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

Below is a list of old Japanese, British, French and even Korean books and documents that clearly excluded Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo (131º 52'E longitude) from Korean territory. There is no single, concrete document or map, whatsoever, that shows Korea had ever recognized the disputed island to be within their territory before Japan officially incorporated it into Shimane Prefecture in 1905.

Especially interesting among the books in the list is Choi Nam-seon's (崔南善) 1948 book, "Common Knowledge of Joseon" (朝鮮常識), which specifically says that Korea's easternmost island was Ulleungdo's "Jukdo" in North Gyeongsan Province (慶尚北道鬱陵島竹島). Jukdo is a small island located about two kilometers off Ulleungdo's eastern shore, which matches up with old Korean maps and documents that showed Usando (于山島) to be Korea's eastern most island. Though Koreans claim Usando was Korea's old name for "Dokdo," Korea's old maps and documents show that Usando was actually Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which is at an east longitude of approximately 130º 56' 23." Again, that longitude essentially matches up with longitudes mentioned in the documents below.

As we have seen, many western and Japanese maps around 1900 clearly depicted Takeshima(on-existant Argonaut), which is nearest to peninsula to be Korean, but other islands, "Matsushima(which is actually today's Ulleungdo)" and Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks, to be Japanese territory. It matchs with a fact that so many documents described Korean eastern limit as 130º 35' - 130º 50' which exclude whole or part of Ulleungdo.

1874 "Histoire de L'Eglise de Corée (History of the Korean Catholic Church) by Claude-Charles Dallet
130º 50' E. longitude (東経１３０度50分)

1876 "Keirinjiryaku(鶏林事略)" by Sewaki Hisato (瀬脇寿人）
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)

1880 "朝鮮地誌" by 坂根達郎
130º 45' E. longitude (東経１３０度４５分)

1882 "The Joseon Situation" (朝鮮事情) by Enomoto Takeaki(榎本武揚) (Originally published in 1876-77)
130º 50' E. longitude (東経１３０度50分)

1887 "朝鮮八道誌" by 小松運
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)

1890 "外国地理" by 高木怡荘
130º E. longitude (東経１３０度)

1891 "受験応用万国小地誌" by 谷口流鶯
130º E. longitude (東経１３０度)

1894 "新撰朝鮮地理誌" by 大田才次郎
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)

1894 "朝鮮志" by 足立栗園
130º 36' E. longitude (東経１３０度３6分）

1894 Jun. "朝鮮地理圖" by 岩崎茂吉
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)

1894 Jun "朝鮮地誌要略" by 松本仁吉
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)

1894 Jun. "新撰朝鮮国地図" by 林正
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)

1894 Nov. "朝鮮水路誌" by Waterway Section of Japanese Navy (海軍水路部)
130º 35' E.longitude (東経１３０度３５分) (序 : 肝付兼行 海軍省水路部長 Preface by Kimotsuki)

1894～1897 "Korea and Her Neighbours" by Isabella Lucy Bird
130º 33' E. longitude (東経１３０度３３分)

1895 "外国地誌" by 秋山四郎
130º 40' E. longitude (東経１３０度40分)

1899 "大韓地誌" by 玄采 (Korean Geography Textbook)
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)

1899 "新式万国地理" by 岩崎重三
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)

1900 "新撰大地誌　前編（世界之部）" by 山上万次郎
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分 : 図満江〔註：豆満江） 教師用参考書)

1901 "大韓地誌" by 玄采 (Korean Geography Textbook)
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)

1901 "朝鮮開化史" by 恒屋盛服
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)

1902 "高等地理学講義" by 永田健助編
131º E. longitude (東経１３1度)

1902 "新撰世界地理問答" by 武田鶯塘
130º 40' E. longitude (東経１３０度40分)

1903 "韓海通漁指針" by 東京 黒龍会 葛生修吉
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)(序 : 牧朴真 農商務省水産局長 Preface by Maki)

1904 "韓国地理" by 矢津昌永
130º 58' E. longitude (東経１３０度５８分)

1904 "最新韓国実業指針" by 岩永重華
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)(序 : 山座円次郎 外務省政務局長 Preface by Yamaza)

1904 "朝鮮移住案内" by 山本庫太郎
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)

1905 "日本民族の新發展場萬韓露領地誌" by 岡部福蔵
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)

