Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

1876 Japanese Map & Other Things

March 3rd, 2007 . by Gerry-Bevers

The following is a link to a very interesting 1876 Japanese map that shows Ulleungdo as Matsushima (柗島 – Songdo). It also shows Liancourt Rocks and the “non-existent island.” This map is more evidence that in 1876 the name “Matsushima” (Songdo) was being used to refer to more than just Liancourt Rocks.

I am posting the link to the map to stimulate discussion, and I am hoping that someone will translation the Japanese writing next to Liancourt Rocks, next to the “non-existent island” shown close to the Korean coast, and next to the close-up drawings of Liancourt Rocks.

http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/korea_eastcoast-1876/

Mr. Tanaka’s short introduction to the map

Also, could someone tell me what Mr. Tanaka is saying here about about the following two 1905 articles. I would really like to get a translation of the second Takeshima article, which is a short article among longer articles. It may just be the notice that Takeshima was made part of Japanese territory.

http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/warpictures-1905/

Finally, could someone tell me what the following 1903 Japanese text is saying about Ulleungdo? Mr. Tanaka introduces the text here. It appears to be the Black Dragon Society text. And here is the section on Ulleungdo.

http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka18/kankaitsuugyo-1903/10.jpg

Again, I am sorry that I cannot read Japanese and do not know much about the Japanese maps and documents related to the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute.


23 Responses to “1876 Japanese Map & Other Things”

  1. comment number 1 by: hana

    Gerry san
    I am not good at English,so I can not translate what Mr,Tnaka says.
    “what Mr,Tanaka is saying here” is not to relat about Takeshima, but what he think of carrent politics.
    After this under the web address,
    he make line of what he is working right now. It seems he and some other people now rewrite old documents to modorn Japanese.
    I am wondering if you ever visit Mr,Tanaka,s web site.
    http://www.geocities.jp/taaka_kunitaka/takeshima/
    At the left side of his web site,most under place “田中邦貴”、there are lots of old dokuments and Maps of photimages.
    It mey be interesting to you.

  2. comment number 2 by: Sweet Water

    I have just registered to the Occidentalism because there are so many interesting posts and discussions here.

    Regarding your first question, the Japanese writings next to Liancourt Rocks are “Oriutsu rocks” (left) and “Mekorai rocks” (right). The former is probably the Japanese pronunciation of Olivutsa rocks. The Japanese writing next to the island shown close to the Korean coast is “Arugonafuta island.” The Japanese writings next to the close-up drawings are “Oriutsu rocks and Mekorai rocks” (title), “Viewed from the place 3 ri north” (top left) [the direction is written separately above the drawing], “Viewed from 14 ri north west 61 degree,” (top right), “Viewed from 5 ri north west 10 degree” (bottom), and “Year 1860, observed (and drawn) by Mr. Serukeefu” (the caption on the left).

  3. comment number 3 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Thanks, Sweet Water.

  4. comment number 4 by: Sweet Water

    You’re welcome. The second article on Takeshima (on p.35) is a short announcement. I don’t know why Mr. Tanaka posted it. Its rough translation is as follows:

    “Oh, Takeshima” Nozu Chousui

    Although Takeshima (so called Riankorudo rocks) was originally a small island that had no people and didn’t belong to anyone, this year, for the first time, it is going to be under the control of Shimane prefecture. I heard that this island was named (as Bamboo island) corresponding to (?) Matsushima (Pine island) of Ryoun island, and now its name has been know to the world because of the great battle in the Sea of Japan. Oh, Takeshima, oh, Takeshima. [Haiku] Oh, Takeshima, the wind breathes on the eight-layered sea route.

  5. comment number 5 by: toadface

    Gerry, how do you come to the conclusion that the Japanese were referring to Songdo as anything other than Ulleungdo on this map?

    As Sweetwater has pointed out the map is a copy of a 1854 Russian Navy Map and the Katagana is the Russian names for Dokdo’s East and West rocks.
    Here’s another copy of the Japanese/Russian map sans Argonaut.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1857-russia.jpg

    This map is more proof against Japan’s claim than for. Let me explain why.

    If the Japanese were still confused about the identity of the “ghost island” it would have been labelled as Takeshima but this is not the case. So this map really verifies that the Japanese did not consider Argonaut to be Ulleungdo (Takeshima0 What is also apparent is that the map maker outlined Argonaut in a dotted line. This was a mapping practice used to indicate either doubt of existence or unconfirmed of and island.

