Subject Introduction

[punuri]

Subject Introduction

Hello,

I recently subscribed to this list for a number of reasons. First let me introduce myself. I'm a Dutch national who lived in Korea until a year ago for four years. Before I went there, I've read a lot of books about Japan, Indonesia and China. The only book I've ever read about Korea, was a book called Hollanders in Korea (Hollanders in Korea) by Van Hove. Because of a number of reasons explained in my website I became interested in this subject again. When I came back to Holland I decided to translate this book into English and put it on the web. I became more and more interested in the subject and now it has become a tantalizing thirst for knowledge about the subject. In the meantime I gained a copy of the original Journal of Hamel and a load of additional information. Nevertheless what fails me is the Korean sources. I know Gari Ledyard did a lot of promising and well-done research on the Korean side, but I want to know more. If possible I would ask anyone to help me with this need. I know that a lot has been done already and of a lot of the things written about the subject I do have copies, even from Korean articles, lectures etc. about the subject. Jan Boonstra and Wim Hamel provided me with a lot of information which I would like to exchange with anybody interested.

Sincerely

Dear Henny,

I'm happy to hear that you want to pick up the trail of Hendrik Hamel and his companions in Korean sources. Since I published <The Dutch Come to Korea> in 1971 I have probably missed an article here and there, but in the things that I have seen I haven't noticed any discovery of sources beyond those that I either translated or made reference to in my book. But if you should find something new, no one would be happier than I. Happy hunting!

There are a number of significant errors or misinterpretations in my 1971 book. I haven't got time today but will post them for you later in the week.

Your refer to information from Jan Boonstra and Wim Hamel. I'm curious about who they are and what they know. It sounds as if the latter might be a descendant of Hendrik. I'm very interested to learn what may have turned up on Hamel in the Netherlands since the material unearthed by B. Hoetink back in the 1920s. Have you found any confirmation of Witsen 's report in <Nord en Oost Tartarye> that Jan Claesz , whom the Koreans reported as having died at some time prior to the repatriation of the other Hollanders, had in fact preferred to remain in Korea with his Korean wife and family rather than accept the opportunity for repatriation? One would like to imagine that this was really so.

By the way, can you tell me what the "B." in Hoetink's name stands for stands for?

Yours truly,

Gari Ledyard

Dear Gari,

You don't know how happy I am with your response. First of all I want to explain about Wim, Jan and myself. Wim's father always thought they were indeed descendants of Hendrick . (In the original handwritten Journael his name is written with a ck) He started to investigate things on his own and met a real descendant of Hendrick (well a descendant of Hendrick's brother). He collected everything he could find about Hendrick and his own family tree as well. Unfortunately the man is no writer, but he collected a huge number of things about any Hamel and became very knowledgeable about the subject. Because of this he was chosen to guide the Korean film crew he made a documentary (in which I participated in Korea) Doing so he got access to a lot of resources, or has he says himself"Doors who normally remained closed opened widely". Wim is retired and still likes to dig into things and whenever I ask things he will try to figure it out.

Jan Boonstra is a surveyor who lived in Korea until recently and went to Pyongyong to try to figure things out there. He met the local loco-mayor and form him he got a periodical magazine which was dedicated to Hamel cs. He also revised my website because I was doing things too hastily so the language rambled. While I was still translating things, he was already proof-reading things and pointed me to inconsistencies. For the past couple of weeks, He, Wim and I met a few times, since Jan was here for a couple of weeks, during which he stayed a couple of days in my house. We both have been reading the original handwritten document to find some inconsistencies.

I started to become interested in Hamel when I read a Dutch book about the subject. When I was in Korea I met Jean-Paul Buys and we were talking about the Duct book van Van Hove as well. Because of a number of remarks he made, I decided to translate Van Hove's book.

I can't go into things too deep now, because I have to go to the office, but from the Korean side I don't have too many things, but from the Dutch side I certainly do. Tonight I will make a summary. In the meantime you might want to read the translation. I didn't publish it in the form of a book, but in the form of a website, which seems to be very popular. Since I put it there about four thousand people have been reading it, and it's there only since Christmas!

Maybe I should publish it as a real book, but up until a couple of weeks ago that was not my intention, but I certainly should consider it now. By the way, I'm not sure but I think the B. in Hoetink stands for Ben or Bernard, since they are the only first names in those days used. I will try to figure that out as well.

Yours truly

To Henny and other list members who may be interested

Henny Savenije's recent posting in regard to her work on Hendrick Hamel, Secretary on the Sparrowhawk, who had a 13-year captivity in Korea after the Sparrowhawk was wrecked off Cheju island in 1653, gives me an opportunity to publicly acknowledge a few errors in my book <The Dutch Come to Korea> (1971).

1. I said on p. 17 that the shipwreck probably occurred in the vicinity of MosUlp'o, on the southern coast of Cheju. However, the site of the monument to Hamel, erected in the 1980s, is some miles to the east, in the western outskirts of SOgwip'o. It appears that local investigations decided that that was the actual site. Whether this was determined by genuine historical research or tourist industry considerations I cannot say.

2. I made reference (p. 31) to Pak YOn or Jan Janse Weltevree , a Dutchman not connected with Hamel's group but who had earlier (1628) been seized on Korean land while searching for water for his ship, and, because of his military knowledge and apparent artillery skills, been put to work in the HullyOn Togam, a research and development institution of the Korean military. I said, quoting an 18th century Korean memoir by Yun Haeng'im, that Pak had been put on the "Wheel Register" (ch'ajOk) in that unit. At the time I had no information on any <ch'ajOk>, but speculated that it referred to "artisans working with wheel-driven machinery." This was baseless then and embarrassing now. <Ch'ajOk> was a simple misprint for <kunjOk>, "military register." I followed the text as quoted in Yi PyOngdo's <Hamel p'yoryugi> (1954), so perhaps the misprint started with his typesetter, not the original compiler Yun Haeng'im. But I should have caught such an obvious error.

3. One of the places where Hamel stayed during his years in Korea was at a military base for which Hamel's name was Saijsingh . In my book (p. 70) I said that this was probably a garbled form of <ChwasuyOng>, the Left Naval Headquarters of ChOlla province, which was in the modern town of YOsu. In this I followed Yi PyOngdo and other Korean scholars. However, while later researching Japanese fortified bases during the Imjin Wars, I came upon Konishi Yukinaga's famous bastion near Sunch'On (S. ChOlla prov.), which was on the east coast of the YOsu peninsula facing Kwangyang man, about 30 km. north of YOsu and 10 km southeast of Sunch'On. Remains of this fortress still exist today, and I have visited them several times over the years. The name of the town where this fortress is located is SinsOngp'o. SinsOng means "new fortress," and corresponds very well with Hamel's Saijsingh, which means the same thing but is written with the pure Korean word for "new." It appears that after the Imjin wars the Korean military used it as one of their own bases. Hamel's transcriptions of Korean words into the Dutch orthography of the 17th century are not always transparent, but in no case does he have a spelling as far-fetched as "Saijsingh" for "Chwasuyong." The -singh for K. sOng is found in other Hamel words and appears to reflect his hearing of the sounds. I think it far more likely that "Saijsingh" represents SinsOng and reflects the old Japanese-built base. In any case it was from Saijsingh that Hamel and seven others escaped in 1666.

These points have bothered me for a long time, and this is a good place to set them right.

Gari Ledyard

King Sejong Professor of Korean Studies
Columbia University in the City of New York

To Gari and all the other members who may be interested as well

>

> Henny Savenije's recent posting in regard to her work on Hendrick Hamel,

I have to confess one thing over here, though Henny is often used for female, here in Holland it's also used for the male specimen of the human race, it has the same origin as Hendrick, so I'm male ;-)

>Secretary on the Sparrowhawk, who had a 13-year captivity in Korea after the Sparrowhawk was wrecked off Cheju island in 1653, gives me an opportunity to publicly acknowledge a few errors in my book <The Dutch Come to Korea> (1971).

