Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 2
1882 Ulleungdo, an outside view & Seal Cave
The following map was made by Lee Gyu-won after his inspection of Ulleungdo in 1882. The name of the map is “Ulleungdo Woido” (鬱陵島外圖), which is written as 울릉도외도 in Korean and essentially means “an outside map (view) of Ulleungdo.” In other words, the map focuses on the shoreline and neighboring islands, islets, and rocks. Supposedly, there was also an “Ulleungdo Naedo” (鬱陵島內圖), which focused on the interior of the island, but I think it has been lost if it did exist.
Notice how the mountain peaks slant inward, which suggests that you are viewing them from the “outside.” The overlapping mountains on the map show the number of ridges you must cross to get to the center of the island, which was a flat, open basin surrounded by mountains. It forms a kind of natural fortess in the center of the island.
I have divided the island up into four sections for better viewing. The map above is the northwest section. The above map shows two beaches where boats could land. The one on the upper right was called “Daehwangto-gumi” (大黃土邱尾), which means “Big Yellow Earth Beach.” I am not sure what “gumi” means, but I think it can be translated as “beach” or “landing.” The other beach was called “Hyangmok-gumi,” which means “Juniper Beach. That area used to have and may still have many juniper trees.
Just below Juniper Beach was place called Daepung-gumi (待風邱尾), which literally means “Waiting Wind Beach.” I think that was a way of referring to a cove, which offered protection to boats in stormy weather.
The other names on the map were referring to rock formations and smaller beaches. The rock formations still exist today. Here are some pictures of some of the rocks today:
- Chang-u Am (倡優巖) was present-day Noin-bong
- Hongye Am (虹霓巖) was present-day Gong Am (Empty Rock) or Koggiri bawui (Elephant Rock). Notice that it looks like an elephant with its truck in the water.
- Chu-bong (錐峰) was present-day Songgot-bong
You can also see two ponds on the above map. They were in the basin in the center of the island.
If you would like to see a good layout of Ulleungdo, here is a great map. If you click on “Zoom In”, you can move around the island with your mouse.
The above map is the northeast section. There are three beaches on it, but the largest is labeled as Waeseonchang (倭船艙), which means, “Japanese boat dock.” That name suggests that either there were many Japanese on this part of the island, or that the Japanese had developed this beach in some way. The other two small beaches were Ungtong-gumi (雄通邱尾) and Seonpan-gumi (船板邱尾).
In front of Ungtong and Seonpan beaches, two islands appear on the map. The island near Ungtong beach is Dohang (島項), which means “Island Neck.” Today Dohang is Gwaneumdo. Gwaneumdo is only one island, but I think the 1882 map shows it as two in order to represent the finger of land that points to the island from the mainland. There is probably less than a 100 meters of water between Gwaneumdo and the mainland. The other island on the map is Jukdo (竹島), which is shown in front of Seonpan Beach. Today the island is still called Jukdo.
Here are pictures of some of the other rocks on the map:
- Dae Am (大巖) was present-day Ddan Rock. Sanbong (蒜封), which means “Garlic Peak,” is also written next to this rock, so it may be another name for the rock.
- Chokdae Am (燭臺巖) was present-day Gawui Rock (Scissors Rock).
- Hyeongje Am (兄弟巖) means “Brothers’ Rock.” Today it is called Samseon Am, which means “Three Nymphs’ Rock.”
There is a rock next to Jukdo that I did not label because I could not recognize the middle character. I think the first character is “no” (老), which means “old,” and the third character is “am,” which means “rock.” Anyway, based on the shape of the rock, I would say it is present-day “Bukjeo Am,” which you can see here.
The map also shows what appears to be a path leading to the center of the island. It is called “Hongmunga” (紅門街), which mean “Red Gate Path.” Apparently, there were not many good paths leading to the center of the island, which probably explains why this one was labeled.
The above map is the southeast section. This map shows a couple of beaches. The beach at the top of the map was called “Jeopo” (苧浦). Today I think it is called Jeodong Harbor. The beach at the bottom of the map was called “Dobangcheong” (道方廳). Today I think it is called Dodong Harbor.
There are only two rocks out in the water in the above map. One is called “Jaeng Am” (鎗巖), and the other is called “Janggun Am.” I think Jaeng Am means “Spear Rock,” which would seem to match its shape on the map. Janggun Am means “General Rock.” I am not sure where “Spear Rock” was, but I think General Rock was present-day “Chotdae Bawi,” which means “Candle Stick Rock.” You can see a picture of it here.
On the above map, you can also see the name of the basin in the center of the island. It was called “Nari-dong” (羅里洞) or Guk-dong (國洞). Today it is called “Nari Bunji” (Nari Basin).
The above map is the southwest section. It has several little inlets or beaches. Starting from the bottom there is Jangjakji (長斫之), Hyeonpo (玄浦), Tong-gumi (通邱尾), Gokpo (谷浦), Satae-gumi (沙汰邱尾), and Sohwangto-gumi (小黃土邱尾). The name Tong-gumi is still used today.
There are also two rocks shown on the map. They are “Hwa Am” (華巖) and “Bong Am” (鳳巖). Hwa Am may mean “Flower Rock,” and Bong Am means “Phoenix Rock.” Flower Rock was most likely present-day “Geobuk Bawui,” which means “Turtle Rock.” You can see a picture here. Bong Am was most likely present-day “Saja Bawui,” which means “Lion Rock.” You can see a picture here. I think Lee Gyu-won’s people did a good job of drawing the Turtle and Lion Rocks.
Finally, notice that there are three caves drawn in front of “Phoenix Rock” (Lion Rock). Only two of the caves are named, and of those two, I was only able to recognize the name of the middle one. The name of the middle cave was “Gaji-gul” (可支窟), which means “Seal Cave.” In Korean it is written as 가지굴. In a 1786 inspection of Ulleungdo, riflemen accompanying the inspectors killed two seals in front of one of the caves.
In the Dokdo/Takeshima debate, Korean historians claim that an island named “Gajido” (Seal Island) was a reference to “Dokdo,” but Japanese historians say that Gajido was just a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. I think Gajido was a reference to “Phoenix Rock,” which was near Seal Cave. The reason that I say this is not only because of the nearness of the rock to Seal Cave, but also because of the present-day name of the rock, which is “Lion Rock.” In Korean, a sea lion is called a “bada saja,” which literally means “sea lion.” I think sometime in the past Koreans changed the name from Phoenix Rock to Lion Rock because of all the seals or sea lions that used to live in the caves in that area.
Finally, here is a question to see if you have been paying attention. Of all the islands, islets, and rocks mentioned on the map, which one do you think might have been a reference to “Dokdo”?
Give up? Well, the people at the Kyujang Gak Institute at Seoul National University think that it might be “Elephant Rock,” but they cannot explain why it is located north of Ulleungdo. Here is what the Kyujang Gak Instutite said about the 1882 Ulleungdo map on its Web site:
작자·편년미상의 울릉도 내외형상을 그린 지도로서‚ 주변에 天刊地支로써 方位를 기입했고‚ 谷浦‚ 玄浦‚ 苧浦‚ 千年浦‚ 倭船艙‚ 道方廳‚ 竹島 등이 표시되어 있으며 待風邱尾를 비롯하여香木‚ 大黃土‚ 小黃土‚ 沙汰‚ 船板‚ 雄通 등 여러 邱尾가 표시되어 있다. 그 밖에 鳳巖‚ 華巖‚ 胄巖‚ 將軍巖‚ 兄弟巖‚ 燭臺巖‚ 虹霓巖‚ 鎗巖 등 여러 奇巖이 울타리 같이 둘러싸고 있다. 산세의 고준‚ 해안의 굴곡‚ 섬의 분도를 그림으로 잘 보여 주고 있다. 울릉도의 古地圖에서 특히 관심을 끄는 것은 獨島인데 이 지도에서는 獨島와 모양이 비슷한 섬을 虹霓巖이라 기록한 것이 주목되며 그것이 北쪽에 그려져 있다는 점이 이상하다.
I am too tired now to translate the whole thing, but I will translate the part in red:
In old maps of Ulleungdo, people are especially interested in “Dokdo.” In this map (the map above), Hongye Am (虹霓巖) draws attention because it looks similar to “Dokdo.” The fact that it is drawn to the north is strange.
You can find the above quote here.
What I think is strange is that Korean historians can look at almost any rock or island on a map and see “Dokdo.” How anyone with half a brain can look at the rock in question and suggest it is Dokdo is beyond my comprehension? Afterall, the rock is located off the north shore of Ulleungdo very close to to where Elephant Rock is. Not only that, the drawing on the map even looks like Elephant Rock. If the people at Seoul National University cannot add two plus two when it comes to reading maps, then what hope is there for ordinary Korean citizens?
By the way, if you are wondering how I got the names for all those places on the map, I did it by referencing Lee Gyu-won’s journal of his survey of Ulleungdo. I also referrenced the above Gyujang Gak Institute quote, which lists many of the placenames. Strangely enough, however, the writer forgot to mention “Seal Cave.” Luckily, I have the map in a book and magnifying glass, so I was able to figure it out.
Seoul National University has many maps online that can be closely inspected, but, strangely, the 1882 map is not among them, even though it is part of their collection. Why isn’t such an important map available for inspection on their Web site? I think it is because they do not want people to know that one of the caves is labeled Gaji-gul (Seal Cave). Has anyone seen it mentioned on the Web anywhere? Wouldn’t it be an important piece of evidence in the Dokdo/Takeshima debate?
