Important Mistranslation of 1694 Ulleungdo Inspection Report

I have found a very likely, important mistranslation of a passage in the "Ulleungdo Sajeok" (蔚陵島事蹟), which was a report of Jang Han-sang's 1694 inspection of Ulleungdo. I am not surprised that Koreans have mistranslated it, but I am surprised that I and others had not noticed the mistranslation before. I think my new translation is a very important piece of evidence supporting the Japanese claim to Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks) and would like others to reexamine the passages I present below.

In 1694, the Korean government sent Jang Han-sang (張漢相) to inspect Ulleungdo. In his inspection report, he wrote the following:

About five ri to the east is one small island. It is not very big or very high, and it has a grove of haejang bamboo (海長竹) growing thickly on one side. On a day the rain clouds cleared and the fog settled, we went into the mountains and climbed the central peak. Two tall mountains to the north and south were facing us. This was the so-called Sambong (三峯 - "Three Peaks"). The winding shape of Daegwanryeon (大關嶺 - mountain range on the east coast of the Korean peninsula) was visible to the west. Looking toward the east, there was one island far off to the southeast. The size was only about one-third of Ulleungdo. It was only about 300 ri [120 kilometers] away.

東方五里許 有一小島 不甚高大 海長竹叢生於一面 霽雨?捲之日 入山登中峯 則南北兩峯 岌崇相面 此所謂三峯也 西望大關嶺逶迤之狀 東望海中有一島 杳在辰方 而其大滿蔚島三分之一 不過三百餘里.

The small island five ri (two kilometers) to east of Ulleungdo, which was described as having haejang bamboo (海長竹) growing thickly on one side, was almost certainly Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島) because Jukdo is two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore and is Ulleungdo's largest neighboring island. The island was labeled as "Usando" (于山島) on Bak Jang-sang's 1711 inspection map of Ulleungdo.

The island that Jang Han-sang described as being far off to the southeast of Ulleungdo, about 300 ri away (120 kilometers), was almost certainly Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima), which are about 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo. Inspector Jang described the rocks as being about one third the size of Ulleungdo, which tells us he did not travel to the rocks because Liancourt Rocks are actually only about 1/390th the size of Ulleungdo. Later, in the conclusion of his report, Inspection Jang seems to refer to the island as being Japanese territory. Here is the quote:

登島山峰審望彼國之域則杳茫無眼杓之島其遠近未知幾許

We climbed a mountain peak on the island (登島山峰) and looked carefully (審望) at that country's (Japan's) territory (彼國之域). There was a distant, hazy, (則杳茫), inconspicuous island (無眼杓之島). Its distance (其遠近) was unknown (未知), so it was approximated (幾許).

The above quote is my corrected translation of the mistranslation I was referring to above. It was in the conclusion of Inspector Jang's 1694 report. The "distant, hazy, inconspicuous island" was almost certainly referring back to the distant island referred to earlier in the report as being about 300 ri (120 kilometers) to the southeast of Ulleungdo. The fact that he reported seeing the island while looking at Japanese territory suggests that he believed the island to be Japanese.

Also, in a 1714 Korean report, an island visible to the east of Ulleungdo was described as being on the Japanese border, which suggests, again, that they believed the island to be Japanese:

I listened carefully to the people in the ports (浦人) who said, "Pyeonghae (平海) and Uljin (蔚珍) are closest to Ulleungdo, and there are no obstructions along the sea route. Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island that is on the border of Japan." In 1708 and 1712, strange-looking ships drifted to the borders of Goseong (高城) and Ganseong (杆城), so we know that Japanese ships frequently come and go. The government, however, says that the vast sea is a barrier, so there is no need to worry, but how can we be sure that a future war will not break out in the Yeongdong region instead of the Yeongnam region? We cannot allow even a little delay in taking measures to be thoroughly prepared.

In accordance with the request, the Myodang (廟堂) requested that Gangwondo be reprimanded to cracked down on its military officials.

辛酉江原道御使趙錫命 論嶺東海防疎虞狀略曰 詳聞浦人言 平海蔚珍 距鬱陵島最近 船路無少礙 鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境. 戊子壬辰 異攘帆穡 漂到高杆境 倭船往來之頻數 可知. 朝家雖以嶺海之限隔 謂無可憂 而安知異日生釁之必由嶺南 而不由嶺東乎. 綢繆之策 不容少緩. 廟堂請依其言 飭江原道 團束軍保.

Congnamul's Satellite Photo of Ulleungdo

Congnamul has a good satellite photo of Ulleungdo, including its neighboring island Jukdo, but the site charges for its higher resolution photos. The view below is the highest resolution the free version allows.

By the way, Daum Map allows close-up views of Ulleungdo, but, for some strange reason, it does not show Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo on its satellite photos.

Click on the photo to see a larger version.

"Daedong Yeojido" at Univ. of Wisconsin - Milwaukee

On November 20, 2009, the Daedong Yeojido (大東輿地圖), along with other archival Korean maps and photographs, will be on display at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee as part of a "Korea Day Conference." The 1861 Korean map was purchased by the university in 1895 from the father of American diplomat George C. Foulk (1856 ~ 1893), who traveled around Korea in 1884 taking photographs and keeping a detailed journal. To learn more about the Korea Day Conference at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee and the 1861 Korean map, click HERE, HERE, and HERE.

According to THIS KOREAN ARTICLE, the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, the University of California - Berkeley, and Harvard University are the only universities in the United States that have complete copies of the Daedong Yeojido. The article says there are twenty-five complete copies of the map in Korea.

To see the first two horizontal sections of the huge map, click HERE.

Univ. of Wisconsin at Milwaukee Duped by "Dokdo" Advocates

The above map is part of an old Korean map in an atlas entitled "Yeojido" (輿地圖), which is part of the Korean Map Collection at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. The map, which is believed to have been made between 1800 and 1887, shows the Korean island of "Ul-lungto" (菀陵島) and a neighboring island labeled "U San do" (于山島). The description of the map, however, lists the islands as "Ullung Do" and "Dok do," even though Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) does not appear on the map. Notice that the description of the map was "created" on October 7, 2009.

Usando (于山島 - 우산도) was the old Korean name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도), which is Ulleungdo's largest neighboring island and only about two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore. Koreans, however, claim that Usando was the old Korean name for Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo / Takeshima), but have no maps or documents to back up the claim. Liancourt Rocks is essentially two rock islets, not one, about ninety kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo. Korea's old maps and documents show that Usando was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo / Takeshima).

It is extremely disappointing to see that the people at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee have allowed "Dokdo" advocates to misrepresent the Korean map on the University's Web site. I hope the university quickly corrects the error and is more diligent in the future in guarding against the antics of Korea's "Dokdo" advocates.

The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”, Part 4

Below is the second part of the translation of The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

" Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)” - Part 4"

(3) Department of the Navy's recognition of "Takeshima and Matsushima"

Mr. Park wrote, " It is noteworthy that Liancourt Rocks was described only to 'Joseon waterway magazine（朝鮮水路誌）', and had not been described to 'Japanese waterway magazine "（ｐ45） He assumed it as a evidence that "Hydrography Department considered Liancourt Rocks, that is, Takeshima = Dokdo outside a Japanese territory." (p46)

However, this is groundless claim since his interpretation of the description of 'Joseon waterway magazine' was strained. The article "Situation" in 1894 edition of the book clearly described that territory of Korea is, " From 124º 30'E longitude to 130º 35'E". Naturally, Liancourt Rocks which situate in 131°55" E is not included in Korean territory.

Besides, the article "Japan Sea", in which Liancourt Rocks are listed, also list "Ulleungdo(another name Matsushima)" and "Waywoda Rock(ワイオダ岩)" as well. According to 'Joseon waterway magazine', "The Waywoda Rock, above water, was originally reported by the Russian corvette Veovoda, in 1859, as situated in lat. 42°16' N., long. 137°18' E." and "The Sea Chart of Hokkaido and Northeastern Islands(北洲及北東諸島)"(1893), which was drawn based on Admiralty Chart No．２４０５(1895), placed it between Hokkaido and Amur Coastal State(黒龍沿岸州).

"Waywoda Rock" was simply listed as the dangerous rocks(暗岩危礁)" in the Sea of Japan, and Liancourt Rocks was listed by the same reason. It can't be any kind of "evidence" that the author considered it as Joseon territory only because it was included in "Joseon waterway magazine".

On the other hand, Liancourt Rocks was discovered by French whaling ship Le Liancourt in 1849 and Takeshima, Matsushima and Liancourt Rocks are drawn in "Complete Map of Pacific Ocean" of French naval forces in 1851. Takeshima(Argonaut) disappeared from around Admiralty Chart No．2347 `JAPAN- NIPON, KIUSIU & SIHOK AND PART OF KOREA` (1876), and it described Matsushima(Uleungdo) and Liancourt Rocks. It was one year before Dajokan instructed "Takeshima and other island" and 4 years before Meiji government confirmed that Matsushima was Ulleungdo as well.

Therefore, Liancourt Rocks was actually "Terra nullius" that did not belong to the country at the time. It cannot be an invasion even if Meiji government had named it as Takeshima and incorporated into Shimane Prefecture as "Terra nullius" in 1905. Because there are no

historical grounds that make Liancourt Rocks a Korean
territory in South Korea, and "Dongguk Munheon Bigo（東国文献備考）"(1770)'s annotation, which SK had been relayed on as grounds of an argument, is already proved as the falsification of posterity.

Recently, Korean started to claim that Dokdo(=Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks) as their "inherent territory", and Mr. Park even wrote that "it is needless to say that this is contradictory to "Takeshima as inherent territory" by Japanese government (p49). However, the only country which is qualified to claim it as "inherent part of the territory" is Japan. The term "Inherent Territory(固有の領土)" indicate the territory which have never been ruled by any other country either like northern territories. As for Takeshima, which had been "Terra nullius" in 1905, Japan was ruling effect from at least 1905 to prewar day. Japanese government has a right to claim Takeshima as "Terra nullius, but South Korea, who invaded Japanese territory in 1954, is apparently disqualified to do claim Dokdo as her "inherent territory" at all.

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

In conclusion, it is clear that Mr. Park's claim that "theMeiji government consistently held to the policy of making Takeshima and Matsushima outside the territory in Japan until incorporation in 1905" (p36) and they made Korean territory as Japanese territory justifying it as it was "Terra nullius" in the middle of Russo-Japanese War is baseless claim. His article "The Meiji Government's Recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" (Studies of the cultures in Northeast Asia, no.28, 2008, pp.33-49.) was only a political advertisement that fabricated the falsified history, which confused the Takeshima issue as the history issue, too.

“実事求是　〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第２２回 朴炳渉氏の「明治政府の竹島＝独島認識」（「北東アジア文化研究」第２８号）を駁す　下條正男”

Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.

The 22nd column "Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”", Part 3

The 22nd column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, Part 2

The 22th column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, Part 1

The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 12th column “Northeast Asian Hisory Foundation and Dokdo Reseacrch Center's Misunderstanding”

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

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

The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”

The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"
The 6th column “"Records on Observations in Oki Province (Onshu-shicho-goki : 隠州視聴合記)" and the "Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads(Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu : 日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)."
The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"

The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."