1905 "韓国新地理" by 博文館
130º 58' E. longitude (東経１３０度５８分)

1906 "大韓地誌" by 玄采 (Korean Geography Textbook)
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度3５分)

1906 "韓国水産業調査報告" by 農商務省水産局
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)

1907 "初等大韓地誌" by 安鍾和 (Korean Geography Textbook)
130º 58' E. longitude (東経１３０度５８分)

1907 "大韓新地志" by 張志淵 (Korean Geography Textbook)
130º 58' E. longitude (東経１３０度５８分)

1907 "外国地理表解" by 小林杖吉
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度35分)

1908 "初等大韓地誌" by 安鍾和 柳柳瑾 (Korean Geography Textbook)
130º 58' E. longitude (東経１３０度５８分)

1909 "最新高等大韓地誌" by 鄭寅琥 (Korean Geography Textbook)
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度3５分　慶尚南道鬱島郡鬱陵島 : Ulleundo, Ulleudo County)

1909 "韓国水産誌" by 統監府農商工部水産局
130º 42' E. longitude (東経１３０度４２分)

1909 Mar. "大韓協会会報第12号 地誌" (Korean Geography journal) cache
130º 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)

1910 Feb. "朝鮮新地誌" by　足立栗園
130º 58' E. longitude (東経１３０度58分)

1911 "朝鮮及南満洲地理教授備考" by 亀井忠一
130º 54' E. longitude (東経１３０度５４分　極東　鬱陵島東端 : Easternmost of Ulleundo)

1911 "最新日本地理資料" by 井原儀
130º 54' E. longitude (東経１３０度５４分　極東　鬱陵島（松島）の東端 : Easternmost of Ulleundo(=Matsushima))

1911 Apr. "大日本地理集成" by 矢津昌永等
130º 58 E. longitude (東経１３０度58分 豆門江の江口)

1911 "韓国通覧" by 統監府農商工部
130º 54' E. longitude (東経１３０度５４分　鬱陵島東端 : Easternmost of Ulleundo)

1912 "最近朝鮮事情要覧" by 朝鮮総督府　２版渡辺為蔵
130º 54' E. longitude (東経１３０度５４分)

1912 "小学地理教材" by 北垣恭次郎
130º 54' E. longitude (東経１３０度５４分　鬱陵島の東端 : Easternmost of Ulleundo)

1912 "最新 朝鮮地誌" by 日韓書房編集部
130º 54' E. longitude (東経１３０度５４分　鬱陵島東端 : Easternmost of Ulleundo)

1936 "朝鮮現勢便覧" by 朝鮮総督府
130º 56' 23" E. longitude (東経１３０度５６分２３秒)

1947 "朝鮮常識問答" (Qs & As for General Knowledge of Joseon) by 崔南善 (Korean Geography Textbook)
130º 56' 23" E. longitude (東経１３０度５６分２３秒 )

1948 "朝鮮常識" (General Knowledge of Joseon)" by 崔南善 (Korean Geography Textbook)
130º 56' 23" E. longitude (東経１３０度５６分２３秒 慶尚北道鬱陵島竹島 : Jukdo of Ulleundo, (*not Japanese Takeshima)

This is a revised version of Korean Eastern limits described in various books exclude Takeshima/Dokdo from Korean Territory, which is a re-revised version of "1894-1948 Korean territory (Revised version)," by Pacifist. As we can see, the oldest document now dates back to 1874 now. The newly added documents are marked red in their published year.

Article on the Syngman Rhee Line: Lies, lies, lies.

Below is a link to a June 25 Chosun Ilbo article talking about the "Syngman Rhee Line" or the so-called "Peace Line." The article is full of lies, but I will let people find them for themselves.

"60 Years of the Republic: The Syngman Rhee Line"

Update:

The following is a paragraph from the article that contains at least three lies, one of which was pointed out by one of our commenters, who writes under the id of "Opp."

The Dokdo Islets, which had been part of Korean territory since the sixth century, were illegally occupied by Japan during the colonial period but returned to Korea under the Directive SCAPIN-677 issued by the General Headquarters Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers on Jan. 29, 1946, which specifically excluded Dokdo from Japanese territory. However, Japan continued to trespass into waters near Dokdo, marking it as Japanese.