Japanese Translation Provided by Kaneganese
(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。訳者注：漢字名が判明しない場所が多く、固有名詞に関しては現在調査中です。)1882年 鬱陵島の外観とアシカ洞窟以下の地図は、鬱陵島を視察した李奎遠が1882年に作成したものです。地図の名称は“鬱陵島外圖”です。韓国語では울릉도외도と書き、基本的に“鬱陵島の外観図”という意味です。言い換えると、この地図は海岸線、隣接する島々、小島や岩に焦点を当てて描かれているのです。以下の地図は鬱陵島を詳細に描写したものの一つです。少なくとも、現存しているもののうちの最も初期のものの一つ、と言えるでしょう。1750年頃に発行された韓国の地図帳です。海東地圖という名称です。“鬱陵島內圖” と言う島の内観に焦点を当てた地図もあったと考えられますが、もしそうなら、既に消失したと考えられます。 地図1：鬱陵島外圖山の頂が内部に向かって傾斜していることに注意して下さい。これは、外側から島へ向かって見ていると考えられます。重なり合う山々は、島の中心部へ行くためにいくつ山脈を越えれば、山に囲まれた開けた盆地になっている中心部に到達するか、を示しています。 地図2：北西部拡大図より見易くする為に島の地図を４分割しました。上掲の地図は北西部です。船が上陸できる入江が二つあることが確認出来ます。上部右側は“大黃土邱尾”で、“大きな黄色い土の入江” の意味です。“邱尾”が何を意味するのかよく分かりませんが、“砂浜”“上陸”と訳せると思います。〈後に、“入江”の意味であることが判明しました。＊訳者注）もう一つの浜は、“香木邱尾” で、“ビャクシン入江”の意味です。その地域には、当時もそして現在もビャクシンの木が沢山あったかもしれません。
そのすぐ下には、“待風邱尾”があり、意味は“風を待つ入江”です。これは、荒天の時に船を避難させる入江を指しているのではないかと思います。
地図上で確認出来るその他の名称ですが、岩礁やより小さな浜辺を指しています。岩礁は、今日も存在しています。以下は、現在の岩の写真です。
倡優巖は現在のNoin岩〈老人岩?〉
虹霓巖は現在の孔岩もしくは象岩 鼻を水に突っ込んでいる象のように見えることに注目して下さい。
錐峰は現在のSonggot岩
上掲の地図に、小さな池が二つあるのも観察できます。島の中央の盆地の中にあります。
もしもっと鮮明な鬱陵島の配置図を見たければ、ここに素晴らしい地図があります。“Zoom In〈ズームイン）”をクリックすると、マウスで島を巡ることが出来ます。
地図3：北東部拡大図
上掲の地図は北東部です。三つのがありますが、もっとも大きいのは“倭船艙”で、日本船ドックを意味します。名前から、日本人が沢山住んでいたか、彼らが何らかの形でこの浜を開発したことが推測されます。他の二つの小さな浜辺は、雄通邱尾と船板邱尾です。
その二つの浜辺に面して、二つの島が地図上に描かれています。雄通邱尾の近くにあるのは島項で、“島の首”を意味します。現在の観音島です。観音島は本来単一の島ですが、1882年の地図は、鬱陵島本島から島をゆび指している、その指の形を表すために、順番に二つ並べて描かれているのだと思います。観音島と本島とはおそらく100mも離れていないと思います。もう一つの島は竹島で、船板邱尾の前に描かれています。今日、でも竹嶼〈竹島の意味〉と呼ばれています。
地図上に描かれているその他の岩の写真をいくつか挙げます。
・大巖は今日のDdan岩で、蒜封は、“にんにくの先”を意味しますが、これはこの岩のすぐ横に書かれているので、岩の別名なのでしょう。
・燭臺巖は今日のザリガニ岩〈はさみ岩〉
・兄弟巖は今日の三仙岩です。意味は“三人の仙人の岩”です。
竹嶼の横にある岩は、何と書かれてあるか判別できませんでしたので、書き込みませんでした。最初の漢字は“老”で、三番目は“岩”だと思われます。それはともかく、形状からすると、現在の“Bukjeo岩”だと思います。ここでみることが出来ます。〈リンク〉
地図には、島の中央部に向かって道のようなものが伸びていることが確認出来ます。”紅門街”です。特にこの道に名前が記載されたのは、おそらく島の中央部へは余りよい道が少なかったためでしょう。
地図4：南東部拡大図
上掲の地図は南東部です。浜辺がいくつか見られます。最上部の浜辺は“苧浦”で、今日の苧洞港だと思われます。下にある浜辺は“道方廳”で、今日の道洞だと思われます。
この地図では2つの岩だけが海中に描かれています。一つは“鎗巖”で、もう一つは“将軍巖”です。〈もう一つ、冑巖がある＊訳者注）“鎗巖”はその形から、槍（やり）岩という意味だと思われます。“鎗巖”がどの位置なのかよく分かりませんが、“将軍巖”は、現在の、蝋燭の台を意味する“燭台岩”だと思われます。ここで写真を見られます。〈リンク〉
島の中央の盆地も地図で確認出来ます。“羅里洞”もしくは“國洞”です。現在、羅里盆地と呼ばれています。
地図5：南西部拡大図
上掲の地図は南西部です。いくつか入江もしくは浜辺が描かれています。下から“長斫之”“玄浦”“通邱尾“谷浦”“沙汰邱尾”“小黃土邱尾”です。“通邱尾”の名称は今日も使用されています。
岩が二つ描かれています。“華巖”と“鳳巖”です。“華巖”は花の岩で、“鳳巖”は、不死鳥の岩を意味していると思います。“華巖”はおそらく現在の“亀岩”で〈リンク〉、“鳳巖”は“獅子岩”だと思われます〈リンク〉。李奎遠達の“亀岩”“獅子岩”の絵はよく描かれている思います。
最後に、“鳳巖”の前に三つの洞穴が描かれていることにお気づきでしょうか。そのうち二つが名前が付けられています。真ん中の洞穴ののみ、“可支窟”と名前が判読できました。意味は“アシカ洞”です。韓国語では가지굴です。1786年の鬱陵島視察では、検察吏に随行した小銃射手が、ある洞穴の前で２頭のアシカを射殺した、とありました。
独島／竹島論争のなかで、韓国側の歴史学者は“可支島〈アシカ島）”と言う名前の島が“独島”だと主張しますが、日本側の学者は“可支島”は単なる鬱陵島の付属等にすぎないと言いいます。私は、“可支島”は、アシカ洞の近くにある“鳳巖”のことを指していると考えています。その理由は、アシカ洞の近くにある、と言うだけでなく、今日その岩が“獅子岩”と呼ばれているからでもあります韓国語ではアシカは“bada saja”といい、それは文字通り海のライオンを意味します。鬱陵島のアシカ、つまり海のライオンが全てあの周辺の洞窟に生息していたため、韓国人は過去のある時点で、“鳳岩”を“獅子岩”に変えたのではないでしょうか。
最後に、皆さんがよく注意して見ていたかどうか、質問があります。地図に名前が載っていた全ての島、小島、そして岩のうち、どれが“独島”を指していたと思いますか?
降参ですか?そうですね、ソウル大学のKyujang Gak 研究所の人々は“象岩”だと考えています。しかし彼らは、なぜ鬱陵島の北にあるのか説明できません。以下は、ウェブサイトに載っている、1882年の鬱陵島の地図に関する研究所の見解です。〈余りに疲れて全部を訳せませんが、赤で表示した一部のみ訳します〉
“鬱陵島の古い地図では、皆“独島”に特に興味を持ちます。（上掲の）この地図では、虹霓巖が“独島”に似ているようで、注目されます。北に描かれているのは、おかしいのですが。”
この引用はここで見ることが出来ます〈リンク〉。
韓国の歴史学者が地図上のどんな岩や島をみても、“独島”をそこに見出してしまうことが、私にはとても不思議です。脳みそが半分でもある人が、問題になっている虹霓巖と言う岩を見て“独島”に似ていると言うなんて、まったく理解できません。つまるところこの岩は、鬱陵島の北の沖の、象岩がある所のすぐ近くに描かれているのです。それだけでなく、地図に描かれた絵は象岩にそっくりなのです。もしソウル大学の人々が地図を見てこんなことも分からないのに〈簡単な計算も出来ないようなのに〉、一般の韓国市民は、一体どうすればよいのでしょう。
ところで、私がどうやって地図上の場所の名前が分かったか、不思議に思いますか?実は、李奎遠の鬱陵島検察記を参照しながら書いたのです。また、上記の研究所の引用も、地名が沢山載っていたので参考にしました。しかし、大変不思議なことに、その筆者は“アシカ洞”について何も言及していません。幸いなことに、私はこの地図が載っている本と虫眼鏡を持っていて、判読できたのです。
ソウル大学は多くの地図をオンラインで公開しており、じっくりと閲覧できるようになっています。しかし、奇妙なことに、この1882年の地図はその中にはいっていません。彼らの蔵書に違いないのに。なぜこのような重要な地図がウェブサイトで閲覧できるようになっていないのでしょうか？私は、洞穴の一つが“可支窟〈アシカ洞〉”と名前が記載されているのを、見られたくないのではないか、と思うのです。どなたかウェブサイトで“可支窟”について触れているのを見たことがありますか?独島／竹島論争で重要な証拠になると思いませんか?
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
Wow, it must have taken a lot of time to decipher these small letters:thanks Gerry, you have been doing a great job.
What is important for a layman like me is that as of 1882, Korean government were not aware of Dokdo/Takeshima; it is outside of the map.
And King Kojong was informed of this inspection. Am I right?
If that is the case, that explains why he did not protest when he heard Japan declared the inclusion of Dokdo/Takeshima in 1905; for , he knew Dokdo/Takeshima did not belong to Korea.
One thing is true:
The last batch of Japanese Sea Lions was exterminated by Koreans.
Gerry, I think you are putting too much emphasis on this map. Leekyuwon was not a cartographer and the reason for his inspection was mostly to do with Ulleungdo only and certainly didn’t include sailing a 2 days return from Ulleungdo. Leekyuwons only attempt to find islands far from Ulleungdo involved climbing to a mountain and looking around.
It’s no surprise he didn’t find Dokdo given the time of year and difficulty viewing the tiny islets from Ulleungdo. The basis of Leekyuwons survey was multifaceted that being to prepare Ulleungdo for development after ending the vacant island policy.
I think the reason the Japanese beaches were listed was to make it easier to evict them and to police the area to stop further incursions on Ullengdo. The island was inspected before Leekyuwon went there and the Koreans were very agitated about the Japanese presence on Ulleungdo.
The character 石 is found on maps all over Ulleungdo in both Japanese and Korean maps so it’s not a fair assumption to say every time this character appears it refers to the Sokdo of Korea’s Oridinance 41 1900.
Below is the best Dokdo website on the internet.
Too bad it’s only in Korean. It’s clear whoever is running it they have a better handle on the issue than any Japanese or other Korean out there. Check it out, if not for just the visual proof the Japanese claim is a sham.
http://hanmaum24.mireene.com/Dokdo/Dokdo5.htm
toadface
The best Dokdo website on the internet you recommended says this.
‘팔도총도’는 1530년경에 제작된 지도로서 독도(우산도)가 울릉도의 서쪽에 그려져 있다. 사실 이것은 그만큼 우산도를 조선의 영토에 가까이 그려 그 영유권을 확실히 한 것으로도 볼 수 있다.
How do you value this Explanation?
Toadface,
Lee Gyu-won’s 1882 map is Korea’s most detailed map of Ulleungdo before the 20th century. That means the map is very important.
You said, “the character 石 is found on maps all over Ulleungdo in both Japanese and Korean,” yet it is found in only one place on the 1882 map, and that place was right next to Dohang (島項), which is present-day Kwaneumdo.
Actually, if I were going to guess what is written after the character 石, I would guess 石刻立標, which means, “an engraved stone marker.” I say that because a similar phrase appears on previous Korean maps of Ulleungdo in an area very close to where 石 appears on the 1882 map. The only difference is that it normally appears as 刻石立標. Or maybe the character 石 is part of a phrase explaining the red dot on the map. At any rate, I would still like to know what is written there.
There is no proof that any Korean inspector before 1905 ever when to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima). The fact that Lee went up to the top of the mountain to look for neighboring islands shows that he had never heard of any previous inspectors sailing to an island ninety-two kilometers beyond Ulleungdo. If Korean inspectors had traveled to Liancourt Rocks, it would have been described in their reports, but the reports never described such an island or even mentioned it.
