竹島問題の歴史

31.7.08

Q1: Has Dokdo been a part of Korea since the sixth century?

Answer: Koreans claim that Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) has been a part of Korean territory since the time of the Silla Kingdom (512 A.D.), but Korea has no maps or documents to back up the claim. They say, however, that they do have evidence and, as one example, they point to Korea's Samguk Sagi (三國史記: "History of the Three Kingdoms"), which was written in 1145 A.D.
In the Samguk Sagi, a reference was made to an island due east of "Myeongju" (present-day Gangeung) named "Usanguk" (于山國 - 우산국). Koreans claim that Usanguk was referring to both Ulleungdo and Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks); however, though Ulleungdo was mentioned as another name for Usanguk, nothing was mentioned about Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks), by any name. In fact, the text gives the bearing and area for only one island.
The map to the left comes from an atlas made in the 1600s entitled, "Old Maps of China & Joseon" (支那朝鮮古地圖 - 지나조선고지도), which is stored in the National Library of Korea (國立中央圖書館 - 국립중앙도서관). The title of the map is "Map of the Original Regions of Silla, Goguryo, and Baekje" (新羅高勾麗百濟肇造區域之圖 - 신라고구려백제조조구역지도). The map shows a single island off the east coast of Korea labeled as "Usanguk - now Ulleungdo" (羽山國 今 鬱陵島 - 우산국, 지금 울릉도). This map is more evidence that Usanguk was considered to be just one island, not two.
Though later in the Joseon Dynasty, Koreans would discover that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island about 2.2 kilometers off its east shore, which today is called "Jukdo" (竹島), there is no evidence that Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks), which is ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo, was ever considered a part of Usanguk, Ulleungdo, or any part of Korean. In fact, Korea has no old maps of Liancourt Rocks under any name and has no documents showing that Koreans ever went there before Japanese fishing boats starting carrying Korean fishermen there in the early 1900s. The Korean claim simply has no evidence to support it.
The follow is a quote from a document on the Korean Embassy Web site entitled "Dokdo: Korean Territory Since the Sixth Century" - PDF or HTML, which claims that Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) has been a part of Korean territory since the sixth century.
Korean Claim

1. When Did Dokdo Become a Part of Korean Territory?

Korean title to Dokdo dates back to the 6th century. According to the records of Samguk Sagi (History of the Three Kingdoms), Korean sovereignty over the island was established with the incorporation of Usanguk (“guk” means “state”) into the Kingdom of Silla, one of the three ancient kingdoms of Korea, in 512 A.D. Samguk Sagi records that in 512 A.D., Yi Sa-bu, a Silla government official, subjugated the island state on behalf of Silla. The territory of Usanguk comprised the islands of Ulleungdo and Usando (present-day Dokdo)....

1. 언제 독도는 한국의 영토가 되었는가?

독도가 대한민국 고유의 영토라는 근거는 서기 6세기로 거슬러 올라간다. 독도에 관한 최초의 기록은 서기 512년에 신라의 이사부가 나무로 만든 사자를 이용한 계교로써 우산국을 정복하였다는 삼국사기의기록이다. 당시 우산국의 영토는 울릉도 본 섬과 그 부속도서인 독도 등으로 구성되어 있었으며, 동해에 울릉도와 독도 두 개의 섬이 존재하고 있다는 우리 조상들의 지리적 인식은 그 후 조선시대에 간행된 세종실록지리지(1454)와 동국여지승람(1531)에도 잘 나와 있다. 특히 이 두 개의 책에 수록된 팔도총도와 강원도 지도에는 독도가 조선의강원도에 속하는 섬임이 명확하게 표시되어있다.

The Truth
Let's look at what was actually written in Korea's Samguk Sagi.

Here is the section from the "Silla Bongi" (新羅本記 - 신라본기) in Volume 4 (券4) of the Samguk Sagi (三國史記 - 삼국사기) that Koreans claim proves that Dokdo has been Korean territory since the sixth century:

十三年 夏六月 于山國歸服 歲以土宜爲貢 于山國在溟州正東海島 或名鬱陵島 地方一百里 恃嶮不服 伊飡 異斯夫 爲何瑟羅州 軍主 謂 “于山人愚悍 難以威來 可以計服” 乃多造木偶師子 分載戰船 抵 其國海岸 誑告曰 “汝若不服 則放此猛獸踏殺之” 國人恐懼 則降

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

In May in the summer of the 13th year (512 A.D.), Usan-guk surrendered and began paying annual tributes in local products. Usan-guk is an island in the sea due east of Myeongju [present-day Kangneung]. It is also called Ulleungdo. It has an area of 100 ri. The land was believed to be too rugged to conquer.

When government official Lee Sa-bu became commander of Haseullaju, he said, “The people of Usan-guk are ignorant and savage and would be difficult to subdue by force, but we can use cunning.” Then he made many wooden lion figures, divided them up, and loaded them on warships. On the shore of the country, he deceitfully said, “If you do not surrender, we will release these ferocious animals and you will be trampled to death. The country’s people became so frightened that they immediately surrendered.

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

13년(512) 여름 5월에 우산국(于山國)이 항복하여 해마다 토산물을 바쳤다. 우산국은 명주(溟州)의 정동쪽 바다에 있는 섬으로 혹은 울릉도(鬱陵島)라고도 한다. 땅은 사방 100인데, 지세가 험한 것을 믿고 항복하지 않았다. 이찬 이사부(異斯夫)가 하슬라주(何瑟羅州) 군주가 되어 말하기를 “우산국 사람은 어리석고도 사나워서 힘으로 복속시키기는 어려우나 꾀로는 복속시킬 수 있다.”하고, 이에 나무 사자를 많이 만들어 전함에 나누어 싣고 그 나라 해안에 이르러 거짓으로 “너희가 만약 항복하지 않으면 이 사나운 짐승을 풀어 밟아 죽이겠다.”고 말하자 그 나라 사람들이 두려워 곧 항복하였다.

As you can see from the above translation, nothing was said about Dokdo or Liancourt Rocks under any name. It only said that Usanguk was due east of Myeongju, which was a village on the east coast of Korea that is presently called Gangneung, and that Ulleungdo was another name for Usanguk. This proves false the Korean claim that the Samguk Saji supports Korea's claim to Dokdo.

The following is a scan of the relevant page from the Samguk Sagi (三國史記 - 삼국사기).

103 comments:

  1. Gerry,

    The ROK government does not use the Samguksagi aruguments as their official claims over the islets, however, that is indeed typical Korean propaganda over Dokdo/Takeshima disputes.

    The English page of Liancourt Rocks on Wiki is updated today. The author seems to be neutral on the matter but somehow the Korean claims are described much more in detail and the Japanese claims are written more briefly and may seem unconvincing to readers. Do you feel it's biased too?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liancourt_Rocks

    The Chinese version is clearly on the Korean side, listing the same Usando propaganda as in your article here. It certainly makes it look like Korea has known the islets long before the Japanese records, which is not true.
    http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%8D%A8%E5%B3%B6

    BTW, thanks for the reply in the Sovereignty article below.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It could be possible that Usando is referring du Juk-Do, but it is also possible that it refers to Dok-Do.

    I don`t know why there is a considerable number of japanese maps showing that Dokdo is korean or not including Dokdo as japanese before 1905?

    ReplyDelete
  3. If Korea knew of Ulleung-Do in 500 AD. I would not find it surprising if Korea had known Dokdo. I don`t know what is so strange about that?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mikan,

    Yes, the Korean government does use the "Samguk Sagi" to claim "Dokdo" since the 6th century. The followning are links to a document on the Korean Embassy Web site:

    "Dokdo: Korea Territory Since the Sixth Century"
    PDF / HTML

    Is you look at Page 4, you will see the reference and the claim.

    ReplyDelete
  5. helpfish,

    Usando is clearly not referring to Dokdo/Takeshima according to the other Korean documents, such as "Gi-eon - Cheongsa Yeoljeon."
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/05/mid-1600s-1682-gi-eon-kim-si-seop-from.html

    Yojiji, another Korean document which states both Ulleungdo and Usando are seen from the shores of Korean Peninsula on sunny days.
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/05/1656-yojiji-by-ryu-hyung-won-didnt-say.html

    I guess you can find a lot of other old Korean maps with Ulleung and Usan together here.
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/search/label/Maps%3A_Korean


    helpfish: "I don`t know why there is a considerable number of japanese maps showing that Dokdo is korean or not including Dokdo as japanese before 1905?"

    helpfish, I'm not sure which maps you're referring to. To prove your point, please pick one from the maps on this website or even pro-Korean websites since they share the same maps.

    Here are the list of the Japanese maps of Korea that exclude Dokdo/Takeshima from Korea
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/korean-eastern-limits-described-in.html


    Gerry, thanks. I didn't know the ROK gov't was stupid enough to bring that up on the table. I thouht it was domestic propaganda only used to brainwash its innocent citizens...

    ReplyDelete
  6. "If Korea knew of Ulleung-Do in 500 AD. I would not find it surprising if Korea had known Dokdo. I don`t know what is so strange about that?"

    Nothing strange about that.
    The point is, we can't prove it and even if Korea had known Dokdo, there is no such evidence yet that Korea recognized it as territory under the influence of Korean authority. Do you think knowing the existence means the posession of the islets?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I find it very surprising that there is even a mentioning of Ulleung-Do dating back to 500 AD. I don`t know if there have been any maps at that time. To say that during 1500 years, no Korean ever visited a 90km away island is quite amusing.

    Maps excluding Dokdo from japanese territory:
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national.html

    For example one map showing Dokdo belongs to Korea (1877):
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-kinseki.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The point is, we can't prove it and even if Korea had known Dokdo, there is no such evidence yet that Korea recognized it as territory under the influence of Korean authority."

    You can`t prove the opposite, either.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't think people cared much about tow piece of rocks in 5AD. However, since you can visually see dokdo from Ulleungdo (I have been to Ulleungdo few times and seen it myself), people were aware of the island.

    They must have called it something and may have even ventured there out of curiosity.

    Does this give Korean argument more wieght? I don't know. But common sense dictates that they were aware of dokdo as long as there were people on Ulleungdo.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Gerry, the Samguk Sagi is only one of the documents that the ROK government uses to back up their claim. Had you actually visited other Korean sites, you would find many other data that back up Korea's claim.

    Japan claims the Liancourt Rocks as theirs because of the 1905 Cabinet decision, which is only valid IF the islands were unclaimed before that time. But the Korean imperial decree in 1900 officially declared Ullengdo, JUKDO, AND Sokdo as Korean territories. While Japan counters this by saying that there is no evidence that Sokdo IS Dokdo, they cannot explain what other island this Sokdo could have been.

