竹巖の東にある、となっています。このことから、防牌島は現在の三仙岩の東にある観音島を指している、と考えられます。ただ、記録ではまた、防牌島は本島から3里(1里が1.4kmだとすれば、約1.2km)の距離にある、と記しています。つまり、そうなると防牌島は鬱陵島東岸沖約2.2kmにある、現在の竹島/竹嶼(Jukdo)を示していると考えられるのです。

3里と言う距離の問題はさておき、私は防牌島は観音島を指している、と思います。おそらく、本島から島へ向かって伸びている突端の部分が3里と言う距離に含まれているのか、もしくは北部の浜辺から観音島を眺めたときに、まるで3里沖に浮かんでいるように見えたのか、そうした可能性はないでしょうか?どうして3里になったのかは分かりませんが、私がこの防牌島が観音島だと思うその訳は、報告の中に于山島と竹島/竹嶼(Jukdo)のどちらの島も記述が無いからです。実は、そもそも検察団が鬱陵島の東海岸を調査したのかどうか、ということさえ記されていないのです。記録では単に一行は長作地から北へ向きを変え、天磨仇味へと向かったと記しているだけです。行程が一日だった事と、東海岸の浜や岩について何も記述が無いことからして、私は、検察団の一行が東海岸に沿って進んだのではなく、島の真ん中をまっすぐ横切ったのだと思うのです。

5月2日、検察団は天磨仇味から北部の海岸線に沿って西へ向かって進みます。おそらく、船で航行していたのでしょう。5月3日、北部海岸の西端に当たる玄作地に着きます。この道すがら錐山、竹岩、孔巖という3つの岩を通り過ぎたことを、一行は報告しています。竹岩はおそらく現在のDdan岩、錐山は今のSonggot岩、そして孔巖は現在の孔岩、別名象岩だと思われます。これら3つの岩は全て北岸にありますが、東から西へ移動していたことを考えると、竹岩は錐山の前に記述されるべきでした。

玄作地の調査を終えた一行は黃土仇味へ向かいます。彼等はそこで谷川と耕作適地、そして前任の検察史達が入口に名前を刻んだ洞穴を見つけます。黃土仇味は、黄土洞と呼ばれる洞窟がある現在の台霞港に位置し明日。黃土仇味は、黄土入江の意味です。ここから中央の峯までは、30里ある、と一行は報告しています

次の1882年の地図には、鬱陵島の北海岸の玄斫之と、北西角の黃土邱尾が描かれています。

図4:鬱陵島外圖(1882)北西部拡大図

5月4日、一行は上の地図で黃土邱尾の上の方に位置する香木亭に向かいます。その後、3:30から4:30頃、検察の修了後、海神に祈りを捧げてから出帆し、帰路に着いたと書かれています。半島本土に着いたのは、5月5日の夕方で、このことから、追い風と波が航行を助けていたことが伺えます。報告では、鬱陵島は周囲120里、半径は南北に70から80里、東西に60から70里ある、と書かれています。しかし、いつ、どのような方法でこうした計測が行われたのか、明らかではありません。例えば、どうやって島の周囲の長さを測ったのか、また、中央の峯までの距離については、4方ではなく、3方からの数字しかないのは何故か、といったことです。また、鬱陵島の2つの隣接島のうち一つしか言及されておらず、しかも東海岸に至っては、全く記述されていない理由も明らかではありません。それはまるで、検察団の一行が島の特定の地点をそれぞれ徒歩で走破しながら計測し、船は北東岸にずっと停泊して帰りを待っていたかのようです。一行が戻った時に、船は西へ航行し、島の北岸の反対側の角へと移動したようです。彼等は検察を終えた後、本土へ戻りました。島を周回して航行した船があったかどうか、実際のところ、記述がありません。

これまで述べてきたように、1786年の鬱陵島検察記録によれば、その時代の韓国人は”独島” (Liancourt Rocks)ではなく、鬱陵島でアシカの狩猟を行ったことは明らかです。

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: September 16, 2006, 6:02 am | 49 Comments »

49 Responses

  1. pacifist Says:

    Thank you Gerry,

    The great job again!

    So the 1786 inspection didn’t include Takeshima/Dokdo, while Koreans always say that they knew the island and it belonged to the same group of islands to Ulleungdo. (if it was included in the group of Ulleungdo, why the inspector didn’t only go to Takeshima/Dokdo but also he didn’t mention the name of the island?)

    And there were sea lions in Ulleungdo, while they have insisted that sea lions were only found at Takeshima/Dokdo and that the record of sea lions means they knew Takeshima/Dokdo.

    So this document may support the evidence that Koreans didn’t know Takeshima/Dokdo or they didn’t think Takeshima/Dokdo was a part of the group of islands around Ulleungdo.

  2. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Thank you, Pacifist.

    By the way, below is a PDF file showing an 1877 Japanese map of Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima). Ulleungdo is labeled as 磯竹島 and Takeshima is labeled as 松島. Next to Ulleungdo is a small island, the name of which is either too small to read or is not labeled. Korean sites say that the map is proof that the Japanese government gave up her claim on Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima) in the 1870s since a Japanese document at that time said that “Ulleungdo and another island” was not Japanese territory. However, I think the map proves that the phrase “another island” was not referring to LIancourt Rocks (Takeshima).

    The map clearly shows Ulleungdo labeled as 磯竹島 and Liancourt Rocks labeled as 松島 (Matsushima), which means that if the phrase “another island” had been referring to Liancourt Rocks, the Japanese would have used the name “Matsushima” in the document instead of “another island.”

    Since there was an unnamed island next to Ulleungdo on the map, I think it is obvious that the phrase “another island” was referring to that neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not to Liancourt Rocks.

    Though I think people have seen the map before, here it is again, just in case. (Remember: it is a PDF file.)

    1877 Japanese Map of Ulluengdo and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima)

    p.s. The above link does not seem to be working now, but here is a link provided by Ponta that shows a clearer picture of the map.

