Instant History of Liancourt Rocks for beginners

This is an Instant History of Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) for beginners.

(1) From Japan’s view:

Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) had been called as "Matsushima" for a long time since the 17th century. Ulleungdo was called as "Takeshima" or "Isotakeshima".

But confusion occured in the late 18th century to early 19th century when western maps depicted two islands in the Sea of Japan, Argonaut island (phantom island of Ulleungdo) and Dagelet island (true Ulleungdo). They thought Argonaut was Takeshima and Dagelet was Matsushima. Then confusion began. In this point, Matsushima meant Dagelet, that is Ulleungdo.


After the western countries discovered Liancourt Rocks (Hornet Rocks in UK) in the 19th century, they needed a new name for it - so they called it as Ryankorudo-iwa (literally Japanese pronunciation of Liancourt Rocks), Ryanko island, or Yanko island. It was Ryanko island that Nakai Yosaburo made a petition to the Meiji government.

So Japanese had names for Liancourt Rocks for 300 years (Matsushima, Ryankorudo-iwa or Ryanko island or Yanko island) and finally in 1905 it was re-named as "Takeshima" and incorporated into Shimane prefecture because the name of Takeshima, which was originally the name for Ulleungdo, disappeared with the phantom island of Argonaut.

(2) From Korea’s view:

Korea’s logic: Korea knew Usando, which is Dokdo, since ancient times so it belonged to Korea. Japan robbed it in 1905.”

“Dokdo had several names such as Usando, Sambongdo and Seokdo (1900)”


a) Was Usando Liancourt Rocks?

They insisted that Korea knew Liancourt Rocks since 500AD. But its ground is unclear. They used to say that Usando was Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) and that they have some documents relating Usando. But Usando is not Liancourt Rocks, as some Korean scholars began admitting.



As to the old documents concerning Usando in Korea, please read the following:



Also please look at some Korean maps – Usando doesn’t look like Liancourt Rocks.




b) Was Sambongdo Liancourt Rocks?

Please read the following. It is clear that Sambongdo was Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks.


c) Was Seokdo Liancourt Rocks?

Seokdo (石島) was the name in the 1900 Imperial Edict:


It says that 欝島全島 (all the Ulleungdo) and 竹島石島 (Jukdo-Seokdo) belong to Uldo County. Jukdo (竹島) is a small island beside Ulleungdo. Pro-Korean scholars believe Seokdo (石島) should be Dokdo because its pronunciation is similar to Dokdo in a dialect of some districts.

But in 1900, Korean people didn’t use the word “Dokdo”. They used Yanko or Ryanko island as Japanese fishermen used to call Liancourt Rocks in Japanese way. So it is hard to believe this kind of theory, which was just an imagination not based on facts.

Looking around the circumstances of these islands before the year 1900, various geographic books excluded Liancourt Rocks from Korean territory. Korean eastern limit was Ulleungdo.



And the western maps excluded Liancourt Rocks from Korean territory (almost all of these maps indicated that it belonged to Japan):


1891 & 1894 (American map):


1891 (American map):


1891-1899 (German, British and American maps):


1892 (German map):


1894 (German map):


1894 (British map):


1894 (British map):


1897 (American map):


1897 (German map):


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

So Seokdo in the 1900 Imperial Edict was highly unlikely Liancourt Rocks.

As a result, there was no name for Korea for Liancourt Rocks. Usando was not Liancourt Rocks, Sambongdo was not Liancourt Rocks ans Seokdo was not Liancourt Rocks. How can Korea say that “Dokdo is ours”?


(3) Arguments:

Pro-Korean scholars insist that Japan admitted that Dokdo belonged to Korea but, it is not true. Japan never ever admitted Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) belong to other countries.


a) Pro-Korean scholars used to say Japan admitted “Takeshima” (Ulleungdo) and “Matshushima” (Liancourt Rocks) belonged to Korea in 1870 showing the document “How Takeshima and Matsushima became part of Joseon” (below) but the “Matsushima” in the document is not always indicating Liancourt Rocks:


The Meiji government investigated Ulleungdo to resolve the name confusion and found the truth in 1880:




b) Pro-Korean people used to show the map 新撰朝鮮国全図 to insist that Japan admitted Liancourt Rocks to be Korean territory. But it is not true. Please read the following articles:




This is just a beginning course. If you are interested, please read all the articles in this blog by yourself. I hope you will find the truth.