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

1667 - Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)

1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)

1893 - "The Sea Chart of Hokkaido and Northeastern Islands(北洲及北東諸島)" plots Waywoda Rock far outside of Korean territory

1853-1922 - Kimotsuki Kaneyuki (肝付兼行)

1905 March (隱岐新報): Japan "officially" incorporates "Takashima"

Korea's online edition of the Chosun Ilbo has posted a November 7, 2009 article entitled, "1905 Edition of 'Oki Sinbo' ---Evidence of 'not original territory,'" which says that a researcher at the Korea Maritime Institute's Dokdo Research Center has found evidence in a March 1905 Japanese publication that the Japanese claim that "Dokdo" was "originally" Japanese territory is "a lie."

The researcher, whose name is Yu Mi-rin, supposedly said that the following sentence from a March 1905 article, entitled "Oki Boundary Expanded," in the Oki Sinbo (隱岐新報) is the evidence that Japanese are lying:

It is a happy event that two small islands and several islets, which our islanders have traveled to since ancient times, have been officially named Takeshima (竹島) and made a part of Oki territory.

우리 도민이 예로부터 도항하던 두 개의 섬과 많은 작은 섬들이 공식적으로 다케시마(竹島·독도를 일본에서 일컫는 말)라는 이름으로 오키 영토가 된 건 기쁜 일.

Here is the original Japanese with an English translation (courtesy of Kaneganese):

隱岐國境土の膨張

　　隱岐の西北八十五浬を距る海洋に存在する島嶼を竹島と命名し隱岐の新領土として隱岐島司の管轄に屬せしめられぬ、吾人豈太白を浮べて祝せざるを得んや、抑も竹島の地たる姉妹二つの島嶼、數多の小島嶼以て點々包圍せられ、其面積の如き未だ詳にせずと雖も、棲居敢て凌ぎ得ざるにあらずといふ、而して陸産としては殆んど利するものなきも、海産に於ては海獣其他漁利鮮なからずと聞く、由來我島民中夙に仝島に航して獲たる所のもの少なからず、事實上隱岐の領土に屬し居りしは既に久し、然るに公然之を認められざりしは遺憾の感ありしに、今や公認の令に接するを得たる上は我島民たるもの大に期する所なかるべからず、然れども仝島固と狭小なり、産物の濫採は永久の利を得る所以にあらざれば一時の利を競ふて無限の利を顧みざるが如きことなきを要す、當局者たる者亦大に此點に留意する所なかるべからず、兎に角隠岐の地籍に新領の上るは何れの町村の所属となるにせよ、確かに隱岐の一大幸福たり、吾人は快感禁じ難く玆に一言を陳じて隱岐境土の膨張を祝す、（弱魚）

"Oki News" - March 15, 1905 (16th vol.)

Editorial

"Expansion of Oki District Territory"

Islets located eight-five nautical miles to the northwest of Oki, which have been named Takeshima, have been made new Oki territory and put under the jurisdiction of the governor. I must toast it.

To begin with, the two sister islets which make up Takeshima are surrounded by several smaller islets. Though the exact area size is unclear, it is said it is big enough for a shelter. There are almost no profitable land products, but there are marine products. It is said that there is great profit in marine mammals and various kinds of fish.

Originally, a significant number of Oki islanders have long sailed to the islets, thus it has been de-facto territory of Oki from long ago. Considering that fact, it was lamentable that it was not recognized officially as Oki's territory before now. On receiving the notice of official authorization, our islanders cannot help having great expectations. However, the islets are narrow from the start, so we should not compete for a short-term profit while ignoring the long-term since excessive harvesting of the products there could hurt continuing profits. Those autorities in charge should take note of this concern.

Anyway, it is a great blessing that new territory has joined the Oki cadastre, no matter which town or village the islets belong. I cannot help feeling pleased and will congratulate the expansion of Oki's territory by making remarks on this situation. (Weak Fish)

Contrary to what the Korean researcher claims, the above editorial seems to support Japanese claims that Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks) was Japanese territory even before their 1905 incorporation. The rocks seem to have been considered unadministered Japanese territory long before 1905. The incorporation of the rocks in 1905 under Oki administration simply made it offical.

Countries, including the United States, have incorporated and unincorporated territory. Before 1905, Takeshima was essentially considered unincorporated Japanese territory, as is evidenced by a 1878 letter in which Watanabe Kouki (渡辺洪基), who was the Director of the Bureau of Documents in Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said "Hornet Rocks" (Matsushima/Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks) was Japanese territory:

Therefore, if the “Matsushima” being talked about here is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it belongs to them. If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan....

Many records say that “Argonaut,” which is the Western name for Takeshima (Ulleungdo), does not exist, and that “Dagelet,” which refers to Matsushima, is actually Takeshima (Ulleungdo). So what we call "Matsushima” (Liancourt Rocks) is called “Hornet Rocks” by Westerners. Foreign maps show Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory, but there is still no agreement among countries concerning the other two islands.

The above 1878 document is evidence that the Japanese considered Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) to be Japanese territory before 1905, even though the rocks were not administered by any particular prefecture. That changed in 1905, when the Japanese government decided, officially, to incorporate Liancourt Rocks into Oki county after receiving a 1904 petition from Japanese businessman Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞), who argued that the rocks would be better managed and protected if they were incorporated.

Mr. Nakai sent his petition to incorporate Liancourt Rocks to the Japanese government because he had been told that the rocks were a part of Japanese territory. That fact is evidence that the Japanese at the time distinguished between incorporated and unincorporated territory. The Japanese believed Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory, but by putting them under the administration of a Japanese prefecture, it became "official."

Man Arrested for Planning to Torch Japanese Embassy

According to THIS KOREAN ARTICLE, on November 5th, Korean police requested an arrest warrant for a 38-year-old Korean man named Jang, who had been detained the night before, for planning to set fire to the Japanese Embassy in Seoul to protest Japanese "distortion of history and the Dokdo dispute." The man was also accused of planning to take embassy employees hostage.

However, before Mr. Jang was able to carry out his plans, he was arrested by police, who had learned of his plans and traced his whereabouts through his cell phone.

In a statement to police, Mr. Jang reportedly said, "It is vexing and regrettable that I was caught before I was able to carry out the criminal act, but I will keep trying and will not give up until the Japanese attitude changes."

It seems that Mr. Jang had planned to set fire to the embassy, take a hostage, and then hold a press conference to protest Japanese history books and Japanese claims on Dokdo.

According to THIS ENGLISH ARTICLE, when Mr. Jang was apprehended, he was carrying a knife, a lighter, and a copy of a handwritten press statement. The article also says investigators are checking to see if Mr. Jang has any history of psychiatric illness.

The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是）”, Part 3

Below is the second part of the translation of The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

" Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)” - Part 3"

(2) "Dajokan Instruction for "Takeshima and the other island""

In 1877, Shimane Prefecture submitted "Consultation for the Compilation of Land Registration of Takeshima and the other island" in order to ask if they should include to the west of the San-in region since it locates to the northwest of Oki Country, which is within the jurisdiction. In response, Dajokan instructed "Takeshima and the other island has no relation to Japan."

However, there are room for the misjudgement. As Mr. Park himself wrote that " in those days, the number of civilians who gradually called Ulleungdo as Matsushima began to increase under the influence of the wrong western maps." (p44), the geographical recognition of Takeshima and Matsushima was intricate.

It is possible to catch a glimpse of confusion even in Dajoruiten(太政類典), compilation of selected documents of Daojkan, which includes Dajokan instruction in concern. "A Sketch Map of Isotakeshima(磯竹島略図)" which Shimane prefecture submitted, described traditional Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo). On the other hand, the document compiled by Shimane prefecture, Ulleungdo is likely to be misconstrued as Matsushima. For example, the documents continues the story about Takeshima(Ulleungdo), which was the name in Edo era, immediately after Matsushima was described.

The beginning of the confusion was for the Argonaut island, that became the island of the phantom later, and the Dagelet island to be drawn in Siebold's "Complete Map of Japan" in 1840, and to have added the island name of Takeshima and Matsushima, respectively. Later, Takeshima (Argonaut island) was described as "Unconfirmed", shown in the short dashed line in the chart etc. , and Ulleungdo, which had been called "Isotakeshima" or "Takeshima" from the early modern age, started to be labelled as "Matsushima". "The influence of the wrong western maps", which Mr. Park says, was the maps at that time which labelled Ulleungdo as "Matsushima" and Phantom island Argonaut as "Takeshima". It was obviously different from Takeshima and Matsushima that had been recorded in a chart etc. at that time were completely different from Shimane Prefecture's geographic understanding that made "Takeshima" of today "Matsushima".

The error in the chart etc. was corrected according to the measurement of the Amagi warship in 1880. The report by Amagi concluded that Matsushima was Joseon's Ulleungdo, and it was adopted in the book "Takeshima Hanzu Shozokuko(竹島版図所属考)" by Kitazawa Masanari(北澤正誠), a official of MOFA who investigated the issue by the order of Ministry of Foreign Affairs when the deforestation by Japanese on Ulleungdo became problem. Kitazawa lastly concluded that "Matsushima" is Joseon's Ulleungdo.

Then, the Meiji era government sends a secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs Higaki Naoe to Ullungdo to evict Japanese on the island. Kitazawa wrote that " it is necessary to know from old times Matsushima=Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks, was outside of our territory from old times. (「古来我版図外の地たるや知るべし」)". Mr. Park disregarded this and concluded that "A related organization such as Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Army, Naval forces and Dajokan thought this island to be a Korean territory" based solely on Dajokan instruction in 1877.

Because of these confusing description of the documents, I simply wrote " it is not clear if Takeshima of today is indicated or not", avoiding concluding, in my book "Takeshima, which country owns it. Japan or South Korea?" and also wrote that "it is possible that this indicate today's Takeshima" in Shimane Prefecture's brochure "Hasshin Takeshima(発信竹島)". However, when there is more spaces to go into details, such as journal "Shokun(諸君)", presenting the basis before and after, I summarized that "both "Takeshima and the other island" indicated today's Ulleungdo." It is sophistry of him to criticize that "It is too exceptional for changing own view so often" (p38)

“実事求是　〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第２２回 朴炳渉氏の「明治政府の竹島＝独島認識」（「北東アジア文化研究」第２８号）を駁す　下條正男”

Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.

The 22nd column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, Part 2
The 22nd column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, Part 1
The 21st column “" Refutation against "Analysys of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”
The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 12th column “Northeast Asian Hisory Foundation and Dokdo Reseacrch Center's Misunderstanding”

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

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

The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”

The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"

The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"

The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."

