竹島問題の歴史

3.6.07

1696 Ordinance Prohibiting Voyages to Takeshima

To follow is the ordinance to prohibit voyages to Takeshima (Ulleungdo) after the dispute with Korea in 1696. Please note that it didn't include Liancourt rocks (Matsushima in those days).

Years before, while Matsudaira Shintaro reigned Inshu and Hakushu, merchants from Yonago in Hakushu, Ichibee Murakawa and Oya Jinkichi, went to Takeshima (Ulleungdo) to fish and continue to do so today. We have heard that the Shogun (Tokugawa Tsunayoshi) now prohibits voyages to Takeshima. Its intention must be kept in mind. We humbly convey this to you.

28th day of January (1696)
 

Tsuchiya Sagaminokami
Toda Yamakinokami
Abe Bungonokami
Okubo kaganokami

13 comments:

  1. Unlike the absurd pro-Japanese people today, the Japanese fishermen at that time clearly understood the Shogunate's voyage ban to Ulleongdo included the voyage ban to Dokdo, thus they had never traveled to Dokdo since.


    To claim Shogunate didn't ban Japanese to go to Dokdo because there's no specific mention of Dokdo in the ordinance prohibiting voyage to Ulleongd, there should be a permission document for voyage to Dokdo like the one allowing Japanese to go to Ulleogndo (竹島渡海免許奉書) issued to Oya and Murakawa families in 1618.

    How could the Oya and Murakawa families go to Dokdo without Shogunate's permit ? The Shoguante didn't specifically allow the Japanese fishermen to go to Dokdo, but they went to Dokdo. It was because voyage permission to Ulleongdo naturally included voyage permission to Dokdo. Dokdo was not as valuable as Ulleongdo and Japanese fishermen had no reason to go there without going to Ulleongdo as a sole
    destination. That's why neither Oya Jinkichi nor Matsudaira Shintaro ,Feudal lord of Tottori Han didn't request the permission to Dokdo.



    Another important thing is voyage permit to Ulleongdo was the result from Tottori Han's response to the Shogunate's inquiry on the ownership of Ulleongdo in Dec.1695. Tottori Han responded "Takeshima(Ulloengdo) does not belong
    to Inaba or Hoki Province ........Matsushima(Dokdo) doesn't belong to any province(州)". On the next month of Tottori Han's response, Shogunate prohibibited Japanese to go to Ulleongdo. Thus, it's illogical to say Shogunate didn't ban voyage to Ulleongdo because there's no mention on Dokdo in the ordinance of voyage ban to Ulleongdo. It's assumed Shogunate had no reason to put Dokdo in the ordinance banning voyage to Ulleongdo because it was natural Japanese fishermen didn't go to Dokdo if they were prohibited to go to Ulleongo.


    There is one more evidence Shogunate's voyage ban to Ulleongdo included that to Dokdo. Oya and Murakawa families considered Dokdo as an attached island to Ulleongdo. As seen in the letters of Oya to Murakawa familiy, Dokdo was described as "Matsushima(Dokdo) in Takeshima(Ulleungdo)(竹嶋之内松嶋)", "Matsushima in the Vicinity of Takeshima(竹嶋近辺松嶋) " and “small island near the Ulleongdo (竹島近所之小島)". In other words, the two families perceived Dokdo as inseparable from Ulleogndo. To them, permit to voyage to Ulleongdo means permit to voyage to Dokdo and banning to voyage to Ulleongdo means banning to voyage to Dokdo.

    In conclusion, as an attached island to Ulleungdo, Dokdo can't be separated from Ulleungdo. The voyage permission to Ulleungdo in 1616 included that to Dokdo and the voyage ban to Ulleungdo in 1696 included that to Dokdo. That's why Japanese fishermen could go to Dokdo in 1616 without a passage permit to Dokdo and didn't go to Dokdo in 1696 due to Shogunate's ordinance prohibiting voyage to Ulleongdo.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Correction :

    That's why neither Oya Jinkichi nor Matsudaira Shintaro ,Feudal lord of Tottori Han didn't request the permission to Dokdo.
    --> That's why neither Oya Jinkichi nor Matsudaira Shintaro ,Feudal lord of Tottori Han, requested the permission to Dokdo.

    One more thing, if Shogunate didn't prohibit Japanese people to go to Matsushima(Dokdo) because it's Japanese territory, why isn't there Matsushima in the maps of Japan as Japanese land after the ordinance of prohibiting voyages to Takeshima(Ulleogndo)?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. sloww wrote:
    ....the Japanese fishermen at that time clearly understood the Shogunate's voyage ban to Ulleongdo included the voyage ban to Dokdo, thus they had never traveled to Dokdo since.

