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

Dec. 24th edition of Japan's San-in Chuo Shimpo(山陰中央新報) (cache) reported that the new evidence which debunks pro-Korean's distorted claim was found, again.

"The Sea Chart of Hokkaido and Northeastern Islands(北洲及北東諸島)" was made by Hydorographic Office of Japan(日本水路部), basing on the British Navy's seachart, in 1893 originally, just a year before the 1894 version of "Choson Seaway (朝鮮水路誌)" was published. The map plots Waywoda rock near Okushiri island of Japan's Hokkaido and it also shows the trace Japanese Navy did fathomed to survey around the area, but labelled as "non-existant" just like British "China Sea Directory" reported. The location is exactly the place 1894 "Choson Seaway" reported and it is clearly far outside of Korean territory at a glance.

Pro-Korean scholars like Prof. Hori Kazuo(1987) wrongfully claimed as follows and pro-Korean scholars have been blindlessly following his unrealistic claim even up until now.

"しかし、海図は地理的な認識を示すだけなので、海図中の島の所属については、その解説書たる水路誌を重視しなければならない。"(p105)
----------------------------------------------
"However, marine charts usually show geographical features and do not specify sovereign rights to islands in them. As for sovereign rights to islands, therefore, one has to consult a guide to sea routes, an expounder of a chart.(p105)"

"そして他方、日本海軍の『朝鮮水路誌』一八九四年版と九十九年版には、鬱陵島と並んでリアンコールト列岩が載せられている。つまり十九世紀末に、日本海軍の水路部当局が竹島＝独島を朝鮮領だと認識していたことは、疑いのないところである。"(p106)
-----------------------------------------------
"Moreover, the 1894 and 1897 editions of the Chosen suiroshi (Korea's Sealanes) by the Japanese Navy show Liancourt Rocks/Tokdo,26) along with Ullungdo. There is no doubt the Japanese naval hydrographic anthorities were aware Takeshima/Tokdo belonged to Korea around the end of the 19th century."

First of all, waterway magazines are just "guide to sea routes" and they don't represent the "sovereign rights to islands". They are written for the safety of the voyages as well as seachart. In fact, Liancourt Rocks was listed along with Matsushima(Ulleungdo) and Waywoda rock as "dangerous rocks in the Sea of Japan(左ニ記載スルモノヲ除ク外日本海内絶エテ暗岩危礁ナシ)" for the safe voyages in 1894 "Choson Seaway". And Waywoda Rock was reported as situated in lat. 42°16′N., long.137°18′E. , way up north from Korean territorial limit in the first place. Pro-Korean always wrongfully refer to this book as one of the evidences Japanese considered Takeshima as Korean territory only because it was listed in the section "East Coast of Choson" of "Choson Seaway.", ignoring Waywoda rock, which is clearly outside of Korean territory, was also listed in the same section.

Moreover, the preface of this waterway magazine clearly depicts eastern limit of Korean territory is 130º 35' E.longitude, under the name of the Kimotsuki Kaneyuki (肝付兼行),a director of Hydrography Department. From this fact, we can see that Kimotsuki clearly recognized that Takeshima/Dokdo was outside of Korean territory when Nakai met him in 1904.

Lastly, Eastern Strait(東水道) of Choson Strait, between Tsushima and Iki(壱岐) of Nagasaki, Japan was also listed in the previous chapter(Chapter 3). You cannot claim that the strait between Tsushima and Iki also belong to Korea only because it is listed in the "Choson Seaway". It also proves that Liancourt Rocks in this waterway magazines were not for territorial issue, but only for the safety of voyages.

It is funny to see that the Prof. Hori's old unreliable thesis based on out-of-date resources, written more than 20 years ago, is still keep followed by Korean scholars and made them look stupid worldwidely.

2008 - Dec. 28 - S. Korea protests Japan's territorial claim to Dokdo

SEOUL, Dec. 28 (Yonhap) -- South Korea on Sunday strongly protested Japan's stepped-up move to claim Dokdo, the easternmost South Korean islets in the body of water between the two countries.

A day earlier, Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper reported that the Japanese Foreign Ministry has published a 14-page booklet detailing its claim to the islets in seven more languages -- Arabic, Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish -- in addition to English, Korean and Japanese. (Yonhap News)
----------------------------------------
Seoul protests Tokyo’s Dokdo claims--December 30, 2008

Seoul on Sunday repeated its years-long routine of filing yet another complaint to Tokyo against Japan’s claims to the Korea-controlled islets of Dokdo.
(---------)
According to the newspaper, the ministry has distributed more than 23,500 such brochures in Japanese, Korean and English at home and abroad.

But since early December, it started making the booklets in a total of 10 languages, adding Chinese, French, Arabic, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish, and distributing several thousand to Japanese foreign embassies. The Japanese Foreign Ministry also updated its official Web site so to include its territorial claims.

“We again made a strong demand that the materials be removed,” Korea’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement. (Joong Ang Daily)(cache)

Korean government officially admitted that Takeshima/Dokdo is disputed island, again .

Here is the pamphlet "10 Issues of Takeshima" in 10 languages. Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs do their job stealthly, somehow. Nobody had noticed until Yomiuri Shimbun reported. Then Korean media always advertise the news worldwide.

English [PDF] / Japanese [PDF] / Korean [PDF] / Arabic [PDF] / Chinese [PDF] / French [PDF] / German [PDF] / Portuguese [PDF] / Russian [PDF] / Spanish [PDF]

Review of Korean Documentary, "Sorry, Dokdo"

The following is an excerpt from a December 25 "Korea Herald" review of the Korean documentary, "Sorry Dokdo."

Dokdo, a group of islets in the East Sea, is a deeply emotional issue for Koreans. Whenever Japan claims territorial rights to Dokdo, the Korean press, civic groups and individuals are quick to express their anger. But a territorial dispute cannot be resolved with emotions only, an idea that is painfully explored by "Sorry, Dokdo," the first Korean film dedicated to Dokdo.

Directed by Choi Hyun-muk, the documentary shows how meticulously Japan has been taking steps to claim its sovereignty over what it calls Takeshima. Choi makes a claim that Japanese authorities and scholars have been producing a growing body of official documents and scholarly research while Korean counterparts neglect amassing academic evidence.

The problem is not that Korean authorities and scholars have been neglecting their duty to collect evidence; the problem is that there is no evidence for them to collect since Takeshima (Dokdo) was never part of Korean territory before it was forcefully occupied by Koreans in the early 1950s.

Except for returning Takeshima to Japan, the next best thing the Korean government can do is to be quiet about the issue, so as not to draw attention to the fact that the islets were stolen from Japan.