    At the most this map might suggest the Japanse were still hopeful that another island might exist in the East Sea but it does in no way imply that Japanese document that state Takeshima is Chosun territory were referring to a fictitious island. That is silly.

    You can see it was also done in this British Navy map that also had confirmed Argonaut didn’t exist at this time. Note the dotted outline of Argonaut and the indicating the non-existence of Argonaut. This was in 1863. It should be noted the British and the Japanese were allies and the Japanese Navy sourced many of their maps from them.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Britishnavy1863.jpg

    The French corvette Capricieuse had also confirmed that Argonaut was non-existent by the year 1852 after approaching this location twice.

    The British Admiralty quoted in it’s 1864 report……

    H.M.S. Actoeon in June 1859 passed over the position as given to Argonaut as nearly as from the want of observations, it was possible to judge, the weather was thick but a radius of 5 miles at least could be commanded and nothing was seen. This island has been searched by both French and Russian ships of war but nothing has been found, whalers also ignore its existence. It may therefore with confidence be expunged from the charts. Its supposed discoverers, probably owing to current were much out their reckoning and sighting Dagelet (Ulleungdo) re-named it.

    So, its clear even countries from all as far away as Europe had long since known Argonaut was fictitious for over a decade before some the documents claiming Dokdo was Chosun territory were written.

    Mr Tanaka, is playing the classic “island shell game”

  6. comment number 6 by: toadface

    Thanks for your translation on the document Sweetwater.

    I don’t really know what Mr Tanaka is trying to prove with the poem that praises the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion.

    First, he is confirming that up until 1905 the Japanese had never laid claim to Takeshima and thus assertions that Takeshima has always been a part of Japan can be known as false.

    Second, Takeshima here can bee seen as appended to Ulleungdo. As I’ve always said almost every Japanese map or document I’ve seen always refers to Dokdo as part or closely associated to Ulleungdo.

    Dokdo belongs to Ulleungdo and Ulleungdo belongs to Korea

  7. comment number 7 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Toadface,

    The significance of the 1876 map, linked to above, is that it clearly shows “Matsushima” to be Ulluengdo while also showing the non-existant island of Argonaunt and Liancourt Rocks, neither of which was named “Takeshima” on the map. That is significant because it shows that in the 1870s the Japanese were using the name “Matsushima” to refer to both Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks since other Japanese maps showed Liancourt Rocks labeled as Matsushima.

    Toadface, your argument has been that the Japanese were not confused about Takeshima (Jukdo) and Matsushima (Songdo) in the 1870s and knew Takeshima to be Ulleungdo and Matsushima to be Liancourt Rocks. Then you use that claim of “a lack of confusion” to make the illogical leap that the “and another island” in in this 1877 document was referring to Liancourt Rocks (Matsushima), and that that meant that Japan recognized Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks to be Korean territory. However, the above linked 1876 map and the Watanabe Kuoki document you have posted on your own site are clear evidence that the Japanese were confused about Matsushima, which was almost certainly why the Japanese used the phrase “another island” in the 1877 document.

    Many people reading this thread may not know what we are talking about, but you do.

    Mr. Tanaka is not playing an “island shell game.” He did not make the map. It was made in 1876.

  8. comment number 8 by: toadface

    Gerry, the document I posted was one man’s opinion regarding what Songdo might have been. There were three different views regarding Songdo in Japan and that time and Watanabe Kuoki’s was the minority.

    However, in this document he clearly stated many people say Argonaut does not exist and that was Songdo before is Liancourt now. He also said that former Takeshima is now called Songdo (Ulleungdo) All of this jibes with the map you’ve linked showing really not much doubt at all. Just a lot of wishful thinking by interested developers who were plying the waters from Pusan~Vladivostok, seeing Ulleungdo and misreading inaccurate maps of Seibolds error.

    In short, they were hopeful of maybe finding another island. But not basing national policy on Argonaut Island.

    You should understand the other Japanese maps of the day simply mapped Ulleungdo and Dokdo in more Westerly locations. Takeshima advocates are trying to sell us this rubbish theory that on these maps Dokdo was omitted and Ulleungdo knowingly mapped twice. This doesn’t make any sense at all considering the Japanese mapped Dokdo for a very long time prior to the European mapping errors of the 1840’s

    Gerry, I don’t say the 1877 document is proof that Japan gave Dokdo to Korea. I’m saying it is clear proof that even at this late point of time Japan did not consider Dokdo part of her territory.