The first lie in the paragraph is the claim that the "Dokdo Islets,...has been part of Korean territory since the sixth century," which is a lie because Korea has no maps or documents to back up that claim. The second lie is that Japan illegally occupied "Dokdo" during the colonial period, but, in fact, Japan legally incorporated Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) in 1905 without any opposition from any country, including Korea, and 1905 was before Korea became a colony of Japan.

Finally, the third lie, as pointed out by commenter Opp, is the statement that the "Dokdo Islets... was returned to Korea under the Directive SCAPIN-677, which was issued by the General Headquarters Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers." That is easily proven to be a lie by the following US document, dated November 5, 1952:

Official - Informal

Confidential Security Information

Dear Al;

I have read both Tokyo's despatch No.659 of 3, 1952,of October 15, 1952, entitled, "Use of Disputed Territory (Tokto Island) as Live Bombing Area" enclosed in your letter of October 16, 1952 to Ambassador Murphy.

It appears that the Department has taken the position that these rocks belong to Japan and has so informed the Korean Ambassador in Washington. During the course of drafting the Japanese Peace Treaty the Republic of Korea's views were solicited, in consequense of which, the Korean Ambassador requested the Secretary of State in a
letter of July 19, 1951 to amend Article2 (a) of the draft treaty so as to include the islands of Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) and Parangdo as well as Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet among those islands over which Japan would renounce right, title and claim by virtue of recognizing Korea's independence. In his reply to the Korean Ambassador the Secretary stated in a letter dated August 10, 1951 that the United states could not concur in the proposed amendment as it applied to the Liancourt Rocks since according to his information the Liancourt Rocks had never been treated as a part of Korea, they had been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Japan's Shimane Prefecture since 1905 and it did not appear that they had over before been claimed by Korea. As a result Article2 (a) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan makes no mention of the Liancourt Rocks;

"Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title, and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet."

E. Allan Lightner, Esquire
Charge D'affaires, a.i.,
American Embassy
,Pusan, Korea. page2

Official - Informal

Confidential Security Information

The action of the United States-Japan Joint Committee in designating these rocks as a facility of the Japanese Government is therefore justified. The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN677 of January 29, 1946, which suspended Japanese administration of various island areas, including Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over this area permanently. A later SCAPIN, No.1778 of September 16, 1947 designated the islets as a bombing range for the Far East Air Force and further provided that use of the range would be made only after notification through Japanese civil authorities to the inhabitants of the Oki Islands and certain ports on Western Honbu.

Sincerely yours,

Kenneth T. Young, Jr.,
Director
Office of Northeast Asian Affairs,

To view the original letter, click HERE.

In 1954, after returning from a mission to the Far East, US Special Mission Ambassador James Van Fleet wrote the following about Liancourt Rocks in a secret report:

The Island of Dokto (otherwise called Liancourt and Take Shima) is in the Sea of Japan approximately midway between Korea and Honshu (131.80E, 36.20N). This Island is, in fact, only a group of barren, uninhabited rocks. When the Treaty of Peace with Japan was being drafted, the Republic of Korea asserted its claims to Dokto but the United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty. The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public. Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory, we have declined to interfere in the dispute. Our position has been that the dispute might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice and this suggestion has been informally conveyed to the Republic of Korea.

Ambassador Van Fleet also wrote the following about Korea's so-called "Peace Line":

The position of the Republic of Korea Government has been to insist on the recognition of the agreed "Peace Line." The United States Government has consistently taken the position that the unilateral proclamation of sovereignty over the seas is illegal, without wanting to upset any of the two respective nations and that the fisheries dispute between Japan and Korea should be settled on the basis of a fisheries conservation agreement that would protect the interests of both countries. The chronology and other aspects of the fisheries is discussed in more detail in Enclosure No. 1.

LINK

People should be aware that the Korean media regularly reports false claims about Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).

