竹島問題の歴史

5.9.08

The 13th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

Below is a translation of The 13th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

"Sins of Asahi Shimbun and Mr. Wakamiya Yoshibumi(若宮啓文)”

Asahi Shimbun (evening newspaper) had serialized articles titled "Newspaper and war" until recently,
and reported their own responsibility for the war on reflection, which back them they swallowed the announcement of the government on trust during the war without criticism and did the war cooperation on their own. However, even today, Asahi Shimbun is repeating the same error again. In the column dated July 20, Mr. Wakamiya, a former Managing Editor (who once wrote that he dreamed to transfer Takeshima to South Korea on 27th March, 2005) blindly followed the Korea's historical claim that the Japan's incorporation of Takeshima has something to do with Japanese Invasion. Moreover, he is making the point of the issue obscure based on the claim by Professor emeritus Naito Seichu of Shimane University, which had been already refuted as false. In the end, Asahi Shimbun is repeating the same error, which they made more than 60 years ago, by infringing the public right of access to true information again. When it comes to Takeshima Issue, which is a territorial issue, historical facts are very important naturally, and the media report should also tell the truth.

Japan officially incorporated Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture
in 1905, since "there were no traces of occupation by any other countries ("他国ニ於イテ之ヲ占領シタリト認ムベキ形跡" 無し)". If Korean wants to claim it as an "Invasion", like they are doing now, they owe the responsibility to prove the fact Takeshima had been South Korean territory before 1905, naturally. Because of this, Korean side have been claiming that Takeshima/Dokdo is a neighbouring island of Ulleungdo and have been the Korean territory since 512 based on the notation(分註) of "Dongguk Munheon Bigo Yojigo(東国文献備考・與地考)"(1770). However, this notation was altered after ages as I pointed out repeatedly, and there were no historical grounds of Korean claim that Usando in the 15th century, such as "Sejong's 1454 geography text (「世宗実録地理志」)" nor "東国輿地勝覧" (reference : 1530 Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungram(「新增東國輿地勝覽」) is today's Takeshima, as well.

Then, what about the "Imperial Ordinance no.41" in 1900, which Korean side use as a base for the theory of "Invasion" by Japan? Koean side claims that the Seokdo(石島) of the two islands (竹島 and 石島) in the ordinance must be Dokdo(独島) because the pronounciation of "Seokdo" has something in common with "Dokdo". However, the name of "Dokdo" started to be used around 1903 and it was called as "Yanko" island before. In other words, their theory "Sokdo(石島) = Dokdo(独島)" cannot be true in consequence. Moreover, the promotion of Ulleungdo to Uldo County in October 1900 was proceeded based on the report of Ulleungdo by
the inspector 禹用鼎 in June 1900. According to his report, 禹用鼎 recognized Ulleungdo as the circumference of 140-150 ris(56-60 km) and he didn't even go to Takeshima/Dokdo since his sphere of inspecion was limited to Ulleungdo. Uh's recognition of Ulleungdo followed the footstep of the inspecion by Lee Gyu-won(李奎遠) in 1882. In his map "an outside map (view) of Ulleungdo(鬱陵島外圖)" , Jukdo(竹嶼, Korean name 竹島) and Dohan(島項) are depicted as two neighbouring islands of Ulleungdo. The image of "Ulleungdo with two neighbouring islands" had been already formed by "欝陵島図形"(1699 c.a.).

Furthermore, "Choson Seaway(朝鮮水路誌)" by Japanese Navy in 1894, which was written based on British seaway journal, defines the Eastern limit of Choson as 130º 35' E.longitude and it clearly exclude Takeshima/Dokdo, which locates at 131º 52'E longitude, from the territory of Choson. This historical and documented facts prove that Takeshima was owner less island and Japanese naming the island as Takeshima and incorporation it into Japanese territory in 1900 was not "Invasion" at all. Hence, Mr. Wakamiya's interpretation that it was "Invasion" has no basis to support. This illogical and baseless interpretation is the results that Mr. Wakamiya blindlessly believed the misinterpretation of Dajoukan Order(太政官指令) in 1877, "Takeshima and another island has nothing to do with Japan.(「竹島外一島之儀、本邦関係之なし」)". Mr. Naito distorted "another island" as today's Takeshima and falsely reported that it is not the inherent part of the territory of Japan.

In fact, "the another island" in this order was confirmed not to be today's Takeshima/Dokdo by the survey of Warship Amagi in 1880. In this survey, Matsushima was found to be Ulleungdo and Takeshima to be Jukdo, which is also written clearly as Jukdo = 竹島 in
the map "an outside map (view) of Ulleungdo(鬱陵島外圖)" by Lee Gyu-won(李奎遠) in 1882.

As we have seen above, there is no historical title for Korea to claim the sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo at all. Let alone there is no right for Korean to criticize Japanese incorporation of Takeshima, which had nothing to do with Korean territory, as "Invasion". Therefore, Mr. Wakamiya's strange logic which dare to tie the Invasion or Colonization by Japan with lawful incorporation of Takeshima without any concrete evidence is nothing but the same attitude of Asahi Shimbun who never stopped biased media reports
in prewar.

Reference ;

Mr. Wakamiya's column : Takeshima/Tokto, Nationalism and Reconciliation : Who is smiling at the latest row? (cache)

1656 - "Yojiji (輿地志)" by Ryu Hyung-won (柳馨遠) didn't say "Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima."

Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior

1880 - Japanese Warship "Amagi" (軍艦天城) Surveys Ulleungdo and finds "Takeshima" is Jukdo.

1881 - Kitazawa Masanari(北澤正誠), a official of MOFA concluded that "Takeshima" is Jukdo in "A Study of Takeshima (Takeshima Kosho 竹島考証) "

Q 4: Did King Sejong's geography text mention Dokdo? Q 5: Did Korea's 1530 "Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungram" mention Dokdo?

“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第13回 朝日新聞、若宮啓文氏の罪 下條正男”


Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.


Other Column of the Series:


The 24th column “South Korean Government dug their own grave by publishing the English version of "The Dokdo/Takeshima Controversy" by Prof. Emeritus Naito Seichu and Mr. Park Byeong-seop.”


The 23rd column " Refutation against the report of South Korean Yonhap News Agency which misread the Mori Kohan(森幸安)'s "The Map of Tsushima(對馬輿地図)"


The 22th column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, 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 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”

The 19th column “"Korea Maritime Institute(KMI : 韓国海洋水産開発院), who lacks ability to read their own historical documents, criticized on Shimane Prefecture. "”

The 18th columnAbsurd and Peculiar Theory of Prof. Hosaka, plus the "Children and textbook nationwide net 21" and others' Getting "Out of Control.”

The 17th column “The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年).

The 16th column ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."

The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"

The 14th column “A reckless Courage of the Professor Kimishima Kazuhiko(君島和彦) of Tokyo Gakugei University(東京学芸大学).

The 13th column “Sins of Asahi Shimbun and Mr. Wakamiya Yoshibumi(若宮啓文).

The 12th column “Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding”

The 11th column “South Korea's Misunderstanding of 'A Map of Three Adjoining Countries (Sangoku Setsujozu 三国接壌図)' by Hayashi Shihei(林子平)”

The 10th column " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory

The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”

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)."