In the Dokdo/Takeshima debate, one of the important things about the 1882 map is that it shows us a place where seals used to gather at Ulleungdo. This pours cold water on the the Korean claim that references in old Korean documents of a place where seals gathered were references to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima). Korean inspectors did not risk sailing ninety-two kilometers beyond Ulleungdo to kill seals; they simply sailed to the west coast of Ulleungdo and did it.
What is so great about the Web site you linked to? How does it disproof Japan’s claim on Liancourt Rocks? I have a feeling we have been over this point before.
http://hanmaum24.mireene.com/Dokdo/Dokdo5.htm
If this is the best Dokdo web site for Korean claim, I am very glad to see that there is nothing new in it to show that Korea has a case. (if there is anything new, let me know)
(1)
(a)Korea has no map of Dokdo except maps like this
(b)Japan has detailed maps like this
and this and this(1864)
(And there are others, but it is just that Mark does not mention what is not in favor of Korea.)
(2)
(a) Korea has no rational explanation why the name of Dokdo has changed so many time.(The best explanation is Korean people did not
recognized Dokdo, but Korean historians mistakenly identify them with Dokdo/Takeshima.)
(b) Japan has a rational explanation why the name of Takeshima has changed.aki
(3)
(a) Korea has no solid record of effective control.
(All there is is an edict that mentions Seokto with no longitude and latitude, but that is legally useless, historically baseless for identifying it with Dokdo)
(b) Japan has solid records of effective control.
Japan has an official record with accurate longitude and latitude of Dokdo Japan center for Asian historical records reference code:A20012002226
simane
This is in Japanese but what is cited there is official records .You can easily prove it.(Even Korean historians dare not attack them)
(c)Korea has an solid record with accurate longitude and latitude that locates Dokdo outside of Korean territory.
Since there are no historical maps and no historical document that show Dokdo belongs to Korea historically and legally, what so called Korean historians are trying to do, in essence, is to search Japanese maps and documents that can be interpreted as Japan recognizing Dokdo as Korean territory or as Japan not recognizing Dokdo.
There might be some maps and documents that can be interpreted that way,(Japanese side has a counter argument), at the same time, there are overriding Japanese records that prove Dokdo belongs to Japan such as (3)(b).
I think the conclusion is obvious.
Good summary, Ponta. Also, that 1696 map is interesting. Too bad it does not name Ulleungdo’s neighboring islands.
Yes, Koreans claim that Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima) were referred to by many names in Korean historical documents, including Usando, Sambongdo, Gajido, and Seokdo. However, there is no proof that any of those names were referring to Liancourt Rocks. In fact, the records show that the names were referring to Ulleungdo or one of its neighboring islands. All of those names are examples of “grasping for straws.”
By the way, I made a slight update to my post on the 1882 map. I forgot to mention Sanbong (蒜峰), which means “Garlic Peak.” It is in the northeast section of the map. I am not sure, but it looks like it might be another name for Dae-am (大巖).
Ponta I disagree on several points.
First it should be noted the position of Dokdo on the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion was off. I wasn’t exact,
If the issue of ownership was determined by clearest, earliest and most accurate cognizance Dokdo should go to Russia based on all information we have today. They were first to accurately map and identify the islets. But that is not the issue here.
The Japanese claim to Dokdo was not based on historical background as they now assert. It was based on terra nullius. The Japanese have now foolishly painted themselves in a corner by claiming Dokdo was inherently part of Japanese territory but we can see this is false.
Ponta you can’t cite Japanese maps as proof of ownership and then discard the ones that demonstrate otherwise. Mori Kineski’s map is proof of that. You see these maps as a blessing but in reality they are a curse to Japan because despite the fact they prove cognizance, they often show Korean ownership.
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page26.html
In addition if you want to declare Japanese maps of Dokdo as accurate and representative you must explain why more often than not Japanese National and Shimane Prefecture maps do not show Dokdo and Ulleungdo at all.
http://hanmaum24.mireene.com/Dokdo/DokdoMapJapan04.htm
http://hanmaum24.mireene.com/Dokdo/DokdoMapJapan03.htm
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp17.html
Nobody argues the Japanese incorporated Dokdo Ponta this is true. What they argue is.
1. The Korean’s contested it with what governmental organs (provincial Domestic Affairs) remained intact after having been forced to dismantle the Foreign Affaris Office under the coerced Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty. They also protested through the media of the time. (Deahan Maeil Ildo and Hwaseong Ilbo)
2. The Shimane Prefecture Inclusion was done sub rosa and covertly. As I’ve mentioned to you earlier the issue of notification of foreign countries upon was seen as necessary by many legal scholars of the day. Hubers ruling is not applicable in some ways in this case.
3. Declaration of Prefectures has no legal effect on International Affairs.
4. The Japanese annexing of Dokdo was for military purposes and not a natural peaceful means for which to acquire territory.
5. Japanese documents and records often show Chosun involvement/ownership of Dokdo.
The last point of the Koreans explains why the foreign ministry has since dropped the “terra nullius” part of their claim on the Foreign Affairs website. Can you?
http://hanmaum24.mireene.com/Dokdo/Dokdo2.htm#
The above page shows three documents you must scroll to the bottom. Documents A~B are from the Shimane based Black Dragon fishing organization. It was printed in 1903. In document A fishing of Chosun Waters the highlighted characters on the top indicate the region of Kangwando Province. Below the characters for Ulleungdo we can see Yan-ko-do (Japanese for Liancourt) in brackets. This shows Japanese who were intimately involved in the region knew Laincourt was both appended to Ulleungdo and part of Kangwan Province Korea.
Diagram B, Gives detail and description of Yanko-do (Liancourt Island) Is is said to be about 30 ri and can be seen on a clear day if the weather is good. This is Dokdo as you know.
Diagram C is a highly detailed description of the territories of Shimane Prefecture no where in this document does it mention anything about Liancourt Rocks or Songdo. The document concurs with maps of Shimane Prefecture at the time. Japan did not consider Dokdo part of Japan prior to the military annexation of Dokdo Island in 1905 during the Russo~Japanese war. Thus we know the statement by the Japanese Foreign Affairs Office is a lie.
Lastly on the following link you can see original copies of the Japanese Navy documents. Under the Sealanes of Chosun portion of the publication we see they have listed Liancourt Rocks. It was published twice, in 1883 and 1889.
http://hanmaum24.mireene.com/Dokdo/Dokdo7.htm
The documents agree with Japanese Navy maps with exclude Dokdo from Japanese territory found here.
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp20.html
In conclusion the Japanese did not consider Dokdo part of Japanese territory prior to the illegal Shimane Prefecture Inclusion of 1905.
I made the English homepage concerning the map. Click
I am not good at English, anyone correct my English and comment to BBS of the page, please.
Gerry,
Your information was very useful, thank you.
Toadface
Thanks.
You admitted
In a way, this is all Japan needs to establish the title over Dokdo.
Korea had no effective control over Dokdo before.
Korea had no maps of Dokdo before, that is, Korean government did not even recognized Dokdo.
Japan incorporated Dokdo which no other states owned in 1905.
Japan has solid evidences of effective control at least since then until 1945.
And
1)Korea had no ground for protesting because Korea did not even recognized Dokdo and therefore it is impossible that it belonged to
Korea.
2)In fact,wisely, Korea did not protest even though she did protest on other issues because the king Kojong had the dettailed report about Ulleungdo from Lee Gyu-won, which this post is a part. Am I right?
∴Japan’s incorporation is legal and valid.
3)Suppose Korea did protest, the day she protested will be the critical date. Then we go back to history before the critical date.
a)
ⅰ）Japan has the detail maps of Dokdo.
ⅱ） Korea has none.
b)
ⅰ）Japan has the record that the government issued the permit that implied she allowed the fishermen to sail to Dokdo.
ⅱ）Korea had empty island policy over Ulleungdo, that means, Korea had little effective control over Ulleungdo, much less over Dokdo.
In other words, Japan had effective control over Dokdo while Korea had none.
In either case, Japan wins.
What is discussed ,in essence, is some Japanese documents can imply, according to Korean creative interpretation, that some Japanese recognized Dokdo as Korean territory, or Japan did not recognized Dokdo. But it does not follow Japanese government did not recognized Dokdo;in fact, she did recognise it as Japanese territory and as you admitted , that is why she incorporated it.
(And Black Dragon is a rightist group and it is not governmental body That Korean citizens now think Dokdo belongs to Korea has nothing to do with which country possess Dokdo historically and legally.)
Korean sides are busy finding faults with Japanese maps and documents, because she does not have her own evidence that shows Dokdo belongs to Korea. But as I told you again and again, what Korea desperately needs to do is to show the evidences positively and affirmatively that
1)Korea recognized Dokdo as Korean territory.
2)Korea had effective control over Dokdo.
So far you have failed to show it.(If you have, let me know)
Japanese side does not have to explain why some maps lack Dokdo on them because there are other maps that clearly show dokdo on them, and that is sufficient enough to show that some Japanese were aware of Dokdo and that is all we need to show historical background that (some) Japanese have been aware Dokdo as Japanese territory.
My personal map lacking in the image of my house does not mean Japan does not recognize my house as Japanese territory. Likewise the fact that some Japanese maps lacks Dokdo on them does not mean Japan did not recognized Dokdo as Japanese territory. In addition, you should realise that the maps are made for various purposes. (I have never used the map to establish the title legally, in fact, I said the maps are not so important legally.)
However,what should be explained is why there is no Korean maps on which Dokdo exists. while they claim Dokdo historically belongs to Korea. I think the explanation is simple; Korea had no cognizance of Dokdo, their claim is false.
I wish Korea could view their own evidences as critically as she
views Japanese evidences. It is a good opportunity for Korean people to learn what it means to be self-critical.(When someone blames other based on specific criteria, the same criteria applies to her.)
BTW
As for Kinsei Mori maps, Opp has just put up the link that explained it nicely.
What Kinsei Mori has shown is Ulleungdo belonged to Korea.
Hello Ponta and Mark Lovemo or TOadface. You are interesting people can you tell the readers of Occi about yourself.
Todaface
BTW
I sometimes feel sorry for Korean people; it is similar sympathy that I feel for Chinese people: they have no choices; pro-Japanese site, and the sites that tell the truth about Dokdo are blocked by Korean government.
Hence, it might be that they have no chance to realize, for instance, “Korean waterway”(朝鮮水路誌) in 1894 cited Linocourt Rock/Dokdo/Takeshima outside of Korean territory. toron
And I sometimes think Mark and you might be victims of Korean historian’s deceptions.
As you know too well, the documents and the maps are made for various purposes.
The diagram C you cited is for fishery. The author Aoyanagi is talking about his summary and his opinion about Oki area for the improvement. He is not defining Japanese territory. That he did not mention Dokdo in it does not mean that Japanese government did not recognized Dokdo as Japanese territory.
(I think this is a simple logic, but when all the sitesKorean people see are filled with smoke and mirror argument, and when Korean people are prohibited from accessing opposing views, they are misled.—-It is very unfortunate.)
On the other hand, this
Korean textbook in 1947 authorized by Korean Government is directly and clearly talking and defining Korean Territory.