    What is ironic is that according to the Naval Route Map published by the Japanese Navy in 1907, 2 years after the Cabinet Decision mentioned above, an island named "Liancourt Rocks but called Dokdo by Koreans" is included in Kyungsang Province of Josun(Korea at the time). This was 3 years before Korea was annexed by Japan.

    So I think you were a little too haste in shouting "Korea's Dokdo propaganda."

    ReplyDelete
  11. helpfish,

    It's not surprising that Koreans knew about Ulleungdo, Dokdo or even Japan, or that Japanese knew about them vise versa. (since both people went to both sides frequently)

    The sea boundary between Korea and Japan had actually been very obscure until the Ahn Yong-Bok incident in Lee Dynasty/Edo Period.
    Since then, the Japanese fishermen were allowed to go to Dokdo/Takeshima but no longer Ulleungdo. Still then, there were no Korean documents of Dokdo/Takeshima while Edo Japan had even accurate maps of it.

    Look at the dates of the maps on the link. They were all published after MEIJI RESTORATION, which is not the successor of Edo Bakufu.

    Edo Bakufu (1603-1867) recognized Dokdo/Takeshima under its control. Look at maps before 1867.
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/search/label/Maps%3A_Japanese

    However, the Meiji gov't (1867-1912) recognized Dokdo/Takeshima as an ownerless island until they incorporated it into Shimane Prefecture in 1905.

    Look at these maps made by Japanese geographers/Korean textbooks in the same period as the maps you showed me. They exclude Dokdo/Takeshima from Korea too.
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/korean-eastern-limits-described-in.html


    You need to know that the Meiji gov't destroyed Edo Bakufu and they're completely different organizations. Sorry about the lengthy explanation of pre-modern Japanese History.

    ReplyDelete
  12. chaspark,

    I'm sorry to interrupt.
    I know pro-Koreans have already given up on "Usando=Dokdo" and "Sambongdo=Dokdo" theories and think of "Seokdo=Dokdo" theory as the last resort.


    This is the only document that shows the location of Seokdo.
    http://www.sanin-chuo.co.jp/photo/0221/5005270061.jpg

    This article 皇城新聞(1906) is about the promotion of Ulleung-do to Ulleung-gun. It says Ulleung-gun includes Jukdo and Seokdo, and the whole area under Ulleung-gun's control is 60ri(24km) from West to East and 40ri(16km) from South to North. Dokdo/Takeshima is 92km away from Ulleung-do on Southeast.

    This description also matches with Korean Imperial Edict No.41 in 1900 which states Jukdo and Seokdo belong to Ulleung-do, and the Korean textbook in 1901, "Daehanjiji" (大韓地誌) which limits Korean land until Jukdo.

    There is an interesting theory of pro-Japanese which is "観音島Gwaneumdo=石島Seokdo."
    Gwaneumdo is the second biggest island after Jukdo around Ulleung-do.
    http://www.occidentalism.org/pic/Ullungdo%20Map.1.jpg

    This article on Korean newspaper東亜日報(1928) says that the name of Gwaneumdo comes from "Stone Buddhas石仏" on the island. (Gwaneum means Buddha) Thus pro-Japanese say Gwaneumdo could be called 石島Seokdo before.
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/name-of-kwannondo-evolved-from-island.html

    There is another theory by Gerry. He believes that the Japanese pronouciation of Gwaneumdo's old name 鼠項島 (Sokkotoh) influenced the Korean name Seokdo.
    http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=377

    In either case, I'm not sure why pro-Koreans insist Seokdo is Dokdo without discussing the possibility of Gwaneumdo. Naturally Gwaneumdo should be the first candidate of Seokdo, according to the geographic location.

    chaspark,
    Undoubtedly, the 1905 incorporation is the strongest LEGAL reason of Japanese claims but it's not their strongest HISTORICAL reason. In Edo Period, Japanese fishermen were allowed to go to Ulleung-do and Dokdo/Takeshima with the Shogunate licences. Also, there're also detailed maps of Takeshima in Edo Period.


    Please don't think we're all Korean haters. I'm married to a Korean man and I'm actually learning Korean language. I just believe in science, not fiction. It's not justice if loudmouths always win.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Its irrelevant at what time or during which period these japanese maps were drawn. My point was to show that there are some maps dated back before 1905 that show that Dokdo belongs to Korea or japanese maps excluding Dokdo.

    If the 1905 incorporation of Dokdo was legal is another point. Technically speaking, the annexation of Korea was legal, too.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mikan,

    I think the "Seokdo" (石島 - 석도) in the 1900 edict could have been Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Gwaneumdo (觀音島 - 관음도), and that is what most of the Japanese historians claim, but I really believe that Seokdo was just a legal catchall phrase that was used to include Gwaneumdo and all the other rocky islets around Ulleungdo. At the time, it was said that Ulleungdo had six islands, including Usando/Jukdo, so I think the phrase Seokdo was used to make sure that no one would think those islets, whatever they were, were excluded.

    1900 Imperial Edict 41

    ReplyDelete
  15. helpfish,

    You're right. At some point of history (1867-1904), Japan didn't recognize Dokdo/Takeshima as its territory and at times before that (Edo Period~1867), it did. I've been asked the exact same thing by my husband and he understood the map claim from pro-Korean means nothing unless the Korean side has evidence that Korea thought Dokdo/Takeshima was theirs in that period.

    Even Japan didn't think Dokdo/Takeshima as theirs at some point, if Korea didn't think Dokdo/Takeshima was theirs at the same time -
    it's nothing, right? It just proves to be nobody's land. Do you know what I mean?

    So far, there is not a single proof that KOREANS RECOGNIZED Dokdo/Takeshima was theirs or it is Usando, Sambongdo or Seokdo as they claim.

    In August 1905, Korea complained to Japan-Britain alliance but it didn't when Japan incorporated Dokdo/Takeshima in February. And it was not done secretly but announced offically.


    Gerry,
    I guess I miunderstood your opinion. And I've heard pro-Japanese people say Seokdo meant all the tiny islets since Koreans don't use plural forms as often. I also think that's a possible explanation since 'seok' simply means stones or rocks.

    ReplyDelete
  16. But if Japan excluded Dokdo from its own territory in 1867, it can`t incorporate it again at its own will. And also it could claim it as it has once been its own territory. Did they mention it in the letter?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Helpfish,

    I do not know if you are talking about an 1870 document or an 1877 one. Anyway, at neither time did Japan exclude "Dokdo" from her sovereignty.

    Here is a post that explains the 1870 Japanese document.

    I do not think we have a comprehensive post explaining the the events in the 1870s, but the problem started when a Japanese businessman mistook Korea's Ulleungdo to be Japan's Matsushima and asked the Japanese government to allow him to do business there.

    At the time, many Japanese believe that the non-existent island of Argonaut was Korea's Ulleungdo. Many Western and Japanese maps at the time showed the real Ulleungdo as being Japan's "Masushima" (松島) and the non-existent island as being "Takeshima" (竹島) which was the Japanese name for Korea's Ulleungdo. Therefore, the Japanese debated on whether on whether the Masushima being referred to was Korea's Ulleungdo, a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, or Japan's Masushima (Liancourt Rocks). In the end, the Japanese government refused the petition to do business on the island.

    The Japanese government wrote that "Takeshima and another island" was not Japanese territory when they denied the petition. Takeshima was referring to Korea's Ulleungdo, but the other island was left unnamed because they were unsure what island the Matsushima in the petition was referring to. In was not until Japan sent a survey ship to Ulleungdo in 1880 that they discovered that the Matsushima that was the subject of the debate was actually the Korean island of Ulleungdo. From that time on, they started referring to Ulleungdo as Matsushima, which forced them to change the name of Japan's Matsushima to Liancourt Rocks.

    Here are some links to documents that help sort through the confusion:

    1876 - "Argument for the Development of Matsushima"

    "1877 - Different Views on Matsushima"

    "1878 - Watanabe Says Liancourt Rocks Are Japanese"

    1878 - Watanabe Letter Suggesting that the Island Be Investigated

    1880 - Japanese Warship Determines Matsushima was Ulleungdo

    ReplyDelete
  18. Gerry,

    what you are saying is that until 1880 the japanese didn`t know exactly about Ulleung-Do, Juk-Do and Dok-Do?

    That weakens their claim.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Helpfish,

    The documents said they knew about Japan's Matsushima, but they did not know if there was another Masushima or if it was just another name for Ulleungdo or one of Ulleungdo's neighboring islands. Remember the 1870 document said Ulleungdo had a neighboring island named Matsushima (松島 - 송도) that the Japanese had never heard of before.

    In 1882, King Kojong said that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called "Songjukdo" (松竹島) that was sometimes called "Songdo" (松島) and sometimes called "Jukdo" (竹島), which suggests that Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo was sometimes called "Songdo," which is pronounced as "Matsushima" in Japanese.

    No, the Japanese did not know much about Ulleungdo because it was against the law to travel there. They seem to have relied a great deal on Western maps for their map information, but some Western maps mismapped Ulleungdo much farther northwest of its real location, which caused a lot of confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  20. And what happened after 1880? The japanese changed the name of Ulleung-Do from Takeshima to Matsushima and named Juk-Do Takeshima.

    The last text ends with "Matsushima is Ulleung-Do and Takeshima is Juk-Do and both are not japanese territory"

    Why do they call Dok-Do Takeshima then? And how do they call Juk-Do?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Helpfish,

    After 1880, the Japanese began to refer to Ulleungdo as "Matsushima," and since Ulleungdo had a neighboring island already named "Jukdo" ("Takeshima" in Japanese), the Japanese started using the Western name "Liancourt Rocks" to refer to their "old" Matsushima.

    The Japanese did not start referring to Liancourt Rocks as "Takeshima" until they incorporated the rocks into Shimane Prefecture in 1905. And since they had now incorporated it into Japanese territory, they needed to give it a Japanese name, so they chose the old name they had used for Ulleungdo, "Takeshima."

    And to distinguish between Japan's "Takeshima" (竹島 - 죽도) and Ulleungdo's neighboring island of "Jukdo" (竹島 - Takeshima), they started referring to Ulleungdo's Jukdo as "Jukseo" (竹嶼 - 죽서).

    ReplyDelete
  22. What I do not understand is why they did not incorporate Dok-Do at that time and gave it a japanese name.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Helpfish,

    I am not sure, but they probably did not see any reason to incorporate "rocks." Even the US has territories that are essentially rocks that not incorporated into the United States.