  3. ponta Says:

    Gerry
    http://mfiles.naver.net/538867b3a8f29f2a055d/data19/2006/9/15/279/kijukdo_outline-cms1530.pdf

    The page cannot be found.

    http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/2a10kou2032-1877/xtop-left.jpg

    Is this what you are talking about?

    .

    The map clearly shows Ulleungdo labeled as 磯竹島 and Liancourt Rocks labeled as 松島 (Matsushima), which means that if the phrase “another island” had been referring to Liancourt Rocks, the Japanese would have used the name “Matsushima” in the document instead of “another island.”

    I agree ,and professor Shimojo is in the same line with you,
    Shimojou also says that since Japan knew the name of Dokdo as Matsushima, she would not have referred it as “another land”.
    i have a slightly different opinion.
    I wrote

    wedgie,
    In 1876 document, Internal affair office asked Shimane prefecture about the island 100 ri or so off Oki in the North Sea. This is not about Dokdo because Dokdo is located 80 ri off Oki. This island is probably Ulleungodo or Gwanundo.(toron
    In respond to the request, Shimane answered this issue should be sent to Dajoukan with the attached 1877 document.
    Let’s examine the attached document.
    (1)If we focus on the distance in the document and the distance on the map attached. it surely looks as if Matsushima is Dokdo.
    (2)However, if we focus on other parts of document describing Matsushima and the Gwanundo on the map it agree with the descriptions of Ulleungdo (or Gwanundo)
    The ambiguity remains.
    Next let’s examine Dajoukan’s document. It says Japan has nothing to do with Takeshima and another island.
    Takeshima refers to Ulleungdo. The problem is what the “another island” refers to.
    The same ambiguity remains.
    (a) It might refer to dokdo according to the first interpretation (1)
    (b) it might refer to Ulleugdo or Gwanundo according to the second interpretation(2).Moreover if we assume Japan knew the name of Dokdo as Matushima, and yet , she did not use that name “Matsushima” to refer to another land, then it is probable that she did not mean Dokdo by “another island .In addition, considering the fact that Dajoukan made a statement in respond to Shimane and 1876 document above which talked only about the island 100 ri or so off Oki, another island is less likely to be Dokdo.

    In any case,

    A The ambiguity remains.
    B This is internal documents, It does not admit Korea had effective control and Korea did not recognize Dokdo at this time anyway. So it does not affect Japanese title to Dokdo.
    C Japan included Dokdo in 1905 when Korea had no effective control over Dokdo before. So this document itself has nothing to do with the title to Dokdo after all.

    BBS at OPP’s site
    (By the way, I guess wedgie is toad)

    I’d be happy if you gave us more insight on it.

    BTW Another great job!! I admire your quiet effort.

  4. pacifist Says:

    BTW Gerry,

    As to the small island beside Ulleungdo in the map ponta showed, it reads “Manoshima”.

  5. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Hi Ponta,

    Yes, the map you linked to is the 1877 map I was referring to, but your link shows the map more clearly than the one I was trying to link to. The writing on the small island next to Ulleungdo is legible. By the way, can you tell me the pronunciation of the writing on the small island. I can see the character 島, but I did not know the pronunciation of the Japanese characters in front of it. Also, do you know if there is a translation somewhere of the placenames written on and around Ulleungdo on the map?

    I think the small island at the southern tip of Ulleungdo might have been 可支島 (가지도), which means “Seal Island.” On modern maps of Ulleungdo, there is a rock at the southern tip of Ulleungdo labeled as 가재바위 (Gajae Bawui), which means “Crawfish Rock,” but 가재 (Gajae) is very similar in pronunciation to 가제 (Gaje), which means “seal” or “sea lion.” You can see it labeled on the following map, which is a close up of the southern tip of Ulleungdo.

    가재바위 (Gajae Bawui)

    Opp’s site looks great, but I think the section on “Korea: Before 17C” needs to be refined. I do like the “Flying Usando” animation, though. Also, I was very glad to see the Japanese map made from the 1880 survey of Ulleungdo by the Japanese warship Amagi. That map shows present-day Jukdo (竹島) labeled as “Jukdo,” and it seems to be in the exact location. I wish it showed more of Ulleungdo, so that I could see what they were calling Gwaneumdo (觀音島).

    I do not think Wedgie is Toadface because Wedgie’s explanation makes perfect sense.

  6. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Thanks, Pacifist. You read my mind.

  7. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Ponta,

    Wait! I just noticed that the explanation in your post was addressed to Wedgie, not written by him. Anyway, whoever wrote the explanation seems to understand the situation at the time.

  8. ponta Says:

    Gerry
    Thanks

    I do not think Wedgie is Toadface because Wedgie’s explanation makes perfect sense.

    (hehe) If that is the case, it is highly probable wedgie is toadface, because wedgie give a lot of claims that does not make sense at opp’s BBS

    As for 1887 map, I think another possibility is that takeshima refered to Argnaut and another island referred to Dagelet.
    This map is from opp’s site. According to his explanation, the knowledge about Ullenungo by Amgi was not passed to the ministry of internal affair, so the ministry made this map in 1881, and in this map, takeshima is argnaut and matsushima is daglet.
    So as of 1887, it might be possible that the ministry had this map, together
    with 1887 map, in mind.

  9. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Ponta,

    I think the 竹島 in the phrase 竹島外一島 was referring to Ulleungdo since the Japanese were willing to acknowledge they had given up their claim on Ulleungdo in the 1690s. However, they were unsure of what the other island was, which is why they left it vague by saying “another island.” I think they suspected that the other island was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo.

    Opp’s list of Japanese maps for the 1860s, ’70s, and ’80s show very clearly that the Japanese were confused about the nonexistent island of Argonaut, which they were labeling as 竹島 (Takeshima). I think that means they considered Argonaut to be Ulleungdo since Takeshima was the name the Japanese used to refer to Ulleungdo in the 1690s when they gave up their claim to the island.

