Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 4

January 8th, 2007 . by Gerry-Bevers

Maps Showing Ulleungdo/Usando 2 Days from Uljin

The following are three old maps of Korea’s Gangwon Province, which included the islands of Ulleungdo (鬱陵島 – 울릉도) and Usando (于山島 – 우산도). All three maps show Usando as a smaller neighboring island of Ulleungdo. Next to the islands on all three maps is written the following (or a shortened version):

自蔚珍得風便二日到 (자울진득풍편이일도)

“With (a good) wind, [the islands] can be reached in two days from Uljin.”

Koreans claim that “Usando” was the old name for present-day “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks), but the following maps do not support that claim since they seem to be saying that Ulleungdo and Usando were both 2-days travel time from Uljin. If Usando had been present-day Dokdo, it would have required, at least, a third day of travel time since Dokdo is ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo.

Yeojido (輿地圖) Gangwon Province

Haedongjido (海東地圖) Gangwon Province

Jwahaejido (左海地島) Gangwon Province

The Usando on the above maps was almost certainly present-day Jukdo, which is about 2.2 kilometers off of Ulleungdo’s northeast shore and is Ulleungdo’s largest neighboring island. Even the following 1710 Korean map, which is an earlier map showing Usando (于山島 – 우산도) to the west of Ulleungdo (蔚陵島), says that it is 2-days travel time to Usando and Ulleungdo from Uljin. The map leaves little doubt that the 2-days travel time was referring to both Usando and Ulleungdo since there is a red line connecting both islands to the Korean port of Uljin. On the line is written the following:

水路二日程(수로이일정)

“Two days travel time by boat”

By the way, the writing in between the two islands reads 四方百里 (사방백리), which means “Sabang 100 ri.” The land area of Ulleungdo was said to be 100 ri. One Korean ri is generally recognized as being 0.4 kilometers, but a shorter ri seems to have been used sometimes, possible a 0.2-kilometer ri.

1710 Korean map of Gangwon Province

Japanese translation provided by Kaneganese

(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です)

鬱陵島と于山島は蔚珍から2日の距離、と示している地図

以下の三つの地図は韓国の江原道の古い地図です。江原道は、鬱陵島と于山島を含んでいます。三つの地図は全て于山島を鬱陵島に隣接するより小さな島として描いています。全ての地図において、二つの島の隣には次のように書かれています。(文章が省略されているものもあります)

“風のよい日は蔚珍から2日で到着する”

韓国人は“于山島”が現在の独島 (Liancourt Rocks),の古い名前であったと主張していますが、以下の地図をみればそうした主張は成り立ちません。説明書きでは、鬱陵島と于山島、どちらの島も“風のよい日は蔚珍から2日で到着する”と読めるからです。もし于山島が独島ならば、少なくとももう一日、つまり3日目の船旅が必要となるからです。独島は、鬱陵島の南東92kmの距離にあるのです。

 地図1:輿地圖(Yeojido)
 地図2:輿地圖(Yeojido)
 地図3:海東地圖(Haedongjido)
 地図4:海東地圖(Haedongjido)
 地図5:左海地島(Jwahaejido)

上掲の地図の于山島は、現在の竹嶼(鬱陵島北東沖2.2kmで鬱陵島に隣接する島々のうち最大の島)であることはほぼ確実です。以下に挙げる171年の韓国製の地図、この地図はより初期の物で于山島を鬱陵島の西に描いているのですが、この地図でさえ、“蔚珍から2日で到着する”と記しています。この地図では、于山島と鬱陵島の両島から韓国の港である蔚珍へ赤い線が引かれており、“2日で到着する”のは両島であることはほぼ疑いの余地が無いでしょう。この赤い線の上にはこう書かれています。

“船で2日の距離”

ところで、二つの島の間に書かれているの“四方百里”は、百里四方という意味です。島の面積が100里、という意味です。韓国での一里は、一般的に0.4kmですが、時に短い“一里”が使われることもあり、0.2kmである可能性もあります。

 地図6:江原道(1710年)

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


33 Responses to “Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 4”

  1. comment number 1 by: pacifist

    Gerry,

    Welcome back!!!
    Thanks for your new posting, it’s quite interesting!