    Everyone has been harping on this “other island” a lot. It is fun to debate about but really not necessary. The 1877 Inquiry as to Ulleungdo and “the other island” was done to define Shimane’s boundary for the purpose of mapping the country. No maps of Shimane show either Dokdo or Ulleungdo dispite the fact other minor islands such as Minoshima are included and the cartographers used appended maps to included more distant areas like the Okinoshimas.

  9. comment number 9 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Toadface,

    Watanabe Kuoki was Head of Records for the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and his opinion was very important. By the way, he also said the following:

    Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was given to Chosun by the Shogunate, who was seeking convenience at the time instead of considering our future. Therefore, if this so-called “Matsushima” (Songdo) turns out to be Takeshima (Ulleungdo), it should belong to them (Chosun), but if it is a Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) that is not Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it is obviously part of Japan….

    By the way, Toadface, you need to correct your translation of the document, which you have posted here. I have mentioned your mistranslation before. Why haven’t you corrected it?

  10. comment number 10 by: toadface

    You’re right on the beginning of the article I’ll change the Songdo to Jukdo.It doesn’t mean much, I bracketed Ulleungdo behind to clarify. However you’re translation is wrong at the end. Kuoki doesn’t say either Liancourt or Takeshima at the end.

    “Therefore if this so-called Songdo turns out to be Jukdo (Ulleungdo) the island should belong to them (Chosun), and it not it should be ours (Japan’s)…. Watanabe Kuoki isn’t talking specifically about Dokdo in this line, he is taking about the island (Songdo) of which he was not sure existed and he says it “should”. By what reasoning is clear, he was a hawk.

    Watanabe Kuoki can be seen as a hardliner who didn’t seem to really care at all about who was really the true owner of “this so-called Songdo” You can see he wanted to assert military control “protect” this island even if Chosun was the rightful owner.

    It is very clear Kuoki knew Argonaut was fictitious, this proves my point. He states many documents say Argonaut doesn’t exist. It’s clear he had referenced foreign maps and knew the truth.

    The documents such as the 1870 Report on Chosun and the 1877 Kobunruko Documents clearly state Jukdo as Takeshima from the Anyongbok dispute. Thus the Japanese who wrote these papers were not referring these nasty three islands maps as we know Songdo was Ulleungdo on those charts.

    In the 1870 Report on Chosun two islands are mentioned. One is Jukdo confirmed as Ulleungdo, the other is Songdo which can only be Dokdo as Ulleungdo had no other nieghbour islands called Matsushima.

  11. comment number 11 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Toadface wrote:

    You’re right on the beginning of the article I’ll change the Songdo to Jukdo.It doesn’t mean much, I bracketed Ulleungdo behind to clarify. However you’re translation is wrong at the end. Kuoki doesn’t say either Liancourt or Takeshima at the end.

    I think my translation is correct, and Mr. Watanabe Kuoki does mention Jukdo near the end when he says the “the Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) that is not Takeshima (Ulleungdo).” See the following:

    竹島以外ニ在ル松島

    I do not know where the Japanese starts or stops, so I am just relying on the Chinese characters, but I think you should be able to understand the message from the portion I quoted above. Here is the original Japanese, and I think the part I have marked in red is roughly the portion I translated above. Maybe we could get a third part to translate it to see who is right and who is wrong?