Anonymous said...

Dokdo belongs to Korea !

pacifist said...

Anonymous (at 10:50PM),

Thanks for your comment.

Please show us the evidence for you to believe so.
Or are you saying so without any convictions? Taught so in schools?

dokdo-takeshima.com said...

Now here is an even more accurate history lesson of Japan's history of Dokdo

Dokdo was never considered part of Japanese throughout history. Just check the maps!!







In fact Japanese maps sometimes showed Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Korean land!! Don't believe the Japanese propaganda !!



Even Japanese records show Ulleungdo and Dokdo was always Korean land.



Pacifist stop your Japanese propaganda. please!!!

pacifist said...

Steve Barber,

I once advised you that the maps you introduced would be nothing but they are showing that you shoot your foot yourself.

(1) There are many old maps in Japan, some of which have Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) while some doesn't have Matsushima - so even if you bring these maps without Matsushima, it won't be a proof that Japan didn't think Matsushima to be Korean territory.

(2) If some islands that old maps didn't include mean that the country didn't recognise to be their territory, then what about Korean maps?
If they didn't include Chejudo, it was not Korean island? How about Liancourt Rocks? No Korean maps included real Liancourt Rocks - two rock islets. Then, do you admit that Korea excluded Liancourt Rocks from Korean territory?

So, as a pro-Korean person, all you have to do is to bring the Korean map of real Liancourt Rocks that was drawn before 1905.
Steve, I will be waiting for you to bring that.

A Korean said...

pacifist(person who love peace?)

Your comment :
Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) had been called as "Matsushima" for a long time since the 17th century. Ulleungdo was called as "Takeshima" or "Isotakeshima".

But confusion occured in the late 18th century to early 19th century when western maps depicted two islands in the Sea of Japan, Argonaut island (phantom island of Ulleungdo) and Dagelet island (true Ulleungdo). They thought Argonaut was Takeshima and Dagelet was Matsushima. Then confusion began. In this point, Matsushima meant Dagelet, that is Ulleungdo.

You wrote a long explanation about the name confusion...
But, the truth is simple. As you said, old Japanese called Ulleungdo and Dokdo as 竹島,松島(Takeshima, Matsshima). But, after a long period, Japanese forgot about what is 竹島(Takeshima) and what is 松島(Matsshima). It's because Japanese were prohibited from crossing the sea(渡海禁止) for a long time. Even if some Western maps depicted wrongly, if Japanese knew what is 竹島(Takeshima) and what is 松島(Matsshima), how can Japanese blindly depict former Takeshima as new Matsushima? You Japanese can't blame the western maps for your own confusion, which means that, out of Oki islands, there was no Japanese territory and the two islands(竹島,松島) belonged to Korea for a long time since a long time ago.

And, it seem to me that you worship 'great' Simojo Masao. You blindly translate his words.

dokdo-takeshima.com said...

Hello "A Korean"

Don't worry about Pacifist, he is a brainwashed Japanese nationist who believes anything the Japanese government tells him. He is just a product of his environment.

Pacifist says Takeshima (竹島) is a ghost island Argonaut on all Japanese maps of the 19th Century.
Pacifist is trying to sell us this B.S. notion that Japan eliminated Liancourt Rocks on all her maps and then knowingly double-mapped Ulleungdo. The truth is Japanese cartographers simply mapped (竹島) Ulleungdo~Takeshima and (松島) Matsushima~Dokdo in more Westerly positions like Seibold did.

The truth is shown by Japanese maps that label Takeshima as Ulleungdo with Matsushima to the East. Cartographers of this era had no idea of Dokdo (松島) form and traced other maps.