    I think the 1880 Amagi survey determined that Argonaut did not exist, and that 竹島, which had been used to refer to Argonaut, was just a small, neighboring island of Ulleungdo. After explaining that Matsushima (松島) was Ulleungdo and that a neighboring island was called Takeshima (竹島), the report of the 1880 survey said, “In one morning, we have confirmed a long-held suspicion.” That sentence tells us that even before the 1880 survey, the Japanese suspected that their maps of the area were wrong, which is obviously why they left the other island unnamed.

    The bottom line is that the Japanese never gave up claim to Liancourt Rocks, as Koreans claim.

  10. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    If you look at the following map of Ulleungdo, you can see a cave labeled as 가잿굴 (Gajaet Cave) on the southwest coast of the island, between Namyang (남양) and Tonggumi (통구미).

    Modern Map of Ulleungdo

    I am almost positive that Gajaet Cave is referring to “Seal Cave” (可支窟), which was shown in the same area on this 1882 Korean map.

    The Korean word for “sea lion” or “seal” is Gangchi (강치), but on Ulleungdo they pronounce it as Gaje (가제), which is very similar in sound to Gajae (가재). In old Korean documents and maps, they used the Chinese characters 可支魚 (가지어) to refer to seals or sea lions.

    I think Koreans may have changed the name from “Gaje” to “Gajae” to hide the fact that there was a cave on Ulleungdo called “Seal Cave.” I think the same spelling change was used to hide the fact that a rock just off the southern tip of Ulleungdo was called “Seal Rock.” You can see it on this map.

    By the way, on this 1863 British Map, you can see that the southern tip of Ulleungdo is labeled “Seal Pt” (Seal Point).

    Maybe, I am just being overly suspicious, but I think Koreans intentionally changed the spellings of the cave and the rock to hide the fact that there were placenames on Ulleungdo that referred to seals or sea lions.

    Koreans claim that references to seals or sea lions in their old documents was proof that Koreans traveled to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). However, as I showed in the 1786 document above, Koreans were hunting seals or sea lions on Ulleungdo, not Dokdo.

  11. tomato Says:

    >Gerry

    Do you have an idea what Japan could do?

    The Koreans are making this issue their centerpiece of ultranationalism and it is completely unfair and rather obnoxious for them to do so. The Japanese know this, and at a loss what to do. Surely we cannot use our military to claim it back. The situation is too dangerous.

    Do you think the Koreans will ever realize what they have done is not right, and they are the ones who are really hurting the relationship between the countries?

  12. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Tomato,

    Yes, I think Japan should start fighting fire with fire, and make Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) a diplomatic issue. That means that Japan needs to start exposing Korea’s lies about “Dokdo” to the world and seek sanctions and censure against Korea’s illegal occupation of Takeshma (Dokdo) from world governments and organizations.

    Japan has tried to treat the Dokdo/Takeshima conflict as a nonissue, but Korea has refused to allow that. Instead, Korea has used the issue as a means to smear Japan in the world community. It is time Japan started fighting back.

    After Japan begins educating the world, including some ignorant American congressmen, about the Dokdo/Takeshima conflict, she should start putting pressure on friendly governments to censure Korea. In other words, if foreign governments want Japan’s support on certain issues, those governments will have to support Japan on the Dokdo/Takeshima issue.

    Next, Japan should start strictly enforcing her sea boundaries and stop shying away from conflict with the South Korean navy. For example, Japan should ignore Korean threats and conduct the sea surveys she wants to conduct in the areas she feels she has the legal right. If it comes down to a naval confrontation, Korea will lose.

    Japan’s passive attitude on Dokdo/Takeshima only encourages Korea to talk and act more belligerent. Japan needs to start acting more like China, who does not take any crap from South Korea. That is why Korea gives China a lot of leeway. However, Korea knows Japan’s passive nature and takes advantage of that to inflate her ego by talking big and taking swipes at Japan. Korea does that because she knows Japan will not fight back. However, I think it is time Japan stood up, confronted Korea, and put an end to the nonsense.

  13. In Hell There Are No Nightlites (2004-Present) » Thai, With a Side of Truth Bulgogi Says:

    […] Check it out. […]

  14. jazzman Says:

    The Japanese internet users generally blame our Ministry of Foreign Affairs for their meak attitude in the negotion.

    Japan and Korea were almost starting a war in the spring when Koreans tried to prevent Japanese seabed research vessel in the territory around the island. It is rumoured that US asked Japan not to carry out the research. This brought a temporary euphoria in Korea, but it led to a serious mistrust of Korea by the US. Jigou-Jitoku!

    The biggest problem in this issue is that Korea has been rejecting our request to settle the issue through International Court in Hague. They say Japan’s lobbying power is stronger than their’s and Korea would lose. Well, I wonder if Japan has so much influence on Internationa Court.

    Abe, our new prime minister, said that he would handle diplomatic issues directly by his special team while lowering the power of Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is one of the reasons why Abe is widely supported by the Japanese.

  15. sqz Says:

    jazzman wrote:

    They say Japan’s lobbying power is stronger than their’s and Korea would lose.

    ロビー活動で判決が覆った実例を、いまだに聞いた事がありません。
    I have not yet heard the example which judgment covered up by lobbying in ICJ.
    韓国では日常茶飯事なのですか?
    Is it natural in Korea?

  16. YoungRocco Says:

    Mr. Bevers:

    You’ve proved my point very well.

    Next, Japan should start strictly enforcing her sea boundaries and stop shying away from conflict with the South Korean navy. For example, Japan should ignore Korean threats and conduct the sea surveys she wants to conduct in the areas she feels she has the legal right. If it comes down to a naval confrontation, Korea will lose.

    As I had claimed earlier, the only way a war over Dokdo could ensue is if Japan tried to provoke the issue further. If Japan chooses to do so….well….it will have committed an action that destabilizes the Pacific region.

    Plus, Japan has little diplomatic or moral capital to cry foul over Dokdo. . Japan has a similar island dispute with China. The senkaku/diayou islands, which traditionally marked the maritime border between Qing/Ming China and Japan, have traditionally been China’s islands. However, Japan incorporated these islands in 1895. The Diayou islands are historic Chinese territory–yet Japan insists on occupying and developing them.

