Ulleungdo is first mentioned in historical documents in 1145 A.D., when it is mentioned by Kim Bu-sik (김부식) in Samguksagi (삼국사기), a Goryeo text describing the histories of the countries of Silla (신라), Goguryeo (고구려), and Baekjae (백제). Here is the relevant passage from the text:
十三年 夏六月 于山國歸服 歲以土宜爲貢 于山國在溟州正東海島 或名鬱陵島 地方一百里Ulleungdo is also mentioned in the Samgukyusa (삼국유사), another Goryeo text written around 1277 A.D. Here is the relevant passage:
13년(512) 여름 6월에 우산국(于山國)이 항복하여 해마다 토산물을 바쳤다. 우산국은 명주(溟州)의 정동쪽 바다에 있는 섬으로 혹은 울릉도(鬱陵島)라고도 한다. 땅은 사방 100리인데....
In the summer month of June in the 13th year (512 A.D.), Usan-guk surrendered and began paying tributes in local products. Usan-guk is a island in the sea due east of Myeongju, and is also called Ulleungdo. It had an area of 100 "ri."
又阿瑟羅州(今溟州) 東海中便風二日程 有于陵島(今作羽陵) 周廻二萬六千七百三十步
하슬라주(지금의 명주)는 동쪽 바다 가운데 바람이좋으면 2일 거리에 우릉도(지금의 우릉)이 있다. 주위는 2만6천7백3십보이다.
Ulleungdo (now U-leung) is in the middle of the sea, two days due east of Haseullaju (now Myeongju) if the wind is favorable. It has a circumference of 26,730 "보."
Notice that the passage says that Ulleungdo is two days sailing from Myeongju (now Kangneung) and that it has a circumference of 26,730 bo, which is only about 32 kilometers.
Koreans usually say that the Usan-guk mentioned in the Samguksagi was the first referrence to Dokdo/Takeshima, but as the text clearly says, Usan-guk was just another name for Ulleungdo. In fact, the Chinese characters used for the names "Usan" and "Ulleung" seem to have essentially the same meaning.The Chinese characters used for Usan-guk (于山國) literally mean "Big Mountain Country." 于 (우) means "big," 山 (산) means "mountain," and 國 (국) means "country." The Chinese characters used for Ulleungdo (鬱陵島) literally mean "Luxuriant, Big-hill Island." 鬱 (울) means "luxuriant," 陵 (릉) means "big hill," and 島 (도) means island. Notice that Usan refers to a "mountain" and Ulleung refers to a "big hill." Moreover, notice that in the Samgukyusa, the 鬱 (울) in Ulleungdo was replaced with 于 (우), the same character used in Usan-guk. Therefore, not only does the Samguksagi specifically say that Usan-guk and Ulleungdo are the same island, the name "Ulleung" seems to be just a linguistic variant of "Usan."
So why do Koreans say that Usan-guk is a reference to Dokdo/Takeshima? Well, they say that since the "guk" in Usan-guk means "country," then that means it would have included neighboring islands, including a small group of rocky islets ninety-two kilometers away, but there is no evidence in either of the documents mentioned above that would support that claim. In fact, Ulleungdo was the only island mentioned. Moreover, the 100-"ri" measurement of the land mentioned in the Samguksagi and the circumference given in the Samgukyusa are further evidence that the documents were referring to only Ulleungdo. Besides, why would a people name their country after a small group of barren rocks 92 kilometers away instead of after the island they actually live on?
To look at only the documents above and say that Usan-guk is referring to Dokdo requires a leap with a triple back flip and a double twist in logic.
Well, I don't know about the isle set as a whole, but regarding Dokdo/Takeshima in particular I've been told by my Korean history teacher that there are documents dated just prior to the Japanese occupation of Korea signing over the island to the Japanese. This implies that it was originally considered property of Korea, or Chosun at the time. The teacher further went on to explain that even though Japanese rule hadn't officially started yet they were in a position much like the Native Americans where they had to sign over the land under duress, so it couldn't possibly be viewed as an agreement that should be honored post colonial rule. Hence Dokdo rightfully belongs to Korea. I haven't taken a look into these details myself, but this is the gist of the story as I've been told.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand the term sabang 100 ri means 100 ri in four directions Gerry.
ReplyDeleteThat gives an area of 200 by 200 ri. What do you know?
That's about the distance from Ulleungdo to Dokdo. No coincidence I'd say......
On a related note.
ReplyDeleteI was on a website and upon close magnification I noticed the same characters place in the center between Ulluengdo and Usando.
When I asked my Korean friends what the Hell "sabang Baek ri" means they all said in means going one hudred ri from a given point in any direction.
To me this made real sense. It seemed to mark Usando and Ulleungdo as opposing borders of an area about 200 ri from one end to another.
The two days travel time to the Korean mainland was also cited.
Sub8hr,
ReplyDeleteI am not exactly sure what your Korean history professor is referring to, but if he is referring to a 1870 report sent to the Japanese Foreign Ministry from Japanese inspectors sent to survey Ulleungdo, then his conclusions are completely wrong.
First of all the document is not referring to Dokdo/Takeshima. And second, the document is an internal report and does not "sign over" anything. If you can confirm that your history professor is referring to the 1870 report, then I will be glad to explain in more detail. Or if you want to wait, I will deal with that report in a future post.
Annonymous,
Sabang (사방) refers to the four compass directions, and is one way to give the area of an island. It is the sum of the distances from north to south and east to west. So if the distance from the north side of an island to the south side is 50 "ri," and the distance from the east side to the west side is also 50 "ri," then that would add up to 100 "ri.".
In the case of Ulleungdo, the north-to-south distance is about 40 "ri," and the east-to-west distance is 60 to 70 "ri," depending on where you measure from. That would add up to 100 or 110 "ri." You can confirm this by looking at old maps of Ulleungdo, which have the distances labeled on them. I will post a couple of these maps later on this blog.
Sabang is not used to measure the distance between islands.
That date doesn't sound quite right. Supposedly it was dated circa 1900-ish, but I don't remember exactly. I'll have to ask my teacher exactly what the document was.
ReplyDeleteGerry says "The four quarters of the land measure 100 ri. "사방백리“
ReplyDeleteThe Chinese text says:
地方一百里
This means 지방백리 or the district, region or area is one hundred ri. It says nothing about land quarters. It doesn‘t say 100 ri from where to where across etc.,
Again the term 사방 is used as more than an area measure it can also mean to radiate in many directions from a given point. It is used for directional reference.
사방 2miles for example is defined as two miles around or radiating for two miles.
Maps of this era don't give land mass or area they show directions and distances. Furthermore the 사방백리 I saw was placed well away from any land mass but rather well between Ulleungdo and Usando. This would indication they were defining distance rather than giving land mass.
The other poster is right. The 1870 report shows that Japan considered Songdo part of Chosun terroritory. Although it says they have no prior mention of the island I read a translation that said the foreign department had no files on ownership of this island.
Annoynous,
ReplyDeleteYes, the Chinese text says, 地方一百里 (지방일백리), but 지방 and 사방 mean the same thing in the above context. I think the translator probably chose to use 사방 instead of 지방 to avoid any confusion with the other meanings of 지방.
Whatever the other uses of 사방 may be, it is used in the above text to define the area or dimensions of Ulleungdo. If you would like to check it, you can go to the following PDF file here and look at Picture 31 on page 55.
The picture is a 19th century map of Ulleungdo. Picture 33 on page 56 is also a map of Ulleungdo, but it is 18th century. It also has the distances listed on it. To read the text, you can use the controls on Acobat viewer to enlarge the picture. If you do, you will see the following Chinese characters written on the four sides of the island:
North: 自中峯二十里(자중봉이십리)
South: 自中峯二十里(자붕봉이십리)
East: 自中峯三十里(자붕봉삼십리)
West: 自中峯四十餘里(자붕봉삼십여리)
That writing is the distances from each side of the island to the central peak of the island. From the north side of the island to the central peak is 20 "ri," and from the south it is also 20 "ri." If you add them together, you get 40 "ri," which is the distance from the north side of the island to the south. The distance from the east side of the island to the central peak is 30 "ri," and from the west side it is 40-plus "ri," which add up to 70 "ri." Now, if you add the north-south distance and the east-west distance together, you get 110 "ri." That is the 지방 or 사방 for Ulleungdo on that map.
As I said, 지방 or 사방 refers to an area, not to a linear distance. Can you provide a link to the map you are referring to?
As for the 1870 Japanese report, it said that there was a small island next to Ulleungdo called "Songdo," which belonged to Korea. It also said that the island had not been previously mentioned in any documents.
At the time, the Japanese were also calling Dokdo/Takeshima "Songdo," but since the Dokdo/Takeshima "Songdo" had previously been mentioned in Japanese documents and on Japanese maps, we can surmise that the "Songdo" in the 1870 report was not referring to Dokdo/Takeshima. In other words, there were two islands with the name "Songdo." The Japanese were using "Songdo" to refer to Dokdo/Takeshima, and the Koreans were using it to refer to a small neighboring island of Ulleungdo.
Is there a Korean map that shows another Songdo Gerry??
ReplyDeleteAnyway the document is Japanese and what only matters is which island they refered to as Songdo.
Jibang and Sabang are not the same.
Jibang is used for districts and localities much more.
Sabang is used for linear measurements Gerry. If you have a problem with that contact Minjeongseorim dictionary company.
Here's a map with text below to show how the term 사방 is used. In this map Seoul is used as the point from which all other distances radiate to.
ReplyDeletehttp://user.chollian.net/~bong3%20/s-photo/1043199393.htm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHere is the evidence.
ReplyDelete于山、武陵二島在(蔚珍)縣正東海中。【二島相去不遠, 風日淸明, 則可望見。 新羅時, 稱于山國, 一云鬱陵島。 地方百里。】 - 世宗實錄地理志(1454)
우산(于山)과 무릉(武陵) 2섬이 울진현(蔚珍縣)의 정동(正東) 해중(海中)에 있다.【2섬이 서로 거리가 멀지 아니하여, 날씨가 맑으면 가히 바라볼 수 있다. 신라 때에 우산국(于山國), 또는 울릉도(鬱陵島)라 하였는데, 지방(地方)이 1백 리이다.】 - 세종실록지리지(1454)
Two Islands, Usan and Muleung, are in the sea due east of Uljin-hyun. 【Two Islands are not far away from each other, so if the weather is clear, it's possible to see (each other). in the reign of Silla, they were called 'Usan-guk' or 'Ulleung-do', and the district is 100 li(里) around.】 - Geological document of the king Sejong's authentic record.(1454)
As you read above, in the reign of Silla,
「Usan-guk」=「Ulleung-do」=「Usan-do + Muleung-do」.
Usan-do is present Dok-do, and Muleung-do is present Ulleung-do. the proof is below.
二島相去不遠, 風日淸明, 則可望見。
2섬이 서로 거리가 멀지 아니하여, 날씨가 맑으면 가히 바라볼 수 있다.
Two Islands are not far away from each other, so if the weather is clear, it's possible to see (each other).
In Ulleung-do, Dok-do is the only island which is visible on a clean day, not on a cloudy day. (except Dok-do, all Ulleung-do's neighboring islands, such as Gwanum-do or Chuk-do, are visible on a cloudy day.)
Some Japanese insist that Dok-do is not visible in Ulleung-do. but it's not true.
click here
This picture was taken in Ulleung-do, and the island in a circle is Dok-do.
Then, the other Japanese(ex) Prof. Shimojo Masao) insists that 「相去不遠(not far away from each other)」and 「則可望見(it's possible to see (each other))」 means 「not far away from land」 and 「it's possible to see from land.」. but it's not true.
The first reason is that their chinese interpreting is eccentric. '相' exactly means 'each other'. the below is chinese-english dictionary's explain.
相[xiāng] - Ⅰ 副 ① (互相) each other; one another; mutually:
去[qù] - Ⅰ 动 ① (从所在地到别的地方) go; leave ② (除去; 除掉) remove; get rid of ③ (距离;差距) be apart from:兩地相 ～ 八十里。 The two places are 80 li apart.
As you see, there is an example sentence that has same structure as 「二島相去不遠」.
兩地相去八十里.
The two places are 80 li apart.
According to Japanese insistence, this sentence will be translated as 'the two places are 80 li apart from land'. but as you see, it is eccentric translation.
The second reason is that Dok-do is far away from land, so invisible from land.
Anyway, you can also think that applying the 15th century record to retroactive to 6th century has problem. but the first japanese record about dok-do was appered 200 years later than king Sejong's authentic record, so in all cases, there is no problem.
And 「the 1870 japanese report(竹島松島朝鮮附屬ニ相成候始末)」's song-do(松島) is correctly present Dok-do. the evidence is 1877 japanese report.
「The 1877 japanese report(日本海內竹島外一島地籍編纂方伺)」 has annexed paper which explains Song-do. according to this paper, the area of song-do is about 30 jongbo(정보(町步)). Among Ulleung-do's all neighboring islands, only dok-do fits well.
Tanaka Kunitaka has been introducing refuted contents. don't quote them.
I agree. Gerry has been posting this nonsense that Usando is the tiny island of Jukdo near Ulleungdo.
ReplyDeleteI ask you. Would you need a clear day to see this island?
http://www.myphototv.com/PhotoMagazine/PMImageView.aspx?fileID=317596
Chuk-do is visible on a cloudy day.
ReplyDeleteYou can check this out here
그런데 익명님은 누구세요? Blogger 블로그 쓰는 분이세요? 한국분인 것 같은데 만나뵙게 되어 반갑습니다..
Annonymous,
ReplyDeleteYes, there is an 1878 Japanese map with two Songdos on it. You can find it here.
What matters, Annonymous, is what the document actually said, and that was that there was a small island named "Songdo" next to Ulleungdo that the Japanese did not know about.
If 지방 and 사방 is not the same, why do Koreans translate 지방 as 사방? You can find the Korean translation here.
The "地方一百里"(지방 100리) in the document refers to the area of Ulleungdo, not a linear distance. I do not understand why you cannot accept that fact? What do you think it means? Do you really think it is referring to the distance to Dokdo?
랄라라,
The whole Korean claim on Dokdo/Takeshima seems to be essentially based on the passage you mentioned, which is from the records on King Sejong (1454). Here it is again with my translation:
-------------------
于山武陵二島 在縣正東海中 二島相去不遠 風日淸明 則可望見 新羅時 稱于山國 一云鬱陵島
于山武陵二島 (The two islands of Usan and Muleungdo) 在縣正東海中 (are in the middle of the sea due east of (Uljin). 二島相去不遠 (The distance between these two islands is not far), 風日淸明 則可望見 (so when the wind is blowing and the weather is clear, they are visible.) 新羅時 稱于山國 一云鬱陵島 (During the time of Silla, they were called Usan-guk or Ulleungdo.)
The two islands of Usan and Muleungdo are in the middle of the sea due east of Uljin. The distance between these two islands is not far, so when the wind is blowing and the weather is clear, they are visible. During the time of Silla, they were called Usan-guk or Ulleungdo.