Japanese News Update : June 26, 2008

Japanese Article

2008

• May 18 - "Takeshima is going to be described in the manual for teacher's guidebooks for Junior High School textbooks" - 読売新聞(Yomiuri Shinbun)cache

• May 18 - "Takeshima is going to be described in the manuarl for teacher's gudebooks for Junior High School textbooks" - 産経新聞(Sankei Shinbun) cache

• May 20 - "Welcoming the describing Takeshima as inherent part of Japanese territory" - 中国新聞(Chugoku Shinbun) cache
  
  
• May 20 - "Shimane Prefecture started classes for Takeshima issue in Matsue" - 中国新聞(Chugoku Shinbun) cache
  50 people attended the first class which were held in the prefecture library in the Matsue city. Mr. Sugihara, a former sub-chairman of Takeshima Research Center and currently an advisor of Shimane Prefecture's Takeshima Research Group, was the first lecturer and explained Takeshima issue. He explained that Usando, which Korea claims as the old name of Takeshima/Dokdo, is not today's Takeshima, but Jukdo, which locates right east to Ulleungdo. He also explained that Ahn Yong-bok's testimony, who came to Japan in 17 century and claimed made Tottori clan recognize Ulelungdo and Takeshima/Dokdo as Choson territory, has no ground to be true since the Lord of Tottori was apparently absent then. The 9 classes of the course will be held until Takeshima Day next year and the certificate of the completion will be handed to whom attended more than 6 classes.
  
  
• May 23 - "Shimane Prefecture is going to publish an original sub-teaching material for Takeshima issue for Japanese schools" - 中国新聞(Chugoku Shinbun) cache
  Shimane Prefecture, prefecture educational commitee, and Takeshima and northern territories restoration conference are going to publish the teaching material and prefecture assists one million yen funds for this project. The Okinoshima Town's educational commitee in Oki had already made sub-teaching material, including historical details of Takeshima in fiscal year 2006.
  
  
• May 24 - "7 Japanese textbooks now in use describes Takeshima as Japanese territory." - 朝鮮日報(Choson Online) cache
  According to the Korean National Daily Report(国民日報), 7 Japanese textbooks now in use (3 high school geography, 3 junior high school civics, and 1 JH geography) clearly described Takeshima as Japanese territory. 3 Civics JH textbooks publishers are Tokyo Shoseki(東京書籍), Osaka Shoseki(大阪書籍), and the Fuso Co.(扶桑社), and they make 74.4% of Japanese Junior High School students are currently using text books which clearly describe Takeshima as Japanese own territory. (Note by kaneganese : All of the Atlas books used in Japanese JH schools clearly depict Takeshima as Japanese territory.)
  
  
• May 24 - "【Editorial】 It is a matter of course for describing Takeshima as an inherent part of the territory of Japan in textbooks - 産経新聞(Sankei Shinbun) cache
  
  
• May 27 - "It is not decided yet if Takeshima is going to be described in manual for teachers's handbook" - 共同通信(Kyodo News Agency) cache
  
  
• June 6 - "Shimane Prefecture demands Takeshima to be described clearly in textbooks." - 毎日新聞(Mainichi Shinbun) cache
  On 5th June, governor of Shimane Prefecture, Mizoguchi Zenbee, visited the vice-minister of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology over the manual for the teachers' guideline for the new textbooks, and demanded them to describe Takeshima as a Japanese territory clearly.
  
  
• June 24 - "Web Takeshima Research Center staff held a meeting in Matsue" - 毎日新聞(Mainichi Shinbun) cache
  Mr. Tsukamoto explained the recent result of the ICJ case of Pedra Branca_Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge between Singapore and Malaysia, and concluded that the critical date of the dispute would be 1953, the year when Korea set Lee line which included Takeshima/Dokdo within their territory and Japan, on the other hand set official claim against Korea. He pointed out that in that case, the result would favour Japan who officially incorporated Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture in 1905. He also explained that Japanese government need to refute against Korean claim timely because Malaysia's having neglected an appropriate rebuttal became one of the causes of lost.
  
  
• June 24 - "A lecture meeting for the territorial issue was held in Matsue" - 産経新聞 (Sankei Shimbun) cache (Korean article)
  The lecture meeting for Takeshima, which South Korea is continuing the illegal occupancy was held in the Matsue city on the 24th. A writer Sato Masaru (佐藤優), a MOFA official who is taking prosecution leave, talked with the assembly member of the House of Representatives, Suzuki Muneo(鈴木宗男) who works on Northern Territories issue. They declaimed "It is same situation as Japanese humane rights and the national authority of Japan were violated, just like the abduction issue. If this situation cannot be recovered, Japan doesn't take the form of the nation. Rep. Suzuki said that he is going to take this issue seriously just like Northern Territory issue as possible he can.