    The US distinguishes between incorporated and unincorporated territories. The following is according to Wikipedia:

    "Incorporated territory in essence is land that has been irrevocabably incorporated within the sovereignty of the United States and to which the full corpus of the U.S. Constitution applies. Unincorporated territory is land held by the United States, and to which U.S. Congress applies selected parts of the constitution.

    I do not how Japan considered Liancourt Rocks in the legal sense, but when the a Japanese fishmen asked the Japanese government to incorporate the rocks to help protect his investment there, they agreed. Of course, it was probably a small headache for Shimane Prefecture to have to administer the rocks, but I guess they thought it was worth it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. After all the confusion and discussion, Japanese Navy and MOFA finally dispatched Warship Amagi and found "Takeshima(竹島)" was actually, Jukdo. And Kitazawa, a MOFA officer who surveyed all the historical documents and the resurlt of the survey, concluded that Matsushima was Ulleungdo and other island was Jukdo. This is the final conclusion of MOFA and Navy. There were still some confusion inside Ministry of Internal Affairs and maps made by Japanese and othre countries, but there is no evidence that Japanese Meiji government recognized Takeshima/Dokdo outside of their territory.

    please read below.

    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) ".
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/05/1881-kitazawa-masanobu-official-of-mofa.html

    ReplyDelete
  25. helpfish,

    This is a Japanese map of Ulleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima in 1712.
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/t-takeshima.gif

    Another map in 1791.
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/t-nagakubo1779l.jpg


    "What I do not understand is why they did not incorporate Dok-Do at that time and gave it a japanese name."

    As Gerry said above, they'd probably seen them simply as "rocks," as they look and were called.
    However, this man Watanabe, the Director of the Bureau of Documents in Japan's MOFA in 1878 states Liancourt Rocks are Japanese even when they were not incorporated officially.

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/1877-watanabe-says-liancourt-rocks-is.html

    ReplyDelete
  26. Gerry, Kaneganese that is rubbish.

    The Japanese referred to Liancourt Rocks as both Matsushima and Liancourt depending on which map or document is cited.

    Gerry's definition is a flimsy excuse to disallow documents and maps that show Dokdo as Korean territory in the 19th Century.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Watanabe Kuoki's opinion was just one of three views held by the Japanese government at the time.

    Others Japanese officials believed this Matsushima was Usando and attached to Chosun's Ulleungdo since ancient times.

    Kuoki was citing incorrect foreign maps showing three islands.

    Literally scores of Japanese maps before 1905 show Japan was aware of the rocks and conistently excluded Liancourt Rocks. Also some Japanese documents list the islands under Korea's Kangwando Province.

    ReplyDelete
  28. dokdo-takeshima.com

    I guess you meant the phrase "exluding Takeshimaa and another island" in Dajoukan Order (1877).
    They said "another island" since they had not known the identity of the island but only seen it on an inaccurate foreign map. They knew about Matsushima(Dokdo/Takeshima) so why didn't they use the name if they wanted to exclude it?

    To clear up the confusion of names, Japan sent a survey ship in 1880 to Ulleungdo and found Jukdo.
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/05/1880-japanese-warship-amagi-surveys.html


    Usando is not present-day Dokdo/Takeshima and it is proven already. And it's also proven Korea's Matsushima/Song-do is present-day Jukdo and Japan's Matsushima is Dokdo/Takeshima. I'm not sure why pro-Koreans keep using this dead theory forever. I guess they're taking advantage of the confusion hoping we get deceived.

    And why do you keep ignoring the Japanese maps which include Dokdo/Takeshima? You're desperate because you already know there is/will be nothing to support your ideas in Korean documents. (I'm not sure if you're even trying to find any, like us)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thank you, Mikan

    I'm really glad you seem to actually read our posts and have grasped the situation around the early years of Meiji Restoration and map confusion. I made Index of our posts, and you can always access it from "日本語インデックス", below the blog title.

    As Watanabe Kouki did clearly stated, Japanese who has historical knowledge recognized ancient Matsushima(Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo) was their territory.

    Therefore, if the “Matsushima” being talked about here is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it belongs to them. If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan.... So what we call "Matsushima” (Liancourt Rocks) is called “Hornet Rocks” by Westerners. Foreign maps show Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory,... by Watanabe Kouki(渡邊洪基), a Director of the Bureau of Documents, MOFA "

    As he suggested, Japanese Navy finally dispatched Warship Amagi and surveyed around Ulleungdo.

    And Kitazawa Masanari(北澤正誠), a official of MOFA, compiled "A Study of Takeshima (Takeshima Kosho 竹島考証) and concluded that confirmed "Matsushima" was Ulleungdo and "Takeshima" was Jukdo(竹嶼)/Bossole Rock.

    In the end, all the confusion of the "Takeshima and another island" recoginition at the start of Meiji Era settled down once. Kitazawa's work is very important, since he studied almost all the important documents from Japan, Korea and China from historical to modern. It is clear that Japanese didn't considered Usando in Korean documents as Japanese Matsushima in Edo era(Takeshima/Dokdo) after all.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Kaneganese,

    Are 竹嶼 and 竹島 pronounced the same way in Japanese?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mikan, et al.

    As I've said there were three opinions about the Matsushima. Watanabe Kuoki's was just one. Other Japanese officials believed the Matushima was Chosun's Usando and another opinion was to survey and leave the islands alone.

    Shimane Prefecture inquired about this "other island" surveyed the reion, detemined no other islands existed and the issue was dropped. From then until 1905 Liancourt Rocks was consistently excluded from Japanese territory.
    ShimanePrefectureMaps

    In other words, after this confusion Japan did not consider Liancourt Rocks as part of Japan. In fact some Japanese maps and documents listed the islets as part of Korea's Gangwando Province, but never under Japan. So the Amagi's survey proved after 1881 the Japanese did not think Liancourt Rocks was Japanese.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mikan,

    Actually, I think there were four opinions or more, but the three that Dokdo-Takeshima (Steve Barber) is referring to were translated in a post HERE. Here is ANOTHER OPINION.

    A Korean fisherman named An Yong-bok traveled to Ulleungdo in the 1690s and made the claim that the Japanese referred to the Korean island of Usando as "Matsushima," which was the Japanese name for Liancourt Rocks (Dodko), but all Korean and Japanese maps show Usando as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not as Liancourt Rocks. That claim by An Yong-bok caused confusion for some Japanese, but not all, as Japanese maps clearly show.

    At the time, Liancourt Rocks was considered Japanese territory as can seen from THIS POST, but they were not incorporated under the administration of any particular prefecture.

    And the final opinion on what island the Matsushima in the petition was referring to can be found HERE.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Gerry,

    We usualluy use "Takeshima" for 竹島, and "Chiku-sho" for 竹嶼. But it has same meaning "bamboo island" basically, and we usually use "竹嶼" instead 竹島 to call Jukdo as you know. "嶼" is rather used for islets, though. I think Navy and MOFA used "竹嶼" to distingish Jukdo from flying 竹島 (Argonaut or Ulleungdo) in concern.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Actually, the japanese didn`t know exactly about Ulleung-Do, Juk-Do and Dok-Do until 1890. Therefore they accepted these islands as NOT japanese.

    Therefore there is no legal claim dated back before 1905 which the japanese also accept.

    I don`t know why some non-japanese in here are trying to prove any claim before 1905.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I have always wondered, since when I got interested in this issue, why I feel so puzzled and uncomfortable with Korean claims.

    And I always come to wonder why Koreans have not shown any single map that was compiled by Korean authority at least before 1900, shows the Liancourt Rocks exactly as they are located in terms of latitude and longitude, and explicitly indicates that the islands were under Korean control.

    I don't want to see Koreans bring Japanese and non-Korean maps to support their argument. Why not use their own maps to prove they are making right claims?

    ReplyDelete
  36. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  38. mikan.


    First of all, Korea never discarded Usando=Dokdo theory. I never said that. I said it was one of the supporting documents they use. In fact, Usando=Dokdo theory is still accepted in Korea due to recent findings. One of them is a traveller's journal written by a Korean scholar Sedang Park(1629~1703), which describes Usando as an island "whose size is too small that it cannot be seen from Ulleung-do unless one stands on the highest place on the sunniest day." Since both Gwaneumdo and Jukdo can be easily seen from the beach, this island cannot be either of them.

    Second, there are much more documents and maps that support Korean claims on Dokdo. Like I have mentioned, Samguksagi is only one of the many. It was Gerry who had mentioned it as the official theory. I was only stating that it is not the only evidence.

    As for your theory of Gwaneumdo=Seokdo=Dokdo, I'll have to look into that more. :)

    However, Japan's historical claim on the island is just as week as Korean's, if not weaker. First of all, the name Takeshima was not placed on the islet until 1905. Like I said, even the Naval Route Map published in 1907 by Japanese navy did not call it Takeshima, and apparently is not aware of the OFFICIAL Japanese claim on the island.

    What is more ironic is that the name Takeshima itself. The name had been used before, in fact, but on the Ulleung-do, not Dokdo. According to the Totori Prefecture Record written in 1695, Ulleung-do was called Takeshima and stated to be not a part of Japan's territory. I am not sure how the name Takeshima, originally meaning Ulleung-do, came to stick with the current islet, which obviously does not have any bamboo growing on it. Liancourt Rocks are so barren and windy that even normal trees have a hard time growing on it. Rigid plants such as bamboos would not be able to grow there.

    You mentioned the Japanese fishermen who were given a Shogunate license to fish there, but Korean scholars actually use that fact to support their claim. Japanese tradition is such that you only need the local lord's permission, not the shogun's, in order to fish in areas belonging to their prefecture. Due to Japan's isolation policy at the time, it was absolutely forbidden to sail to a foreign territory without the shogun's permission. So one cannot really use this fact to support their claim on the islet. Beside, the shogunate license mentioned states a permission to go to Takeshima, which meant Ulleung-do at the time. This really doesn't apply to Liancourt Rocks.

    ReplyDelete
  39. chaspark,

    Fist of all, 朴世堂's 「西溪雑録」 didn't write Usando is seen from Ulleungdo. It says both Usando and Ulleungdo are seen from 寧海, Korean peninsula. Read the sentence below.

    "蓋二島去此不甚遠一颿風可至于山島勢卑不因海氣極淸朗不登最高頂則不可見鬱陵稍峻風浪息則尋常可見"

    Ms. Yu misread or ignored "去此" it when she read the sentence. "此" is 寧海. Choson Ilbo didn't put the image of this page.

    This is from Prof. Shimojo's column, "Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”, which I haven't posted yet. This is the pacifist's translation.