Hamel was not the Secretary but the bookkeeper, which was the official term, that he did some Secretarial work as well was, certainly in those days taken for granted, but he himself writes "boeckhouder", ( * ) which, even in modern English can be recognized as book keeper and not scribia (secretary)

> 1. I said on p. 17 that the shipwreck probably occurred in the vicinity of MosUlp'o, on the southern coast of Cheju . However, the site of the monument to Hamel, erected in the 1980s, is some miles to the east, in the western outskirts of SOgwip'o. It appears that local investigations decided that that was the actual site. Whether this was determined by genuine historical research or tourist industry considerations I cannot say.

I couldn't say either, but Jan who is a surveyor says the location is pretty accurate.

> 2. I made reference (p. 31) to Pak YOn or Jan Janse Weltevree, a Dutchman not connected with Hamel's group but who had earlier (1628) been seized on Korean land while searching for water for his ship, and, because of his military knowledge and apparent artillery skills, been put to work in the HullyOn Togam, a research and development institution of the Korean military. I said, quoting an 18th century Korean memoir by Yun Haeng'im, that Pak had been put on the "Wheel Register" (ch'ajOk) in that unit. At the time I had no information on any <ch'ajOk>, but speculated that it referred to "artisans working with wheel-driven machinery." This was >baseless then and embarrassing now. <Ch'ajOk> was a simple misprint for <kunjOk>, "military register." I followed the text as quoted in Yi PyOngdo's <Hamel p'yoryugi> (1954), so perhaps the misprint started with his typesetter, not the original compiler Yun Haeng'im. But I should have caught such an obvious error.

Well could have happened by anybody, but even from Hamel himself it becomes clear that the wheel meant something else, I think again the fact that anybody making the Korean and Japanese text accessible to anybody who could not read Korean, and the amount of research done was of greater value than a minor, understandable mistake.

> 3. One of the places where Hamel stayed during his years in Korea was at a military base for which Hamel's name was Saijsingh. In my book (p. 70) I said that this was probably a garbled form of <ChwasuyOng>, the Left Naval Headquarters of ChOlla province, which was in the modern town of YOsu. In this I followed Yi PyOngdo and other Korean scholars. However, while later researching Japanese fortified bases during the Imjin Wars, I came upon Konishi Yukinaga's famous bastion near Sunch'On (S.ChOlla prov.), which was on the east coast of the YOsu peninsula facing Kwangyang man, about 30 km. north of YOsu and 10 km southeast of Sunch'On. Remains of this fortress still exist today, and I have visited them several times over the years. The name of the town where this fortress is located is SinsOngp'o. SinsOng means "new fortress," and corresponds very well with Hamel's Saijsingh, which means the same thing but is written with the pure Korean word for "new." It appears that after the Imjin wars the Korean military used it as one of their own bases. Hamel's transcriptions of Korean words into the Dutch orthography of the 17th century are not always transparent, but in no case does he have a spelling as far-fetched as "Saijsingh" for "Chwasuyong." The -singh for K. sOng is found in other Hamel words and appears to reflect his hearing of the sounds. I think it far more likely that "Saijsingh" represents SinsOng and reflects the old Japanese-built base. In any case it was from Saijsingh that Hamel and seven others escaped in 1666.

Now I'm more curious than ever.Van Hove speaks about Chwasuyong, later scientists speak about Yosu Chwasuyong, I would have to see a map to locate it exactly, In the handwriting Hamel writes sijsingh, since the H's and S's look very similar it could be read as hijhingh as well but it could be read evenly easy as hijhings. Curiously enough he doesn't use capitals for the placenames. The difference in the way to read it makes it all the more interesting. I took the transcriptions of the place names for granted but your explanation made me take a closer look at the handwriting again. If I read Sijsingh (Why the H at the end, seems useless to me) which I could (with my Dutch ear) transcribe as ½Ã¼Ä (I sure hope everybody can read this Korean; Unionway can be downloaded from http//www.unionway.com) maybe even as ½Å¼º which is what you mean I guess. Since I'm not familiar with the transcription you're using. Still I would like to see it on a map.

> These points have bothered me for a long time, and this is a good place to set them right.

Sincerely
Thank you for the correction.
-------
Henny (Lee Hae Kang)

Feel free to visit
http//www.henny-savenije.pe.kr/index2.htm
and you can feel the thrill about the adventures of Hamel in Korea (1653-1666)

Dear Henny,

Please forgive me for incorrectly interpreting your name. I have the following points on your latest posting.

On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Henny Savenije wrote, among other things, sometimes quoting me (> >)

> > 1. I said on p. 17 that the shipwreck probably occurred in the vicinity of MosUlp'o, on the southern coast of Cheju . However, the site >of the monument to Hamel, erected in the 1980s, is some miles to the east, >in the western outskirts of SOgwip'o. It appears that local investigations decided that that was the actual site. Whether this was determined by genuine historical research or tourist industry considerations I cannot say.

> I couldn't say either, but Jan who is a surveyor says the location is pretty accurate.

Accurate according to what evidence? The only datum I know of that a surveyor might use is Hamel's statement that from the site of their shipwreck to TaejOng (the district seat) was four leagues. I would welcome some expert discussion from the Dutch side as to the length of a Dutch league in the mid-17th century. I should have been more careful on this point, but when I wrote the book I assumed, wrongly perhaps, that a Dutch league was about the same length as the English league, which is reckoned at three English miles, and so reasoned that the site of the wreck would be somewhere around twelve miles east of TaejOng. Using 150,000 topographical sheets (US Army Series L751, sheets 6413I, 6413II, and 6513III, I marked out 12 miles eastward from TaejOng and found myself on the coast near MosUlp'o, and that is the basis of my guess that the wreck occurred in that vicinity. Today's Hamel Monument, by the same measure, is about 26 miles east of TaejOng, or between eight and nine English leagues. The site of the monument is almost exactly on the 17th century border between TaejOng and ChOng'Ui districts (now both absorbed into Nam Chejugun ). For all I know (and I'm looking for a tourist map that might help me fix it precisely), the monument may not even be within the borders of the old TaejOng-hyOn (district). And if that's so it would have been ChOng'Ui-hyOn that was administratively responsible for dealing with the wreck and caring for the survivors, not TaejOng-hyOn. But Korean sources are unambiguously clear in saying that the matter was handled by TaejOng. When the Hamel monument was erected back in the '80s, I thought that it was much too far east vis-a-vis TaejOng, but given my own rough and approximate methods, and assuming that due care had been taken on this point, I found no reason to suggest that they were wrong. But later when I saw the monument talked up in SOgwip'o-oriented tourist literature directed at foreigners, I began to wonder if there hadn't been some hanky-panky in determining the site. And I still do wonder. So now that the matter has come up again, I look forward to hearing the details as understood by Mr. Boonstra. Upon what, exactly, is based his reported assurance that "the location is pretty accurate." What can be said as to the mid-17th cent. length of a Dutch league? Is there any other information that he knows about that would help me understand this issue better?

> > 2. I made reference (p. 31) to Pak YOn or Jan Janse Weltevree, a Dutchman not connected with Hamel's group but who had earlier (1628) been seized on Korean land while searching for water for his ship, and, because of his military knowledge and apparent artillery skills, been put to work in the HullyOn Togam, a research and development institution of the Korean military. I said, quoting an 18th century Korean memoir by Yun Haeng'im, that Pak had been put on the "Wheel Register" (ch'ajOk) in that unit. At the time I had no information on any <ch'ajOk>, but speculated that it referred to "artisans working with wheel-driven machinery." This was baseless then and embarrassing now. <Ch'ajOk> was a simple misprint for <kunjOk>, "military register." I followed the text as quoted in Yi PyOngdo's <Hamel p'yoryugi> (1954), so perhaps the misprint started with his typesetter, not the original compiler Yun Haeng'im. But I should have caught such an obvious error.