Reference :
1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876 (Part 1/2) (島根県 渡航禁止のいきさつ)

1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876　(Part 2/2) (島根県 (竹島の)由来の概略)

1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)

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

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

2009 - Oct. 25 - 日韓の和解と友好を考えるマラソントーク (Marathon talk "For Reconciliation and Friendship of Japan-South Korea - )

2009 - Oct. 25 - 日韓の和解と友好を考えるマラソントーク (Marathon talk "For Reconciliation and Friendship of Japan-South Korea - Sovereignty of Japan that keeps being violated-")

UPDATE
ご報告です。

当日参加してきましたので簡単ですがご報告いたします。

前半は学生中心でしたが、後半に自民党衆議院議員新藤義孝氏、島根県議上代義郎氏、県土竹島を守る会の方々が登壇され、大変興味深いものとなりました。新藤先生は竹島の歴史について正確な知識をお持ちのようで、韓国の主張、特に于山島が現竹島であるなどという説が、如何に歴史的事実に反する妄言であるかをお話していました。韓国側、日本の外務省にも働きかけを行っているようですから、私も一国民として応援していこうと思いました。上代先生と守る会の方々のお話からは、島根県が国内からの様々な逆風に耐えて筋を通し竹島の日を制定したそのご苦労、そしてなかなか国が動かない、国民レベルの運動に広がらないといった焦りが窺えました。

実は今回学生以外にも、明らかに右翼と分かる方々も沢山登壇されました。下條先生が2月の竹島の日記念式典で野次を飛ばした右翼団体の方々に「こんなところで騒ぐくらいならもっときちんとした場所で主張してみよ」と発言の機会を与えた、と聞き及んでいます。正直私としては大いに違和感を感じるものでしたが、普段街宣車に耳を塞いできた自分にとっては、ある意味で勉強になったことも多々ありました。

竹島は我が国固有の領土であることは、3年以上この問題の歴史的背景を独自に学んできた私としては、ゆるぎなき事実であるとの認識です。領土・領空・領海を守ることは、国民として当然のことで、それはなんら隣国に対して脅威をもたらすものではありません。しかし竹島は韓国に不法占拠されている状態が続いており、韓国政府に対して各方面から強く要求し続ける必要があります。その思いを前提として今回の経験をまとめるならば、島根の関係者の方々、右翼も含めた真に国の行く末を案じる方々が孤立しないよう、そして特に先鋭化しないで良い方向に向かっていくよう、自分なりの方法で側面支援していこう、との思いを新たにする良い機会になった、と言うことです。

歴史的資料の発掘、韓国側重要書類の入手、「竹島問題に関する国際法論文選」出版プロジェクト2009、ブログでの研究成果の出版、韓国人の若者との対話の機会を設ける、ネットで活動している竹島研究家の方々や学生たちとの研究ネットワーク作り、竹島みやげの開発、等等沢山アイデアがありますが、こうした考えを一つ一つ実現して行きたいと思っていますので、是非皆様のご協力をお願いしたいと存じます。

(追記、ここまで)

１０月２５日、韓国の「独島の日」にあわせて拓殖大学下條教授と有志の方々が以下のイベントを開催します。学生さんたちが中心に、島根県議なども参加されるようですので、ご興味のある方は是非ご参加下さい。
Marathon talk "For Reconciliation and Friendship of Japan-South Korea - Sovereignty of Japan that keeps being violated-" to be held in Takushoku University on Sat Oct. 25 at 13:00

日韓の和解と友好を考えるマラソントーク　― 侵され続ける日本の主権 ―

●日時
１０月２５日（日）１３：００～１６：００（１２：３０～受付開始）

●場所
拓殖大学文京キャンパスＳ館４階４０１教室（東京メトロ丸の内線「茗荷谷」下車）

●登壇予定者
拓殖大学、早稲田大学、慶応大学学生及び大学院生。島根県議ほか。

●会場整理費
一般 ５００円
学生 無料

●主催
拓殖大学下條研究室

●後援
特定非営利活動法人日本領土領海戦略会議

The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”, Part 2

Below is the second part of the translation of The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

" Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr.Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)” - Part 2"

(1) Takeshima and Matsushima in the Government Compilation Geography Books

Mr. Park enumerated the article "Oki(隠岐)" of 'Nihon Chishi Teiyo, vol.50 (Japanese topography summary : 日本地誌提要)", which is compiled by the government, as grounds to which the Meiji era government made Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks) "Outside the territory in Japan." In the article of "Islands" of the same book, following "Shimazushima(島津島)" and "Matsushima(松島)", "the adjacent islands/dependencies of Oki" are enumerated as follows.

Ohmori island(大森島). It belongs to Tsuto village of Ochi Town. Twenty-cho north of Matsushima. The circumference is 25-cho and 57-ken. From east to west, it is 7-cho. South to north, 7-cho. ○ The dependency of "This Country(Honshu : 本州)". Chibu town, 45. Ama town, 16. Suki town, 75. Ochi Town, 43. 179 in total. Those are called Oki's small islands, in general. ○ And there are 2 islands, Matsushima and Takeshima, to north-west. According to the local, people sail to Matsushima from Fukuura harbour. About 69-ri 35-cho in sea route. To Takeshima. About 100-ri and 4-cho. To Joseon. About 136-ri 30 cho in sea route.

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

　「大森島。穏地郡津戸村に属す。松島の北弐拾町。周回弐拾五町五拾七間。東西七町。南北五町。○本州の属島。知夫郡四拾五。海士郡壱拾六。周吉郡七拾五。穏地郡四拾三。合計壱百七拾九。之を総称して隠岐の小島と云。○又西北に方りて松島竹島の二島あり。土俗相伝えて云ふ。穏地郡福浦港より松島に至る。海路凡六拾九里参拾五町。竹島に至る。海路凡百里四町余。朝鮮に至る海路凡百三十六里参拾町」

Mr. Park derived the following conclusions from the description of this 'Japanese topography summary'.

It is important that this geography book, compiled by government, described Takeshima and Matsushima separately from the belonging island in the Mainland(本州). If two islands are not dependency of mainland, naturally, they are neither the dependency of Kyushu nor Hokkaido, thus it is understood that both islands were treated as outside of Japanese territory. (p34)

Mr. Park literally interpreted "belonging island in the Honshu(本州)" of the text here as the "Mainland (of Japan)", not "This Country(=Oki)", and interpreted Takeshima and was Matsushima of the following sentence, "○ And there are 2 islands, Matsushima and Takeshima、 to north-west." , are not dependency of Honshu(mainland).

However, "Belonging island in the Honshu" said by "Oki" of 'Nihon Chishi Teiyo' means "Belonging island in Oki Country(=Hon-shu : this country) ". That is apparent since in the article of Oki's "Situation" and "Government", all the word "州" are used for Oki itself, not a mainland of Japan(本州 : Honshu).

Besides, this book enumerates Shimazushima(島津島)", "Matsushima(松島)" and "Ohmori shima(大森島)" followed by the sentence "The dependency of "This Country(=Oki)" because the author meant that "Oki" has 179 tiny islets along with Shimazushima or Ohmorishima and there are two more islands "Takeshima and Matsushima" to the north-west. Thus, there is no trace, as Mr. Park claims, that "Takeshima and Matsushima were separately from the adjacent island in the Honshu(本州). " It is twisting an argument for him to insist that "If two islands are not dependency of mainland, naturally, they are neither the dependency of Kyushu nor Hokkaido, thus it is understood that both islands were treated as outside of Japanese territory."

In addition, in the article of "Oki" of this book, it say "From Takeshima(Ulleungdo) of the two islands to Joseon, it is about 136-ris and 30 cho by the sea." That is the concrete evidence the author of the book considered Takeshima(Ulleungdo) as Japanese territory, or he wouldn't have written the distance from Takeshima to Joseon.

Mr. Park ignored this fact and concluded that both islands were treated as the outside of Japanese territory based on this article of "Oki" of this book. He even cited Tanaka Akamaro(田中阿歌麻呂)'s "Old record of Takeshima of Oki Country"(Journal of Geography, Vol. 17, No. 8, 1905), and claimed that "Tanaka, the geographer of Meiji period, also considered as it was (outside of Japanese territory)".

"In the first year of the Meiji era(1968), the geography division of central government( 正院地誌課) denied Japan's sovereignty of "that(Takeshima=Dokdo, noted by Mr. Park)" and it led the maps published afterward showed the existence of "that" . Miyamoto Sanpei(宮本三平)'s "The map of Japanese Empire", published by the Ministry of Education, depicted it but didn't color it putting outside of the territory of the empire." (p34)

However, notably, Mr. Park used trick into the quote here. He inserted the note "that(Takeshima=Dokdo, noted by Mr. Park)" in Tanaka's article and claimed that Tanaka also considered Takeshima=Dokdo as outside of Japanese territory.

But, it totally disobeys the intention of Tanaka Akamaro. Because Tanaka soon corrected that "Takeshima of Oki" in the former article was not today's Takeshima ,as Mr. Park noted, in the very opening of "Additional remark" in the end of a book, in which he worte the article titled "The geography knowledge of Takeshima of Oki Country"(Journal of Geography, Vol. 18, No. 6, 1906) next year.

According to the article mentioned above, the article "Old record of Takeshima of Oki Country" in the no.200, 201 and 202 of the journal was not about Takeshima, but Ulleungdo. (p419)
------------------------------------------------------------
「以上の記事によれば本誌第二百号二百一号及び二百二号に掲げたる「隠岐国竹島に関する旧記」の記事は全く竹島の記事に非ずして欝陵島の記事なるが如し」（419頁）

As it is clear, Tanaka voluntarily corrected his own mistake of having confused Takeshima with Ulleungdo next year, and corrected in the additional remark. For all the fact, Mr. Park intentionally inserted the deceiving note "that(Takeshima=Dokdo, noted by Mr. Park)". Mr. Park, who twisted the "Oki" 'Nihon Chishi Teiyo' even dishonestly altered the article of Tanaka Akamaro so that he can use it as a logical base for him to claim that Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(today's Takeshima) was made outside of Japanese territory.

Mr. Park has preoccupying opinion that "The Meiji government consistently held fast to the policy of making Takeshima and Matsushima outside the territory of Japan until the "the incorporation of Ryanko-to(Takeshima=Dokdo)" in 1905", and this biased preconception made him arbitrarily interpret and even fabricates the factious history.

However, there were certain recognition that Takeshima and Matsushima were Japanese territory in the Meiji era. It stems from "Records on Observations in Oki Province (Onshu-shicho-goki : 隠州視聴合記)", which wrote Takeshima and Matsushima are the northwest limit of Japan (note 1), and Ohtsuki Shuhei(大槻修平)'s 'Saikoku Nihon Chishi Yoryaku (Revised Summary of Japanese Topography)' (1875) also follows it.(note 2) Mr. Park's claim, "it is not too much to say that all the governmental organization which has strong relation to Takeshima and Matsushima considered Dokdo to be Joseon territory(p46)", is totally groundless, since it turns out that Matsushima of the "Takeshima and the other island" in the 1877's Dajokan instruction was actually Ulleungdo, not today's Takeshia and this order, "Takeshima and the other island has nothing to do with our country.", didn't include today's Takeshima.

(note 1) Refer to colum no. 6 & 7

(note 2) In "Oki" articles of Otsuki Shuhei(大 槻修平)'s "Revised Japanese topography summary' (vol. 5) , it is recorded as follows. "To begin with, this country is the westernmost and is solitary island in Sea of Japan, and to the northwest sea, it exists both Matsushima Takeshima. It is said that both of them are close to Joseon area, but there are no inhabitants nor government for belonging and people from each area made it as a hunting grounds where they often came to hunt sealions.

“実事求是　〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第２２回 朴炳渉氏の「明治政府の竹島＝独島認識」（「北東アジア文化研究」第２８号）を駁す　下條正男”

Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.

The 22nd column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, Part 1

The 21st column “" Refutation against "Analysys of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”"

The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 12th column “Northeast Asian Hisory Foundation and Dokdo Reseacrch Center's Misunderstanding”

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

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

The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”

The 8th column “The Historical Facts"

The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"

The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"

The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."