    "The Chosun Ilbo (朝鮮日報) reported “Usando was Dokdo as expected” on December 4th 2007 based on the “Ulleungdo” by 朴世堂. The article was made with a view by Dr. 柳美林 of Korean Ocean Products Development Office (韓国海洋水産開発院) who examined the “Ulleungdo”.

    But the “Ulleungdo” by 朴世堂 was a document which an eyewitness account of a priest who was captured during the Imjin wae-ran (the war of Bunroku in Japanese) was added on the article of "Dongguk Yoji Seungram (東国輿地勝覧)", and it didn’t say that Usando was Dokdo. The priest was sent back home to Chosun by a Japanese ship via Ulleungdo, it reached寧海 of慶尚道 in half a day (from Ulleungdo).
    朴世堂 paid attention to the time required to sail from Ulleungdo to寧海. In those days they believed in Chosun that it would take two days from the peninsula to Ulleungdo. However, the priest told “We started Ulleungdo at dawn and reached寧海 already just before the nightfall”, which meant he sailed for half a day.

    So 朴世堂 added an old story from the priest on the basis of the article from “Dongguk Yoji Seungram (東国輿地勝覧)” and composed the document “Ulleungdo” in about 800 words. The important thing in the “Ulleungdo” is that 朴世堂 corrected the phrase in the “世宗実録地理志”, “two islands (Usando and Ulleungdo) are not so far from each other” and changed it to “the distance of the two islands from here is not so far” which means he meant that Usando and Ulleungdo were not so far from寧海.

    Korea and Japan have disputed over the interpretation of the phrase “two islands are not so far”. Korea interpreted it as one can see Takeshima (Dokdo) from Ulleungdo because there is a sentence after the phrase “one can view it (or one can view them)”. They claimed that the visibility of Takeshima (Dokdo) from Ulleungdo is one of the grounds to say that it is Korean territory.

    However, in the “Ulleungdo” 朴世堂 wrote “two islands are not so far from寧海” and he interpreted the phrase “one can view it (or one can view them)” as visibility of both Usando and Ulleungdo from寧海.

    Nevertheless, Dr. 柳美林 took the phrase “two islands are not far from this place (此)” erroneously as “two islands are not so far from each other”. Dr. 柳美林 ignored the fact that “此(this place)” meant寧海 and repeated the old theory. This was an error due to his/her inability to read Chinese texts rather than intentional one.

    朴世堂 depicted Ulleungdo as “usually visible when winds and waves subside” and wrote in details that “a herd of yellow sparrow fly from Ulleungdo to竹邊串(蔚珍県). Such information in details was gathered while 朴世堂 went to歙谷 when he was 20 years old with his brother 朴世堅 who was dispatched to the place as a chief of the district (歙谷県令). The district (歙谷県) belonged to Gangwondo (江原道) to which蔚珍県 belonged and the latter reigned Ulleungdo. Both of the districts faced sea.

    In the article of Chosun Ilbo, professor Shin Yong-ha(慎鏞廈) of 梨花女子大 commented as “This is a very important document to make it clear that Dokdo is our territory” but in reality the “Ulleungdo” by 朴世堂 was a very important document to prove that Takeshima (Dokdo) was not Korean territory.

    The reason why Takeshima (Dokdo) issue has not been resolved is that Japan kept silent while Korea insisted in various ways. Those who can’t read old documents have claimed laying emphasis on Japan’s invasion. But their actual condition is poor. It is a time for Japan to clarify the facts and insist in her own natural right."


    Second , if "there are much more documents and maps that support Korean claims on Dokdo. ", please show me all of them, Actually, I haven't seen no concrete evidence in Korean documents and maps which show Korean had effective control over Takeshima/Dokdo before Japanese did. In 1907, Takeshima was already officially incorporated into Shimane. The mistake of the one map doesn't mean Japanese didn't recognized Takeshima outside her territory as long as other maps show it is inside their territory.

    Lastly, you wrote,

    "Japanese tradition is such that you only need the local lord's permission, not the shogun's, in order to fish in areas belonging to their prefecture."

    Are you sure? Please show me some evidences to support your claim. Actually, Ohya clan and Murakawa clan were specially permitted by Shogunate to hunt seals and havest abalones on Ulleugndo and Takeshima/Dokdo. Tottori Han only played middle man and supported financially. That's why Tottori Han answered both islands don't belong to Houki nor Inaba country and Ohya clan believed it was bestowed to them by Shogunate.

    In 1635, the Edict of third series of isolationist (Sakoku) policies was issued by Edo Bakufu(Shogunate) and all the contacts, especially trades with foreigners without permission were stricktly prohibited in Japan.

    Foreign trades were conducted only with China through the Ryukyu(琉球), with Korea(朝鮮) via Tsushima-han(対馬藩), and with the Ainu people(アイヌ) through Matsumae Han (松前藩). Takeshima(Ulleugdo) and Matshushima(Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo) were considered within Japanese territory, not Choson(Korea), thus the licence to trade with those islands were not issued to Tshushima, but the civilian merchant clans of Oyas and Murakawas in Yonago.

    The abalones were presented to Shogunate every year, and the audience to Tokugawa Shogun was specially permitted exceptionally as a civilian tradesman. Murakawa clan, especially, was the one who went to today's Takeshima intensively as a sole destination, but later, Ohya clan did joined the plan.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Kaneganese any Japanese claims that the islands were part of Japan before 1905 are nonsense propaganda.

    First Shimane Prefecture clearly declared in 1695 that both Takeshima and Matsushima were NOT part of Japan. Yonago City was were all Japanese (illegal) voyages to Ulleungdo came from. Thus if the Shogunate had bestowed these islands to the Murakawas or the Oyas they would have been part of these prefectures.

    DokdoNotJapanese

    We also know the maps related to Japanese trespassing incident on Ulleungdo also showed Dokdo as part of Korean land.

    DokdoNotJapanese2

    ReplyDelete
  41. Kaneganese,

    Yes, I agree that the 此(차) in the Bak Se-dang (朴世堂) document suggests that the two islands could be viewed from Yeonghae (寧海), which was an area near Uljin on the east coast of Korea, or from some other place on the Korean coast.

    As for the sailing time to Yeonghae being faster than usual, that could be explained by the fact that they were on a Japanese ship, which I think was faster than Korean ships.

    "適有同俘七人夜 與相語 天將曉發船 以來日纔晡已 到寧海地面云 盖二島去不甚遠 一颿風可至 于山島勢卑 不因海氣極淸朗 不登最高頂 則不可見 鬱陵稍峻 風浪息 則尋常可見 麋鹿熊獐 往往越海出來 朝日纔高三丈 則島中黃雀群飛來接竹邊串

    ReplyDelete
  42. Could anyone lead me where I can see such Korean maps as I specified in my previous comment?

    And I always come to wonder why Koreans have not shown any single map that was compiled by Korean authority at least before 1900, shows the Liancourt Rocks exactly as they are located in terms of latitude and longitude, and explicitly indicates that the islands were under Korean control.

    I don't want to see Koreans bring Japanese and non-Korean maps to support their argument. Why not use their own maps to prove they are making right claims?

    ReplyDelete
  43. cloud,

    If you don't want to see what the Koreans are doing, you better find such a map by yourself and give it to them.

    You will be the next darling of the whole Korean nation as Guus Hiddink once was.

    ___________________________________

    I don't want to see Koreans bring Japanese and non-Korean maps to support their argument. Why not use their own maps to prove they are making right claims?

    I always come to wonder why Koreans have not shown any single map that was compiled by Korean authority at least before 1900, shows the Liancourt Rocks exactly as they are located in terms of latitude and longitude, and explicitly indicates that the islands were under Korean control.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Gerry,

    "As for the sailing time to Yeonghae being faster than usual, that could be explained by the fact that they were on a Japanese ship, which I think was faster than Korean ships."

    Yes, it is possible. Thanks for the suggestion.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Kaneganese,

    Have you seen the video I linked to in my post of Jukdo? If you have not, "Video 2" in that link shows Jukdo very various angles. It is good.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Gerry,

    I just saw the video, but 1&2 looks exactly the same. But the scene from Ulleungdo to Jukdo looks very good.

    ReplyDelete
  47. kaneganese,

    As interesting as your argument is, it still leaves some questions. Below is from Wayurok, written by Hoo-jin Kang, and it has an exert from Se-dang Park's "Ulleung-do."

    盖二島去此. 不甚遠. 一颿風可至 于山島. 勢卑 不因海氣極淸朗. 不登最高頂 則不可見 鬱陵稍峻.

    "The two islands are not far from here. With a right wind, Usan-do can be reached. Its land is low so it cannot be seen if the sea is not extremely calm and ???(not sure what it means), and if not from the highest place. Ulleung is a little higher."

    The problem is, both Gwaneum-do and Juk-do is on the other side of Ulleung-do from the Korean peninsula. Neither of them can be seen from Korea because their view is completely blocked by Ulleung-do itself. Then what is this "Usan-do?"

    Also, as you can read from the above, it doesn't specify "where" the "Usan-do" can be seen. The part that you pointed out, "去此", is a couple of sentences before. So even if "去此" means Korean peninsula, it doesn't really mean the viewpoint has stayed that way.

    As for the case of Oyas and Murakawas, they received the permssion to sail to Takeshima(Ulleung-do at the time) and Matsushima(Liancourt rocks at the time) in 1618, but after Chosun government's protest, Edo had determined in 1697 that neither islands was a Japanese territory(Totori Prefecture Record, 1695), and prohibited any fishing there. So it really can't support Japan's position much.

    There are other documents that support Korean claim on the rocks, except that they usually refers it to "Usan-do". So if you don't accept Usan-do=Dok-do idea, I doubt it would do much to convince you.

    But mind you, Japan also hadn't called the islet "Takeshima" until 1905. In other words, Japanese claim on the islet is just as vague as Korean claim. No one, neither Korean and Japanese has been able to explain how such an unlikely name as Takeshima came to stick on the rocks.

    One other note, Chosun government did protest the 1905 Japanese Cabinet Decision to incorporate Liancourt Rocks into Shimane prefecture. It just wasn't informed on the fact until 1906. The Cabinet Decision had not been announced officially, or at least not so publicly. There is no record of any other foreign government receiving such a notice. Only official record on the subject is a circulation letter sent to Shimane Prefecture Office. Chosun government only found out because the Ulleung County Governor learned of the fact and reported it in 1906. Korean Emperor sent a minister to protest the decision, but this was after 1905 Eulsa Treaty, in which Japan stripped Chosun government's diplomatic power, so it was of a little use(ironically, Shimane Prefecture Office didn't include Takeshima on the official prefecture map until decades later).