    Although your situation doesn’t seem quite well at present time, I hope you will win in the end.

    Thanks to the newspaper article some Korean people may be interested in this site, which will be good for Korea in the long run. I hope they will notice the problem in Korea.

  2. comment number 2 by: ponta

    Great post.
    Usan has never been Dokdo.

    BTW
    Do you know this document/ 肅宗?(I forgot how to transform Japanese to Korean, anybody?)
    This is the document in which Korea claimed Ulleungdo belonged to Korea, when she was discussing the territorial matter with Japan.
    Korea claimed that Ulleungdo belonged to Korea because it was written in 興地勝覧 etc that it could be seen from the land,i.e.,, the peninsula
    Opp asks why Korea change the interpretation. When they want to claim that Ulleungo belongs to Korea, they say it belongs to Korea because it can be seen from the peninsula. When they want to claim that Dodkdo belong to Korea, they claim it belong to Korea because it can be seen from Ulleungdo,(though you can not see trees on Dokdo from Ulleungdo anyway)
    You know Korean claim is Dokdo and Ulleungdo is sister islands.If Dokdo is a part of Ulleungdo, then why change the interpretation?

    Any idea?

  3. comment number 3 by: sqz

    pacifist wrote:

    Thanks to the newspaper article some Korean people may be interested in this site, which will be good for Korea in the long run. I hope they will notice the problem in Korea.

    あまり楽観はできません。
    We do not have much optimism.
    現在も、その記事の韓国語版が見つかりません。
    Now, I can not find a Korean version article of that.

  4. comment number 4 by: pacifist

    sqz,

    Yes, I agree. Many Koreans won’t visit thsi site but “some” (as I wrote) may visit who can read English…

  5. comment number 5 by: Two Cents

    This is my personal opinion on how Koreans became confused about the nomenclature.

    First, in ancient times, there was an island that was called as “mount oo” in the original local dialect.The sound oo has been phonetically represented by characters such as 于, 芋, 杆, 羽, 武, 流, 欝 etc, when written in historical records that were etablished after 13th century. The “mountain” was represented by its meaning, using 山 (mountain) or 稜 (peak).

    In ancient times, people knew that both Usan and Ullengdo were the one and the same island, as can be seen from Korean records that connect the two names with 一曰 or 謂, both meaning “also known as.”

    However, when maps came to be drawn, the information that the names were of one island were lost, and mapmakers assumed that there must be two islands, and thus both Ulleungdo and Usan appeared side by side. Sometimes Usan appeared to have the same size as Ulleungdo, other showed it to be the smaller island that could be regarded as Jukdo, others placed it to the west of Ulleungdo, others to the northeast. Basically, the Koreans had lost track of Usan. They knew it was historically Korean territory, but they misplaced it, having lost the knowledge that is was just another name for Ullengdo.

    Then, in the late 17th century, Ahn Yong-bok appears and claims that Usan is the island the Japanese call Matsushima, although it is clear from records that he considered Matsushima to be located northeast of Ullengdo and also much larger than Ulleungdo. Thus, it could not possibly have been Matsushima (present Takeshima) he was talking about, but this man was desperately trying to save himself after having broken the Korean law twice, so he tells the Chosun government that he had persuaded the Tsushima lord to cede Matsushima/Usan. The Tsushima lord did not meet him on his second (illegal) trip to Japan since he was away in Edo (Tokyo), and it is very clear that Ahn was lying – though I can’t blame him; going overseas was a crime punishable by death in Chosun.) Although Ahn is punished for his crime (banished to a remote inland area), the Koreans start to pick up his claim that Usan is Matsushima, without clearly understanding where or what Matsushima is. If they had, the maps after the 18th century would have shown two small rocks located en route to the Japanese archipelago and further away from Ullengdo. This is further complicated by the fact that Ulleungdo also had an smaller island named Songdo (松島), according to the conversation between King Gojong and Lee Gyu-won on April 7, 1882.