Dokdo is outside of Korean territory. That was common sense for Korean people in those days as the title of the book suggested.
I don’t think you will ever persuade the Koreans about this Liancourts issue…just like ponta and Gerry, it will cause you to be exhausted by arguments that never seem to end.
BUT, I think it is good to keep posting hard evidence against Korean claims over the Liancourts, since the evidences being irrefutable, it will convince the world that the current Korean regime are a bunch of ethnocentric and militant thugs and the people supporting such a regime are troubled indeed.
I know how exhausting it could be, but I support Gerry and ponta in the quest for truth and end to racial hatred. It is trully irritating when you know how anti-aggressionist Japan and its people are, but the Koreans out of their hatred spreading lies about “militant Japan” all over the world and have people actually believing those garbage.
Tomato
That is the point.
I don’t think I could persuade Toadface, it seems he is repeating the old claims again and again. And repeating the false claim again and again has tremendous effects on people’s mind.
What is important is, every time they make a false claim, we should point out the facts, so that many readers will see the truth. I am glad opp finally publicized his site.
Since Korean people are reluctant to change when it comes to anti-Japan-ism and since they block pro-Japanese site, Occidetanlism has been very helpful to give another perspective of Korean matter. It might be the only window from which Korean related people can see another perspective.
Japanese government has always been late in responding, and has been avoiding confrontation. That has given the world the wrong impression. Japanese government should be blamed.
It is obvious that after WWⅡit is China and Korea that has been belligerent and , as you say, it is Japan that is anti-aggressionist. Nonetheless, China and Korea has been using the past to paint Japan as aggressor in order to gain whatever they want. You can not imagine an individual with conscience would do that, but that is what politics is.
Lastly
Let’s be careful when we fight with hatred.
ponta,
good point…evil gets you sometimes…
tomato
(^_-)
(BTW where is pacifist? I have seen him lately.He is an expert on Dokdo )
Opp
Congratulations! I have been waiting for you to open your site on dokdo.
Ｈow can I comment on your site?
(opp氏、どうやったら貴サイトにｺﾒﾝﾄできるのでしょうか？）
I tried commenting but I couldn’t.(ｺﾒﾝﾄいれたけど、できなかったです。）
Do I need a pass word?
（パスワードが必要なのでしょうか？）
ponta,
The demanded password is not a password of the site but contributor’s password. When you delete your comment , it uses it.Please set your password freely and comment.
この機能を削除しようと思っているのですが、機能をカットする方法が不明です、
Opp I don’t think you clearly understand the issue with regard to Ulleungdo and Dokdo’s positioning during the late 19th century.
Nobody is arguing the islands position is off. However the premise of your argument that the Japanese didn’t know which island was which is dead. The error of Seibold affected the positions of the islands but it didn’t change what meant Jukdo or Songdo let me show you.
In addition the Japanese documents that are said to grant possession of Dokdo to Chosun use the name Jukdo to refer to Ulleungdo not Songdo. So we can know the maps that refer to Ulleungdo as Songdo don’t apply.
Please read these maps.
http://home.megapass.co.kr/~phoong1/Dokdo/Kashihara02.jpg
http://home.megapass.co.kr/~phoong1/Dokdo/Kashihara04.jpg
We can see on those maps that the islands are double-labled indicating that although the position has changed Ulluengdo is still Jukdo and Songdo is still Dokdo.
Of course we should use Japanese maps in conjunction with Japanese documents to determine the true intent of the those papers. From these documents and maps we know Japan did not consider Dokdo part of Japanese inherent territory before and even sometimes after the illegal Shimane Prefecture Inclusion.
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp23.html
Marks link describes it well.
Ponta you are the victim of Japanese Propaganda. Here are some of the statements of YOUR foreign ministry.
“At the start of the Meiji Era, Ulleung Island was once again opened up to travel. Large numbers of fishermen visited Ulleung Island once regulations governing trade between Japan and Korea were established in 1883″This statement is false.
We know from historical fact that passage to Ulleungdo was banned as of that year and illegal Japanese were forcibly evacuated.
The Edo Shogunate Government prohibited visits to Ulleung Island in 1696 owing to a conflict between Japan and Korea and it was left abandoned, but Takeshima was considered to belong to Japan and visits to these islands were not banned.
Where is this proof that in 1696 Dokdo was considered to belong to Japan?
This statement is also false.
Ponta if anyone is repeating claims it’s you and your ad nausuem “effective control” rant.
As I’ve mentioned “effective control” is subject to conditions and whether you like it or not there is solid proof confirming Japan did not establish this “effective control” legally for many reasons.
1. It was contested. You don’t think Korea contested enough but that is your opinion. Korean documents show they contested the incorporation through, provincial government, regional government domestic affairs and at least two national newspapers.
2. Dokdo was not terra nullius. Documents show Koreans were cognizant and involved on Dokdo before the Japanese incorporated Dokdo illegallly. Japanese sealane documents and charts show Liancourt Rocks as part of Chosun. The 1903 Black Dragon Chosun Fishing Manual shows Dokdo under Kangwando Province and as an appended island of Ulleungdo. It also states Koreans were involved on Dokdo and cognizant.
3. Dokdo was acquired for military purposes during the Russo-Japanese War. New lands must be incorporated as part of a natural process. Naval documents show the Japanese surveyed the region for the purpose of building military facilities before incorporating Dokdo.
4. Japanese management of Dokdo was not continuous. So many maps both of Shimane Prefecture and Japan after 1905 fail to show Dokdo at all. I believe this is for 2 reasons.
a. After the Russo-Japanese War the sense of urgency for Dokdo was gone and the island wasn’t needed anymore. Also the rest of Korea was annexed soon after.
b. The Japanese so covertly incorporated the islands that even the Japanese public were not aware and thus many Japanese cartographers didn’t include Dokdo.
5. Notification was announced by Shimane Prefecture a local administrative organization and can not be construed as an external expression of intention of the state under international law.
6. Koreans claim they incorporated Dokdo prior to Japan and thus the island was not terra nullius.
As I’ve said before Japan cannot retroactively drop it basis for claiming the islands in 1905 as they are now haplessly trying to do now.
Think of how ridiculous the Japanese claim is. They said that Dokdo was both terra nullius (no-man’s land) and inherently Japanese territory. How can land be ownerless and part of Japanese territory at the same time? It’s nonsensical.
Ponta the Black Dragon Fishing guide is of course not a government document but it is proof just the same Koreans were involved and cognizant of Dokdo before the Japanese annexed Dokdo. This is something Gerry and the gang have been trying to deny for some time. They are wrong.
The Koreans have held Dokdo much longer than the Japanese. Now the Japanese want to steal Dokdo from Korea. They claim that Dokdo is an inherent part of Japan since old times. The Japanese have maps and documents so what? Where are the Japanese maps and documents that prove Dokdo is inherently Japanese territory?
The truth is, Japanese maps and documents prove Dokdo is Korean territory NOT Japanese.
What does that tell you?
toadface,
Japan did not know existence of argonaut, and which island is Ulluengdo. Therefore, the interpretation of the island name on the map is variety. On the other hand, Korea did not know even Takeshima’s existence.
I can’t understand your fevered imagination.
http://home.megapass.co.kr/~phoong1/Dokdo/Kashihara02.jpg
Do not you think that a island which labeled “Takeshima” is too near a Korean peninsula? Do not you think that a island which labeled “matsushima”
is too large for Takeshima/Dokdo?
http://home.megapass.co.kr/~phoong1/Dokdo/Kashihara04.jpg
This map is exactly corresponding to my insistence. A island labeled “riankuru rokku” is Takeshima/Dokdo, and a island labeled “matsushima” is Ulleungdo. If you can present the whole image of these maps, I can add to my verification.
You should study accurate geographies of Ulleungdo, Takeshima/Dokdo, and ｍeasurement point in Britain(Algonaut).
Toadface,
Here is one simple question for you:
Can you show me a Korean map or document before 1905 that shows Koreans had claimed or even had cognizance of Dokdo/Takeshima?
If you cannot answer “yes” and give a link to the document or map to prove it, then how can you claim that Korea claimed or had cognizance of Dokdo/Takeshima before 1905? By using Japanese documents and maps?
If Japanese documents and maps had somehow given Dokdo/Takeshima to Korea, as you claim, then why didn’t the Koreans know about it?
* Why didn’t King Kojong or Lee Gyu-won know about it in 1882?
* Why didn’t Korean mapmakers and scholars know about it in the 1890s when they were making maps and textbooks that showed and said that Dokdo/Takeshima was not considered part of Korean territory?
* If Dokdo/Takeshima were made part of Uldo (Ulleungdo) County in 1900, why didn’t the head of Uldo County know where Dokdo/Takeshima was in 1906, when the Japanese told him that they had incorporated the islets?
* Why is there no evidence of the Korean government filing a protest with Japan after she found out in 1906 that Japan had incorporated the islets?
* In his 1947 book, “Common Questions and Answers about Chosun,” why did Choi Nam-seon, one of Korea’s most skilled geograhers at the time, say that Korea’s eastern-most island was “Jukdo” and even gave coordinates that excluded Dokdo/Takeshima?
Toadface, look at your arguments. You and Koreans are reduced to a level so low that you have to create crazy theories and point to Japanese maps and say, “See, there is no Dokdo/Takeshima on this map, so it proves it was Korean territory.” Don’t you realize how silly that sounds? It sounds almost as silly as Koreans that point to “Usando” on Korean maps and say, “See, there is Dokdo.”
Toadface, all of Korea’s claims concerning Dokdo are turning out to be lies. Why do you want to continue to associate yourself with that, especially when even Koreans are now starting to realize that they have been lied to?
The facts are starting to come out. Documents and maps of Ulleungdo show very clearly that Usando, which Koreans claim was Dokdo, was just a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, most likely Jukdo. These maps and documents had been either ignored, hidden, or blantantly misinterpreted, but recently the truth has started to come out, and even Koreans are starting to question the brainwashing they received in the Korean education system.
The Korean government and Korean scholars have tried very hard to hide the truth about Dokdo/Takeshima, but truth almost always comes out in the end. I am positive that the world will eventually know the truth about Dokdo/Takeshima, too. And that means that the world will also eventually come to know that the Korean government and Korean historians have been lying to them or telling half-truths all this time.
Toadface, jump ship before it is too late. Of course, since you are anonymous, I guess it does not really matter, does it? After the truth comes out, you can just crawl back into the shadows. Mark Lovmo, however, is a different story. The lies and half-truths on his Web site will always be associated with his name. Well, probably not always. Such goofballs are rarely remembered.
Opp,
You site looks very good, but we need to fix some of your English expressions. It is too late tonight, but tomorrow I will make some suggestions for improving some of the English sentences on your site.
Take care.
Toadface I am afraid you missed my point as well as opp’s.
My point is that whatever confusion some Japanese had about Dokdo before 1905, the incorporation in 1905 is valid unless you show Korea government recognized Dokdo and that Korea government had effective control before..
(1) You have not shown why the Korean name of Dokdo has changed so many times, while you are busy pointing out Japanese confusion before 1905 about the islands.