46 comments:

  1. Kaneganese,

    Thanks a lot, GJ again!

    BTW, minor misprinting - 第4節7行目のWakamiy's → Wakamiya's.

    And please add the following to the references:
    (Concerning 太政官指令 in 1877)

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/argument-about-another-island-details.html

    Thank you very much.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If Japan could describe Liancourt Rocks as 石島嶼 in their 1905 annexation of the islands.

    I don't see any reason why Dokdo couldn't have been 石島 in 1900 in Korea's Ordinance 41. It's basically the same thing only singular.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks, pacifist

    I'll add the post to the reference.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 石島嶼???

    To follow is the decision by Cabinet Meeting:

    明治38年1月28日

    別紙、内務大臣請議無人島所属に関する件を審査するに、右は北緯三十七度九分三十秒、東経百三十一度五十五分、隠岐島を距る西北八十五浬に在る無人島は、
    他国に於て之を占領したりと認むべき形跡無く、一昨三十六年、本邦人中井養三郎なる者に於て漁舎を構え人夫を移し、漁具を備えて海驢猟に着手し、今回領土編入並に貸下を出願せし所、此際所属及び島名を確定するの必要あるを以て該島を竹島と名け、自今、島根県所属隠岐司の所管と為さんとすと謂ふに在り。依て審査するに、明治三十六年以来、中井養三郎なる者該島に移住し漁業に従事せることは、関係書類に依り明なる所なれば国際法上占領の事実あるものと認め、之を本邦所属とし、島根県所属隠岐島司の所管と為し差支無之儀と思考す。依て請議の通り、閣議決定相成可然と認む

    There is no 石島嶼 in the text. More importantly, the decision clearly mentioned the location of the island - "As to the uninhabited island, at 37 degree 9' 30" N. latitude, 131 degree 55' E. longitude and 85 sea miles northwest of Oki island", which lacked in Korean Edict in 1900.


    And to follow is the Instructions by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs:

    内務大臣訓令

    訓第八七号
    北緯三十七度九分三十秒東経百三十一度五十五分隠岐島を距る西北八十五浬に在る島嶼を竹島と称し自今其所属隠岐島司の所管とす
    此旨管内に告示せらるへし

    右訓令す
    明治三十八年二月十五日
                                    内務大臣 芳川顕正
    島根県知事 松永武吉殿

    Again, there is no 石島嶼 in the text, although there is a word 島嶼 (island/islands). And again the text clearly mentioned the location of the island.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In additon, there are no 于山島 or 石島嶼 word, on Korean's Ulleungdo governor to Samchok office and from Samchok office to Seoul on 1906.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Everyone, the newspaper article that conveyed Shimane's announcement of the incorporation referred to Liancourt Rocks as "石島嶼" The only difference is that Japan used the plural form.

    Newspaper-石島

    In fact, Japan's so-called public announcement describes Liancourt Rocks in the same manner as Ordinance 41 that being rock islands. Japan didn't even use the name Liancourt Rocks.

    Also did you notice Nakai Yozaburo also says Yankodo is made two rock islets (岩島) in his application to lease Liancourt Rocks.

    Nakai's-Seokdo

    The Niitaka's logbook also describes Liancourt Rocks as "岩島“ or rock islets in the September report on Yankodo.

    Niitaka

    There is only one island near Ulleungdo that was consistently referred to as "Rock Island" and that was Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Toadface,(Dokdo or takeshima, steve barber)
    I am not sure you intentionally cheating people or not, but Im very very disappointed that you cheat there are ”石島”or ”石島嶼”on Newspaper-石島 you posted?

    I recommended you to check one more time about those articles you show now.

    ReplyDelete
  8. dear handsome frog with a beard,

    You should learn Chinese characters before you argue about the issue. I know you can't read them at all.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gerry,

    Thanks for the exhibition of the maps of Ulleungdo. This is impressive - it clearly shows that Usan/Usando was Jukdo in the 18th and 19th centuries.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear dokdo-takeshima.com,

    Where in the text you showed can we find "石島嶼"?

    What I can confirm is "右島嶼".

    右 is not 石.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cloud,

    You are right. The Japanese article said "右島嶼," not "石島嶼." Steve Barber, or maybe his Korean wife, misread it.

    右島嶼 means "the aforementioned islets," not "rock islets."

    When Steve mentioned this the other day, I glanced at it without paying close attention to the first character and also mistook the 右(우) for 石(석).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank you, Pacifist.

    I thought putting the maps on the right side of the blog would give people easier access. When I have the time, I will be adding more.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, you are right on the newspaper article. My bad.

    However, check Nakai's submission to lease and the Niitaka's report.

    Dokdo was a "rock island" (岩島)

    Documents that describe Dokdo consistently desscribe Dokdo as an island made of rocks.

    No other island near Ulleungdo is described in such a manner.

    Now, Gerry how are you going to explain you've been misinterpreting Chosun maps for the last year and a half?

    ReplyDelete
  14. 岩島 is a rock island, as you say. Western people called it as Liancourt Rocks or Hornet Rocks, because they are rocky islets naturally. It is natural that Nakai wrote it as a rock island.

    Logically, the description of Liancourt Rocks by Nakai - rock island has nothing to do with the 石島 (stone island/stone islands) in the 1900 Korean Edict.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Paicifist, Nakai Yozaburo was an (illegal) resident of Korea's Ulleungdo for years before the Japanese annexed Liancourt Rocks.

    He refered to Dokdo as a “岩島” (石島) I think twice in his application to lease Liancourt Rocks. Thus it's clear the residents of Ulleungdo considered Liancourt Rock as a "stone island" to which we know Ulleungdo residents has at least two other different names.

    In the logbooks of the Niitaka the Japanese crew interviewed another resident of Ulleungdo. He too referred to Liancourt Rocks as a “岩島” (石島) or stone island. Here we have two separate historical records both from Ulleungdo residents who referred to Dokdo as rock island or Seok-do.

    This is the best evidence so far as to the identity of Seok-do.

    BTW, my wife questioned about the "石“ character too. Lesson, listen to your wife.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Nakai's company was erected in Ulleungdo, but he was not always a resident of Ulleungdo. The reason why he placed his company in Ulleungdo was only convenience.

    His application only depicted Liancourt Rocks (Ryanko-to) as 岩島 (rocky island) and it is not related with 石島 in the Korean Edict.

    To follow is the original application:

    リャンコ島領土編入並二貸下願

    隠岐列島ノ西八十五浬、朝鮮鬱陵島ノ東南五十五浬ノ絶海二俗二リャンコ島ト称スル無人島有之候. 周囲各約十五町ヲ有スル甲乙二ヶノ岩島中央二対立シテ一ノ海峡ヲナシ, 大小数十ノ岩礁点々散布シテ之ヲ囲繞セリ. 中央ノ二島ハ四面断岩絶壁ニシテ高く屹立セリ. 其頂上ニハ僅二土壌ヲ冠リ雑草之二生ズルノミ.