    Since Koreans are not sure where the island that the Japanese refer to as Matsushima is, they naturally have no idea that the island of Rianko-to (Japanese pronunciation of the Liancourt rocks) that the Japanese were talking about in the late 19th ande early 20th century is former Matsushima, and so they come to call it by a new name, Dokto, and not Usan somtime around 1904. Koreans on Dokto were hired hands by the Japanese fishermen, and no operations solely by Koreans have been confirmed. The fact that Koreans did not consider the Liancourt Rocks to be part of their territory is apparent from the pre-occupation-era and from post-war records that give the precise longitude of their eastern boundary of the Korean country. The former 大韓地誌 issued in 1899 gives it as E130deg.35′ and the latter 朝鮮常識問答 (Q&A on common knowledge for the Koreans) published in 1947 gives it as E130deg. 56’23”. The second edition of the latter published in 1948 even states that the eastern boundary is Jukto of Ullengdo located at the said latitude. It is obvious that Koreans did not consider Takeshima/Dokto to be a part of their territory. The image to the latter books are here:
    http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/sengo/jyoushiki.html

    In 1952, the anti-Japanese president Lee Sung-man forcibly declares the Lee line against the Japanese who are powerless to do anything about it since we had just been forced to accept a pacifist constitution that forbade us to resolve international disputes by war. Then, feeling a need to keep the victim mentality alive and well against Japan, the Koreans have dug into history and revived the Dokto = Usan= present-day Takeshima theory, and created a story that the illegal incorporation of Dokto was the first step in the Japanese pre-war aggression against Korea. (Smart, actually.)

    I have so far seen no evidence of the Koreans actually having been on present-day Takeshima, like diaires of fishermen who describe Dokto as being composed of nothing more than two rocks devoid of bamboos, trees, agrable land, or fresh water, located about a day’s voyage to the southeast of Ulleungdo or a more convincing map. I mean, all I am asking for is a record that says Dokto comprises of two little islands no more than rocks at a distance approximately equal to the distance Ulleungdo is from the shores of the peninsula. Pre-modern map deformations are a lame excuse for the lack of such pieces of evidence.

  6. comment number 6 by: pacifist

    Thank you two cents,

    It is apparent that Usando was not Takeshima/Dokdo, there is no ground for Korea’s insistence.

    The problem is that Korean society is still pre-democratic state as Gerry showed us, the newspapers won’t mention the truth about Takeshima/Dokdo, almost all the scholars say the same thing as the government’s propaganda – it is same as military Japan in the 1940’s.

    Korea needs a kind of revolution to make the country more democratic. We have to let them tell about this problem, only Koreans can change this state.

  7. comment number 7 by: sqz

    pacifist

    We have to let them tell about this problem, only Koreans can change this state.

    I agree.
    他人が変えようとしても、失敗するでしょう。
    If people of other country will change it, it will fail.
    そして、すべてを責任転嫁するでしょう。
    And, Korea will impute all responsibility to people of other country.
    韓国の将来は韓国人によって築かなければなりません。
    It must build future of Korea by people of Korea.

  8. comment number 8 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Two Cents,

    That was a great summary of the history. I also enjoyed reading your explanation of the An Yong-bok incident over at The Marmot’s Hole here.

    In regard to the An Yong-bok incident, when the Japanese complained to Korea about An Yong-bok and forty other Korean fishermen illegally fishing on Takeshima (Ulleungdo), the Koreans did not seem to know that “Takeshima” was referring to Ulleungdo because they apologized and said that they did not allow their fishermen to go to Ulleungdo, much less any place beyond Ulleungdo.

    Here is the excerpt from the Annals of King Sukjong, February 23, 1694.

    自禮曹覆書曰: “弊邦禁束漁氓, 使不得出於外洋, 雖弊境之鬱陵島, 亦以遼遠之故, 不許任意往來, 況其外乎?

    예조(禮曹)에서 회답하는 서신에 이르기를, “폐방(弊邦)에서 어민을 금지 단속하여 외양(外洋)에 나가지 못하도록 했으니 비록 우리 나라의 울릉도일지라도 또한 아득히 멀리 있는 이유로 마음대로 왕래하지 못하게 했는데, 하물며 그 밖의 섬이겠습니까?”

    The letter from the (Korean) Ministry of Rites, Protocol, Culture and Education said, “We prohibit our fisherman from going far out into the open sea. We even restrict their freely going to our island of Ulleungdo because it is so far away, so why would we allow them to go to an island beyond (Ulleungdo)?”