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hi, chaspark,

    You can see the original of 臥遊錄, here. When you comment on some documents and maps, could you please put Chinese caracter with them? , or I can't understand what you are talking about, thanks.

    "Wayurok" (臥遊錄) - Ulleungdo (鬱陵島 - 울릉도)

    ”The problem is, both Gwaneum-do and Juk-do is on the other side of Ulleung-do from the Korean peninsula. Neither of them can be seen from Korea because their view is completely blocked by Ulleung-do itself. Then what is this "Usan-do?"

    The reason is , 1. Usando and Ulleungdo had been recognized as one island until around 1700. 2.They are so close each other, so they are recognized as a group.

    This is no surprise since there are so many documents which described Usando and Ulleungdo were seen from Choson peninsula. In other words, Usando in those documents are not Takeshima/Dokdo since it is impossible to see from Koran peninsula.

    1452年 - 「高麗史」巻五十八 地理三
    "在縣正東海中 新羅時 称于山国 一伝武陵、一伝于陵 一云 于山 武陵 本二島、相距不遠 風日清明 則可望見"

    1454年 - 「世宗実録」 地理志 江原道襄陽縣
    "于山 武陵 二島 在縣正東海中 二島相去不遠 風日清明 則可望見 新羅時 称于山国 一云鬱陵島 地方百里 恃険不服"

    1481年 - 「東国輿地勝覧」巻四五
    "蔚珍縣 于山島 鬱陵島 一云武陵 一云羽陵 二島在県正東海中 三峯及業掌空 南峯梢卑 風日清明則峯頭樹木 及山根沙渚 歴々可見 風便則二日可到 一説干山 鬱陵 本一島 地方百里"

    1530年 - 「新増東国輿地勝覧」
    "蔚珍縣 于山島 鬱陵島 一云武陵 一云羽陵 二島在県正東海中 三峯及業掌空 南峯梢卑 風日清明則峯頭樹木 及山根沙渚 歴々可見 風便則二日可到 一説干山 欝陵 本一島 地方百里"

    1656年 - 「東国輿地志」巻之七 江原道 蔚珍
    "于山島 欝陵島 一云武陵 一云羽陵 二島在県正東海中 三峯及業掌空 南峯梢卑 風日清明則峯頭樹木 及山根沙渚 歴々可見 風便則二日可到 一説干山 欝陵 本一島 地方百里"

    1694年 - 粛宗實録 20年8月13日
    朝鮮国礼曹参判李番、奉復日本国対馬大守平公閣下、槎使鼎来、恵□随至、良用慰荷弊邦江原道蔚珍県有属島、名曰蔚陵(=鬱陵島)、在本県東海中、而風濤危険、船路無便、故中年移其民空其地、而時遣公差往来捜検矣、本当峰巒樹木、自陸地歴々望見、而凡其山川紆曲、地形濶狭、民居遺址、土物所産、倶戴於我国輿地勝覧書、歴代相伝、事跡昭然、今者我国辺海漁氓往其島、而不意貴国之人自為犯越、与之相値、反拘執二氓、転到江戸、幸蒙貴国大名明察事情、優加資此、可見交隣之情於尋常、欽□高義、感激何事、然雖我氓漁採之地、本是蔚陵島(=鬱陵島)、而以其産竹、或称竹嶼(=鬱陵島)、此之一島而二名也、一島二名之状、非徒我国書籍之所記、貴州人亦皆知之、而今此来書中、乃以竹島為貴国地方欲令我国禁止漁船更往、而不論貴国人侵渉我境、拘執我氓之夫、豈不有欠於誠信之道乎、深望将此辞意転報東武、申飭貴国辺海之人、無令往来蔚陵島、更致事端惹起、其於相好之誼不勝幸甚、佳領謝、薄物侑緘、統惟照亮、不宣

    There's plenty more.

    It was common recognition that those two islands (Usando/Ulleungdo) can be seen from high place of Korean peninsula on a fine day. In fact, Choson government used this sentence when they claimed the sovereignty over Ulleungodo (1694年 - 粛宗實録 20年8月13日). It is not acceptable to use same sentence to claim other island. It is called distortion.

    "Also, as you can read from the above, it doesn't specify "where" the "Usan-do" can be seen. The part that you pointed out, "去此", is a couple of sentences before. So even if "去此" means Korean peninsula, it doesn't really mean the viewpoint has stayed that way."

    Pleas consult it with 漢文 expert. You will see what I mean. It is common for 漢文 omit Subject.

    "As for the case of Oyas and Murakawas, they received the permssion to sail to Takeshima(Ulleung-do at the time) and Matsushima(Liancourt rocks at the time) in 1618, but after Chosun government's protest, Edo had determined in 1697 that neither islands was a Japanese territory(Totori Prefecture Record, 1695), and prohibited any fishing there. So it really can't support Japan's position much."

    There are absolutely no record Edo Bakufu prohibited to go to Matsushima(today's Takeshima) whatsoever. If you insist, please show me the evidence.

    "There are other documents that support Korean claim on the rocks, except that they usually refers it to "Usan-do". So if you don't accept Usan-do=Dok-do idea, I doubt it would do much to convince you."

    If you really found "other documents that support Korean claim on the rocks,", you'll be a national hero in Korea. Please show me those "other documents that support Korean claim on the rocks,"

    "But mind you, Japan also hadn't called the islet "Takeshima" until 1905. In other words, Japanese claim on the islet is just as vague as Korean claim."

    ??? Japanese government officiall incorporated the island into Shimane prefecture in 1905 and re-named it as Takeshima. They are documented with accurate latitude and longitude in official documents. There is no problem for re-naming under the international law.

    "Chosun government did protest the 1905 Japanese Cabinet Decision to incorporate Liancourt Rocks into Shimane prefecture."

    "Korean Emperor sent a minister to protest the decision, "

    This is a news to me. If you have any documents to support your claim, please show me. This is really interesting unless you are not coufused or lying. Are you perfectly sure about this? If you still insist it is true, I strongly demand you to show the proof. If you can't, I consider you lied.

    As for the notice, there is no requirement to notify any country in advance as long as they were not claimed by other countries.

    Please read opp's posts below. You can read them in Korean, too.

    Singapore says that the installation was carried out openly, involving the transportation of equipment by military helicopters which have also been involved in the maintenance of the station.

    竹島の先占には、通知が必要とか、官報公告が必要とか、嘘をつくなよ。

    Anyway, I hope you would present more evidences when you make comments from next time, or I'm not going take you seriously anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Chaspark, the truth is Dokdo was Usando or what "Japanese call Matsushima" This depends on which historical document you cite.

    The Japanese lobbyists all but ignore the fact Anyongobok declared Usando was Japan's Matsushima (Dokdo) and that this island was 50 ri from Ulleungdo. Of course this distance much like Japanese maps was wrong. However, we know by the Japanese records Anyongbok voyaged to Japan and protested Japan's activities on Ulleungdo. He also stated Usando was Matsushima and it was part of Gangwando Province. To Anyongbok's claims the Japanese raised no objection.

    Dokdo=Matsushima


    And yes there is proof the Shogunate prohibited passage to Matsushima Dokdo. This comes from the trial of Hacheimon who was caught trespassing on Ulleungdo. Maps related to this incident show both islands as Chosun land.

    DokdoKorean


    Kaneganese, the issue of notification is disputable. But what Korea says is Japan's incoporation wasn't done publicly. First a prefectural government is not the legal venue to give public notice and second, a small newspaper ad in a local rag does not amount to open and public. Japan knew full well such methods would not attract the attention of other sovereigns. This is shown by the identical method in which Japan annexed Marcus Island in 1898. This clandestine annexation caused a misunderstanding almost led to a U.S. Japan military confrontation over Marcus Island.

    MarcusIsland

    Don't forget territorial acquisitions must be part of a natural peaceful process. Japan annexed Dokdo during the Russ~Japanese War as Japan fought for the exclusive rights to colonize Korea. In other words don't compare apples to oranges. This Opp takes unrelated cases, cuts and pastes one sentence and tries to say this means Japan has title to Dokdo. He's a hack.

    Kaneganese, don't make a fool out of yourself by quoting Opp. He is not a lawyer, he is a radical lobbyist who was responsible for wikipedia having to scrap their whole page on Dokdo Takeshima.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Dokdo-Takeshima (Steve Barber) wrote:

    Chaspark, the truth is Dokdo was Usando or what "Japanese call Matsushima" This depends on which historical document you cite.

    Gerry Writes: Can you show us even one Korean or Japanese map that showed "Usando" (于山島 - 우산도) as Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks)?

    I do not think you can because all of the Korean and Japanese maps I've seen showed "Usando" as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not as Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks). Even Western maps showed Usando as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo.

    You write so arrogantly, yet when it comes to answering a simple question, you cannot do it or avoid doing it. You just link to your silly propaganda of half-truths.

    Steve, show us one Korean or Japanese map that showed Usando as Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks).

    ReplyDelete
  51. ChasPark,

    We do not know when the "Wayurok" (臥遊錄 - 와유록) was written, but if it was written before the An Yong-bok incident in the 1690s, then you should consider the fact that Korean maps showed that Koreans generally believed Usando (于山島 - 우산도) to be to the west of Ulleungdo, which would make it closer to the Korean mainland than Ulleungdo.

    I admit the sentence in the "Wayurok" is confusing, but it does say that the "two islands" were not that far from someplace that was not made clear, and that they could be reached with "one" good wind. The fact that it said "one good wind" suggests that the islands were next to each other. If you were going to go on to Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) from Ulleungdo, then you would have needed, at least, "two" good winds.

    If you look at some of the pre-An Yong-bok maps of Korea, you will notice how some mapmakers tried to show how Usando and Ulleungdo could both be seen from the Korean mainland at the same time. They still believed that Usando (于山島 - 우산도) was to the west of Ulleungdo (鬱陵島 - 울릉도), and they seem to have read that Usando was smaller than Ulleungdo, so some mapmakers tried to explain how both Usando and Ulleungdo could be seen from Korea by drawing a smaller Usando to the west of Ulleungdo. That would have allowed people to see beyond Usando to Ulleungdo. See THIS MAP.

    However, what was really happening was that the two islands were thought of as an island group, so the documents were essentially saying that "the 2-island group" could be seen from the Korean mainland.

    In 1697, only "Takeshima" (Ulleungdo) was mentioned.

    I do not understand what you are trying to imply when you talk about the Japanese naming Liancourt Rocks "Takeshima" in 1905, but it does not mean that the Japanese did not know about the rocks when they named them "Takeshima."