    全島一ノ樹木ナシ. 海辺彎曲ノ処ハ砂礫ヲ以テ往々浜ヲナセドモ, 屋舎ヲ構エ得ベキ場所ハ甲嶼ノ海峡二面セル局部僅二一ヶ所アルノミ. 甲嶼半腹凹所二潴水アリ, 茶褐色ヲ帯ブ, 乙嶼ニハ微々タル塩分ヲ含ミタル清冽ノ水, 断岸渭滴仕候. 船舶ハ海峡ヲ中心トシテ, 風位ニヨリ左右二避ケテ碇泊セバ安全ヲ保タレ候.

    本島ハ本邦ヨリ隠岐列島及ビ鬱陵島ヲ経テ朝鮮江原, 咸鏡地方二往復スル船舶ノ航路二当タレリ. 若シ本島ヲ経営スルモノアリテ人之二常住スルニ至ラバ, 夫等船舶ガ寄泊シテ薪水食糧等万一ノ欠乏ヲ補ヒ得ル等, 種々ノ便宜ヲ生ズヘケレバ今日暇駸々乎トシテ盛運二向ヒツ々アル処ノ本邦ノ江原, 咸鏡地方二対スル漁業貿易ヲ補益スル所少ナカラズシテ本島経営ノ前途最モ必要二被存候.

    本島ハ如斯絶海二屹立スル最爾タル岩島二過ギザレバ, 従来人ノ顧ルモナク全ク放委シ有之候. 然ル処私儀鬱陵島往復ノ途次会本島二寄泊シ, 海驢ノ生息スルコト夥シキヲ見テ空シク放委シ置ノ如何ニモ遺憾二堪ヘザルヨリ爾来種々苦慮計画シ, 兪明治三十六年二至リ断然意ヲ決シテ資本ヲ投ジ漁舎ヲ構へ人夫ヲ移シ漁具ヲ備ヘテ先ヅ海驢猟二着手致候.

    当時世人ハ無謀ナリトシテ大二嘲笑セシガ, 元ヨリ絶海不便ノ無人島二新規ノ事業ヲ企テ候事ナレバ計画齟齬シ設備当ヲ失スル所アルヲ免レズ. 剰へ猟法製法明カナラズ. 用途販路亦確ナラズ. 空シク許多ノ資本ヲ失ヒテ徒二種々ノ辛酸ヲ嘗メ候結果, 本年二猟法製法其二発明スル所アリ. 販路モ亦之ヲ開キ得タリ.

    而シテ皮ヲ塩漬ニセバ牛皮代用トシテ頗ル常用多ク, 新鮮ナル脂肪ヨリ採取セル油ハ品質価格共二鯨油二劣ラズ. 其粕ハ十分二搾レバ以テ膠ノ原料トナシ得ラルベク, 肉ハ粉製セバ骨ト共二貴重ノ肥料タルコト等ヲモ確メ得候. 即チ本島海驢猟ノ見込略相立チ候.

    而シテ海驢猟ノ外本島二於テ起スベキ事業陸産ハ到底望ナク, 海産二至リテハ未ダ調査ヲ経ザルヲ以テ今日確信シ難キモ, 日本海ノ要衝二当レバ本島附近二種々ノ水族来集棲息セザル筈ナケレバ本島ノ海驢漁業ニシテ永続スル事ヲ得バ, 因テ以テ試験探査ノ便宜ト機会トヲ得テ将来二有利有望ノ事業ヲ発見シ得ルナラント相期シ候. 要スルニ本島ノ経営ハ, 資本ヲ充実ニシ設備ヲ完全ニシテ海驢ヲ捕獲スル上二於テ, 前途頗ル有望二御座候.

    然レドモ, 本島ハ領土所属定マラズシテ他日外国ノ故障二遭遇スル等不測ノ事アルモ, 確乎タル保護ヲ受クルニ由ナキヲ以テ, 本島経営二資力ヲ傾注スルハ尤モ危険ノ事二御座候. 又本島ノ海驢ハ常二棲息スルニハアラズ. 毎年生殖ノ為其季節即チ四五月(年ニヨリ遅速アリ)来襲シ生殖ヲ終リテ七八月頃離散スルモノニ候. 随テ其漁業ハ其季間二於テノミ行ヒ得ラレ候. 故二特二猟獲ヲ適度二制限シ繁殖ハ適当二保護スルニ非ンバ, 忽チ駆逐殄滅シ去ルヲ免レズ. 而シテ制限保護等ノ事ハ競争ノ間ニハ到底実行シ得ラレザルモノニシテ, 人ノ利二趨クハ蟻ノ甘キニ附クガ如ク世人苟クモ本島海驢猟ノ有利ナルヲ窺イ知セバ, 当初私儀ヲ嘲笑シタルモノモ並ビ起ツテ大二競争シテ濫獲ヲ逞ウシ, 直チニ利源ヲ絶滅シ尽シテ結局共二倒ル々二至ルハ必然二御座候.

    私儀ハ前陳ノ如ク, 従来種々苦心ノ結果本島ノ海驢猟業略々見込相立チタレバ, 今ヤ進ンデ更二資本ヲ増シテ一面ニハ捕獲スベキ大サ数等ヲ制限スルコト, 雌及ビ乳児ヲバ特二保護ヲ厚クスルコト, 島内適当ノ箇処二禁猟場ヲ設クルコト, 害敵タル鯱, 鱶ノ類ヲ捕獲駆逐スルコト等種々適切ノ保護ヲ加へ, 一面ニハ猟獲製造二備フル種々精巧ノ器械ヲ備へ装置ヲ設クル等設備ヲ完全ニシ, 傍ニハ漁具ヲ備へヘテ他ノ水族漁労ヲモ試ム等大二経営スル所アラント欲スルモ, 前陳ノ如キ危険アルガ為頓挫罷在候. 如斯ハ啻二私儀一己ノ災厄ノミナラズ, 又国家ノ不利益とトモ被存候 .

    就キテハ, 事業ノ安全利源ノ永久ヲ確保シ以テ本島ノ経営ヲシテ終ヲ完ウセシメラレンガ為二, 何卒速二本島ヲバ本邦ノ領土二編入相成之ト同時二, 向フ十ヶ年私儀へ御貸下相成度, 別紙図面相添此段奉願候也.

    明治三十七年九月二十九日

    島根県周吉郡西郷町大字西町字指向
    中井養三郎

    内務大臣   子爵 芳川 顕正 殿
    外務大臣 男爵 小村寿太郎 殿
    農商務大臣 男爵 清浦  圭吾 殿

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/05/petition-asking-incorporation-of-ryanko.html

    ReplyDelete
  17. That's B.S. Pacifist.

    Nakai needed to conduct his business from Ulleungndo not out of convenience but rather necessity. The trip to Dokdo from Oki Island is about 320 kms return in very heavy seas.

    Have you ever been to Dokdo or Ulleungdo? I have. Twice. Even to this day this trip is not fun people on the boat were throwing up everywhere and this was on a modern boat in average seas.

    In 1903~1904 Nakai was a grubby squatter who probably didn't have pot to piss in. If he did he wouldn't have had the need to illegally squat on Korea's Ulleungdo to begin with. However, Nakai Yozaburo was a grubby squatter with a vision. After the Japanese Navy decided to annex the island they put their ducks in a row and used his "legal" application as a basis for incorporation.