The 11th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

Below is a translation of The 11th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

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

"Chosun Ilbo" dated May 2 introduced the thesis by Hosaka Yuji of the Yonsei University, and reported "Edo Shogunate of Japan used the map which "depicted Dokdo as Korean territory" during the territorial dispute between America." According to the report, Mr. Hosaka claimed that when Edo Shogunate disputed over the sovereignty of Ogasawara Islands(小笠原諸島), which include Bonin Islands(無人島 : 小笠原群島), Shogunate used French version of “Sangoku Setsujozu” as a basis for its' sovereignty. And he continued that this makes Hayashi's map, which "depicted Takeshima as Choson's territory" an official map, thus it is considered that Bakuhu then already recognized Takeshima as Choson's territory in 19C.

However, there is no historical grounds in Mr. Hosaka's claim. In November 1861, Edo Shogunate notified to each minister of both U.S. and Britain in Japan that that foreign magistrate (外国奉行) Mizuno Chikugonokami Tadanori (水野筑後守忠徳) and superintendent (目付) Hattori Munekazu ( 服部帰一) would head to investigate Ogasawara island. But in his reply letter, Harris, a U.S. minister to Japan, stated Ogasawara island as Japanese territory and only requested Shogunate of the rights of the American who reside on the island. Apparently, there were no such things as "territorial dispute between America". Because Ogasawara island(小笠原島) was widely recognized as Japanese territory among foreign countries, as is seen in the　Mizuno's letter "The letter of the planned expedition to the islands of Izu Country on behalf of Shogunate"（"伊豆国附島々其外へ御用のため差遣され候につき見込の趣申上候書付"）" in October, which was submitted to Bakuhu. It said that "As for Ogasawara island(s), Dutch and other countries' books state that it is Japanese island. Foreigners certainly recognize this. (小笠原島の儀、御国属島の儀と蘭書等にも相見へ、外国人ども弁知罷り在り候)"

It is also confirmed by Commodore Perry's "The Japan Expedition, 1852-1854 The Personal Journal of Commodore Matthew C. Perry." or "Narrative of the Expendition of an Squadron to the China Seas and Japan (1856)". In the book, Commodore Perry quoted translated version of Hayashi's “Sangoku Tsuran Zusetsu (三国通覧図説) ” and clearly stated that "It is quite clear that the Japanese were the first discoverers of these islands." Hosaka's claim that "Edo Bakuhu(Shogunate) used French version of “Sangoku Setsujozu” as a basis for sovereignty over Ogasawara Islands" is apparently nothing but just a fictitious story, or fantasy.

Likewise, his claim “ 'Sangoku Setsujozu' depicted Takeshima as Choson's territory" is groundless from the view of historical facts, since there is no Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks depicted on the map. Hosaka interpreted Ulleundo and Takeshima were recognized as Choson territory, since there is a notation "Choson's land (朝鮮ノ持也)" near "Takeshima(today's Ulleungdo)" depicted in Hayashi's map. However, "Takeshima(Ulleungdo)" on the map has another notation, in fact. "From this island Onshu(Oki) can be viewed/Choson can be viewed too. (此嶋ヨリ隠州ヲ望／朝鮮ヲモ見ル)." This sentence was derived from "Whole Map of Japan (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水), which Hayashi mainly used when he made the map.

Moreover, the sentence itself is actually the quotation from Saito Hosen's "Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)". The reason Hayashi annotated "Choson's land" afresh is because "Whole Map of Japan (日本輿地路程全図)" described Ulleungdo as Japanese territory and the a subject of the context of annotation was Ulleungdo alone. Moreover, if you compare “Sangoku Setsujozu” with "Whole Map of Japan (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水), Hayashi's map actually lacks today's Takeshima. That is because not all of islands and places in "Whole Map of Japan (日本輿地路程全図)" were copied into “Sangoku Setsujozu” as Hayashi clearly stated as follows. " I didn't enumerate all shapes of subjects(全形を挙げず)". Despite those facts, Hosaka still intentionally misreads a tiny island upper right of Ulleundo as today's Takeshima at his own discretion without criticizing documents logically, nor on the basis of historical documented facts.

Actually, Ulleungdo in Hayashi's map has its roots in 朴錫昌's 「欝陵島図形」(1711) and it is appropriate to consider it as Jukdo, not today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo. Despite those facts, Hosaka claims that Hayashi's map depicted "Takeshima" as Choson's territory and criticises the final report by Shimane's Takeshima Research Group, but those Hosaka's claim are apparently misdirected.