    Gerry, Japan cannot do any of the actions you advocate above. If Japan’s leaders did decide to take such action against Korea, it would make their position on Dokdo look embarassingly hypocritical.

    Take Care.

  17. tomato Says:

    Well, S Korea is with lots of disputes with China herself.

    Just to give some examples, S Korea claims part of Manchuria called Gando (間島), which S Korea blames Japan for giving it away to China (this Japan-blaming is getting to far). About Manchuria, S Korea claims some old kingdoms (like Koguryo 高句麗and Po-hai渤海) to be ethnically Korean (which probably were not–they’re Tungustic or some other Northern Asian tribes) and makes fuss about China claiming them to be regional states of China (I think they are, since Manchuria is Chinese territory now)…I guess S Korea is trying to claim Manchuria…does she miss the times of Imperial Japan when Koreans being Japanese citizens used to freely travel and live in Manchukuo as colonial masters?

    Oh, S Korea is in dispute with China regarding some shoal in the East China sea…S Korea erected a base in order to occupy it. The crazy thing about this is that the shoal is always submerged…how can Korea claim it?

    It’s much wonder when S Korea being so ultra-nationalistic, it claims that other countries are (especially Japan), and cries to the world that they are being victimized. Do they have mirrors to look at theirselves? S Koreans are the agressors now.

  18. tomato Says:

    ロビー活動で判決が覆った実例を、いまだに聞いた事がありません。
    I have not yet heard the example which judgment covered up by lobbying in ICJ.
    韓国では日常茶飯事なのですか?
    Is it natural in Korea?

    Well, it probably means that the S Koreans know that their occupation of the island is illegal. Such cowards!

  19. pacifist Says:

    YoungRocco,

    I haven’t read that China has some evidences that they owned Senkaku/Diayou islands. If you have, please show us here. I supoose there is no evidence.
    They only insist to get the underground resources, as they began to claim after the resources were found in the 1970’s.

    China used to insist that their former tributaries should be Chinese territory. Senkaku/Diayou islands locate near to Ryukyu (Okinawa) of Japan, which once was a tributary. And unfortunately to you, Korea was a tributary too.

    If they’ll get the Senkaku/Daiyou islands, then they will want to get Ryukyu (Okinawa) and Korea too!

    To follow is Japanese claim about Senkaku/Daiyou islands:
    —————————————————
    The Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands

    From 1885 on, surveys of the Senkaku Islands had been thoroughly made by the Government of Japan through the agencies of Okinawa Prefecture and by way of other methods. Through these surveys, it was confirmed that the Senkaku Islands had been uninhabited and showed no trace of having been under the control of China. Based on this confirmation, the Government of Japan made a Cabinet Decision on 14 January 1895 to erect a marker on the Islands to formally incorporate the Senkaku Islands into the territory of Japan.

    Since then, the Senkaku Islands have continuously remained as an integral part of the Nansei Shoto Islands which are the territory of Japan. These islands were neither part of Taiwan nor part of the Pescadores Islands which were ceded to Japan from the Qing Dynasty of China in accordance with Article II of the Treaty of Shimonoseki which came into effect in May of 1895.

    Accordingly, the Senkaku Islands are not included in the territory which Japan renounced under Article II of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The Senkaku Islands have been placed under the administration of the United States of America as part of the Nansei Shoto Islands, in accordance with Article III of the said treaty, and are included in the area, the administrative rights over which were reverted to Japan in accordance with the Agreement Between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands signed on 17 June 1971. The facts outlined herein clearly indicate the status of the Senkaku Islands being part of the territory of Japan.

    The fact that China expressed no objection to the status of the Islands being under the administration of the United States under Article III of the San Francisco Peace Treaty clearly indicates that China did not consider the Senkaku Islands as part of Taiwan. It was not until the latter half of 1970, when the question of the development of petroleum resources on the continental shelf of the East China Sea came to the surface, that the Government of China and Taiwan authorities began to raise questions regarding the Senkaku Islands.

    Furthermore, none of the points raised by the Government of China as “historic, geographic or geological” evidence provide valid grounds, in light of international law, to support China’s arguments regarding the Senkaku Islands.

  20. tomato Says:

    >pacifist

    I’m pretty sure rocco will appear to post strange comments about Japanese morality again…talk about morality…do they think that they are morally superior than Japan? The depth of S Korean ethno-centrism is toubling. Like I said, S Koreans are the agresssors now.

  21. YoungRocco Says:

    Tomato:

    Glad to hear from you , bud.

    Let’s work on firming up your arguments:

    Well, S Korea is with lots of disputes with China herself.

    This does nothing to refute my claim that Japan would be acting hypocritically in trying to stage a diplomatic war with Korea over Dokdo.

    bout Manchuria, S Korea claims some old kingdoms (like Koguryo 高句麗and Po-hai渤海) to be ethnically Korean (which probably were not–they’re Tungustic or some other Northern Asian tribes

    Prove it, Tomato. Cite some sources.

    Oh, S Korea is in dispute with China regarding some shoal in the East China sea…

    “Some shoal[?]” Tomato, do your homework. How long would it take to find the name of the shoal? Thirty seconds?

    Tomato, you’ve got to do the homework.

  22. tomato Says:

    Tomato, you’ve got to do the homework

    If it takes only 30 seconds, why don’t you?

    Now stop provoking people, young Korean friend!

  23. tomato Says:

    http://www.college.ucla.edu/news/03/diamond.html

    About the Koguryo language and the Silla language being different…and the Koguryo language being related to Japanese.

    You can find lots of these…unless you look in the wrong place where Korean nationalists linger with ethno-centric hatred.

  24. ponta Says:

    Gerry, Japan cannot do any of the actions you advocate above. If Japan’s leaders did decide to take such action against Korea, it would make their position on Dokdo look embarassingly hypocritical.

    Gerry wrote

    After Japan begins educating the world, including some ignorant American congressmen, about the Dokdo/Takeshima conflict, she should start putting pressure on friendly governments to censure Korea. In other words, if foreign governments want Japan’s support on certain issues, those governments will have to support Japan on the Dokdo/Takeshima issue.