"New high school draft curriculum avoids islets row"

The following is an excerpt from a December 23, 2008 article in The Japan Times entitled "New high school draft curriculum avoids islets row":

A draft revision of the education ministry's curriculum guidelines for high schools released Monday does not specifically mention the Takeshima islets disputed with South Korea.

This follows the tussle between Tokyo and Seoul earlier this year over a reference to the territory in a similar document for junior high schools.

The draft covering high school geography classes remains unchanged from the current document in terms of guiding teachers to "touch on Japan's territorial issues" but without giving specific examples of such problems.

Meanwhile, Korean geography books continue to claim very clearly that "Dokdo" (Takeshima) is Korean territory.

Also, here is another excerpt from the article that confuses me:

The draft seeks provisions that enable students to review the contents of compulsory education, which cover elementary and junior high school years, in light of the diversification among students who go on to attend high school, owing to a 98 percent advancement rate.

The ministry gave up on an earlier plan to make Japanese history compulsory in the geography and history section, while keeping world history as a compulsory class.

World History will be compulsory, but not Japanese History? If true, then doesn't Japan's Education Ministry have its priorities backwards? Can someone please explain to me what is going on in Japanese education?

By the way, Korea is also being relatively quiet about the Dokdo issue, but that will almost certainly change sometime around Takeshima Day.

1853-1922 - Kimotsuki Kaneyuki (肝付兼行)

Kimotsuki Kaneyuki, a director of Hydrography Department, and a mayor of Osaka, was born in Kagoshima(鹿児島) in1853. He is a nephew of Komatsu Tatewaki　Kiyokado (小松 清廉(帯刀) ). The lieutenant of naval forces(海軍中尉), is known as the first Japanese who observed latitude by the Talcott Method, and obtained the value of 35 degrees 39 minutes 17 seconds 492 of north latitude in the Tokyo Azabu naval forces marine meteorological observatory in 1876. This was the first measurement of numerical value in the Japanese latitude and longitude datum point. He was the person who measures the latitude value of the Japanese latitude and longitude datum point, and executes a Japanese original domestic longitude telegraphic communication measurement for the first time.

Kimotsuki's previous name was Eda(江田), then Ohtomo(大伴), and his childfood name was Sentaro(船太郎). He served Hokkaido Development Commissioner(北海道開拓使) from 1869, surveyeing the land, then worked for the waterway division in 1872. He observed 19 pairs of the stars 109 times by the Talcott method with Dabittoson meridian transit instrument based on the Washington star table, and Astronomical latitude was decided by his effort in 1876. This is the "Kimotsuki Point" of naval forces marine meteorological observatory in Azabudai, Minato, Tokyo and the latitude values of the Japanese latitude and longitude starting point were made by shifting this value to the transit circle (子午環). Though he planned for the passing difference observation between Hokkaido and Tokyo in 1876, he had to change the plan to the measurement between Aomori of Tokyo due to the breakdown of the bottom of the sea electric wire. This is the first longitude telegraphic communication measurement in Japan.

Kimotsuki started from a clerical work at the marine meteorological observatory, then served as a subleader of the measurement section, later became the chief of land surveyrance section in 1883. He became the second and the forth director of the Hydrography Department and served for 16 years as a director, contributing the development of the waterway business enormously. After he had retired from the service, he became the member of the House of Peers(貴族院) in 1911 and the mayor of Osaka city in 1913.

The waterway division started by the Yanagi Narayoshi(柳楢悦), a father of Yanagi Muneyoshi (柳宗悦) who had devoted to the folk arts from Korean Lee Choson Dynasty, as a waterway inspector, one commander, and two majors or less in 1871. They executed the Hokkaido coast measurement at first in cooperation with the British warship Sylvia, and gradually built a system to be able to conduct waterway measurements by themselves. The first chart "Kamaishi(釜石)" was completed in September, 1872, and a real waterway measurement had thus begun.

The division became independently to naval forces Hydrography Department in 1886, and afterwards, it became big organization of 105 people of the number of staff, and the Yanagi became the founder director of Hydrography Department and the Kimotsuki, a measurement section chief in the waterway divisionin 1887.

In 1880, Navy sent warship Amagi and found "Takeshima" which was questioned for its sovereignty by Japanese was Jukdo(Boussole Rock) and "Matsushima" was Ulleungdo. Today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks hadnever been a matter of territorial concern between two countries before 1906. When Nakai Yozaburo, a businessman from Oki came to him and sought an advise from him in 1904, he, as a director of the Hydrography Department who published 1894 "Choson Waterway Magazine" which clearly states that Korean eastern limit is 130°35′, said it should be Japan's. Since Kimotsuki was a specialist of surveyrance, it was natural for him to correct Nakai Yozaburo's misunderstandings that Liancourt Rocks "belonged" to Korea from "seacharts", which has nothing to do with territory claim and advise him that it should be Japanese territory since the sovereignty of Liancourt Rocks was indeterminate and it is nearer to Japanese main island than Korean peninsula.

同島の所属は確乎たる徴証なく、ことに日韓両国よりの距離を測定すれば、日本の方十浬の近距離にあり（出雲国多古鼻より百〇八浬、朝鮮国リッドネル岬より百十八浬）加ふるに、朝鮮人にして従来同島経営に関する形迹なきに反し、本邦人にして既に同島経営に従事せるものある以上は、当然日本領土に編入すべきものなり(『竹島経営者中井養三郎氏立志伝』 (奥原碧雲, 1906) )
--------------------------------
There is no concrete evidence of sovereignty of the island. And especially measuring the distance from both Japan and Korea, it is closer to Japan by 10 nautical miles. (It is 108 seamiles from Takohana, Izumo country and 118 nautical miles from Lidnell cape of Korean peninsula. ) and as far as there are Japanese who are already engaging in managing the island while there is no trace of Koreans who managed the island, it is natural to incorporate it to Japan. ("The Manager of Takeshima; The Success Story of Mr. Nakai Yozaburo" by Okuhara Hekiun, 1906)

As we have seen on this blog, this is exactly the situation Liancourt Rocks was under in 1904. At the time in 1904, all the books and maps published in Japan, western countries and even Korea herself we had checked so far clearly described Takeshima/liancourt Rocks was outside of Korean territory. Many Japanese and western maps depicted Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory, some depicted it as tella nullis, but none as Korean. Moreover, there is no single evidence of any display of functions of state and governmental authority by Korea until 1950s, when Korean president Lee started its military expansionism and illegally occupied Takeshima right after they noticed U.S. denied Korean sovereignty over the island in San Francisco Peace Treaty. Those facts firmly support Kimotsuki's fair and logical advice to Nakai in 1904. It is absurd to even hint that Kimotsuki had some kind of military pourpose or expansionism without any evidence, like pro-Korean professors Prof. Hori Kazuo, Prof. Emeritus Naito have been wrongfully insisting.

