We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 March 2011
Korea is well recognized as a distinct political unit. The country has a definite area on the surface of the earth and is delimited from the surrounding areas by definite boundaries. These boundaries of water and land have certain characteristics and functions which merit description. Moreover, within Korea geographic divisions are recognized. The provinces have well defined physical boundaries which have been important in compartmentalizing Korea. With the collapse of Japan, Korea was divided between American and Russian military zones by a purely artificial line, the thirty-eighth parallel, North. This imposition of a new boundary within Korea may affect the future activities of the people. The description of its physical character reveals its inadequacies as a boundary.
1 One of the best books to treat with boundaries from a geographic viewpoint is that of the Geographer to the Department of State, Boggs, S. Whittmore, International boundaries: a study boundary functions and problems (New York: Columbia University Press, 1940)Google Scholar. A more recent study is by Jones, Stephen B., Boundary-making, a handbook for statesmen, treaty editors and boundary commissioners (Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law. 1945)Google Scholar.
2 The romanizations used in this paper follow the McCune-Reischauer system as adopted by the U. S. Board on Geographical Names and the U. S. Army Map Service.
3 Lattimore, Owen in his Inner Asian frontiers of China (New York: American Geographical Society, 1940), pp. 106–109Google Scholar dicussses this Chinese region.
4 Rockhill, William Woodville in his China's Intercourse with Korea from the ruth century to 1885 (London: Luzac and Co., 1905)Google Scholar quotes from the Dynastic Institutes of the Ch'ing (Ta Ch'ing hui-tien, ch. 399) the reply of the Chinese Emperor in 1746 to the King of Korea concerning the opening of this frontier zone:
“We have the greatest consideration for Korea, and have heretofore bestowed many favours upon it. Now as to this question of erecting a watch station at Mang-niu-shao, it has been carefully looked into. It is situated on the Korean frontier, and the proposed measure cannot cause trouble or disturb the peace. Moreover, it is to the equal advantage of both countries. Notwithstanding this, the King of Korea tells us that it is inexpedient, and earnestly requests that the project be abandoned. As We cannot possibly know the exact character of this section of country, let it therefore be examined into and a report made to Us. If the locality is really within the frontier of China, then the establishment of a military guard-house to prevent brigandage, establish order, and guard the frontier is a necessary measure.
“As to the King of Korea's request that the post be not established because the locality in question is debatable land, it is impossible not to have doubtful places, as his frontier is intricately mixed with Ours, so We cannot countermand Our orders as the King requests.
“As to the question of opening to agriculture land outside the Barrier of stakes, a subject which has in former times been under deliberation, the King of Korea asks that there be left as theretofore a hundred and odd li of uninhabited land outside the Barrier of stakes of Feng-huang-ch'eng, as an obstacle ro intercourse between the two countries and as a means of preventing a congregating of people on the frontier, which would create all kinds of trouble. This request is approved of; so the prohibition concerning settling o n the land outside the barrier of Feng-huang-ch'eng will remain in vigour as heretofore.”
5 George M. McCune discusses this in his Ph.D. dissertation, Korean relations with China and Japan, 1800–1865 (Berkeley: University of California, 1941).
6 The geologic history of this area has been studied in detail by many Japanese geologists—Koto, Kawazaki, Kobayashi, Nakamura, Yamanari, Kinaseki, Watanabe, etc. Fumio Tad a in an article, “The geographic features of the Kaima plateau in Korea,” Geographical review of Japan (July, 1935), and in another article, “Volcanoes in Korea, “Geographical journal of Japan (September, 1936) discusses these geologic problems.
7 The climate of this region was discussed in some detail by the author in two monographs, “Climatic regions: northern interior Korea” and “Climatic regions: northern west Korea,” Research monographs on Korea, Series E, Nos. 2 and 4, June 1, 1945.
8 The third annual report on reforms and progress in Korea (1909–1910) (Seoul: Government-General of Chosen, 1910), pp. 11–12Google Scholar, gives the official Japanese view on these disputes and their settlement.
9 This fascinating type of economy has been studied by a number of Japanese, but only one European has written in detail on it, Hermann Lautensach, in an article: “Uber den brandro-dungsfeldbau in Korea mit bemerkungen zur urlandschaftsforschung,” Petermanns geographische mitteilungcn, 87 jahrg. 2 heft (February, 1941), 41–54Google Scholar.
10 Tada, op. cit., gives the best brief discussion of the geology of the area.
11 The major map series which have been used throughout this study have been the 1:50,000 topographic maps of Korea, the 1:500,000 provincial maps of Korea, and the 1:500,000 maps of Manchuria, published by the Imperial Land Survey Department (Tokyo) or by the Government-General of Chosen (Keijo).