    Next, and conduct the sea surveys she wantJapan should start strictly enforcing her sea boundaries and stop shying away from conflict with the South Korean navy. For example, Japan should ignore Korean threats s to conduct in the areas she feels she has the legal right. If it comes down to a naval confrontation, Korea will lose.

    This is a practical suggestion.
    1)Japan can educate people of the world so that they see the truth.
    Nothing provocative.
    2)Japan can putting pressure on friendly governments to censure Korea.
    This is very important. I really want Japanese government to use this tactics.
    3) Japan can ignore Korean threats s to conduct in the areas she feels she has the legal right. If it comes down to a naval confrontation,
    It is a legal action, surely Japan should.

    hypocritical professing feelings or virtues one does not have;
    I don’t see anything hypocritical about it.
    Japan own the island Dokdo, and Senkaku. and Japan claims them.
    On the other hand,
    Korea illegally occupy Dokdo, and falsely claim that it belongs to Korea. Korea is acting as if she is honest. I think this is embarrassingly hypocritical.

  25. wjk Says:

    Gerry Bevers is a war mongerer and he specializes in drastically unfeasible and unproductive foreign policy actions.

  26. tomato Says:

    Gerry Bevers is a war mongerer and he specializes in drastically unfeasible and unproductive foreign policy actions

    Rather, the above applies to you, wjk.
    You’re an ethno-centric, ultra-natonalisitic Pan-Koreanist…the kind that rules S Korea today. Urinara Mansei!

  27. wjk Says:

    tomato, you’re a stereo typer. In addition, nowhere, anywhere have I advocated for war over an uninhabited island.

  28. YoungRocco Says:

    Tomato:

    My friend.

    You’ve got to take yourself more seriously.

    Do your homework.

    Tomato says:

    About the Koguryo language and the Silla language being different…and the Koguryo language being related to Japanese.

    So what if the Goguryeo language is related to medieval Japanese. Tomato you’re confusing langauge and ethnicity. Simply speaking a different language does not change one’s ethnicity. You speak English, but you are certainly not an Englishman.

  29. tomato Says:

    So what if the Goguryeo language is related to medieval Japanese. Tomato you’re confusing langauge and ethnicity. Simply speaking a different language does not change one’s ethnicity. You speak English, but you are certainly not an Englishman

    C’mon you can do better than that!

    A learned language is different from a mother tongue. And besides, back then, language does mean ethnicity. It’s not like now when everyone’s learning English because of Anglo-American dominance…or like when Korea was governed by Japan and Koreans had to learn Japanese.

    Do your homework.

    Now this piece of sh*t I decline to take. I wonder why some Koreans like you are so rude and arrogant. You should be sorry for yourself. You don’t deserve to make comments if you keep your childish and arrogant attitude.

    Be nicer to eveyone next time!

  30. YoungRocco Says:

    Ponta:

    Thanks for your post.

    1)Japan can educate people of the world so that they see the truth.
    Nothing provocative.

    The truth won’t necessarilly be in Japan’s favor, Ponta. Japan’s actions in relation to Dokdo have not always been straightforward.

    Korea illegally occupy Dokdo

    It’s not clear whether Korea’s actions are legal or illegal, Ponta. You are being deceptive when you seek to unilaterally declare the islands as legally belonging to Japan. The islands are disputed and both parties have arguments supporting a legal claim to the island.

    hypocritical professing feelings or virtues one does not have;
    I don’t see anything hypocritical about it

    Of course it is hypocritical. I’ll explain.

    1. Japan likes to make noise about how Korea will not take the Dokdo issue to the ICJ, however in the case of the Senkaku/Diayou island dispute, Japan refuses to take the issue to international court.

    The difference in behavior demonstrates that Japan is only willing to refer to the ICJ when it is believed that the ICJ will rule in Japan’s favor.

    2. China’s claim over the Senkaku Islands rests primarily on histotry, whereas the strength of Japan’s claim relies primarily on its current administration of the islands. In the case of Dokdo, the situations are reversed. Japan raises historical issues(from 140-400 years ago). Korea points to its current admnistration of the islands.

    3. Japan has island disputes with four of its neighbors–two of whom are on the U.N. security council. If Japan begins a PR campaign against Korea’s claim, other nations will follow suit and cite their claims against Japan. Think about this:

    If you are fighting with one person, then perhaps the other party is at fault…

    But if you are fighting with everyone then perhaps you are the one who has a problem.

    Japan should seriously reflect on the truth of this phrase.

    Japan can ignore Korean threats s to conduct in the areas she feels she has the legal right.

    If Japan feels she can do this…she’s certainly welcome to try.

  31. ponta Says:

    YoungRocco
    Thanks
    Reading your comment, I guess Korean government has been successful in deceiving people with regards to Dokdo issue.

    The truth won’t necessarilly be in Japan’s favor,

    It’s not clear whether Korea’s actions are legal or illegal, Ponta. You are being deceptive when you seek to unilaterally declare the islands as legally belonging to Japan.

    We are not talking about a priori truth or analytic truth. We are talking about empirical truth. So as you say, it is not necessarily true that Dokdo belongs to Japan. However, there is no empirical evidence that historically , legally , Dokdo belongs to Korea. That is what Gerry and others have been arguing. So far we see only lies on Korean side, we have sufficiently good reason to suppose historically and legally it belongs to Japan and we are irrational to suppose otherwise unless we have good evidence to believe so.
    If you think, Korea has a case, you should prove it in the discussions on this blog, You are welcome. But since so far you have not shown anything in favor of Korea’s claim , it is unreasonable for you to claim that “Japan’s actions in relation to Dokdo have not always been straightforward.”

    The islands are disputed and both parties have arguments supporting a legal claim to the island.

    At least you are honest. Korean government claim is there is no dispute.

    1. Japan likes to make noise about how Korea will not take the Dokdo issue to the ICJ, however in the case of the Senkaku/Diayou island dispute, Japan refuses to take the issue to international court.