    Ulleungdo County Magistrate Sim Heung-taek was told about Japan's incorporation of Liancourt Rocks at the end of March 1906, and he reported that fact to his superiors and that Dokdo was part of his county, but he did not seem to know where Dokdo was since he said it was only 40 kilometers away from Ulleungdo, when it is, in fact, 92 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo.

    I think the Japanese told Sim that Dokdo was about 100 ri away, and Sim just assumed that the Japanese ri was the same as the Korean ri, not realizing that the Japanese were using ri to represent kilometers at the time. He probably just assumed "Dokdo" was part of his county because the Japanese were fishing Dokdo from Ulleungdo. Sim was probably ignorant about things related to fishing because I think many Koreans still considered fishing to be a lowly profession at the time.

    Anyway, seeming to doubt that the Japanese would incorporate Korean territory, Sim's superiors ordered Sim to investigate the situation further. We do not know what Sim reported about his investigation, but in July 1906, the Japapese Residents-General asked Korea's Interior Ministry to clarify which islands were neighboring islands of Ulleungdo. Korea's Interior Ministry replied only that Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島) were neighboring islands of Ulleungdo. Dokdo was not mentioned, even though it had been the subject of controversy just a few months earlier. Why not?

    Also, the boundaries the Interior Ministry gave for Uldo (Ulleungdo) County in July 1906 would have excluded Dokdo.

    So, this July 13, 1906 "Hwangseong Sinmun" article is evidence that Korea did have the opportunity to protest Japan's incorporation of Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), but she did not.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Gerry Bevers. Maps are not at all necessary to prove Korean cognizance of Liancourt Rocks. We know through historical records Koreans were well aware of the islets centuries before the Japanese annexed the islets during the Russo~Japanese War. Unfortunately for you Gerry you don't set the standard for what amounts to historical title to the islands.

    Japanese or Korean records or maps are not important Gerry. A Japanese map or document that shows Korean title to Liancourt Rock carries just as much weight as a Korean one. It's all a means to an end, that being proof of hitorical title. I've already shown you historical records that show Korean ownership of Dokdo long before 1905

    Anyongbok said Usando was 50 ri from Ulleungdo Gerry. It was the territorial perceptions of Anyongbok that influenced these historical records that state "Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima..." 50 ri is much too far to be Jukdo Islet as you know.

    On top of that as I've said Ayongbok clearly stated Matsushsima (Dokdo) was Korean land. Japan raised no objection at all to his claims. Here is the document Gerry. In this document Anyongbok claimed 竹島 (Ulleungdo) and 松島 (Matsushima) were part of 江原道 Korea's Gangwando Province

    DokdoIsKorean

    Gerry why don't you tell us all why Japan should have title to Liancourt Rocks in 2008?

    Because their Navy annexed it in during the largest war of the day 1905 to colonize the Korean peninsula?

    JapaneseAggression

    How does the letter show Koreans had the right to protest? All you've posted is a correspondence between Japan's Resident General and the Interior Ministry? Korea did protest through media, and 2 different governmental organs. What effect did it have? And how do we know any of these objections ever went to the Japanese? Korea had lost the ability to lodge state-to-state objections since August 1904.

    The current boundary between Korea and Japan is quite fair. The Japanese currently have the 5th largest EEZ on earth at 4,500,000 sq kms. That is over 15 times the size of Korea's EEZ at a mere 300,000 sq kms. Even Japan's tiny Marcus Island generates more area of EEZ than all of Korea.

    How can you lobby for the greed of Japan's MOFA and Shimane Prefecture Gerry Bevers. Shame on you...

    ReplyDelete
  53. Dokdo-Takeshima (Steve Barber) wrote:

    "Gerry Bevers. Maps are not at all necessary to prove Korean cognizance of Liancourt Rocks."

    Gerry Writes: See, Steve, I know you better than you know yourself. You come on this blog and brag about having 70 Japanese maps that prove this and that, but when I ask you to show me just one Japanese or Korean map that shows Usando as Dokdo, you say, "Maps are not at all necessary to prove Korean cognizance of Liancourt Rocks." Notice your double talk?

    We were not talking about "cognizance." You said that Usando was "Dokdo," and I asked you to you show me just one Korean or Japanese map to prove that, but you couldn't do it. Why can't you just say there aren't any?

    Instead, you try to change the subject by asking stupid questions like, "Gerry why don't you tell us all why Japan should have title to Liancourt Rocks in 2008?"?

    We are talking about historical truth here, and all your BS just shows that truth is not important to you.

    We do not know where An Yong-bok's Usando was since he said it was 200 kilometers away from Ulleungdo while also saying Ulleungdo was about 120 kilometers from the Korean mainland. His distance from the Korean mainland was pretty close, so why was his distance to Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) more than twice the actual distance? Maybe because he didn't go there? Or maybe because his Usando was actually Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo? His claim has to be corroborated, and you cannot do it.

    Not even the Koreans believed An Yong-bok, and Korean and Japanese maps after the An Yong-bok incident showed Usando to be a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not Dokdo.

    Save your silly questions and remarks for someone else. I'm not interested in playing your silly games.

    ReplyDelete
  54. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    I really don't understand the logic in your arguement.

    In my understanding, if the Koreans had recognized the Liancourt Rocks for centuries, there must have been maps to show exactly where those islands were located. But why do we not have a single chance to see such maps?

    And, I should say this too: maps are also historical records.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I forgot to mention one thing...

    dokdo-takeshima.com,
    If you are of the opinion that "maps are not at all necessary to prove Korean cognizance of Liancourt Rocks," why don't you remove all the maps from your website?

    ReplyDelete
  56. I was astonished to see these arguments went so far while I was enjoying a short holiday.
    But I'm glad that there seem to be plenty of people who are arguing on this issue on the basis of scientific eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Gerry, maps are but one piece of the puzzle regarding the historical territorial perceptions of Japanese and Koreans. I say consider all the evidence at hand. The Chosun documents prove historically we just can't say Usando was "..." Anyongbok's assertions lead us in a totally different direction than the maps you've posted.

    Gerry Bevers I've studied the Korean maps you've presented along with the Chosun documents. From the 1711 map made by Pak Chang Seok and onward. You rushed to judgement on these maps and you didn't study them objectively at all. I would say about 95% of all Ulleungdo maps were based in part on the 1711 map drawn by inspector Pak. His map was drawn with errors that strongly suggest this "So-called Usando" was not drawn based on his survey but rather in part on the Ulleungdo Shillok written over a decade earlier.

    Pak's perception that this island with HaeJangBamboo carries no more weight than Anyongbok's belief the distant island to the East (Dokdo) was Usando. You have simplisticly eyeballed Chosun maps and filled in your own interpretations without looking carefully. What's worse (or better for you I suppose) is that the suckers in Shimane Prefecture were more than happy to take the bait and run with it. You can see these "Japanese Historians" labelled Ulleugdo wrong. Like you and Kaneganese they started with the premise this "So-Called-Usando" was Jukdo Islet and then mapped Ulleungdo Island (Dodong) from there. Pretty shameful.

    Shimane-Propaganda

    We know how Inspector Pak drew this "Jukdo" in front of Dodong Harbor where he placed his stone marker. This is about 4kms off drawn in front of an area from which Jukdo isn't even visible. He also drew the same Haejang Bamboo phrase on the islet.

    Look at the other positions of prominent features on your maps that show "Jukdo" Gerry. Why is Hole Rock drawn as part of Ulleungdo's mainland, Why is 저전동 drawn on the North side of Ulleungdo? Why is Pak stone marker drawn on the Northeast side? Why is Waiting Winds Place drawn on the Southwest Why do these maps all show five non existent islands. These maps are all copies based on one man's perceptions and those that weren't copied, still carry Pak's legacy.

    Pak's territorial perceptions were that of a weekend inspector. While Anyongbok was familiar with Ulleungdo, had fished there for years and had voyaged to Japan twice.

    Gerry, the question I asked you was legitimate. Why should Japan have Dokdo in the year 2008? Seriously if Japan wishes to muster support from the international community Japan has to do better than "We annexed it during the Russo-Japanese War and we want it back.." or "Korea has to prove Dokdo is hers"

    I'm currently working on this page to demonstrate how greedy Japan's MOFA really is. When people see what a land-grabbing country Japan is they will be truly shocked.

    Japan's-Insatiable-Appetite-For-Territory

    ReplyDelete
  58. dogdo-takeshima,

    So, can you provide those "historical records" you mentioned so that we will be able to examine them one by one in order for us to understand how poorly Koreans were actually aware of the Liancourt Rocks?

    We all know that you are a Korea-centric propagandist who is not at all interested in knowing the truth, but I think, if you wish to get paid for your propaganding activities, you should come up with better and more creative propagandas of lies such as a more convincing version of historical distortion linking the 'Usan-guk' in the "Silla Bongi" to the 'Usando' in the An Yong-bok's out-of-mouth misconception of "Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima".

    ___________________________________

    We know through historical records Koreans were well aware of the islets centuries before the Japanese annexed the
    islets during the Russo~Japanese War.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Raquel, poor child. Please read again what I've posted before you beat your gums.

    Anyongbok quoted Japan's Matsushima was Usando. Now where do you suppose he came up with the name Matsushima? Do you think he just pulled it out of his arse? And as I've said, when Ulleungdo was surveyed in 1694 they also recorded seeing Liancourt Rocks.
    1694-document

    The fishermen of Korea's coastal areas were aware of the islands East of Ulleungdo. They also considered the islet outside of Japan's territory Racquel.
    1714-document

    This was at the same time Japan declared both Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) not part of Japan.

    Dottori-document

    Korea-centric, that's funny.

    Raquel, Japan's case for Dokdo is sinking like a stone by the day. First, not only is the information on my website killing their false historical claims. Secondly I showing why Japan's 1905 annexation was wrong and illegal. Lastly I'm proving why their demands are greedy and unreasonable in a modern context. Because Japan cannot give any justification for her claim in today's modern world, public support for her bogus case will continue to erode.

    ReplyDelete
  60. dogdo-takeshima,

    What was the size of "Matsushima" according to An Yong-buk?

    ___________________________________

    Anyongbok quoted Japan's Matsushima was Usando. Now where do you suppose he came up with the name Matsushima?
    Do you think he just pulled it out of his arse?

    ReplyDelete
  61. What does the size of Usando have to do with anything Raquel?

    Are you still looking for limpdick excuses to disregard historical data?

    Anyongbok protested to Japan and clearly stated Matsushima was Chosun land.

    Now you answer my question. If Matsushima was really part of Japan why didn't the Japanese dispute Anyongbok's assertions in their correspondence afterward?

    ReplyDelete
  62. dogdo,

    I give you one more chance to answer my question.

    What was the size of "Matsushima" according to An Yong-bok?