---------------------
The disagreement between Korean and Japanese historians is how to translate the above passage. Koreans say that it is saying, “the distance between the two islands is not far,” but the Japanese say it is saying, “the distance between the two islands and Uljin is not far.” In other words, the Koreans see the two islands as separate while the Japanese see them as grouped together.
The Japanese say that Koreans referred to their islands by giving a bearing and a distance. They say the passage gives the bearing and the distance by saying the two islands are due east of Uljin and are close enough to be seen on a clear day when the wind is blowing.
The Korean interpretation, on the otherhand, would leave one wondering exactly where the two islands were since only a bearing is given, but no distance. For example, they could be right in front of Uljin or on the other side of the Sea of Japan.
I support the Japanese interpretation, not only because it makes more sense and says the two islands were once known as Ulleungdo, which implies they were right next to each other, but also because Chosun officials in the 17th century used a similar passage to argue that Ulleungdo was Chosun territory because it could be clearly seen from the Korean mainland.
And the final reason I do not think Usando is Dokdo/Takeshima is that Usando is drawn right next to Ulleungdo on Korean maps, right where the Korean island of Jukdo should be. To see that, just look at the two maps of Ulleungdo that I posted a link to above. Go here and look at pictures 31, 32, and 33. They are maps of Ulleungdo that show Usan (于山) right where the Korean island of Jukdo is today. Look, especially at picture 32, which is a closeup of Usan island. Here is the Chinese written on the island and my translation:
所謂于山島(소위우산도) "the so-called Usando"
As you can see, the map shows Usando right next to Ulleungdo, not 92 kilometers away. Also, the fact that the mapmaker used "so-called" implies, at least to me, that he had finally cleared up the mystery of Usando, which Korean maps sometimes showed west of Ulleungdo and sometimes east.
If you need further proof, look at the pictures of page 53 of the same link. Also, there is the 1899 Korean map with lines of longitude, which exclude the possibility that Usando could be Dokdo/Takeshima. Here is a link to the 1899 Korean map.
http://www.ullungdo.com/map/image/12.jpg
갈라라,
ReplyDeleteIt may be possible to see Dokdo/Takeshima from one of Ulleungdo's peaks on a clear day, but it is not easy.
First, you cannot see Dokdo/Takeshima from Ulleungdo at sea level. One would have to sail at least 34 kilometers closer to Dokdo/Takeshima before it could be visible at sea level. Second, there are only about 50 or so clear days a year in the area, and even on a clear day, one is not likely to see Dokdo/Takeshima. In spite of all the interest and all the tourists that regularly visit Ulleungdo, I only know of two pictures that have been taken of Dokdo/Takeshima from Ulleungdo. One of those pictures is the one you linked to, and the another is one that was obviously taken with a zoom lens.
The first time a picture had been taken of Dokdo/Takeshima from Ulleungdo was in 1999, and the first time a picture had been taken of Ulleungdo from Dokdo/Takeshima was in 2002. That picture made news because of its rarity. Here is a link to that news article:
If it were so easy to see Dokdo/Takeshima from Ulleungdo, there would be hundreds of pictures of the islets on the Internet, just to prove Korea's claim, but there is not. I have read that Koreans are disappointed when they go to Ulleungdo and cannot see Dokdo/Takeshima. Even Lee Gyu-won (이규원), the man King Kojong sent to inspect Ulleungdo in 1882, reported that he climbed to the tallest peak of Ulleungdo and surveyed the seas, but could see no other islands.
Korea's whole argument for claiming Dokdo/Takeshima is based on that one ambiguous sentence in the Records of King Sejong, which is why there is the debate on whether Dokdo/Takeshima can be seen from Ulleungdo. Koreans claim that the Usando mentioned in that document was Dokdo/Takeshima. However, the fact that 18th and 19th century maps of Ulleungdo show Usando as an island right next to Ulleungdo, not 92 kilometers away, makes moot any discussion of whether Dokdo/Takeshima can be seen from Ulleungdo.
The previous poster has a point Gerry. The document mentioned also has an annexed reference giving the location of the "neighbour island"
ReplyDeleteYou failed to address this.
The "so-called Usando" phrase could mean the cartographer was making assumptions and was not sure.
Usando also couldn't be Jukdo because I remember seeing map that showed a shipping route line extending from Usando. Jukdo has no wharfage. In fact Leekyuwon reported the waters around this island were very dangerous. This was in the mild weather of April.
Lee kyu won also said the island was like a wall and couldn't be climbed. In fact these walls are over 100 metere high. Secondly why would they need to go there at all when the protected bay of the other tiny island was a stones throw away?
Why would a map show a ship route extending from Jukdo Island? Gerry?
Mr. Gery, I cannot agree with your opinion.
ReplyDelete1.
Although present Ulleung-do is visible from mainland, the other islands are invisible. because the other islands are small and located in the east of Ulleung-do. hence the number of the islands which is seen from mainland is only ONE. not TWO.
Therefore, the Japanese interpretation conflicts with the truth.
2.
The Japanese interpretation is absurd. since I explained this in previous comment, I omit explanation.
In order to the Japanese interpretation to be reasonable, 二島皆以不遠 must be shown, instead of 二島相去不遠.
3.
In year 1903, the rightwing organization of Japan, Black Dragon(黑龍會), published the guide book 『fishery in korean sea(韓海通漁指針)』. This book has the same contents as 『the authentic record of king Sejong』.
click here
as you see, japanese rightists wrote that Dok-do(yanko; liancourt) is visible in the peak of Ulleung-do on a clear day. so this proves that what '二島相去不遠 風日淸明 則可望見' means and the correctness of 『the king Sejong's authentic record』 and eccentricity of japanese interpretation.
since it was special, 『fishery in korean sea(韓海通漁指針)』 and 『the king Sejong's authentic record』 contains the same contents.
4.
──────────────────
The Japanese say that Koreans referred to their islands by giving a bearing and a distance.
──────────────────
It cannot be applicable to this case. because '二島相去不遠 風日淸明 則可望見' appeared in annotation.
于山武陵二島, 在縣正東海中.
【二島相去不遠 風日淸明 則可望見 新羅時 稱于山國 一云鬱陵島】
Two Islands, Usan and Muleung, are in the sea due east of Uljin-hyun.
【Two Islands are not far away from each other, so if the weather is clear, it's possible to see (each other).】
'二島相去不遠(Two Islands are not far away from each other)' have separated from the body. hence this document referred to Ulleung-do by giving a bearing only.
5.
You said,
──────────────────
Chosun officials in the 17th century used a similar passage to argue that Ulleungdo was Chosun territory because it could be clearly seen from the Korean mainland.
──────────────────
this passage appeared in 『Dongguk yoji sunglam(東國輿地勝覽)』, not 『the king Sejong's authentic record』. below passage is it.
風日淸明, 則峰頭樹木及山恨沙渚 歷歷可見
바람이 불고 날씨가 맑으면, 산꼭대기의 수목 및 산 밑의 모래톱을 역력히 볼 수 있다
if the weather is clear, the mountaintop's trees and the mountain's sands are vividly visible.
As you read, this passage contains different subject and different object. don't distort text.
6.
You said,
──────────────────
And the final reason I do not think Usando is Dokdo/Takeshima is that Usando is drawn right next to Ulleungdo on Korean maps, right where the Korean island of Jukdo should be.
──────────────────
Then, how do you think about this map?
click here
This map is 『Honil kangli yokdae gukdo jido(混一疆理歷代國都之圖)(1402)』. Japan is located below Korea peninsula, and very small. Do you think that Koreans didn't know the existence of Japan?
And, how do you think about this picture? this is 「Korea peninsula flag(1991)」.
click here
Do you think that Koreans didn't know the existence of Dok-do?
And, how do you think about this picture? this is 「New Korea peninsula flag(2002)」
click here
two islands in east sea are close by each other. then, do you think that the right one is not dok-do?
Don't be silly.
『the king Taejong's authentic record』 has the following passage.
武陵島周回七息, 傍有小島 - 太宗十六年九月庚寅
무릉도의 둘레는 7식이고, 곁에 작은 섬을 가지고 있다. - 태종 16년 9월 2일
Muleung-do is 7 sik around, and it has small island by the side. - September 2nd, 1416
If Chuk-do was Usan-do, there is no reason to write "it has small island by the side" instead of "it has Usan-do by the side" or "it has small island by side, Usan-do".
7.
The 1899 Korean map(大韓全圖) is attached to 『Korea topography(大韓地誌)』. well, this topography's latitude and logitude info were entirely wrong. because these wrong info were quoted from Japanese document.
In 1826, Aosarin Sou(靑地林宗) measured latitude and longitude wrongly. and then many japanese maps indicated that wrong latitude and longitude info. for example,
① 松島誌(1878) - Watanabe Hiromoto(渡邊洪基)
② 朝鮮地理誌(1894) - Ota Hojiro(太田方次郞)
above documents indicate that the east longitude of Dok-do is 130˚ 50'.
8.
Let's read below.
輿地志云. "鬱陵于山皆于山國地, 于山則倭所謂松島也" - 東國文獻備考
여지지는 말했다. "울릉도와 우산도는 모두 우산국 땅인데, 우산도는 곧 왜인이 말하는 송도이다." - 동국문헌비고
『The record of ground(輿地志)』 said. "Ulleung-do and Usan-do are the territory of Usan-guk, and Usan-do is Song-do in japanese』- 『dongguk moonhon bigo(東國文獻備考)(1770)』
this is an evident proof that Usan-do is present Dok-do.
Annonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe 1877 document mentions Ulleungdo and "another island" (外一島: 외일도). The island was unnamed, and there is no evidence that the island was Dokdo/Takeshima. It is much more likely that the document was referring to Jukdo, which is four kilometers offshore of Ulleungdo.
As we know from the 1870 Japanese document, Japanese inspectors discovered an island next to Ulleungdo that Koreans called "Songdo," which was also the name the Japanese used for Dokdo/Takeshima. I think the Japanese were confused because there were two islands named "Songdo," which is probably one of the reasons they sent a ship to survey Ulleungdo in 1880.
By the way, before he left on his survey trip to Ulleungdo in 1882, Lee Gyu-won told King Kojong that there was only one island east of Ulleungdo, and he called it "Songjukdo," and said that it was 20 to 30 "ri" offshore of Ulleungdo. It is almost certain that Lee was referring to the Korean island of Jukdo. The names "Songdo" and "Songjukdo" are very similar, and I think Lee's reference to "Songjukdo" confirms what the Japanese inspectors reported in their 1870 report.
The two Ulleungdo maps, the 1899 Korean map, and almost all of Korea's other maps show that Usando was an island right next to Ulleungdo. The 1899 map even has coordinates that eliminate any possibility that Usando could be Dokdo/Takeshima. I do not understand how you and Koreans can look at those maps and still insist that Usando is Dokdo/Takeshima.
As for you "shipping-route" map, I do not know what you are talking about. Please post a link. Also, I do not understand your argument in regard to Lee Gyu-won.
Lee Gyu-won reported seeing two islands offshore of Ulleungdo. He called them "Jukdo" (죽도) and Dohang (도항). He even drew a map that puts their locations at about where Jukdo (죽도) and Kwaneumdo (관음도) are today. And as I posted above, he reported that he did not see any other islands. In other words, he did not report seeing Dokdo/Takeshima, nor did he report even hearing mention of if from the residents of Ulleungdo. Therefore, in 1882, Lee Gyu-won essentially confirmed that Dokdo/Takeshima was not a neighboring island of Ulleungdo.
랄라라,
ReplyDeleteI think the Sejong record considered the two islands as a 2-island group, so when it said they could be seen on a clear day, I think it meant that the island group could be seen, not that both islands could be seen.
The phrase in the Sejong documents is ambiguous and can be translated in both the Korean way and the Japanese way; however, what is not ambiguous is the Ulleungdo maps that show Usando right next to Ulleungdo. I think the reason you do not see the area maps of Ulleungdo on the "Dokdo is Korean Land" Web sites is that those maps destroy the Korean argument, which is that "Usando is Dokdo."
I do not read Japanese and, therefore, have to rely on Korean or English translations, and I do not have a translation of the "Black Dragon" reference. Nevertheless, as I said above, the Sejong record is ambiguous and could be translated in both the Japanese way and the Korean way. The Korea way, however, does not tell us where the two islands are.
I mentioned the 17th century document to show that Koreans claimed to be able to see Ulleungdo from the mainland, which is what the Japanese say the Sejong record was also saying. I did not mean to misquote anything. Besides, wouldn't I have to first quote text before I could distort it? I did not quote any text.
I am not sure I understand your argument in regard to Korea maps, but you seem to be saying that they are not trustworthy enough to use as evidence. If that is what you are saying, then I disagree.
I do not really see the significance of your quote of Taejong's records, but I will address it, anyway. In the 16th year of King Taejong, Ulleungdo was still being referred to as both Muleungdo and Usando, which means the small island next to Ulleungdo had not yet been given the name "Usando." To prove my point, here is a record from King Taejong's 17th year, one year after your record, that refers to Ulleungo as "Usando":
-----------------
○按撫使金麟雨還自于山島, 獻土産大竹、水牛皮、生苧、綿子、檢樸木等物, 且率居人三名以來。 其島戶凡十五口, 男女幷八十六。 麟雨之往還也, 再逢颶風, 僅得其生。
안무사(按撫使) 김인우(金麟雨)가 우산도(于山島)에서 돌아와 토산물(土産物)인 대죽(大竹)·수우피(水牛皮)·생저(生苧)·면자(綿子)·검박목(檢樸木) 등을 바쳤다. 또 그곳의 거주민 3명을 거느리고 왔는데, 그 섬의 호수[戶]는 15구(口)요, 남녀를 합치면 86명이었다. 김인우가 갔다가 돌아올 때에, 두 번이나 태풍(颱風)을 만나서 겨우 살아날 수 있었다고 했다.
Royal Inspector Kim In-u returned from Usando with local products as tribute, including large bamboo, sea lion skins, unbleached cambric, potatoes, and 검박목. He also brought three of the people who were living on the island. Fifthteen families live on the island for a total of 86 people, with men and women combined. Kim In-u said that he met two storms on his way back and barely survived.
태종 33권 17년 2월 5일 (임술) 003
---------------
As you can see from the above record, in the 17th year of King Taejong, Ulleungdo was still being called Usando, unless you want to claim that 86 people were living on Dokdo and growing bamboo and potatoes. Anyway, my point is that in the 16th year of King Taejong, Usando had not yet been disassociated from Ulleungdo, which means the small island would not have been named Usando, yet.
As for the 1899 map, I do not see any problem with it. Also, here is what Kim Hak-jun said about the 1899 map in his book, "독도는 우리땅."
------------------
1899s년에 제작된 “대한전도”
이 지도에는 지금과 같은 행정구역으로 구분되어 있고 위도와 경도가 표시되어 있으면서 실측지도로 근대적 의미의 지도로 평가 받고있다. 이 지도에도 우산도의 위치가 정확하게 표기되어 있다.