In spite of Korea's desperate pursuit for finding similarity between the 1905 Takeshima Incorporation by Japan and 1910 Japanese annexation of Korea, there is absolutely no evidence that those two incidents shared any direct connection. Incorporation of Takeshima into Shimane was nothing like a "stepstone" for the annexation, but simply a peaceful process which followed the international law.

Japanese government incorporated Takeshima, reconfirming/replacing its historic title with modern title in 1905 and Korean Imperial government officially acquiesced the Japan's sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo by not expressing protest against Japan in 1906.

References:

Korean Eastern limits described in various books world wide exclude Takeshima/Dokdo from Korean Territory

The Territorial Recognitions which Western Maps of Japan Show for Takeshima/Liancour Rocks between 1880-1905 : Ver.1

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) "

1900 - The Times Map (China and Japan, Printing House, London)＊＊It shows Ulleungdo = Korean , Liancourt Rocks = Japanese

1906- Feb 20 & April 17 - "Official Documents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Vol.1" - Korean government protested about land transaction in 竹邊浦

Integrity finally wins one

The following is an excerpt from a December 18 Joogang Daily article entitled, "100,000 won bill can wait."

At the time, Finance Ministry officials cited the bill’s design as a key issue behind the postponement. On the bill’s front, Kim Gu, a Korean independence fighter under Japan’s colonial rule in the early 1900s, was to be featured. The back was supposed to depict the “Daedongyeojido” - a wood-engraved map of the Korean Peninsula created by Kim Jeong-ho, a geographer and cartographer during the Joseon Dynasty. But controversy emerged after it was revealed that Kim’s engraving did not include Dokdo, a controversial group of Korean islets in the East Sea, which Japan claims as its own territory. Public sentiment would have the BOK add Dokdo, but doing so would compromise the integrity of the original work.

Finally, "integrity" wins out over "public sentiment," for now.

HERE is another article on the topic from the AFP.

1950 The Daily Telegraph Map of Korea

This map of Korea was specially drawn for the Daily Telegraph by Geographia Ltd, 167 Fleet Street, London in circa 1950.

One can clearly see an island labelled as "Ullung" (Ulleungdo) in the Sea of Japan, but there are no Liancourt Rocks. It is natural because Korea's eastern limit was believed to be Ulleungdo and it was believed that Liancourt Rocks were out of Korean territory in those days.

But please think of the Korean claim demanding Tsushima, Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) and Parangdo - it was made in July 1951 - just around the time this map was made.

..........

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/1951-coversation-of-yu-chan-yang-with.html

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/1951-2nd-conversation-between-yu-chan.html

Obviously Korea's claim was received by the world as outrageous. So USA reproved Rhee Syngman, the then president of South Korea, for his unlawfullness but he didn't listen to the advice.

Adedendum: Broughton Bay was labelled as "East Korea Bay".

1794 - June 3 - "正祖実録 正祖18年6月3日条" Gajido(可支島) was described as a place on or near Ulleungdo, not Takeshima/Dokdo.

In the 1953 edition of Seoul Newspaper, famous Korean journalist, poet and historian Choi Nam-seon(崔南善), who advised Korean government to claim not only Takeshika/Dokdo, but also Parando addition to Tsushima as their territory in early 1950s, wrote that Gajido(可支島), which means “Seal Island” in 1794 Korean official document, was also another name of Dokdo, along with “Usando” (于山島) , “Sambongdo” (三峰島) , “Jasando” (子山島) and “Seokdo” (石島, Korean Imperial Edict 41)" . He reasoned that there were no islets other than Takeshima/Dokdo which was uninhabited, but merely sealions were living on. Koreans today still blindlessly follow his immature idea almost 60 years ago. However, sea lions used to live on Ulleungdo which was uninhabited island until 1882 and the documents mentioning “Gajido” described it as a place on or near Ulleungdo, actually.

What is 可支島?

The report("正祖実録 正祖18年6月3日条") said that on the 26th, the Ulleungdo inspection party, who had proceeded from southwest to north on the eastern coast of Ulleungdo, changed directions, which can mean they reversed course, and headed to Gajido (轉向可支島). This suggests that Gajido (可支島) was somewhere back in the direction that had come, which means they headed back southwest, not 92km southeast where Takeshima/Dokdo locates. According to Mr. Choi, this Gajido was today's Takeshima/Dokdo, since sealions, which were shot by riflemen there, were seen on Takeshima/Dokdo, not around Ullgundo in 1950s and the island was uninhabitable.

正祖実録 正祖18年6月3日条

江原道觀察使沈晋賢狀啓言:
...二十六日轉向 可支島 , 四五箇可支魚, 驚駭躍出, 形若水牛。 砲手齊放, 捉得二首, 而 丘尾津 山形, 最爲奇異, 入谷數里, 則昔日人家遺址, 宛然尙存。
----------------------------------------------
Gangwondo Governor Sim jin-hyeon reported to the king.
“...We slept there and on the 26th, we changed direction (reversed course) and went to Gajido (可支島), where we surprised four or five sea lions that dashed out. They looked like water cows. Our riflemen all fired at once and got two of them. The geographical features of the beach landing (丘尾津) was the strangest thing. We went about ten ri into the valley, where we found the remains of what were clearly ancient dwellings. On both sides, the hills and ravines were so deep that they were difficult to climb up."

However, there is little or no basis for such a claim since the report mentioned no coordinates for Gajido (可支島), no bearing, distance, or description. Besides, it says they found the remains of human dwelling on a same day they saw sealions. There were no such remains on Takeshima at all. And there are no other references to the island in Korean historical documents. Korean base their claim solely on the fact that sea lions lived on both Gajido (Seal Island : 可支島) and on “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks). The problem with that logic, however, is that it ignores the fact that sea lions or seals also lived on Ulleungdo.

Actually, there are many documents which backs up this fact. For example, Japanese Ohya clan and Murakawa clan in 1600s frequently voyaged to both Ulldungdo and Takeshima/Dokdo and they were hunting sealions on both. (ex. "竹嶋之書附 ","小谷伊兵衛ニ所持被成候竹嶋之絵図之写：享保9年(1724)") Korean old maps also frequently list the skins of sealions(可支魚皮) as a products of Ulleungdo(ex. "Haedong Jido" (海東地圖) ). There are more as listed below.