    That passage shows quite clearly that Chosun Korea considered Ulleungdo to be its eastern-most boundary.

  9. comment number 9 by: pacifist

    Dear Korean people,

    Why don’t you refute?
    Ain’t there another Toadface or wedgie?

    In my opinion, it is no doubt that Usando was not Takeshima/Dokdo. If you admit this, you must also admit what Korean government has claimed for years – “Takeshima/Dokdo is Korean territory” – was not true, because the ground for thier claim was “Usando is Takeshima/Dokdo”.

    If you admit all the lies your government has made, then why don’t you complain to your government, why don’t you make an outcry?

    Why are you Korean people keeping silent?
    I want to hear your opinion, dear Korean people.

  10. comment number 10 by: pacifist

    Gerry, two Cents

    I agree with you. Ulleungdo was Japanese boundary for Japan and it was Korean boundary for Korea.

    To follow is from one of my postings at another site:

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    Before Ahn Yong-Bok (1692)
    In the 17th century (while Chosun enforced “empty island” policy), Ulleungdo was thought to be Japanese territory for at least 80 years from the early 17th century until the dispute began.
    In 1692, Japanese fishermen found Korean fishermen gathering seaweed (Wakame) and abalones in Ulleungdo, which was, by the way, an illegal thing for Koreans because of the “empty island” policy. (See the details below)

    On March 26th 1692, when the fishermen from the Murakawas reached Igashima (伊賀島; Jukdo in Korea)and saw Ulleungdo, they noticed that something was wrong. Many abalones were dried under the sun. There was somebody gathering abalones and fishing. Next day (27th) they went to Ulleungdo and saw two strange ships. One ship with about 30 people went by Murakawa’s ship. There were two foreigners on a boat offshore, so Murakawas called them and asked them, “Where did you come from?”. One of the fishermen said that they came from “Kawatenkawagu” of Chosun. One of Murakawas said to them, “This island belongs to Japan” and told them not to come here again. The Korean explained, “We didn’t have intention to gather abalones here from the beginning, we used to go to a different northern island every three years by order of our king but we met a storm this year and we drifted ashore”.
    When Murakawas reached Ulleungdo, they discovered that their fishing gears and eight fishing boats were gone. Asked about this, the Koreans disclosed that their people used them without notice. The fishermen from the Murakawas took home some abalones on a skewer, a sedge hat and a net ball as evidences of violation of territory and reported it to the local government. The local government thought that it was a grave thing and brought this report to the Shogunate. The Shogunate decided not to make it a political issue as they took an optimistic view and thought the Koreans would leave the island after they mended their ships.

    This episode may show that in those days Ulleungdo (Takeshima) was believed to be Japanese territory, even Korean fishermen thought so.

  11. comment number 11 by: ponta

    Pacifist
    Frogmouth =Wedgie=Toadface=Steve Barbar is at Marmot.
    Probably our friend jk is there also under a different name.
    He can’t miss the place where Gerry speaks.

    Could you give me e-mail? I want your opinion.
    ponta_at_oocidentalism@yahoo.co.jp

  12. comment number 12 by: Two Cents

    This is a rebuttal to frogmouth’s comment #486 at Marmot’s.
    Foreign teacher sacrificed to the Dokto gods
    http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comments