(2) You have not shown any Korean maps that show Dokdo while you are busy citing and finding fault with Japanese and Western maps which have Dokdo on them.
(3) You have not shown Korea document that shows Korea had effective control while you are busy citing Japanese documents in which Koreans (who were probably employed by Japanese) called Dokdo Yankou.
(4)1900 Korean edict is legally useless because the reference is not clear enough to stand as legal document, and because, according to your criteria, Korea did not notify it , and it is historically baseless because it is most likely that Sokdo referred to Gwanundo.
And Mark and you miss opp’s point.
Mark wrote
He completely miss the point.
Look at opp’s map It is clear the Japanese map maker meant Argnaut by “Takeshima” and Daglet by “Matsushima”.
But before the confusion, the Japanese map maker meant Ulleungdo by “Takeshima” and Dokdo by Matsushima.
Okay, let’s review it slowly.
(1)Before the confusion
(Ø)ーーーTakeshima=UlleungdoーーーMatsushima（=Dokdo）
(2)Western map was introduced.
Argonaut(non-exisitent)ーーー-Dageletーーー(Ø)
(3)A Japanese map maker:”Wow, Look at the western map, their techonology is more developed. The position of the old Japanese map must have been wrong!! Takeshima=Ulleungdo must be at the positoin of Dagelet, and Matsushima(=Dokdo) must be at the position of Argonaut” Thus,
“Takesihma”=”Ulleungdo”ーーー”Matushima”—(Ø)map
(4)Another western map was introduced.
Argonaut(non-exisitent)ーーーDagelet-ーーーHornet
(5)A Japanese map maker:”Wow, Look at the western maps, we were wrong..
TakeshimaーーーMatsushimaーーーーLiancourt Rocks
map
Japanese department of internal office(1877): (Takeshiama is Ulleungdo,) . Takeshima and another island near Takeshima called Matushima belong to Korea1867 Map/takeshima-Matsushima-Liancourt Rocks
Mr. Watanabe (1878))”Hey,.All the western maps indicates Liancourt Rocks belongs to Japan.
And we know Takeshima (=Ulleungdo) belongs to Korea, but according to western maps, “Argonaut” (=”Takeshima “) does not exist. So so called Takeshima is Ulleungdo. .Then what and where is Matsuhima ? Is it identical with Takeshima? or what?
Mr.Tanabe(1878~)
“Mr.Watanabe, it is simple.”Takeshima “is Ulleungdo;”Matushima is Usan(=the present Jukdo)”
1880
Navy ship Amagi:”Gee so-called Matsushima is Ulleungdo and so called takeshima is the small islet(Jukdo) near Ulleungdo.”
After Amagi Japanese started calling Ulleungdo Matsushima and Linocourt Rock Ryankou
.
Japanse government notification(1883):
Mark wrote:
opp
showed that Mori meant Argonaut by “Takeshima “and the present day Ulleungdo by “Matsushima”
(1) Korea did not protest to Japan or any other countries.
(2)Suppose it did, then the date it protested become the critical date. Then we go back to the records before the date. Korea has no records.Japan has.
It was reported by newpaper. And you know Japanese reported to the Korean local government, and that is why the local government asked the Korean central government what to do.As a result the central government did not contest.
Japan showed the case where the notification was not necessary.
I asked you to show the precedence in which incorporation similar to Japanese one was denid.So far you have shown none.
See
It was incorporated for various purpose;one for economic purpose as Nakai’s document show, antoher for military purpose as later developement shows, what is the most important was to make clear Japanese territory in accordance with modern law. Noboy was killed to acquire Dokdo unlike the case where Korean government killed Japanese fishemen to keep Dokdo.
Japanese documents again? where is Korean documents?
Anyway, that Koreans were employed by Japanese to hunt at dokdo does not means Korean government owned dokdo.
To be exact, Koreans incorporated Sokdo which nobody know where for sure..
Dokdo was not owned by any state before Japan incorporated. That is all.
Nobody deny some Koreans were involved and cognizant of Dokdo before 1905. There are Japanese documents to prove that .What everybody deny is Korean government owned Dokdo.
I am tired.But I ask you to answer my questoins at the top of the comment. (1)~(3)
The Kashihara04.jpg map (http://home.megapass.co.kr/~phoong1/Dokdo/Kashihara04.jpg) shows an island located at the bottom right of the image. Just to clarify a point Opp made:
The island is in fact labeled “riyunkooruto rokku” in Katakana. That is clearly the Japanese pronunciation for Liancourt Rocks. Why would the Japanese use the name of the French whaling vessel Liancourt and the English word “rock” as the only name for an island if the Japanese cartographer thought the island was Korean? After all the Koreans have never called Dokdo the Liancourt Rocks. It defies logic to even suggest that the Koreans made it known to Japan that the island was Korean by using the name Liancourt Rocks, a name Koreans have never used.
As far as I’m concerned the truth has already come out.
Toadface
I am afraid you might be deceived by so called Korean historians.
Have you really read the report of Black Dragon?
Black
Dragon surely said that Japanese and Korean called it Yankou named after
Liancourt rocks (BTW as badmoonrising said, there was absolutely no Korean record in which Koreans people called Dokdo Yankou.But Japan has. That means these Korean people learned the name Yankou from Japanese)
However it also says
which means there is one no man’s land
This island is probably worth investigating for those who are concerned with business /commerce
Even the rightists are talking about economic purpose. They were not talking about military purpose.
You want to emphasize military purpose because you want to get sympathy by painting Japanese acquisition as militaristic. The truth is Japanese acquisition was peaceful while Korean grab of Dokdo was deceitful and more or less militaristic.
The official gazette notification is only one of the implementation of the notification obligation according to Article 34 of the Berlin protocol. The Berlin protocol is limited to Africa. The notification obligation is not taken as a common law by the judicial precedent of Clipperton and Palmas.
Any notification is not being demanded by International Law. Moreover, a state that insists on the notification obligation has lost (Mexico in Clipperton case and United States in Palmas case). Their claims will inevitably admit effective controls by the other party and no protest. It is only a deception against a strong claim of effective controls.
Bad moon rising I don’t think you understand with regard to the mapping error. Here is the flaw in Opp’s reasoning.
Opp says that on Japanese maps that show Ulleungdo to the West the Japanese were knowingly double-mapping Ulleungdo. This is wrong because we can see it labelled as Ulleungdo-Jukdo Songdo-Dokdo. If Opp’s theory was correct there would always be three islands West of Japan but this is not always the case.
I posted the last map with Songdo-Liancourt to show that once Japanese mappers began to map Liancourt the existence of Jukdo (Argonaut) was already deemed P.D or unlikely well over a decade earlier by the British Navy. On the last map with Ulleungdo labelled as Sondgdo and Liancourt included, Argonaut island was deleted.
In 1863 The British Navy reported that “the existence of Argonuat is not recognized by whalers both Russian and French ship ignore its existence and thus Argonaut can be sefely expunged from the charts.”
Ponta look at the outline of Jukdo on this map. You can see it is dotted showing they doubted both the position and existence of Jukdo on the map. In addition Ulleungdo is mapped as Songdo with islands Bossole Rock.
http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/image/image.jpg
This concurs with the 1863 British Navy Map that the Japanese Navy copied for themselves you can see the comparison on Mark’s page. In other words, whatever mapping errors or corrections the British made so did the Japanese.
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp23.html
You can see the explanation here. I’m sorry you will have to read Mark doesn’t do flashy effects like Opp.
Ponta says:
1. (1) Korea did not protest to Japan or any other countries.
(2)Suppose it did, then the date it protested become the critical date. Then we go back to the records before the date. Korea has no records.Japan has.
The Japanese had already dismantled the Korean Foreign ministry before notifying the Korean. Korea has documented proof showing they protested with what governmental organs remained intact. That being domestic affairs provincial and regional government. Local media also contested.
Ponta says.
2. Japan showed the case where the notification was not necessary.
I asked you to show the precedence in which incorporation similar to Japanese one was denid.So far you have shown none
I gave you published material from legal experts (Princeton) that agree with the condition that notification is deemed necessary before effective control can be considered legal. The legal precedents you cited do not apply here.
Opp. I’ve dealt with the Berlin Act on another thread please read this.
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=319#comment-7013
These are the opinions of legal experts of the time.
The Clipperton Island case did not rule Notification wasn’t necessary. It ruled that the acquisition of the islands took place before the 1885 Berlin Act was in effect (1858) In addition a draft of the 1888 Declaration of International Law also stipulates that notification was necessary. This document was drafted to help formulate clear laws to be adhered to when Declaring Lands of be Occupied.
Ponta the term given on Black Dragon documents says that Liancourt was uninhabited not legally “no mans land” This document proves even two years before Japan annexed Dokdo Japan still did not consider Liancourt part of Japanese territory. You can also read that Dokdo is visible from Ulleungdo on a clear day. Something you and others on this thread have been wrongly denying. This document destroys the Japanese Foreign Ministy’s view that Dokdo was an inherent part of Japan. Just like the scores of maps that exclude Dokdo.
Everyone on this thread seems to be of the mindset that Korea’s ambiguous maps and documents are Japans strengths in this argument. This is wrong. Korea has effectively controlled Dokdo for much longer than Japan now. If they want to drag this case to ICJ and redraw maps of the East Sea. they have to do better than referring to colonial relics like the 1905 Shimane Prefecture terra nullius land grab.
I have shown repeatedly that Japan has no claim to Dokdo prior to the illegal Shimane Prefecture Inclusion. Even if one wished to argue that the document is legally binding we all can see it reeks of expansionist colonialsm and it irrelevent in today’s world.
Bases of the contortion sight’s insistence are only guesses with “Japan should also have known”. My analysis is obvious from an actual position, shape, and the direction. “Takeshima” is accurately corresponding to the Algonaut. It is not persuasive only by Korean conviction and hope. Please present a whole of these maps. I want to verify.
50 years or more pass until Japan obtains information about Algonaut island by Siebold. Map information at that time is an important military secret. Shebold was banished from Japan by illegal taking out Japanese maps. Powers are the ages of the measurement competition. Do not judge the past from your hope with present knowledge.
This is one of reasons. Why do you disregard other reasons and Palmas? Is it inconvenient for you ?
I have already known this draft. And, was this draft approved?The answer is no. It is necessary to agree in International Law. It did not approve because it had not agreed. That is, the draft that you presented becomes evidence in which the notification obligation doesn’t agree.
Toadface
thanks.
You have not answered my question.
(1)Explain why the Korean name of dokdo has changed so many times.
(2)Show us Korean maps that have Dokdo on them.
(3)Show us the evidences that show Korea had effective control.
(4)Show us the precedence where incorporation with such notification as Japan did was not sufficient enough to establish the title.(If there is none, just tell us so.)
(5)Why did not Lee Gyu-won include Dokdo in the map though Ulleungdo and Dokdo are supposed to be brother island which are inseparable for Koreans?
As for Argonaut, I explained Mark was wrong.So I won’t repeat. Mark just misunderstood Opp’s point.
Yes 無人島 is uninhabited and also no(無）man(人）’ｓ（の） land.