Many Korean documents prove that there were Sealions living on Ulleungdo.

Dongguk Munheon Bigo(東國文獻備考 （1770）) stated that there were cows looking creatures lying on the beach of Ulleungdo("海中有大獣牛形赤眸無角群 臥海岸見人獨行害之遇人多走入水名可之").

1786 Inspection of Ulleungdo went to Gaji Beach (可支仇味) and found two caves of which some sea lions that dashed out.

We advanced to Gaji-gumi (可支仇味- Sea Lion Cove), where we found two caves in the side of the mountain.It was difficult to calculate their depth. We surprised some sea lions
that dashed out (of the caves), but before they could get into the water, all our riflemen fired at once and got two of them.

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

前進可支仇味則山腰有兩石窟其深難測可支魚驚出投水之際砲手齊放捉得二首

1827 Inspection of Ulleungdo also said there were many sealions on Ulleungdo.

They went to Sea Lion Cave
(可支魚窟), where they surprised seven or eight sea lions. They shot and clubbed them and got two of them before they could jump into the sea.

------------------------
又到可支魚窟則可支魚七八首驚人入海之際砲搏捉得二首

1831 Inspection of Ulleungdo also said that they saw almost 110 sealions on Ulleungdo.

They then headed to Hyeonseok-gumi (玄石龜尾 - "Black Rock Cove"), where they saw a herd of about 110 sea lions mooing like cows. They got two of them with guns and clubs.
------------------------
仍向玄石龜尾則可支魚百十爲群吼哮如牛或砲或棒捉得二首

1882 Korean official map of Ulleungdo depicts a cave on the west side of the island called Gaji-gul (可支窟), which means “Seal Cave.”

1899 September edition of Korea’s Hwangseong Newpaper printed an article that talked about "Gaji(可支 = Sealions)" on Ulleungdo.

In the past , there were water animals that looked like cows without horns that were called “gaji” .

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

古에牛形無角한 水獸가 有하니 名曰可之오

As many Korean own documents and maps above clearly show, it is no doubt that Gajido was a place on or near Ulleungdo, not Takeshima/Dokdo. Korean must stop illogical silly claim that Gajido was today's Takeshima/Dokdo right away.

Reference;

1794 - June 3 - Han Chang-guk (韓昌國) Inspects Ulleungdo (日省録)

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 4

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 4 Supplement

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 2

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 2 Supplement

Sea Lions on Ulleungdo

Has Toron Talker changed sites?

I noticed today that some of my old links to Toron Talker are no longer working, such as the link to the 1899 Hwangseong Sinmun article. It seems that he moved to this new address: http://toron.chu.jp/take/index.html

Actually, I do not know if it is a new address or one of his old ones, but I was linked to a different address. Does he still have a link to the 1899 Hwangseong Sinmun article?

Dong-A Ilbo Archive Database

I have added a link to the Archive Database of the Dong-A Ilbo, which allows searches of the newspaper's articles that go back to 1920. To download a PDF file of the article, you have to register with the site and then pay 500 won for each download.

Dong-A Ilbo Archive Database

The Takeshima Secret Pact

Joong Ang Daily (中央日報） reported in March 2007 that there was a secret agreement concerning Dokdo/Takeshima dispute between Japan and Korea before the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea (日韓基本条約 Nikkan Kihon Jōyaku in Japanese; 한일기본조약, 韓日基本條約, Hanil Gibon Joyak in Korean) in 1965.

japanese.joins.com/article/article.php aid=85628&servcode=200&sectcode=200

According to the article, the four principles were agreed; 1) One should understand another's claim to Dokdo/Takeshima and would not object to the refutation to the claims, 2) As to a future fishery zone, both of the countries draw the lines first including Dokdo/Takeshima into own territories, and then the duplicated area should be decided as a common zone, 3) Continue the status quo under Korea's occupation but Korea would not increase guards and would not build a new building or enlarge the building, 4) Both of the countries will keep the agreement continuously.

In conclusion, these principles were made to consider that the dispute was resolved without resolving the matter (解決せざるを以て解決したものと見なす).

But the President Kim Yong-san 金泳三 broke the agreement and built new pier facilities. Since then, the dispute became apparent again.

According to the article, they would publish a book concerning this matter in Japan first and then, Korean version would follow.

And in October 2008, Japanese version of the book "竹島密約　(The Takeshima Secret Pact)" , written by Roe Daniel, was put on sale 19 months after the article.

http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E7%AB%B9%E5%B3%B6%E5%AF%86%E7%B4%84-%E3%83%AD%E3%83%BC-%E3%83%80%E3%83%8B%E3%82%A8%E3%83%AB/dp/4794216793/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227513391&sr=8-1

(BTW, I haven't got a copy of the book yet. Are there anybody who already read it?)

"S. Korean Lawmakers to Visit Washington Over Dokdo Issue"

Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

A November 20, Yonhap News article entitled, "S. Korean Lawmakers to Visit Washington Over Dokdo Issue," says that a bipartisan group of South Korean legislators are going to Washington to "make sure that the incoming Barack Obama administration clearly acknowledges Dokdo as South Korea's land."

With all the economic problems facing Korea, the US, and the rest of the world, why would a group of Korean politicians be wasting time and money to go to the US to talk about a small group of desolate rocks in the the middle of the Sea of Japan instead of more important, pressing issues?

Korea already knows that the United States does not want to get involved in the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute. Also, why would Korea want to refocus world attention on Dokdo, given that Korea's historical claims to the islets are just a bunch of lies?

Besides getting a free vacation to the United States, the only other possible explanation I can think of for these politicians going to Washington to talk about Dokdo is that they are mentally challenged.

1906 - Feb 20 & April 17 - "Official Documents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Vol.1" - Korean government protested about land transaction in 竹邊浦

Korean Imperial government officially acquiesced the Japan's sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo by not protesting about the island against Japan in 1906.

To follow is the official documents of the Imperial Korea's Ministry of Internal Affairs (大韓帝国議政府内部) in 1906 which recorded the exchanges among Korean central governmental officials, local officers, Japanese merchant and Japanese Resident-General. Imperial Korean government ordered the local government to investigate the situation when they received the report that a Japanese came to apply the official certification for the site after Japanese Navy removed watchtower that they built in Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast, Uljin County, Gangwon Province. The nearest village on peninsula from Ulleungdo, which locates just opposite Ulleungdo. Then they sent official inquiry to protest the "land grab" against Japanese Governor General. As a result, they succeeded in preventing Japanese from gaining Korean land as illegal land transaction of the Korean land.