    昔者竹島ノ記事略説多クシテ松島ノ事説論スル者ナシ 而テ今者人松嶋ニ喋々ス 然り而テ此二嶋或ハ一島両名或ハ二嶋也ト諸説紛々朝野其是非ヲ決スル者ヲ聞カス 彼竹島ナル者ハ朝鮮ノ蔚陵島トシ幕府倫安ノ議遂ニ彼ニ委ス 故ニ此所謂松嶋ナル者竹嶋ナレハ彼ニ属シ若竹島以外ニ在ル松島ナレハ 我ニ属セサルヲ得サルモ之ヲ決論スル者無シ然ルニ松嶋ナル者我国ト朝鮮トノ間ニ位シ長崎ヨリ浦潮港ニ至リ馬関其他石州因州伯州壱岐ヨリ彼要地タル 「ラサレフ」港ヘノ道ニ当タルヲ以テ頗ル要地ト為シ連綿此近傍ニ英魯其船艦ヲ出没ス若シ夫我国ノ部分ナランニハ之ニ多少ノ注意無ル可ラス 彼国ナラン歟又保護ヲ加ヘサル可ラス 況ンヤ他国我ニ糺ス 之ニ答フルニ決辞ナキヲ如何セン 然ラハ則無主ノ一島ノミ諸書ニ就テ案スルニ竹嶋洋名アルゴナウト嶋ナル者ハ 全ク烏有ノ者ニシテ其松島デラセ嶋ナル者ハ本来ノ竹嶋即チ?陵島ニシテ我松嶋ナル者ハ洋名ホルネットロックスナルカ如シ 然ルヲ洋客竹嶋ヲ認テ松嶋ト為シ更ニ竹嶋ナル者ヲ想起セシ者ノ如シ而テ此ホルネットロックスノ 我国ニ属スルハ各国ノ地図皆然リ他ノ二嶋ニ至リテハ各国其認ムル所ヲ同フセス 我国論又確拠無シ 是実ニ其地ノ形勢ヲ察シ其所属ノ地ヲ定メ而テ其責ニ任スル所ヲ両国間ニ定メサル可ラサル者タリ因テ先ツ嶋根県ニ照会シ其従来ノ習例ヲ糺シ併セテ船艦ヲ派シテ其地勢ヲ見若シ彼既ニ著手セハ 其宰政ノ模様ヲ実査シ然ル後ニ其方略ヲ定メント要ス 請フ速ニ採リテ議スル者アラン事ヲ伏望ス

    記錄局長渡辺洪基立案

    Again, here is my translation of the part in red.

    Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was given to Chosun by the Shogunate, who was seeking convenience at the time instead of considering our future. Therefore, if this so-called “Matsushima” (Songdo) turns out to be Takeshima (Ulleungdo), it should belong to them (Chosun), but if it is a Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) that is not Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it is obviously part of Japan….

    It seems pretty clear to me, Toadface, that the Head of the Records Bureau of the Japanese Foreign Affairs Ministry felt that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Japan.

    Toadface wrote:

    In the 1870 Report on Chosun two islands are mentioned. One is Jukdo confirmed as Ulleungdo, the other is Songdo which can only be Dokdo as Ulleungdo had no other nieghbour islands called Matsushima.

    Here is a translation of the 1870 Japanese report:

    How Takeshima & Matsushima Became Part of Chosun

    Matsushima (Songdo) is a neighboring island of Takeshima (Ulleungdo). We have no previous records of Matsushima. In regard to Takeshima, after the Genroku years (1688 – 1704), Chosun (Korea) sent people there to live for awhile, but now, as before, it is uninhabited. It produces bamboo and also reeds thicker than bamboo. Ginseng and other products also grow naturally. We have also heard that there is an abundance of marine products.

    As you can see, the 1870 report said that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called “Matsushima” (Songdo). The fact that it said that Japan had no record of it tells us that it was not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) since Japan did have records of “that” Matsushima (Songdo). Even King Kojong and Lee Gyu-won said in 1882 that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called “Songdo.” Here is their conversation:

    The king said, “Have the inspector come forward,” and Lee Gyu-won came forward.

    The king said, “These days there is the evil practice of foreigners freely coming and going to Ulleungdo and doing as they please. Also, Songjukdo (松竹島 – 송죽도) and Usando (于山島 – 우산도) are next to Ulleungdo, but there are still no details on the distance between them and what products they have. You were chosen especially for this trip, so pay particular attention to your inspection. We also have plans to establish a settlement there, so be sure to prepare a thorough map and report.”

    Lee Gyu-won replied, “I will carry out the mission to the best of my abilities. Usando is just Ulleungdo. Usan was the name of the ancient country’s capital. Songjukdo is a small island about thirty ri offshore (相距爲三數十里). The products there are rosewood trees and pipestem bamboo.”