So you see, Pacifist "ghost island" theory is just propaganda dreamed up by "Professor" Shimojo.

pacifist said...

a korean,

Thank you for your opinion.

Japanese people in Edo period may have remembered that there were two islands beyond Oki islands, Takeshima and Matsushima. So many Japanese maps in the Edo period depicted these two islands.

When western people frequently came to asia, their new technology surprised asian people including Japanese. Their maps were far more precise than traditional asian maps.

And their maps depicted two islands beyond Oki islands - Argonaut and Dagelet islands. Naturally, they believed the two islands were Takeshima and Matsushima. Even von Siebold thought so too - usual Japanese may have thought so naturally. If Liancourt Rocks were discovered by the western people at the same time in the 18th century and their maps depicted three islands at the same time from the beginning, this confusion may not have occured.

But in reality, two islands were depicted first. So Ulleungdo, which had been called as Takeshima for a long time, was recognised as Matsushima in the 19th century. Some believed its Matsushima while some believed Takeshima....anyway, there was a confusion.

In the Meiji government, the same confusion occured. When a civilian proposed "How to develop Matsushima", they were not certain which island Matsushima was.

So Meiji government needed to survey what was Matsushima and what was Takeshima. They found in 1880 that Matsushima was Ulleungdo.

Dear korean, please do not believe Steve Barber's story - he is showing the Korean propaganda in his site. Please think by yourself.

Anonymous said...




pacifist said...

Dear Korean people,

I expected you will post your opinions with evidences to show that Korea knew and used Dokdo from ancient times. But nobody brings such evidence to this place.

In 1905 the Meiji government surveyed and found that there was no traces of occupation by any other countries.


Also in 1953, USA surveyed and found that the island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.


Two nations recognised that there were no traces of Korean occupation in the history.

How do you Korean people think of this fact? Please give your opinions.

Anonymous said...

dokdo-takeshima.com said...

Now here is an even more accurate history lesson of Japan's history of Dokdo

Dokdo was never considered part of Japanese throughout history. Just check the maps!!

Pacifist stop your Japanese propaganda. please!!!


Dear pacifist,

Please, stop faking and cheating history.

pacifist said...

anonymous (at 12:32PM),

This is not a fake, just facts.
Please find the truth by yourself.
Don't beleive Steve Barber's site (dokdo-takeshima.com), his site is a Korean propaganda and full of lies.

If you think that this article is fake, please prove that. We only mention the facts we could find.

By the way, we could not find any records that Korea knew and controlled Liancourt Rocks before 1905.
If you have that kind of evidence, please show it to us all. Thank you.

ponta said...

Thank you Pacifist.
It is a great guide.
I sometimes think that Korean claim that Japan abandoned Takeshishimia is
irrelevant since Korea has no maps and no documents about Liancourt rocks.
What they need to show is that (1)Korea had maps and documents about Liancourt rocks, and (2)
Japan gave it to Korea, but there is no such documents.
But so far, they can't show (1), (2) hold.

Steve, how many times do I have to tell you to behave yourself?

Anonymous said...

Mongrel-Americans can have an opinion on Dokdo too.


pacifist said...


Thank you so much for your kind words.

anonymous (at 2:51PM),

Thanks, it is interesting to know that Americans in Korea are not supporting "Dokdo is ours" policy.

Anonymous said...

Alright Alright..
Truly, I'm Korean.
I'm from Seoul, Living in Brisbane, Australia at the moment. I'm JUST learning English so, even if you found such mistakes in my English, Forgive me.
And pacifist? I have no idea what the hack you are just talking about. I also agree, wrong history should be fixed. But, this is not in that case. I'm not blaming you pacifist, I'm just wondering if you are just PRO-japanese and hiding all the important facts about Dokdo.

Do you know the reason why, Japanese are claming that Dokdo is their territory? If you see the map of Korea and Japan, you will see Dokdo is locating on the middle of East sea. If Japan take that island, they are able to get LARGE AREA OF SEA around Dokdo. That will bring them to be able to get a lot of natural resources and fishes.