> Well could have happened by anybody, but even from Hamel himself it becomes clear that the wheel meant something else, I think again the fact that anybody making the Korean and Japanese text accessible to anybody who could not read Korean, and the amount of research done was of greater value than a minor, understandable mistake.

With thanks for the compliments on my research, I do not consider the error minor. If one pursues Korean social history, as many on this net do, the suggestion that in the mid-17th century there was an occupational category (and hence a class category or sub-category) for a specialist in "wheel-driven machinery"--or even that there WAS such machinery--would raise questions and suggest implications far more important than the fate of an unfortunate victim of a Dutch shipwreck.

From the moment I made that speculation I regretted it, because, as I said, it was baseless. But I did make it, so it is important to me that I point out its folly. It's not just for you that I offered this correction, but for the whole net. I don't want others misled.

And, in further response to Henny's comment, it is important to remember that Hamel himself knew nothing about this "wheel" business, which arises from a mistranscription in a modern quotation of an 18th century text written long after Hamel was dead and gone.

> > > > 3. One of the places where Hamel stayed during his years in Korea was at a military base for which Hamel's name was Saijsingh. In my book (p. 70) I said that this was probably a garbled form of <ChwasuyOng>, the Left Naval Headquarters of ChOlla province, which was in the modern town of YOsu. In this I followed Yi PyOngdo and other Korean scholars. However, while later researching Japanese fortified bases during the Imjin Wars, I came upon Konishi Yukinaga's famous bastion near Sunch'On (S. ChOlla prov.), which was on the east coast of the YOsu peninsula facing Kwangyang man, about 30 km. north of YOsu and 10 km southeast of Sunch'On. Remains of this fortress still exist today, and I have visited them several times over the years. The name of the town where this fortress is located is SinsOngp'o. SinsOng means "new fortress," and corresponds very well with Hamel's Saijsingh, which means the same thing but is written with the pure Korean word for "new." It appears that after the Imjin wars the Korean military used it as one of their own bases. Hamel's transcriptions of Korean words into the Dutch orthography of the 17th century are not always transparent, but in no case does he have a spelling as far-fetched as "Saijsingh" for "Chwasuyong." The -singh for K. sOng is found in other Hamel words and appears to reflect his hearing of the sounds. I think it far more likely that "Saijsingh" represents SinsOng and reflects the old Japanese-built base. In any case it was from Saijsingh that Hamel and seven others escaped in 1666.

> Now I'm more curious than ever.Van Hove speaks about Chwasuyong, later scientists speak about Yosu Chwasuyong, I would have to see a map to locate it exactly, In the handwriting Hamel writes sijsingh, since the H's and S's look very similar it could be read as hijhingh as well but it could be read evenly easy as hijhings. Curiously enough he doesn't use capitals for the placenames. The difference in the way to read it makes it all the more interesting. I took the transcriptions of the place names for granted but your explanation made me take a closer look at the handwriting again. If I read Sijsingh (Why the H at the end, seems useless to me) which I could (with my Dutch ear) transcribe as ½Ã¼Ä (I sure hope everybody can read this Korean; Unionway can be downloaded from http//www.unionway.com) maybe even as ½Å¼º which is what you mean I guess. Since I'm not familiar with the transcription you're using. Still I would like to see it on a map.

You'll find YOsu on any decent map of Korea, but not, unfortunately, SinsOngp'o (written in the McCune-Reischauer romanization-- perhaps the most commonly seen Korean romanization in writings by Westerners on topics in Korean Studies. The capital O and U are an E-mail way of handling McC/R's o and u with a breve. I think that most people on the list will be familiar with this). The identification "ChwasuyOng" ('Left Naval Command') comes from Yi PyOngdo, <Hamel p'yoryugi>, Seoul Ilchogak, 1954. Following him, also used by other Korean writers. Van Hove obviously got it directly or indirectly from them, or perhaps me. In using the form "ChwasuyOng," it is helpful to use YOsu, the modern name of the town where this naval base was, to distinguish it from another 'Left Naval Command' in KyOngsang province. The bigger provinces had two naval commands, distinguished as left and right. There is no mystery about these usages, and no cause for puzzlement. Saijsingh , or SaesOng, "New fortress" was built in 1597 to front directly on Kwangyang Bay, and, in the 17th century, was "new" by Korean standards. Most Korean traditional fortresses are built in the mountains; a fortress on the sea (especially one of this scale) would have been highly unusual for Korea. But it served the purposes of the Japanese who built it--as a protection for their shipping links and a place for easier evacuation by sea if pressed by a land siege, as they were in 1598. Hamel was there from 1661 on, having been moved there from the Cholla Provincial Military Command. Some of his colleagues were sent to Sunch'On, close by, and others to NamwOn (his "Namman"), somewhat further north.

Your observations on the manuscript forms of the names are interesting. I can only say that my orthography "Saijsingh" comes from Hoetink's <Verhaal van het Vergaan van het jacht de Sperwer> etc., the Hague, 1920. That work includes the text that Hoetink retrieved from VOC files, and his transcriptions of proper names in that text are the ones I used. He was obviously a very learned historian and a specialist in 17th century Dutch maritime history, and I had confidence in relying on him.

This leads me to ask, however Is the manuscript you are using the same one? It would help me to understand your argument better if I knew specifically the manuscript you are referring to. You call it Hamel's writing do you know that for sure, or could it be a VOC copy? If not the same as the text published by Hoetink, what is its relationship to that text, do you think?

It might be interesting to here copy out a note E-mailed to me separately by Sam Martin, formerly Professor of Korean Linguistics at Yale and Hawaii, now retired, on the form "Saijsingh." He shares your doubt over the -h. Sam is the dean of comparative linguists working on the history and grammar of the Korean language and I'm sure that all on this net will find his comments instructive (he of course uses Yale transcription which among other virtues avoids the diacritic problem which occasioned my awkward O's and U's)

"...With respect to "Saijsingh" for Sinseng-pho, there are several oddities to be explained. Is the final h what he thought he heard for -pho? Or did he associate the spelling "singh" with the nasal velar? (Does Dutch have a nasal velar coda?) What is the "j" doing in there? To write /say/ "new," surely "sai" would have been sufficient. Now, the "sing" for seng may be easier to explain seng was earlier syeng, and the e/u distinction has been poorly maintained (read merged) in the southern dialects for some time. So I can see him hearing [Sam is wonderful! And I can hear him seeing it!! --GKL] something like /syung/ (or even /sing/) and interpreting it as "sing". I would be inclined to think he heard Say-sing = Say-syung < Say-syeng "New fortress/city" and dismiss the final "h" and the "j" as scribal errors."

On the -h, the argument has to be with my source, B. Hoetink, a great Dutch scholar and 17th century specialist. Maybe both of you are right, but I don't know the answer. As for the digraph -ij- it certainly is commonly seen in old Dutch writing, but I do not know the phonetics behind this convention. In any case I would be much slower to throw it out.

S'long f'now.
Gari Ledyard

King Sejong Professor of Korean Studies
Columbia University in the City of New York
(greetings from my office on Amsterdam Avenue)

> Please forgive me for incorrectly interpreting your name. I have the following points on your latest posting.

Completely understandable, I could have been clearer and more specific, sorry for that too, but I also thought the mistake you made rather amusing.

>On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Henny Savenije wrote, among other things, sometimesquoting me (> >)

I will do the same, the >>> means Gari, >> Henny, > Gari again, without > it's Henny again, following this it's easier for those who drop in later to add some comment and also reading it. Deleting previous messages and just keep this one.

>> > 1. I said on p. 17 that the shipwreck probably occurred in the vicinity of MosUlp'o, on the southern coast of Cheju. However, the site of the monument to Hamel, erected in the 1980s, is some miles to the east, in the western outskirts of SOgwip'o. It appears that local investigations decided that that was the actual site. Whether this was determined by genuine historical research or tourist industry considerations I cannot say.