Mr. 金和経, a director of Dokdo Institute of 領南 University, commented, on this Hosaka's thesis, that "“Sangoku Setsujozu” was used as a official document in the bilateral territorial dispute" and it "has important meaning as a historical document." However, this comment is a reckless remark(妄言) which follows blindly claims by Hosaka who neglected criticizing historical documents properly.

p 198 "Extract from Klaproth's translation of San Kokp Tsoir Ran To Sits(三国通覧図説)."

“実事求是　〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第11回　「林子平の「三国接壌図」に対する韓国側の誤解」　下條正男”

Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.

Other Column of the Series:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 12th column “Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding”

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

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

The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”

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

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

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

The 10th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

Below is a translation of The 10th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

" A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory”

On 3 April, 2008, Korean Maritime Institutes's (韓国海洋水産開発院) "Oceanic fishery trend(海洋水産動向)" (Vol.1256) published the article entitled "Sokdo is Dokdo - Refutation against Japanese negation of "Sokdo=Dokdo" theory" by Ms. Yu (柳美林). This is a rebuttal to the San-in Chuo Shinpo's article on 22 Feb. which reported "Korean newspaper(皇城新聞)'s article on 13 July, 1906 denied Seokdo=Dokdo theory." The article in 1906 said the islands under the authority of the Uldo County were Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島), and that it was sixty ri(24km) from east to west and forty ri(16km) from north to south for a total of 200 ri (80km), thus the San-in Chuo Shinpo concluded it is impossible for Takeshima/Dokdo, which is 92km apart from Ulleungdo, to be Seokdo in Korean Imperial Ordinance No.41.

Ms. Yu explained that the reason that Dokdo was written as "Seokdo(石島)" in the Ordinance No.41 was because "coastal residents in South Jeolla（全羅南道）" witnessed the island "on the way to and from Ulleundo and also " they named the island to where they sometimes casted away, while collecting seaweeds or fishing on Ulleungdo, as "Dok-do or Tol-do", which is their dialects for "石". She also wrongfully claimed that the sentence " it was sixty ris(24km) from east to west and forty ris(16km) from north to south for a total of 200 ris(80km), "meant for the area of Ulleungdo, not the jurisdiction of Uleudo County.

However, this can't be even a refutation at all, considering Korean side is required to prove when to have started the reference "Dokdo(独島)" empirically. Moreover, it need to be "before" 1900 the year Ordinance No.41 was issued, or it means nothing. However, the fact is, the name "Dokdo(独島)" first appeared in the document of 1904, the year Japanese hired Korean residents on Ulleungdo to hunt sealions on "Ryanko-to(Japanese name for Takeshima/Dokdo back then)". Naturally, the former name of Dokdo was not Seokdo, in fact. Discussion for the phonetic relationship or change between Dokdo and Sokdo has nothing to do with Takeshima/Dokdo dispute after all.

In that sense, it is significant that 皇城新聞 reported that (the Korean Interior Ministry answered to Japanese Resident-General) "area under the authority of the Uldo County were sixty ris(24km) from east to west and forty ris(16km) from north to south for a total of 200 ri s(80km)", Because Ms. Yu had to make it clear How 禹用鼎, who was the official inspector from Interior Ministry, recognized the area of Uldo County, since 禹用鼎 was the one who inspected Ulleungdo in June 1900 and suggested that Ulleungdo to be promoted to the "Uludo County". The suggestion by 禹用鼎 actually lead to the promulgation of the Imperial Ordinance No.41.

However, the fact is, 禹用鼎's inspection area was limited to "the circumference of 140-150 ris(56-60km)", which is clearly Ulleungdo alone. This area clearly included Jukdo(竹島) and Sokdo(石島) as the petition by the Minister of Interior 李乾夏 stated as "The area of the island in concern(該島地方) should be 80 ris(32km) in length and 50 ris(20km) in the width.", the petiotion was submitted a day before the Imperial Ordinance was issued. Besides, the reason 禹用鼎 defined Ulleungdo as "the circumference of 140-150 ris(56-60km)" is that he followed the definition by Lee Gyu-won(李奎遠), who was sent to inspect on Ulleungdo in 1882 by the order of Kojong(高宗), that Ulleungdo is "the circumference of 140-150 ris(56-60km)." Their geographical recognition of Ulleungdo reflect on the map "欝陵島外図" by Lee, who was ordered to draw the precise map of Ulleungdo by Kojong. The map "欝陵島外図" depicted Jukdo(竹島, Japanese name 竹嶼) and Do-hang(島項), and it made the range of Ulluengdo, which is supposed to be "the circumference of 140-150 ris(56-60km)" clear.