Translation:
“A Complete Map of the Korean Empire”
The administrative districts on this map were divided then as they are today. This map, with lines of latitude and longitude, is considered to be a modern-like survey map. This map also marks exactly the location of Usando.
----------------
Mr. Kim seemed to have liked the map, but from what a appears to be blind belief, he still claimed that the Usando on the map was Dokdo, in spite of the fact that the lines of longitude show that it is too far west.
The 130 degrees 50 minutes is the position of Ulleungdo, which is what the 1899 Korean document that accompanies the map says. Dokdo is at 131 degrees 55 minutes, a position that is too far east to even show up on the 1899 Korean map.
As for your 1770 quote, here is one possible explanation. The Japanese also referred to Ulleungdo as Songdo. In fact, in 1882, Lee Gyu-won found a marker on Ulleungdo dated 1869 that claimed Ulleungdo as Japanese territory and said it was named Songdo.
Personally, I think that all of the confusion stems from the Japanese government not knowing about Jukdo, the small island just off the coast of Ulleungdo. This would have caused a lot of confusion because when Japanese fishermen would return to Japan and talk about an island east of Ulleungdo, Japanese officials may have assumed that it was Dokdo/Takeshima, not knowing that there was also another little island between Ulleungdo and DokdoTakeshima.
Over the next few weeks, I will try to sort all of this out, but there will probably be some things that will never be sorted out.
Gerry stop lying. The 1870 Japanese document said an island was Songdo was Chosun territory. It did not say the Koreans called it Songdo. Only Japanese maps show Songdo. VERY accurately I might add.
ReplyDeleteJapanese called Dokdo-Songdo for over a hundred years before the document. And Japanese maps prove it.
Gerry writes
"I am on a search for the truth"
This forum is more like a shabby soapbox for you to stand on and crow your skewed opinion.
You never addressed the fact the 1877 document had attachments that gave the location of the island mentioned.
"The 1877 japanese report(日本海內竹島外一島地籍編纂方伺)」 has annexed paper which explains Song-do. according to this paper, the area of song-do is about 30 jongbo(정보(町步)). Among Ulleung-do's all neighboring islands, only dok-do fits well." I've heard this before many times.
Leekyuwon said that this island was 20~30 ri away from Ulluengdo's East coast, but Jukdo is not.
However, Dokdo is 20~30 ri away in Japanese ri which is where his secondhand information may have come from. Japanese ri are 4kms as you know.
Annonymous,
ReplyDeleteIn the 1870 report, the Japanese said that they found an island next to Ulleungdo that was not mentioned in any records. They also said that the island belonged to Korea and that its name was "Songdo."
Now, try using your head, Annonymous. If there was an island next to Ulleungdo that the Japanese had never heard of before and that island belonged to Korea, then it only makes sense that the Koreans told the Japanese the name of the island.
I did address the 1877 document, but I will say something else about it if you like.
First of all, Dokdo/Takeshima is not an neighboring island of Ulleungdo. Second, one "jeongbo" (정보) equals 3,000 "pyeong," so if the Japanese report said that Songdo was 30 "jeongbo," then that would mean that Songdo would be 90,000 "pyeong." Unfortunately, Dokdo/Takeshima is only 56,416 "pyeong." Jukdo, on the other hand, it 62,880 "pyeong." So, if we have to choose between Dokdo/Takeshima and Jukdo based on that document, then Jukdo wins because it is closer to 90,000 "pyeong" than Dokdo/Takeshima.
Now, is there something else in that supplemental document that 랄라라 forgot to mention?
In 1882, Lee Gyu-won said that Songjukdo was 20 to 30 "ri" from Ulleungdo. Since Lee Gyu-won was a Korean official, there is no reason why he would use Japanese "ri" to give the distance to Songjukdo. In my dictionary, a Korean "ri" is given as 0.4 kilometers. If we used that to calculate the 20 to 30 "ri" that Lee Gyu-won mentioned, then Songjukdo would be 8 to 12 kilometers from Ulleungdo. Since Dokdo/Takeshima is 92 kilometers away, we can safely assume that Lee Gyu-won was not referring to that group of rocks.
Now, Jukdo is 4 kilometers offshore of Ulleungdo, which makes Jukdo much closer to Lee Gyu-won's Songjukdo than Dokdo/Takeshima. However, if that is still not good enough for you, consider this.
I think there was another measure used for "ri" during Chosun Korea besides the 0.4 "ri." Here is the reason why.
Korean documents have said that the jibang (the sum of the north-south and east-west measures) of Ulleungdo was 100 "ri." Today, we know that from the north shore of Ulleungdo to the south is about 10 kilometers, and we know that the east-west distance is about 12 kilometers. If we add those two numbers together we get 22 kilometers for Ulleungdo's modern-day "jibang." If we divide the 22 kilometers of modern-day Ulleungdo by the 100 "ri" of old Ulleungdo, we get 0.2 kilometers per "ri." Now, let's use this measure to determine the distance to Jukdo:
20 "ri" times 0.2 = 4 kilometers
30 "ri" times 0.2 = 6 kilometers
Since modern-day Jukdo is 4 kilometers from Ulleungdo, Lee Gyu-won's 20 "ri" distance, using my "ri" measure, would put Songjukdo at the exact same distance that modern-day Jukdo is from Ulleungdo.
I am not the one trying to deceive people, Mr. Annonymous. You are the one who tried to make jibang (지방) a distance to Dokdo/Takeshima instead of the area of Ulleungdo. And you are the one who suggested that Lee Gyu-won was using Japanese "ri" instead of Korean.
You are right. This is my blog, so it is my soapbox, but I will allow you to continue to post here under your annonymous name, as long as you learn to control your temper. I do not mind your making your silly assumptions, but do not call me a liar.
My calculation was wrong. 22 kilometers divided by 100 "ri" equals 0.22 kilometers per "ri." Therefore, here are the new figures:
ReplyDelete20 "ri" times 0.22 = 4.4
30 "ri" times 0.22 = 6.6
Those distances are still good enough for government work.
Writing in english is difficult to me. so I quit this argument. bye.
ReplyDelete하지만 한글로는 언제나 가능합니다. 그럼 안녕히 계세요.
랄라라,
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome to post your arguments in Korean. Afterall, the main purpose of this blog is to study the Korean language, so many of the people who visit here will be able to read and understand your arguments, which are very good.
I hope you continue to post.
Gerry Leekyuwon said that he had heard there was an island 20~30 off of the east coast of Ulleungdo.
ReplyDeleteI've mentioned this before but you didn't listen to me. Jukdo is 2.2kms off the east coast of Ulleungdo. You are wrongfully quoting the distance of 4kms. This distance is given from tourist websites and it is the 4km distance from the recently built Jeongdong Harbor on the South end of the island.
http://www.ulleung.go.kr/Ullung_English/sub2_03.html
http://www.ulleung.go.kr/Ullung_English/t06.html
Jukdo island is incredibly close and small. Too close and too small to necessitate being drawn on national maps. Look how close it is Gerry, does this look far to you? Does it look like 4kms? How hard is it to see a 25 story building a few football fields long from 2kms over a flat surface like the sea ?
This picture is take from Jukdo to Ulleungdo.
http://www.ulleung.go.kr/Ullung_Tourism/guide3_2.html
Secondly I believe the ri you are using is a very small version probably used for great detail in cartography. However during Leekyuwon's reports and most history dialogue I think the standard .4km or 4km are the rule. Leekyuwon diary shows he was using a .4km ri and most history websites concur that around .4kms (Korean) or 4kms (Japanese) are the standard ri at this time.
I'm sorry if I offended you Gerry but it's not like I called you a goofball like some others low-class person might...
Annonymous,
ReplyDeleteYour first link shows a map of Ulleungdo. Your second link shows a picture of Jukdo with text that says Jukdo is "4km northeast from Jeodong harbor,..." And your third map is a picture of Kwaneumdo (관음도), taken from Jukdo. By the way, here are some great pictures of Jukdo, which, by the way, is bigger than Dokdo/Takeshima.
Yes, Lee used a 0.4 km "ri" for his measurements during his survey, but the previous Korean survey maps of Ulleungdo appear to have used the smaller "ri" measure. Why would Lee Gyu-won have referenced Japanese maps when Korea had its own documents and maps of Ulleungdo? And why would Lee Gyu-won tell King Kojong the distance to Songjukdo in Japanese "ri"?
Yes, there was a poster on the Marmot's that I called a goofball because of all his goofball comments. His name was Frogmouth, and he made similar comments to what you are making. If you are Frogmouth, and if you stop saying that Jukdo is 2.2 "ri" from Ulleungdo and stop suggesting that Koreans used the Japanese "ri" meansure to measure Ulleungdo, then I promise to never call you "goofball."
Your apology is accepted.
You are right, Annonymous. Jukdo is 4 kilometers from Jeodong Harbor, so it may be only 2.2 kilometers from the closest land on shore. I am sorry.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, even if Jukdo is 2.2 kilometers from the nearless land on shore, it changes very little in regard to Lee Gyu-won's reference to Songjukdo. It is still only a difference of 5.8 kilometers, not 80 kilometers. Besides, Lee Gyu-won's reference may have also been from the nearest harbor, not the nearest land. At any rate, I am sorry for misreading your comment.
I never said Jukdo was 2.2ri away !!
ReplyDeleteGerry, I've measured the distance on a very high-detailed map of Ulleungdo and it is exactly 2.25 kms from the shore of Ulleungdo due East to Jukdo. Even if you look at the map scale on your website headline you can see it is less that half of the 5km scale reference on the bottom.
Read my text. I said this is a picture of Ulleungdo. I gave the picture for visual reference. It is so obvious how close Jukdo is in these pictures. It is not 4kms period.
Leekyuwon did not reference maps when he used the 20~30ri figure. He said he had heard it second or third hand from someone who hadn't even visited the island.
Jukdo's small size isn't the reason why I feel it isn't Usando.
If Jukdo why not Kwaneumdo?
Why does the 동국여지도 show two different shipping routes for Usando and Ulleungdo when they are only about 2kms apart.
I feel the close proximity to Ulleugdo makes Jukdo unworthy of mention of national maps of Korea.
Now and then.....
Annonymous,
ReplyDeleteOne thing that bothers me about your posts is how you stretch the truth and add your own opinions as if they are fact. Your previous post is a perfect example. Here is what you said:
----------------
"Leekyuwon did not reference maps when he used the 20~30ri figure. He said he had heard it second or third hand from someone who hadn't even visited the island."
----------------
What Lee Gyu-won actually said when King Kojong asked if he had met any of the previous inspectors was, "I did not meet anyone who had previously inspected Ulleungdo. I just received a general briefing."
That comment does not mean he did not reference maps or reports; it simply means he did not talk with any of the previous inspectors.
Jukdo and Dohang (probably Kwaneumdo)is shown on the Ulleungdo map that Lee Gyu-won drew during his inspection, and Usando is drawn on the the 18th and 19th century Ulleungdo maps that I previously linked to, so that proves that Usando was just offshore of Ulleungdo.
Your assumption that Jukdo is too small to put on national maps is proven wrong by the two Ulleungdo maps, not to mention the close proximity it is drawn to Ulleungdo on Korean-wide maps.
It is possible that Kwaneumdo was too close to the main island to be considered an island in earlier Chosun Korea, or maybe there was a land connection at one time, or maybe Usando (Jukdo) was included because it was Korea's easternmost island. At any rate, the Ulleungdo maps prove that Usando was just offshore of Ulleungdo, and the national maps prove that it was important enough to include on them.
Gerry by "national" I mean map of a scale that would include all of the Korean peninsula. It doesn't make sense to include an island so close and small. Dokdo is the Midway Island of the East Sea it makes sense that Koreans would include Usando (Dokdo)just on the basis of location. Jukdo is worthless.
ReplyDeleteWhere does Leekyuwon say he got his information via a "general briefing" in the text of his conversation with King Kojong?
“그전에 가서 수색조사한 사람은 만나지 못하였습니다. 대체적인 내용을 얻어 들었습니다”
Doesn't this mean indirectly or through the grapevine so to speak?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete감사합니다. 그렇다면 한글로 코멘트를 하겠습니다. (이 코멘트를 영어로 번역하고 싶으시다면, 마음대로 하셔도 좋습니다. 개인적으로 영어로 번역되길 바라고 있습니다.)
ReplyDelete첫째, Gerry님은 다음과 같이 말씀하셨습니다.
───────────
I think the Sejong record considered the two islands as a 2-island group, so when it said they could be seen on a clear day, I think it meant that the island group could be seen, not that both islands could be seen.
───────────
이것은 Gerry님의 생각일 뿐, 근거가 없다는 것은 Gerry님도 알고 있을 것입니다. 이것은 일본측의 주장이 옳다는 전제 하에서 가능한 연역적인 추리일 뿐, 귀납적으로 도출된 결론이 아닙니다. 즉 구체적인 근거를 제시하지 못하면 결국 상상에 지나지 않을 것입니다.
세종실록지리지(the Sejong documents)는 분명히 두 개의 섬(二島; Two islands)이라고 밝히고 있습니다.
둘째, 세종실록지리지(the Sejong documents)의 해석은 애매(ambiguous)하지 않습니다. 위에서 설명드렸지만, 좀 더 보충하도록 하겠습니다.
다른 섬(Islands)에 대한 세종실록지리지(the Sejong documents)의 설명을 볼까요.
───────────
世宗 155卷 地理志 / 咸吉道/ 永興大都護府
세종 155권 지리지 / 함길도 / 영흥 대도호부
海島三,
바다의 섬이 3이니,
There is three islands.
大都島、【在府東, 古避亂處有土城基, 去陸六里。】
대도도(大都島)【부의 동쪽에 있는데, 옛날 피난처(避亂處)였으므로 토성(土城)을 쌓았던 터가 있다. 육지와의 거리가 6리이다.】
Daedo-do(大都島) 【exists in the east of (younghung)-bu. it was a refuge, so there is a mud wall site. the distance from land is 6 li.】
茅島、【在府東大都島南十里, 去陸三里。】
모도(茅島)【부의 동쪽 대도도(大都島) 남쪽 10리에 있는데, 육지와의 거리가 3리이다.】
Mo-do(茅島) 【exists in the east of (younghung)-bu and 10li away from the south of Daedo-do, the distance from land is 3 li.】
熊島、【在府東大都島東十五里, 去陸十五里】
웅도(熊島)【부의 동쪽, 대도도의 동쪽 15리에 있는데, 육지와의 거리가 15리이다.】
Ung-do 【exists in the east of (younghung)-bu and 10li away from the east of Daedo-do, the distance from land is 15 li.】
───────────
보시는대로, 분명히 육지와의 거리(去陸; the distance from land)라는 말이 들어가고 있습니다. 그리고 주변의 섬을 기준으로 거리를 설명하고 있는 것도 확인할 수 있습니다.