Reference :

1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876 (Part 1/2) (島根県 渡航禁止のいきさつ)

1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876　(Part 2/2) (島根県 (竹島の)由来の概略)

1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)

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

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

中央日報「独島を守ろう」と作った教科書に誤り１５カ所

中央日報：
http://japanese.joins.com/article/article.php?aid=121457&servcode=400&sectcode=400
独島（トクト、日本名・竹島）をめぐり、昨年日本の外務省が「竹島は日本の領土」だという内容のハングル広報資料を出すと、韓国の中央政府・地方政府は先を争って独島守護対策をまとめた。しかし国務総理室や文化財庁などが１１日にハンナラ党の李性憲（イ・ソンホン）、韓善教（ハン・ソンギョ）議員に提出した国政監査資料によると、各機関の対策に一貫性がないことが明らかになった。

外交通商部は４月に慶尚北道（キョンサンブクド）教育庁に「小学校の独島教科書の内容に誤りがある」として検討するよう要請した。２月に発行された独島教科書のうち、▽１８８２年に倭寇が鬱陵島（ウルルンド）で略奪をする部分▽独島という名前が１９０６年に初めて使われたという部分などが歴史的事実と異なると外交通商部は指摘した。１８８２年には略奪したのではなく伐木をしたもので、独島の名前が初めて使われたのは１９０４年というものだ。また太宗（テジョン）実録の「于山島」（ウサンド）に言及した部分については、「日本側の批判を受けた部分だ」として削除を要請した。

このように外交通商部が修正または削除を勧めた部分は１５カ所に上る。外交通商部側は「教科書を３月に入手し内容を検討した。今後教科書を改訂したり類似した教科書政策を進める場合、総理室や外交通商部と協議してほしい」と要請した。「独島守護」の次元から作られた教科書が充分な関係官庁の協議を経ずに製作されていたのだ。

特に総理室は３月に各官庁に宛てた公文で「独島関連広報が機関別に個別・分散的に進められることで、広報引用資料が一致せず、広報論理の統一性が欠如した」と指摘したことが明らかになった。

韓善教議員は「独島問題が起きると各種の対策を浴びせながらしっかりと推進もできない問題が繰り返されている。各政府機関が事前調整なく拙速に事業を進めればむしろ逆効果になる」と主張した。

The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”, Part 1

Below is a first part of the translation of The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

" Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)” - Part 1

Last time, I clarified the fact that Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)'s article " Refutation against "Analysys of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" (Dokdo Research, No. 4) was just an groundless false description. In the article, he failed to prove his claim that "there was neither "Fabrication" nor Falsification" of the historiography that Masao Shimojo claimed " to be true.

His false claim lead me taking up his another article "The Meiji Government's Recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" (Studies of the cultures in Northeast Asia, no.28, 2008, pp.33-49.) for discussion this time. Although he claims that "Meiji government recognized Takeshima and Matsushima as outside of territory", he again avoids and refrains from the historical facts which are definitely disadvantageous for him.

According to him, "the Meiji government consistently held to the policy of making Takeshima and Matsushima outside the territory in Japan until incorporation in 1905" (p36), but "the territory incorporation was decided in the Cabinet Council "since it was a pressing need under the difficult situation" in the middle of Russo-Japanese War, defining Takeshima=Dokdo as "Terra nullius." (p49)"

In his article, he wrote, "Shimojo Masao's opinion, which is extremely uncommon, on the definition of "Takeshima and another island" has been
changing every year. (p37)", while he tried to stress how much his claim is genuine. He denounced my opinion that "he changed his own opinion(p37)", "he changed his own opinion again (p38)" or "uncommon opinion(p38)".

Then, what is the "the opinion on the definition of "Takeshima and another island"" Mr. Park mentions? It is, in October of 1876, Shimane Prefecture 's inquiry about the inclusion of Takeshima and another island in the Sea of Japan" submitted to Minister of Interior And Dajokan, the highest governmental organ of Japan, responded that "Takeshima and another island, it is understood that our country has nothing to do with them" next year.

However, the fact is, that Kitazawa Masanari(北澤正誠), a official of MOFA investigated the situation and concluded that "another island" is actually Ulleungdo, and his conclusion was the Meiji government's opinion. "Another island = Matsushima" in 1877's Dajokan instruction was confirmed that it was Ulleungdo in 1881, resulting that "today's Takeshima/Dokdo has nothing to do with Dajokan's instruction," actually.

This fact collapses Mr. Park's claim that "the related organs, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Army, Navy and Dajokan considered the island as Joseon territory(p48), thus Japanese inclusion of Takeshima into Shimane was invasion." Maybe, Mr. Park niggled over my opinion so that he may able to conceal this fact. In the last summary, he concluded as follows.

" Afterwards, Japan that developed as an imperialism nation decided the territory incorporation of Takeshima = Dokdo by a Cabinet Council in the middle of Russo-Japanese War from the judgment with "the incorporation was urgent particularly under the present situation." Japan’s claim was based on terra nullius (meaning unclaimed land). It is needless to say that this is contradictory to "Takeshima as Inherent territory" theory on which present Japanese Government insists. (p49)"

However, it was not true. I am going to point out the problems in his article "The Meiji Government's Recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" (Studies of the cultures in Northeast Asia, no.28, 2008, pp.33-49.) now.

(to be continued to the part 2, 3, and 4)

“実事求是　〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第２２回 朴炳渉氏の「明治政府の竹島＝独島認識」（「北東アジア文化研究」第２８号）を駁す　下條正男”

Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.

The 21st column “" Refutation against "Analysys of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”"

The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 12th column “Northeast Asian Hisory Foundation and Dokdo Reseacrch Center's Misunderstanding”

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

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

The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”

The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"

The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"

The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."

Reference :
1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876 (Part 1/2) (島根県 渡航禁止のいきさつ)

1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876　(Part 2/2) (島根県 (竹島の)由来の概略)

1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)
1880 - Japanese Warship "Amagi" (軍艦天城) Surveys Ulleungdo and finds "Takeshima" is Jukdo.

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

1822 - Jido - Gwandongdo (地圖 - 關東圖)

The following map was made in 1822 and is from an atlas entitled Jido (地圖). It is stored in National Library of Korea. The Gwandongdo (關東圖) map shows Usando (于山島) just off the northeast shore of Ulleungdo. Usando was the old name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島), which is just two kilometers off the northern half of Ulleungdo's east shore.

1965 - June 22 - Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea

On June 22, 1965, Japan and South Korea mutually signed the basic Treaty to restore the diplomatic relations. South Korea, claiming as the only existing government on whole Joseon peninsula including North Korea, agreed to demand no compensations, either at the government or individual level, after receiving $800 million in grants and soft loans from Japan as compensation for its 1910–45 Japanese rule in the treaty. Most importantly, the treaty says "Recalling the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951" in the preface. In other words, Korean government has obligation to follow the San Francisco Treaty, in which Allied Powers clearly concluded that Takeshima/Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks was excluded the sovereignty which Japan should renounce, even though Korean were declined to join the SF treaty because they were not the "Allies".

Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea（日本国と大韓民国との間の基本関係に関する条約）

Japan and the Republic of Korea,

Considering the historical background of relationship between their
peoples and their mutual desire for good neighborliness and for the
normalization of their relations on the basis of the principle of
mutual respect for sovereignty;

Recognizing the importance of their close cooperation in conformity
with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations to the
promotion of their mutual welfare and common interests and to the
maintenance of international peace and security; and

Recalling the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Peace with Japan
signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951 and the
Resolution 195 (III) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on
December 12, 1948;

Have resolved to conclude the present Treaty on Basic Relations and have accordingly appointed as their Plenipotentiaries,

In the first to fifth drafts of the Treaty of San Francisco between Japan and the Allied powers, Liancourt Rocks were described as part of Korea. However, the sixth draft, which was made on Dec 29, 1949, ruled that Liancourt Rocks belong to Japan. The final version did not mention Liancourt Rocks. In Aug 10, 1951, a notification currently known as Rusk documents was sent to South Korea as a final U.S. Government reply on the issue of sovereignty between South Korea and Japan, and it states that Liancourt Rocks are territory of Japan. In November 1952, Confidential Security Information of USA claimed that "It appears that the Department has taken the position that these rocks belong to Japan and has so informed the Korean Ambassador in Washington.". In 1954, "The Report of Van Fleet mission to the Far East" reported that "[...]the United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty.[...] There is no single doubt that American and Allied Powers concluded that Takeshima is Japanese territory.

Treaty of Peace with Japan (Signed at San Francisco, 8 September 1951)

CHAPTER II
TERRITORY
Article 2
(a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.

History of San Francisco Peace Treaty

1946 - SCAPIN 677 - #1

1946 - SCAPIN 1033 - #2

1947 - SCAPIN 1778 - #3

1949 - Willam J. Sebald's telegram - #4

1949 - A letter from W. Walton Butterworth - #5

1949 - December 29th; 6th Amendment of the Treaty Draft - #6

1950 - July - Commentary on Draft Treaty by the Department of State - #6-b

1950 - August - U.S. Draft of the Peace Treaty - #6-c

1950 - October 26th - USA Answers to Questions Submitted by the Australian Government - #7

1951 - April - May: Joint UK and USA Draft - extra(1)

1951 - June 1 - New Zealand's view - extra(2)

1951 - July 9th - Coversation of Yu Chan Yang with John F. Dulles - #8

1951 - July 19th - The 2nd Conversation between Yu Chan Yang and John F. Dulles - #9

1951 - August - Another letter from You Chan Yang - #10

1951 - August 3rd - Memorandum - #11(On re-ceiving Boggs's memo. I asked the Korean desk to find out whether anyone in the Korean Embassy officer had told him they believed Dokdo was near Ullengdo, or Takeshima Rock, and suspected that Parangdo was too.)

1951 - August - Rusk's Letter - #12

1951 - September 9th - San Francisco Peace Treaty - #13

Korea's Illegal Land Grab from Japan

1952- January: Syngman Rhee Line

After the Installation of Syngman Rhee Line - American documents

1952 - November - Confidential Security Information of USA - #1 ("It appears that the Department has taken the position that these rocks belong to Japan and has so informed the Korean Ambassador in Washington." )

1952 - December - Confidential Security Information of USA - #2( "I much appreciate your letter of November 14 in regard to the status of the Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks). The information you gave us had never been previously available to the Embassy. We had never heard of Deen Rusk’s letter to the Korean Ambassador in which the Department took a definite stand on this question.")

1953 July: Confidential Security Information of USA - #3( The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in assistant Secretary dated August 10,1951.")