I'm not just saying this because of I'm Korean. As part of person who really wants to make good relationship as neiboring country, I hope this problem to be solved as quickly as it can.

You might believe this. Japanese loves peace. I don't believe so. The thing that we only can do is watch how it is going, and comment later on. If Japan brings up naval ships and some of their forces, how would you explain that they love peace? Is it just because of that Dokdo is Japanese territory? So they need to take it back?

Listen, I cannot post any of address that can prove Dokdo is Korean territory. I can post it, but you will reply 'you just found it from Korean websites. So it won't make sense.'

Of course I believe that Dokdo is Korean territory, but whatever that Japanese and pro-Japanese are proving with some kind of maps which are maden in JAPAN. Have you ever seen Korean map that are written Dokdo as Japanese territory? If you haven't seen, I suggest you to find some, and have a look at it. But I found, JAPANESE old map, written that Dokdo is Koean territory. How would you explain this?

and If you have a time, could you please ask both Japaneses and Koreans what official address of Dokdo is? I would expect that.

What I'm saying is, Don't just blame others who are saying that Dokdo is Korean territory. You have your provement that you believe Dokdo as part of Japanese territory.

But we also believe and have a right provement that Dokdo is Korean territory.

This post made me such a embarass and sad. Mr.pacifist, I respect your opinion and again, I'm not blaming you.. no.. I can't blame you because you are just telling your opinion about the truth of Dokdo. Right?

If you have anything want to tell me, please send E-mail to jaehuneo@hanmail.net

and My MSN is jaehuneo@naver.com
I want to talk to you someday.


pacifist said...

anonymous (at 10:15PM),

Thank you for telling me your frank opinion.

"As part of person who really wants to make good relationship as neiboring country, I hope this problem to be solved as quickly as it can".

I agree pefectly with you at this point. It is my dream that both of the countries live peacefully respecting each other. As I repeatedly wrote, I respect Korean culture and I like Korean foods. But this issue is the obstacle blocking our friendship.

You wrore;
"Do you know the reason why, Japanese are claming that Dokdo is their territory?"

It's because we believe that the 1905 incorporation was legal under the international law. Korea unfortunately has no records of her cognizance (no maps no documents), and no records of effective control of Liancourt Rocks before 1905. Please read the facts in this blog.

Also you wrote;
"If you see the map of Korea and Japan, you will see Dokdo is locating on the middle of East sea".

Unfortunately, the distance is not related with the ownership.

Under the international law, ownership can be acquired when one country occupy the land before any other countries and keep control it effectively. When Japan incorporated it in 1905 Japan surveyed it and found there was no traces of occupation by any other countries. And kept effective control of it after that.

However, When Rhhe Syngmann drew the line and occupied it in 1952, the island was already admitted as Japan's territory internationally and Japan keeps claiming since then. It is still not Korean land under the international law.

If Korea really wants to make it her own land, she must prove that they knew it, used it (controlled it) before Japan incorporated it in 1905. But unfortunately there are no such records - Usando they kept insisted to be Liancourt Rocks was, as you can see the details in this blog, not Liancourt Rocks.

You wrote;
"But we also believe and have a right provement that Dokdo is Korean territory".

We need the evidence of the reason why you believed so.

We have shown you the evidence of Japan in this blog. Japan has a history of using Liancourt Rocks since the 17th century (as you saw we have precise maps of Liancourt Rocks with two rocky islets and surrounding small rocks - it is an evidence to show that Japanese really went there in the 17th century), although there was a name confusion, Japanese Meiji government surveyed it and found "no traces of any other countries' occupation" and incorporated it in 1905.

But Korea has not maps of Liancourt Rocks at all before the 20th century. Yes, they have maps of Usando but it was not Liancourt Rocks.
The old documents didn't mention Liancourt Rocks except only one document that said the author saw an island far away from Ulleungdo but the author didn't go to the island and didn't know the precise location and shape of the island.
These facts don't support Korean claim to Liancourt Rocks.