No, just because rightists did not recoginized it as a part of Japan, it does not follow Japan as a state with history did not recognize it as a part of Japan. But as I admitted before, the Japanese effective control over dokdo during this period was relaxed a little .(^_-).
Oh I have never denied it. I said you can rarely see the Dokdo form Ulleungdo. And you forget translating the important parts again. The black dragon said.
You can not see it from the seashore.
Which state owned Dokdo before Japan incorporated Dokdo?
You have not shown Korean owned it before Japan incorporated Dokdo.
Which stated exercised effective control before Japan exercised effective control? You have not shown Korea had effective control before Japan had.
Dokdo was inherent part of Japan in the sense no other state shared effective control over Dokdo.
Toadface, I ask you again to answer my questionｓ. I am asking this because all your talk makes sense only if you have show the points above.
Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that you are right about 1877 document and maps. Then Japan recoginized Dokdo as Korea territory but later changed the cognition. Realizing its history Japan recognized Dokdo as Japanese territory ,in the knowledge that Korea had never recoginized Dokdo nor had she had effective control over Dokdo. Then Japan announced its inclusion in 1905.
You said Korea protested but Korea had no ground to protest if Korea did not even recoginized it and if Korea had no effective control before.
Thus for Korean to win, you desperately needs to prove the points above.
I wonder why you keep evading the issue, It is important for Japanese side too because depending on the evidence you shows, Japan has to prepare stronger arguments.
Thanks.
Ponta, unfortunately your statement doesn’t agree with what the Japanese Foreign Ministry says. they say that Dokdo is inherently part of Japanese territory. This is a lie.
I don’t get into the issue of Usando because there are so many maps that show so many positions it is impossible to define a definitive answer. Gerry wants to spend his time digging through ambigous doc and maps and play connect the dots. I like to deal with clear maps and documents. That’s why I focus on Japanese maps and docs.
1. The name Dokdo changed because of dialect and because of history. How many times do city names change? My hometown has had three names in less than 200 years.
2. Korean maps list Dokdo as Usando. Are all maps of Usando Dokdo? It’s not clear. Are all maps of Dokdo the islet of Jukdo. No, It is not possible to map an islet 2.2kms away from a large land mass on the wrong side.
3. Effective control is hard to define when the land mass is quite far away. The legal defintion of “effective control” is not standard Ponta. Korea’s incorporation of Dokdo in 1900 could be deemed enough.
4. There is no precedence to Dokdo for many reasons. Given the political situation in Korea you cannot apply past cases to Dokdo. At the time of Dokdo’s Korea became aware of Japans “incorporation” Korea was under a coerced “Protectorate” Treaty. You assume the judgement of Max Huber on Palmas is the rule here but I’ve shown many legal experts disagree. Don’t pretend you are a lawyer here Ponta.
5. Leekyuwon didn’t map Dokdo because it was 92kms away from Ulleungdo. His job wasn’t to sail a day away from Ulleungdo looking for Usando. He was basically a police officer sent to prepare Ulleungdo for settlement and development on Ulleungdo and to put an end to illegal Japanese logging and trespassing. His searched involved climbing on top of the highest mountain and gaulking around. Of course he didn’t see Dokdo.
Ponta I have established the Koreans contested the incorporation by the Shimane Prefecture contested effective control is NOT legal.
The Korean said they had already incorportated Dokdo in 1900 and you don’t believe it that is your opinion. That is not good enough.
Koreans don’t have to win. They have Dokdo. The onus is on Japan to put their mouth where there money is and prove Dokdo was an inherent part of Japan and terra nullis like their Foreign Ministry says.
Here is something for you Ponta.
Show me some Japanese maps or documents prior to 1905 that refer to or illustrate Dokdo without the mention or reference to Ulleungdo. The classic tactic of Japanese is to try to separate Dokdo from Ulleugdo but the fact is they are historically inseparable. Dokdo’s value only related to Ulleungdo to the Japanese. Thus when the issue of Ulleungdo’s owner was solved so was Dokdo.
Opp if you look at this map by Uchida Shansai you can see the left islands is labelled as Ulleungdo with the quote from Saito Hosen “viewing Korea is the same as viewing shimane from Oki. Thus we know the West island is Ulleungdo.
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page12.html
Look at the 1847 map (3rd from the top) and you can see the shapes and positions of Argonaut (Ulleungdo) and Dagelet (Dokdo) are exactly the same. We know the Japanese were copying European maps. Which one of these maps show the exact form of Ulleungdo? Neither. Your criteria for assement is wrong because it involves the bizarre theory that the Japanese cartographers eliminated
Dokdo Island on scores of 19th century maps despite the fact they had consistenly mapped Dokdo for 150 years prior to these errors. This is wrong.
It is only logical to say the Japanese also copied the naming of the islands that Seibold used as well that being. Argonaut (Takeshima/Ulleungdo) Dagelet (Matushima/Dokdo)
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp23.html
So, that being said, using your theory. Where is Dokdo on all of these maps that show poor positioning such as the map above? There are no other islands in the East Sea on this map or other Japanese maps that show Takeshima and Matsushima at these locations.
It is simple. The islands were mapped more Westerly. That’s all.
If you want to see these maps and more please visit: You will see plenty of maps that show the same positioning with no other islands inclusive.
http://www.davidrumsey.com/japan
The Japanese foreign ministry says notification is not necessary. However many legal experts have and do still disagree. You can’t take one past precedent and apply it across the board. Again read the legal scholars I have quoted they are more qualified on the matter than you or I.
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=319#comment-7013
Yes the 1888 draft was not passed. However some legal experts cited it as relevent is trying to establish some form of rules for the aquisition of unoccupied lands.
Toadface,
The Korean documents and maps I dig through are only ambiguous if you claim that Usando was Dokdo/Takeshima. Otherwise, the picture is very clear.
Usando and Ulleungdo were neighboring islands. The names were confused because the islands were so close together. Actually, Usando and Ulleungdo started out being two names for the same island. Later, Koreans started referring to both Ulleungdo and one of its neighboring islands, which was most likely Jukdo since it is the largest neighboring island. In 1412, residents of “Usanguk-do” (Usando) told Korean officials that their neighboring island was called “Muleungdo.” That is where the confusion began. I guess you did not read my post about that. Anyway, you can read it here.
Let’s be honest, Toadface. The real reason you ignore Korean maps and documents before 1905 is that they do not show “Dokdo” or even talk about it.
The Seokdo-to-Dokdo name change theory is a silly theory that Koreans use to explain the fact that “Dokdo” nor any island like Dokdo is mentioned in any Korean documents before 1905. The problem with the theory, however, it that it has nothing to back it up. There were no coordinates given for the island or even a bearing or distance. The reason there were no coordinates given for Seokdo is that it was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not some barren rocks ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo. I have mentioned before that the head of Uldo (Ulleungdo) County in 1906 did not even know where Dokdo/Takeshima was. It would not make sense that the head of Uldo (Ulleungdo) county would not know where Ulleungdo and the two other islands in his county were.
Lee Gyu-won not only did not map “Usando,” he did not even know where it was supposed to be. He concluded that Usando was just another name for Ulleungdo since, by that time, residents of Ulleungdo were referring to its neighboring islands as Dohang and Jukdo. Moreover, there is no record of any inspector before Lee going to Dokdo/Takeshima, much less mapping it.
Yes, Koreans now occupy Dokdo/Takeshima, but they illegally occupy it. The Japanese had already proven to the US and her allies after World War II that Dokdo/Takeshima was Japanese territory. The 1952 treaty also allowed Japan to keep Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima.) You can read the Dean Rusk letter to the Korean ambassador here, but here is an important quote from the letter:
The Japanese were confused about the names of Ulleungdo, Liancourt Rocks, and “another island” until 1880, when the Japanese finally sent a survey ship to clear up the confusion. The Japanese discovered that the name 松島 (”Matsushima” in Japanese and “Songdo” in Korean) was being used to refer to two islands. One Matsushima was Ulleungdo and the other was Liancourt Rocks. They also found that a neighboring island of Ulleungdo was called 竹島 (”Takeshima” in Japanese and “Jukdo” in Korean). After they realized that Matsushima (松島) was being used to refer to both Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks, they decided to use “Matsushima” to refer to Ulleungdo and use “Liancourt Rocks” to refer to Liancourt Rocks. After Japan made Liancourt Rocks a part of Japanese territory in 1905, they changed the name to 竹島 (Takeshima).
Liancourt Rocks was unclaimed territory until the Japanese officially claimed it in 1905.
Reasonｓ assumed for notification obligation not to exist in Clipperton case.
・Before Berlin Act.
・Only Africa is applied.
・Only the signatory applies.
The signatory is Britain, Germany, Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, the United States, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Sweden, Norway, and Turkey.
You must show it why.
You can not do that when you are trying to prove that Korea recognized dokdo. You have to show Korean maps that clearly have Dokdo on them to prove that Korea recognized Dokdo.
If Korea have only ambiguous maps, then it just goes to show Korea did not recognized Dokdo.
So Korean only evidence of effective control is the edict “as for jurisdiction, the ….
prefecture will govern ….Sokdo….” Is that it? Where is Dokdo? Where does Sokdo refer to?
Nobody knows for sure where Sokdo is, it is only Korean hope and imagination that Sokdo should be Dokdo.
Hence legally 1900 document is useless, (and according to Toadface it is invalid because she did not notify it ) and historically it is most likely that Sokdo referred to Gwanundo because at that time Gwanundo was called Sokouto.
To sum up, Korea has no maps clear enough to show Koreans recognized Dokdo.and Korea has no effective control sufficient enough to claim the title.
That is all we need to hear. Thank you.
However Koreans attack Japanese maps and documents. Japan has solid evidences that she had effective control from 1905 to 1945. Unless Korea shows she recognized Dokdo and she had effective control before, the attack is useless, Korean claims that Korea protested ,Japan invaded Dokdo etc are baseless, .
This is not an explanation at all. .
First you must show some meant α by Ｘ.
But because of P, they used Y to mean α。
In Japanese case,
(1)people meant Ulleungdo by takeshima, Dokdo by Matsushima..
(Øーtakeshima=UlleungodoーMatsushima=Dokdo)
And “Takeshima” was accompanied by the definite descriptions that “Koryo can be seen from here, similar to how Shimane can be seen from Oki Island” etc.(=DDs)
Hence Ulleungodo=Takeshima=DDs
(2)But because of western map’s influence,( Argonaut”ーDageletーØ）,
people used “takeshima” to mean “Argonaut” and “matushima” to mean “Dagelet”.
(Probably this is where Mark misunderstands. I think he mistakenly thinks that people still meant dokdo by “Matsuhima” at this time that is not the case. I guess he mistakenly thinks Ulleungdo-Dokdo slides to the west. but no, they don’t move. Argnaut was mistakenly created on the map in the west, Daglet was positioned at where Ulleungdo was, and Dokdo disappeared from the map, and the names “Takeshima” and ‘Matsushima” slided to the west to fit Argnaut and Daglet respectively.)
And Takeshima was still sometimes accompanied by the definite descriptions..