>> I couldn't say either, but Jan who is a surveyor says the location is pretty accurate.

> Accurate according to what evidence? The only datum I know of that a surveyor might use is Hamel's statement that from the site of their shipwreck to TaejOng (the district seat) was four leagues. I would welcome some expert discussion from the Dutch side as to the length of a Dutch league in the mid-17th century. I should have been more careful on this point, but when I wrote the book I assumed, wrongly perhaps, that a Dutch league was about the same length as the English league, which is reckoned at three English miles, and so reasoned that the site of the wreck would be somewhere around twelve miles east of TaejOng. Using 150,000 topographical sheets (US Army Series L751, sheets 6413I, 6413II, and 6513III, I marked out 12 miles eastward from TaejOng and found myself on the coast near MosUlp'o, and that is the basis of my guess that the wreck occurred in that vicinity. Today's Hamel Monument, by the same measure, is about 26 miles east of TaejOng, or between eight and nine English leagues. The site of the monument is almost exactly on the 17th century border between TaejOng and ChOng'Ui districts (now both absorbed into Nam Chejugun). For all I know (and I'm looking for a tourist map that might help me fix it precisely), the monument may not even be within the borders of the old TaejOng-hyOn (district). And if that's so it would have been ChOng'Ui-hyOn that was administratively responsible for dealing with the wreck and caring for the survivors, not TaejOng-hyOn. But Korean sources are unambiguously clear in saying that the matter was handled by TaejOng. When the Hamel monument was erected back in the '80s, I thought that it was much too far east vis-a-vis TaejOng, but given my own rough and approximate methods, and assuming that due care had been taken on this point, I found no reason to suggest that they were wrong. But later when I saw the monument talked up in SOgwip'o-oriented tourist literature directed at foreigners, I began to wonder if there hadn't been somehanky-panky in determining the site. And I still do wonder. So now thatthe matter has come up again, I look forward to hearing the details asunderstood by Mr. Boonstra. Upon what, exactly, is based his reported assurance that "the location is pretty accurate." What can be said as to the mid-17th cent. length of a Dutch league? Is there any other information that he knows about that would help me understand this issue better?

Okay first of all Hamel speaks about 33 degrees and 32 minutes "smiddags had den stuijrman den hoogte genomen ende bevonden A quelpaerts Eijland te leggen op 33 graden 32 minuijts) litteraly in the afternoon the coxwain had taken the height and found te be lain on the island of Quelpaert at 33 degrees and 32 minutes Later when they start to travel after the punishments of the thieves, he says (writes)"nade middags vertrocken met ruijters ende soldaten bewaakt savont logierden in een clein steetje gen= Tadjang nadat wij wat gegeten hadden, braegten ons 't samen in een huijs om te slapen, maer leek beter een paarde stal. dan een herberge, ofte slaeplaets, waren omtrent 4 mijl gerijst" After the noon , we went with horsemen and soldiers guarded, in the evening we stayed in a small city called Tadjang after we had eaten brought us together in a house to sleep , but seemed better a stable then an inn or a sleeping place, having traveled 4 miles.

Curiously enough I assumed previous transcribers were right about the transcription of "Tadjang" =TaejOng Strangely enough if I read this in Dutch it comes pretty close to TaejOng, the ae sound was unknown to the Dutch, but coming back to the place were the ship was wrecked (or castaway) the 33 degrees and 32 minutes is pretty accurate. Hamel used German miles and sea-miles through each other so one mile is approximaley 7.5 kilometer which makes it 30 km, which on it's turn is approximately 18.75 miles. The beach had to be big, according to the Journal, and there had to be rocks, and the beach at the site suits that description. I haven't been there, though during the takes for the documentary (I saw it recently and it apeared to be a documentary drama) I have never seen or been near the monument. Jan has been there, I can't reach him now, because he just moved last monday to the Philippines and has no Internet access yet, but I have sent this mail to his email address as well, he will certainly react after getting access to the Internet again. See also the attachment with the map he has made. On top Jan and I had an extensive discussion about the orthography of Quelpaert, Kapado is close by, since Hamel had no time to write things down in the beginning and might have relied on his memory later shortly after the shipwreck he wouldn't have a pencil at his disposal, though he might have used charcoal and a feather and ink would be most unlikely too, since these utilities would have been too wet too write things down, though feathers would be at hand. Maybe he knew a way to make ink (most likely) he wouldn't have the things at hand. On top of that they were wet, frightened, confused, fatigued and maybe wounded. So I doubt if his distances would be accurate in the beginning. They had one year to write the Journal at Deshima , were they would have been very bored, considering that, the Journal is remarkebly short!

>> > 2. I made reference (p. 31) to Pak YOn or Jan Janse Weltevree, a Dutchman not connected with Hamel's group but who had earlier (1628) been seized on Korean land while searching for water for his ship, and, because of his military knowledge and apparent artillery skills, been put to work in the HullyOn Togam, a research and development institution of the Korean military. I said, quoting an 18th century Korean memoir by Yun Haeng'im, that Pak had been put on the "Wheel Register" (ch'ajOk) in that unit. At the time I had no information on any <ch'ajOk>, but speculated that it referred to "artisans working with wheel-driven machinery." This was baseless then and embarrassing now. <Ch'ajOk> was a simple misprint for <kunjOk>, "military register." I followed the text as quoted in Yi PyOngdo's <Hamel p'yoryugi> (1954), so perhaps the misprint started with his typesetter, not the original compiler Yun Haeng'im. But I should have caught such an obvious error.

>> Well could have happened by anybody, but even from Hamel himself it becomes clear that the wheel meant something else, I think again the fact that anybody making the Korean and Japanese text accessible to anybody who could not read Korean, and the amount of research done was of greater value than a minor, understandable mistake.

> With thanks for the compliments on my research, I do not consider the error minor. If one pursues Korean social history, as many on this net do, the suggestion that in the mid-17th century there was an occupational category (and hence a class category or sub-category) for a specialist in "wheel-driven machinery"--or even that there WAS such machinery--would raise questions and suggest implications far more important than the fate of an unfortunate victim of a Dutch shipwreck. From the moment I made that speculation I regretted it, because, as I said, it was baseless. But I did make it, so it is important to me that I point out its folly. It's not just for you that I offered this correction, but for the whole net. I don't want others misled. And, in further response to Henny's comment, it is important to remember that Hamel himself knew nothing about this "wheel" business, which arises from a mistranscription in a modern quotation of an 18th century text written long after Hamel was dead and gone.

Correct I rembered things wrong, I apologize for that, I was thinking about the translation of the Dutch word schijf, which can be translated as wheel or disc. I quoted Van Hove in his chapter about Weltevree, of which the text can be found at my website, but in order to make this thread complete I will quote it here as well

Begin quote

There is more by the way, which Hamel doesn't mention concerning Weltevree. In a Korean edition of the Journael, the interpreter Yi Pyong Do cites in a supplement a document of about 1700, in which Weltevree is described as follows

Yon was tall from stature and rather heavily build. He had blue eyes, a pale face and a blond beard which hangs until his belly. He was married to a Korean woman who gave him two children; a boy and a girl.

The father and the uncle of the writer of the document were both connected as high officials to the court of king of Korea in the time that Weltevree was there too. One may assume that the document is a reliable source. If Weltevree had a wife and children, it was most unlikely that Hamel didn't know that. It speaks for itself to assume that he and the other Hollanders visited him during their stay in Seoul . In the Journael however Hamel leaves this interesting fact unnoticed. Possibly he considered that mentioning of the marital state of Weltevree would raise some questions by the readers about the marital state of the other Hollanders, questions who might be painful since most of them had a wife and children after all in Holland as well. In another Korean document, also cited by Yi Pyong Do, the following is mentioned about Weltevree

Yon was working at the staff of general Ku In Hu. His sons are mentioned in the wheel register of the training office.

