The 5th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”

Below is a translation of The 5th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao


"South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan'"


The Takeshima Day ceremony held at the Shimane Prefectural Hall on February 22 seems to have attracted South Korean interest, as the Dokdo Headquarters in that country fanned the flames of the dispute by offering the following explanation of the origins of the Takeshima controversy: “The Japanese refer to Dokdo as Takeshima, or Bamboo Island, though the island has no bamboo whatsoever. The reason they call it the island of bamboo is that in the local dialect of Korea’s Jeolla Province, “dok” is pronounced as “tok”. Thus the pronunciation of the island’s name of Tokushima evolved into Takeshima. Japan established Takeshima Day in 2005, and they are increasingly resorting to such thieving trickery to snatch Dokdo and make it Japanese territory.”


On the day of the ceremony, the Yonhap News Agency of South Korea reported the discovery of a Japanese map with a color code indicating Dokdo was Korean territory. This story was repeated by the Kyunghyang Shinmun, Dong-a Ilbo, the Korean edition of World Times, and Ko-news.


The story arose with the announcement by Hosaka Yuji of Sejong University that two Japanese maps show Takeshima to be Korean territory. This announcement was based on only two maps, including the “Shinsen Chosen Zenzu (新撰朝鮮全図) ”, or New Map of Choseon. But the declaration from the Dokdo Headquarters and Hosaka Yuji’s view merely reveal the limits of South Korean capabilities to interpret old documents. On the contrary, the map verifies that Takeshima was not Korean territory.


If they could read the order of the Japanese Council of State (Cabinet) “Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan”, they wouldn't confuse Matsushima, which was the other island, with today’s Takeshima or attribute it to the Jeolla Province dialect. The critical factors for the Takeshima issue are critiques of documents and objective historical facts.


South Korea thinks that reference was being made to today’s Takeshima in the Council of State order, but that’s just a superficial analysis. The Kobunroku (Official Documents) included a rough map of Isotakeshima and a document collected when Shimane prefecture asked the government about including Ulleungdo and Takeshima in the prefecture in 1876. The content of the documents were confusing, however.

When Shimane Prefecture compiled the documents, they described Isotakeshima as Ulleungdo. They also described Matsushima as the Ulleungdo to which the Oya and Murakawa families of Yonago in the Tottori domain were authorized by the Shogunate to travel. Thus, they recorded two Ulleungdos.


There was a reason for that confusion. In those days a “Takeshima” that did not exist was depicted in maps and charts made in the West, and the Japanese cartographers followed suit. That was due to both Hayashi Shihei’s “Sangoku Setsujozu(三国接壌図)” (1785), which contained two Ulleungdos, and Philipp von Siebold’s Map of Japan (1840), in which Takeshima (Argonaut Island) was drawn at 129 degrees 50 minutes east longitude, and Matsushima (Dagelet Island) was drawn at 130 degrees 56 minutes east longitude. The Takeshima in the latter map, which gained currency in the West, was Argonaut Island--which did not exist. Today’s Takeshima, at 131 degrees 55 minutes east longitude, began to appear in charts after 1849 when the French whaling ship Liancourt came across the island. Neither of the two maps that Mr. Hosaka “discovered” includes today’s Takeshima.


After that, the survey conducted by the warship Amagi in 1880 revealed that Matsushima was Ulleungdo. The islet that Pak Chang-seok(朴錫昌) designated as the “so-called Usando” in 1711 was called Takeshima, or Jukdo in Korean. In 1882, Lee Gyu-wen(李奎遠) produced a map after his survey of Ulleungdo; he also called the island Jukdo.


Ryanko island (Liancourt Rocks), which was unclaimed until 1904, was called Takeshima by Azuma Bunsuke, the administrator of Oki Island, because Ulleungdo was referred to as Matsushima when it was under Oki Island jurisdiction and they had to use the remaining name of Takeshima (as seen in the official document #152). The Dokdo Headquarters’ explanation that the name of Takeshima originated from a Jeolla Province dialect is not true.


Now, the Dokdo Protection Squad of South Korea has brought some pamphlets that show a copy of the order from the Council of State. I immediately used it in my Takeshima Day lecture as an example of their inability to read documents. The more that South Korea continues its historical offensive, the clearer it becomes that Takeshima was not Korean territory.


“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第5回 韓国側による「竹島外一島、本邦関係無之」の解釈の誤り 下條正男

Translated by Pacifist

Edited by William Sakovich

Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center

Other Column of the Series:

The 24th column “South Korean Government dug their own grave by publishing the English version of "The Dokdo/Takeshima Controversy" by Prof. Emeritus Naito Seichu and Mr. Park Byeong-seop.”