    When Nakai received sole permission to lease the island he could pool resources from former competitors and probably was able to acquire capital to invest in better equipment thus making the trip to Dokdo from Oki Islands feasible.

    Nakai did not occupy Liancourt Rocks prior to 1905. He voyaged there, wacked some seals came back to Korea's Ulleungdo during June and July. The "fishery" he built was a pile of rubbish long since destroyed by storms when the island was surveyed in November of 1904.

    From the text of Nakai's application you can see where he refers to Dokdo as a "rock island" or 석도 (石島)

    隠岐列島ノ西八十五浬、朝鮮鬱陵島ノ東南五十五浬ノ絶海二俗二リャンコ島ト称スル無人島有之候. 周囲各約十五町ヲ有スル甲乙二ヶノ岩島中央二対立シテ一ノ海峡ヲナシ, 大小数十ノ岩礁点々散布シテ之ヲ囲繞セリ. 中央ノ二島ハ四面断岩絶壁ニシテ高く屹立セリ. 其頂上ニハ僅二土壌ヲ冠リ雑草之二生ズルノミ.

    本島ハ如斯絶海二屹立スル最爾タル岩島二過ギザレバ, 従来人ノ顧ルモナク全ク放委シ有之候. 然ル処私儀鬱陵島往復ノ途次会本島二寄泊シ, 海驢ノ生息スルコト夥シキヲ見テ空シク放委シ置ノ如何ニモ遺憾二堪ヘザルヨリ爾来種々苦慮計画シ, 兪明治三十六年二至リ断然意ヲ決シテ資本ヲ投ジ漁舎ヲ構へ人夫ヲ移シ漁具ヲ備ヘテ先ヅ海驢猟二着手致候.

    From the text of the Niitaka's logbooks can also be found the testimony of another Ulleungdo resident that referred to Dokdo as a "rock island" or 석도 (石島)

    リアンクルド岩は韓人は独島と書き、我が国の漁夫はリャンコ島と呼んでいる。添付した略図で分かるように、ふたつの岩島で西島の高さは約400尺で傾斜がきつく登るのに難しそうだが、東島は比較的に低く雑草が生え、頂上には平坦な所があり、二、三つの小屋を建てられそうだ。

    Nakai's application and the Niitaka's logbook show the residents of Ulleungdo referred to Dokdo as a "rock island" (석도 石島)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dokdo-Takeshima (Steve Barber),

    Liancourt Rocks are rock islets, so it would be natural that they would be described as "rock islets" (岩島 or 石島), but that was not the name of the islets. If that is the best evidence that Korean has to claim that the Seokdo (石島 - 석도) in the 1900 edict was Dokdo, then Korea's evidence is pretty crappy.

    Actually, since 岩島 and 石島 were used as descriptive terms, that would support my claim that the "Seokdo" (石島) in the 1900 Korean edict was used as a catch-all word to include all the "rock islets" (石島) around Ulleungdo. The name never appeared on any map of Ulleungdo and the area given for Uldo County excluded Liancourt Rocks.

    As for your silly rant about Liancourt Rocks being too far away from Oki Island to make it nearly impossible to conduct business from there, you should read the June 1905 log entry of the Japanese Warship Hashidate, where it said that Nakai Yozaburo and his men would travel from Liancourt Rocks to Oki Island once or twice a month for "food, wood, and other things." Here is the relevant passage:

    To the northwest of the East Islet, however, lies reef line, which is estimated to be two ryeon (1,200 feet) long. Now is the hunting season for sea lions on this island, and about 35~36 fishermen from Oki Island are here catching a large number of sea lions with rifles and nets. What has been learnt through a talk with these fishermen during the survey was thought to be useful and, therefore, recorded below.The island has an abundance of sea lions, and from mid-April until mid-July, by lunar calendar, fishermen stay here to engage in seal hunting. What can be obtained from those sea lions is their skin and oil, which are sent to Osaka and produce 4,000~5,000 yen of income yearly. Currently a man named Nakai Yozaburo, who is from Okino, is in charge of these fishermen. He says that if there are applicants for this winter,...

    Page 483

    ...he is willing to spend his winter on the island. Other than sea lions, a small amount of abalone is also caught. In terms of weather, in the summer gets very hot during the midday and quite cool in the morning and the evening. The worst hot spell comes in June, by the lunar calendar. The island gets thick fog and a very small amount of rainfall compared to Japan. The nearby currents, like the ones in the northeast, are not slow, and the difference between high and low tides is about four feet. According to this report, it is believed to far exceed four feet, but this figure is considered doubtful according to local fishermen. Because there are no trees and water on the island, they go to Okino once or twice a month and bring back food, wood, and other things. This report is recorded as above.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Gerry thanks for proving my point. It is natural the residents of Ulleungdo thought Dokdo as a stone island.

    Knowing that, it's not at all unreasonable that Ordinance 41 referred to Dokdo as Seokdo (석도 as 岩島) as they are virtually the same characters. It's the most plausible explanation we have knowing there are at least 2 historical records from Ulleungdo that state it as such.

    Gerry, you didn't read my post well at all. Read first and then beat your gums after. The logbooks of the Niitaka recorded the activities of Nakai Yozaburo pre-annexation. He did not voyage from Oki in the fall of 1904. Nakai's business was undertaken from Ulleungdo read here.

    Yozaburo-on-Ulleungdo

    "It is said that they made a voyage from Matsushima (Ulleungdo Island), climb up the island and built a hut with sea lion hunters by using a Japanese boat with a capacity of 60~70 stones. They stay there ten days on each trip..."

    That hut was Nakai's temporary shack that was destroyed. In his application he wrongfully stated he had been living on Liancourt Rocks which we know was a lie.

    As I said, Nakai Yozaburo most likely pooled his and others' resources or was funded to increase his enterprise after he was granted exclusive lease rights to the islet. The logbooks you quote are from the warship Hashidate months after Japan annexed Liancourt Rocks.

    Nakai Yozaburo wasn't a sealer by trade, he was one of many Japanese poachers and squatters on Korea's Ulleungdo Island.

    Dirty-Squatters

    ReplyDelete
  20. BTW Gerry your "catchall phrase" is not feasible on a few counts.

    First, the term "석도“ Seokdo would never be used to describe islands that are scattered around all sides of a central point. Only in a group or cluster

    Second it's far too ambiguous to have been part of an official ordinance that was used to clearly define the territorial limits of a county.

    Third, Jukdo Islet is Ulleungdo's furthest islet at 2.2kms the inclusion of Jukdo makes the mention of other rocks as redundant and not necessary at all.

    Fourth the term is singular and doesn't clarify that these islands surround Ulleungdo or are scattered about. Koreans have ways of specifying plurals and surrounding objects and it makes zero sense they would have left such ambiguities in a government announcement.

    It only makes sense that 石島 refers to the name of an island.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dokdo-Takeshima (Steve Barber),

    I read your silly comment. You said the following:

    Nakai needed to conduct his business from Ulleungndo not out of convenience but rather necessity. The trip to Dokdo from Oki Island is about 320 kms return in very heavy seas.