So please find the evidence and let us know. Thank you again for your sincere opinion.

Anonymous said...


I know you're making a fake theory.
Your ancestors are betrayers.
You're liar too.

Stop lying.

pacifist said...

Anonymous (at 12:46AM),

You wrote;
"I know you're making a fake theory.
Your ancestors are betrayers.
You're liar too".

We are not making a fake, we are showing you the evidence we could find.

If you think that the evidence we showed was a fake, please show us the proof of tour insistency.

I hope you will find the truth by yourself in the end. I advise you to read the original documents.

Jaehoon, Park said...

Hi, pacifist.
This is Jaehoon, who wrote comment two days ago. You wanted me to bring evidence of the reason why Dokdo should be Korean island.
Now I have got some.


Firstly, go to this site.
There will be a picture which shows a small island.

That island is Dokdo, and the picture was taken in the Ullungdo.

Japanese has been claimed that citizens living in Ullungdo are not able to see Dokdo with naked eye.


You might think there's no point of the meaning of 'WE CAN DETECT DOKDO FROM ULLUNGDO WITH NAKED EYE'
also you could guess this picture has been maden up by Computer Graphic.

Now, I'm going to translate what the article is talking about.

The chairman of International Korea Research (I'm not really sure I translated correctly.) Choi, Seo-Myeon who is holding authority of investigating Korean and Japanese modern history commented "Japanese claimed that we are unable to see Dokdo from Ullungdo. But Korean claimed that we can. One of us, has to be right"
To find the fact of this, He worked since half year ago. These two pictures he introduced, show us that citizens living in Ullungdo knew about Dokdo since long time ago. Now, Japanese should fix the claim about the logic that we CAN'T see Dokdo from Ullungdo.

한일 근대사의 실증적 연구에서 독보적인 지위에 있는 최서면 국제한국연구원 원장은 "일본은 울릉도에서 독도가 보이지 않는다. 우리는 보인다고 한다. 진실은 하나 밖에 없다"고 말했다. 그 하나의 진실을 찾아내기 위해 지난해 하반기부터 6개월여에 걸쳐 작업을 했다. 이번에 공개한 두장의 사진은 울릉도에 거주하는 주민들이 일상적으로 독도의 존재를 인식하고 있었다는 걸 보여주는 수많은 사진 가운데 일부다. 일본은 이제 울릉도에서 독도가 보이지 않는다는 논리와 그에 근거한 자신들의 주장을 수정하거나 철회해야한다.


If we(Korea) can officially claim about this fact, This can be a great evidence that Dokdo is part of Ullungdo's category island.

Of course, we are not able to swear that Dokdo is part of category island of Ullungdo by only this logic, but we could find that people lived in Ullungdo long time ago, even realized that there's a island, Dokdo. So, this investigation can be really important.

■ 독도가 보인다의 의미= 울릉도에서 독도가 과거로부터 일상적으로 육안으로 관측이 된다는 사실이 국제적으로 공인될 수 있다면 독도는 울릉도의 부속섬이라는 걸 뒷받침하는 근거가 될 수 있다. 물론 독도가 울릉도에서 육안으로 보인다는 이유만을 두고 독도가 울릉도의 부속섬이며, 곧바로 한국의 영토라고 단정지을 수 있는 논리가 될 수는 없다. 그러나 울릉도 주민이 일상적으로 독도를 볼 수 있고 그 존재를 알고 있었다는 사실은 역사적 문헌에 대한 해석에서 독도가 우리 영토임을 뒷받침할 수 있는 움직일 수 있는 논거가 된다. 그런 점에서 이번 울릉도에서 보이는 독도를 찍은 사진들은 중요한 의미를 지니고 있다.  
-The false that it is impossible to detect Dokdo-

The official clamination from Japan was calimed by Kawakami Kenzo (Geography Investication of Takeshima(1966).)

(then he used some kind of maths fomula, which show us that we are not able to detect Dokdo from Ullungdo) - I can't really translate this one. Sorry. It is so hard for me with my limited English. If you have any korean friend nearby, who speaks English better than me, please ask him to translate this paragraph.