1953 - November - Secret Security Information of USA - #4 ("The Liancourt Rocks case appears to have aspects in common with that of Shikotan Island" "Remind the ROK of our previous statement of view (the Rusk letter)")

1953 - December - SECRET SECURITY INFORMATION by Dulles - #5

1954 - Report of Van Fleet mission to the Far East

「竹島問題に関する国際法論文選」出版プロジェクト2009

日本固有の領土である竹島に関する問題は、戦後の混乱期に韓国の帝国主義的領土拡張政策によって軍事的占領された（1954年）ことに端を発し、現在も韓国による不法占拠が60年以上続いています。一義的には領土問題の存在をさえ認めない韓国側の一方的な非友好的態度が非難されるべきですが、同時に事なかれ主義によって積極的に解決しようとしなかた日本政府(密約の存在説もありますが)、そしてそれを許してしまった我々日本国民自身の現在進行形の問題でもあります。さらに、韓国側による積極的なロビー活動により、一次資料の正確な解釈を誤った我田引水的解釈だらけの韓国人研究者の論文に加え、日本側では梶村秀樹氏、堀和生氏等、彼らの主張に沿った偏向論文のみが英文に翻訳され、日本人の研究として世界にばら撒かれているのが現状です。結果としてそのような論文しか目にすることの出来ない世界の研究者は、誤った結論の質の低い論文を執筆せざるを得ない結果となり、領土問題を超えて、東アジア、ひいては世界の学問の信頼を揺るがす大変憂慮すべき事態に陥っています。しかし、韓国側のレベルの低い議論に対し、「相手にするだけ時間の無駄」という無反応の態度を取りることは、「日本は反論するだけの根拠を持たない」という誤ったメッセージを全世界に向けて発していることに他なりません。1905年以前の韓国の竹島に対する実効支配の事実が何一つ無いこと・1906年に日本の領土編入を知った後も抗議（出来る状態であったのに）さえ行わなかったことが既に明らかになっており、日本固有の領土であることが明確である以上、内外に向けて事実を的確に伝える努力を続けることは、この問題に多少なりとも関わった者の責務であると考えます。韓国側のお粗末な論文を払拭するためにも、学術的批判に耐えうる優れた日本の論文を世界に向けて発信する事が求められているのです。

そこで、日本側の研究論文のうち、いくつか選んで翻訳・出版して世界の研究機関等に配布するよう、関係各所に働きかけていくことを考えています。3-5ほどの論文を選ぶとすれば、どれがよろしいでしょうか？さらに研究者や国際法に関係する論文などで推薦がございましたら、随時こちらのコメントセクションに情報をお寄せくださいますよう、お願い申し上げます。

• 秋月望「日韓領土問題再考」竹島独島『明治学院論叢』国際岳研究　１６号　１９９７．３月東壽太郎「国際紛争と地図一」　神奈川法学　第一巻第二号　昭和４０年
  
• 東壽太郎「国際紛争と地図二」　神奈川法学　第二巻第一号　昭和４１年
• 植田捷雄「竹島の帰属をめぐる日韓紛争」『一橋論叢』54巻1(1965.7)pp19-34
• 芹田健太郎「竹島問題」『島の領有と経済水域の境界確定』有信堂 1989 pp.225-239
• 芹田健太郎「日本領土の変遷」日本の国際法事例研究(3)『領土』(1999)所収
• 芹田健太郎『日本の領土』中公叢書 2002
• 芹田健太郎「竹島を消すことが唯一の解決策だ」　中央公論２００６年１１月号
• 太寿堂鼎「竹島紛争」『国際法外交雑誌』第六四巻四・五合併号、1966、105-136
• 太寿堂鼎「領土問題　北方領土・竹島・尖閣諸島の帰属」『ジュリスト』６４７、１９７７．９．１
• 高野雄一『日本の領土』（1962年、東京大学出版会）69頁,p.266
• 塚本孝「日本の領域確定における近代国際法の適用事例 - 先占法理と竹島の領土編入を中心に」『東アジア近代史』3号(2000.3)pp.84-92
• 塚本孝「サンフランシスコ条約と竹島」『レファレンス』389(1983.6)pp.51-63
• 塚本孝「平和条約と竹島（再論）」『レファレンス』518(1994.3)pp.31-56
• 塚本孝「竹島領有権をめぐる日韓両国政府の見解」『レファレンス』617(2002.6)pp.49-70
• 朴培根「日本による島嶼先占の諸先例 - 竹島/独島に対する領域権原を中心として」『国際法外交雑誌』105巻2号(2006.8) pp.32-47
• 濱田太郎「竹島（独島）紛争の再検討　一」　法学研究論集　明治大学大学院法学研究科　６号　１９９７．２月
  
• 濱田太郎「竹島（独島）紛争の再検討　二」　法学研究論集　明治大学大学院法学研究科　７号　１９９７．９月
  
• 濱田太郎「竹島（独島）紛争の再検討　三」　法学研究論集　明治大学大学院法学研究科　８号　１９９８．２月
• 広瀬善男「国際法からみた日韓併合と竹島の領有権」『明治学院大学法学研究』８１号 ２００７年１月皆川洸「竹島紛争と国際判例」（『国際法学の諸問題 - 前原光男教授還暦記念』1963、慶応通信所収）
• 皆川洸「竹島紛争とその解決手続」『法律時報』１９６５年９月号
• 横川新「竹島」日本の国際法事例研究(3)『領土』(1999)所収
• 「『竹島』と国際裁判例の動向」 鬼頭誠 ／ 「インタビュー　小田滋前国際司法裁判所判事に『竹島』問題を聞く」 　『読売クオータリー』2008 秋号 通巻第7号　読売新聞東京本社調査研究部　（島根県サイトにあり）

What happened to our "hit counter"?

On both my Blogger sites, Korean Language Notes and here, the "hit counters" have suddenly started over at somewhere around 12,000 hits. It happened a couple of days ago on my Korean Language Notes site, so I assume it happened at around the same time on this site. Before the change, my Korean Language Notes site had close to 50,000 hits, and this site had more than 1.1 million.

Is the Dokdo-Takeshima debate still alive in Japan?

I heard my name mentioned in the video below and am curious to know the background and what is being said. Could someone please give me a brief summary? It may be an old video, but I just found it mentioned in a September 2, 2009 post on Occidentalism.

I apologize for not participating in the debate much this year. I have tried to stay away from the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute mainly because of job-related concerns, but also because I have been busy with other things. Another reason is that I had lost a lot of motivation because Korea has been relatively quiet on "Dokdo" lately, which I think is a good thing. It seems like Japan and Korea have been trying to improve relations, so it did not seem like the right atmosphere to talk about the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute.

Anyway, my school has recently told me they will not be renewing my contract next year, so I feel more comfortable about getting back into the debate. However, I wonder if anyone is still interested? It seems like the debate has died down in both Korea and Japan, for whatever reason. Are Japanese still interested in the debate?

The 21st column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”

Below is a translation of The 21st column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

" Refutation against "Analysys of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”

When the territorial issue is in dispute, historical grounds for its sovereignty is indispensable. Therefore, the fact that the remarks "輿地志云 鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 于山則倭所謂松島也 ("Yojiji" says that Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk. Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima.)" from the "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考)", which South Korea present as her logical base for its sovereignty on Takeshima, was a falsification during the process of compilation of the book in 1770, was a fatal blow to South Korea. Since it makes South Korea had invaded Takeshima, a Japanese territory, without any historical grounds. Korean must have admitted this fact of the falsification, considering they have kept failing to refute "１０ Ｉｓｓｕｅｓ　ｏｆ　Ｔａｋｅｓｈｉｍａ" which pointed out this fact of falsification, the pａｍｐｈｌｅｔ issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan in Feb.2008.

Actually, refutations by people who side with South Korea just went to the wrong place. For example, Prof. Emeritus Naito(内藤正中) couldn't refute logically, instead, he simply assumed it to be a "Conflicting Theory" in his book "'An Introduction for Takeshima=Dokdo issue ‐ A Criticism for Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs." As for Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)'s case, he only refuted by a dimension quite different from the historical study. His so-called refutation was, " Ministry of Foreign Affairs quoted Shimojo's editorial without verifying at all. To begin with, Shimojo's editorial is a mistake." ("Dokdo Research", No.4, Yeungnam University) Mr. Park's typical logics can be seen in his article "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" (Dokdo research,No.4,2008 （「獨島研究」第4号・韓国嶺南大学校編(Japanese)). In the article, he claimed "What Shimojo wrote" are "often published in the right-wing magazines like ""Shokun !(諸君!)" and "Seiron(正論)". And it draw attention from non-specialists." and concluded that " it will be necessary to watch it carefully in the future. Moreover, it is an interesting point how the relation between he and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will develop in the future. "

Then, the pamphlet "１０　Ｉｓｓｕｅｓ　ｏｆ　Ｔａｋｅｓｈｉｍａ" which pointed out this fact of falsification, by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan might become the conduct of the "right wing" according to Park's logical style, too. However, what is required for the historical study is to clarify the fact of a more objective history through the adequate document criticism. It is not to misapprehend or deny the historical study itself by labeling my alma mater and Takushoku University, which I'm currently working for, as "Universities of right inclined" or me as "Minority", "Activist" and "Right wing".

Now, I'm going to look into Mr. Park's logic through his editorials if they are correct or not. This time, "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" ("Dokdo research", No.4). Next time, ""Meiji Government's Recognition of Takeshima/Dokdo" ("Study of Eastern Asian Culture", No.28 (『北東アジア文化研究』第28号)) published by Tottori College(鳥取短期大学).

Is there really no falsification in the notation of "Dongguk Munheon Bigo", as Mr. Park claimed "There was neither "Fabrication" nor "Falsification" of the historiography as Masao Shimojo advertised " ? In this column, the problem and the argument error of Mr. Park are to be pointed out.

(1)Interpretation of "Yojigo(輿地考)"of the "Dongguk Munheon Bigo"

So far, South Korea had used the notation of "Yojigo(輿地考)"of the "Dongguk Munheon Bigo" as her logical base for its sovereignty on Takeshima. It says, "輿地志云 鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 于山則倭所謂松島也 (Yojiji says that Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk. Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima. )", and Korean automatically misread this "Usan" as today's Takeshima/Dokdo without verification and claim that Takeshima/Dokdo was an island belonging to Ulleungdo from the phrase "Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk".

However, Korean should have had perused the documents "Dongguk Yojiji (東国輿地志)", which supposed to be quoted as annotation, and "Dongguk Munheon Bigo" through document criticism method if she was going to use it as a logical base. However, "Yojiji (輿地志)" was not even an issue in the controversy of Japan-South Korea that had started in the 1950's, then naturally, even a basic research of verifying the compilation process of "Dongguk Munheon Bigo" was not done. This notation became an issue only after South Korea constructed the coming alongside the pier facilities in Takeshima in 1996.

In the process of the controversy started in 1996, the important fact was pointed out.That is, the quotation in "Dongguk Munheon Bigo" and the one from "Dongguk Yojiji (東国輿地志)" by Ryu Hyung-won(柳馨遠) in Dongguk Munheon Bigo’s source book "疆界誌" by Shin Gyong-jun (申景濬) was actually different. In "Dongguk Munheon Bigo"(1770) , it says that "輿地志云 鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 于山則倭所謂松島也 (Yojiji says that Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk. Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima. )", while "東国興地志"(1656) or known simply as "Yojiji(輿地志)" itself actually says that "一説干山　鬱陵　本一島(It is said that Usan and Ulleung were originally one island)". Then, when and at what stage this phrase in "東国興地志"(1656) was altered? Well, it was 申景濬's "疆界誌"（1756）, which was the source book of Dongguk Munheon Bigo. In "疆界誌", 申景濬 wrote that "一則其所謂松島而蓋二島倶是于山國也( one of them must be so-called Matsushima and probably two islands are both Usanguk.)" Since then, Usando started to be written as Matsushima(Japanese old name of today's Takeshima).

The fact that "Dongguk Munheon Bigo"(1770)'s annotation says that "輿地志云 鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 于山則倭所謂松島也 (Yojiji says that Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk. Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima. )", is the concrete evidence that quotation from "Yojiji" was actually falcified and created the false sentence. In fact, there is no mention of "Usando was Japanese so-called Matsushima" in original "Dongguk Yojiji".