    You said that it was a "necessity" for Nakai to conduct business from Ulleungdo, which is not true, as the June 1905 entry in the Japanese Warship Hashidate logbook proved. The log entry said that Nakai Yozaburo and his men would travel from Liancourt Rocks to Oki Island once or twice a month for "food, wood, and other things."

    Steve, as your for claim about seokdo (石島 - 석도), you have already admitted to Yonhap News or whatever media you talked to that you do not really understand Korean that well, so what gives you the authority to make such silly claims about the word seokdo (石島- 석도)?

    1) You claimed that seokdo cannot be used to talk about scattered rocks, but only a group of rocks, but there is no such restriction to the word. You are just talking out your ass.

    2) You claimed that using seokdo (rocky islets) as a general term would be to ambiguious to be used in an official ordinance defining the territorial limits of a country, but such catch-all words are used all the time in legal documents to make sure nothing is left out. Otherwise, Gwaneumdo (觀音島) would not have been included as part of Uldo county.

    3) Yes, Jukdo was included because it was the island fartest offshore of Ulleungdo's, at 2.2 kilometers, and seokdo was included after Jukdo to include all the other rocky islets (石島 - 석도) within that boundary. Using your silly logic, they could have just named Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) without even mentioning Jukdo since Jukdo would have already been included within the boundary.

    4. You said that seokdo (石島 - 석도) was singular, but such descriptive words are regularly used as plural in Korean. Besides, you already stated above that seokdo could be used to describe rock islets in a group or cluster, which even though is incorrect, would have to mean that seokdo is used in the plural.

    Seokdo (石島) can be used as either singular or plural, as this old KOREAN MAP clearly shows. Notice that the seokdo on the map was used to describe six, different rock islets.

    Old maps of Korea regularly showed Ulleungdo with six neighboring islands, including Jukdo. See this 1884 - 1894 Korean Map of Ulleungdo and this 1898 Map. Also, documents described Ulleungdo as having six small neighboring islands, including this 1899 Korean Newspaper article.

    The seokdo (石島 - 석도) in the 1900 Korean edict was used to include those other five neighboring islands of Ulleungdo.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Gerry, use you head.

    The Koreans declared Ordinance 41 in 1900 to clearly define the territorial limits of Uldo County because the Japanese has swarmed the island en masse and the Koreans felt the need to clarify their territorial limits.

    Here is your interpretation. "We hearby declare Ulleungdo Island, Jukdo Islet and Stone Islands as part of Uldo County.." What exactly does stone islands mean and how does your interpretation accomplish the whole reason why Oridinance 41 was declared to begin with? Your definition makes no sense grammatically, politically or logically. It's just an excuse, and a bad one.

    The historical records I've posted show Ulleungdo residents considered Dokdo as a 石島. It's perfectly plausible the stone island of Ordinance 41 was Dokdo that the residents of Ulleungdo referred to as a "岩島"

    Why would Koreans need to formally incorporate tiny rocks surrounding Ulleungdo after Jukdo Islet was announced as such Gerry? Where the Koreans afraid the Japanese would declare Elephant Rock or Gwaneumdo as part of Shimane Prefecture? Were the Koreans afraid Japanese would settle on top of Cheotdae Bawi?

    Here is the water between Ulleungdo and Gwaneumdo. Do you think it was worthwhile to declare this island as part of Uldo?

    Gwaneum-Island

    What other islands were worthy of announcing as part of Uldo Gerry. Cheotdae Bawi? Bukjeo Bawi? Three Angels Rocks? Ddan Rock? None of these rocks (not islands) are more than a stones throw away.

    The ancient Chosun maps you posted have nothing to do with Ordinance 41. Where is Jukdo Islet on them? And as I've said there are ways in the Korean language to say "surrounding islands" or "adjacent islands" or to pluralize things. The Koreans map you posted shows “石島” in a singular form because it is a map, being visual there is no need to indicate plural. Text and formal declarations are different.

    Nakai Yozauburo voyaged from Ulleungdo to Dokdo before the island was incorporated we know this as fact. He did not "occupy or live" on Dokdo as his application stated. He was a poacher and a trespasser.

    As I've stated twice, Nakai's business changed post incorporation to me this means his exclusive rights to the island gave him the resources to upgrade his equipment, thus making longer voyges feasible. Perhaps a larger boat as a result of teaming up with others who wanted a piece of the action or from securing capital from a bank. But before 1905 he illegally squatted on Ulleungdo and sailed from there.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dokdo-Takeshima (Steve Barber),

    The fact that Gwaneumdo and the other rock islets around Ulleungdo were insignificant was probably the very reason they were all lumped together with the catch-all phrase "rock islets" (石島).

    The only names Koreans ever used to refer to Liancourt Rocks was the Japanese name of "Yangko" and "Dokdo," and those names did not start appearing until after the Japanese started carrying Koreans there on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s.

    Seokdo was never used to refer to Liancourt Rocks nor ever appeared on any Korean maps of Ulleungdo. It was only used as a general description of the rock islets around Ulleungdo.

    The Korean Interior Ministry defined the boundaries of Uldo County in 1906, and Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) was outside those boundaries. See "July 1906, Korea Omits Dokdo from Uldo County."

    ReplyDelete
  24. Gerry, you are chasing your tail.

    The article you refer to clearly states "石島“ was part of Uldo County. Nobody is denying that.

    The issue here is the idenity of Seokdo. There is not one shred of evidence that Seokdo refers to "Ulleungdo's surrounding islands" as you imply. Yet there are historical records that show Ulleungdo residents referred to Dokdo as a "岩島“ or as a Seokdo (Rock Island)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dokdo-Takeshima (Steve Barber),

    Why are you being such as ass? Are you really so desperate?

    "Amdo" (岩島 - 암도) is not "Seokdo" (石島 - 석도), and it was used as a descriptive term, not as the name of the island.

    If you want to play that silly game, then look at the rock islets on this 1711 MAP of Ulleungdo. They were labeled as "Seokbong" (石夆 - 석봉), which means "rock peaks." These rock islets are what "Seokdo" (石島 - 석도) was referring to the the 1900 Korean edict.

    If "Seokdo" had been Liancourt Rocks, then the Korean edict would have mentioned its location since Liancourt Rocks is not in the vicinity of Ulleungdo, but ninety-two kilometers away.

    Didn't you read the July 15, 1906 Korean newspaper article where Korea's Interior Ministry defined the boundries of Uldo County as stretching 24 kilometers (60 ri) from east-to-west and 16 kilometers (40 ri) from north-to-south? That very clearly eliminated the possibility that Seokdo was Liancourt Rocks.

    Korea's Interior Ministry had asked Sim Heung-taek to confirm the borders of Uldo County, and the above was Korea's Interior Ministry told Japan's Resident-General in Korea when he asked Korea to confirm Ulleungdo's neighboring islands.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Gerry, Gerry Gerry. What am I gonna do with you?

    I've told you a thousand times. The article regarding Uldo County gave the dimensions of Ullengdo Island NOT the dimensions of Uldo County. It was quoting the dimensions of Ulleungdo island from old Chosun maps.