    The king said, “It is called either Usando or Songjukdo (敎曰 或稱芋山島 或稱松竹島) all of which is written in the Yeojiseungram (輿地勝覽 – 여지승람). It is also called Songdo (松島 – 송도) and Jukdo (竹島 – 죽도), and together with Usando, three islands combine to make up what is called Ulleungdo. Inspect the situation on all of them. Originally, the Samcheok commander (三陟營將 – 삼척 영장) and the Wolsong commander (越松萬戶 – 월송 만호) took turns searching Ulleungdo, but they were all careless, inspecting only the exterior of the island. This has led to these evil practices.

    Lee Gyu-won said, “I will go deep inside and conduct my inspection. It is occasionally called Songdo and Jukdo because it is to the east of Ulleungdo, but there is only Songjukdo, no separate Songdo and Jukdo.”

    The king asked, “Did you possibly hear that from previous inspectors?”

    Lee Gyu-won said, “I have not yet talked with previous inspectors, but that is the summary of what I have heard.”

    So, Toadface, as you can see, you need to correct your Web site.

  12. comment number 12 by: toadface

    Gerry, the fact they “had no records” means they had no records. The Meiji Government was in its formative years and lacked details on the status of island probably because it was just a couple of rocks. Don’t try to redraw maps of the East sea on three words. About the “nieghbour” part Dokdo was always referred to as an appended island to Ulleungdo by Japanese as shown by the article from Mr Tanaka’s website and other sources.

    Japan had named Dokdo as Matsushima for over a century and a half before this document so it is your theory that should be rewritten because it lacks foundation of clear maps to buttress it.

    There was no island called Songjukdo. Ulleungdo was surveyed almost a hundred years earlier by Shim Jin Hyeon and the neighbour island was confirmed as Jukdo Islet. Songjukdo is probably a combination of Songdo and Jukdo.

    I’m quite aware of Gojong and Leekyuwon’s conversation it’s translated on my website.

    Neither the king nor Leekyuwon had a clue about the islands surrounding Ulleungdo. Their information were snippets of unclear historical documents or third-hand heresay. I’m certainly not changing my website on this mishmash of ambiguous information. They hadn’t even surveyed the island yet!!

    It’s not your translation itself that is wrong (per se). It is your generous insertion of the word (Liancourt Rocks) after Songdo. Watanabe Kuoki is saying if this Songdo is not Ulleungdo it should be ours. He is speculating there is another island outside of both Ulleungdo and Dokdo that is currently drawn as Songdo on maps.

    Watanabe Kuoki only made an assumption that Dokdo was Japanese while referencing foreign maps. This was probably the outdated three-island British map drawn by Weller because the English referred to Dokdo as Hornet Rocks.

    So you see Gerry, I don’t need to correct my website.

  13. comment number 13 by: Gerry-Bevers

    The Koreans told the Japanese in 1870 that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called “Songdo” (Matsushima). In 1882, both King Kogong and Lee Gyu-won said Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called “Songdo.” The king and Lee said that  “Songdo” and “Jukdo” were alternative names for Songjukdo.

    During his survey of Ulleungdo in 1882, Lee Gyu-won found an island named “Jukdo,” which was one of the alternative named given for Songjukdo. He mapped it in the same location as present-day Jukdo, which is 2.2 kilometers off of Ulleungdo’s east shore. The other alternative name was “Songdo,” which is what Koreans were calling Ulleungdo’s neighboring island in 1870, according to the Japanese report.

    We know that the “Songdo” (Matsushima) in the 1870 Japanese report was not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) because it was the Japanese who used Songdo (Matsushima) to refer to Liancourt Rocks, not the Koreans.

    Did the new Meiji government burn all the old records and maps, Toadface? Your explanation for the 1870 document is just silly.

    So King Gojong and Lee Gyu-won did not have “a clue about the islands surrounding Ulleungdo,” but Toadface does?

  14. comment number 14 by: ponta

    The Meiji Government was in its formative years and lacked details on the status of island probably because it was just a couple of rocks

    Watanabe Kuoki only made an assumption that Dokdo was Japanese while referencing foreign maps.

    Yes, that explains nicely why Japan was confused about the islands.

    Gerry
    I am sorry but I couldn’t figure out which map you were talking about?
    This is the whole map of 日本海軍省朝鮮東海岸図(1876) from Torontalker. Which one is supposed to be non-existent island, Ulleungdo, Liancourt Rocks and which one do ou want us to translate?
    I am not good at reading a map.(Incidentally, I have no sense of direction)

  15. comment number 15 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Ponta,

    Click the following link, and then click on “02.” That is the map I was talking about.

    http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/korea_eastcoast-1876/

  16. comment number 16 by: ponta

    Gerry
    thanks, OKay so comment 2 of Sweet Water has already mentioned it. Thanks.