    Japan does not refuse it. I have never heard China has suggested it to take the issue to ICJ.

    2. China’s claim over the Senkaku Islands rests primarily on history, whereas the strength of Japan’s claim relies primarily on its current administration of the islands. In the case of Dokdo, the situations are reversed. J

    China’s historical claim is worse than Korea’s historical claim over Dokdo.(The link is in Japanese ,but I guess you can find related link somewhere. ) I think you should study how China has gobbled up territories and how she is trying to gobble up new territory. I can not help but feel China’s expansionist impulse.

    If you are fighting with one person, then perhaps the other party is at fault…

    But if you are fighting with everyone then perhaps you are the one who has a problem.

    Japan should seriously reflect on the truth of this phrase.

    Yes, Japan and Korea should. China is fighting with almost everyone, domestically and internationally.
    Japan is trying to settle the trouble with neighbor peacefully.
    And Japan is considered as the country that is viewed most positively.
    For your reference.
    As of 2006, according to
    gallup‘s survey.
    The rate of the population who think the relation with Japan is good.
    Koreans…..12.1%
    Indians……. 88.8%
    Indonesians .96.2%
    Malaysians… 90.5%
    Thai……….. 95.5%
    Vietnam……92.0%

    So it is unreasonable to suppose that Japan is fighting with everyone.
    (There is statistics about Korea too, but I let you imagine)

    On the other hand, Korea has been hypocritical with regards to Dokdo.
    Korea pretends to be telling the truth when she bans the sites that reveal Japanese claim.
    Korea pretends to be victim of expansionism when Korea has no ground for the claim to Dokdo in the time of Japanese expansionism.

    If Japan feels she can do this…she’s certainly welcome to try.

    Well i am happy to see that you finally changed your opinion.
    Your claim was

    Gerry, Japan cannot do any of the actions you advocate above.

  32. sqz Says:

    かなり以前、とある人が尖閣諸島について外務省に問い合わせた、という話を聞きました。
    で、その話だと、日本側が中国に対して国際司法裁判所での仲裁を提案したそうです。
    結果は、中国側が即答で拒否。
    あくまで口頭での話だし、議事録はあるかもしれないが議事録は非公開が原則なので、証拠を提示しにくいものです。
    最低限、日本側が拒否した証拠は、何処にもありません。

    それどころか酷いのは、尖閣諸島についてはすべて口頭のみで、文書による抗議が一切無い事。
    国際法的に抗議していないとみなされる可能性がある行動を中国側は執っているのです。

  33. tomato Says:

    >sqz

    As you know, S Korea (and I believe N Korea is, too) is a ultra-nationalist state centered in her belief in ethnic superiority against other countries. No wonder their comments are ridden with rudeness. They just look down on non-Koreans.

    Just look at these brainwashed people posting their comments that tries to refute rational and reasonable claims made by non-Koreans using argument that is only good for a particular, miniscule subject without any consistency in the overall picture. The only consistency they have is their want to satisfy their nationalistic pride.

    Well, I think we are succeeding here in showing how crazy they are. I have strong disliking for ultra-nationalism, racism, ethno-centtrism and the like. These are diseases that are comfortable to humans but too dangerous to foster. Look at what happened to Yugoslavia…the present S Korean president seems like the Milosevic of the Far East and the S Korean media is just like those of Serbia and Croatia, fueling ethnic hatred everywhere.

  34. ponta Says:

    sqz
    thanks.
    All right, this not official record, but according to sqz, It is Japan that suggested China to send the issue about Senkaku to ICJ, and China rejected it. And China has never protested against Japan in the form of document.
    It is revealing, isn’t it? YoungRocco .

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

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3 […]

  36. Kaneganese Says:

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

    1786年の鬱陵島検察:鬱陵島で射殺されたアシカ

    これから紹介するのは、1786年に行われた鬱陵島の検察報告の分析です。この報告書は、原春の監司、李致中によって1786年7月4日に提出されました。これは、1752年から1910年の間の朝鮮王朝の宮廷での出来事や議論が、日記風に記録されている“Ilseongrok(日省録)”に収録されています。

    1786年の報告について一つ問題があるのは、鬱陵島の東海岸の描写が欠けており、不完全であることです。例えば、“于山島” と“竹島(Jukdo)”は、それまで鬱陵島の東海岸にある小さな島として名前が上がっていたのですが、この報告書では触れられていないのです。 これは、検察団が東海岸を見回っていなかったことを示しています。この報告では、東海岸沖の浜や岩などについて何一つ記述しておらず、このことからも東海岸の検察が省略されたことが伺えます。報告書には、東海岸から中峰までの距離が提示されておらず、不自然です。韓国の鬱陵島に関する古地図には、東西南北の角から中央の峰までの距離が、たいてい記入されているのですが。1786年の報告では、3箇所からの距離しか分かりません。

    報告書では、一つの島について触れられています。名前は防牌島です。その島は、鬱陵島の北岸沖の島として描かれています。これは、防牌島が、鬱陵島の北東角にある小さな島である現在の観音島のことを示していると思われます。しかし、防牌島の描写で問題になるのは、それが3里(約1.2km)沖にあると書かれており、100m以内の海中にある観音島とは異なるのです。ただし、この里という表現には、観音島に向かって突き出した鬱陵島の突端部を含めている可能性があります。もちろん、防牌島が鬱陵島の最大の付属島で、東岸2.2km沖に浮かぶ今日の竹島(Jukdo)である可能性もあります。

    この報告書の中で重要なのは、鬱陵島の可支仇味(アシカ入江)と言う場所があったことをはっきりと記述していることです。検察団の銃手は、可支仇味で2頭のアシカを射殺したと書かれています。これは、とても重要です。というのも、古い文献でアシカ猟の記述があることは、韓国人が“独島”(Liancourt Rocks)へ渡航していた証拠になる、と韓国の歴史学者は言っているからです。しかし、この1786年の報告書は、当時の韓国人が独島ではなく鬱陵島でアシカ猟をしていたことの証拠になります。