    You can see the identical dimensions on this old map of Ulleungdo.
    Ulleungdo-Dimension-Map

    The 1711 map refers to the rocks around Ulleungdo as 석봉 (石峯) These are not islands Gerry just high rocks. I've been to Three Angels Rocks twice Gerry they are so close to Ulleungdo you can almost touch them from the shore. To think they issued a special edict to declare rocks less than 100 meters from shore is ridiculous.

    BTW you should start explaining these Chosun maps in more detail to your devoted followers.

    For example you should tell them 著田洞 is todays Jeodong Harbour. You should tell them that 刻石立票 markes Dodong Harbour when Bak Seok Chang left his marker. In other words every map showing the phantom islands shows "所謂于山島“ South of Dodong and thus this Usando Island is not Jukdo island Gerry, but rather a secondary island from the Ulleung Shillok recorded earlier. Bak assumed the island to the East was Usando but just years earlier it was unnamed just the same as Dokdo.

    Check all of the maps you've posted on the right side Gerry. Then find 著田洞 and 刻石立漂.

    You can see all of these verified locations moved counterclockwise (Northwest) and so did Bak Seok Chang's So-Called-Usando. Also Bak Seok Chang's "Waiting Winds Place" moved to the South as well. On top of that check was happened to Elephant Rock (孔岩) from its original offshore location into on the mainland of Ulleungdo.

    You've picked one attribute of these maps that supports your agenda and you've forcibly mislead readers to the wrong conclusion. What's it gonna look like when the truth about these maps comes out ???

    You'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 1711 map have very accurate discription.
    Yes, This map shows ,incruding Most prominent adjunctive island of UsandoJukdo,is 200里
    Considering the discription of four direction, see
    on north point(北/子) they assin 孔岩
    on Easat point(東/卯)they assign 于山島竹嶼
    on South point(南/午) it is difficult to confirm where it is,but there are landing point.
    on west point (西)they assign big river considered 台霞川 and 朱土窟.

    So, turn Sattelite map by Google Earth, 7-8 degree clockwise to east side.
    It is amazing match the each place on Google earth and map of 1711.

    Considering the three prominent rivers, we can understand this map.
    one prominent river is on northwest(戌)of Ulleungdo
    seems to be 台霞川. In addition, there are small rock nearby 香木亭 on northeast of Ulluengdo

    then,the other prominent river is southeast(巽) of Ulleugndo.
    There are some strange shape of cape on southeast also(巽), it seems to be today's 芋洞 and 道洞

    ReplyDelete
  28. Wow, the map is similar to the google earth photo!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Interesting comparison, GTOMR.

    ReplyDelete
  30. GMTOR. The characters found on Ulleungdo's northeast are 佇佃洞.

    You can see this on Bak Seok Chang's map here.
    佇佃洞=Today's-Jeodong

    Today this area is called Jeojeong Dong. It was also called Jeojeon Po. Please see this link.

    Little-Jeodong

    This area was also called Naesujeon. There were actually 2 Jeojeon Po's, The So Jeon Po 小苧浦 was todays Naesujeon and Dae Jeon Po 大苧浦 was todays Jeodong. To the South of Jeodong was Do Bang Cheong 都房聽 which is today's Dodong. You can see the same characters on this Japanese map of Ulleungdo.

    Ulleungdo's-East
    Ulleungdo's-East

    This is Jukdo Islet due North of Jeodong take just a few meters South of Cheotdae Bawi.
    Jukdo-Far-North-Of-Jeodong

    Remember, Dodong is even further South which would give the perception of Jukdo being even more northerly. It's not possible Bak Seok Chang perceived Jukdo Islet due East of Dodong Harbour because he drew other locations quite well not only by the compass but also relative (sequentially) to each other.

    On Bak's 1711 Map to the South of Jeodong can be seen “刻石立標”. This marks the spot where Bak Seok Chang erected his stone marker in 1711.

    In 1937 when the Koreans were improving Dodong harbour they found Bak Seok Chang's stone marker at the bottom of Dodong. In other words the “刻石立標” on Bak Seok Chang's 1711 map marks Dodong Harbour. This co-relates exactly with Jeondong to the north. It also leads us to believe the other 2 nearby rocks could be Bukjeo Bawi and Cheotdae Bawi near Jeodong Harbour


    刻石立標=Today's-Dodong

    GTMOR, Jukdo Islet is about 4 kilometers almost directly North of Dodong Harbour not East. In fact Jukdo Islet is not visible from Dodong because Dodong is a very narrow harbour with high cliffs on either side. In addition, to the North of Dodong is a long point which restricts visibility unless you are quite far from Ulleungdo. At this point of visiblity Jukdo Islet is directly North.

    Bak drew his survey map of Ulleungdo on site. The map was then amended with data from Jang Han Sang's 1693 Ulleungdo survey. Bak blindly copied the data from Jang Han Sang's entry into the Ulleungdo Shillok. This is why "所謂于山島“ So-called Usando is drawn due East of Ulleungdo. This is also why it has the identical phrase 海長竹田 written on it.

    About 16 years before Bak drew his map the island to the East with haejang bamboo had no name. Later in the same century this island was called Jukdo Islet. Thus, when you see a map of Ulleungdo with Usando on it and five ghost islands to the South and you are not seeing Korea's Usando. You are seeing the assumptions of one inspector who made the supposition an island due East of Ulleungdo was Usando.

    On another point. Knowing that Bak's map was influenced by the Ulleungdo Shillok there remains the possibility that the island form drawn to the South east was Jang Han Sang's Liancourt Rocks.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Correction above.

    It should say 佇田洞 not 佇佃洞

    ReplyDelete
  32. Steve Barbar(Dokdo or takeshima)
    I know the news about the 刻石立標 at Dodong harbour.

    Considering the prominent rivers , some adjunctive rocks like 孔岩,錘山,竹岩 and 三仙岩 on Ulluengdo, it is appeart that 刻石立標 seems to be today's wadari(臥達里),opposite side of Jukdo with bamboo field.

    刻石立標 shows there establised on the east point at 倭船倉, it seems today's 臥達里 east of 天府洞(see:Iga-shima and 大阪浦 on Japanese map of Ullengdo)
    I dont know the reason but someone would move it, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  33. GMTOR, please take the time to read what I've posted again.

    Look on the map once more.

    You can see the characters 所謂佇田洞. As I'm sure you know this means So-called Jeojeon Dong.

    This is today's Jeodong Harbour. You can see it on the Bak's map I posted before.

    It is to the left of the 2 石峯 on the map below.

    So-Called-Jeodong=所謂佇田洞

    Thus it makes sense Bak Seok Chang's marker was located and found at Dodong.

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

    ReplyDelete
  35. GTOMR,

    The stone marker was not found at the bottom of the harbour, but in the warehouse at the construction site in Dodong in 20th November, 1937. No one knew where it came from.