The 23rd column " Refutation against the report of South Korean Yonhap News Agency which misread the Mori Kohan(森幸安)'s "The Map of Tsushima(對馬輿地図)"

The 22th column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

The 21st column " Refutation against "Analysis 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, criticized on Shimane Prefecture. "”

The 18th columnAbsurd 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 History Foundation and Dokdo Research 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:  Kobunroku(公文録)


  1. Thanks Kaneganese and Anpontan too.

  2. Thank you, pacifist.

    I'd like to thank everyone who helped us, too.

    By the way, I found Mr.Tanaka posted the link to this news and it looks very interesting.


    If it is true that Prof. Hosaka really said that "the map matters in the territorial dispute", it contradicts against what pro-Korean had been saying. He should know that the Matsushima on this map is not today's Takeshima and there is absolutely no Korean made old maps which depicted today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks.

  3. Thanks Kaneganese.
    The news on the youtube looks quite interesting.

    BTW, I also found some TV clips concerning Takeshima/Dokdo on the youtube;


    This may be good for beginners about this issue.

    And in the programme below, the commentator spoke Gerry's name!!!


    Other interesting programmes:




  4. Anonymous9/3/08 21:41

    Pacifist, Professor Simojo's Masao's smoke and mirrors don't work anyomore. He is still playing "we were so confused!!" card with regard to the 1877 Kobunruko Documents and other 19th Century maps by Japan.

    Beyond his misleading information we can ascertain two definite facts.

    First, in the process of mapping Japan Shimane inquired whether or Ulleungdo and other islands were part of this prefecture.

    The reply was no. The argument as to identity of this "other island" has been used by Japanese Takeshima lobbyists as a diversion. The fact is no other islands were included as part of both Japan or Shimane Prefecture after the inquiry. Period.


    Shimane maps consistently excluded other islands from the prefecture after 1877.
    No Dokdo

    The map that accompanied the Kobunruko Papers showed Matsushima as Dokdo in its unmistakable form. There was no confusion and Matsushima was NOT described as Ulleungdo in this report this is another erroneous translation.

    Here is the map. No confusion. Does Matsushima 松島 look like Ulleungdo to you in this map?
    松島 is Dokdo

    Pacifist, I've explained it to everyone on this forum before. Although Takeshima is mapped in Argonaut's position it by no means should be concluded that Takeshima was a "ghost island". Japanese maps show Takeshima in Argonaut's location but still label the island as Ulleungdo.

    Here are a few examples of Seibold's position of Takeshima at 129.5 degrees longitude and 37.52 degrees latitude. Note the Japanese mapmaker labelled the island as Ulleungdo. "Japanese name Takeshima, Korean name Ulleungdo"

    Ulleung @ Argo 1
    Ulleung @ Argo 2
    Ulleung @ Argo 3
    Ulleung @ Argo 4

    After checking the maps above note the position of Ulleungdo 竹島 relative to the Korean coast and you can see the map Hosaka presented were not influenced by Seibold's maps. Ulleungdo is much further from the Korean mainland.

    Hosaka map

    Do not trust articles written by Professor Shimojo Masao.

  5. Anonymous9/3/08 22:38

    Pacifist, part of Professor Shimojo's confusion is based on his incorrect interpretation of Shimane's records on Takeshima. You should change your translation on this page.

    Incorrect Translation

    You have translated "...In the era of Eiroku (1558-1569), when a merchant named Jinkichi from the town of Yonago, in Aimi County Houki-no-kuni was sailing back from Echigo (Niigata) he met with a typhoon that caused him to return to shore to this island..."

    On this translation you conclude "this island" was Matsushima from the paragraph prior. However is does not say he drifted to "this island" it says he drifted to "this place" It is written as “此地”. This means this land, position or location and cannot be interpreted as this island (Matsushima)

    You can see the characters circled in red on the original document here. See “此地” (This place)

    Kobunruko Doc

    You should really correct this problem and not make false assumptions or confusion on erroneous translations.

  6. Thank you, pacifist.

    I didn't know even ”バンキシャ!” featured Takeshima issue. And Ohwada's one, too. The programms look really good. It is very important to keep airing those good programms on a major networks in Japan so that how ridicuously and violently Korean act when it comes to Takeshima. It's going to be a eye opner for a 韓流おばさんs.

  7. Anonymous10/3/08 01:09

    I agree with the Koreans statement offered regarding Japanese underhanded tactics in the Takeshima dispute.

    Clear evidence of Japanese lies is found in deliberately misleading maps they are producing showing the island as part of Oki Prefecture Japan. This is a very shoddy attempt to lie to their own people.

    See this map.
    Such a slimy trick

    Japan's declaration of Takeshima Day has been a total failure and only serves to annually trash Japan~Korea national relations. What a shame the greed of a few radical Japanese continues to destroy the prospects of peace between Korea and Japan.

    Shitcan Takeshima Day and let Japan~Korea heal. Read this cartoon and see how silly Takeshima Day really is. Have a good laugh. I did!!

    Takeshima Day is a Sham


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.