    ReplyDelete
  63. You are hilarious Raquel. Must I bow before you when I answer your questions meine Oberfuher?

    I showed you proof of Korean cognizance as you requested and you still think I owe you answers ?

    Whatever size or distance Anyongbok said Matsushima was Raquel we know he protested to Japan and they didn't nothing to contest his assertions.

    In fact, when the Japanese caught a man trespassing on Ulleungdo he was executed. The trial that followed revealed that not only Ulleungdo (竹島) but also Dokdo (松島) were Korean territory. So we know that Anyongbok's voyage to Japan had a great effect on the terrtiorial perceptions of Japanese until the Meiji era's expansionist leaders began seizing lands adjacent to Japan.

    JapaneseSayDokdoIsKorean

    Why don't you study some Japanese history Raquel? When did Japan take over Hokkaido? When did Japan take over the Ryukyus? When did the Japanese take the Ogasawaras? When did the Japanese take the Marcus Island? When did they take Taiwan? It's no coincidence all of these territorial land grabs took place immediately after the Meiji Era started

    ReplyDelete
  64. Dokdo-Takeshima (Steve Barber),

    The Korean inspector probably saw Liancourt Rocks in 1694, but he did not go there and did not have a name for it. In fact, he guess that it was about one third the size of Ulleungdo, which was way, way off since it is actually about 1/390th the size.

    In 1714, the Japanese fisherman said an island was on the Japanese border, which means he believed the island to be Japanese.

    An Yong-bok apparently claimed Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo because that is what the Korean and Japanese governments recognized Usando as.

    Japan did not gave Lianourt Rocks to Korea in the 1690s as the 1836 Hachiemon incident proved. You have your facts wrong about that one, so I suggest you study a little more Japanese history.

    ReplyDelete
  65. dogdo-takeshima,

    An Yong-bok testified that "Matsushima" he mistook for Usando was larger than Ulleungdo, which means that "Matsushima" he saw is not the Liancourt Rocks.

    Ironically, this explains why the Ulleungdo inspector, Jang Han-sang(張漢相) did not pay further attention to the small island he saw from Ulleungdo in 1694. Jang Han-sang was clearly under a wrong impression influenced by the An Yong-bok's false testimony that Usando was larger than Ulleungdo, and Jang had put the small island aside as not Usando he was searching for.

    So, we can understand now that An Yong-bok was primarily responsible for the then Joseon Dynasty's leaving the small island which is the Liancourt Rocks unclaimed in 1694.

    - Japan did nothing to contest his assertions.

    Can you elaborate this bearing in mind what I said above?

    ___________________________________

    Whatever size or distance Anyongbok said Matsushima was, we know he protested to Japan and they didn't nothing to contest his assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Gerry, we've discussed the 1714 document on another forum and your interpretation was found to be wrong. So give it a rest, before you give yourself an ulcer.

    And yes the inspector probably didn't go there.....so? It doesn't mean they didn't consider the island as part of Usanguk.

    Raquel Jang Han San gave no names to either the island to the East with bamboo on (Jukdo) it or the island 300 ri to the East he thought was a third the size of Ulleungdo (Dokdo) In other words the Koreans were refamiliarizing themselves with Ulleungdo after over a century of neglect due to war and famine.

    Gerry, Anyonbok did not claim Jukdo Islet. Anyongbok's Usando (Matsushima) was 50 ri away from Ulleungdo. Of course the distance is off, but Japanese maps cite the distance as 40 ri, also way off.

    Raquel, Anyongbok stated Matsushima (Dokdo) was part of Chosun in his dispute. This was recorded on his "map" found in 2005. You can see it here.

    AnyongbokDoc

    He also stated:
    "Takeshima (Ulleungdo) is this Bamboo Island. He says that there is an island named Ulleungdo in Dongnae-bu, Gangwando, Korea and this is also called Bamboo Island. He had a map of eight provinces of Korea that says so. Matsushima (Dokdo) is the island called Jasan (Usan) in the same province of Gangwando. It is the same name for Matsushima (Dokdo) and this is also recorded on the eight provinces of Korea map...."

    Whatever games Japanese Takeshima lobbyists want to play. To the Japanese Takeshima and the island next called Matsushima were no doubt Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Surely if the Japanese thought that Matsushima (Dokdo) was theirs they would have contested Anyongbok's claims. But they raised no objection at all.

    My two cents: I think Anyogbok fabricated part of his story. He may have made up the portion where he says he reached Matsushima and confronted the Japanese. Anyongbok may have sailed past Matsushima (Dokdo) while en route to Oki Islands to protest. Because he didn't land on the island and saw it in the distance he would have had no concept of the exact size of distance of Matsushima.

    Matsushima was on a direct route from Ulleungdo to Oki's Mishima. It was recorded as windy weather which eliminates the possibility of fog. Also prevailing winds would have pushed Anyongbok and his crew even closer to Matsushima (Dokdo) he must have passed just a few clicks from the island. Thus, it seems impossible Anyongbok didn't see Dokdo when we view a map of his voyage knowing the island is visible from about 30 kms on an average day.
    AnyongbokMap

    The Japanese Takeshima lobbyists are not very acedemic. They want to discard all of these records because some details don't match. In fact before 2005 many Japanese "historians" denied the whole event even took place.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Steve,

    Stop the propaganda, to see an island and to own it is another thing.

    If only viewing means owing, a part of south Korea may be Japanese territory because it can be viewed from Tsushima.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Raquel, Anyongbok saw the Matsushima Island and then claimed he owned it. From this Japan issued no objections.

    Why?

    Because only months earlier Japan already concluded both Takeshima and Matsushima were not part of Japan. Anyongbok's claims are bolstered by Japan's own documents that excluded Takeshima and Matsushima from their own territory.

    DottoriRecords

    Again my two cents. I think Japan's shogunate concluded both Ulleungdo and Dokdo were Korean land. This policy continued until the Meiji Era of the late 1860s. From that point on the Japanese followed the colonial and expansionist policies the western nations had used against Japan during the opening of ports era.

    Japan's Meiji Era leaders were brilliant men. But they were greedy like my ancestors and they violated the sovereignty of their border nations and the indigenous people's they displaced.

    Raquel I know you hate Korea. You've stated some pretty ugly posts on this forum including probably the most offensive terms against another poster. You are an ugly hate-filled person whose historical opinions aren't worth the salt in your tears.

    After reading some of the nauseous bile you've posted, I find it disgusting Gerry Bevers didn't have the integrity to ban you from this forum. Shame on both of you.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Steve,

    "only months earlier Japan already concluded both Takeshima and Matsushima were not part of Japan".

    This is a lie. Tottori clan just said they didn't have the islands, which doesn't always mean "Japan admitted both of the islands were not part of Japan".

    As Kaneganese told you at somewhere else, both of the islands were directly controlled by the shogunate, not by Tottori clan, so it seems natural for Tottori clan to answer that they were not theirs.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Pacifist, the Shogunate knew little if anything about Takeshima and Matsushima, that's why he inquired to Tottori. He even didn't know the size or about activities on Takeshima.

    The only legitimate voyages to Ulleungdo and Dokdo were from Yonago, they were the only Japanese issued voyage passes to (illegally) sail to Chosun's Ulleungdo and Dokdo.

    Thus, if those prefectures from which the only voyages originated from didn't consider the islands as Japanese nobody did Pacisit. What you say is just unsubstatiated propaganda.

    Tottori's response was what directly influenced the Shogunate ceding Takeshima. However, we now know that this travel ban also included Matsushima as verified by the maps related to the Hachiemon trial.

    ReplyDelete
  71. dogdo-takeshima,

    So, according to your seeming logic, it is as if Columbus found what he thought was 'India' in North America and Spain later laid claim to India in Asia on the basis of his mistaken belief.

    In the Korean story, on the other hand, it goes like An Yong-bok found what he thought was 'Usando' (non-Liancourt Rocks) and Korea later laid claim to 'Usando' (Liancourt Rocks).

    The problem with the Korean story, however, is that neither of 'Usando' is Usando.

    ___________________________________

    Anyongbok stated Matsushima (Dokdo) was part of Chosun in his dispute. This was recorded on his "map" found in 2005.

    Anyongbok saw the Matsushima Island and then claimed he owned it. From this Japan issued no objections.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Steve,

    You must read this;
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/1696.html

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/ordinance-to-prohibit-voyages-in-1696.html

    The Shogunate only prohibited to go to Ulleungdo (Takeshima at that time), not Liancourt Rocks (Matsushima at that time).

    And as Kaneganese already told you, taking voyages to foreign countries in the Edo period was banned.

    If they go to foreign countries, they should have issued a special passes but the permission given to Murakawas and Oyas were different from these passes.

    And if the Shogunate thought the islands were Korean territory, they should go to the place by route of Tsushima, not directly to the place. So the permission given to Murakawas and Oyas itself is a proof that the Shogunate didn't think they were Korean land.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I repeat again because this is a very important point to remember:

    An Yong-bok in fact was primarily responsible for the then Joseon Dynasty's leaving the small island which is the Liancourt Rocks unclaimed in 1694.

    ReplyDelete
  74. There are millions of maps showing that there is an island EAST of Ulleung-Do.

    It is true that the mapping skills of Koreans weren`t great but is there any reliable PROOF that Usando is referring to Ulleungdo and not to Dokdo?

    ReplyDelete
  75. rachel,

    HERE
    you can find a korean map clearly depicting Dokdo/Usando as South East of Ulleungdo, at least 90km away and clearly not belonging to Ulleungdo.

    Satisfied?

    ReplyDelete
  76. helpfish,

    It is due to the after-effects of the An Yong-bok's mistaken and misleading testimony in which he claimed 'Usando' was larger than Ulleungdo that the 'Usando' in the map was drawn much larger than Ulleungdo.

    It is obvious that An Yong-bok mistook one of the Oki Islands in Japan for 'Usando'.

    ___________________________________

    you can find a korean map clearly depicting Dokdo/Usando as South East of Ulleungdo, at least 90km away and clearly not belonging to Ulleungdo.

    http://auction.rarebook.co.kr/cgi-bin/view?type=1098&no=7536&seq=1&imgtype=2

    ReplyDelete
  77. Pacifist, voyaging to foreign land was not banned. Don't you know the history of your own country. Some exceptions were made. Japanese voyaged as far as China and Vietnam during this era. However, they needed special permission and they didn't have to voyage through Tsushima as you insist, that's nonsense.

    Raquel, Anyongbok claimedUlleungdo (Takeshima 竹島) and (Dokdo (Matsushima 松島) as part of Korea's Gangwando Province ) 江原道) when he objected to Japanese trespassing on Ulleungdo. Can't you read Hanja?