11 Quoted from MacMurray, John V. A., Treaties and agreements with and concerning China, 1894–1919 (New York, 1921), vol. 1, pp. 796–97Google Scholar, “Agreement relating to the Chientao region, September 4, 1909.” The third annual report on reforms and progress in Korea (1909–1910) (Seoul: Government-General of Chosen, 1910)Google Scholar, Appendix C. “The Korean boundary agreement,” pp. 169–70 is generally the same.
12 The map was in the author's possession in Chungking in the fall of 1944. On the map were many errors, but it was being universally used by Chinese in Chungking.
14 This explanation was furnished to me by a rather highly placed Chinese official. For this legend one can read in Owen Lattimore, op. cit., pp. 115–30 concerning Nurhachi, the founder of the Manchu line.
15 The climate and economy of the area are discussed in more detail in the author's “Climatic regions: northern interior Korea” and “Climatic regions: northeastern littoral,” Research Monographs on Korea, Series E, Nos. 2 and 3, June 1, 1945.
16 There have been a number of studies made on the Korean settlers in Manchuria by Japanese and Koreans. Lee, Hoon K. wrote a short article, “Korean migrants in Manchuria,” summarizing the conclusions from his book published in Korean by the Union Christian College Press, P'yong-yang, Korea, in the Geographical review, 22 (April, 1932), 196–204Google Scholar. According to the Toyo keizai nenkan (Tokyo, 1943)Google Scholar the Korean population in Manchuria on October 1, 1940 was 1,430,384, or 3.3 per cent of the total population.
17 T. C. Lin discusses this in an article, “Manchuria in the Ming empire,” Nankai social and economic quarterly., 8 (1935), no. 1. He quotes from a Japanese study by H. Ikiuchi, “Relations between the Nu-chen and northeastern Korea in the 14th century,” Report on the research of the historical geography of Manchuria and Korea (Tokyo), vol. 2, pp. 207–14, 247–305.
18 Data from a Japanese publication: Population growth in Korea for 500 years of the Yi dynasty (Seoul: Government-General of Chosen, 1927)Google Scholar.
19 MacMurray (op. cit.) and The third annual report…, op. cit., pp. 9–11, and Appendix C, pp. 169–70.
20 This problem is discussed by the present writer in “The Tumen river corridor,” Far Eastern survey, 14 (June 20, 1945), 164–66.
21 One of the few descriptions of this region in English is found in Bergman's, StenIn Korean wilds and villages (London: J. Gifford Ltd., 1938)Google Scholar.
23 The contrasts between the two islands have been best described by Lautensach, Hermann in his article, “Quelpart und Dagelet, rergleichende landeskunde zweier koreanischer inseln,” Wisstn-shaftliche veröjjcntlickungcn dcs museums f¨r ländtrkunde zu Leipzig, N. F. 3 (1935), 177–206Google Scholar.
23 No attempt has been made to describe the geography of each individual province, though that would have been valuable in showing the regional contrasts within Korea. Using largely Japanese source materials, Griffis, William Elliott described each in his Korea, the hermit nation (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1882)Google Scholar. Each province has a mass of Korean literature concerning it. This material has not been studied by Westerners. A two volume work in Korean, Geography of the thirteen provinces of Korea, was published in Seoul by Chong, Unmo in 1909. The Japanese published a great many descriptive studies.
24 A summation of Royal Ordinance No. 97 of June 20, 1895, is given in “The Korean official gazette,” The Korean repository (Seoul), 2 (July, 1895), no. 7.
25 “The Korean official gazette,” The Korean repository, 3 (August, 1896), no. 8, summarizes edicts Nos. 35 and 36 of August 4, 1896, ordering this change.
25 Annual report on administration of Tyosen, 1936–1937 (Keizyo, [Keijo, Seoul]: Government-General of Tyosen, 1937), p. 200Google Scholar.
27 Two good studies are: Grajdanzev, Andrew J., “Korea divided,” Far Eastern survey, 14 (October 10, 1945), 281–283Google Scholar, and McCune, George M., “Essential unity of Korean economy,” Korea economic digest, 3 (January, 1946), 3–8Google Scholar.
28 These figures and the description of the parallel come from a detailed study of the 30 topographic maps, 1:50,000, of the area which were surveyed during the years 1915–1918 and published by the Government-General of Chosen in 1918 and 1919. The set was made available through the kindness of Dr. Robert B. Hall of the University of Michigan.