    以下は、漢文で書かれた報告書と、韓国語訳から英語にした私の訳です。翻訳を終えてから、その内容を解釈していこうと思います。

    “原春の監司、李致中が鬱陵島の検察報告を致します。
    鬱陵島の検察は1785年に行われる予定でしたが、その年は大変な飢饉でしたので、前任の徐鼎修がその年は停止することを願い出ました。今年は、越松の長官(萬戶)、 金昌胤が検察を行い、この報告書を作提出しました。

    4月19日、平海の丘尾津で、風をチェックした。27日午前11時から午後1時の間に日本語通訳の李裕文、各階級の役人、船員、助手達が全員で80人ほど、4隻の船に分乗して出航した。28日午前5時から7時の間に、助手が前方の何かを指差し、こういった。‘あそこの真っ黒な雲の下に、島の一番高い峰が見えます。’数時間後には島の3つの高い峰がはっきりと見えた。午前3時頃、4つの船が全て集まった。皆がそれぞれ体験した出来事の悲喜交々を語り合った。

    29日にまた出発した。苧田洞に着いてすぐ皆下船し、沐浴してから山の神に祈りを捧げた。その後、検察を始めた。村の入口から中央の峰までは、小さな峰や山がいろいろ重なり合って20里あった。3つの峰は格別に高く聳えていた。中央には島の主要な砦があり、その中の村には、昔の石の砦と思われるものが、かなり厚い壁とともに残っていた。周囲の距離は2から3里あった。その砦の内部には、大小の石の柱と基礎石そして苧(麻の一種?)の茂みがあった。その土地は平坦で、8、9石の水田を作るのに充分な大きさだった。

    それから我々は可支仇味へと進み、2つの洞窟を山側に確認した。奥行を測るのは困難だった。アシカが何頭か驚いて(洞穴から)飛出てきた。銃手が全員同時に発砲して、うち2頭を海に逃げ込む前にしとめた。

    5月1日午前5時から7時の間、南へ方向を変えて倭船滄へと向かった。洞窟の入口から中央の峰までは約30里だった。そこに残された山は、放棄された土地だった。石の砦、石塔、石積みの墓などの跡がはっきり残っていた。我々は方向を変えて進んだ。そこには水際に削られたような岩壁があった。長作地の竹林に着いたが、まばらに生えていた。そこに生えていた大きな竹は無くなっていた。そこから北へ向かい、天磨仇味(天磨入江)に着いた。

    2日の明け方、検察を再開した。海中に聳える牛の角にみえる岩は、帿竹巖と呼ばれる。防牌島はその東にあり、本当から3里沖にある。

    3日、玄作地に着いた。そこには折り重なるような岩山と、ごつごつした海岸線が広がっていた。錐山は奇妙な形で、恐ろしげな黒色の岩で出来ている。竹巖は帿竹にそっくりな二つの聳え立つ岩だ。その隣は、孔巖で、その穴の間を小さな船が通り抜けることが出来る。黃土仇味(黃土入江)に着くと峰々が重なり合い、谷水が集まって川となっている。30石の水田もしくは10石の畑を耕すのに充分なほどの広さの土地が広がっている。そこから中央の峰までは約30里あり、左右の洞穴の岩の上部には前任の検察史達の名前が刻まれている。

    4日に、香木亭に向かった。島全体の周囲は約120里、また、南北の距離は70から80里、東西は60から70里だ。島の四方は全て崖になっており、山や皆大変険しい。大小の谷川が千丈の虹のように流れている。大風所から見渡すと、様々な樹木が確認出来る。冬栢、側栢、香木、楓木、檜木、欕木、梧、桐、桑、楡、檀木などである。鳥はカラスと鴎が生息し、野生動物は猫と鼠のみ確認出来た。海産物は昆布、鮑、アシカである。同日3:30から4:30頃、検察の修了後、皆で祭壇に上がり、海神に祈りを捧げた。そして出帆し、帰路に着いた。

    5日の午後5次から7時の間、長官の船は、三陟の遠德面長五里に到着した。7時から9時の間、日本の学者の船が2隻到着し、停泊した。9時から11時の間、下卜の船も到着した。7日に入江に戻り、停泊した。8日には基地に戻った。

    持ち帰ったアシカの皮、青竹3本、紫檀香2個、朱黄土5升、島の地図一枚と報告書、以上が持ち帰ったもの全てで、故に備邊司様にお送りいたします。

    1786年7月4日”

    下の図は、1786年の検察団が取ったと思われる検察順路です。

    図1:1786年の検察団の検察経路推測図

    27日午前11時から午後1時の間、80人ほどを載せた4隻の船が、平海の海軍基地を出航しています。この場所は、現在の江原道の東海岸にあるKangneung市の近くです。28日午前5時から7時の間に、一行のある者が、遠めに鬱陵島の最高峰を見つけていますが、それは17、8時間の航行のあとに鬱陵島が視界に入ったことを示しています。その数時間後に島で最も高い3つの峰がはっきりと目に入ります。この、鬱陵島の三つの高い峰という表現は、こうした韓国の古文献に見られる“三峯島”が鬱陵島の別名であることを示唆しています。

    29日に彼等はまた出発し、現在のJukam浜の近くと思われる、島の北東にある苧田洞に最終的に到着します。そこから島の中央に向かって内陸を進みます。彼等は島の海岸から中峰まで約20里、と報告しています。島の中央部で、平坦な耕作適地と砦があるのを発見しています。そこから”アシカ浜、もしくは入江”を意味する”可支仇味に向かいます。そこでは山側に洞窟2つと、アシカ数頭を見つへ、アシカを2頭射殺しています。

    次の1750年代の地図で、苧田洞が鬱陵島北東部にあることが分かります。また、牛角岩と標記された岩が近くにあるのも分かります。

    図2:海東地圖(1750頃)北東部拡大図

    “可支仇味”と言う名前は韓国の古地図には記載されていませんが、李奎遠が作成した1882年の鬱陵島外圖には、島の西側に3つの洞穴が描かれており、そのうちの一つに“アシカ洞穴”を意味する“可支窟”と言う名称が併記されています。現在のNamyang浜の近くのどこかだと思われます。その地域に“獅子岩”と言う名の岩もあります。獅子岩がアシカ洞穴のすぐ近くにあった、と思われることから、この名前から、アシカがその地域に生息していたということが推測されます。。