Original
1656 - Ryu Hyung-won (柳馨遠) "Yojiji (輿地志)" (=Dongguk Yojiji (東国輿地志))

"于山島鬱陵島　一云武陵　一云羽陵　二島在県正東海中　三峯岌嶪撑空南峯梢卑　風日清明則峯頭樹木　及山根沙渚　歴々可見　風便則二日可到　一説干山　鬱陵　本一島　地方百里
(Usando/Ulleungdo are also called both Muleung and U-leung. The two islands are in the middle of the sea due east of the administrative seat. Three peaks shoot straight up to the sky, and the southern peak is a little lower. When it is windy and the weather is clear, you can clearly see the trees on the peaks of the mountains and the sand at their feet. You can travel there in two days with a fair wind. It is said that Usan and Ulleung were originally one island with an area of 100 ri)"(「東国興地志」巻之七 江原道 蔚珍) (Link to the image 1 , 2 )

→ Original ＋ Opinion (The phrase starts with "I think". )

1756 - Shin Gyong-jun (申景濬) "疆界誌 旅菴全書" 巻之七 "Ganggyego (彊界考) " 十二 鬱陵島

"按 輿地志云 一説于山鬱陵本一島 ( Thinking about Yojiji, it says that Usan and Ulluen are the same island in one theory,) 而考諸圖志二島也 一則其所謂松島 ( But I think, considering many maps, it must be two island and one of them must be so-called Matsushima,) 而蓋二島 倶是于山國也(and probably two islands are both Usanguk.)"

→ Fabirication (Replaced the original's phrase with " Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk."/ Omitted the words "I think" )

1770 - Shin Gyong-jun (申景濬) ・ Hong Gye-hui(洪啓禧)　"Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考) Yojigo(與地考)"

"輿地志云 鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 于山則倭所謂松島也 (Yojiji says that Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk. Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima. )"

(*This part was written by translater.)

Surprisingly, against this fact of fabrication, Mr. Park still insists that "there was no fabrication nor alteration of historical documents as Prof. Shimojo claims." He explains the reason for that as follows.

" As for "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考) ", the former part of the phrase (鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地) was the quotation, but the latter part "于山則倭所謂松島也" was Shin's opinion." This is apparent from "Yojiji (輿地志)". Therefore, there was no "fabrication nor alteration" of historical documents as Shimojo says."

However, Mr. Park made two critical failures even in this short sentences. First of all, he actually admitted the fact that the latter part "于山則倭所謂松島也 (Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima.)" was just a Shin's opinion inserted, while the former part was quotation.

Mr. Park finally admitted that the notation "于山則倭所謂松島也 (Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima.)" in "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考)" was Shin's opinion, in other words, the whole sentence, which omitted the words "I think", was not original but an alteration. He did inadvertently revealed Korean's secret (fabrication) of almost 300 years and frustrated their own ground for the illegal occupation of Japan's Takeshima.

His second failure was that he claimed that as for "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考)", the former part of the phrase was the quotation. This notation "鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地(Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk)" meant much importance to Korean since it was the logical basis that Takeshima/Dokdo, which they believe to be called as Usando, was adjacent island (属島) of Ulleungdo. On this grounds, Korean have insisted that Takeshima/Dokdo be a Korean territory from the sixth (!?) century.

However, the same sentence with "鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地(Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk) or similar doesn't even exist in Ryu Hyung-won (柳馨遠)'s "Dongguk Yojiji (東国輿地志)" unlike Mr. Park insisted. The annotation of "疆界誌 " which was compiled by　申景濬, an author of "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考), says that "而蓋二島 倶是于山國也(and probably two islands are both Usan-country.)" and it is the grounds of an argument of the sentence "鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 (Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk.)" ("Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考)). Accordingly, "鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 (Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk.)" in "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考)) has anything to do with Ryu Hyung-won (柳馨遠)'s "Dongguk Yojiji (東国輿地志)". In fact, it was 洪啓嬉's embellishement and composition of annotation of 申景濬's book "疆界誌 "when they compiled "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考). Mr. Park employs sophistry as "there was no "fabrication nor alteration" of historical documents as Shimojo says", but it is just an reckless remark without any grounds.

As was explained so far, Takeshima Issue from historical point of view should be started with the document criticism of 申景濬's "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考). However, Mr. Park's study in his article "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" doesn't reach to the document criticism of 申景濬's "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考)". That is because as long as Mr. Park tries objecting by pasting the label like "Shimojo is what (right -wing)", he never reaches the region of " controversy". In fact, his purpose is political propaganda, not "controversy", as he has been working on "Criticism of Masao Shimojo" on his web-site "half-moon castle newsletter". In 2007, he even received a research grant from Korea Maritime Institute, South Korean governmental Organization, to study "Analysis of the conflicting perspectives on Ahn Yong-bok Incident between Japan-South Korea" and "Criticism of Shimojo Masao's claim".

The historical study on Takeshima Issue has gone beyond and already advanced even to the document criticism of 申景濬's "疆界誌" (1756), and the fact that the original text exists in 申's "疆界誌" has revealed. It is Lee Maeng-hyu (李孟休)'s "Chungwanji" (春官志) (1745). "Biography of Ahn Yong-bok(安龍福伝)" and the article "Ulleungdo" in "疆界誌" is plagiarism of the article "Ulleungdo Dispute(欝陵島争界)" "Chungwanji", and in the process, the part which 申 wrote speculation and inserted his opinion in "疆界誌" became the annotation of "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考)" later. Somehow, Mr. Park, who intended to "Analyse Shimojo Masao's Editorials", avoided the argument with Lee Maeng-hyu (李孟休)'s "Chungwanji" (春官志). Why? That is because the relevant part of "Chungwanji" actually defined Usando as Ulleungdo as follows.

1745 - Lee Maeng-hyu (李孟休) "Chungwanji" (春官志)

盖 是島 以其産竹也 故 謂 竹島 以有三峯也 故謂 三峯島 至於 于山 羽陵 蔚陵 武陵 礒竹 皆音 轉 訛而然 也

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

In general, this island is called Jukdo (竹島) because bamboo (竹) grows on it. It is called Sambongdo (三峰島) because it has "three peaks" (三峰). Usan (于山), Uleung (羽陵), Ulleung (蔚陵), Muleung (武陵), and Wuijuk (礒竹) are all mispronunciations.

As it is clear from this description, Lee's "Chungwanji" defined Usando as Ulleungdo. 申景濬 wrote speculation "按 輿地志云 一説于山鬱陵本一島 ( Thinking about Yojiji, it says that Usan and Ulluen are the same island in one theory,) "而考諸圖志二島也 一則其所謂松島 ( But I think, considering many maps, it must be two island and one of them must be so-called Matsushima,) 而蓋二島 倶是于山國也(and probably two islands are both Usanguk.)" in "疆界誌" (1756), leading fabricating false sentence "Usando was Japanese Matsushima" , which was in fact his own opinion.

Then, why Shin considered "Usando was Japanese Matsushima"? That is because of Ahn Yong-bok(安龍福), who smuggled himself into Japan and was expelled from The Sea of Karo (加露灘) by Tottori clan in 1696, testified that "松島即子山島、此亦我國地(Matsushima is Jasan-do, which is the land of our country)" to the interrogation after coming back and perjured himself that "Ulleungdo and Matsushima became Joseon territory through the own negotiation to the feudal lord of the Tottori clan". Namely, the metamorphosis of Usando, which was defined as Ulleungdo in Han Baek-gyeom(韓百謙)'s "Dongguk Jiliji(東国地理誌)" and Lee's "Chungwanji", into "Japanese Matsushima" have its origin in Ahn's false testimony.

Shin, who followed Ahn's false statement indiscriminately, even altered the quotation in "Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東国文献備考)" consequently and spread the groundless theory "Usando = Japan's Matsushima". Chung Dong-yu(鄭東愈) of the same period castigated Shin as " has weak-point of making self‐righteousness/far‐fetched opinions and assumes own view to be correct from old times.", while Mr. Park, who was neglectful of the document criticism of "疆界誌", seems to be blind to the historical facts. Therefore, Mr. Park's words "Therefore, there was no "fabrication nor alteration" of historical documents as Shimojo says." is just a thoughtless words of a man of negligent to the document criticism and interpreting the historiography arbitrary.

“実事求是　〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第２１回　朴炳渉氏の「下條正男の論説を分析する」（「独島研究」第4号）を駁す　下條正男”

Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.

The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 12th column “Northeast Asian Hisory Foundation and Dokdo Reseacrch Center's Misunderstanding”

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

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

The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”

The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"

The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"

The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."

Reference :

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

1744 - Chungwanji (春官志) - "Ulleungdo is called Sambongdo (三峰島)" (李孟休　春官志　鬱陵島 爭界)

「『竹島紀事』と『春官志』覚書」(下條, 2003) (Japanese)

2009 - 17 July - Japanese Defense White Paper claimed Takeshima is an inherent part of Japan.

17th July, 2009, in a cabinet meeting, the government of Japan approved a 2009 defense white paper(平成21年版 防衛白書) that claimed Takeshima as an inherent Japanese territory. Let's see what it says.

Chapter 1. Security environment that surrounds Japan
2. Security environment around my country
In Asia Pacific region、there are the countries that accomplishes the rapid economic development such as China and India, and a worldwide concern for this region rises mainly from the economic aspect. At the same time, enhancement and strengthening cooperation and the cooperation between each country in the region have been attempted.On the other hand, diversity like the political dispensation and an economic developmental stage, the race, and the religion, etc. is abundant, and in this region it still remains the composition of the confrontation of each country even after the cold war is over. The views on security environment and the recognition on threats are different each other. Thus a big change in the security environment seen in European region has yet to be occurred and a past problem such as territorial issues and unification affairs has been left. In Choson peninsula, the same race's dividing into two parts continues over longer than half a century, leaving the military forces from both countries, north and south, confronting each other. Moreover, addition to the problem over Taiwan, the territorial issue over Spratly Islands exist, too. Furthermore, as for Japan, the territorial issues over northern territories and Takeshima, both of which are the inherent parts of our country, still remain unsettled.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

第I部　わが国を取り巻く安全保障環境
2　わが国周辺の安全保障環境 　
アジア太平洋地域では、中国やインドなど、急速な経済発展を遂げている国がみられ、経済面を中心として、この地域への世界的な関心が高まるとともに、域内各国間の連携・協力関係の充実・強化が図られてきている。他方で、この地域は、政治体制や経済の発展段階、民族、宗教など多様性に富み、また、冷戦終結後も各国・地域の対立の構図が残り、さらには、安全保障観、脅威認識も各国によってさまざまであることなどから、冷戦終結に伴い欧州地域でみられたような安全保障環境の大きな変化はみられず、依然として領土問題や統一問題といった従来からの問題も残されている。 　朝鮮半島においては、半世紀以上にわたり同一民族の分断が継続し、南北双方の兵力が対峙(たいじ)する状態が続いている。また、台湾をめぐる問題のほか、南沙(なんさ)群島をめぐる領有権の問題なども存在する。さらに、わが国について言えば、わが国固有の領土である北方領土や竹島の領土問題が依然として未解決のまま存在している。

Korean Government reacted to this promptly and Korean media reported this in Japanese on their news site. Or ordinary Japanese would not have even known about what defense white paper says about Takeshima.

Seoul Blasts Tokyo Over Latest Dokdo Islets Claim (Choson online)
Korea has strongly protested Japan's move to include the country's easternmost islets of Dokdo as Japanese territory in its annual defense white paper. In a cabinet meeting on Friday Tokyo approved a 2009 defense white paper that claimed Korea's Dokdo islets as Japanese territory under the name "Takeshima." Seoul's foreign ministry responded strongly, emphasizing the islets are Korean territory according to history, geography and international law, and demanded an immediate rectification. Seoul also accused Tokyo of raising tensions less than a month after the two countries' leaders held a summit. Arirang News / Jul. 20, 2009 10:34 KST

Now, even North Korean ruling party repulsed as well, claiming "Infringement to my race's autonomy".