Famous Dokdo evangelist Prof. Shin also confirms this.

Right after the end of Russo-Japanese War, the chief of the watchtower and a Japanese merchant "conspired" to try to "snatch" the land when Imperial Japan took away the watchtower built in Jukbyeon coast, Uljin, Kangwon-to. Over the period of 6 months of dispute and negotiation, those efforts by Korean Imperial government succeeded to prevent this （Shin Yong-ha (1997)）.

Korean side, including Prof. Shin claims that Korean "couldn't protest" against Japanese in 1906 when they finally realized the incorporation of Takeshima/Dokdo into Shimane by Japan, not that they "didn't protest", on the grounds Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty on Nov. 17, 1905 practically deprived Korea of its diplomatic sovereignty. However, these Korean official documents revealed the fact that their claim is totally baseless. As their own documents shows, not only Korean did have a right to protest against Japan, but also they had actually succeeded in preventing Japanese from grabbing(!?) the land in Jukbyeon coast. On the contrary, they didn't even inquire of Japanese Resident-General, not to mention protest, for Takeshima/Dokdo case. Consequently, by the international law, it is naturally regarded that Korean Imperial government officially acquiesced the Japan's sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo by not expressing protest against Japan, even though they diplomatically protested for this other similar territorial case during the same period of time. In other word, Japanese government's claim to the title of Takeshima was unchallenged by the government of Korea in 1906. Thus, Japanese sovereignty was legally established internationally at this point.

Professor Shin seems to ignore this important fact intentionally.

Why they didn't protest for Dokdo, which, according to Ulleungdo magistrate, belongs to the county, while they did protest for Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast?

The two cases shares three points in common. 1. Territorial Dispute (between Japan) , 2. Officials in Charge(朴齋純 & 李址鎔 & 李明來) 3. Period (Jan-May 1906).



As I showed above, in Takeshima case, when Korean central government finally received the report from Gangwon Province governor and Chunchon county magistrate Lee Myung-rae(江原道觀察署理・春川郡守 李明來), who originally received the report about "Dokdo", which locates 40km(!?) away from Ulleungdo, becoming Japanese territory from the county magistrate Shim Heung-taek(沈興沢), Minister of Interior Lee Jee-yong（内部大臣 李址鎔) and Prime Minister Bak Che-soon (議政府参政大臣・朴齋純） ordered governor Lee to investigate the "circumstances of the island in concern and the activity of Japanese on the island" by the "Directive no. III (指令第三号)" on 28 May. But there are absolutely no documents which tells us how governor Lee reported back or central government reacted, went public so far. There were even some Korean newspaper, which reported about Shim's report (大韓毎日申報, 1 May & 皇城新聞, 9 May ), though still wrongfully explaining that Japanese delegation came to investigate the population on "Dokdo" which is actually uninhabitable barren rock, but still, government didn't take any further action. Though we are not perfectly sure if Korean government intentionally hide those documents or there are no such documents in the first place. However, considering the contents of all the Korean official documents available, it is natural to conclude that Korean Imperial government must have had received the report from local officer that the island "独島(Dokdo)" in concern was found not to be Korean "Jukdo(竹島)", a neighbouring island of Ulleungdo, but actually the Liancourt Rocks/Japanese "Takeshima(竹島)" which happen to share same Chinese letter with Korean "Jukdo(竹島)", or they simply realized that it was Shim's mistake reporting Dokdo, which apparently locates "outside" of Uldo County, belonged to the County. In consequence, they didn't made even inquiry nor protest against Japan.

It is extremely hard to think of any other reason why those three officials (朴齋純 & 李址鎔 & 李明來) didn't even make inquiry to the Japanese Resident-General just like exactly the same trio did in Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast case around the same period.

Actually, many Korean documents firmly support this. For example, the Korean newspaper, "Hwangseong Shinmun" (皇城新聞) reported the article "Facts on Arrangement of Uldo County" on 13 July, which is only a month and a half later the "Directive no. III " was issued on 28 May. In the article, it says that when the Japanese Resident-General inqired the Korean Ministry of Interior about Ulleungdo Jurisdiction, Korean ministry officially replied the islands under the authority of the said county were Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島), and that it was sixty ri from east to west and forty ri from north to south for a total of 200 ri, which omit Dokdo from Uldo County . In addition, in September 26 edition, the same newspaper reported that the Uldo County magistrate had previously conducted a survey, starting the year of 1906, in accordance with an order from the Ministry of Interior, to determine boundaries and position of "the county," not the island. This implies Korean government did acknowledged the "boundaries of Uldo County" by the survey and must have realized Dokdo was totally outside of "Uldo County." On top of that, just like Japanese textbooks, all the Korean Geography textbooks define the eastern limit of Korea/Joseon as 130°35′～58′ Ｅ, excluding Takeshima/Dokdo which locates 131°55′ E.

Vaild Japanese Incorporation in terms of the International Law

As for Japanese incorporation of Takeshima, all the preocedures were done legitimately. Having received a request for incorporation by Yozaburo Nakai(中井養三郎) in September 1904, the government of Japan confirmed that there were no traces of occupation by any other countries, while there were Japanese civilian's hut for economical activity, there is no problem in bringing Takeshima under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch and that "Takeshima" is the appropriate name for the islands. With this confirmation, the government, in January 1905, through the Cabinet decision, stipulated that the islands came under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch of Shimane Prefectural Government, and that the islands were officially named as "Takeshima." This decision was conveyed to the Governor of Shimane Prefecture by the Minister for Home Affairs. Based on the Cabinet Decision and the Ministerial Instruction from the Minister for Home Affairs, the Governor of Shimane Prefecture published in February 1905 that Takeshima was officially named as "Takeshima" and that it came under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch. He also informed the Okinoshima branch to this effect. These measures were carried in the newspapers of the day and were broadly publicized.Based on the Cabinet Decision stipulating that Takeshima came under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch of Shimane Prefectural Government, the governor registered Takeshima into the State Land Register, and established a license system for sea lion hunting. The hunting of sea lions continued from then until 1941. (See Japanese MOFA site. ) Those official procedures by Japan were considered to be the evidences for the display of sovereignty by Japan according to International Law. On the contrary, there are absolutely no trace of Korean display of sovereignty until 1950s.