    次の1882年の地図には鬱陵島の西海岸に可支窟が、南海岸に長斫之という名の浜がそれぞれ描かれています。

    図3:鬱陵島外圖(1882)南西部拡大図

    5月1日、一行は倭船滄(日本船倉)へと向かいます。おそらく現在の桶邱尾の近くであったと思われます。どのような測定をしたのか、報告ではここから中央の峯まで約20里ある、としています。どうやら彼等は、そこから内陸部へ向かったようで、石の砦、石塔、石積みの墓などの跡が明確に残っていたと記述しています。彼等はそれから方向を変え、現在の沙洞港に近いと思われる、島南部の長作地へと向かいます。そこから北へ向きを変え、天磨仇味へと向かいます。この天磨仇味が何処なのか、よく分からないのですが、“牛の角のような形の岩が沖にあった”と伝えていることから、おそらく一行が検察を始めた最初の場所に近かったのではないか、と思われます。その岩の名前は、帿竹巖というのですが、私はそれは同じく牛の角によく似た様子で描かれている、現在の三仙岩ではないかと思うのです。事実、上掲の1750年代の地図では、三仙岩は牛角岩と記されているのです。

    記録では、防牌島は帿竹巖の東にある、となっています。このことから、防牌島は現在の三仙岩の東にある観音島を指している、と考えられます。ただ、記録ではまた、防牌島は本島から3里(1里が1.4kmだとすれば、約1.2km)の距離にある、と記しています。つまり、そうなると防牌島は鬱陵島東岸沖約2.2kmにある、現在の竹島/竹嶼(Jukdo)を示していると考えられるのです。

    3里と言う距離の問題はさておき、私は防牌島は観音島を指している、と思います。おそらく、本島から島へ向かって伸びている突端の部分が3里と言う距離に含まれているのか、もしくは北部の浜辺から観音島を眺めたときに、まるで3里沖に浮かんでいるように見えたのか、そうした可能性はないでしょうか?どうして3里になったのかは分かりませんが、私がこの防牌島が観音島だと思うその訳は、報告の中に于山島と竹島/竹嶼(Jukdo)のどちらの島も記述が無いからです。実は、そもそも検察団が鬱陵島の東海岸を調査したのかどうか、ということさえ記されていないのです。記録では単に一行は長作地から北へ向きを変え、天磨仇味へと向かったと記しているだけです。行程が一日だった事と、東海岸の浜や岩について何も記述が無いことからして、私は、検察団の一行が東海岸に沿って進んだのではなく、島の真ん中をまっすぐ横切ったのだと思うのです。

    5月2日、検察団は天磨仇味から北部の海岸線に沿って西へ向かって進みます。おそらく、船で航行していたのでしょう。5月3日、北部海岸の西端に当たる玄作地に着きます。この道すがら錐山、竹岩、孔巖という3つの岩を通り過ぎたことを、一行は報告しています。竹岩はおそらく現在のDdan岩、錐山は今のSonggot岩、そして孔巖は現在の孔岩、別名象岩だと思われます。これら3つの岩は全て北岸にありますが、東から西へ移動していたことを考えると、竹岩は錐山の前に記述されるべきでした。

    玄作地の調査を終えた一行は黃土仇味へ向かいます。彼等はそこで谷川と耕作適地、そして前任の検察史達が入口に名前を刻んだ洞穴を見つけます。黃土仇味は、黄土洞と呼ばれる洞窟がある現在の台霞港に位置し明日。黃土仇味は、黄土入江の意味です。ここから中央の峯までは、30里ある、と一行は報告しています

    次の1882年の地図には、鬱陵島の北海岸の玄斫之と、北西角の黃土邱尾が描かれています。

    図4:鬱陵島外圖(1882)北西部拡大図

    5月4日、一行は上の地図で黃土邱尾の上の方に位置する香木亭に向かいます。その後、3:30から4:30頃、検察の修了後、海神に祈りを捧げてから出帆し、帰路に着いたと書かれています。半島本土に着いたのは、5月5日の夕方で、このことから、追い風と波が航行を助けていたことが伺えます。報告では、鬱陵島は周囲120里、半径は南北に70から80里、東西に60から70里ある、と書かれています。しかし、いつ、どのような方法でこうした計測が行われたのか、明らかではありません。例えば、どうやって島の周囲の長さを測ったのか、また、中央の峯までの距離については、4方ではなく、3方からの数字しかないのは何故か、といったことです。また、鬱陵島の2つの隣接島のうち一つしか言及されておらず、しかも東海岸に至っては、全く記述されていない理由も明らかではありません。それはまるで、検察団の一行が島の特定の地点をそれぞれ徒歩で走破しながら計測し、船は北東岸にずっと停泊して帰りを待っていたかのようです。一行が戻った時に、船は西へ航行し、島の北岸の反対側の角へと移動したようです。彼等は検察を終えた後、本土へ戻りました。島を周回して航行した船があったかどうか、実際のところ、記述がありません。

    これまで述べてきたように、1786年の鬱陵島検察記録によれば、その時代の韓国人は”独島” (Liancourt Rocks)ではなく、鬱陵島でアシカの狩猟を行ったことは明らかです。

  37. ponta Says:

    kaneganese
    GJ.(本当にありがとうございます。)

  38. New Takeshima (Dokdo) Article in Japanese Newspaper » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3 […]

  39. Dokdo Museum Head Admits Maps Show “Jukdo, not Dokdo” » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3 […]

  40. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 8 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3 […]

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

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3 […]

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

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3 […]

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

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3 […]

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

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3 […]

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

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3 […]

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

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3 […]

  47. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 10 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3 […]

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

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3 […]

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

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3 […]