North Korean Worker's Party organization paper repulses to Japanese Defence White Paper. "The threat of northeast Asia is Japan" (Sankei : 28 July, 2009) cache
NK Worker's Party organization paper "Rodong Sinmun(労働新聞)" of North Korea published the repulsed commentary , saying that "It was outrageous, and if dangerous power of northeast Asia was recorded, it is Japan" in the point of 2009 version defense white paper of Japan of the nucleus and the missile of North Korea on the 28th, "Important threat". Korean Central News Agency told. It criticized that the white paper had clearly described the sovereignty of Takeshima, the disputed island of Japan-South Korea , saying that it is an "infringement to the autonomy of our race".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
朝鮮労働党機関紙「北東アジアの脅威は日本」　防衛白書に反発 (産経 : 2009.7.28 21:25) cache
北朝鮮の朝鮮労働党機関紙「労働新聞」は２８日、日本の２００９年版防衛白書が、北朝鮮の核やミサイルを「重大な脅威」と指摘したことに対し、「言語道断であり、北東アジアの危険勢力について記すなら、それは日本自身だ」と反発する論評を掲載した。朝鮮中央通信が伝えた。白書が日韓が係争中の竹島（韓国名・独島）の領有権を明記したことについても、「わが民族の自主権に対する侵害行為」と批判した。

Last February, Japanese government made protest against Korean Defence Paper, in which Korea wrote that Japan's Takeshima as Korean territory.

Japan makes a protest stealthily
Korea wrote that Japan's Takeshima as Korean territory in their "National Defence White Paper 2008 version" using a photo of Takeshima as its cover. Japanese government made a protest to Korean government through the Japanese embassy in Seoul and summoned the men in charge from the Korean embassy in Tokyo to make a protest. The protest was made on the 23rd when the white paper was published. However, Japanese government did not announce it officially so that it was not known to foreign people including Korean people at all.

Korean government firmly denies Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks is territorial issue, but as far as we know, it is the Territorial Dispute, indeed. Korean government should agree to bring this territorial issue to ICJ and settle bilateral problem peacefully.

Yuji Hosaka: "Born to Defend Korea's Dokdo Claim"

Yuji Hosaka seems to be in the Korean news every other month or so, rather he has anything new to say or not. If you did not read the May article on about how he is "Spreading the word about Dokdo," then you can read the following August article about how he is "Born to Defend Korea's Dokdo Claim." Both articles essentially say the same thing, which is how he is devoted to spreading the truth about Dokdo.

While most Koreans seem to have gone silent on Dokdo, probably after finally realizing how ridiculous Korean claims are, Yuji Hosaka continues to make a fool of himself. Why?

And why do Korean newspapers continue to print the same kind of Yuji Hosaka crusade article over and over? Shouldn't most people have heard by now how Mr. Hosaka is devoting his life to Dokdo?

I wonder if Mr. Hosaka realizes how foolish he sounds, and I wonder if the Korean media realize how silly such articles appear to non-Koreans?

1754 - "The Field Chart of Japan, The Atlas of Japan (日本輿地図 日本分野図)" by Mori Kohan( 森幸安) described Takeshima(Ulleungdo) as Japan's territory

"The Field Chart of Japan (日本分野図)" by Mori Kohan( 森幸安) described Takeshima(Ulleungdo) as Japan's territory.

（Left : "The Field Chart of Japan (日本分野図)" from the site of National Archives of Japan ）

As we can see, "The Field Chart of Japan (日本分野図)" by Mori Kohan( 森幸安) clearly described Takeshima(Ulleungdo) as Japan's territory by drawing the sea route line from Oki to Ulleungdo. Nagakubo Sekisui is considered to have referred this map the most in the creating process of "Revised Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads", which Korean claim Nagakubo excluded Takeshima from Japan's territory, etc. In other word, against Korea's claim, this "The Field Chart of Japan (日本分野図)" by Mori Kohan( 森幸安) reinforces the Japan's claim that Nagakubo clearly recognized Takeshima and Matsushima as Japanese territory in 1779.

（Right : Closeup of "The Field Chart of Japan (日本分野図)" from the site of National Archives of Japan ）

Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水) depicted Takeshima as Japan's territory on his map of Japan.

A group of island that are currently called Takeshima were once known as "Matsushima," and the island that is now known as Utsuryo (pronounced Ulleung in Korean) used to be known as "Takeshima" or "Isotakeshima." Although there has been a period of temporary confusion concerning the names of Takeshima and Utsuryo Island due to an error in the charting of Utsuryo Island by European explorers and others, it is obvious from a variety of written documents that Japan has long recognized the existence of "Takeshima" and "Matsushima." For example, on many maps, including "Kaisei Nippon Yochi Rotei Zenzu (Revised Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads(日本輿地路程全図): first published in 1779)" by Sekisui Nagakubo, which is the most prominent published cartographic projection of Japan, the locations of Utsuryo Island and Takeshima are accurately recorded at their current position between the Korean Peninsula and the Oki Islands. (MOFA, 2008)

Korean claims that the "Onshu-shicho-goki(隠州視聴合記)" and "the Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads", both of which Japan used as the basis to prove that Takeshima (Dokdo) was Japanese territory, instead are the basis to prove that Dokdo is Korean territory. The interpretation of the sentence “Viewing Koryo is just the same as viewing Onshu (Oki island) from Unshu (Izumo) [見高麗猶雲州望隠州]” makes it clear, however, to which of Japan or Korea the place where one could view Koryo belonged. Nagakubo Sekisui made that notation next to Ulleungdo when quoting from the Onshu-shicho-goki because he believed that Ulleungdo was Japanese territory--he wasn’t reconfirming that Dokdo was Korean territory.

Indeed, Saito Hosen, the author of Onshu-shicho-goki, also wrote in the book the fact that the Oya family from Yonago of the Tottori domain frequently visited Ulleungdo. He had no doubt that Ulleungdo was Japanese territory. And when one of the Oya family’s ships drifted ashore in Korea in 1666, one year before the publication of Onshu-shicho-gouki, the Korean government graciously returned it. The Edo Shogunate grasped the meaning of that event and also recognized that Ulleungdo was Japanese territory. Even in 1695, when Edo Shogunate banned Ohya and Murakawa clan the voyage to Ulleungdo, both government didn't even hinted Usando in the process of negotiacion, not to mention of Matushima, today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks, which suggests that Joseon didn't even know the existence of the tiny island 92km far from Ulleungdo. Ulleungdo had been the easternmost of Joseon territory, and none of Korean historical documents suggest Ulleungdo nor Usanguk, the old name of coutry of Ulleungdo, includes Takeshima/Dokdo. As we have seen, there is no evidence that Koreans ever traveled to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima) before Japanese fishing boats started taking them there in the early 1900s, and the islets do not appear on any of Korea's old maps by any name.

Other concrete evidences that Nagakubo Sekisui considered Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima as Japanese territory, most likely, the country of Oki.

1. The additional remark next to Ulleungdo, "見高麗猶雲州望隠州( From there(Ulleungdo) you can view Korea, it is just like you view Onshu (Oki island) from Unshu (east of Shimane prefecture, mainland of Japan)", on his map was cited from the " Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)" by Saito Hosen, which states Ulleungdo was the westmost of Japanese territory.
2. He coloured both islands from the later edition as Japanese territory.
3. In the first edition, not only two islands, but also other important Japanese islands like Gogohshima(御号島 : today's Okinoshima(沖ノ島),　Kuchinoerabu(口永良部島)、Ezo(蝦夷地 : Hokkaido) were also uncoloured. It is obvious that those Japanese islands uncoloured were not considered to be outside of Japanese territory, but only described to be distant islands of Japan from the mainland.
4. Nagakubo’s other map ("Map of Asia and Small Orient(亜細亜小東洋圖, 1835)") clearly shows Takeshima and Matsushima as Japanese territory.
5. Nagakubo was in charge of compiling the geographical volume of the "Great Chronicles of Japan"(大日本史 or Dai-Nihonshi). The geographical documents were drafted by him. Under the article of 4 of district of Oki country, it says that "in addition, there are Matsushima(today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks) and Takeshima(Ulleundo) and those island belong to Oki.

Mori Kohan (森 幸安 : 1701（14th year of Genroku）　- ? 　)
Mori Kohan was born in Kyoto and studied the historical evidence for the map in the middle of Edo period. He collected or copied the maps of Japan and the world in Kyoto and Osaka from 1748 to 1763, counting almost 300 of them, and information related to the map was written down in detail on a margin by the Chinese writing . It is said that he combined those maps to produce "The Atlas of Japan (日本輿地図)". "The Field Chart of Japan (日本分野図)" of "The Atlas of Japan" described the parallel and the meridian for the first time as Japanese map and even latitude is recorded on the parallel line. Mori noted that he recorded the latitued to record the climate of each latitude (Japan is a warm coutny with the four seasons). Takeshima is also described as Japanese territory with sea route from Oki.

(Right : "The Map of Ogasawara islands (1752)" from "The Atlas of Japan" by Mori Kohan. It shows that Ogasawara Islands(Bonin Islands : 無人島) were well-recognized by Japanese as its territory way before American came around in 1800s.)

References :
Shimane Prefecture (Eng. Jap. & Kor.)
Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Eng.)

The 19th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”

1696 - Ordinance Prohibiting Voyages to Takeshima (幕府 渡航禁制令)

1835 - "Map of Asia and Small Orient(亜細亜小東洋圖)" shows Takeshima/Dokdo as Japanese territory

1667 - Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)
1667 - "Onshu Shicho Goki(隠州視聴合記)" - The different translations

2007 - "The analysis of the western maps" by Funasugi Rikinobu

This is from the Final report by Takeshima Research Center, 2007 (竹島研究会最終報告書 2007)

"Takeshima in Illustrative Maps and Maps Vol.II " (絵図・地図からみる竹島（II）)　

2. The analysis of western made maps( 2. 西欧製地図の分析)
by Associate Professor Funasugi Rikinobu (Shimane University)
(舩杉力修 島根大学法文学部・歴史地理学)

2. The analysis of the western maps
(Overview)

Western maps have been the object of the study in Takeshima-issue. According to Kawashima(1966), the map of Korea in "the collection of Chinese maps "by D'Anville (1779) have the two islands, "Tchiang-chan-tao"(west side) and " Fanling-tao"(East side) , the former being Usando the latter being Ullenungo in Chinese pronunciation, but these were just a copy of Korean old document. without investigation. This map had a great influence over European maps thereafter.

In 1787, when Dagelet found Ulleungdo, it was named after him, and the name "Dagelet" started to appear on the maps. In 1789 Argonaut found the Ulleungdo, named the island after it, but he failed to measure it exactly and spotted it on the map in the northwest of the real island; consequently , two islands for the one island, Ulleungdo, began to appear on the western maps.Arter that, Siebold compared the Japanese maps with European maps, and he mistakenly identified "Argonaut" with "Takeshima"(Ulleungdo) and "Dagelet" with "Matsuhima"(Takeshima/Dokdo);as a result, the map thereafter had been wrongly drawn under this misperception .

In 1849 French ship found Takeshima/Dokdo and named it Liancourt after its name, now the maps have three islands, "Argoaut"("takeshima"), "Daglet"("Matsuhima"), and Linocourt. But later it was found out that there was no island corresponding to "Argonot", so in 1900's the maps began to list only two islands, Daglet and Liancourt. The confusions were due to Siebold's misidentification.　Korea claims that even western maps prove Dokdo was Korean territory just because D'ANVIL map has two islands, "Tchiang-chan-tao" and "Fanling-tao".