End quote

I also agree with the statement that we should pursue Korean history in this list and not the correctness of the sources, that's why I'm so happy to have a copy of the original manuscript

>> > > > 3. One of the places where Hamel stayed during his years in Korea was at a military base for which Hamel's name was Saijsingh. In my book (p. 70) I said that this was probably a garbled form of <ChwasuyOng>, the Left Naval Headquarters of ChOlla province, which was in the modern town of YOsu. In this I followed Yi PyOngdo and other Korean scholars. However, while later researching Japanese fortified bases during the Imjin Wars, I came upon Konishi Yukinaga's famous bastion near Sunch'On (S. ChOlla prov.), which was on the east coast of the YOsu peninsula facing Kwangyang man, about 30 km. north of YOsu and 10 km southeast of Sunch'On. Remains of this fortress still exist today, and I have visited them several times over the years. The name of the town where this fortress is located is SinsOngp'o. SinsOng means "new fortress," and corresponds very well with Hamel's Saijsingh, which means the same thing but is written with the pure Korean word for "new." It appears that after the Imjin wars the Korean military used it as one of their own bases. Hamel's transcriptions of Korean words into the Dutch orthography of the 17th century are not always transparent, but in no case does he have a spelling as far-fetched as "Saijsingh" for "Chwasuyong." The -singh for K. sOng is found in other Hamel words and appears to reflect his hearing of the sounds. I think it far more likely that "Saijsingh" represents SinsOng and reflects the old Japanese-built base. In any case it was from Saijsingh that Hamel and seven others escaped in 1666.

>> Now I'm more curious than ever.Van Hove speaks about Chwasuyong, later scientists speak about Yosu Chwasuyong, I would have to see a map to locate it exactly, In the handwriting Hamel writes sijsingh, since the H's and S's look very similar it could be read as hijhingh as well but it could be read evenly easy as hijhings. Curiously enough he doesn't use capitals for the placenames. The difference in the way to read it makes it all the more interesting. I took the transcriptions of the place names for granted but your explanation made me take a closer look at the handwriting again. If I read Sijsingh (Why the H at the end, seems useless to me) which I could (with my Dutch ear) transcribe as ½Ã¼Ä (I sure hope everybody can read this Korean; Unionway can be downloaded from http//www.unionway.com) maybe even as ½Å¼º which is what you mean I guess. Since I'm not familiar with the transcription you're using. Still I would like to see it on a map.

> You'll find YOsu on any decent map of Korea, but not, unfortunately, SinsOngp'o (written in the McCune-Reischauer romanization-- perhaps the most commonly seen Korean romanization in writings by Westerners on topics in Korean Studies. The capital O and U are an E-mail way of handling McC/R's o and u with a breve. I think that most people on the list will be familiar with this). The identification "ChwasuyOng" ('Left Naval Command') comes from Yi PyOngdo, <Hamel p'yoryugi>, Seoul Ilchogak, 1954. Following him, also used by other Korean writers. Van Hove obviously got it directly or indirectly from them, or perhaps me. In using the form "ChwasuyOng," it is helpful to use YOsu, the modern name of the town where this naval base was, to distinguish it from another 'Left Naval Command' in KyOngsang province. The bigger provinces had two naval commands, distinguished as left and right. There is no mystery about these usages, and no cause for puzzlement.

I'm familiar with the McCune-Reischauer romanization, that's how I learned Korean, I had no knowledge of the one used here, since I recently subscribed to the list.

> Saijsingh, or SaesOng, "New fortress" was built in 1597 to front directly on Kwangyang Bay, and, in the 17th century, was "new" by Korean standards. Most Korean traditional fortresses are built in the mountains; a fortress on the sea (especially one of this scale) would have been highly unusual for Korea. But it served the purposes of the Japanese who built it--as a protection for their shipping links and a place for easier evacuation by sea if pressed by a land siege, as they were in 1598. Hamel was there from 1661 on, having been moved there from the Cholla Provincial Military Command. Some of his colleagues were sent to Sunch'On, close by, and others to NamwOn (his "Namman"), somewhat further north.

> Your observations on the manuscript forms of the names are interesting. I can only say that my orthography "Saijsingh" comes from Hoetink's <Verhaal van het Vergaan van het jacht de Sperwer> etc., the Hague, 1920. That work includes the text that Hoetink retrieved from VOC files, and his transcriptions of proper names in that text are the ones I used. He was obviously a very learned historian and a specialist in 17th century Dutch maritime history, and I had confidence in relying on him.

>This leads me to ask, however Is the manuscript you are using the same one? It would help me to understand your argument better if I knew specifically the manuscript you are referring to. You call it Hamel's writing do you know that for sure, or could it be a VOC copy? If not the same as the text published by Hoetink, what is its relationship to that text, do you think?

This is an interesting question. According to the tradition, seven copies would have been made in order to be sure that one survived anyhow. One stayed behind in Batavia and the others were shipped on several ships to Holland. The one I have comes from the VOC Archives from the Hague (the same which is filmed for the documentary, Wim Hamel took the oppurtunity to make a xeroxcopy and I have a clear xeroxcopy of that one) It's the same Van Hove used, but Van Hove used also Hoetink, this week I almost had the oppurtunity to buy a copy of Hoetinks book. I found it in a catalogue, but the bookkeeper told me had recently sold it, so I don't have the opportunity to compare the two books thoroughly and in no way I can tell who cites who and where. In the near future I will go to Amsterdam and get a copy of the book there. As far as Wim knows and he talked with the archivarians of the library in the Hague a lot, this is the only copy left, or original, either one is not sure. Van Hove claims it's the original. But Wim had more copies of publications about the subject, which are old but printed and certainly not one of the three prints made in 1678. Since here and there the handwriting is hard to decipher, Hoetink might have relied on one of those to make things easier and put it next to the handwritten one. Actually I also have another copy from a magazine dated 1881, where the story is quoted as well and also in 17th century Dutch, with the same spelling, so maybe everybody was quoting the printed versions since this was easier. The fact that he was a learned historian and a specialist in 17th century Dutch maritime is in fact not relevant in a scientific discussion. Interestingly enough I also found an Indonesion publication of Hoetink, though about Chinese captains. the interesting fact was that it was in Indonesion or, as one said in those days, in Malay.

> It might be interesting to here copy out a note E-mailed to me separately by Sam Martin, formerly Professor of Korean Linguistics at Yale and Hawaii, now retired, on the form "Saijsingh." He shares your doubt over the -h. Sam is the dean of comparative linguists working on the history and grammar of the Korean language and I'm sure that all on this net will find his comments instructive (he of course uses Yale transcription which among other virtues avoids the diacritic problem which occasioned my awkward O's and U's)

> "...With respect to "Saijsingh" for Sinseng-pho, there are several oddities to be explained. Is the final h what he thought he heard for -pho? Or did he associate the spelling "singh" with

> the nasal velar? (Does Dutch have a nasal velar coda?) What is the "j" doing in there? To write /say/ "new," surely "sai" would have been sufficient. Now, the "sing" for seng may be easier to explain seng was earlier syeng, and the e/u distinction has been poorly maintained (read merged) in the southern dialects for some time. So I can see him hearing [Sam is wonderful! And I can hear him seeing it!! --GKL] something like /syung/ (or even /sing/) and interpreting it as "sing". I would be inclined to think he heard Say-sing = Say-syung < Say-syeng "New fortress/city" and dismiss the final "h" and the "j" as scribal errors."