    I have decided to post it here instead of at Marmot’s where the topic of the post is whether a democratic country should fire people who do not share its beliefs. I hope you don’t mind, Matt & Gerry.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Usando-songdo-doc.jpg
    The first link forgmouth provides is a document titled 松島巡視要否ノ議 (Regarding the Need for an Inspection Mission to Matsushima), and was written in 1878. It is a paper submitted by TANABE Taichi of the Foreign Ministry stating his opinion against an inspection to Matsushima. He says that Matsushima is Usan, and since Usan is part of Ulleungdo, then it is a part of Chosun, and so any inspection mission would cause unnecessary friction from Chosun regardless of the motive. It is just one side of the debate that was going on. Unlike Korea, in Japan, there are usually pros and cons to any issue. The background for his opinion is the 1877 Dajyokanrei, the document Koreans love to site, which says that “Takeshima and one other island is not Japan’s territory (竹島外一島 本邦無関).” Koreans claim that the one other island is Dokto, but the appended map (http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/hennyu/haaa.html), which the Koreans ironically provided as evidence, repeatedly prints the name of Matsushima (“Matsushima is 80 ris to the NW of Fukuura, Oki” 隠岐後福浦ヨリ松島ヲ距ル乾位八十里許 and “Isotakeshima is 40ris NW of Matsushima” 松島ヨリ磯竹島ヲ距ル 乾位 四十里許). Thus, it naturally follows that Matsushima would have not gone unnamed in the document. Rather, the one other island most likely referred to Jukto on the northeast of Ulleungdo. After this 1877 ordinance, there was a debate in Japan as to the inspection of Matsushima in preparation for its incorporation should it be unowned since it was positioned in a strategically crucial location. The very fact that this debate took place also confirms that Japan did not forfeit Matsushima the year before in the 1877 ordinance. The situation at the time is summarized in the documents below:
    International situation: The British Occupation of Komundo
    http://www.geocities.com/juliancoy/komundo.htm
    The Japanese situation: 松島之議 (Regarding Matsushima) by WATANABE Kouki of the Foreign Ministry in 1878
    http://matsu.rcks.kyushu-u.ac.jp/p/study/08takeshima/siryo-list/matsusimanogi.html

    Since all of you here can read the first one, I will summarize the second one. It says:
    In the past, most records have dealt with Takeshima, but few have discussed Matsushima in depth. There is currently a heated debate over whether Takeshima and Matsushima are one island or two different islands, but none have been conclusive. The Tokugawa shogunate has determined that Takeshima is Ullengdo and is Chosun territory. Thus, if Matsushima is indeed Takeshima, then it is Chosun’s, if not, then we must claim it, since it is located at such a critical point in the Sea of Japan, as it lies between our land and the Port Lazareff and both British and Russian ships are passing by it frequently. Reviewing the records, Takeshima aka Argonaut is Chosun’s, and the island we originally called Takeshima is equivalent to Ulleungdo. Then it follows that what we call Matsushima must be the island called Hornet Rocks. However, the West seems to call the original Takeshima as Matsushima and have drawn another Takeshima. While all countries regard the Hornet Rocks as our land and display it as thus in their maps, their views of the Argonaut and Dagelet vary. We are not quite sure ourselves. Thus, there is a need to inspect it to determine their identity geographically. We should bring with us people who have been on Takeshima on the mission to confirm the identity of the islands. This matter must be dealt with immediately.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-usando.html
    In the second link frogmouth provides:

    1) The 1808 Korean Handbook of State Affairs (萬機要覧)
    This book cites a book named Yojiji (興地志) completed in 1656, and writes, “興地志云鬱稜島于山皆于山國地于山則倭謂松島也 (In the Yojiji it says that Ulleungdo and Usando are all Usan-guk’s territory and thus what the Japanese call Matsushima.).”
    Almost the exact phrases are found in東国文献備考 (1707) and輿地考 (1908).

    However, in春官志 completed by李孟休 in 1745, it is written that “This island [Ullengdo] is called Takeshima because is produces bamboo. There are three peaks on it, and so it is called Sambo-to (三峯島). The terms于山, 羽陵, 蔚陵, 武陵, 磯竹島 are all phonetic transformations of the name.” Thus, it seems that Koreans know that the names all refer to one island.

    Then, another book, 旅菴全書 edited by申景濬 in 1756 claims that “According to the Yojiji (興地志), some records say Usan and Ulleungdo are the same island. However, looking at the maps, it must be concluded that they are two islands. One must be the island called Matsushima and it follows that these two islands comprises Usan-guk (按 輿地志云 一説于山鬱陵本一島 而考諸圖志二島也 一則其所謂松島 而蓋二島 倶是于山國也).”