Lee Gyu-won reported the livelihood of the residents of Ulleungdo was "building boats, collecting seaweeds, abalones and medicinal herbs", and 禹用鼎 himself reported that the taxes on the island was mainly seaweeds. According to U, the fishery what Korean on Ulleungdo engaged in was collecting seaweeds in 1900 the year Imperial Ordinance No.41 was issued. They just started to go to Ulleungdo only because they were hired by Japanese who had engaged in hunting sealions on Takeshima/Dokdo in 1904. The Korean's claim that Korean fishermen were fishing on Takeshima/Dokdo and Dokdo changed into Sokdo is just a nothing but a imagination. Moreover, the theory which seek the relationship between Dokdo and Sokdo from the dialects of South Jeolla area has no grounds at all. Both of them are far-fetched interpretation in the end.

“実事求是　〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第10回　「石島＝独島説の誤謬」　下條正男”

Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.

Other Column of the Series:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 12th column “Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding”

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

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

The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”

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

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

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

1899 American map of Japan and 1894 Japanese map of Korea

I recently got a map of Japan which was published by George F. Cram of Chicago (USA) in 1899. There are "Taka Isl" , "Matsu Isl" and "Liancourt Rocks" in the Sea of Japan. Korea and Izumo distcrict of Japan were coloured in almost the same colour (light green) as well as these islands, so unfortunately we can't decide which country these islands belonged to.
However, as this map is a large one, it would be good to learn the locations of these islands.

The three longitudinal lines in the close-up map (above) indicate the longitude 129 degree, 131 degree and 133 degree (E) respectively from west to east, so you will find Taka Island, that is Argonaut island, locates at less than 130 dgree (about 129 degree 50'). Also you'll find Matsu Island, Dagelet Island or the true Ulleungdo, is located at less than 131 degree (about 130 degree 50'), Liancourt Rocks at less than 132 degree (about 131 degree 50').

Here is a Japanese map called "新撰朝鮮国全図" (Newly Edited Whole Map of Chosun Country) which was published in 1894. It has been used by pro-Korean people to insist that Japan admitted Dokdo to be Korean territory. There are two islands in the Sea of Japan - 竹島(Takeshima) and 松島(Matsushima), which pro-Korean people insist as Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo).

If the map below is too small to examine, please visit here: http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/senshin-1894/

If you examine the map precisely, you will notice that the longitudinal line beside Takeshima runs beside Iki island at south, which locates at around 129 degree 40' - so this longitudinal line may mean longitude 130 degree. Then it may mean "Takeshima" in the map is located at about 130 degree (129 degree 50') - it coincides with Argonaut island which was mentioned above. The next longitudinal line runs through Kitakyushu (Kokura) that locates at 131 degree. "Matsushima" in the map is located at the middle of the two lines - it seems as it locates at about 130 degree 40', which is almost the place of Ulleungdo although not very accurate. By the way, as Liancourt Rocks locate at about 131 degree 50' as we showed above, so Liancourt Rocks is out of this map.

But there is a problem - the map was not drawn in east longitude based on the Greenwich point but it was drawn in west longitude based on the Japanese standard point at Azabu, Tokyo (139 degree 44' 28" E). The island "Takeshima" in the map is located beside the line "九". The Chinese number "九" means "9 degree W" here, which is similar to "130 degree 44' E". But if this line means "130 degree 44' E", it must run through Kitakyushu because Kitakyushu is located at 130 degree 50', but the line crossed Saga prefecture, one degree west. Instead, the line "八" (8 degree W) which is 131 degree 44' E crossed Kitakyushu. So you can understand that this map is incorrect, as whole the Japanese figure in the map was drawn mistakenly just one degree east. Then, the problem is that we can't decide whether the two islands "Takeshima" and "Matsushima" were also drawn one degree east or not.