    1962 考古美術 7月 第3巻第7号 通巻24号 鬱陵島掃討官関係碑二

    1962 考古美術 7月 第3巻第7号 通巻24号 鬱陵島掃討官関係碑二_2

    1962 考古美術 7月 第3巻第7号 通巻24号 鬱陵島掃討官関係碑二_3

    matsuさんが冒頭部分を訳してくださったので、紹介します。(そのうちきちんと投稿しようと思っていたのですが、なかなか時間が取れないので、取り急ぎこちらで失礼。)

    ”1937年(日帝昭和12年)11月20日、鬱陵島道洞築港工事場で、碑石2個が発見されたが、

    2個が、ともに掃討官の踏験記であり、

    筆者には解放後入手した拓本があって、ここにその全文を紹介しようと思う。

    この拓本は、日帝時代初期の慶州博物館長をしていた諸鹿央雄が藤田亮策教授に送ったものであるが、

    その拓本中、1枚には、次のような同人の自筆と推測される手記があり、その発見場所が明示されている。

    昭和12、11、20 鬱陵島道洞築港工事場、旧漁業組合倉庫跡発見、二個内、其二

    昭和13、7、12  手拓

    ところで、もうひとつの拓本は、「手拓於島庁」としてあり、

    発見されてから島庁に移されて保管されたようである。

    鬱陵島を調査したことがある金元龍氏に問い合わせたところ、島庁で見た記憶があるとのことで、

    いまもそこに健在であると信じている。


    余談であるが、諸鹿央雄は、当時、事故により博物館を離れ、浦項の漁業組合理事長をしていたので、

    鬱陵島と連絡が便利であったと見ることができる。”

    ReplyDelete
  36. Thank u Kaneganese

    I read the news 刻石立標 has discovered , in the Hwasong newspaper or other newspaper throught Kyuujanggak site or Korea nistory online site. but after that I canno find it again.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Kaneganese, it's obvious the stone marker was placed at Dodong and found at the same location. The stone marker was discovered during improvements to the harbor in 1937 that is what the museum curator told me.

    It says on the picture that the stone marker was pulled up from Dodong Harbour during construction in 1937 on the display in the picture from Mr Cho's blog.

    Scroll down.
    Bak's-Marker-Dodong

    As you can see, Bak Seok Chang placed his marker in a bay South of Jeodong (佇田洞) This would be none other than Dodong Harbor.

    Kaneganese as we look at subsequent editions of Bak Seok Chang's map showing the phantom five islands to the South, please pay attention to how these prominent landmarks locations also shift in a counterclockwise location.

    For example look at the location of 佇田洞 moves to the North of Ulleungdo on this map. Also note how Bak's 刻石立標 also shifts the same way. The So-Called Usando also moves as well. This means Usando on these maps is not Jukdo from Bak's survey.

    Location-Shift

    Later Jeojeon Dong was spelled 著田洞 and you can see the location was also on the North side of Ulleungdo accordingly Bak Seok Chang's 刻石立標. Usando was drawn south of Jeodong and Dodong in this map as well and this is almost always the case.

    Bak Seok Chang's Usando was not Jukdo Islet from his on site survey of Ulleungdo and neither were the phantom islands to the South. Bak Seok Chang's Usando was the un-named bamboo island from Jang Han Sang's Ulleung Shillok made earlier. It was wrongfully placed due East of Dodong and had the same 海長竹田 from the Ulleungdo Shillok.

    ReplyDelete
  38. 石碑についてですが、海から拾い上げたというネタ元がどこからのソースだったのか、ヒントすらありませんでしたが、どうやら以下のリンクです。此処から何かわかるかもしれません。

    朝鮮日報2008年6月18日の記事
    http://san.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2008/06/18/2008061800736_12.html

    個人ブルログ
    http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=jbgs34737&logNo=10076344902



    2007.02.23 Gerryが鬱陵島図形を発表の後ですね。

    それ以前についてはMatsu様が、道洞の漁業倉庫内で発見したとの話を1962年の本から翻訳されている通りです。

    ReplyDelete
  39. GTOMRさん

    KJの議論見ました。お疲れ様です。一次史料が読めない、他人の説をオウム返しに言うだけの人のようですね。朝鮮日報の記事は1937年当時の新聞記事ではないのですね。この内容は独島博物館の石碑に書かれた説明文にあるものと同じでしょうか。そのもととなる新聞記事がネット上から削除されている、というのが問題だったように記憶しています。

    李弘植(←禾へん)「鬱陵島掃討官関係碑二」『考古美術』(1962年7月 第3巻第7号 通巻24号 )にはこの海中から引き揚げられた、という記述はないのですが、以前東洋文庫で複写してきた国立博物館古跡調査報告第四刷「鬱陵島」(1963)では李朝末期に鬱陵島移住政策を積極的に行ったために日本人の密航者が石碑を海に投入した、と書かれているようです。(引用がないので、聞き取りか、推測か。引き揚げられたことについては記述がないようですが。)chaamieyさんに翻訳をお願いしてみます。

    とにかく築港工事の際に海中から岩を除去して、そのうちに石碑を発見したので倉庫に放置した、と言うのはとりあえずありそうな気がするのですが、実際はどのように発見されたのか、なぜその新聞記事が消えたのか、また、なぜ雍正13(1735)年の石碑が行方不明なのか、疑問は解決されません。また、4、50年海中にあったにしては細かい文字がよく拓本で取れたな、と言うのも何やらつじつまが合わないように思います。

    ReplyDelete
  40. chaamieyさんがさっそく翻訳して下さったので、下記に転載します。(ただし、書き起こしの漢文はありません。原文を確認されたい方はお送りしますのでお知らせください。)
    --------------------------------
    金元龍 国立博物館 古蹟調査報告 第四冊「鬱陵島」1963
    第二章 遺蹟
    第五節 石刻文

    本島の道洞と台霞洞にそれぞれ石刻文が残っている。

    1 道洞石刻
    道洞には3個の石刻があるが、2個は1937年11月20日、鬱陵島道洞の筑港工事現場で発見され、第一石(雍正13年)は、郡庁の前庭にあったと記憶するが今は行方不明であり、第二石は農協倉庫の前にある。その全文は次のとおりだ。

    第一石 高さ47cm 幅37cm(行方不明)
    雍正13年・・・・・・・

    第二石 高さ75cm 幅57cm (玄武岩)(図版50-2)
    辛卯・・・・・・・

    この2つの石刻は、李弘植教授によって紹介されたことがあり(注①)、それによれば、第一石は、英祖11年(西紀1735年)正月13日、江原監司趙最壽の上啓によって掃討派遣が允可されたもので、第二石の辛卯年を粛宗37年(西紀1711年)と見ている。
     この二つの碑石は、李朝後期に至って鬱陵島問題が日本との間で持ち上がるや李朝政府が取った積極政策の具体的な結果だと思われるが、密航してきた日本人たちによって谷間か海中に投げ入れられた模様だ。
    第三の石刻は、警察署の下の民家後ろの岩壁にあり、視察禹用鼎、郡守沈興澤の10字が凝灰岩の壁に刻まれている(図版51-1)。