■ 독도관측 불가론의 허구성

=울릉도에서 독도관측이 불가능하다는 주장은 일본 외무성 관리이자 관변학자인 가와카미 겐조의 < 다케시마의 역사지리학적 연구 > (1966)에서 제시된다. 그는 울릉도에서 독도가 보이지 않는다는 것을 한국쪽에 증명하기 위해 한일회담이 진행되던 1960년대에 해군에서 바다에서 어느 정도의 거리까지 맨 눈으로 보이느냐를 결정하는데 사용하는 가시수평선공식(지구가 둥글기 때문에 나타나는 현상)을 쓰기도 했다. 독도의 해발고도를 157m, 눈 높이를 4m로 대입하면 시야로 볼 수 있는 거리는 30.305해리인데 울릉도와 독도의 거리가 49해리이므로, 울릉도에서는 독도를 볼 수 없다는 것이다. 그러나 이는 국제법학자이자 서울대 법대 학장을 지낸 이한기 박사에 의해 잘못된 것임이 밝혀졌다. 이 박사는 가와카미의 계산은 키 1.5m인 사람이 수평면에 서서 관찰하는 것을 기준으로 한 것이며, 독도의 해발고도가 174m 이며, 울릉도와 독도의 거리가 47.4 해리이므로, 이 값을 이용할 경우 키가 1.7m 이상인 사람이 울릉도의 해발고도 100m 이상의 높이에서 독도를 쳐다 본다면, 얼마든지 볼 수 있다며 오류임을 보였다. 전문가들은 해발고도 167m 이상이면 독도를 볼 수 있다고 말한다. 실제로 국제한국연구원이 촬영한 곳 가운데 하나인 안평전은 해발 380m였다.

-The difference between detect with naked eye and photographing-

The problem is, if there's no difference that detecting with naked eye and using telescopic lens.

Also, as long as this photo was taken by digital camera, it has possibillity of being maden by computer graphic.

So, firstly we need to show if it really was taken in Ullungdo.
As you see the picture, we can see leaves at the front, and used 100 slide film which is standard sensivity and it which is not able to be fixed by computer graphic.

The experts of photographic mentioned that there will be people who are trying to argue by telescope. They mentioned that they used 70~200mm lens. 70~200mm lens have possibillity that even though they CAN detect with naked eye, but sometimes cannot be detect by lens.
Which means, if they see it in photograph, they are able to detect with naked eye.

Also, photographers took this picture in the town that people living in Ullungdo stayed here since LONG TIME AGO.
Which means it can be detected only just in special PART OF PLACE IN Ullungdo.

If you would like to, I'll bring more evidence next time. This article is one of the most serious to claim that Dokdo is Korean island.

I apologize for my stupid English.. Even though I have been to Australia since one and half year ago, My English is still limited.

And also, I was wondering how come Dokdo can be known as Takeshima in Japan. If it translated to English, isn't it Bamboo island? but there is no Bamboo in Dokdo...
This is not for argue.. just wondering..... if you know.

Ah, one another thing.
in ancient book in Korea, which was written during Joseon dynasty, there is a article that Dokdo was our island and it was commonly known as 松島 in Japan.

I would bring up about this evidence next time if I'm able to.
I think the country has more power when this issue goes in to international court, is KOREA.

have a nice day pacifist.

아 그리고 아래 한국사람들 -_- 만약 당신들이 진짜 한국인이면 이런대와서 독도는 우리땅 뭐 이런글좀 남기지말고 증거자료좀 퍼와요 -_- 아 답답하게정말;
꼭 이런 외국애들한테까지 우리나라가 까여야겠습니까??

pacifist said...

Dear Park Jaehoon shi,

Thank you for your opinion and the translated text.

First of all, your English is not bad.

(1) At first, as to your question;
"And also, I was wondering how come Dokdo can be known as Takeshima in Japan".