    That's news to me. This is a matter of supreme importance.
    In the name of God, where did you get that distort information ?
    The passage to Takeshima(Liancourt Rocks) was not banned because Japan consistently recognized Takeshima(Liancourt Rocks) as its territory.
    The Lord of Hamada province 松平周防守康任said, "Although Takeshima(Ulleungdo) cannot determine a Japanese territory easily, Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks)is Japanese territory with no problem".
    The Lord 松平周防守康任 was also lead member of the Shogun's Council of Elders of the Shogunate at that time.
    The well-known Kitamaebune was a shipping route (and also the ships involved) in Japan.
    They were sailing a kind of the great circle-route passed over Takeshima(Liancourt Rocks) to Matsumae from hamada every year.

    pacifist 様,
    「戸田山城守」の読み方は、「やましろのかみ」です。
    あまり関係のない話で恐縮ですが、因みに、迷惑な大名を放逐して合議制による政治形態を1485年から八年間も続けた、「山城国一揆」は、日本の民主主義的政治の萌芽として、誇るべきものです。最近の教科書では必須項目らしいです。

    ReplyDelete
  5. 小嶋日向守,

    When I asked pro-Japanese people if there's any Japanese who went to Dokdo since Bakufu's Ordinance prohibiting Japanese to go to Ulleongdo, nobody could give me an answer. So your answer is a big news to me,too, even though you mentioned in a very vague way.


    How about the fishermen who were involved in Oya and Murakawa Families' business? Did they go to Dokdo for fishing activities after Bakuhu's Ordinance? I read those two families were almost broken after being prohibited to go to Ulleongdo for fishing. If Dokdo was not banned, why didn't they go there? Dokdo might not be as profitable as Ullongdo, but they could do some fishing activities. Did they have any other reason for not going to Dokdo?



    Probably, the Lord of Hamada province considered Matsushima as Japanese land. How about the Tottori Han? Tottori Han clearly said to Edo Bakufu that Matsushima didn't belong to any province (of Japan) resulting in Bakufu's Ordinance prohibiting voyage ban to Ulleongdo. Whose statement is more important?


    You said "The passage to Takeshima(Liancourt Rocks) was not banned because Japan consistently recognized Takeshima(Liancourt Rocks) as its territory." Then, why didn't the maps of Japan show Dokdo within Japanese territory? And why do the record of 1870 and Dajokan Order exist? Why did Japan incorporate Dokdo because there were no traces of occupying Dokdo?

    How Takeshima and Matushima became Chosun's possession (1870)
    Dajokan Order (1877)


    Japanese logic on sovereignty claim over Dokdo is just false.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Am I obliged to answer to your absurd questions? Absolutely not.

    In Japan, there are 6,852 islands, inhabited island is only 425.
    The rocks and the uninhabited small Islands are not on every map.
    Of course, Takesima is merely two uninhabitable rocks.
    Takesima's west Island:0.10㎢
    Takesima's east Island:0.07㎢

    As you know,
    Ulleungdo's Jukdo:0.208㎢.
    Ulleungdo's Kwannundo:0.071㎢
    However, Jukdo and Kwannundo are always omitted on the atlas of social studies at school in Korea.
    韓国の中学校社会科地図帳「사회과부도(社会科附図)」。
    http://blogimg.goo.ne.jp/user_image/1b/fd/5ae3b9e350236655f2e69903d3b343a3.jpg
    韓国の高校地図帳「지리부도(地理附図)」。
    http://blogimg.goo.ne.jp/user_image/1b/73/8eda8f79fba1cd81bd309eef459efd0a.jpg

    Why don't show Jukdo and Kwannundo on the atlas of social studies at school?

    ReplyDelete
  7. 小嶋日向守,

    Of course, you are not. Anyway, you did.


    I don't need to respond to your absurd question, too, but I'd like to tell about your problem with your question.


    It seems you have no idea why you are in this blog. Are you here just to talk back to me or to discuss about Dokdo issue? If you don't know why Japan needs to have the maps, I mean the old maps, depicted Dokdo as Japanese land, it means you are not ready to discuss Dokdo issue here.