The ij was used originaly in Dutch to either describe the long i sound (approximately like in meat or in bee) later it became confusing since they used it for the long i or a diphthong which stands between a in late and igh as in sigh (I had to rely here on an English Dutch dictionary) later it was used exlusively for the latter. Exceptions are the unstressed syllables where it is pronounced like er in later. The change was a gradual one. In the 17th century they used it for both the long i and the diphthong. The Dutch do not have a nasal velar coda as in French for instance. A lot of sounds which exists in languages like French don't exist in Dutch, which partly explains the different spelling of the same placenames in different European languages. Paris for instance is written in Dutch as Parijs, which originally would have been the same word, but in present Dutch it sounds completely different. The other way arround is completely true as well, which makes Dutch words or city names in French written and pronounced in modern French incomprehensible for the Dutch as well. I assume Hamel associated the nasal velar for something like sing and the Sin he might have heard as a long i hence the ij the n he might not have heard. An interesting note from Van Hove is at it's place on the following text

" In June the Tartarian envoy came again to Seoul . Shortly before that we were summoned before the commander, who told us a new ship had stranded at Quelpaert and because Weltevree had become too old to undertake such a fatiguing journey, three of us, who knew the language best, had to act there as an interpreter. We appointed three of our mates an assistant, the under officer in charge of the rigs and a sailor. This threesome left a few days later to the South accompanied by a sergeant. "

It basically meant that Hamel didn't speak Korean very well. Another interesting part here is the list of words which Buys quotes which comes from the book of Witsen published in 1705 I will quote this list as well over here because this might shedd light on more interpretations although it's important to notice that Hamel didn't wite this.

Pontchaa God
Mool horse
Moolhoot more horses
Hiechep wife
Hanel heaven
Hay sun
Tael moon
Piaer stars
Parram wind
Nam South
Poeck North
Siuee West
Tong East
Moel water (the oe sound in Dutch is still used the write the u sound like in put or good)
Moet earth
Moel koikie all kinds of fish (the ie has the same function as the ije or ij)
Moet koikie all kinds of meat
Sio cow
Fang a sheep
Kaij dog
Sodfe lion
Facktey camel
Toot pig
Tiarck chicken
Koelij cock
Kookiri elephant (the double o is used to make the sound o longer)
Kooij cat
t'Swij rat
Pajam snake (the j is used as the y in yale)
Tootshavi devil
Poetfia idol (I assume that an f might have been read as an s over here)
Kyum gold
Gun silver
Naep tin , pewter
Fen lead
Zooij iron
t'Sijbi house
Nara land
fangsijck rice
s'Saet jar (the ae in modern Dutch is written as aa, which means a long a)
Saeram human being
Kackxie woman
Ater a child
Aickie boy
Boejong linen cloth
Pydaen silk
Samfon woven material
Koo nose
Taigwor head
fyb mouth
Spaem cheeks
Doen eyes
Pael feet
Stock bread
Soer rice brandy
Podo grapes
Caem oranges
Goetfio pepper
Satang sugar
Faeck medicine
t'So vinigar
Paemi night
fangseij day
More tomorrow
Oodfeij day after tomorrow
Pha onion
Mannel garlic
Nammer vegetables
Nammo wood
Furij glass
Furijmano mirror
Poel fire
Fangman nobility
t'Fangsio officer

Tiongwor January
Fijewor February
Samwor March
Soowor April
Ovoor May
Foevoor June
t'Syrvoor July
Parvoor August
Koevoor September
Sievoor October
Tongsijter November
Sutter December

The list continues with the numbers, if anybody is interested I will continue this list, but since it's only important to understand the orthography actually I would be thrilled to know what Sam Martin thinks about this, I would be oblidged to complete the list.

> On the -h, the argument has to be with my source, B. Hoetink, a great Dutch scholar and 17th century specialist. Maybe both of you are right, but I don't know the answer. As for the digraph -ij- it certainly is commonly seen in old Dutch writing, but I do not know the phonetics behind this convention. In any case I would be much slower to throw it out.

That's why I provided the list above, One thing should not be forgotten though. In the 17th century there would have been a big number of dialects, which were sometimes very local. So differences in dialect are very important too. For instance the g in Grokum is not far as gutteral as it is in and arround Amsterdam. The R in Rotterdam is more or less like the one in English and unlike the rolling one in the rest of Holland. It might well be that on the ships they spoke a kind of lingo which was a compromise of all kind of dialects. On top of it, the VOC hired a lot of people from other countries.

>S'long f'now.

Same to you, greetings from my work in Amsterdam, no kidding, I should introduce myself even a bit further, I am not sure if I wrote this already, but I'm affraid to check, because my email program tends to crash if I change from a lenghty document to check other things. I'm 45 years old, studied Psychology and Mathematics and practiced 8 years psychology, I was in Korea for 4 years, doing completely different things and I am a kind of computer specialist now. I have to support a data base development tool and database connectivity and I am speaking with developers in four different languages. They expect to speak with natives. I would like to tell you more beside this subject, but I think that should be done off the list, I think the scientific discussion belongs to this list, because I favour the forum idea, the other information doesn't belong here but are usefull to know

Henny Savenije (My last name pronounced as Savernayer ;-)

>Gari Ledyard
>King Sejong Professor of Korean Studies
>Columbia University in the City of New York
> (greetings from my office on Amsterdam Avenue)

This is going to be quite a long message, I fear. I have been talking about yesterday's mailing from Professor Ledyard with another member of our community, Brother Jean-Paul (Buys), who is happy that a corrected and revised edition of his English translation of Hamel's Journal (published by RAS Korea) is about to emerge from the printers. He made the following points.

1. The location of the shipwreck.

There must be rocks ('klippen') well out in a deep sea (the anchors did not hold, and the ship broke apart after hitting rocks and sitting on the rocks) but there must also have been a quite large beach ('strant') along which Hamel says they walked, and where they found the dead skipper 'about 10 to 12 fathoms from the water'.

2. The distance from TaejOng.

On August 21 they set out after midday, some on horseback, some carried in hammocks, and reached TaejOng in time to spend the night there after a journey that Hamel reckons covered 'omtrent 4 mijl'. Hamel's distances are all quoted in 'mijl (miles), it was Churchill's translation from the French that introduced the word 'leagues'. The big problem is that no one seems able to say exactly how long Hamel's miles were, because there were quite a variety of miles (as we still have nautical miles...) but they were miles and not leagues.

There seems to be some confusion about the memorial's position. It is located on what the local tourist guides call the 'Yongmori Coast' at the foot of Sanbang-san, in Sagye-ri, AndOk-myOn, 6 Km from TaejOng, and therefore corresponds 'pretty accurately' to Hamel's 4 miles and that is about as far as they could have got in one afternoon if 17th century horses were anything like those described by Mrs Bishop (always trying to bite each other). Perhaps there is some other memorial in SOguip'o? The Hamel Monument near TaejOng is even marked on tourist road maps!

3. Yosu or SinsOngp'o?

First, regarding the spelling. In older Dutch books the combination 'ij'is a regular alternative for 'y' (there is no y in the Latin alphabet)(cf. Stuyvesant / Stuijvesant) and the j is not to be voiced as a consonant. As for the final 'h' one finds many cases where the same word may end...ing,...ingh, and...ink without any attempt at consistency.

What might argue in favour of the Korean scholars' identification of Saijsingh (also called Naijsingh it seems from Hoetink's edition) with Yosu?

First, Hamel says that on their arrival, they were immediately brought to the Admiral / Governor of Cholla who resides there. After that they frequently visited him for meals. There would seem to be no record that the old fort at SinsOng ever served as regular lodgings for such a high official. Yosu did.

Second, the reason why the Dutch were divided into three groups, and sent to NamwOn , Sunch'On, and Saijsingh, was the desperate lack of food after 3 years of drought. If one group had to go all the way to Namwon to find anything to eat, it hardly seems likely that the second group would have been sent just 10 Km down the road from Sunch'on to SinsOng-p'o.

Third, when they are leaving Saijsingh Hamel says that they passed the'stadtsmuren' (town walls) and he would not have used that expression‎ if they were in a fortress for which he has another word that he uses.

This does not answer the question about the origin of the name Saijsingh, of course, and further research would be needed to find out how the people of Yosu might have called the official citadel at that time (had it been rebuilt recently? Was it called NaesOng? If Yosu it was...

Sorry to be so long. We hope that this will prove useful.