    So what can be concluded from the above? One is that it was not Yojiji that concluded that Ulleungdo and Usando are comprised Usan-guk and corresponds to Matsushima, but books in the 18th century. The Yojiji did not give the final word on the single or double island theory, which is followed by the 1745 book. However, the 1756 book claims that Ulleng and Usan islands must be two because they are presented as so on (very inaccurate) maps, and that it (unnaturally) follows that the other is Matsushima. This all took place after the Ahn Yong-bok incident, and so the preposterous claim “Usan is Matsushima” is affecting the logic. Note also that the author does not seem to care about where or what Matsushima is. Because the Koreans had no knowledge of where Matsushima was, an inspection in 1882 carried out by Lee Gyu-won (李奎遠) under orders of the king simply searched the vicinity of Ulleungdo and concludes that Usando is an island just off the shores of Ulleungdo. This proves that even in 1882, when western maps showed the Liancourt Rocks, Koreans did not realize that those far-away rocks were what the Japanese had referred to as Matsushima during the Ahn Yong-bok incident.

    2) The section on “The Japanese Inquiry of Ulleungdo Region’s History” misquotes the Japanese text. The portion in red should not end there but continue to include “ルカ”. Thus, the passage reads, “According to the general map of the eight provinces attached at the head of the 東国興地勝覧 (Korean document established in 1478), there are two islands off the coast of Kangwon-to. The one of the west is called Usan and the one of the east is called Uturyou. Do these islands correspond to the two islands we call Takeshima and Matsushima?”
    東国興地勝覧巻首八道総図中江原道ノ海中ニ二島アリ西ヲ于山ト云ヒ東ヲ鬱稜ト云フ豈我乎謂竹島松島ノ二島ナルカ

    So contrary to what the site says (“These are what we Japanese call Matsushima (Dokdo) and Takeshima” or “It is interesting to note with this document that although Usando was drawn on Ulleungdo’s wrong (West) side, Japanese were concious of this error and still considered Usando to be Matsushima.”), the Japanese are actually questioning the true identity of the islands and which islands they correspond to on Japanese maps.

  13. comment number 13 by: Kaneganese

    Thank you for your enormous effort Gerry.
    Looks like you are going to fight against unjustice. That is really good.
    It is so sad that you are called like “Japanophile” in Marmot’s hole by kyopos. For Japanese,it is quite obvious that you are just trying to be fair.

    By the way, Ulleundo in Haedongjido(Gangwon Province) map looks very accurate. I can’t see Chukdo on that map though. Is “于山島” labelled to Ulleundo?

    Two Cents, your description of Korean’s confusion of those islands was very good.

    Ponta, are you sure that all those Frogmouth =Wedgie=Toadface=Steve Barbar are the same person? I thought Frogmouth =Toadface=Mark Molvo. Well, either case, I don’t really care. This is exactly called “恥の上塗り” in Japanese.

    The only thing I feel sorry is that Japanese used same name as Chukdo(竹嶼/竹島) for Liancourt Rocks. “松竹”are very lucky words for Japanese. But using the name” 竹島 ” gave Korean the wrong impression that Japanese incorporated Chukdo(竹嶼) not 竹島 . That was a shame.

    Additon to that, I think the shape of 観音島(間ノ島・マノ島・鼠項島・石島)could have added more confusion. It hardly appear on the map until 20th century except 1886 Japanese map saying 観音島 as 観音崎. The name of the island changed from 観音﨑(1905 Japanese map of Ulleungdo) to 鼠項島(1909 map). If Lee Gyu-won used 島項 for 観音島 as Gerry suggested, Korean considered it a cape while Japanese considered as a island.( Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6)

  14. comment number 14 by: Kaneganese

    This is an interesting story by old (96 !!) fisherman in Oki island. It is not a hard evidence but I personally believe it is extremely important considering that this is the story told by the person who actually engaged in economic activity on the disputed island almost 75 years ago. I hope we should collect those first hand stories from both sides before it’s going to be too late. I really want to hear what Korean people on Ulleundo say. Maybe we can figure out where on the earth the name “Dokto” came from. I also wonder if there are any stories about Dokto fisherman couple’s family history available in Korea?