As I already wrote in the posting, Takeshima (Bamboo island) was the name of Ulleungdo in the beginning where was rich in big bamboo. But after the turmoil since the late 18th century Ulleungdo (Dagelet island) was re-namaed as Matsushima and the name of Takeshima disppeared with the name of Argonaut island in the end.

So when they needed a new name for Liancourt Rocks (which had been called as Matsushima in the Edo period) in 1905, they put the familiar name of Takeshima to this island.

So it didn't mean Liancourt Rocks were rich in bamboo.

(2)As to the visibility of Liancourt Rocks from Ulleungdo, please read the following first. This is a reply to a reader I wrote somewhere in this blog;

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"It can be seen from the highest point of Ulleungdo on very fine days, as a Korean already wrote in the 17th century. But the problem is that he didn't go to Liancourt Rocks, he didn't know about the exact location and shape of Liancourt Rocks. Only viewing is not the ground of ownership.

And the one more thing about the viewing, the Korean document 高麗史 (Vol.58, 地理 geography 3; 1451) mentioned as followed;

一云 干山武陵 本二島 相距不遠 風日清明則可望見
[According to one theory, these two islands Usan and Mulleung (武陵) are not so distant and they are easily visible on fine days.]

Korean government and pro-Korean scholars keep insisting that Usan in the sentence is Liancourt Rocks, and that the text means Liancourt Rocks could be seen from Mulleung (Ulleungdo) on fine days.

On the other hand, Japanese scholars have an opinion that it meant these two islands could be seen from Korean peninsula on fine days. They think that Usan in the text is not Liancourt Rocks.

We introduced the document to support the latter here;

Some of shcolars are making simulated photos of Ulleungdo viewed from Korean penninsula, which looks as if there are two or three islands from the distance because Ulleungdo have three peaks.
I think it is a possibility that they thought two or three isalnds could be seen from Korean mainland and heard that there is a small island beside Ullengdo (today's Jukdo) so they may have misunderstood that they could see both of Ullengdo and Jukdo from Korean peninsula. This is only a possibility, of course".
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In my opinion, Japanese scholars refuted to the Korean scholars who are insisting that Liancourt Rocks can be viewed from Ulleungdo so that "Usan is Dokdo" (the document 高麗史 meant "Liancourt Rocks can be seen from Ulleungdo" and "Usan is Dokdo").
Japanese scholars thought that 高麗史 meant "Both of Ulleungdo and Usan are visible (from the Korean peninsula)" and it didn't mean "Usan is visible from Ulleungdo".
So actually the visibility became a point of the issue once in the dispute.

But as I wrote at first, I think that the visibility doesn't always have a grave meaning. It doesn't mean a direct proof of the ownership. A Korean already wrote about it in the 17th century.

You may thought, if Liancourt Rocks can be seen from Ulleungdo, people of Ulleungdo may have known Liancourt Rocks.
But I've heard that it can be viewed only very fine days, not so often.

So it is hard to say that all the people on Ulleungdo knew the presence of Liancourt Rcoks and more importantly, there is no traces of reaching Liancourt Rocks of the people Ulleungdo - if they reached the rocks, they may have written maps (like Japanese did) or documents about the unique shape (two rock islets) and location and distance (almost one-day voyage to southeast) but there are no such records at all.
If these are present, these are firm evidence that Korean people reached Liancourt Rocks.

But anyway, this is an interesting news. Thank you for letting us know.

(3) Finally, as to 松島;
You wrore;

"Ah, one another thing.
in ancient book in Korea, which was written during Joseon dynasty, there is a article that Dokdo was our island and it was commonly known as 松島 in Japan."

At first, the name "Dokdo" was not present in the Joseon dynasty days. I think you meant "Usando was known as Matsushima in Japan".