또한 주석(annotation)을 보면, 모두 본문(本文)의 주어(the subject)를 그대로 사용하고 있는 것을 알 수 있습니다. 세 개의 주석(annotation)이 모두 '在(exist)'로 시작하고 있습니다.
다른 경우도 살펴볼까요?
───────────
世宗 151卷 地理志 / 全羅道 / 全州府/ 萬頃縣
세종 151권 지리지 / 전라도 / 전주부 / 만경현
海島二,
해도(海島)가 2이니
There is two islands.
群山島、望人島。
군산도(群山島)·망입도(望入島)이다.
Gunsan-do(群山島) and Mangyip-do(望入島).
───────────
이 경우 섬의 방향(bearing)이나 거리(distance)에 대한 설명이 없습니다.
정리하면, "세종실록지리지(the Sejong documents)는 언제나 육지로부터의 섬(islands)의 방향과 거리에 대해서 설명하고 있다"는 일본측의 주장은 틀린 것입니다.
Gerry님은 잘못된 주장을 인용하면 안됩니다. 그렇다면 여기서 우산국에 대한 기록을 다시 볼까요.
───────────
于山武陵二島, 在縣正東海中.
【二島相去不遠 風日淸明 則可望見 新羅時 稱于山國 一云鬱陵島】
Two Islands, Usan and Muleung, are in the sea due east of Uljin-hyun.
【Two Islands are not far away from each other, so if the weather is clear, it's possible to see (each other).】
───────────
① 주석(annotation)에서 두 개의 섬(二島; two islands)라는 주어(the subject)가 새롭게 등장하고 있다.
② 육지와의 거리(去陸; the distance from land), 혹은 수로(水路; waterway)라는 말이 없다.
그럼에도 불구하고, Gerry님은 육지를 기준으로 해석할 것입니까?
위에서 제시했지만, 중영사전(chinese-english dictionary)의 예문조차 두 곳 사이의 거리라고 해석하고 있습니다.(Shanghai Jiao Tong University Publishing(上海交通大學 出版社))
去[qù]③ (距离;差距) be apart from: 两地相 ～ 八十里。 The two places are 80 li apart.
두 섬 사이의 거리가 멀지 않다는 해석이 상식적이기 때문에, "울릉도에서 독도가 보이지 않는다"고 일본측이 주장했던 것입니다.(육지를 기준으로 해석해야 된다는 일본측의 주장은 1990년대에 처음으로 등장했습니다.)
Gerry님은 이 문장의 해석에 대한 입장을 분명하게 밝히기 바랍니다. 만약 반론의 근거를 제시할 수 없다면, 당연히 한국측의 해석을 인정해야 할 것입니다.
셋째, 말씀하신 흑룡회(黑龍會; Black Dragon)의 『한해통어지침(韓海通漁指針;fishery in korean sea)』의 일본어 원문과 한국어 해석문입니다. 원문의 이미지 파일도 보실 수 있습니다.
───────────────
이미지 보기
ヤンコ島 - 鬱陵島より東南の方約三十里、我が隠岐国を西北に距ること殆ど同…於て、無人の一島であり、晴天の際鬱陵島山峰の高所より之を望むを得べし...
양코島(liancourt; 독도) - 울릉도의 동남쪽 약 30리, 우리(일본) 오키 지방 서북쪽으로 거의 비슷한 거리의 (바다 가운데) 있으며 무인도이고, 맑은 날에는 울릉도의 높은 산봉우리에서 이곳을 볼 수 있으며....
───────────────
이것은 울릉도에서 독도가 보이는 것이 특별하기 때문에 언급되는 것이며, 이러한 내용은 세종실록지리지(the Sejong documents)에서도 확인되므로 우산도(于山島)가 독도라는 사실은 의심의 여지가 없습니다.
아래 사이트는 『한해통어지침(韓海通漁指針;fishery in korean sea)』을 소개하고 있습니다.
click here
보시는대로, 일본의 우익 단체 '흑룡회(黑龍會; Black Dragon)'는 책의 목차(table of contents)에서 독도(ヤンコ島; liancourt)가 한국의 강원도에 속한다고 기록하고 있습니다.
넷째, 『신증동국여지승람(The 17th century document; 新增東國輿地勝覽)』의 해석을 15세기의 기록인 『세종실록지리지(the Sejong documents)』에 소급 적용하여 해석하면 안됩니다.
문장 구성과 내용이 다릅니다. 다음은 『신증동국여지승람(The 17th century document)』의 기록입니다.
風日淸明, 則峰頭樹木及山恨沙渚 歷歷可見
바람이 불고 날씨가 맑으면, 산꼭대기의 수목 및 산 밑의 모래톱을 역력히 볼 수 있다
if the weather is clear, the mountaintop's trees and the mountain's sands are vividly visible.
이것은 울릉도를 말하는 것으로, 육지에서 울릉도가 보인다는 것을 말하고 있는 것입니다. 『세종실록지리지(the Sejong documents)』와 비교했을 때 문장의 구조와 목적어가 다릅니다.
울릉도는 육지에서 관찰됩니다. 그리고 독도는 울릉도에서 관찰됩니다. 또한 울릉도는 독도에서 관찰됩니다. 그러므로 두 개의 문장은 전혀 다른 영역의 문제를 설명하고 있습니다. 따라서 『신증동국여지승람(The 17th century document)』의 문장을 『세종실록지리지(the Sejong documents)』에 소급 적용하여 날조 해석을 하면 안됩니다.
일본측은 주장하기를, "한국 정부가 『신증동국여지승람(The 17th century document)』의 문장을 울릉도에서 독도가 보이는 것으로 날조 해석했다"고 주장합니다만, 한국 정부의 1954년 9월 25일자 의견서는 "『신증동국여지승람(The 17th century document)』에 의하면 우산도와 울릉도가 울진현의 동쪽 바다에 있다"고 말하고 있을 뿐입니다.
한국 정부가 신증동국여지승람을 날조 해석했다는 일본측의 주장이 날조인 것입니다.
다섯번째, 고지도(古地圖 old historical map)에서 우산도가 울릉도 가까이에 있는 것을 지적하고 계십니다만, 이것은 무리한 지적입니다.
① 경위도(latitude and longitude) 측량술(mensuration technic)이 없었던 당시 사람들에게 정확한 위치를 요구하는 것은 무리입니다. 이미 예전 코멘트에서 제시했습니다만, 당시의 지도(map) 제작 수준은 일본의 위치와 크기마저 엉터리로 표기하는 수준이며, 또한 한반도 주변의 다른 섬의 위치도 엉터리로 표기하고 있습니다. 그럼에도 불구하고 독도에게만 정확한 위치를 요구하는 것은 불공평한 행위입니다.
② 현대 한국의 지도(map)에서도 역시 같은 경우가 발견됩니다. 예전 코멘트에서 한반도기(Korean peninsula flag)를 제시했습니다만, 하나 더 제시하겠습니다. 다음은 울릉군청의 관광 안내 지도(tour guide map)입니다.
click here
독도가 울릉도에 매우 가깝게 있군요. 그렇다면 현대 한국인은 독도의 정확한 위치를 모르고 있는 것입니까? 그럴 가능성은 없지요.
여섯번째, 대한지지(the 1899 Korean document)에 수록된 대한전도(the 1899 Korean map)에 나타난 독도의 위치에 대하여 지적하고 계십니다만, 이것 또한 불공정한 지적입니다.
이 지도(map)는 독도 뿐만 아니라 모든 곳의 경위도(latitude and longitude)가 잘못 표시되어 있습니다. 예를 들어, 이 지도가 말하고 있는 한반도의 경위도(latiture and longitude)를 봅시다.
────────────────
한국의 최남단은 33도 15분이다.(the position of the southern end of Korea is 33 degrees 15 minutes)
한국의 최북단은 42도 25분이다.(the position of the nourthern end of Korea is 42 degress 25 minutes)
한반도의 최동단은 130도 35분이다.(the position of eastern end of Korean peninsula is 130 degrees 35 minutes)
────────────────
그러나 이것은 모두 틀린 것입니다. 한국의 최남단은 33˚ 6' 40'' 이며, 최북단은 43˚ 39', 한반도의 최동단은 130˚ 41분입니다.
모든 장소의 경위도(latitude and longitude)가 잘못되었는데, 어째서 독도의 경위도만 지적하고 있는지 이해할 수 없습니다. 다른 곳은 다 틀려도, 독도의 위치는 정확해야 한다는 논리입니까? 매우 불공정한 논리입니다.
그리고 역시 예전 코멘트에서 지적했습니다만, 『대한지지(the 1899 Korean document)』의 경위도(latitude and longitude)는 일본측 서적으로부터 수입된 것입니다. 일본측 지도 역시 울릉도와 독도의 경위도(latitude and longitude)를 잘못 기록하고 있습니다.
아래의 일본의 지도는 울릉도의 위치를 129˚ 57'으로, 독도의 위치를 130˚ 35'으로 기록하고 있습니다.
①조선전도(1875) - 일본육군참모국
②장중일본전도(1875) - 가지하라요시나가(原義長)
③대일본육해전도(1899) - 모리고토세키(森琴石)
④청국여지도(1879) - 다카다요시쓰게(高田義甫)
⑤조선휘보(1893) - 동방협회
그리고 아래의 일본의 지도는 독도의 위치를 130˚ 50'으로 기록하고 있습니다.
① 송도지의(1878) - 와타나베히로모토(渡邊洪基)
② 조선지리지(1894) - 오타호지로(太田方次郞)
일본의 지도 또한 경위도가 틀렸는데, 어째서 한국의 지도에 대해서만 정확한 독도의 경위도를 요구합니까? 이것은 심히 불공정한 처사입니다.
당시의 한국은 경위도(latitude and longitude) 측량술(mensure technic)이 없어서, 일본으로부터 수입된 경위도 지식을 바탕으로 지도를 제작했습니다.
그럼에도 불구하고 지도에 표기된 우산도(Usan-do)가 현재의 독도라는 사실은, 『대한신지지(the 1907 Korean document)』를 보면 알 수 있습니다. 『대한신지지』는 우산도가 울릉도의 동남쪽에 있다고 말하고 있습니다. 죽도(chuk-do)는 울릉도의 동북쪽에 있기 때문에, 우산도가 될 수 없습니다.
일곱번째, Gerry님은 태종 17년(1417) 김인우(Kim In-u) 기사를 제시하셨습니다.
─────────────
○按撫使金麟雨還自于山島, 獻土産大竹、水牛皮、生苧、綿子、檢樸木等物, 且率居人三名以來。 其島戶凡十五口, 男女幷八十六。
안무사(按撫使) 김인우(金麟雨)가 우산도(于山島)에서 돌아와 토산물(土産物)인 대죽(大竹)·수우피(水牛皮)·생저(生苧)·면자(綿子)·검박목(檢樸木) 등을 바쳤다. 또한 거주민 3명을 거느리고 왔는데, 그 섬의 호수[戶]는 15구(口)요, 남녀를 합치면 86명이었다.
Royal Inspector Kim In-u returned from Usando with local products as tribute, including large bamboo, sea lion skins, unbleached cambric, potatoes, and 검박목. He also brought three of the people who were living on the island. Fifthteen families live on the island for a total of 86 people, with men and women combined.
─────────────
그러나 김인우가 데려온 거주민은 우산도 출신이 아닙니다. 근거는 다음과 같습니다. 세종 7년(1425) 8월 8일의 기록입니다.
─────────────
初江原道平海人金乙之李萬金亐乙金等曾逃居武陵島, 歲丙申國家遣麟雨, 盡行刷還
처음에 강원도 평해인 김을지·이만·김울을금 등이 무릉도에 도망가서 살던 것을, 병신년(1416)에 국가에서 김인우를 보내어, 모두 쇄환했다.
─────────────
세종(King Sejong)이 직접 "무릉도 출신"이라 지적하고 있습니다. 이것으로 김인우가 데려온 사람들은 현재의 울릉도에 살았던 사람이라는 것을 알 수 있습니다. 울릉도 옆의 죽도(chuk-do) 거주민은 될 수 없습니다. 15가구 86명이 살았다는 그 섬(其島; the island)은 현재의 울릉도를 지칭하는 것입니다.
그렇다면 태종 17년(1417) 기록의 우산도는 현재의 울릉도를 가리키는 것일까요? 당시의 우산도는 무릉도와 같은 섬이었던 것일까요?
그럴 가능성은 없습니다. 태종실록은 분명히 우산도와 무릉도를 분리해서 말하고 있기 때문입니다.
─────────────
太宗 34卷 17年 8月 6日
태종 34권 17년 8월 6일
○倭寇于山、武陵。
왜적이 우산도(于山島)·무릉도(武陵島)에서 도둑질하였다.
─────────────
같은 섬이라면 병기(倂記)할 이유가 없습니다. 그리고 『세종실록지리지(the Sejong documents)』에서 분명히 두 개의 섬이라고 밝히고 있습니다.
─────────────
于山武陵二島, 在縣正東海中.
우산·무릉 두 섬은 울진현의 동쪽 바다에 있다.
─────────────
여기서 김인우가 출발할 때의 기록을 봅시다.
─────────────
태종 16년(1416) 9월 庚寅
以金麟雨爲武陵等處按撫使. 戶曹判書朴習啓. 「....武陵島周回七息, 傍有小島, 其田可五十餘結, 所入之路纔通一人, 不可並行. 昔有方之用者, 率十五家入居, 或時假倭爲寇....」 上可之, 乃召三陟人前萬戶金麟雨, 問武陵島事....上然之, 以麟雨爲武陵等處安撫使...
김인우를 무릉 등처(等處)안무사로 임명했다. 호조참판 박습이 아뢰었다. 「.... 무릉도의 주회가 7식이고, 곁에 소도가 있고, 전지가 50여 결이 되는데, 들어가는 길이 겨우 한 사람이 통행하고, 병행하지 못한다고 합니다. 옛날에 방지용이란 사람이 있어, 15 가구(families)를 거느리고 입거하여, 때로는 가짜 왜구로서 도둑질을 하였다고 합니다.」 왕이 옳다고 생각하여, 삼척 사람 전만호 김인우를 불러서, 무릉도의 일을 질문했다..... 왕이 옳게 생각하여, 김인우를 무릉등처 안무사로 임명하고....
─────────────
이 기록으로부터 알 수 있는 것은 다음과 같습니다.
① 김인우는 무릉 등처(Muleung and like places) 안무사(royal inspector)의 관명(an official title)을 받고 출발했다. 그러므로 무릉도 한 개의 섬을 향하여 출발한 것이 아니라, 무릉도 주변 지역을 모두 관찰하기 위해 출발한 것이다.
② 무릉도에 15가구가 살고 있다.
③ 김인우를 무릉 등처 안무사로 임명했다는 문장이 두 번 나온다. 그러므로 첫번째 문장은 사건을 요약한 것임을 알 수 있다.