    A brief translation by me. Correct me if I am wrong.
    “96 years old former fisherman in Oki island was interviewed by Sankei Shinbun(06/01/2007 Osaka edition) and gave verbal evidence of Japan’s precedent occupation of Takeshima.
    Takeshi Yoshiyama(96) recognized himself in the picture which was taken on the Takeshima island in June of 1934. He confirmed that (Japanese fishermen) hired Korean 海女s (woman divers) from Chejudo(済州島) and they were taken by the Choson boatman. He also said that Choson only came to recognize Takeshima as fishing grounds by Japanese.”

    original: 竹島「先占」を元漁師が証言 領土編入の根拠裏付け ~ 昭和10年前後「済州島の海女雇い、隠岐の仲間と出漁」

    韓国が実効支配しているわが国固有の領土、竹島(韓国名・独島)で昭和初期、アシカ漁に従事した島根県隠岐の島町の漁師、吉山武さん(96)が産経新聞のインタビューに応じ、昭和9年6月に竹島で撮影された写真に自身が写っていることを確認、当時の様子を証言した。「雇った済州島の海女を、朝鮮(半島)の船頭が連れてきた。朝鮮は日本によって竹島を漁 場と認識するようになった」という。

    吉山さんは当時、明治43(1910)年の日韓併合以前から竹島でアシカ漁をしていた隠岐の親方」に雇われ、昭和10年前後、毎年5~6月ごろに隠岐の漁師10人程度とともに出漁し
    ていたという。日当は1円50銭で、1回出漁すると20日間ほど滞在。「畑仕事用の牛1頭が円だった」という当時では、破格の収入だった。

    竹島はアワビやワカメなど海産物の宝庫だったが、隠岐からは船で12~13時間かかることから、収益を上げるために「一番良く働く」とされていた済州島の海女が雇われていたという。吉山さんが出漁したときは「だいたい4、5人が向こうの船頭に連れられてきた」。竹島では同じ漁師小屋に寝起きし、食事の支度は海女たちが担当したという。

    隠岐郷土館(隠岐の島町)は、竹島で撮影された写真を関係者から寄贈され、数点展示しているが、写真を見せられた吉山さんは「昭和9年6月 東島の浜にて撮影」とされているものに当時23歳だった自身が写っていることを初めて確認した。この写真には女性4人が写っているが、いずれも「済州島の海女だ」と証言した。

    竹島は島根県隠岐諸島の北西にあり、東西2つの島と数十の岩礁からなる約23ヘクタールの島。島根県は明治38年2月22日、閣議決定に基づき竹島編入を公示したが、その根拠となったのは、▽竹島に他国占領の形跡がなかった、▽隠岐の漁師が操業のため小屋を構えていた--の2点。これらにより、政府は国際法上の「先占(せんせん)」の要件を満たすと判断、領土編入に踏み切っていた。

    「竹島では、朝鮮の人は自分たちと一緒の時以外には漁をしていなかった」という吉山さんの証言は、隠岐の漁師だけが竹島を実効的に活用していた事実を証明するとともに、先占の要件を改めて裏付けるもので、写真を所蔵する隠岐郷土館の瀧本修二館長は「竹島と隠岐の歴史を裏付ける貴重な話だ。吉山さんから改めて話を聞き展示内容も補強したい」と話している。

    産経新聞(大阪版) 2007年1月6日 3面

    with permission from MS Kukkuri

  15. comment number 15 by: sqz

    Kaneganese wrote:

    Thank you for your enormous effort Gerry.
    Looks like you are going to fight against unjustice. That is really good.
    It is so sad that you are called like “Japanophile” in Marmot’s hole by kyopos. For Japanese,it is quite obvious that you are just trying to be fair.

    「親日派」が悪い意味となるのは、韓国だけです。
    It is only Korea that “Japanophile” is a bad meaning.
    本当の意味は、悪くありません。
    True meaning is not bad.
    韓国人がそれを言うのは、まともな反論が出来ないからです。
    Korean says it, because they can not do a proper argument.
    韓国人の敗北宣言だと思ってよいです。
    It is Korean concession speech.

  16. comment number 16 by: ponta

    Two cents
    A great contribution!!
    It is interesting to see how often Wedgie has to misquotes.
    (pointed out by OPP)
    It seems they will never understand Japan was confused about islands
    for a short period during 19 century and they never want to understand unless they show the Korea documents and maps that indicate Korea was cognizant of Dokdo, 19 century Japanese incorporation alone is sufficient enough to establish the title,

    Kaneganese

    blockquote>Ponta, are you sure that all those Frogmouth =Wedgie=Toadface=Steve Barber are the same person? I thought Frogmouth =Toadface=Mark Molvo
    I am sure my formulation is correct.
    My reasoning is as follows.
    Wedgie admitted that
    wedgie
    on another blog that he was toadface.
    A Korean person confirms that wedgie is Steve Barber, the owner of Dokdotakeshima com.
    And frogmouth admitted he was toadface.