  17. comment number 17 by: Sweet Water

    Second, Takeshima here can bee seen as appended to Ulleungdo. As I’ve always said almost every Japanese map or document I’ve seen always refers to Dokdo as part or closely associated to Ulleungdo. Dokdo belongs to Ulleungdo and Ulleungdo belongs to Korea.

    toadface,
    I don’t think you can derive the above conclusion from Nozu Chousui’s writing. His short essay simply implies that Matsushima belongs to Ulleungdo but Takeshima does not. So, it is logically impossible to claim that Takeshima belongs to Matsushima. (Takeshima to Matsushima is like Peking to Nanking.)

  18. comment number 18 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Could someone give me a translation of the Ulleungdo section of the Black Dragon Society document that can be found with the following link?

    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka18/kankaitsuugyo-1903/10.jpg

    Sometimes the above link does not work for some reason, so if it does not work here, then you can go to “THIS PAGE” and click on it there, where it does works for some reason.

    Again, I am sorry that I cannot translate the above section myself.

    By the way, Sweetwater, thank you for the translation you did above.

  19. comment number 19 by: pacifist

    Gerry,

    The text is so long that I can’t translate all of them but the interesting part may be as follows:
    .
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    Since the August of the year 34 (=1901), they dispatched the chief of the county and made him rule the island (Ulleungdo). It lies at NL 130°45′-53’50” and E.Long 37°34’40”-31’50″”, and is an isolated island which located at about 40-ri south of 平海郡越松浦.
    .
    Koreans call this island also as 武陵 or 羽陵, which means it was the old 于山國 (Usanguk). Chinese also call this island as Matsushima (松島).
    .
    Incidentally, they have said that it means a general term of the mainland with six islets or some have said that it means a general term of the two islands Takeshima and Matsushima. The glaring mistake is that they sometimes drew these two islands side by side, this must be the biggest mistake.
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

  20. comment number 20 by: pacifist

    Gerry,

    There was a depiction about the Liancourt rocks (yanko-to) on the next page:

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    Yanko-to:
    It locates about 30-ri southeast of Ulleungdo. It is an uninhibited island at almost the same distance north west from our Oki county. On a clear and fine day one can see this island from the top of the high place of Ulleungdo. Koreans and Japanese fishermen call this island as Yanko, its length is about 10-cho. Its coast is twisted and good for fishing boats to avoid wind and waves, but it is hard to get firewoods and drinking water.

  21. comment number 21 by: Sweet Water

    Incidentally, they have said that it means a general term of the mainland with six islets or some have said that it means a general term of the two islands Takeshima and Matsushima. The glaring mistake is that they sometimes drew these two islands side by side, this must be the biggest mistake.

    Gerry and pacifist san,
    Though I am a new comer, please allow me to emphasize one thing: The last mentioned “this” includes the first sentence in the above, according to the author of the “Kankaitsuugyo.”
    The second paragraph of the Ulleungdo section can also be translated as:
    “By the way, there are some people who claim that this island (Ulleungdo) is a group of large and small 6 islands, or claim that this is the group name of two islands, Takeshima and Matsushima, or, to the extreme, some people even have written this (these claims) on the map. I say (consider) these are really big fallacies.”
    Sorry, I won’t bother you guys anymore.

  22. comment number 22 by: pacifist

    Sweet Water,
    .
    Thanks, I agree that the author directed at the whole sentence after “Incidentally” – including these general terms (or group names), he meant that these claims are incorrect.
    .
    BTW,

    甚だしきは往々地図中にも之れを並記しあるを見る、

    .
    How to translate it…? …It depends on the interpretation of 並記(to write side by side)…
    .
    If this meant the maps with the two islands, such as tha maps Usan and Ulleungdo depicted side by side, it could be translated as:
    .
    To the extreme, one looks that (they) drew this (these islands) side by side,
    .
    or if it meant the maps with Ulleungdo with two different names written, it should be…
    .
    To the extreme, one looks that (they) wrote this (these names) side by side,

  23. comment number 23 by: ponta

    Gerry
    I e-mailed you. An important mail. Please check it out.