그럼 태종 17년(1417)의 김인우 귀환 기사로 되돌아 갑시다.
─────────────
○按撫使金麟雨還自于山島, 獻土産大竹、水牛皮、生苧、綿子、檢樸木等物, 且率居人三名以來。 其島戶凡十五口, 男女幷八十六。
안무사(按撫使) 김인우(金麟雨)가 우산도(于山島)에서 돌아와 토산물(土産物)인 대죽(大竹)·수우피(水牛皮)·생저(生苧)·면자(綿子)·검박목(檢樸木) 등을 바쳤다. 또한 거주민 3명을 거느리고 왔는데, 그 섬의 호수[戶]는 15구(口)요, 남녀를 합치면 86명이었다.
Royal Inspector Kim In-u returned from Usando with local products as tribute, including large bamboo, sea lion skins, unbleached cambric, potatoes, and 검박목. He also brought three of the people who were living on the island. Fifthteen families live on the island for a total of 86 people, with men and women combined.
─────────────
이제 Gery님도 알겠지만, 김인우가 우산도에서 돌아왔다고 해서 사람과 토산물이 있었다는 그 섬(其島)이 곧 우산도가 되는 것은 아닙니다. 김인우는 분명히 무릉등처(Mureung and like places) 안무사(royal inspector)로서 출발했습니다. 즉 무릉도와 그 주변 지역을 관찰하기 위해 출발했기 때문입니다.
그리고 이 기록에서 분명히 그 섬(其島)에는 15구, 즉 15가구(families)가 살고 있다고 말하고 있습니다. 그러므로 그 섬은 무릉도입니다.
첫번째 문장인 "김인우가 우산도에서 돌아왔다(Royal Inspector Kim In-u returned from Usando)"는 사건의 요약일 뿐입니다. 뒤에 나오는 그 섬(其島)와 직접적인 연관이 없다는 것은 우산도와 그 섬(其島) 사이에 토산물과 거주민을 데려왔다는 문장이 있는 것으로 알 수 있으며, 또한 태종 16년(1416)의 기록에서 "김인우를 무릉등처 안무사로 임명했다"는 문장이 두번 나오는 것으로 입증됩니다.
따라서 태종 17년(1417)의 김인우 귀환 기사는 이렇게 이해해야 합니다.
김인우가 우산도를 마지막으로, 무릉등처(Mureung and like places) 방문 일정을 모두 마치고 귀환했다. 그곳의 토산물과 거주민을 데리고 왔는데, 그 섬의 호수는 15구요, 남녀 86명이었다.
Gery님은 Tanaka Kunitaka의 왜곡 인용을 그대로 전재하고 있습니다. 다시 말하지만, Tanaka kunitaka의 홈페이지는 유통기한이 끝난 것들로 이루어진 곳입니다. 따라서 그곳을 전재해도 소용없습니다.
여덟번째, 게리님은 다음과 같이 말씀하셨습니다.
─────────────
As for your 1770 quote, here is one possible explanation. The Japanese also referred to Ulleungdo as Songdo.
─────────────
the 1770 Korean document란, 동국문헌비고를 말하는 것이지요. 여기에는 분명히 우산도는 일본인이 말하는 송도(마쓰시마; 松島)라고 기재되어 있습니다.
─────────────
輿地志云. "鬱陵于山皆于山國地, 于山則倭所謂松島也" - 東國文獻備考
여지지는 말했다. "울릉도와 우산도는 모두 우산국 땅인데, 우산도는 곧 왜인이 말하는 송도이다." - 동국문헌비고
『The record of ground(輿地志)』 said. "Ulleung-do and Usan-do are the territory of Usan-guk, and Usan-do is Song-do in japanese』- 『dongguk moonhon bigo(東國文獻備考)(1770)』
─────────────
일본측의 주장은, 과거 울릉도가 일본에서 죽도(다케시마; 竹島)로 불렸고, 독도가 송도(마쓰시마; 松島)로 불렸다는 것에 기반하고 있습니다. 그런데 불리한 기록에 대해서는 자신들의 논리를 바꾸고 있습니다. 이것은 논리의 일관성(logical consistency)이 결여된 치졸한 행위입니다.
최근 발견된 시마네현 문서는, 분명히 죽도와 송도가 강원도에 속한다고 기록하고 있습니다.
click here
이 문서는 1696년(숙종 22년) 5월 일본 어선의 독도 출어에 항의하기 위해 두 번째로 일본을 방문한 안용복을 일본 지방 관리가 취조해 막부 직할령인 이와미(石見)주에 보고한 것입니다.
아홉번째, Gery님은 다음과 같이 말씀하셨습니다.
─────────────
Personally, I think that all of the confusion stems from the Japanese government not knowing about Jukdo, the small island just off the coast of Ulleungdo. This would have caused a lot of confusion because when Japanese fishermen would return to Japan and talk about an island east of Ulleungdo, Japanese officials may have assumed that it was Dokdo/Takeshima, not knowing that there was also another little island between Ulleungdo and DokdoTakeshima.
─────────────
가능성이 없습니다. 왜냐하면 일본의 관찬(官撰) 기록인 『은주시청합기(隱州視聴合記)』는 분명히 이렇게 기록하고 있기 때문입니다.
─────────────
隱州在北海中故云隠岐島, 從是, 南至雲州美穂関三十五里, 辰巳至泊州赤碕浦四十里, 未申至石州温泉津五十八里, 自子至卯, 無可往地, 戍亥間行二日一夜有松島, 又一日程有竹島, 俗言磯竹島多竹魚海鹿. 此二島無人之地, 見高麗如自雲州望隠州. 然則日本之乾地, 以此州爲限矣
隱州(오키섬)는 북해 가운데 있으므로 隱岐島(오키섬)라고도 하는데, 이로부터 남쪽의 雲州(시마네현) 美穂関까지 35리, 동남쪽의 伯州(톳토리현) 赤碕浦까지 40리, 남서쪽의 石州 温泉津까지 58리, 동북쪽에는 갈 땅이 없고, 북서 사이에 1박 2일 동안 가면 松島(독도)가 있고, 또 하루 걸려 竹島(울릉도)가 있는데, 속세에서 말하길 磯竹島라 하며 대나무, 물고기, 바다표범이 많다고 한다. 이 두 섬은 사람이 살지 않는 땅이고, 고려를 보는 것이 雲州에서 隱州를 보는 것과 같다. 그렇다면 일본의 북서쪽 땅은 이 州를 한계로 한다.
─────────────
아래 사진은 울릉도에서 현재의 죽도(chuk-do)를 바라본 것입니다.
click here
이 섬에 도착하는데 하루라는 시간이 걸린다고 생각합니까? 죽도(chuk-do)울릉도에서 약 4Km 떨어져 있습니다. 결국 일본측이 말하는 송도(마쓰시마; 松島)는 현재의 독도가 확실한 것입니다.
그리고 참고로 말합니다만, tanaka kunitaka의 은주시청합기(隱州視聴合記) 해석은 왜곡되었습니다. 분명히 隠州를 설명하는 글에 나온 此州는 隠州임에도 불구하고, 州를 섬이라는 일반명사로 의역하여, 此州가 울릉도(竹島)를 가리킨다고 주장하고 있습니다.
그러나 이렇게 해석할 경우 「見高麗如自雲州望隠州(고려를 보는 것이 雲州에서 隱州를 보는 것과 같다)」라는 문장이 등장하는 이유를 알 수 없습니다. 「見高麗如自雲州望隠州」 ← 이 문장이 울릉도가 일본의 영토라는 이유로서 등장하는 것이라면 어째서 「然則」라는 접속어가 들어갔는지를 설명할 수 있어야 할 것입니다. 상식적으로 울릉도가 일본의 영토라는 이유로서 기재된 것이라면, 그 뒤의 접속어는 「所以」와 같이 therefore의 의미가 들어가야 합니다. 「然則」은 then의 의미입니다.
이것은 개정 일본여지노정전도(日本與地路程全圖)를 봐도 알 수 있습니다.
click here
사진에는 자세히 나타나지 않지만 이 지도의 竹島(다케시마; 울릉도)와 松島(마쓰시마; 독도) 밑에는 見高麗猶雲州望隱州(고려를 보는 것이 雲州에서 隱州를 보는 것과 같다)라고 기록되어 있습니다. 《은주시청합기(隱州視聽合記)》의 내용과 같은 것입니다. 그렇다면 이 지도는 두 섬을 어디의 영토라고 기록하고 있을까요?
이 지도에는 한반도의 남부지역도 일부가 표시되어 있는데, 색깔이 없고 경위도선(latitude and longitude line)이 없습니다. 즉 일본의 영토가 아니므로 색칠하지 않고 경위도선(latitude and longitude line)을 넣지 않은 것입니다.
사진을 보면 알겠지만 이 지도의 竹島(다케시마; 울릉도)와 松島(마쓰시마; 독도)에는 채색도 없고 경위도선(latitude and longitude line)도 없습니다. 이 것은 울릉도와 독도를 일본의 영토로 간주하지 않았다는 뜻입니다.
따라서 Tanaka Kunitaka의 해석은 일본측 지도에 의해서도 완벽하게 부정됩니다.
Gery씨는 유통기한이 지난 주장을 인용하여 반박 근거도 없이 고집을 부리시면 안됩니다. 이것은 상대방의 반감을 키울 뿐입니다.
랄라라,
ReplyDeleteHere is the passage from the Records of King Sejong:
-----------------
于山武陵二島 在縣正東海中 二島相去不遠 風日淸明 則可望見 新羅時 稱于山國 一云鬱陵島
The two islands of Usan and Muleungdo are in the middle of the sea due east of Uljin. The distance between these two islands is not far, so when the wind is blowing and the weather is clear, they are visible. During the time of Silla, they were called Usan-guk or Ulleungdo.
--------------------
If your interpretation of the above passage is correct, and it is referring to the distance between the two islands instead of the distance between Uljin and the two islands, then that would mean that Usan is referring to Dokdo/Takeshima, right? Isn't that what you and other Koreans are claiming? Now look at the following passage:
----------------
○按撫使金麟雨還自于山島, 獻土産大竹、水牛皮、生苧、綿子、檢樸木等物, 且率居人三名以來。 其島戶凡十五口, 男女幷八十六。 麟雨之往還也, 再逢颶風, 僅得其生。
안무사(按撫使) 김인우(金麟雨)가 우산도(于山島)에서 돌아와 토산물(土産物)인 대죽(大竹)·수우피(水牛皮)·생저(生苧)·면자(綿子)·검박목(檢樸木) 등을 바쳤다. 또 그곳의 거주민 3명을 거느리고 왔는데, 그 섬의 호수[戶]는 15구(口)요, 남녀를 합치면 86명이었다. 김인우가 갔다가 돌아올 때에, 두 번이나 태풍(颱風)을 만나서 겨우 살아날 수 있었다고 했다.
Royal Inspector Kim In-u returned from Usando with local products as tribute, including large bamboo, sea lion skins, unbleached cambric, potatoes, and 검박목. He also brought three of the people who were living on the island. Fifteen families live on the island for a total of 86 people, with men and women combined. Kim In-u said that he met two storms on his way back and barely survived.
----------------
That passage comes from the records of King Taejong, the king before Sejong.
As you know, Dokdo/Takeshima is just a rock with no soil to raise potatoes, grow bamboo or support 86 people, so the Usando in the above passage cannot possibly be Dokdo/Takeshima. And if Usando was not Dokdo/Takeshima during King Taejong, then it probably was not Dokdo/Takeshima a few years later during King Sejong. In addition, there are the Ulleungdo area maps that very clearly put Usando right next to Ulleungdo. By the way, I do not buy your argument that the above passage is some kind of abbreviated form.
As I said before, the passage is the Sejong Records is ambiguous, but when you consider all the other evidence, the Japanese interpretation is the only one that makes sense.
I will respond to your other comments later when I have more time.
위에서 제가 이미 반박한 이야기를 Gery님이 반복하고 계시는군요. 코멘트를 끝까지 읽어주세요. 다음은 Gery님이 언급하신 김인우(Kim In-u) 귀환 기사에 대한 저의 설명입니다.
ReplyDelete일곱번째, Gerry님은 태종 17년(1417) 김인우(Kim In-u) 기사를 제시하셨습니다.
─────────────
○按撫使金麟雨還自于山島, 獻土産大竹、水牛皮、生苧、綿子、檢樸木等物, 且率居人三名以來。 其島戶凡十五口, 男女幷八十六。
안무사(按撫使) 김인우(金麟雨)가 우산도(于山島)에서 돌아와 토산물(土産物)인 대죽(大竹)·수우피(水牛皮)·생저(生苧)·면자(綿子)·검박목(檢樸木) 등을 바쳤다. 또한 거주민 3명을 거느리고 왔는데, 그 섬의 호수[戶]는 15구(口)요, 남녀를 합치면 86명이었다.
Royal Inspector Kim In-u returned from Usando with local products as tribute, including large bamboo, sea lion skins, unbleached cambric, potatoes, and 검박목. He also brought three of the people who were living on the island. Fifthteen families live on the island for a total of 86 people, with men and women combined.
─────────────
그러나 김인우가 데려온 거주민은 우산도 출신이 아닙니다. 근거는 다음과 같습니다. 세종 7년(1425) 8월 8일의 기록입니다.
─────────────
初江原道平海人金乙之李萬金亐乙金等曾逃居武陵島, 歲丙申國家遣麟雨, 盡行刷還
처음에 강원도 평해인 김을지·이만·김울을금 등이 무릉도에 도망가서 살던 것을, 병신년(1416)에 국가에서 김인우를 보내어, 모두 쇄환했다.
─────────────
세종(King Sejong)이 직접 "무릉도 출신"이라 지적하고 있습니다. 이것으로 김인우가 데려온 사람들은 현재의 울릉도에 살았던 사람이라는 것을 알 수 있습니다. 울릉도 옆의 죽도(chuk-do) 거주민은 될 수 없습니다. 15가구 86명이 살았다는 그 섬(其島; the island)은 현재의 울릉도를 지칭하는 것입니다.
그렇다면 태종 17년(1417) 기록의 우산도는 현재의 울릉도를 가리키는 것일까요? 당시의 우산도는 무릉도와 같은 섬이었던 것일까요?
그럴 가능성은 없습니다. 태종실록은 분명히 우산도와 무릉도를 분리해서 말하고 있기 때문입니다.
─────────────
太宗 34卷 17年 8月 6日
태종 34권 17년 8월 6일
○倭寇于山、武陵。
왜적이 우산도(于山島)·무릉도(武陵島)에서 도둑질하였다.
─────────────
같은 섬이라면 병기(倂記)할 이유가 없습니다. 그리고 『세종실록지리지(the Sejong documents)』에서 분명히 두 개의 섬이라고 밝히고 있습니다.
─────────────
于山武陵二島, 在縣正東海中.
우산·무릉 두 섬은 울진현의 동쪽 바다에 있다.
─────────────
여기서 김인우가 출발할 때의 기록을 봅시다.