    And as for the quotation, it confirms again that Korean people didn’t know Dokdo, and the knowledge was brought about by being employed by Japanese. very interesting.

  17. comment number 17 by: pacifist

    Kaneganese,

    Thanks, the newspaper article is interesting. We have to collect these topics to show Korean people in the future in order to let them know the truth. I hope Shimane prefecture or spmebody else will create an English homepage to show these topics to the world.

  18. comment number 18 by: Kaneganese

    Gerry, please put Chinese name for 地図5:(Jwahaejido) below. Thank you.

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

    鬱陵島と于山島は蔚珍から2日の距離、と示している地図

    以下の三つの地図は韓国の江原道の古い地図です。江原道は、鬱陵島と于山島を含んでいます。三つの地図は全て于山島を鬱陵島に隣接するより小さな島として描いています。全ての地図において、二つの島の隣には次のように書かれています。(文章が省略されているものもあります)

    “風のよい日は蔚珍から2日で到着する”

    韓国人は“于山島”が現在の独島 (Liancourt Rocks),の古い名前であったと主張していますが、以下の地図をみればそうした主張は成り立ちません。説明書きでは、鬱陵島と于山島、どちらの島も“風のよい日は蔚珍から2日で到着する”と読めるからです。もし于山島が独島ならば、少なくとももう一日、つまり3日目の船旅が必要となるからです。独島は、鬱陵島の南東92kmの距離にあるのです。

     地図1:輿地圖(Yeojido)
     地図2:輿地圖(Yeojido)
     地図3:海東地圖(Haedongjido)
     地図4:海東地圖(Haedongjido)
     地図5:(Jwahaejido)

    上掲の地図の于山島は、現在の竹嶼(鬱陵島北東沖2.2kmで鬱陵島に隣接する島々のうち最大の島)であることはほぼ確実です。以下に挙げる171年の韓国製の地図、この地図はより初期の物で于山島を鬱陵島の西に描いているのですが、この地図でさえ、“蔚珍から2日で到着する”と記しています。この地図では、于山島と鬱陵島の両島から韓国の港である蔚珍へ赤い線が引かれており、“2日で到着する”のは両島であることはほぼ疑いの余地が無いでしょう。この赤い線の上にはこう書かれています。

    “船で2日の距離”

    ところで、二つの島の間に書かれているの“四方百里”は、百里四方という意味です。島の面積が100里、という意味です。韓国での一里は、一般的に0.4kmですが、時に短い“一里”が使われることもあり、0.2kmである可能性もあります。

     地図6:江原道(1710年)


  19. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4 […]


  20. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4 […]


  21. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4 […]


  22. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4 […]


  23. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4 […]


  24. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4 […]


  25. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4 […]


  26. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4 […]


  27. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4 […]


  28. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4 […]


  29. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4 […]


  30. […] Korean maps tell us that Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which is located about 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s northeast shore. (See maps here, here, here, and here.) In 1903, two kilometers was equal to five Korean ri, so it seems very likely that the island that was supposedly 40 to 50 ri northeast of Ulleungdo was actually 4 to 5 ri northeast of Ulleungdo. Usando was simply an old name for Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, and was a name no longer used by Ulleungdo residents in 1903 and 1913. […]


  31. […] Korean maps tell us that Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which is located about 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s northeast shore. (See maps here, here, here, and here.) In 1903, two kilometers was equal to five Korean ri, so it seems very likely that the island that was supposedly 40 to 50 ri northeast of Ulleungdo was actually 4 to 5 ri northeast of Ulleungdo. Usando was simply an old name for Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, and was a name that Ulleungdo residents in 1903 and 1913 apparently no longer used to refer to the island. […]


  32. […] 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 present-day Ulleungdo and its neighboring island of Jukdo. If that is true, then what happened to the “Seokdo” in the 1900 edict? […]


  33. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4 […]