    Why don't you ask other pro-Japanese people why Japan needs the old maps showing Dokdo as Japanese land to claim Japan had established sovereignty over Dokdo by the least in the mid-17th century. And if you like, ask them why Korean atlas don't show Jukdo and Kwannundo, too. I'm sure they can definitely give you good answers.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sloww
    Why don't you ask other pro-Japanese people why Japan needs the old maps showing Dokdo as Japanese land to claim Japan had established sovereignty over Dokdo by the least in the mid-17th century.

    Japan never needs the old maps, because maps can't become the evidence of her sovereignty. Japan already has the evidence of actual activity on the Takeshima (fishing according to the shogunte's permission or acquiescence).

    PALMAS
    “Any maps which do not precisely indicate the political distribution of territories, and in particular the Island of Palmas (or Miangas) clearly marked as such, must be rejected forthwith, unless they contribute—supposing that they are accurate—to the location of geographical names.”

    Although maps do not become the evidence of the sovereignty, it becomes the evidence of the location of geographical names. This is a rule fatal to Korea, because Korean old maps proves that 于山島 was jukdo.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Addition about the value of maps

    PALMAS
    "Anyhow, a map affords only an indication—and that a very indirect one—and, except when annexed to a legal instrument, has not the value of such an instrument, involving recognition or abandonment of rights."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Another case about the value of maps

    Pedra Branca Case
    Singapore did not draw the Pedra Branka island on her official maps till 1995. However, the International Court of Justice decided that Singapore had sovereignty, because Singapore proved the effective control until 1980. (The Court set up “the critical date” in 1980)

    "Sloww:Why don't you ask other pro-Japanese people why Japan needs the old maps showing Dokdo as Japanese land to claim Japan had established sovereignty over Dokdo by the least in the mid-17th century."


    This Sloww's comment proves that he does not understand international law at all. His delusion theory is always denied by international law.

    ReplyDelete
  11. opp,

    Your comment proves you didn't understand what I said. I didn't say maps are not needed.

    My point is your Edo government proved Japanese old maps showing Japanese recognition of Dokdo is not related to Japanese sovereignty on it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There is a conclusive evidence showing the Japanese Edo Government concluded Japan had nothing to do with Dokdo, which means the ordinance prohibiting voyage to Ulleongdo included Dokdo, too.

    In 1877, the Japanese Meiji Government concluded Japan had nothing to do with Takeshim(today's Ulleongdo) and another island in response to the inquiry by the Ministry of Interior. When inquirying whether Ulleongdo and another island should be included in the jurisdiction of Shimane Prefecture, the Ministry of Interior submitted the document which implies Dokdo was also prohibited to go in 1696.

    The translation below by pacifist at http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.kr/2007/06/argument-about-another-island-details.html is what the Ministry of Interior reported Dajokan of Meiji Government.


    "Inquiry about the land registration of Takeshima and another island in the Sea of Japan (日本海内竹島他一島地籍編纂方伺)

    As to the jurisdiction of Takeshima, as Shimane prefecture reported in the separate paper, the matter of the island is judged as follows:

    In 1692 (the 5th year of Genroku) Koreans came to the island as you can read in
    the separate report.

    “In January 1696 (the 9th year of Genroku), as the document number 1 indicated, the former government had a conference and the decision was transmitted to the Korean official as the document number 2 shows. As the document number 3, which was sent from the country (Chosun), and number 4, the reply from Japan, and the verbal note show, in 1699 (the 12th year of Genroku) after the communications with each other, it was said as "this country has nothing to do(with the island)".

    To take or give a territory is an important issue, so I would like to inquire about this matter, as I attach the separate papers by way of precaution."



    It’s written that after the communications with each other, it was said as "This country has nothing to do (with the island)". In other words, the Ministry of Interior reported that after the communications between Korea and Japan, it was concluded Japan had nothing to do with this island. Does this island indicate only Takeshima(Ulleongdo)? The answer is absolutely "No". This island includes another island, too as the title of this document "Inquiry about the land registration of Takeshima and another island in the Sea of Japan" shows. Then, what is "another island"? It’s Matsushima(Dokdo then). If you don’t know why "another island" is Dokdo, go here.

    The claim by pro-Takeshima people that Dokdo was not included in the Edo government’s ordinance prohibiting voyages to Ulleongdo because there was no mention of Dokdo in that ordinance doesn’t work. Don’t mislead the ignorant Japanese.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The link on "another island" above doesn’t work. Please go to the post "Japan has nothing to do with Takeshima and another island." at http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/#!/2013/01/japan-has-nothing-to-do-with-ulleongdo.html.

    ReplyDelete