─────────────
태종 16년(1416) 9월 庚寅
以金麟雨爲武陵等處按撫使. 戶曹判書朴習啓. 「....武陵島周回七息, 傍有小島, 其田可五十餘結, 所入之路纔通一人, 不可並行. 昔有方之用者, 率十五家入居, 或時假倭爲寇....」 上可之, 乃召三陟人前萬戶金麟雨, 問武陵島事....上然之, 以麟雨爲武陵等處安撫使...
김인우를 무릉 등처(等處)안무사로 임명했다. 호조참판 박습이 아뢰었다. 「.... 무릉도의 주회가 7식이고, 곁에 소도가 있고, 전지가 50여 결이 되는데, 들어가는 길이 겨우 한 사람이 통행하고, 병행하지 못한다고 합니다. 옛날에 방지용이란 사람이 있어, 15 가구(families)를 거느리고 입거하여, 때로는 가짜 왜구로서 도둑질을 하였다고 합니다.」 왕이 옳다고 생각하여, 삼척 사람 전만호 김인우를 불러서, 무릉도의 일을 질문했다..... 왕이 옳게 생각하여, 김인우를 무릉등처 안무사로 임명하고....
─────────────
이 기록으로부터 알 수 있는 것은 다음과 같습니다.
① 김인우는 무릉 등처(Muleung and like places) 안무사(royal inspector)의 관명(an official title)을 받고 출발했다. 그러므로 무릉도 한 개의 섬을 향하여 출발한 것이 아니라, 무릉도 주변 지역을 모두 관찰하기 위해 출발한 것이다.
② 무릉도에 15가구가 살고 있다.
③ 김인우를 무릉 등처 안무사로 임명했다는 문장이 두 번 나온다. 그러므로 첫번째 문장은 사건을 요약한 것임을 알 수 있다.
그럼 태종 17년(1417)의 김인우 귀환 기사로 되돌아 갑시다.
─────────────
○按撫使金麟雨還自于山島, 獻土産大竹、水牛皮、生苧、綿子、檢樸木等物, 且率居人三名以來。 其島戶凡十五口, 男女幷八十六。
안무사(按撫使) 김인우(金麟雨)가 우산도(于山島)에서 돌아와 토산물(土産物)인 대죽(大竹)·수우피(水牛皮)·생저(生苧)·면자(綿子)·검박목(檢樸木) 등을 바쳤다. 또한 거주민 3명을 거느리고 왔는데, 그 섬의 호수[戶]는 15구(口)요, 남녀를 합치면 86명이었다.
Royal Inspector Kim In-u returned from Usando with local products as tribute, including large bamboo, sea lion skins, unbleached cambric, potatoes, and 검박목. He also brought three of the people who were living on the island. Fifthteen families live on the island for a total of 86 people, with men and women combined.
─────────────
이제 Gery님도 알겠지만, 김인우가 우산도에서 돌아왔다고 해서 사람과 토산물이 있었다는 그 섬(其島)이 곧 우산도가 되는 것은 아닙니다. 김인우는 분명히 무릉등처(Mureung and like places) 안무사(royal inspector)로서 출발했습니다. 즉 무릉도와 그 주변 지역을 관찰하기 위해 출발했기 때문입니다.
그리고 이 기록에서 분명히 그 섬(其島)에는 15구, 즉 15가구(families)가 살고 있다고 말하고 있습니다. 그러므로 그 섬은 무릉도입니다.
첫번째 문장인 "김인우가 우산도에서 돌아왔다(Royal Inspector Kim In-u returned from Usando)"는 사건의 요약일 뿐입니다. 뒤에 나오는 그 섬(其島)와 직접적인 연관이 없다는 것은 우산도와 그 섬(其島) 사이에 토산물과 거주민을 데려왔다는 문장이 있는 것으로 알 수 있으며, 또한 태종 16년(1416)의 기록에서 "김인우를 무릉등처 안무사로 임명했다"는 문장이 두번 나오는 것으로 입증됩니다.
따라서 태종 17년(1417)의 김인우 귀환 기사는 이렇게 이해해야 합니다.
김인우가 우산도를 마지막으로, 무릉등처(Mureung and like places) 방문 일정을 모두 마치고 귀환했다. 그곳의 토산물과 거주민을 데리고 왔는데, 그 섬의 호수는 15구요, 남녀 86명이었다.
Gery님은 Tanaka Kunitaka의 왜곡 인용을 그대로 전재하고 있습니다. 다시 말하지만, Tanaka kunitaka의 홈페이지는 유통기한이 끝난 것들로 이루어진 곳입니다. 따라서 그곳을 전재해도 소용없습니다.
우산도와 무릉도가 별개의 섬이라는 것은 태종실록이 말하고 있습니다.
랄라라,
ReplyDeleteThe Taejong record proves that Usando is NOT Dokdo/Takeshima, so Usando has to be either Ulleungdo or Jukdo since both of those islands, besides Kwaneumdo, has soil to grow bamboo and potatoes. In fact, Jukdo is now supposedly famous for growing deodeok (더덕).
Here are some pictures of the farmland on Jukdo.
I think the Usando in the Taejong record was referring to Ulleungdo, and I think that at the time of King Taejong and King Sejong, Muleungdo was referring to Jukdo. Then some time later, Muleungdo (Jukdo) and Usando switched names, which would explain why Usando is drawn west of Ulleungdo on early Chosun maps and east of Ulleungdo on later maps.
Another reason why I believe that, at the time of Taejong and Sejong, Usando was present-day Ulleungdo, and Muleungdo (Ulleungdo) was present-day Jukdo is the following passage from the Records of King Taejong:
--------------
○命議政府議處流山國島人。 江原道觀察使報云: “流山國島人白加勿等十二名, 求泊高城＾於羅津, 言曰: ‘予等生長武陵, 其島內人戶十一, 男女共六十餘, 今移居本島。 是島自東至西自南至北, 皆二息, 周回八息。 無牛馬水田, 唯種豆一斗出二十石或三十石, 麥一石出五十餘石; 竹如大椽; 海錯果木皆在焉。’ 竊慮此人等逃還, 姑分置于通州、高城、杆城。”
의정부(議政府)에 명하여 유산국도(流山國島) 사람을 처치하는 방법을 의논하였다. 강원도 관찰사가 보고하였다.
“유산국도(流山國島) 사람 백가물(百加勿) 등 12명이 고성(高城) 어라진(於羅津)에 와서 정박하여 말하기를, ‘우리들은 무릉도(武陵島)2128) 에서 생장하였는데, 그 섬 안의 인호(人戶)가 11호이고, 남녀가 모두 60여 명인데, 지금은 본도(本島)로 옮겨 와 살고 있습니다. 이 섬이 동에서 서까지 남에서 북까지가 모두 2식(息) 거리이고, 둘레가 8식(息) 거리입니다. 우마(牛馬)와 논이 없으나, 오직 콩 한 말만 심으면 20석 혹은 30석이 나고, 보리 1석을 심으면 50여 석이 납니다. 대[竹]가 큰 서까래 같고, 해착(海錯)2129) 과 과목(果木)이 모두 있습니다.’고 하였습니다. 이 사람들이 도망하여 갈까 염려하여, 아직 통주(通州)·고성(高城)·간성(杆城)에 나누어 두었습니다.”
The Uijongbu ordered that methods be discussed to remove the people on the "Island State of Yusan-guk." The Kangwon Provincial Governor reported.
Twelve people from Yusan-guk Island, including Baek Ga-mul, came and anchored at Eorajin in Goseong. They said, "We were raised on Mureungdo. There are eleven families on the island with a total of sixty or more people, including men and women. Now we have moved to the main island and are living there. The distances from east to west and from north to south are both two 'sik' (60 'ri'). The circumference is eight 'sik' (240 'ri'). There are no cattle or rice paddies, but if we plant just one "mal" of beans, we harvest twenty or thirty 'seok.' If we plant one 'seok' of barley, we harvest more than fifty 'seok.' The bamboo there are as big as rafters, and there are all kinds of marine products and fruit trees." Fearing they may try to flee, we divided them up and put them in the stockade at Goseong in Tongju, where they still are.
태종 23권 12년 4월 15일 (기사) 003
------------------
In the above passage, residents of the "Island State of Usan" said they were raised on Muleungdo, but were now living on the "main island," which fits the description of Ulleungdo. The phrase "main island" implies that it was bigger than Muleungdo (Ulleungdo), and since the name of the "island state" (국도) was Usan, the name of the main island was most likely "Usando."
Jukdo has the land for people to live on and raise crops; Dokdo/Takeshima does not, so I think Muleungdo in the above passage was referring to Jukdo, and the "main island" was referring to Usan. Later, the two names got switched, just as their position on maps got switched around.
글 잘 읽었습니다.
ReplyDelete먼저 태종 17년의 우산도와 그 섬(其島)에 대해서 다시 말씀드리겠습니다.
태종 17년의 기록에 의하면, 김인우가 토산물을 바치고 사람을 데리고 왔는데, 그 섬(其島)에 15구(families) 86명이 살고있다고 기록하고 있습니다. 그러나 그 섬(其島)이 '우산도'를 지칭하는 것인지, 아니면 그저 '토산물과 사람들이 살고 있는 섬'을 지칭하는지는 태종 17년의 기록만 봐서는 정확하게 알 수 없습니다. 그러므로 태종 16년, 즉 출발할 때의 기록을 제시한 것입니다.
태종 16년의 기록에는 김인우가 '무릉등지(等地)안무사'로서 출발했다고 기록되어 있습니다. 따라서 우산도는 김인우의 방문지 가운데 하나였을 뿐이므로, 그 섬(其島)을 우산도 한 곳에만 한정할 수는 없습니다.
그리고 태종 16년의 기록에는 분명히 '무릉도에 15가(families)가 입거했다'고 기록되어 있습니다. 그리고 이로부터 9년뒤인 세종 7년의 기록에도 분명히 '김인우가 데려온 사람은 무릉도 사람이다'라고 기록되어 있습니다. 그러므로 당시 김인우가 데려온 사람들은 무릉도 사람이지, 우산도 사람이 아닙니다.
따라서 태종 17년을 근거로 하여 '우산도에 토산물과 사람이 살고 있으니 우산도는 독도가 아니라 현재의 울릉도 or 죽도이다'라고 주장하는 것은 잘못된 근거에 기초한 잘못된 주장입니다.
그리고 Gerry님은 태종 12년의 기사를 근거로 하여 '무릉도는 현재의 죽도이고, 우산도는 현재의 울릉도이다'라고 주장하고 계십니다만, 이것은 하나의 잘못된 발언을 가지고 나머지 수백개의 기록을 부정하는 억지에 지나지 않습니다.
고려사지리지를 봅시다.
蔚珍縣 - 有鬱陵島.[在縣正東海中新羅時稱于山國一云武陵一云羽陵]
울진현 - 울릉도가 있다.[현의 동쪽 바다에 있다. 신라 때 우산국이라 칭하고, 무릉 또는 우릉이라고도 하였다]
분명히 무릉도는 울릉도라고 밝히고 있습니다. 물론 우산국이라는 말도 나옵니다만, 우산'도'와 우산'국'은 다른 말이라는 것은 세종실록지리지에 나와 있으므로, 별도의 설명은 하지 않겠습니다.(우산국=무릉도+우산도)
이번엔 태종 16년의 기록을 봅시다.
태종 32권 16년 9월 2일 (경인)
太宗 32卷 16年 9月 2日 (庚寅)
以金麟雨爲武陵等處安撫使。戶曹參判朴習啓:
김인우(金麟雨)를 무릉(武陵) 등지 안무사(安撫使)로 삼았다. 호조 참판(戶曹參判) 박습(朴習)이 아뢰기를,
“臣嘗爲江原道都觀察使, 聞武陵島周回七息, 傍有小島, 其田可五十餘結。 所入之路, 纔通一人, 不可竝行。"
“신이 일찍이 강원도 도관찰사(江原道都觀察使)로 있을 때에 들었는데, 무릉도(武陵島)의 주회(周回)가 7식(息)이고, 곁에 작은 섬(小島)가 있고, 전지가 50여 결(結)이 되는데, 들어가는 길이 겨우 한 사람이 통행하고 나란히 가지는 못한다고 합니다.”
무릉도의 둘레가 7식이라고 말하고 있네요. 1식은 30리입니다. 그리고 1리는 0.420km입니다. 따라서 무릉도의 둘레는 7*30*0.420=88.2km가 됩니다. 그리고 무릉도 곁에는 작은 섬이 있으며, 좁은 입구가 있다고 말하고 있네요.
울릉도의 해안선 길이는 56.5km, 죽도의 해안선 길이는 약 4km입니다. 그리고 울릉도 옆에는 작은 섬들이 있이며, 죽도는 그 작은 섬들 가운데 하나입니다. 그리고 울릉도는 좁은 입구가 있지만, 죽도는 사방이 절벽이라 입구가 없어서, 현재 인공 계단을 설치해서 출입하고 있습니다.
그러므로 이 기록의 무릉도는 현재의 울릉도입니다.
이번엔 태조 12년 이전의 기록을 봅시다. 태조 7년의 기록입니다.
太宗 13卷 7年 3月 16日
태종 13권 7년 3월 16일
對馬島守護宗貞茂, 遣平道全, 來獻土物, 發還俘虜。 貞茂請茂陵島欲率其衆落徙居, 上曰...
대마도 수호(對馬島守護) 종정무(宗貞茂)가 평도전(平道全)을 보내와 토물(土物)을 바치고, 잡혀 갔던 사람들을 돌려보냈다. 정무(貞茂)가 무릉도(武陵島)를 청(請)하여 여러 부락(部落)을 거느리고 가서 옮겨 살고자 하므로, 임금이 말하기를...
무릉도가 현재의 죽도라면, 무릉도에 건너가 살게 해달라는 종정무의 부탁은 상식적으로 이해할 수 없는 것이 됩니다. 대마도를 놔두고, 식수도 없고 출입로도 없는 죽도에서 살 이유가 없지 않습니까?
이번엔 20년전의 기록인 태조 1년의 기록입니다.
太祖 1卷 元年 7月 30日
태조 1권 1년 7월 30일
都評議使司請前日敎書所載流放遐方者, 分徙武陵、楸子島、濟州等處, 上曰
도평의사사(都評議使司)에서 전일의 교서(敎書)에 기재된 먼 지방으로 귀양보낼 사람은 무릉(武陵)·추자도(楸子島)와 제주도(濟州島) 등지로 나누어 귀양보내기를 청하니, 임금이 말하였다.
귀양지로서 제주도와 함께 무릉도가 등장하고 있습니다. 만약 무릉도가 현재의 죽도라면, 어째서 제주도와 함께 등장하는지 이해하기 어렵습니다. 제주도는 한반도의 섬 가운데 가장 큰 섬입니다.
그리고 귀양이라는 것은 정상적으로 살 수 있는 곳에 보내는 것이지, 식수도 없고 출입로도 없는 곳에서 살라고 보내는 것이 아닙니다. 여기에서의 무릉도 역시 현재의 울릉도인 것입니다.