Best wishes,

Brother Anthony (of Taize)
Sogang University

Sam Martin:

Thank you for your excellent description of the contemporary Dutch spelling values. The vocabulary list from Witsen 1705 is quite fascinating, and I would like to have the rest of it, if it is not too much trouble for you to input. Of particular interest in these words The transcription of "bread" as Stock means the word stek (McR stOk > ttOk) preserved the initial cluster (at least in reading pronunciation, if that was what the writer was given by his informant). In the words "rat, house, vinegar, July" the modern palatalized affricate /c/ is transcribed t'S. The capitalization occurs for all the words but it is interesting that he did not choose the t for that. I think he was trying to write the unpalatalized (= not yet palatalized) affricate [ts], the value we think represented by the Middle Korean c. But perhaps he had no other way to write the palatalized articulation [ts^]? The allophonics of the plain consonants is like that made explicit in the Mc-R romanization except for the unexplained Ater "child" for (I presume) atul "son" (Mc-R adUl), cf Podo "grapes" = phwotwo (Mc-R p'odo).

Well I will reply to this mail as I did to the others

>1. The location of the shipwreck.

>There must be rocks ('klippen') well out in a deep sea (the anchors did not hold, and the ship broke apart after hitting rocks and sitting on the rocks) but there must also have been a quite large beach ('strant') along which Hamel says they walked, and where they found the dead skipper 'about 10 to 12 fathoms from the water'.

OK the beach near the monument fits this description, but what has been the influence of tidal waves over the centuries. Beaches are known to increase and decrease in size, even in a short period, I think we need a geological or oceanic expert to answer these questions. I'm not for sure and I think a lot of this list are neither. I think it would also be interesting to search for the remains of the burned ship, because I'm sure a thorough archeological expedition will find something. There must be things which didn't burn, because it was too wet, or under water and what to think about cutlery and porcelain.

>2. The distance from TaejOng.

>On August 21 they set out after midday, some on horseback, some carried in hammocks, and reached TaejOng in time to spend the night there after a journey that Hamel reckons covered 'omtrent 4 mijl'. Hamel's distances are all quoted in 'mijl (miles), it was Churchill's translation from the French that introduced the word 'leagues'. The big problem is that no one seems able to say exactly how long Hamel's miles were, because there were quite a variety of miles (as we still have nautical miles...) but they were miles and not leagues.

>2. There seems to be some confusion about the memorial's position. It is located on what the local tourist guides call the 'Yongmori Coast' at the foot of Sanbang-san, in Sagye-ri, AndOk-myOn, 6 Km from TaejOng, and therefore corresponds 'pretty accurately' to Hamel's 4 miles and that is about as far as they could have got in one afternoon if 17th century horses were anything like those described by Mrs Bishop (always trying to bite each other). Perhaps there is some other memorial in SOguip'o? The Hamel Monument near TaejOng is even marked on tourist road maps!

Good point, but as can be seen, in the documentary people were driven to exhaustion by running fast, since there is no way of exactly estimating how fast or how slow they went it's hard to say this is a valid measurement, and again, I'm sure Hamel had no pen and paper with him it was either too wet or lost in the shipwreck. I'm sure the Koreans didn't provide it to them, unless they tried to communicate in writing, which I doubt, because otherwise it would have been mentioned as well. The boys were fatigued and even wounded, How accurate are we ourselves if we had to rely on our memories in estimating distances afterwards under the same conditions. (If we ever had even remotely similar experiences) I think a short chat with any policeman or psychologist will tell you that memories shortly after a shocking experience are highly biased. Time span estimates become longer distance estimates become longer etc.

>3. Yosu or SinsOngp'o?

>First, regarding the spelling. In older Dutch books the combination 'ij'is a regular alternative for 'y' (there is no y in the Latin alphabet)(cf. Stuyvesant / Stuijvesant) and the j is not to be voiced as a consonant. As for the final 'h' one finds many cases where the same word may end...ing,...ingh, and...ink without any attempt at consistency.

>What might argue in favour of the Korean scholars' identification of Saijsingh (also called Naijsingh it seems from Hoetink's edition) with Yosu?

I think in this respect it's a good decision to transcribe Hamel's edition again, because what I've read from the Hamel's edition and quotations from Hoetink, they are not the same. I still think that Hoetink relied on the spelling in the printed books rather than on the handwritten document, because the handwritten document is really hard to read. Hamel's letters are in no way comparable to any of our modern writings and hard to interpret, I will attach a few examples, especially about the words about which we are arguing now. I will attach "in een cleijn steetje gen= Tadjang" it is very clear to read if one knows what the letters stand for. The file is pretty big so it will take up some bandwidth, so probably the file is some time longer underway. But in any browser very clear to see. Just open the file with Netscape or with Internet Explorer.

>First, Hamel says that on their arrival, they were immediately brought to the Admiral / Governor of Cholla who resides there. After that they frequently visited him for meals. There would seem to be no record that the old fort at SinsOng ever served as regular lodgings for such a high official. Yosu did.

>Second, the reason why the Dutch were divided into three groups, and sent to NamwOn, Sunch'On, and Saijsingh, was the desperate lack of food after 3 years of drought. If one group had to go all the way to Namwon to find anything to eat, it hardly seems likely that the second group would have been sent just 10 Km down the road from Sunch'on to SinsOng-p'o.

>Third, when they are leaving Saijsingh Hamel says that they passed the'stadtsmuren' (town walls) and he would not have used that expression‎ if they were in a fortress for which he has another word that he uses.

>This does not answer the question about the origin of the name Saijsingh, of course, and further research would be needed to find out how the people of Yosu might have called the official citadel at that time (had it been rebuilt recently? Was it called NaesOng? If Yosu it was...

I have scanned the pages on which they arrived at "den Stadt sijsingh" and left for the other cities, strangely enough he doesn't add city to those names and didn't capitalize the first letter. I will attach the scans of those "cities" as well In the interrogation Hamel doesn't add city to Sijsing as well, while he does to Namman, instead he writes In saij suingh two words, with a kind of bow over the ui Which makes it all the more interesting, the more I read it the more confusing it becomes, because in the part where they left for the three cities, he doesn't mention Chwasuyong at all, he writes about "van de govorniteit Tsiollado" Where van Hove writes about Chwasuyong. Reading this again and scanning (because as I stated before it's hard to read, and only if I have other documents guiding me) for the name Chwasuyong, all over the document I can't find it anywhere!!

I think this will make the confusion even bigger.

Regards Henny

Click on the image to see more of them

At 0944 4-4-98 -0800, Sam Martin wrote

>

>Thank you for your excellent description of the contemporary Dutch spelling values. The vocabulary list from Witsen 1705 is quite fascinating, and I would like to have the rest of it, if it is not too much trouble for you to input. Of particular interest in these words The transcription of "bread" as Stock means the word stek (McR stOk > ttOk) preserved the initial cluster (at least in reading pronunciation, if that was what the writer was given by his informant). In the words "rat, house, vinegar, July" the modern palatalized affricate /c/ is transcribed t'S. The capitalization occurs for all the words but it is interesting that he did not choose the t for that. I think he was trying to write the unpalatalized (= not yet palatalized) affricate [ts], the value we think represented by the Middle Korean c. But perhaps he had no other way to write the palatalized articulation [ts^]? The allophonics of the plain consonants is like that made explicit in the Mc-R romanization except for the unexplained Ater "child" for (I presume) atul "son" (Mc-R adUl), cf Podo "grapes" = phwotwo (Mc-R p'odo).

OK I am pleased to do so (though it's passed 2:15 AM) I am so persistent in finding the truth at the moment that I am even willing to sacrifice my sleep.I made one mistake in my previous mail, I forgot to translate the word hout, which stands for wood. I apologize for that. I also want to point out that the f and s are often interchangeable as well, because the difference in contemporary writing was so small that it could easily be overlooked that it was an s or an f.

