Below is a translation of The 11th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao
" South Korea's Misunderstanding of 'A Map of Three Adjoining Countries (Sangoku Setsujozu 三国接壌図)' by Hayashi Shihei(林子平)”
"Chosun Ilbo" dated May 2 introduced the thesis by Hosaka Yuji of the Yonsei University, and reported "Edo Shogunate of Japan used the map which "depicted Dokdo as Korean territory" during the territorial dispute between America." According to the report, Mr. Hosaka claimed that when Edo Shogunate disputed over the sovereignty of Ogasawara Islands(小笠原諸島), which include Bonin Islands(無人島 : 小笠原群島), Shogunate used French version of “Sangoku Setsujozu” as a basis for its' sovereignty. And he continued that this makes Hayashi's map, which "depicted Takeshima as Choson's territory" an official map, thus it is considered that Bakuhu then already recognized Takeshima as Choson's territory in 19C.
However, there is no historical grounds in Mr. Hosaka's claim. In November 1861, Edo Shogunate notified to each minister of both U.S. and Britain in Japan that that foreign magistrate (外国奉行) Mizuno Chikugonokami Tadanori (水野筑後守忠徳) and superintendent (目付) Hattori Munekazu ( 服部帰一) would head to investigate Ogasawara island. But in his reply letter, Harris, a U.S. minister to Japan, stated Ogasawara island as Japanese territory and only requested Shogunate of the rights of the American who reside on the island. Apparently, there were no such things as "territorial dispute between America". Because Ogasawara island(小笠原島) was widely recognized as Japanese territory among foreign countries, as is seen in the Mizuno's letter "The letter of the planned expedition to the islands of Izu Country on behalf of Shogunate"（"伊豆国附島々其外へ御用のため差遣され候につき見込の趣申上候書付"）" in October, which was submitted to Bakuhu. It said that "As for Ogasawara island(s), Dutch and other countries' books state that it is Japanese island. Foreigners certainly recognize this. (小笠原島の儀、御国属島の儀と蘭書等にも相見へ、外国人ども弁知罷り在り候)"
It is also confirmed by Commodore Perry's "The Japan Expedition, 1852-1854 The Personal Journal of Commodore Matthew C. Perry." or "Narrative of the Expendition of an Squadron to the China Seas and Japan (1856)". In the book, Commodore Perry quoted translated version of Hayashi's “Sangoku Tsuran Zusetsu (三国通覧図説) ” and clearly stated that "It is quite clear that the Japanese were the first discoverers of these islands." Hosaka's claim that "Edo Bakuhu(Shogunate) used French version of “Sangoku Setsujozu” as a basis for sovereignty over Ogasawara Islands" is apparently nothing but just a fictitious story, or fantasy.
Likewise, his claim “ 'Sangoku Setsujozu' depicted Takeshima as Choson's territory" is groundless from the view of historical facts, since there is no Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks depicted on the map. Hosaka interpreted Ulleundo and Takeshima were recognized as Choson territory, since there is a notation "Choson's land (朝鮮ノ持也)" near "Takeshima(today's Ulleungdo)" depicted in Hayashi's map. However, "Takeshima(Ulleungdo)" on the map has another notation, in fact. "From this island Onshu(Oki) can be viewed/Choson can be viewed too. (此嶋ヨリ隠州ヲ望／朝鮮ヲモ見ル)." This sentence was derived from "Whole Map of Japan (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水), which Hayashi mainly used when he made the map.
Moreover, the sentence itself is actually the quotation from Saito Hosen's "Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)". The reason Hayashi annotated "Choson's land" afresh is because "Whole Map of Japan (日本輿地路程全図)" described Ulleungdo as Japanese territory and the a subject of the context of annotation was Ulleungdo alone. Moreover, if you compare “Sangoku Setsujozu” with "Whole Map of Japan (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水), Hayashi's map actually lacks today's Takeshima. That is because not all of islands and places in "Whole Map of Japan (日本輿地路程全図)" were copied into “Sangoku Setsujozu” as Hayashi clearly stated as follows. " I didn't enumerate all shapes of subjects(全形を挙げず)". Despite those facts, Hosaka still intentionally misreads a tiny island upper right of Ulleundo as today's Takeshima at his own discretion without criticizing documents logically, nor on the basis of historical documented facts.
Actually, Ulleungdo in Hayashi's map has its roots in 朴錫昌's 「欝陵島図形」(1711) and it is appropriate to consider it as Jukdo, not today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo. Despite those facts, Hosaka claims that Hayashi's map depicted "Takeshima" as Choson's territory and criticises the final report by Shimane's Takeshima Research Group, but those Hosaka's claim are apparently misdirected.
Mr. 金和経, a director of Dokdo Institute of 領南 University, commented, on this Hosaka's thesis, that "“Sangoku Setsujozu” was used as a official document in the bilateral territorial dispute" and it "has important meaning as a historical document." However, this comment is a reckless remark(妄言) which follows blindly claims by Hosaka who neglected criticizing historical documents properly.
p 198 "Extract from Klaproth's translation of San Kokp Tsoir Ran To Sits(三国通覧図説)."
“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第11回 「林子平の「三国接壌図」に対する韓国側の誤解」 下條正男”
Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.
Other Column of the Series:
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
The 21st column " Refutation against "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”
The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"
The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"
The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."