이외에도 왕조실록의 많은 기록들이 무릉도를 현재의 울릉도로 이야기하고 있습니다. 그리고 안용복과 동국문헌비고 등 많은 조선의 기록들이 무릉도는 현재의 울릉도요, 우산도는 현재의 독도라고 증언하고 있습니다.
輿地志云. "鬱陵于山皆于山國地, 于山則倭所謂松島也" - 東國文獻備考
여지지는 말했다. "울릉도와 우산도는 모두 우산국 땅인데, 우산도는 곧 왜인이 말하는 송도이다." - 동국문헌비고
다른 수많은 기록을 놔두고, 자신의 생각에 맞는 하나의 기록만을 인용하는 것은 왜곡의 전형적인 수법입니다.
작년에 제주도에서 열렸던 한일 정상회담에서, 노무현 대통령이 독도라는 말 대신에 다케시마라고 말한 것을 인용하여
"한국인들도 독도를 다케시마라고 불렀고, 따라서 한국인들도 다케시마가 일본땅인 것을 인정했다"
라고 주장하는 것과 차이가 없는 수준이라 할 수 있겠습니다.
랄라라,
ReplyDeleteYes, the records concerning Ulleungdo and Usando can be confusing and contradictory, but almost all of them suggest that Usando was right next to Ulleungdo, not 92 kilometers away. And the killer piece of evidence that is not confusing and very clearly puts Usando right next to Ulleungdo are the Ulleungdo area maps.
Koreans may be able to look at the old pennisula maps of Chosun Korea and convince themselves that Usando is Dokdo/Takeshima, even though it is usually drawn right next to Ulleungdo, but how can they look at closeup maps of Ulleungdo, which have Usando drawn right among the other rocks and islets surrounding the island, and still say that Usando is Dokdo/Takeshima? How can you, 랄라라, look at those maps and still say that?
I think that Korean historians blow a lot of smoke about such things as the Sejong records' passage to hide the fact that the close-up maps of Ulleungdo very clearly show Usando right next to Ulleungdo. Those maps destroy Korea's argument that Usando is Dokdo/Takeshima, which is why the maps are not shown on Korean Web sites claiming Dokdo/Takeshima is Korean territory.
Look at the two maps of Ulleungdo on pages 55 and 56 of this link. One map was drawn in the 1700s and the other was drawn in the 1800s, but both maps clearly show Usando just to the east of Ulleungdo, approximately where the Korean island of Jukdo is today. I have not heard any Korean argument that can explain those two maps.
As far as I know the above two maps of Ulleungdo and the map drawn by Lee Gyu-won are the only old, detailed maps of Ulleungdo that still exist today. The two older maps show Usando just about with Jukdo is today, and the 1882 Lee Gyu-won map shows Jukdo instead of Usando.
Anyway, I will try cover all of the records in my posts over the next several weeks. If I leave anything out, feel free to tell me.
Gerry the Ulluengdo maps (#31) you posted do in fact show an Usando. We know Jukdo is in fact 2kms away from Ulleungdo. If the land is to such a good scale then why is Usando drawn so far away? Anyone from the shore of Ulleungdo could easily ballpark the distance to Jukdo if they could measure the distance across the island so well. Gerry you can't use the land measurements to the centimeter and then ignore the glaring error in distance of Usando from Ulleungdo
ReplyDeleteEach block is about 3kms but Usando is much further away. Secondly why is Uleungdo drawn off center to accomodate this other island? The shape of this drawing wouldn't have to be altered to include Jukdo.
I think Usando (Dokdo) was included as part of this region but not to scale. If you were to draw Ullengdo in detail and wanted to include Dokdo you would have to reduce the distance.
The other unnamed island off the Southeast of the correct distance, closer shape and size to be seen as Jukdo. They had also drawn a small set of hills on the south end like Jukdo. It seems that most of the prominent rocks of Ullengdo are drawn on the South side rather on the North where they should be.
Lastly why would anyone chose to live in this island centuries ago? There was poor or no wharfage on an exposed shoreline on all sides, Jukdo has no fresh water. To access arable land on top one would have to scale a cliff about 25 stories high. Leekyuwon said he could not climb the cliffs and that the area around the island was very dangerous and this was in the fair weather of Korea's spring.
Imagine trying to schlep all of your farming implements, food tools livestock and other essentials up the sides of a 100 meter cliff !!
Why bother living on Jukdo when there is fresh water, good shelter, arable land about 2kms away?
Annonymous,
ReplyDeleteSo today Jukdo is two kilometers away from Ulleungdo instead of the 2.5 you said either yesterday or the day before? Anyway, another fact we know is that Dokdo/Takeshima is 92 kilometers away, and would not have been drawn on either of the Ulleungdo maps.
As for the shape of the island, maybe the mapmaker was not as good as you might be at drawing maps? However, he did manage to put Usando right next to Ulleungdo. And if the shape of the island is so important to you, then why do you think the Usando on the maps is Dokdo/Takeshima? Dokdo/Takeshima is essentially two separate rocks sticking out of the water? The Usando on the Ulleungdo maps do not have that characteristic, so then why do you think it is Dokdo/Takeshima? And if the Usando on the Ulleungdo maps is Dokdo/Takeshima drawn right next to Ulleungdo instead of 92 kilometers away, then why isn't that fact mentioned on the maps?
Jukdo is on the east coast of Ulleungdo, not the south, and hills were drawn on the islands of old maps just to show they were islands.
I would whether live on Jukdo than on Dokdo/Takeshima. I do not know if Jukdo has a fresh water supply, but it has land to grow crops and fresh water is just a few kilometers away.
The cliffs of Jukdo would have also been good protection from pirates and other bandits. Also, Jukdo would have made a good hiding place for people who wanted to avoid Korean authorities. As you know from Lee Gyu-won's diary, he searched Ulleungdo and found trespassers, but he did not want to risk trying to land on Jukdo.
Ropes could easily bring water and other supplies up the cliffs, and according to the passage I referred in the Records of King Taejong, the people who said they lived on Muleungdo, which I believe was Jukdo, said they had no livestock. In fact, even Lee Gyu-won did not report seeing any livestock during his survey of Ulleungdo.
휴.. 이미 위에서 다 말씀드렸던 이야기가 아닙니까. 경위도 측량술이 없었던 당시 사람들에게 독도의 정확한 경위도 위치와 거리를 요구하는 것은 무리입니다. 다른 섬들의 위치도 틀렸고, 또한 한반도의 위치와 크기도 부정확한데, 어째서 독도만 정확한 위치를 요구하는지 모르겠습니다. 그리고 현대의 지도들 역시 독도를 울릉도 바로 옆에 표시하고 있는 경우가 많습니다. 그래서 보여드렸구요.
ReplyDeleteGerry님께서 보셨듯이, 태종 16년의 기록에는 무릉도 옆에 작은섬(小島)가 있다고 했을 뿐, 우산도가 있다는 말은 나오지 않습니다. 무릉도 바로 옆의 작은섬(小島), 즉 지금의 죽도가 우산도라면, '곁에 작은 섬이 있다(傍有小島)'라는 말이 왜 나오는지 설명할 수 없습니다. '곁에 우산도가 있다(傍有于山島)'라는 말이 나와야 정상입니다.
또한 한국측 기록 역시 울릉도의 동남쪽에 우산도가 있다거나(안용복, 대한신지지 등), 우산도는 일본인이 말하는 송도(마쓰시마; 독도)라거나(동국문헌비고), 두 섬의 거리는 멀지 않아서 맑은 날에 서로 볼 수 있다는(세종실록지리지) 이야기를 보면, 우산도는 현재의 독도가 될 수밖에 없습니다.
그런데도 무릉도 바로 옆에 우산도가 있기 때문에 독도가 아니라면, 이에 대해서 더이상 Gerry님께 말씀드리지 않겠습니다. 반박 근거를 제시했는데도 통하지 않는다면, 더 말해봐야 소용이 없겠지요.
그리고 기록들이 울릉도와 우산도를 혼동하고 있다고 하셨는데, 그 혼동이라는 것은 태종 12년의 기록 외에 없습니다. 그리고 그 태종 12년의 기록은 유산국도에 살고 있다는 '한 사람의 발언'을 인용한 것이지, 조선정부의 공식 의견이 아닙니다. 이 경우와 유사한 '우산 무릉 일도설(一島說)' 역시 전체 비중에서 1%도 되지 않을 정도로 적고, 99%는 '이도설(二島說)'을 언급하고 있으므로, Gerry님의 태도는 1%를 가지고 99%를 부정하려는 것에 지나지 않습니다.
1년전, 노무현 대통령이 제주도에서 열린 한일정상회담에서 독도를 다케시마라고 지칭한 것을 가지고, 수백년 후의 일본인들이 '한국인도 당시 독도를 다케시마라고 불렀다'라고 주장한다면, Gerry님은 옳게 여길 것입니까?
Gerry님께서는 저의 반론에 대한 구체적인 반론이 없습니다. 세종실록지리지의 二島相去不遠의 해석 문제도 그렇고, 구체적인 반박 근거없이 그저 일본측의 주장이 옳다는 전제하에 연역적으로 추론하여 인정하지 않고 있을 뿐입니다.
저는 Gerry님이 제시한 주장과 자료에 대한 나름대로의 반박과 근거를 모두 실시했다고 생각합니다. 그러나 Gerry님께선 제가 반박했던 이야기를 다시 반복하고 있을 뿐이라 생각합니다. 상대방을 설득하려면 타당한 근거를 같이 제시하셔야 합니다.
아무튼 나중에 독도에 관한 자료를 정리해서 올려주신다고 하셨으니, 나중에 시간되면 다시 찾아와서 읽던지 하겠습니다. 다만 Tanaka Kunitaka의 홈페이지에 인용된 자료만을 올리는 일은 없었으면 좋겠군요. 알고 있는 이야기고, 이곳에서도 반박을 했으니 말입니다.
그럼 안녕히 계세요.
랄라라,
ReplyDeleteYou dismiss the Ulleungdo maps by saying that Korean mapmaking science at the time was underdeveloped and did not use lines of longitude and latitude, but how much mapmaking science does it take to draw an island and its neighboring islands?
Drawing a map of the Korean pennisula and drawing a map of an island that can be sailed around in a day are two different things. A mapmaker would have to be pretty stupid to mistake an island that is ninety-two kilometers away for one that is just a few kilometers away. Korea was regularly sending inspectors to Ulleungdo, so it is unlikely that they got it that wrong.
Why should I waste my time arguing with you about the semantics of the Sejong passage when you cannot even admit that the Ulleungdo maps show Usando right next to Ulleungdo instead of 92 kilometers away? It is like arguing that it is too early in the year for snow while staring out the window at a blizzard and two feet of it.
I ignored some of your arguments because I felt like you were just blowing smoke, but I will try to address some of them later when I get to that point in my postings. I have been spending so much time writing in my comments section that I have only been able to put up two posts on the subject. I hope you come back later and make more comments when I get more up on my blog.
My point is this Gerry. If the cartographer was so good to make maps of this accuracy then why is the "jukdo" so far away and why was the shape of the map altered to accomodate this huge error?
ReplyDeleteI think the Usando is Dokdo and it is appended without a border. The distance was decreased to include it. Some maps of this era simply move islands closer to land to include them within the boundaries of the territory. You will see this often with maps of Korea where Ulluengdo is almost touching the shore of the Korean peninsula.
Japanese maps show other territories with appended maps with borders on them.
Another thing I mentioned was the fact that the 동국여지도 showed two different boating routes going from Korea to Ulleungdo/Korea to Usando. Why would you need two different routes to go to an island 2kms (that's right about 2kms) away from Ulleungdo?
Shipping routes marked on a map shows us a few things. 1.These weren't outlaws or pirates. 2.Regular visits were being made so there must have been a safe place to dock and lodge which Jukdo doesn't offer. 3 The area must have been intrinsically valuable for one reason or another which Jukdo is not.
Jukdo has no fresh water, in fact to this day residents still have to gather rainwater for daily usage. They must have proper storage facilities that they wouldn't have had hundreds of years ago. I can't imagine living on a traditional Korean house with a thatch roof during winter blizzards or when a typhoon blows in. Scaling that 300ft wall on a regular basis during the winter would be impossible.
Bringing barrels of water up 100 meters on ropes...........Jesus Christ. Gerry have you ever lived in any environment without access to fresh water? Well, I have had the experience and believe me it's no fucking picnic. Do you have any idea how much water even a conservative person consumes per day? It's no coincidence any city or town is located near a source of readily available potable water.
It's not possible to include Dokdo island on a map of Korea or Ulleungdo without either appending the island or moving it closer. Even maps of today show Dokdo as a separate inclusive map on another page or an appended box.
Annonymous,
ReplyDeleteIf people are living off the rain and snow water on Jukdo today, then why couldn't people have lived off of it hundreds of years ago?
I have read that Ulleungdo gets more rain than any other place in Korea, a yearly average of about 1,485mm. That averages out to about 4 milimeters a day. I have also read that it gets more snow than anyway else in Korea, with an average snow accumulation of about one meter. With that much snow, they would not have to leave the island in the winter in search of water.
And what is proper storage facilities for gathering rainwater? All they would have needed were pots and jars. They could have also gathered water from rocky pools after a heavy rain.
A conservative Korean hundreds of years ago was probably much different from a conservative Korean today. For example, I doubt that they took baths as often as Koreans do today or used as much water.
There is no reason why Koreans could not have lived on Jukdo, and I have already quoted Korean documents that suggest that they did.
By the way, here are some more good pictures of Jukdo.
Gerry the pictures you post of Jukdo today are irrelevant to reality of life on there hundreds of years ago (if they did which I doubt). On some Jukdo pictures you can see they even had to install a spiral staircase to climb the cliffs.
ReplyDeleteIf there were any people living on Jukdo Island Leekyuwon would have mentioned it in his survey. The map I told you about shows people were visiting Usando over 180 years
before his survey on a regular basis. If this were so, they would have been lots of evidence such as paths and houses which he makes no mention of.
What he does say is the area has many rocks and it was very dangerous. He also says he couldn't climb the sheer cliffs of the sides.
Could people live on Jukdo? Maybe I mean Inuit live in the Arctic.
But like I said about 2kms next door is fresh water, mooring and arable land.......so why bother?
Maybe the early Koreans were hardcore rock-climbers eh Gerry.
Annonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe spiral staircase was build in 1993 to accomondate tourists, but there were people living on the island before then, so they obviously had a path up the cliffs.
Lee Gyu-won said that he did not inspect Jukdo because it was too dangerous, so he would not have known if there were people living on the island or not.
Lee Gyu-won did NOT say that "he couldn't climb the sheer cliffs of the sides"; he said it was "too dangerous to go up onto the island." That could have meant that the sea between the mainland and the island was too dangerous or climbing up onto the island was too dangerous, or it could have meant both.