Common people count as follows

fagnir 1
Tourgij 2
Socfom 3
Docfo 4
Cafeto 5
fafeljone 6
feroptchil 7
faderpal 8
Ahopcon 9
forchip ` 10
Somer 20
Schierri or fiergan 30
Mahan 40
Swin 50
fegu or jefwijn 60
Hiergum or jirgun 70
faderor jadarn 80
Haham or ahan 90
Hirpee or jijrpiek 100
fijrpeijck 200
Sampeijck 300
Soopeijck 400
Opeijck 500
foeckpeijck 600
t'Sijrpeijck 700
Paelpeijck 800
Koepeijck 900
fijrtcien 1000
fijetcien 2000
Samtcien 3000
Sootcien 4000
Otcien 5000
foecktcien 6000
t'Sijertcien 7000
Paertcien 8000
Koetcien 9000
fyroock 10000
fijoock 20000
samoock 30000
Soeoock 40000
Ooock 50000
Koeoock 60000
t'Siroock 70000
foeoock 80000
Paeroock 90000
fijoock 100000

The counting of those from Korea amongst the high and mighty, is until the ten as follows

Ana 1
Toue or Teol 2
Sevve or Suij 3
Deuye 4
Taffet 5
fofet or jacet 6
Girgop or jirgop 7
foderp or jadarp 8
Agop or Ahob 9
Iaer 10

I hope this will enlighten you further into further explanations.

Actually this was not so much work, the previous mail I posted costed me remarkably more time.

Good morning to the ones living in the far East and Good evening to the ones living in the West (everything is relative isn't it?) To all of you have a nice and peacefull Sunday.

Regards Henny

The complete list of Korean words in Witsen's book can be found in anarticle by Frits Vos published in Vol. 50 of the Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch (1975).

Boudewijn Walraven

>

> Thank you for your excellent description of the contemporary Dutch

> spelling values. The vocabulary list from Witsen 1705 is quite

> fascinating, and I would like to have the rest of it, if it is not too

> much trouble for you to input.

If I may, I'd like to add my thanks to Sam's. This vocabulary list (as well as the supplementary one that Sam requested, and that I see you have now sent) is very useful, indeed. We are all most grateful.

> The transcription of "bread" as Stock means the word stek (McR <stOk > ttOk) preserved the initial cluster (at least in reading pronunciation, if that was what the writer was given by his informant).

That very conspicuous word caught my attention, as well. Note, also, the item a couple of entries earlier Spaem "cheeks". In sixteenth-century texts that word was written spam (without the -y- found in modern standard Korean); considering what you told us about the Dutch use of the digraph ae, the transcription looks almost perfect here. I assume there's no conceivable way the sp- st- clusters recorded by Witsen could be influenced by Han'gUl transcriptions. Is that a fair conclusion?

----------------------

Robert Ramsey
sr1@umail.umd.edu

Thanks for the compliments again, rereading this I have something to add, 't in contemporary Dutch was used for the word which is now known as "het" in English it; in some dialect over here it's still customary to use it in that way "het hondje" (the little dog [In Dutch a lot of words are miniaturized by adding "je"] in my previous mail in English that would be pronounced as "yer") in some dialects they say t'hondje without pronouncing the "h". Even in modern Dutch t'Zal toch niet waar wezen ? (comparable with" You ain't lying?") still comes close to the palatalized articulation [ts^] so I guess Sam made a good point, (and I would like to add"a very accurate guess) Though unfamiliar with any Korean when I first went to Korea I picked up a number of daily expressions very fast, the problem was that my pronunciation seemed to be so well, that most Koreans really thought that my Korean was fluent, meaning they answered me in that way. A tough but good way to learn the language fast.

Anyhow, at the moment I am in dire need of all the documents referring to Hamel, Witsen and Hoetink. I think I will have to make a visit to one of the museums soon and ask for copies of all of them because I think now it's valuable to translate anything written in Dutch about the subject is worth translating, but since "pecunia non olet" I'm not sure I can fund this.

-------

Henny (Lee Hae Kang)
Feel free to visit
http//www.henny-savenije.pe.kr/index2.htm
and you can feel the thrill about the adventures of Hamel in Korea (1653-1666)

Continuing this thread

>On Sat, 4 Apr 1998 094420 -0800 (PST) Sam Martin <semartin@pacifier.com wrote

>> Thank you for your excellent description of the contemporary Dutch spelling values. The vocabulary list from Witsen 1705 is quite fascinating, and I would like to have the rest of it, if it is not too much trouble for you to input.

>If I may, I'd like to add my thanks to Sam's. This vocabulary list (as well as the supplementary one that Sam requested, and that I see you have now sent) is very useful, indeed. We are all most grateful.

Well it really is my pleasure, I enjoy doing it, though it takes up most of my spare time.

>> The transcription of "bread" as Stock means the word stek (McR stOk > ttOk) preserved the initial cluster (at least in reading pronunciation, if that was what the writer was given by his informant).

I assume so, because that's what they only had. Not all of the sailors could read or write, since Hamel came out of a well-to-do family (his ancestors were mayors of Heusden, and his father was a fortifier, meaning he build fortresses and/or designed them, as well as his uncles)

>That very conspicuous word caught my attention, as well. Note, also, the item a couple of entries earlier Spaem "cheeks". In sixteenth- century texts that word was written spam (without the -y- found in modern standard Korean); considering what you told us about the Dutch use of the digraph ae, the transcription looks almost perfect here.

>I assume there's no conceivable way the sp- st- clusters recorded by Witsen could be influenced by Han'gUl transcriptions. Is that a fair conclusion?

Sorry to say so, but I would guess that is called jumping to conclusions, again, I'm not sure because some of these guys might have learned to a lesser degree how to read and write. Since Hamel was not amongst the chosen ones to be taken away in 1655 to Quelpaert to act as interpreter he was speaking about an assistant a sailor and the under officer in charge of the rigs. Since Mattheus Ibocken was an assistant barber (On my website I translated it as petty barber) he might be the one who Hamel was writing about. If so, you might have drawn a fair conclusion, if not........ ;-)

The problem was that sometimes Hamel was very clear and outspoken and sometimes he wasn't. I don't have a list of all the ones on board, for which I should have to go to the Amsterdam Ships Museum or maybe even back to the Royal Library in the Hague. the problem is that most of these institutes are closed when I have the time and open on working days. I will have to find a way. Nevertheless, since Ibocken made this list together with Witsen, since he was the petty (like in petty officer) barber, I would assume he was at least a little bit knowledgeable, since a barber was also the doctor on board. Since the Korean alphabet is easy to learn, I would say easier than our writing (I'm not talking about the Chinese characters) Hamel himself writes the following (Van Hove)

"Korean is very hard to learn. It doesn't look like any other language. Moreover, this language is pronounced in different ways. The important people and scholars usually speak slowly, little merchants on the contrary very fast. The common man is somewhat in between. The language is written in three different ways in the first place there is the script, with which the books are being printed. This script looks like that of the Chinese and the Japanese. The second type looks more like our script. This is used by the governors and other high administrators, when they answer petitions or correspond with each other. The common man can't read this. And finally there is the third type. This is being used by women and simple men. It is very easy to learn and one can write something with it very easily. This is done with a small pencil and they are very handy at it."

I would say, they learned at least some of the third type since it was easy to learn and women and simple men were using it. On the other hand I don't know how well they preserved those, but if I look at the word list I am more and more inclined to say yes you're right (I'm sorry but I had to put this in writing at least to convince myself)

I would like to invite anybody interested to read Van Hove's book in English on my website and make their comments about this as well

-------

Henny (Lee Hae Kang)
Feel free to visit
http//www.henny-savenije.pe.kr/index2.htm
and you can feel the thrill about the adventures of Hamel in Korea (1653-1666)

Dear Sir,

just a quick note if no one else has pointed out, your last mail had 5 attachments ranging from 10k to 105k. Is this just a Micro$oft addition or are these pages from your excellent web page??

Yours,

Andrew