Since “Takeshima” and “DDs” were supposed to refer Ulleungo, people thought they were referring to Ullengdo when they used “takeshima” while in reality Ulleungo was at the position of “Matsushima” Hence in reality , “Matsuhima” refer to Ulleungdo and “Takeshima” refer to what the definite descriptions about Ulleungdo referred to. And since Dokdo disappeared from the map, it follows that Dokdo had no name at this time.
.
(3)When another type of Western maps( ArgonautーDagelet/ーLinocourt) were introduced, people meant Argonaut by “Takeshima” , Dagelet by “Matsushima” , Linocourt by “Ryainkouru”.three island map
(a)It is clear that by “takeshima” people meant what the definite descriptions about Ulleungdo referred to.
(b)It is also clear that by “Ryanko” people meant Dokdo=Linocourt rocks.
“Takeshima” = DDs is supposed to refer to Ulleungdo but they refer to nothing in reality, and Matushima refer to Ulleungdo in reality.
1870 (takeshima-matushima belongs to Korea) document 1867 map
1877 (takeshima- another island belong to Korea )document1877 mapIt is in this context that these documents should be interpreted.
It is clear that “Matsuhima” is not meant to refer to Dokdo because of (b)
However it is not clear what “Matsushima” is meant to refer to .
It must be the island between Takeshima and Dokdo.
If “takeshima” refers to Ulleungdo, then it is probable that Matushima is meant to refer to Jukdo or Gwanundo.
If “Takeshima” refer to nothing but what the definite description of Ullengdo refer to and Matsushima was meant to refer to Ulleungdo Takeshima and Matshima is the different names of the same island.
Basically I guess this is What Watanabe and Tanabe was discussing.
“Because of the dialect “is a shabby explanation; and I am afraid nobody takes it seriously.
This is Korean’s original international Law (uriginal law).
PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN are uninhabited islands.
Palmas: Title of effective control
Ligitan and Sipadan:Title of effective control
Clipperton:Title of occupation (The will to own was specific by ｄetailed geography and general island name）
Minquiers and Ecrehos: Title of effective control
Qatar and Bahrain: Title of effective control
Eastern greenland: Title of effective control
Please show me specific evidences which leave no doubt.
The transition of the island name of Japan was added to my sight. Click
Gerry,
I hope when you are not busy.
Dear Ponta,
> (BTW where is pacifist? I have seen him lately.He is an expert on Dokdo )
Thank you for remebering me!
I have just returned from holiday!
I’ve read all the arguments and I found opinions by Gerry and Ponta and Tomato are persuasive. So I have nothing to say more at this moment. I hope toadface will come to his senses shortly.
Hi Opp,
Below are the sentence corrections I made for your site. I have also added some extra information. For example, I think you should add the 1696 and 1724 Japanese maps to show that Japan knew about and mapped Takeshima/Dokdo before any other country.
I have also omitted some of your sentences because the explanations were getting a little confusing. Of course, feel free to add or change anything you want in what I wrote.
Below are the corrections. Take care.
——————————–
Locations of Ulleungdo, Jukdo, and Takeshima/Dokdo
Korea is illegally occupying a Japanese island named Takeshima, which Korea calls “Dokdo.” Korea claims that the island has been Korean territory for hundreds of years and that it appeared on old Korean maps as an island named “Usando.” Japanese, however, say that Korea has no historical documents to back up their claim and the Usando on their maps was just a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, which is Korean territory. I have created this page to show that Koreans are wrong and that Usando was not Takeshima (Dokdo), but just a neighboring island of Ulleungdo.
Before verifying the locations of Ulleungdo, Jukdo, and Takeshima/Dokdo on the old maps, however, I want to first show where the islands are locationed on modern maps. I will use Google Earth maps to show their present-day locations.
Takeshima/Dokdo is too small to be seen on the wide-view map, but the red dot shows its location.
(Map)
The next map is a closer view that shows Ulleungdo and its two neighboring islands, which are called “Kwaneum-do” and “Juk-do.” Takeshima/Dokdo is at the bottom, right-hand corner of the map, ninety-two kilometers away from Ulleungdo. Notice that Takeshima/Dokdo is shown as two small islets.
(Map)
The following pictures show the shapes of the islands. Again, notice that Takeshima/Dokdo are actually two islets next to each other.
Here is a chart that shows information on the three islands:
(Chart)
History of Usando
Korean historical records say that Usando was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo that had trees and plant life on it. Also, Korean historical records say that, at one time, sixty-six people lived on the island. That means that Usando could not have been Takeshima/Dokdo because Takeshima/Dokdo is just two barren rocks without the soil, trees, and plant life needed to support sixty-six people.
At the end of the 17th century, after a territorial dispute between Korea and Japan over Ulleungdo, Japan gave up its territorial claim on Ulleungdo, and Korea began to make regular inspections of Ulleungdo and draw maps of the island. The following are maps that Korean inspectors made of Ulleungdo. Notice that they drew Usando as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, in approximately the same location as present-day Jukdo, which is approximately 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore. Notice also that when the maps are superimposed on the modern-day Google Earth map, it becomes obvious that Usando was not Takeshima/Dokdo. Even the shape of Usando on the old maps shows that it was not Takeshima/Dokdo, which should have been drawn as two islets, not one
(Maps)
Conclusion
The Usando on Korean maps was not Takeshima/Dokdo based on Korea’s own historical documents, its distance from Ulleungdo, and the shape of the island. Korea’s claim on Takeshima/Dokdo is based on lies.
Verification of Japanese maps from the 19th Century
Background of Japanese Maps of Ulleungdo and Takeshima/Dokdo
Japanese documents show that Japan knew of Takeshima/Dokdo from as far back as 1656. Japan also has maps of the islets that date back to 1696. The following map is a 1696 Japanese map of Takeshima/Dokdo, which at the time was called Matsushima. Notice that in 1696, the Japanese were referring to Ulleungdo as Takeshima.
(1696 Map)
The following is a 1624 map that also shows Takeshima/Dokdo labeled as Matsushima.
(1624 Map)
In 1787, the French discovered Ulleungdo and named the island “Dagelet.” The British discovered Ulleungdo two years later, in 1787, and named it “Algonaut.” However, the French and British mapped the island at different locations, which caused people to assume that there were two islands. In fact, a Dutchman named Siebold, who had lived in Japan for several years, made a map of Japan that labeled the island the British mapped as Takeshima and the island the French mapped as Matsushima. The following is Siebold’s 1840 map:
(Siebold’s 1840 Map)
Siebold’s mislabelling of Takeshima and Matsushima caused confusion even for Japanese mapmakers since it labeled a non-existent island as Takeshima. Koreans have used this mistake by Japanese mapmakers to claim that Japanese maps show Takeshima/Dokdo to be Korean territory. Koreans make their claim based simply on the names, ignoring the shapes of the islands and their location.
In 1849, a French ship named “Liancourt” finally discovered Takeshima/Dokdo and named the islets “Liancourt Rocks,” which still did not clear up the confusion since the non-existent island was still being mapped. The following is an 1867 Japanese map that shows the non-exisitent island labeled as Takeshima (竹嶋), Ulleungdo labeled as Matsushima (松島), and Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima).
(1867 Japanese Map)
By superimposing the Google Earth map on some of Japan’s old maps, you can see that the Takeshima on them was not referring to present-day Takeshima/Dokdo, but to the non-existent island mapped by the British.
(Maps)
This site concludes that Matsushima was Takeshima/Dokdo based only on the European and Japanese mapping errors and an inaccurate Japanese record made by Watanabe. However, Watanabe’s island name recognition has been denied by Tanabe, who points out the possibility that Matsushima was referring to Usando, which was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, as the Korean maps above have shown. Even the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has denied Watanabe’s claim.
The map confusion continued until 1880, when Japan finally sent a ship to survey the area. The Japanese survey ship determined that Matsushima was being used to refer to both Ulleungdo and to present-day Takeshima/Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks). The ship also discovered that there was an island next to Ulleungdo named Takeshima. In his report, the Japanese ship captain commented, “In one morning, we have confirmed long-held suspicions.” Based on the survey results, Japan decided to give Ulleungdo the name “Matsushima” and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) the name “Liancourt Rocks.” When Japan made Liancourt Rocks a part of Japanese territory in 1905, the name was changed to “Takeshima.”
Japan has never recognized Korea’s claim on Takeshima/Dokdo, and there are no Korean maps or documents that show Korea even knew about the islets before Japan incorporated them in 1905. The Korean claim that Usando was a reference to Takeshima/Dokdo has been proven false by Korea’s own maps and records.
The evidence is clear. Takeshima (Dokdo) is historically and legally Japanese territory, which means Korea is now illegally occupying the islets.
Gerry
This is the best explanation of the issue I have ever seen.
Incredibly clear.
Just great!!!!
And you are great too.
Wow, thanks, Ponta.
Opp,
I found some mistakes in my explanation above and have corrected them, so please copy the explanation as it is now.
Take care.
Gerry
And huge admiration from me.
You must have spent so much time and energy into all those excellent work!!
I hope that all your effort will contribute to Korean people’ benefit in the near future. After all, it’s their loss that they have no access to the fact and keep displaying their weird behaviour like “beeman”, “Dokto rider”, and of course videos which Korean government made to ther world.
Ponta
Big thanks to you, naturally. You are doing great job. I learned a lot from your logical thinking and sophisticated attitude towards continuous same old patterned claims made by pro-Koreans. Japanese like you, Pacifist and Opp who can debate so excellent in English on the net makes me believe that Japan’s future is bright. I’m proud of you guys!! I’m sorry that I cannot do anything. But you are too good at it. I just want you to know that I’m reading your comments all the time and always with you.
Matt
And enormous thanks to you too. I used to live on Gold Coast from 2000 to 2003. It was the most beautiful moments in my life. And I also want to let you know that me and my daughter had never experienced racial discrimination or anything in your country. Everyone (including old people in nursing home) was so nice to us and we even thought about getting permanent visas.
Well well, Now, even Toadface admitted there are no clear evidence that Korea recognized Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) in their map.
And Gajido is more likely the neighboring island of Ulleungdo as Gerry found above,and the name Gaji-gul” (可支窟) on this Lee Gyu-wo’s map prove that there were seals around that period.
So what now? Back to Soekdo? I hope so. I believe Japanese name for nowadays 観音島 “鼠項島(So-kou-tou)” = Korean”島項” became Soekdo and ended up 石島 theory is more persuasive and logical. And Korean dialect changeng theory is ridiculous. But deciphering the mysterious letters near red spot on the map could open a new theory. The problem is…It’s just too small for me to read.
Gerry,
Great hug from me too!
You are excellent!
Thanks everyone.
Kaneganese,
As for seals on Ulleungdo, there is no question that they were there. I will be posting another Korean map soon that clearly proves that fact.
I also believe that 鼠項島(So-kou-tou) explains where the name “Seokdo” came from, which means that is something that should be explored more. Concerning the writing under the red rock on Lee Gyu-won’s 1882 map, I think it may have more to do with the red rock than with the old name for Kwaneumdo. However, we will not know for sure until we find out what is written there.