    Read this.
    DokdoIsKorean

    Raquel, where do you get the insane idea that Anyongbok thought Oki Islands were Usando? He landed on Oki to protest about Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Are you telling us Anyongbok was claiming Oki Islands?? When he protested to Japan in 1696 he had already been to Japan once.

    I've heard some wacky stuff on this forum but that one really takes the cake!!

    ReplyDelete
  78. dogdo-takeshima,

    The perpetual liar An Yong-bok wishingly mistook one of the Oki Islands in Japan for 'Usando' believed to be belonging to Gangwondo.

    And, I don't see any unusualness in the perpetual liar claiming that one of the Oki Islands in Japan belongs to Gangwondo in Korea.

    ___________________________________

    Anyongbok claimed Ulleungdo (Takeshima 竹島) and Dokdo (Matsushima 松島) as part of Korea's Gangwando Province (江原道) when he objected to Japanese trespassing on Ulleungdo.

    ReplyDelete
  79. dogdo-takeshima,

    Just think using your sick imagination whether An Yong-bok would have returned to Japan if he had actually seen the Liancourt Rocks on his way to Japan on a Japanese ship or not.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Steve,

    I will let you know the rule in Japan in the Edo period.

    The merchants who are going abroad must have passes called 御朱印 (scarlet stamp) and the ships of these merchants were called 御朱印船 (scarlet stamp ships). These ships usually went from Nagasaki. The era of these 御朱印船 began in 1592 and continued until 1653 when the Shogunate announced the 海外渡航禁止令 (the order to prohibit going abroad). Until then, they went to Vietnam, Cambodia, Philippines and Taiwan.

    But as to trades with Joseon, it was controlled by Tsushima clan. They must go to Korea by way of Tsushima. So if the shogunate recognised Ulleungdo as Korean land, they should have went to Ulleungdo by way of Tsushima.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Rachel,

    it is clear that this map has nothing to do with your obesession with a guy called An Young-Bok.
    The map is dated back to 1822, while the An Young Bok incident happened in 1693.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Funny to see Rachel getting over and over emotional. She makes a joke out of herself.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Rachel won`t be satisfied until she gets SUCH a map from Korea including Dokdo, dated back to 500 AD. Oh and it has to include all ever given names and all names given to it in the future in exact McCune-Reischauer system.

    ReplyDelete
  84. helpfish,

    Do you know who Hogong was?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Hogong has nothing to do with Dokdo either.

    ReplyDelete
  86. BTW, there is no Jukdo visible on this map.

    Then the islets called Liancourt/ Hornets must be referring to Juk-Do as the position isn`t exactly 37°14.

    ReplyDelete
  87. and the size of the islands labelled Liancourt / Hornets isn`t exactly 1:324, and the missing term "rocks" means that they are actually not referring to Dok-Do because Dok-Do consists of rocks.

    ...sorry for the sarcasm !

    ReplyDelete
  88. helpfish,

    Just tell me who Hogong was.

    ___________________________________

    Hogong has nothing to do with Dokdo either.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Hogong lived from around 50BC to 50AD. That makes him completely irrelevant for the Dokdo issue.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogong

    ReplyDelete
  90. Hogong(瓠公) is a legendary figure who is said to have been originally from Japan and who was the highest ranking minister of Silla in its founding period some 2000 years ago:

    http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=189881

    So, take it easy, helpfish, a son of Hogong.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Pacifist, you're lost again.

    My point was the fact those who voyaged to Ulleungdo and Dokdo needed voyages passes shows the islands weren't part of Japan. You don't need a voyage pass to go to your own country this fact alone kills Japan 17th century claims to these islands.

    Japan's Shogunate considered Ulleungdo and Dokdo as part of Chosun after the Anyongobk incident.

    Raquel, Anyonbok did not see any of the Okinoshima's en route to Mishima on Oki's main island. You are being wacky again!!

    Here is Anyongbok's route. Study it, learn it, live it.
    AnyongbokRoute

    ReplyDelete
  92. Rachel, i am actually from Baekje, the founder of Yamato, Nara, Asuka etc. cultures and the founder of modern day Japan. Yes I know it and the japanese bow down in front of my Kudara race. BTW. The japanese emperor is a descendant of my kudara race.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Steve,

    You must study Japan's history in the Edo era.

    In those days people must have some passes to move from a county to another county even within Japan. These counties or clans are kinds of small countries with barriers or check points.

    And if you go into the land of Shogunate's direct control (直轄地),
    you must have a permission from the Shogunate. The permission given to Murakawas and Oyas was this kind of permission.
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/blog-post_02.html

    They were also given a big flag of mallow-shaped crest (Tokugawa's crest), which means they were working under the Tokugawa's (the Shogunate's) control. They showed this flag on ships when they went to Takeshima and Matsushima.
    If you want to see this flag, you can see it at a museum in Yonago.

    ReplyDelete
  94. helpfish,

    You have to learn the true hisotry of Baekje first.

    For example, some 1200 years ago, there was a lady called Takanono Niigasa(高野新笠) who is said to have been a direct descendant of King Munyeong(武寧) of Baekje and who became a mistress of Emperor Konin and was the mother of the 50th emperor, Emperor Kanmu.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Dokdo-Takeshima (Steve Barber),

    Travel to Liancourt Rocks was not banned until the 1836 incident, which proves that only Ulleungdo was recognized as Korean territory in the 1690s.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Rachel,

    yeah I was talking about Takano Niigasa from Baekje, also Baekje brought technology, education, politics to Japan, founded highly respected cultures, brought buddhism and architecture to Japan.
    There are cities and rivers named after Kudara.

    It is undisputed.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Well,if we try to prove whether Dokdo belongs to Korea or Takeshima through ancient maps, then Korean can claim that Tsushima Island belong to Korea. The reason is simple. Some of old Korean map include Takeshima island as its territory.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Sorry, there are some mistakes.

    Well,if we try to prove whether Dokdo belongs to Korea or Japan through ancient maps, then Korean can claim that Tsushima Island belong to Korea. The reason is simple. Some of old Korean map include Tsushima Island as its territory.

    ReplyDelete
  99. This blog is for discussing Takeshima lianocurt rocks.

    But if you have interesting in detail description on korean antique maps about Tushima island and antique maps, see here;

    http://www.kjclub.com/jp/exchange/theme/read.php?uid=3819&fid=3819&thread=1000000&idx=1&page=1&tname=exc_board_11&number=1&f=a.name&word=Boussole

    ReplyDelete
  100. keebong,

    We are not only trying to prove whether Dokdo belongs to Korea or Japan through ancient maps, but trying to prove whether Takeshima (Dokdo) belongs to Japan or Korea by various ways including old documents of both countries.

    And, as you may noticed, there was no evidence for Korea to prove that Dokdo belonged to Korea at all.

    Usando was not Dokdo. Sambongdo was not Dokdo. The first Koreans on Dokdo were fishermen who were hired by Japanese in the early 20th century.

    Takeshima had been controlled by Japan until 1945 when Japan was occupied by the Allied Powers. It was robbed by Rhee Syngman in 1952 just before San Francisco Peace Treaty was concluded and since then they began educating their people with the propaganda "Dokdo is ours".

    ReplyDelete
  101. I wasn't sure where to leave a general response to the blog, so I decided to just write a comment here.

    I have no doubt that the person who wrote this blog did a lot of research. I am very impressed and I have learned a lot from this blog.

    However, I do feel that the blog is biased. Although the maker of the blog states that the purpose of the blog is to inform people rather than take a side, I strongly felt that all the information presented here was one-sided.

    The blog presented documents and maps from Korea long time ago that would support the island did not belong to Korea. However, I did not find any maps from Japan long time ago that shows the island belonged to Japan. So it seems to me that the blog imposes an impression that Korea is claiming false statements. However, the blog does not say anything about how Japan's claims are more convincing by themselves, without disproving what Koreans say wrong. So this blog does not appear to have the proper qualifications to be unbiased.

    I did not look through all the articles, but I did find one that translated the Korean newspaper article wrong to make fun of Koreans. So the blog is making claims based on wrongly translated documents, and clearly, it is not neutral information.

    As a scientist, I dislike any kind of biases. That was why I rejoiced when I found this blog and read the statement that says this blog was not for taking a side (since all the other websites dealing with this issue were all biased). But I was very disappointed to find biases everywhere in most of the articles in this blog. I strongly believe Japan and Korea both present biased information about this issue, and that is why this is very hard to solve.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Hi, kimx

    "that translated the Korean newspaper article wrong to make fun of Koreans. So the blog is making claims based on wrongly translated documents, and clearly, it is not neutral information."

    Whic article you are talking about? Could you please provide us correct translation instead? I do not prefer to read wrong translation.

    What I understand about this issue is this.

    1. Japanese fishermem were hunting sealions on Takeshima from at least mid 17th century by the permission of Shogunate. Even Korean doesn't challenge this fact.

    Below is the oldest Takeshima/Dokdo map made by The Murakawas from Yonago approximately in mid 17 century. This is only one of the hundreds of documents which shows Japanese visited today's Takeshima since 1600s.


    Mid 17th century - Illustrative Map of Matsushima (松嶋絵図) by Murakawa Clan


    2. In 1905, Japan's Meiji government formally decided to incorporate Takeshima into Shimane prefecture.

    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)

    Korean Imperial government officially acquiesced the Japan's sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo by not expressing protest against Japan's formal incorporation into Shimane.


    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


    3. What Korean today claim is that they "recognized" Dokdo from 512, meaning prior to Japan, though none of their old documents supports their claim. They claim Dokdo's old name was 三峯島, 于山島, but...

    1470 - "Sambongdo(三峯島)" was just an another name of Ulleundo, not Takeshima/Dokdo

    "Usan/Usando" was Ulleungdo's old name til the end of 17th century.
    Q1: Has Dokdo been a part of Korea since the sixth century?

    Usando was then recognized as Ulleungdo's neighbouring island, Jukdo since inspector Jan's report in 1694.

    1711 - Bak Chang-seok's (朴昌錫) Map of Ulleungdo (鬱陵島圖形)

    The problem of Korea's "information " is, not only they are biased, but they are proving Korea's claim is false.

    I honestly hope Korean academics provide us non-biased historical documents and maps. They should open its official documents around 1905-1906 more to public and available on the net.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Kaneganese, oh wise unbiased scholar.

    Please enlighten us about when Japan admitted Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) were Korean territory in 1837. It seems you are lacking data on this historical record.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-takeshima-incident-of-1837.html

    Please explain, I need a good laugh.

    ReplyDelete