It was Ahn Yong-bok who said "Matsushima is Jasando (=Usando)", but as to his claim, we think it is unreliable.
Please read the text here (which Kaneganese wrote):

As for the detailed record of Ahn in Japan, please see the following:




After Ahn's statement, "Matsushima is Jasando (Usando)" was repeatedly written in Korean texts. Some say it was from older documents but it was not. Please read the following:


Anyway, Park Jaehoon shi, komassumida - thank you very much for posting the topic.
I hope you will understand what I wrote and hope you will give your opinion again.

Hae Ju said...

I read all your comments and am still getting through all the evidence that you provided in your blog.
I am Korean and just to make sure you do not do any name-calling, I'll criticize "anonymous" first!
Don't say stupid, unlogical emotional opinions that can't be backed by evidence. You look stupid and you're just giving into the person you're arguing with. If you make stupid remarks like that you're giving more ways (although completely irrelevant when deciding whether Dokdo is Korean or Japanese) to your "opponent" to make excuses/reasons to say you're wrong.

Also, to all those other Koreans that made nasty racist comments about history -- again, not convincing and unprofessional. If you want any outsider that is NOT korean to respect your theory and even give you credibility, you have to look at these BIG issues in an objective point of view. That way, firstly shows you're not biased, not nationalistic(which we are often referred to as...)...... And don't make assumptions and prejudice remarks; just stay on topic.

To Pacifist and that other kind-hearted-Japanese-lady/man,
I'm not the most credible person, but your blog itself seems to be extremely biased and flawed since you only (well the ones I've checked so far) include the Japanese point of view. It is neither subtle or even objective... and you too make racist remarks that make things way too personal and emotional. "Taught so in schools?" - Asian education in general are all systematic memorizing at this period of time, so you're criticizing your own country's education if you do say so. (I have MANY Japanese friends AND Japanese acquaintances who can back me up on this... not making this comment on some generalization my country made up).

This has nothing to do with Dokdo;
I'm commenting as an "outsider" (although I'm KOREANNNNNNNNNNN) .

Byeongju said...

Pacifist's argument is so groundless that I will choose to refute only one point. Kim Bu Shik's Samguk Sagi of 1145 A.D. talks about conquest of Usanguk, which is substantiated with a 1530 Map showing two islands, not one. Get that part? Two. Dokdo can be seen from Ulleung island with bare eyes.

Are we kidding? How could they not have known? After all, they navigated to Ulleungdo from somewhere. People back then had as good eyes as we do today, if not any better. Veni, vidi, vici. The people of Ulleungdo came, saw, and conquered Dokdo when they caught the fish there.

No wishy washy talk about this island refers to this and that nonsense. How can anyone claim a rock as terra nullius when everyone in that vicinity knows about it? People of Ulleungdo could see Dokdo, so they came and caught fish there for at least 1500 years. End of story. Dokdo belongs to the people of Ulleungdo and so, is Korean.

Very unfortunately for the people of Japan, Dokdo cannot be seen from Oki islands. Sorry. Some things just can't be seen from some places, like Dokdo from Oki islands. So much for terra nullius. Dokdo may have been new to the people of Oki, but not to the people of Ulleungdo who could see Dokdo with bare eyes!

Sutiive said...

What you have posted makes you clearly biased. You did not write about "Japan's View" and "Korea's View". You wrote about "Japan's proof" and "Evidence Korea is wrong" .

As a result, you didn't convince me Liancourt rocks are Japanese or Korean. You just showed that you are biased and therefore untrustworthy.
I have lived in Japan and Korea and understandably you are both biased towards your countries opinions and historical records. However, where Koreans have passion and ignorance, Japanese have arrogance and "Tatemae". Passion and ignorance are forgivable...Tatemae and arrogance are not.
ps. In the event of a war in Asia, I would prefer South Korea have access to the waters and land of Liancourt as Japan's military are more defensive than South Korea's. From a military perspective I think this is why the US leaves there status as Korean as it is more favorable to them strategically. In the event of a war in which Japan and Korea were on the same side, I think Korea would be more effective in using these islands to protect BOTH countries and at this time, the issue of ownership may be settled.
Honestly though, I don't really care. I am British and we have the same problem with the Falklands. Just stop whining, toss a coin and grow up.