竹島자료공부회의 『메이지 10년 태정관 지령의 검증』에 대한 비판 = Criticism of ‘Verification of the Dajokan Order in the 10th year of Meiji’ by the Takeshima Documents Study Group

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

① Based on Takashi Tsukamoto’s argument, the Takeshima Documents Study Group argued that today’s Takeshima [Dokdo] is not included in the ‘Takeshima and an other island’ that the Dajokan, namely the Japanese Government ordered in 1877 to be unrelated to Japan. Tsukamoto's argument is that when the Ministry of Home Affairs examined an inquiry from Shimane Prefecture regarding the compilation of the cadastral records of Takeshima and one other island, firstly, it examined only Takeshima (Uleungdo) and did not examine the other island, namely Matsushima, secondly, it did not adopt the "outline of origin'' from Shimane Prefecture, and thirdly, because the Dajokan approved such an examination, Matsushima was not included in the Dajokan Order. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs also thoroughly examined Matsushima, so Tsukamoto's claim does not hold up.
②The study group argued that all Japanese maps made by the Japanese government before the Dajokan Order depicted Matsushima at the location of Dagelet Island (Ulleungdo), so the Japanese government recognized Matsushima as Ulleungdo. However, such map of Japan could not be confirmed. But the Ministry of Education's map “Complete Map of Great School District in Greater Japan(大日本大學區全圖)” depicting Takeshima at the location of Ulleungdo was found. The study group’s claim is not correct.
③The study group believed that the Isotakeshima Memorandum(礒竹島覚書), which investigated the ‘Takeshima Incident (Ulleungdo Dispute)’　in Edo Era, was written by the Edo Shogunate without any basis, and excluded it from the Meiji government’s recognition of Takeshima and Matsushima. However, this is a document prepared by the Topography Department of the Ministry of Home Affairs by comparing and correcting various documents. This document revealed that the Edo shogunate gave up Takeshima and viewed Matsushima as a belonging island to Takeshima. This document is material that reveals the Meiji government's recognition of Takeshima and Matsushima.
④The study group claimed that the Dajokan Order was an internal directive to the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, there is another Dajokan directive with almost the same meaning in Dajo Ruiten(太政類典). Since this is a collection of precedents and regulations, strict interpretation is possible. If you look for ‘one other islands’ within this, there is only Matsushima (namely Dokdo), as Shimane Prefecture calls it. Dajokan ordered that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were not part of Japan.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 竹内猛, "｢竹島外一島｣の解釈をめぐる諸問題について" (87) : 2011
• 2 池内敏, "｢国境｣未満" (630) : 2015
• 3 김흥수, "한일 관계의 근대적 개편 과정" 서울대학교 출판문와원 2009
• 4 박병섭, "일본의 제3차 울릉도 침입 사건과 울릉도 탈취 기도" 독도연구소 (33) : 7-39, 2022
• 5 김관원, "울릉도･독도 일본 사료집 Ⅲ－朝鮮国交際始末内探書･礒竹島覚書･公文録･ 太政類典" 2020
• 6 송병기, "울릉도와 독도, 그 역사적 검증" 역사공간 2010
• 7 박병섭, "안용복 사건 이후의 독도 영유권 문제" (13) : 2012
• 8 田中阿歌麻呂, "隱岐國竹島に關する舊記" (200) : 1905
• 9 山崎佳子, "隠岐島前竹島問題調査研究, 第4期｢竹島問題に関する調査研究｣中間報告書" 島根県 2019
• 10 大西俊輝, "第三部 日本海と竹島" 東洋出版 2011
• 11 塚本孝, "竹島領有をめぐる韓国政府の主張について" (52) : 2016
• 12 塚本孝, "竹島資料勉強会報告書｢明治10年太政官指令｣の検証" 日本国際問題研究所(JIIA) 2022
• 13 塚本孝, "竹島問題100問100答" ワック 2014
• 14 川上健三, "竹島の歴史地理学的研究" 古今書院 1996
• 15 池内敏, "竹島―もうひとつの日韓関係史" 中公新書 2016
• 16 石田龍次郎, "皇国地誌の編纂－その経緯と思想" (8) : 1966
• 17 田中芳男, "澳国博覧会参同記要" 森山春雍 214-, 1897
• 18 박병섭, "池内敏『竹島－もうひとつの日韓関係史』" 독도연구소 (20) : 235-326, 2016
• 19 塚本孝, "朝鮮国交際始末内探書再考" 12 : 2022
• 20 朴炳渉, "明治政府の竹島＝独島認識" (28) : 2008
• 21 島津俊之, "明治政府の地誌編纂事業と国民国家形成" 75 (75): 2002
• 22 島津俊之, "明治政府の地誌編纂事業と国民国家形成" 75 (75): 2002
• 23 岩谷十郎, "明治太政官期法令の世界" 国立国会図書館 2007
• 24 杉原隆, "明治9年の太政官文書, 竹島に関する調査研究報告書" 2009
• 25 杉原隆, "明治10年太政官指令･竹島外一島之儀ハ本邦関係無之－をめぐる諸問題, 第２期「竹島問題に関する調査研究」中間報告書" 島根県総務部 2011
• 26 島津俊之, "史談会速記録 第166輯" 原書房 37-, 1973
• 27 佐藤侊, "内務省地誌課の事績" (305) : 1993
• 28 塚本孝, "元禄竹島一件をめぐって一付､明治十年太政官指令" 2 (2): 2013
• 29 鈴木純子, "伊能図利用の軌跡" 56 (56): 2018
• 30 塚本孝, "不条理とたたかう－李承晩ライン･拉致･ 竹島問題" 拓殖大学 2017
• 31 박병섭, "2000년 이후 독도/竹島 관련 일본학계의 역사학 연구" 독도연구소 (29) : 43-85, 2020