Right after the incorporation, the Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks became famous since it located in the middle of the Japan Naval Battle and its name, sometimes with accurate maps, was printed and flying around in many media like official gazette(官報), newspaper（東京朝日新聞） and journals（日露戦争実記） all over Japan and even in Korea（皇城新聞） in 1905. Official gazette even corrected the name Liancourt Rocks to Takeshima. Since there were many Korean residents in Japan, especially Tokyo, plus Korean newspaper did reported "Angohu-to", there were plenty of chances for Korean to see "Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima" became Japanese island. It is highly unlikely that Korean couldn't protest in 1905, when they still kept diplomacy, because they didn't realized this "Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima" became Japanese territory. In fact, there are no single Korean documents which support they had any recognition of their sovereignty. Besides, even after they were told this by Shimane delegation and received the county magistrate's report in 1906, Korean government didn't even make inquiry to Japan about this issue as I show on this post. It is apparent Korean government then had no idea what this "Dokdo" island is nor had any recognition of Takeshima/Dokdo as their territory.

The documents were found by GTOMR and translated by matsu, with a great help of chaamiey and 小嶋日向守. Thank you, guys!! Beautiful collaboration. Love you all. And if you find the original document of those, please let us know where they are.

Official Documents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Vol.1, Dates Feb. 26, 1906

Subject : To prohibit the illegal personal trade of the watchtower in Geunnbuk-myeon(近北面) Jukbyeon coast (竹邊浦) in Uljin(蔚珍) by Japanese

Inquiry No.3
Feb. 26, 1906
(From) Lee Jee-yong (李址鎔), the Minister of Interiors and the First Order of Merit
(To) Sir Park Che-soon (朴齊純), Prime Minister (議政府參政大臣)

(Lee) received the "Report no.16" from Lee Myeong-rae(李明來), a governor of Gangwon-do and a magistrate of Chunchon(春川) county. The contents of the report as follows.

13th last month (January), I received a report from Yu(尹宇榮), a Uljin County Magistrate. It says that Japanese Navy had already retreated from the watchtower in Geunnbuk-myeon, Jukbyeon coast in Uljin(蔚珍), but this time, a Japanese merchant named "Kohga(高賀)" visited the Magistrate of Uljin on 27th December(**). He said "I bought watchtower in Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast and its land from the administrator of watchtower. So I want Uljin Magistrate issue the official paper to approve my property." As a magistrate, I cannot process this by my own decision, so I report this to you."

(A commander of Kangwondo) ordered (Uljin magistrate) to swiftly investigate and report in detail the address, name and on what day, what month and at how much this "Kohga" man bought the land, as well as the name and the address of the administrator of the watchtower.

The magistrate of Uljin reported "By receiving the order, I summoned Kohga and inquired him more precisely. And he said "My address is ××××, 三養基郡○○○, Saga prefecture, Japan. And my family name is Saga(佐賀) and my first name is Mataji (Matatsugu?). A family name of the administrator of the watchtower is Takahashi and his first name is Kiyosige. He currently stations at Naval base in Sasebo, but I'm not sure where his real address is. I bought the watchtower at the price of 180 yen when Japanese Navy retreated in October, last year (1905). But I didn't buy the land itself. But it is common practice that the land usually belongs to the owner of the property on it. So I offered the previous owner that I'd like to buy the land as well. (Or I'd like to buy the land as I'd told him before.)"

(Lee Myeong-ｒae or Lee Jee-yong) investigated more precisely, and see this Japanese merchant Kohga's buying it from administrator Takahashi Kiyoshige privately, even after Japanese Navy who stationed the watchtower for military purpose and had already retreated, is like a bandit's illegal activity and this is unreasonable. So I report this to you. " I (Lee Jee-yong ) hope you to look into this matter, negotiate swiftly (with Japan), let them to ban right away and specify the deal.

From Lee Jee-yong , the Minister of Interiors and the First Order of Merit, to Sir Park Che-soon, Prime Minister
Feb. 26, 1906


Official Documents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Vol.1, Dates Apr. 17, 1906

Subject : Inquiry about selling watchtower and attached building in Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast in Uljin County to Japanese

Government Inquiry No.56 to the Ministry of Internal Affairs
Apr. 17, 1906
(From) Sir Park Che-soon, Prime Minister
(To) Lee Jee-yong, the Minister of Interiors and the First Order of Merit
(Approved by) Prime Minister, (參贊), Chief of secretary section, Chief of document section, Prime Minister, Chief of bureau, Chief of inquiry, First Chief

Receiving Inquiry no.3 from Sir Lee, I sent a letter to Japanese Resident General, concerning a case of prohibiting illegal personal trade of the watchtower in Geunnbuk-myeon Jukbyeon coast in Uljin by Japanese, and received the reply document. To follow is what was written in the document from them.

"We received "Inquiry no. 13", concerning selling watchtower in Jukbyeon coast in Uljin County and based on the inquiry, we sent documents to Naval Base in Sasebo in order to investigate the situation. The report says "The building and structures used for watchtower was determined to be transferred to the buyer after receiving the payment and it was sold to Koga(古賀) Mataji from Saga prefecture. The payment had been collected on 27th of December, last year. However, the site was never sold." (We) would reply (to your "Inquiry no.13") in this way, hoping you would understand the situation."

As we have received Japanese answer such, so please do refer this.

(From) Park Che-soon, Prime Minister (to) Lee Jee-yong , the Minister of Interiors and the First Order of Merit

Apr. 17, 1906

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

内部來去案 第1冊 光武10年2月26日條

울진의 근북면 죽변포 망루를 일본인이 사적으로 매매한 것은 불법이니 금지시킬 것

（文書番号）照會 第三號　
（発送日）光武十年二月二十六日（１９０６年０２月２６日）
（発送者）內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔
（受信者）議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下

現接　江原道觀察署理春川郡守李明來의 第十六號報告書內開
頃於上月十三日에 接閱蔚珍郡守 尹宇榮 報告書즉 內槪
本郡近北面竹邊浦望樓 留駐之日本海軍이 今爲撤歸이온바
今陰曆十二月二十七日 日本商人 高賀者 來到郡廳曰
竹邊浦所在望樓與地段을　並爲買得於望樓長인즉　自郡으로　認許公文成給이라하온바
郡守가 不可自下擅便故로 玆에 報告等因이하기
高賀者居住姓名과 何月日에 給價幾許買得과 望樓長之姓名居址을
幷即詳探報來하야 以爲轉報케는事로 指飭以送이더니
即接該郡守報告 內開
即到指令를 承準하와 招致高賀 詳問事狀인즉
自己는 日本佐賀縣三養基郡○○○××××番戶(*) 而姓은佐賀오名은亦次오
望樓長은 高橋오 名은淸重이오 居住는日本佐世保海兵團詰兵所오 居址는 不知이온바
上年十月日 駐箚撤歸之時에 給一百八十圓 買得望樓 而址地는 不爲買賣이온니
基址之隨家는意有常例하야 地段幷買之意로 前有所告이다故로 緣由報告等因을
據査하온즉
蔚珍郡竹邊浦望樓은 日本海軍이軍用暫駐타가 已爲撤歸이온바
今此日本商民高賀亦次가 望樓長高橋淸重에게 私相賣買云者가 非徒違越定章이오라
萬不近理이하기
玆以仰佈하오니 査照하신 후 迅辦交涉하시와 即行禁止케하시고 示明하시믈 爲要.