This paper will examine as many western maps as possible and investigate how these islands referred above appeared in the western maps. However, since the number of western maps is enormous and since it is difficult to systematically check them all, I took the following measures.

I have examined "the collection of classic maps of Japan" and "the compilation of old Japanese maps" among Akiyama Takeshiro's collection, and I also used the Internet western old maps on the website of Kansai University. In total, I examined 74 Japanese and Asian maps by European people which had Oki islands, Ulleungdo, and Taekshima/Dokdo. The times of the maps examined is from the middle of 16 century when Oki islands appeared for the first time in the western maps to the late 19 century when the boarder is not drawn as clearly as now. I summed up the result in figure 2 on another sheet.

① Until the middle of 18century
Only Oki islands were spotted on the western maps. That means westerns had no cognition of the western part of Japan Sea other than Oki islands. Oki islands appeared on almost all the western maps after the middle of 18 century. Some of the maps of Japan were made based on Japanese maps such as "map of Japan on a folding screen" (日本図屏風), which was probably made in the late 16 century in Joutoku temple of Fukui Prefecture(福井県), "South barbarian map on a folding screen(南蛮屏風), which belonged to the same family tree to the map just mentioned , "new anthology of maps about great Japan "(新撰大日本図鑑)(1678）, "the map of Japan's mountains and sea(日本海山潮陸図)(1691）by Ishikawa Tomonobu (石川流宣). "Map of Japan on a folding screen" and "Southern Barbarian map on a folding screen" has Ulleungdo as Isotake between Oki and Goryeo but western maps based on them didn't list it for some reason. As a side, "new anthology of maps of great Japan" and "the map of Japan's mountains and sea does not have "Takeshima"(Ulleungdo) and "Matsuhima"(Takeshima/Dokdo) on them.

② From the middle of 18 century to the early 19 century
From the middle of 18 century, Tchiang-chan-tao（Usan) and Fanling-tao（Ulleungdo) began to appear on western maps. It might be that the map was made based on 1530 Korean map " "Map of the Eight Provinces (八道總圖 - 팔도총도)" in the middle of 16 century because the islands were spotted on the east of Korea and Usan is in the west, Ulleungdo in the east. As Kawakami points out, it seems these maps were under the influence of D'Anville.

D'Anville, Jean Baptiste Bourguignon(1697～1782) was a French geographer and published "new map of China" in 1737 (Left : from the site of Hokkaido University Library) based on the1735 map made by missionaries who stayed in China. Thereafter, this 1737 map had been the standard map of China, This map included the map of Korea, which had Tchiang-chan-tao、Fanling-tafor on it. (The national museum of Korea printed it in its leaflet.) Almost all the maps with these two islands locate Usan in the west, Ulleungdo in the east. "The map oft Japan" in 1750 located them similarly. It follows that Usan is not Takeshima/Dokdo.

Besides, this map is not a territorial map: it was just made based on "Map of the Eight Provinces" (1530) and Japanese maps of the middle of Edo era, so it had nothing to do with territorial boundary.

③ The early 19 century
In the early 19 century, maps with "Argonaut" and " Dagelet" came to existence besides the maps with "Tchiang-chan-tao" in the west and " Fanling-tao " in the east. These are all the name for Ulleungdo. In other words, four islands were drawn on the western maps in this period. "Argonaut" and "Dagelet" was "discovered " due to the developed technology of measurement at the time. "Dagelet" was discovered by French in 1787, "Argonaut" in 1789 by Britain. Since these islands were not colored on the map, they were recognized as no man's island. In this period, maps were made based both on traditional Korean maps and on western technology of measurements.

④From the middle of 19 century to the late 19 century
In the middle of 19 century, "Tchiang-chan-tao" and "Fanling-tao" gradually began to disappear from the maps. In some maps like the British map of "Japan and Korea" , 68th map on another sheet, only "Tchiang-chan-tao" disappeared and Fanling-tao、Argonaut、Dagelet remained. Incidenally, the maps were colored and Fanling-tao and Argonaut were colored yellow and Dagelet colorless, indicating tha Fanling-tao and Argonaut belongs to Korea and Dagelet belongs to no country. But since the maps were confused as to the existence and location of the islands, it has little significance. (By 1865 Argonaut finally disappeared from the map. * )

In 1840, Siebold mistakenly identified Argonaut with Takeshima and Dagelet with Matsuhima after he compared Japanese maps with western maps. Thereafter, however, his notation became a standard for western maps.
Takeshima/Dokdo notated as Linacourt began to appear on the western maps about this time. It was named after the French whaling ship Liancourt which discovered the island. (British map notated it as Hornet. I , though) Finally the maps began to depict Dagelet and Liancourt island accurately.

In the German map of Korean and Japan in 1870, (right / 72th map on another sheet), the present Ulleugdo was notated as Matsushima（Dagelet.) and in the south-east of it , you can see Liancourt.R（Hornet.I), Takeshima/Dokdo. Judging from longitude and latitude、they are accurately depicted. Interestingly note the boader line was drawn in the west of Matsuhima (Ulleungdo). The map showed the cognition that . the west of Ulleungdo was the boundary between Korea and Japan.

Incidentally Korean newspaper, Chosun Ilbo on 15 January 2004, reported that they discovered the French map in 1894 which indicated that Dokdo belongs to Korea. The map was in French daily newspaper Le Petit Journal in 1894 and the title was "the map of Korea, Japan, East China." They say that the map has the boundary between Korea and Japan, and Ulleungdo and Dokdo were on the map, Dokdo noted as I.Ouen-Sa (Usando).

The Prof. of Hanyang University, Shin yon-ha said that it was the first time that the map with territorial boarderline was publicized and he concluded that Dokdo was internationally considered as Korean territory. However, examining the map closely, you'll find no Ulleungdo on the map which he claims to be drawn as Ulleungdo. Besides, I.Ouen-Sa(Usando), which he claims to be Dokdo, is Ulleungdo judging from longitude and latitude.:It is not Dokdo. And the present Takeshima/Doko is not depicted. This map is not the type based on the developed technology of measurement and belongs to the classic type of the map.

The wrong conclusion seems to be due to the error in the elementary method he employed: there is strong basis that Usando is Dokdo, the study is not based on the history of western maps and geography, even the longitude and latitude are not checked, which is very basic in reading maps.

In conclusion, western maps only recognized Oki Islans until 18 century. In the middle of the century Western maps were made based on 1530 Korean map "(八道総図), but since Usando was in the east, it follows that Takeshima/Dokdo was not recognized while Ulleungdo was during this period.

In the early 19 century, reflecting the advanced technology of measurement as well as traditional cognition of geography, there were several Ulleungdos on maps. In the middle of 19 century, finally some maps began to reflect the actual geography. In a nutshell, in western maps, Takeshima/Doko appeared only after the middle of 19 century after the advancement of measurement technology and before that, there was no map with Takeshima/Dokodo on it.

Hence, what was written as "Usando", as was the case with Korean maps, did not refer to the present Takeshima/Dokdo. In no western map was depicted Takeshima/Dokdo as Korean territory.

(* notes by translater : Japanese government seems not to have dropped Argonaut until 1878 when British Royale Navy dropped it from the chart in 1876 version)

(There is a list of the maps he studied in the original Japanese version.)

Translated by Ponta.

Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.

Other Article by Associate Professor Funasugi from the Final report by Takeshima Research Center, 2007 (竹島研究会最終報告書 2007) and the report of the Research on Takeshima Issue by Web Takeshima Research Center, 2007 (Web 竹島問題研究所　「竹島問題に関する調査研究報告書」平成19年度) posted are as follows:

"Takeshima in the Korean official map"
1530 - (1) 「八道総図」 in 『新増東国輿地勝覧』
1711 - (2)「欝陵島図形」
1770 - (3) 「欝陵島図 in'『朝鮮地図』
1882 - (4） 『鬱陵島外図』
1899 - (5) 『大韓全図』(1899) , 『大韓輿地図』(1900 c.a.
2007 - Supplement

"Takeshima in Japanese map (1)"
1849 - (1) 「嘉永新増　大日本国郡輿地全図」

References;
1752 - Fang-ling-tau means Ulleungdo
1894 - Carte De La Coree from "Le Petit Journal"

"Lesson Learned From Dokdo," by Tong Kim

Tong Kim is supposedly a research professor with the Ilmin Institute of International Relations at Korea University and an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), yet, his July 12 Korea Times article, "Lessons Learned From Dokdo," seems to be more evidence that when it comes to "Dokdo," Korean professors seem more than willing to throw integrity and objectivity right out the window.

1798 The old chart of Dagelet

Although this is not directly related to Liancourt Rocks, I've obtained a part of old chart of Dagelet island (Ulleungdo) recently and I think many readers of this blog may be interested in it. It is a part of a British chart book which was published in 1798 , as there is a writing at the bottom of this sheet of charts that reads "Published as the Act directs Novr. 1st. 1798 by G.G.& J. Robinson Paternoster Row". This sheet of charts seems to be a copy of a French chart as it was all written in French. [Click the map to enlarge]

There is a chart of L'ile Dagelet (The Isle of Dagelet) in the sheet of charts and the French note says that "Discovered by the French frigates la Boussole and l'Astrolabe. The 27th May 1787. " with the exact location of the island. [Click the map to enlarge]

Another four charts depicted other islands - "a part of the isle of Quelpaert (Chejudo)", "the isle of Hoapinsu", "a part of the isle of Botol", and "the isle of Kumi". All of these islands were only "vue" (that means "seen"), not discovered. The dates depicted in these charts may illustrate how the French frigates navigated - they saw a part of the isle of Botol on 3rd May 1787, then the isle of Kumi on 5th May, the isle of Hoapinsu on 7th May, a part of the isle of Qeulpaert on 21st May and lastly they discovered Dagelet on 27th May.

1945-1953 Map of Korea and Japan (USA)

This is the "Map of Korea and Japan" which was published by Military Sea Transportation Service, Department of Navy, USA. The map of Korea was made by Geographia map Co., INC in New York. The exact year of the publication is not clear but it may have been published during the years after the WWII (1945) until 1953 when the Military Demarcation Line was drawn. This map of Korea is almost similar to the map "Large Scale Map of Korea" by the same mapmaker that I already posted here; http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2009/03/late-1940s-to-early-1950s-map-of-korea.html

The map shows Ulleungdo (as ULLUNG DO) but not Liancourt Rocks. [Click the left map to enlarge]

The flip side of it is a map of Japan made by the same mapmaker, Geographia Map Co. INC. There are islands in the Sea of Japan - Matsu Shima, Liancourt Rocks and Oki Shima. [Click the left map to enlarge]

They mistakenly depicted Ulleungdo (MatsuShima, Dagelet) as a Japan's island while they drew Ullun Do (Ulleungdo) as a Korean island in the map other side. There seems to have been a confusion concerning Matsushima and Ullun Do because of turmoils after the war and wrong information from the pre-war era.

But anyway, it seems to have been a firm belief for the mapmaker (and USA Navy) that Liancourt Rocks didn't belong to Korea. The rocks had been usually depicted as Japan's territory in various western maps - at least they were drawn as being out of Korean territory because Korean eastern limit had been widely believed to be Ulleungdo.

It was Rhee Syngman who broke the international rule and took the rocks by force.

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/1952-january-syngman-rhee-line.html

It was the beginning of the Takeshima/Dokdo dispute. The issue only happened in 1952, not in 1905 when Japan incorporated the island because in those days it was a common sense that Liancourt Rocks didn't belong to Korea.