    2 台霞洞石刻
    台霞洞の前の浜辺の大きな岩塊の表面に刻字されたものと、そこから東に約400mの田ウボム氏宅脇の岩石に刻まれたものの二つがある。

    第一石・・・・・・・
    第二石・・・・・・・

    道光辛卯は純祖31年(西紀1831年)で、この年は営将李慶鼎が来往し、先に出てきた鄭在天の一行はそれより前に来往した模様だが、年代がない。
    第二石の光緒16年は高宗27年(西紀1890年)であり、このときは、既に正式に鬱陵島への移民が開始されて島長が任命された後で、台霞洞が島の行政の中心地であった時だ。したがって、ここにも永世不忘碑が出現している。ただ、波濤のためか字面の一部が浸蝕されて解読不能の部分がある。
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    「道洞には3個の石刻があるが、2個は1937年11月20日、鬱陵島道洞の筑港工事現場で発見され、第一石(雍正13年)は、郡庁の前庭にあったと記憶するが今は行方不明であり、第二石は農協倉庫の前にある。」
    「この二つの碑石は、李朝後期に至って鬱陵島問題が日本との間で持ち上がるや李朝政府が取った積極政策の具体的な結果だと思われるが、密航してきた日本人たちによって谷間か海中に投げ入れられた模様だ。」
    結局はっきりと海中から引き揚げられたとは書いてありませんね。前年の李論文の旧漁協組合倉庫にある、と言うのと微妙にずれているのが気になります。ちなみに、道洞の第2石が朴昌錫のもの(文化財資料第413号)です。

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/ulleungdo-inspector-bak-chang-seoks.html

    ReplyDelete
  41. 今北産業。

     翻訳はしたものの、議論の流れがさっぱり分かりません。何が問題になっているのですか?

    ReplyDelete
  42. chaamieyさん

    ありがとうございました。

    話は長くなってしまいますが、まず、朴昌錫のこの石碑が1937年11月20日に発見されたのですが、当時の新聞記事が以前はネット上で見られたのですが、いつの間にか削除されたようなのです。韓国側はこの記事を元に道洞の海中から引き揚げられた、としていたのですが、ケロロ軍曹にいくら言ってもその元ソースを出してこないで、独島博物館の説明文を出してきたので、何か韓国側に不利な内容なのではないか、と勘繰っているわけです。

    と言うのは、鬱陵島図形(1711)の「刻石立標」が上記の石碑である可能性があり、これが道洞の海中から見つかったとすると、地図上の于山島の対岸にある海岸が現在の道洞である可能性があり、道洞から見えないはずの竹嶼が于山島ではない、という彼らなりのロジックがある意味成立するわけです。(この辺の地図情報の件はGTOMRさんの解説が必要です。)

    今のところ最古の記録は1962年の李弘植(←禾へん)論文で、「鬱陵島道洞築港工事場、旧漁業組合倉庫跡発見」、と拓本を取った諸鹿央雄のメモがあったことが記されているので、海中から引き揚げられたとの情報がどこから来たのかわかりません。が、実際に鬱陵島で調査した金元龍氏が翌年「密航してきた日本人たちによって谷間か海中に投げ入れられた模様だ。」と書いているところを見ると、やはりそうした新聞記事か、現地の人たちの言い伝えがあったのかもしれませんね。

    ReplyDelete
  43. 要約ありがとうございました。でも、まだ分かりませんが、とりあえず分からないことには深入りしないことにします。

    ReplyDelete
  44. 碑文。

    辛卯五月初九日到泊于
    倭舡倉以爲日後憑考次
    萬里凔溟外將軍駕彩舟
    平生仗忠信履險自無憂
    搜討官折衡將軍三陟營將
    兼僉節制使朴錫昌拙句刻
    石于卯方

    辛卯五月初九日,倭舡倉に到りて泊し、以って日後の考次に憑かしめんと為す。萬里凔溟の外に將軍は彩舟に駕りて、平生忠信に仗り險を履くに自ずから憂うこと無し。
    搜討官折衡將軍三陟營將兼僉節制使朴錫昌、拙句を卯方に刻石す。

    「以爲日後憑考次」は将来の参考にするために何かをしたという意味と思われ、「刻石于卯方」(東の方角に刻石)したことを指していると考えられます。
    「鬱陵島圖形」の「于山島」と「東という文字」との間に「卯という文字」が書かれているのが分かります。これは朴錫昌一行がここを「卯方」と認識していたからにほかならず、石碑に書かれている「卯方」とはこの地図の「卯という文字」が書かれている倭舡倉以外にありえません。

    韓国のねちずんのサイトでは、朴錫昌が倭舡倉に刻石したと書き記した石碑が道洞の海中から見つかったことを根拠にして、朴錫昌は道洞を倭舡倉と勘違いしていた、したがって「鬱陵島圖形」の「于山島」は倭舡倉の対岸の竹嶼ではなく道洞の対岸にある竹島/独島である、という意見があります。
    しかしながら「李朝末期に鬱陵島移住政策を積極的に行ったために日本人の密航者が石碑を海に投入した」のであれば、日本人の密航者が倭舡倉にあった朴錫昌の石碑を道洞の海中に投入したと考えれば全く矛盾がありません。

    ReplyDelete
  45. 領土紛争は国際法の問題です。歴史も考慮されるとしても、基本的には継続的かつ平穏な国家権能の表現を伴った占有、すなわち実効支配が行われたか否かが判断基準となるものです。歴史を持ち出してくるのは国際法による根拠が示せないからではないでしょうか。歴史なら解釈の問題ですので、まだ我が田に水を引く余地もあるということなのでしょう。

    しかしそれにしても今度は石碑ですか。難儀やなぁ。


    1937年の新聞記事とは何新聞に掲載されていたのでしょうか。(ここに書くのが適当でないのなら伝書鳩を飛ばしてください。)

    2011.4.21

    ReplyDelete
  46. chaamieyさん

    2年半前の話題ですので、実は私もあまりよくは覚えていません。今、ホットな話題、という訳ではないのですが、GTOMRさんには、思いついたことなどメモ代わりにでもコメント欄に残してもらうようにお願いしてあるのです。後々検索に引っかかって役に立つことが多々ありますので。

    Makotoさん

    韓国側が歴史を持ち出してくる理由はそれしか勝ち目がないことと、歴史を持ち出すことで日本側を黙らせ手譲歩を引き出すことを狙っているのだと思います。

    ただこのブログは、主に歴史、特に古地図を中心に検討して大きな成果を挙げてきた経緯がありますので、まどろっこしいかもしれませんが、ご容赦ください。(特に、この1711年の「鬱陵島図形」は、原点のようなものなのです。)地図の得意な方、語学の得意な方、歴史、漢文の得意な方、国際法に通じている方、ネット検索が得意な方、など偉才の持ち主が寄り集まって謎解きをしている、といった感じでしょうか。「職分」の集まりのようで、私は実に日本人らしいと誇らしく思っています。

    新聞記事については、上にGTOMRさんが“I read the news 刻石立標 has discovered , in the Hwasong newspaper or other newspaper throught Kyuujanggak site or Korea nistory online site. but after that I canno find it again.
    9/9/08 02:55 ”と書かれているので、皇城新聞の可能性がありますが、皇城新聞は1910年廃刊なので違うかもしれません。東亜新聞はウェブ上で確認しましたが、ありませんでした。今すぐ必要なものではありませんので、頭の片隅にでも置いて頂ければ、何かの時に見つかるか閃くかすると思います。国会図書館の関西館に行ったときにでも他の新聞を確認してみましょう。

    ReplyDelete