內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔 議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下

光武十年二月二十六日

內部來去案 第1冊,　光武10年4月17日條, 議政府 照會 第五十六號 內部(1906.04.17)

울진의 근북면 죽변포 망루 및 부속건물을 일본인에게 매각함을 조회

（文書番号）議政府 照會 第五十六號 內部
（発送日）光武十年四月十七日（１９０６年０４月１７日）
（発送者）議政府參政大臣 朴齊純
（受信者）內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下
（決裁者）議政大臣 參贊 秘書課長 文書課長參政大臣 局長 調査課長 一課長

貴第三號 照會는接到하와

以蔚珍郡竹邊浦所在 望樓與地段 私相賣買禁止一事로
準即行文 日本統監□하고 業經照覆在案이온바
現樓該統監照覆內開
去月十四日 以蔚珍郡竹邊浦望樓賣却一事 接到貴第十三號照會 當經閱悉
準即行文 我佐世保海軍鎭守府 調査事實 仍接復開
該望樓所用建物及營造物　以代金收納後 擧越他人之意 賣却於佐賀縣人古賀亦次
去年十二月二十七日 業經受領代金　然該敷地決無賣却等因
準此照覆 照亮爲盼等因이하기
玆에 照會하오니 照亮하심을 爲要．

議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 　內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下

光武十年四月十七日

(note)

* The original document specify the address.
** The original document wrote it was lunar calender 27 Dec., which is solar calender 21 Jan. But it contradicts the day Uljin Magistrate reported to Gangwondo commander, so I considered it was mistake and translated as simply "27 Dec."

References:
1900 - The Times Map (China and Japan, Printing House, London)＊＊It shows Ulleungdo = Korean , Liancourt Rocks = Japanese
1905 - January 28th: the decision to incorporate Takeshima in to Shimane by a Cabinet meeting （公文類集第29編 竹島編入閣議決定）
1905 - Feb 24 - Takeshima Incorporated into Shimane Prefecture (山陰新報 "隠岐の新島")
1905 - May 29 , 30 & June 5- An Extra of Official Gazette "The War Report of The Japan Naval Battle"1905 - June 2 - 皇城新聞 : Korean called "Liancourt Rocks(リアンコルド岩)" as "Angohu島", not "Dokdo", Seokdo nor Usando.
1905 - June 3 - Japanese Magazine ”The True Record of Russo-Japanese War (日露戦争実記")
1905 - June 5 - Tokyo Asahi Shimbun Corrected "Liancourt Rocks" as "Takeshima"
1905 - Jul 3 - "Postcards to Commemorate Naval Battle" (山陰新報 " 海戦記念絵葉書")
1905 - Aug 6 - Japanese Officials to Visit Takeshima (山陰新報 "竹島渡航")
1905 - Aug 22 - "Governor Matsunaga Inspects Takeshima" (山陰新報 "松永知事の竹島視察")
1905 - Aug 22 - "Sea Pigs" Near Takeshima (山陰新報 "県庁内に海豚放養")
1906 - Mar 11 - "Voyage to Takeshima Decided" (山陰新報 "竹島行決定")
1906 - July - Korea Omits Dokdo from Uldo County (皇城新聞 「鬱島郡의 配置顛末」)
Korean Eastern limits described in various books world wide exclude Takeshima/Dokdo from Korean Territory
The Territorial Recognitions which Western Maps of Japan Show for Takeshima/Liancour Rocks between 1880-1905 : Ver.1

1900 The Times Map : map of China (East) and Korea

The Times Atlas (1900) gave us the most accurate map of Japan.

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/11/1900-times-map.html

Here is the map of China (East) and Korea from the same 1900 version of the Times Atlas, which contained 132 pages of maps (comprising 196 maps). It was published by The Office of "The Times", Printing House Square, London and was literally one of the most reliable atlas at the time.

....

...

You can see an island in the Sea of Japan off the Korean peninsula - "Matsu Shima" which is definitely today's Ulleungdo but Liancourt Rocks were not depicted in the map.

It is natural because the rocks were depicted in Japanese map (see above). One of the most dignified maps recognised that Liancourt Rocks didn't belong to Korea, as Korean eastern limit was believed to be Ulleungdo.

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/04/korean-eastern-limits-described-in.html

(Click the left map to enlarge)

....

....

Addendum: Broughton Bay is labelled as "Broughton B."

1897 Bacon's Popular Atlas of the World: Map of Japan and Korea

This is a map of "JAPAN AND KOREA" from Bacon's Popular Atlas of the World, which was published in London in 1897.

There are islands labelled as "Argonaut I.", "Dagelet I.", "Hornet In." and "Oki Shima" in the Japan Sea. Argonaut island was drawn in a broken line, which may indicate that it was a phantom island. The most noteworthy point in this map is a national border, a pink coloured broken line - it runs between Argonaut island and Dagelet island (Ulleungdo), so the map shows that Ulleungdo (Dagelet I.) and Liancourt Rocks (Hornet In.) were Japanese territory.

.................

.................

Of course it was a mistake - Ulleungdo was Korean territory. However, the reason why the same mistake was repeatedly adopted in western maps is quite simple. They thought Argonaut island was Take island (or Taka island) and Dagelet island was Matsu island as many western maps show. And it may have been transmitted to western mapmakers that Take island (Takeshima) was given back to Korea in the late 17th century and Matsu island (Matsushima) remained in Japan. So they may have kept publishing maps that show Argonaut island (Take island) was Korean territory while Dagelet island (Matsu island) was Japanese territory.

Most importantly, this problem is about Ulleungdo, not about Liancourt Rocks. Nobody thought that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Korea. It seems that it was a kind of a common sense in those days.

This map may be expressed in Kaneganese's method as follows:

○　1897 British map of Japan (Popular Atlas) Three isalnds. National border between Argonaut and Dagelet.