I believe that the evidence is already overwhelmingly in favor of Japan, but there are other things yet undiscussed that will make it even more overwhelming. For example, there has not yet been much discussion on “Sambongdo,” which Koreans claim was a reference to Dokdo/Takeshima. And there are still maps to be talked about and survey reports.
Yes, there is still a lot of discussion left on this topic.
Take care.
Thank you very much fot your wonderful jobs. And I learnt may English ability again. I wish to express my gratitude to you.
I corrected your sentense a little.
There was no information about Takeshima/Dokdo in the survey by warship Amagi, though it was very regrettable.
And Ministry of Interior did not know the investigation result of warship Amagi. Therefore, they made map according to old recognition in 1881. This map is added at this weekend. Here is a very important point. Because it is a proposal by Ministry of Interior that assumed that one Takeshima and one anothers island is unrelated to Japan in 1877.
It is scheduled to add it at this weekend in the part of the 17th century in Japan.
I have updated the southwest section of the Ulleungdo Woido (鬱陵島 外圖) map because I figured out the name of the cave just to the north of “Seal Cave” (可支窟). Actually, it was not the name of the cave, but the name of the rock where the cave is. It was called 窟巖 (굴암), which means “Cave Rock.”
It seems like a small thing, but I am pretty proud of myself. Those characters had been bothering me. Of course, now that I know what they are, they seem so obvious.
(Japanese translation for Gerry’s post)
(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。訳者注：漢字名が判明しない場所が多く、固有名詞に関しては現在調査中です。)
1882年 鬱陵島の外観とアシカ洞窟
以下の地図は、鬱陵島を視察した李奎遠が1882年に作成したものです。地図の名称は“鬱陵島外圖”です。韓国語では울릉도외도と書き、基本的に“鬱陵島の外観図”という意味です。言い換えると、この地図は海岸線、隣接する島々、小島や岩に焦点を当てて描かれているのです。
以下の地図は鬱陵島を詳細に描写したものの一つです。少なくとも、現存しているもののうちの最も初期のものの一つ、と言えるでしょう。1750年頃に発行された韓国の地図帳です。海東地圖という名称です。“鬱陵島內圖” と言う島の内観に焦点を当てた地図もあったと考えられますが、もしそうなら、既に消失したと考えられます。
地図1：鬱陵島外圖
山の頂が内部に向かって傾斜していることに注意して下さい。これは、外側から島へ向かって見ていると考えられます。重なり合う山々は、島の中心部へ行くためにいくつ山脈を越えれば、山に囲まれた開けた盆地になっている中心部に到達するか、を示しています。
地図2：北西部拡大図
より見易くする為に島の地図を４分割しました。上掲の地図は北西部です。船が上陸できる入江が二つあることが確認出来ます。上部右側は“大黃土邱尾”で、“大きな黄色い土の入江” の意味です。“邱尾”が何を意味するのかよく分かりませんが、“砂浜”“上陸”と訳せると思います。〈後に、“入江”の意味であることが判明しました。＊訳者注）もう一つの浜は、“香木邱尾” で、“ビャクシン入江”の意味です。その地域には、当時もそして現在もビャクシンの木が沢山あったかもしれません。
そのすぐ下には、“待風邱尾”があり、意味は“風を待つ入江”です。これは、荒天の時に船を避難させる入江を指しているのではないかと思います。
地図上で確認出来るその他の名称ですが、岩礁やより小さな浜辺を指しています。岩礁は、今日も存在しています。以下は、現在の岩の写真です。
倡優巖は現在のNoin岩〈老人岩?〉
虹霓巖は現在の孔岩もしくは象岩 鼻を水に突っ込んでいる象のように見えることに注目して下さい。
錐峰は現在のSonggot岩
上掲の地図に、小さな池が二つあるのも観察できます。島の中央の盆地の中にあります。
もしもっと鮮明な鬱陵島の配置図を見たければ、ここに素晴らしい地図があります。“Zoom In〈ズームイン）”をクリックすると、マウスで島を巡ることが出来ます。
地図3：北東部拡大図
上掲の地図は北東部です。三つのがありますが、もっとも大きいのは“倭船艙”で、日本船ドックを意味します。名前から、日本人が沢山住んでいたか、彼らが何らかの形でこの浜を開発したことが推測されます。他の二つの小さな浜辺は、雄通邱尾と船板邱尾です。
その二つの浜辺に面して、二つの島が地図上に描かれています。雄通邱尾の近くにあるのは島項で、“島の首”を意味します。現在の観音島です。観音島は本来単一の島ですが、1882年の地図は、鬱陵島本島から島をゆび指している、その指の形を表すために、順番に二つ並べて描かれているのだと思います。観音島と本島とはおそらく100mも離れていないと思います。もう一つの島は竹島で、船板邱尾の前に描かれています。今日、でも竹嶼〈竹島の意味〉と呼ばれています。
地図上に描かれているその他の岩の写真をいくつか挙げます。
・大巖は今日のDdan岩で、蒜封は、“にんにくの先”を意味しますが、これはこの岩のすぐ横に書かれているので、岩の別名なのでしょう。
・燭臺巖は今日のザリガニ岩〈はさみ岩〉
・兄弟巖は今日の三仙岩です。意味は“三人の仙人の岩”です。
竹嶼の横にある岩は、何と書かれてあるか判別できませんでしたので、書き込みませんでした。最初の漢字は“老”で、三番目は“岩”だと思われます。それはともかく、形状からすると、現在の“Bukjeo岩”だと思います。ここでみることが出来ます。〈リンク〉
地図には、島の中央部に向かって道のようなものが伸びていることが確認出来ます。”紅門街”です。特にこの道に名前が記載されたのは、おそらく島の中央部へは余りよい道が少なかったためでしょう。
地図4：南東部拡大図
上掲の地図は南東部です。浜辺がいくつか見られます。最上部の浜辺は“苧浦”で、今日の苧洞港だと思われます。下にある浜辺は“道方廳”で、今日の道洞だと思われます。
この地図では2つの岩だけが海中に描かれています。一つは“鎗巖”で、もう一つは“将軍巖”です。〈もう一つ、冑巖がある＊訳者注）“鎗巖”はその形から、槍（やり）岩という意味だと思われます。“鎗巖”がどの位置なのかよく分かりませんが、“将軍巖”は、現在の、蝋燭の台を意味する“燭台岩”だと思われます。ここで写真を見られます。〈リンク〉
島の中央の盆地も地図で確認出来ます。“羅里洞”もしくは“國洞”です。現在、羅里盆地と呼ばれています。
地図5：南西部拡大図
上掲の地図は南西部です。いくつか入江もしくは浜辺が描かれています。下から“長斫之”“玄浦”“通邱尾“谷浦”“沙汰邱尾”“小黃土邱尾”です。“通邱尾”の名称は今日も使用されています。
岩が二つ描かれています。“華巖”と“鳳巖”です。“華巖”は花の岩で、“鳳巖”は、不死鳥の岩を意味していると思います。“華巖”はおそらく現在の“亀岩”で〈リンク〉、“鳳巖”は“獅子岩”だと思われます〈リンク〉。李奎遠達の“亀岩”“獅子岩”の絵はよく描かれている思います。
最後に、“鳳巖”の前に三つの洞穴が描かれていることにお気づきでしょうか。そのうち二つが名前が付けられています。真ん中の洞穴ののみ、“可支窟”と名前が判読できました。意味は“アシカ洞”です。韓国語では가지굴です。1786年の鬱陵島視察では、検察吏に随行した小銃射手が、ある洞穴の前で２頭のアシカを射殺した、とありました。
独島／竹島論争のなかで、韓国側の歴史学者は“可支島〈アシカ島）”と言う名前の島が“独島”だと主張しますが、日本側の学者は“可支島”は単なる鬱陵島の付属等にすぎないと言いいます。私は、“可支島”は、アシカ洞の近くにある“鳳巖”のことを指していると考えています。その理由は、アシカ洞の近くにある、と言うだけでなく、今日その岩が“獅子岩”と呼ばれているからでもあります韓国語ではアシカは“bada saja”といい、それは文字通り海のライオンを意味します。鬱陵島のアシカ、つまり海のライオンが全てあの周辺の洞窟に生息していたため、韓国人は過去のある時点で、“鳳岩”を“獅子岩”に変えたのではないでしょうか。
最後に、皆さんがよく注意して見ていたかどうか、質問があります。地図に名前が載っていた全ての島、小島、そして岩のうち、どれが“独島”を指していたと思いますか?
降参ですか?そうですね、ソウル大学のKyujang Gak 研究所の人々は“象岩”だと考えています。しかし彼らは、なぜ鬱陵島の北にあるのか説明できません。以下は、ウェブサイトに載っている、1882年の鬱陵島の地図に関する研究所の見解です。〈余りに疲れて全部を訳せませんが、赤で表示した一部のみ訳します〉
“鬱陵島の古い地図では、皆“独島”に特に興味を持ちます。（上掲の）この地図では、虹霓巖が“独島”に似ているようで、注目されます。北に描かれているのは、おかしいのですが。”
この引用はここで見ることが出来ます〈リンク〉。
韓国の歴史学者が地図上のどんな岩や島をみても、“独島”をそこに見出してしまうことが、私にはとても不思議です。脳みそが半分でもある人が、問題になっている虹霓巖と言う岩を見て“独島”に似ていると言うなんて、まったく理解できません。つまるところこの岩は、鬱陵島の北の沖の、象岩がある所のすぐ近くに描かれているのです。それだけでなく、地図に描かれた絵は象岩にそっくりなのです。もしソウル大学の人々が地図を見てこんなことも分からないのに〈簡単な計算も出来ないようなのに〉、一般の韓国市民は、一体どうすればよいのでしょう。
ところで、私がどうやって地図上の場所の名前が分かったか、不思議に思いますか?実は、李奎遠の鬱陵島検察記を参照しながら書いたのです。また、上記の研究所の引用も、地名が沢山載っていたので参考にしました。しかし、大変不思議なことに、その筆者は“アシカ洞”について何も言及していません。幸いなことに、私はこの地図が載っている本と虫眼鏡を持っていて、判読できたのです。
ソウル大学は多くの地図をオンラインで公開しており、じっくりと閲覧できるようになっています。しかし、奇妙なことに、この1882年の地図はその中にはいっていません。彼らの蔵書に違いないのに。なぜこのような重要な地図がウェブサイトで閲覧できるようになっていないのでしょうか？私は、洞穴の一つが“可支窟〈アシカ洞〉”と名前が記載されているのを、見られたくないのではないか、と思うのです。どなたかウェブサイトで“可支窟”について触れているのを見たことがありますか?独島／竹島論争で重要な証拠になると思いませんか?
それから、地図にある赤い部分の下に小さく書かれた漢字が、何か特別の意味を持っていのではないか、と思っています。最初の漢字は“石”だと言うことは分かっているのです。ひょっとして「鬱陵島、竹嶼、石島を全て鬱陵郡の管轄とする」と書かれた1900年の勅令第41号の中で、“石島〈ソクト〉”が突然現れたことを説明できる手掛かりが得られるかもしれませんね。