Why don't you post a link the map with the sea routes on it that you keep talking about?
By the way, that should be "accommodate" tourists.
ReplyDeleteI lost the link Gerry. If you want you'll have to find it yourself. I tried like Hell but I couldn't dig up a good picture of it.
ReplyDeleteAnyway the name of the map is the 동국여지도 it's dated around 1710.
It is also the map that has 사방백리 between Usando and Ullengdo. I'll try and find it again or I'll check my other computer for the image and e-mail it to you.
Annonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe 동국여지도 map shows Usando west of Ulleungdo, which means the so-called sea routes you are talking about go to Ulleungdo, not Jukdo. At the time, Koreans were still confusing the islands. Now, what is the point you were trying to make?
Wrong. There are two separte lines one goes to Usando one goes to Ulleungdo.
ReplyDeleteWhat difference does it make which side they are on.
At any rate. It's clear by Leekyuwon survey there were no signs of residents on Jukdo.
I'll e-mail the image.
Annonymous,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the blow-up of the Usando-Ulleungdo portion of the "동국여지지도" map. I did not have a close-up view of that map and could not see the small line you were referring to. By the way, for anyone who is interested, you can see the map here on page 44, picture 8. However, the map at this link will not show you the line Annonymous is talking about.
Anyway, Annonymous, both lines run to Usando, which is on the west side of Ulleungo. The bottom line looks like it may continue through Usando to Ulleungdo. The top line connects Samcheok (三陟: 삼척) to Usando, and the bottom line connects Uljin (蔚珎: 울진). On the line running from Uljin to Usando and Ulleungdo, the following is written:
水路二日程
수로이일정
Translation: "Water route is 2 days distance."
So, the map seems to be saying that Usando and Ulleungdo are 2 days distance from Uljin, which implies that the two islands are right next to each other. If one of the two islands were Dokdo/Takeshima, then it would take an extra day to get to it since Dokdo/Takeshima is 92 kilometers past Ulleungdo. So this map is furthur proof that Usando and Ulleungdo were right next to each other, not 92 kilometers apart.
By the way, I am not sure what the Chinese characters between the two islands is saying. If anyone knows, please let me know.
Annonymous, Lee Gyu-won did not visit Jukdo and did not say anything that would make it "clear" that there were no residents on Jukdo. He simply said that it was too dangerous for them to go up onto the island.
That's right Gerry the one line continues though Usando and links to Ulleungdo it goes through the 사방백리 text. The two days travel distance is on the line extending to Ulleungdo not on the Usando boat route. The line runs through Usando because the island was inadvertently drawn on the wrong side. Usando has a boat route totally separate from Ullengdo. It's route is a more northerly route maybe to utilize winds to compensate for the further distance. A rock with a circumference of 10ri, 2kms away from Ulleungdo doesn't need a separate boat route.
ReplyDeleteThe Lee Kyuwon diary states as follows "둘레가 십리쯤 되는데 위험해서 올라가지 못하였다." (Jukdo) is 10ri around (ten .4kms ri) around and I couldn't climb up because it was too dangerous. He mentions how hazardous this area is twice he also said his boat was rocking wildly because of the waves and you would want to be extra careful here. This is not a place where you could live let alone want to given ideal conditions a stone's throw away. Leekyuwon's job was to survey the island and to investigate for trespassers etc. If there were signs of people residing on Jukdo he would have mentioned it in his diary given the attention to detail when describing Jukdo.
As I mentioned this was in May when Korea's weather is mild. Imagine this island around November through March. Any boats moored here would be smashed to bits during even a modest storm without proper docking or breakwater. Even on a nice day you can see whitewater around Jukdo's shoreline.
http://img.airspider.com/image/00/80/48/00804853_2.jpg
As I mentioned the characters say "Sa-bang-baek-ri" It's printed between the islands. This gives doubt as to your theory that this was referring to Ulleundo's land area......
Try this.
ReplyDeletehttp://img.airspider.com/image/00/80/48/00804853_2.jpg
Annonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe lines are not shipping routes. They are simply lines draw to show which administrative office the islands belong to. So why are there two lines?
Well, Ulleungdo was under the administration of Uljin, I think, and I think the line to Samcheok (삼척) was drawn to show the closest point on the mainland to the islands, which is at Samcheok (134 kilometers away).
I think the bottom line intentionally ran through Usando and Ulleungdo to show the connection between the two islands. Otherwise, the line could have easily been drawn around Usando to Ulleungdo, especially if it were a shipping route. As you probably know, a ship cannot travel through an island.
The 2-days distance on the line refers to the distance to Usando/Ulleungdo, which shows that the islands are right next to each other, not 92 kilometers apart. If either Usando or Ulleungdo were Dokdo/Takeshima, it would have taken an extra day to get there.
Thank you for telling me what the Chinese characters are between the two islands. That was bothering me. Nevertheless, those characters do not refer to a linear distance. They describe the area of Ulleungdo, as is written in several references to the island in old Korean documents. The characters are written between the two islands because there is no room on the islands to write them.
The rough waters mentioned in Lee Gyu-won's diary was referring to the waters just in front of Wadalli (와달리), which is on the main island of Ulleungdo, just across from Jukdo. He was not referring to the waters on the shores of Jukdo.
Whether you believe that people were living on Jukdo or not does not change the fact that there are still Korean documents that suggest there were, and there is nothing in Lee Gyu-won's diary that says there "were no signs of people residing on Jukdo."
Nice to meet you. I am Japanese. The machine translation is used because I am not good at English.
ReplyDeleteThe Chinese characters used for Usan-guk (于山國) literally mean "Big Mountain >Country." 于 (우) means "big," 山 (산) means "mountain,"
Ulleungdo (鬱陵島) literally mean "Luxuriant, Big-hill Island." 鬱 (울) means "luxuriant," 陵 (릉) means "big hill," and 島 (도) means island. Notice that Usan refers to a "mountain" and Ulleung refers to a "big hill." Moreover, notice that in the Samgukyusa, the 鬱 (울) in Ulleungdo was replaced with 于 (우), the same character used in Usan-guk.
I think that this is a mistake. The Chinese character of a similar pronunciation to ancient Korean was only allotted. It is the same as the expression of dog's cry by the alphabet "Bow bow".
國 (국) means "country."
This point is correct.
地方一百里 means, a piece of Ulleungdo becomes 100 ri. One ri of South Korea is 0.4km(4km in Japan). The south north of Ulleungdo is 100 ri(40km), and east and west is 100 ri(40km).
Hi Kazu,
ReplyDeleteI realize that Koreans often used characters to represent the sounds of a syllable without meaning to transfer the meaning of the characters, but Usando (于山國 - 우산국) and Ulleungdo (鬱陵島 - 울릉도) have different sounds, so why did the Koreans change the name from Usanguk to Ulleungdo?
I think that instead of preserving the sound of the name of the island state, they chose to preserve the meaning of it. At any rate, I think it is more than just coincidence that the Chinese characters for Usan (우산) and (우릉) mean basically the same thing.
Koreans translate 地方(지방) and 四方 (사방) as having the same meaning. In Korean documents, the 지방 is given as one number, not as two, so that is why I think it is the sum of the north-south and east-west distances.
I also think that Koreans used a measure of "ri" shorter than 0.4 kilometers. On this Korean map, the water route between Ulleungdo and the Korean mainland is stated as 800 "리" (水路八百里 - 수로팔백리). If you multiplied 800 "ri" by the 0.4 km measure, it would total to 320 kilometers, which is more than twice the distance from Ulleungdo to the nearest point on the mainland. From Imwonri, Samcheok-gun in Kangwon Province (on the mainland) to Ulleungdo the distance is only 134 kilometers, from Donghae to Ulleungo it is 161 kilometers, and from Pohang it is 217 kilometers. So, as you can see, the 0.4 "ri" does not work with this map.
Also, on the same map, the distance from Daemado (Tsushima) to the Korean mainland is given as 470 "ri" (水路四百七十里), which would be 188 kilometers using the 0.4-kilometer "ri." However, the actual distance from Daemado (Tsushima) to Busan is only about 50 kilometers. Again, the 0.4 km measure does not work.
So what measure of "ri" was the mapmaker using? Well, we can calculate it by dividing the actual distances to the mainland by the 800 and 470 "ri" measures. That would give use the following results:
134 km / 800 "ri" = 0.17 "ri / km
161 km / 800 "ri" = 0.2 "ri" / km
217 km / 800 "ri" = 0.27 "ri" / km
50 km / 470 "r" = 0.11 "ri / km
We cannot know which measure is correct because the mapmaker does not say from which points on the mainland he was measuring from. At any rate, the map makes me think that there was a shorter measure for "ri" than 0.4 kilometers, and that it was probably 0.2 kilometers or less.
If you go to pages 55 and 56 of this link, and look at the two maps of Ulleungdo, you will notice that it has the north-south and east-west distances on the the maps, measured from the central peak on the island to the north and south shores and to the east and west shores.
On the map on page 55 (그림 31), the north-south distance is given as 40 "ri" (20 "ri" + 20 "ri"), and the east-west distance is given as 70 "ri" (30 "ri" + 40 "ri"). That would add up to 110 "ri."
On the map on page 56 (그림 33), the north-south distance seems to be 60 "ri" (30 + 30) and the east-west distance seems to be either 60 or 70 "ri" (40 + 20 or 30). I am not sure of the east-west distance because, for some reason, the second map gives five distances instead of four.
I am not certain if the above is prove that there was a shorter "ri" measure, but it seems to suggest that.
> why did the Koreans change the name from Usanguk to Ulleungdo?
ReplyDeleteI think that Usando(于山島) of the 15th century is an island of the lie.
The first reason is a record of King Taejong of 12 years. Baek Ga-mul(白加勿) is reporting that surroundings on the Yusangukdo(流山国島) are 8sik(96km). The Yusangukdo（流山国島） is not Ulleungdo（鬱稜島） because Baek Ga-mul moved from Ulleungdo（鬱稜島）. Actually, because such an island doesn't exist, it is understood that it is an island of the lie.
The second reason is that Usando(于山島) in the map（八道総図） is very large. It is the same size as Ulleungdo（鬱稜島）. Ulleungdo（鬱稜島） is also considerably large dependence actually. The island doesn't actually exist in the west of Ulleungdo（鬱稜島）. The island of the same size as Ulleungdo（鬱稜島） doesn't exist either.
< Usando （Yusangukdo）>
･In April, '12 of Records of King Taejong : 8sik of surroundings. (96km in surroundings)
･17 of Records of King Taejong: The size is uncertain.
< Ulleungdo >
･Samguksagi: All sides 100 ri(120km in surroundings)
･In September, '16 of Records of King Taejong: 7sik of surroundings. (84km in surroundings)
･In June, '18 of Records of 世宗: East and west and the south north are 50 ri (80km in surroundings).
The adjustment can be taken if it is thought that the map(八道総図) was made from these records.
----------------------------------
Comment at 8:00 AM KST
男女共六十餘, 今移居本島
Now we have moved to the main island and are living there.
This translation is wrong. "本島" indicates the mentioned island. It becomes a meaning "this island or that island". Yusangukdo Island is indicated.
ex.
"本日" is a meaning of not the main day but today.
By the way, Kazu, the distance from the north shore of Ulleungdo to the south is only about 9.5 kilometers, not 40, and the distance from the east shore to the west is about 10 kilometers. If my theory is right, that would give a modern 地方(지방) of 19.5 kilometers. If we divide 19.5 kilometers by 100 "ri," we would get a 0.195 "ri." And then if we multiplied that by the 800 "ri" distance to the mainland, then we would get 156 kilometers, which would take us pretty close to Donghae on the Korean mainland, which is 161 kilometers away.
ReplyDeleteThere was no measurement technique of an accurate distance in the 15
ReplyDeleteth century.
Japan is also the same.
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/t-takeshima.gif
It is a map of Takeshima and Ulleungdo in Japan of 1724.
It is being written 70 ri (280km) between the Oki island and Takeshima. Actually, it is 160km. It can be judged Takeshima from shape and the composition of the islands, and the size is also considerably different from the fact.
I do not think that you should strictly think about ri.
Annonymous,
ReplyDeleteConcerning the 1710 map you sent me with two lines drawn to Ulleungdo and Usando (one from Samcheok and one from Uljin), I would like to revise my explanation.
At the time, Ulleungdo and Usando were under the local administration of Uljin, but I think Uljin (울진) was under the administration of Samcheok (삼척), similar to towns in a county being under the administration of authorities in a town recognized as the county seat. In order words, Ulleungdo and Usando were considered part of the village of Uljin, which was in the area administered by authorities in Samcheok. So the line drawn from Uljin may be showing which village the islands were considered a part of, and the line drawn from Samcheok may have been showing the regional adminstrative authority they come under.
1656년, 輿地誌: 鬱陵于山皆于山國地.于山則倭所爲松島也.
ReplyDeleteGeographical Gazette, "Ullung Island and Usan Island are all in the territory of (the old) State of Usan. Usan is exactly what the Japanese call Matsushima "Pine Island.........
1693-1696, An, Yong Bok 安龍福 states before the Prefect 太守 of Houki Province 伯耆州: “松島則于山島此亦我國也... 傾年吾人來此處以鬱陵于山等島定以朝鮮界.
ReplyDelete"Matsushima is the same as Usando. This is beongs to my state. I was here last year and confirmed by these places Ullung and Usan Choson territory."
Hi Gerry,
ReplyDeleteGreat job! Your theory looks right and it's what the Japanese book "Takeshima Wa Nikkann Dochira No Monoka" (Which Country Does Takeshima Belong?) says : http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASIN/4166603779/qid=1148424177/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/503-7930161-5600745
The problem is why the Korean government educate Korean people in wrong way. Their textbook of history is full of distorted stories, while they denounce a Japanese textbook!
Thanks Ken,
ReplyDeleteYes, I wish I could read Japanese, but, at least, I have some Japanese material translated into Korean that I am using.
I agree. Korea's textbooks, and many Koreans' attitude about history need to change. There are a few Koreans who seem to recognize the problem, even though they still support Korea's claim on Dokdo/Takeshima. Kim Byeong-ryeol is one of them. He believes in presenting both sides of the debate, which is something I respect about him. If you can read Korean, I can recommend the following two books:
"독도가 우리땅인 이유! 독도 논쟁"
"독도에 대한 일본 사람들의 주장"
Thanks for your information Gerry, but unfortunately I can't read Korean language.
ReplyDeleteI can only talk a little words, but basically I have respect for Korean people. So please don't misunderstand me Korean people, I just want to pursue the truth in order to make a true friendship with Koreans!
Gerry, why can't you tell your theory to the Korean Government? We need some kind of movement to establish a friendship between Japanese and Korean people.
To make Korea more democratic country, freedom of speech and freedom of press are essential. But unfortunately Korean world is not yet so democratic... if somebody praises Japan he would be arrested or would receive a good beating. But we have to change such situations in Korea.
What do you think?