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/11/territorial-recognitions-which-western.html

Addendum:

Broughton Bay is labelled as "BROUGHTON BAY OR GULF OF KOREA".

The Territorial Recognitions which Western Maps of Japan Show for Takeshima/Liancour Rocks between 1880-1905 : Ver.1

There is no single western maps of Japan(1880-1905) which shows Liancourt Rocks = Korean.

I checked all the western-made Japanese maps between 1880-1905 posted on this blog and the results were extremely interesting. Although there were some maps which still show non-existant Argonaut, more than half (14 out of 26) of them show both Uleungdo and Takeshima to be Japanese territory. One (The Times Map (1900), Left) shows Matsushima(Ulleungdo) to be Korean, and Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese, which seems to be the most accurate map of that time. One shows Ulleungdo to be Japanese , but Liancourt Rocks are left to be uncoloured. The rest of them (10 out of 26) shows both islands to be uncoloured or unidentified, in other words, those are shown to be no man's land. In conclusion, it is safe to say that western countries(Britain, U.S.A., Canada and German) commonly considered Liancourt Rocks to be most likely Japanese territory around 1900.

○　1880 - German Map of Japan from Adolf Stieler's Hand Atlas 7th Edition （National Border between Ulleungdo and Choson）＊
○　1888 - British map of Japan and Corea (no Liancourt Rocks, but the borderline indicated that Dagelet island was Japan's territory)＊
○　1891 - German Map "Ost-China, Korea und Japan"　 ( Stieler, Adolf; Gotha; Justus Perthes)＊
○　1891 - American map of Japan (People’s Publishing Co. in Chicago)
△　1891 - American map of Japan　(International Cyclopaedia)Taka, Matsu and Liancourt Rocks
○　1892 - German Map of ”China und Japan”　（"Meyers Kleiner Handatlas," Leipzig）＊
○　1893 - Ｇｅｒｍａｎ Ｍap ”Ubersichtskarte von China und Japan”
○　1894 - British map of Japan (Edward Stanford, Charing Cross, London) ＊ Three islands
○　1894 - American map of Japan (Cram Universal)
○　1894 - British map of Japan and Korea (Popular Atlas of The World)＊　Three islands, with National border between Argonaut & Dagelet
○　1894 - German map of "JAPAN UND KOREA" ( Leipzig, Germany)＊
○　1894-1895 - Ｂｒｉｔｉｓｈ　Ｍap of Corea and Ｍap of Islands of Japan (W. & A. K. Johnston, Edinburgh & London)
○　1897 - German map of ”Japan Und Korea”) (Leipzig, Germany）
○　1897 - German map "CHINA, KOREA UND JAPAN"＊ no colour but national border between Choson and Matsushima(Dagelet)
○　1897 - American map of Japan and Korea (The Century Atlas)＊Three islands
○　1898 - British Map "Japan Islands" (London, James Imray and Son )
○　1898 - American Map "Empires of China, Japan and Korea" (Chicago: J. Martin Miller)
○　1899 - American map of Japan and 1894 Japanese map of Korea (Map of Japan : George F. Cram of Chicago)
○　1899 - American Map of Japan (George F. Cram of Chicago) ＊Three islands
◎　1900 - The Times Map (China and Japan, Printing House, London)＊＊
○　1902 - German map of "Japan und Korea" ＊
○　1903 - German Map of Japan　which was owned by German Embassy ＊　
○　1904 - Canadian Business Map of Japan ( Rand McNally Business Atlas)＊
○　1904 - American Map "The Seat of the Japan-Russian War" (Geo.F.Cram, Chicago) ＊
○　1904 - British Map of "Eastern China, Japan and Korea" (Edward Stanford, London) Three islands
○　1904 - American Map of Japan, Korea & Manchuria (C.S. Hammond & Co., New York) Three islands
○　1904 - German map of Japa "Andree's Allgemeiner Handatlas" ( Velhagen & Klasing, Leipzig)

◎　Ulleungdo = Korean , Liancourt Rocks = Japanese → 1/27
○　Ulleungdo & Liancourt Rocks = Japanese　 →　 15/27
△　Ulleungdo = Japanese , Liancourt Rocks = Undecided → 1/27
○　Ulleungdo & Liancourt Rocks = Undecided　 →　 10/27
Liancourt Rocks = Korean → NONE

We've already shown that there are absolutely no map of Korea which shows Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks (ex. R. Hausermann's Map of Korea(1880) , (1865?) (Corée)), nor no single documents which shows Korean territory extend to the Eastern longitude of today's Takeshima before 1905, theyear Japan incorporated it into Shimane. In addition to those, fromthe results, it is more apparent that there was a common sence worldwide that Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks was not Korean territory, but most likely to be Japan's between 1880-1905. From those maps, it is illogical for Korean to claim Seokdo(石島) in Imperial Ordinance no.41 in 1900 to be today's Takeshima. If Korean really wants today's Takeshima to be Seokdo, they should have had identfied the location of this unknown/unidenrifiable island with more accurate expression plus they should have had notified Japan as long as many Japanese/Western maps and documents depict Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory. Or they should have protested or at least made inquiry to Japanese Governor-General when they got to know that Takeshima became Japanese territory in 1906, but the fact is, Imperial Korean government officialy answered to Governor-General that Takeshima was out of Uldo County in return when Japanese made official inqury about the area of Uldo County after Korean media wrongfully reported "Dokdo" which locate 100ris(40km) from Ulleungdo (!?) was
their territory.

Japanese government incorporated Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks into Shimane prefercure in 1905, because 1. there were no traces of occupation by any other countries 2. there were petition to incorporate by Japanese civilian who have been engaged in economical activity on the island for the last few years. Considering the facts that there were no single documents/maps which show Korean had any territorial recognition or control on the island, nor western countries had any recognition it to be Korean's, but most likely to be Japanese, it was very reasonable and law-abiding for Japanese government incorporated it into Shimane, Japan.

Moreover, even though there are many Japanese/Western maps which show even Ulleungdo(Matsushima/Dagelet) to be Japanese territory either, Japanese Meiji government incorporated Takeshima alone, but left Ulleungdo untouched. Actually, Ulleungdo, where many Japanese were already resided on and had history they had been occupied in 1600s, were much more valuable both economically and strategically. Japanese government had every single chance to "snatch" Ulleungdo from Korea, but they didn't since they knew it was Korean though many western maps and documents says it is Japan's, too. This fact clearly shows Japanese government were no "aggressive for snatching Koeran territory" at all, but only followed international law for incorporating Takeshima, which had no trace of occupation by any other countries including Korea, alone, unlike Korean government claims.