1) If the two islands were also drawn one degree east, "Takeshima" in the map (slightly less than 130 degree 44' E, maybe around 130 degree 40' E) should be at about 129 degree 40' E. This is almost the same place as Argonaut island (129 degree 50' E). "Matsushima" which is located at the middle of the lines 8 degree W and 9 degree W (more precisely slightly eastwardly shifted from the middle point; almost 131 degree 30' E)　should be 130 degree 30' E which is close to Dagelet island (130 degree 50' E).

2) If the two islands were drawn just the exact places, "Takeshima" is located at about 130 degree 40' E, which is near to Dagelet island (130 degree 50' E) while "Matsushima" is located at 131 degree 30' E, which is almost the middle point between Dagelet island and Liancourt Rocks.
By the way, the east limit of the map is 西経八度 (= 131 degree 44' E) which excluded Liancourt Rocks (131 degree 50' E) - if they tried to draw Liancourt Rocks, the rocks were to be drawn in the margin of the map. But there is no such rocks were drawn in the map.

Considering other maps with Takeshima and Matsushima from the same era (see the references), 1) should be most likely the case. Even if 2) was the case, it didn't always refer to Liancourt Rocks.

References:
東京地学協会編　朝鮮全図 (1894; 　http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/tokyo-1894/ ) with Ulleungdo - Matsushima at slightly west than 131 degree E,
朝鮮全岸 (1896; http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/koreacoast-1896/ ) with Ulleungdo- Matsushima at around 131 degree E,
日本全図 (1877; http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/nihonzenzu-1877/ ) with
Takeshima at slightly west of 西十度 line = 129 degree 44' E and Matsushima at slightly west of 西九度 line = 130 degree 44' E (which means these are Argonaut and Dagelet islands)



As a result, "竹島(Takeshima)" in the map is highly likely Argonaut island, whcih western maps sometimes called as "Take Isl" or "Taka Isl." while "松島 (Matsushima)" in the map is highly likely true Ulleungdo or Dagelet island, which western maps sometimes called as "Matsu Isl." - so these two islands in the map coincided with "Taka Isl" and "Matsu Isl" in the American map.

Of course, no one can say from this map that Japan admitted Dokdo to be Korean territory.

1950's Korean Video: "Dokdo & the Peace Line"

Below is a Korean video from the 1950s entitled, "Dokdo & the Peace Line." The video has no audio, and seems to be a collage of different film clips. One of the clips seems to show "Dokdo," and another shows what might be a captured Japanese fisherman, who seems to be badly burned and wounded.

1897 German map "CHINA, KOREA UND JAPAN"

This is a German map "CHINA, KOREA UND JAPAN", which was printed in Leipzig in June 1897. Interestingly, Tibet is out of China and Taiwan (Formosa) is in Japan but this is another story. Please take a look at the islands in the "Japanisches Meer" (Sea of Japan) - there are "Matsushima" and "Hornet In.". Although these islands were uncoloured, you may notice the lines between Korea and Japan. The thick and long line from Nagasaki to Wladiwostok (Vladivostok) meant a telegraph cable. The thinner line (fine dots) beside the telegraph cable indicated a national border - you can see that both Matsushima (Ulleungdo) and Hornet In. (Liancourt Rocks) are in the Japanese territory. This is another evidence to show that western countries believed these islands were Japanese territory in the late 19th century, just before the Korean Edict #41 in 1900. Although they errornously believed Matsushima (Ulleungdo) to be Japanese territory maybe because of its name, the map looks quite accurate - Liancourt Rocks were recognised as Japanese territory by the western countries. So this is another evidence that Seokdo in the Korean Edict #41 was not Liancourt Rocks.

1939 Jpn textbook shows Liancourt Rocks as Korean?

Below is a video from an MBC News broadcast that claims that a professor emeritus at Korea's Gyeongsang National University in Jinju has a 1939 Japanese-government textbook showing Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory. The professor says that because the rocks are outlined in the same color as the Korean peninsula, this textbook should end the argument about whose territory "Dokdo" is. The news announcer also claims that it is more evidence that Japanese claims on Liancourt Rocks are fabrication.



Let's ignore, for a moment, the fact that Japanese documents clearly prove that Liancourt Rocks were incorporated into Japanese territory in 1905, which means that even if the Liancourt Rocks on this 1939 primary school textbook map were shown to be Korean territory, it would have been an obvious error. Also, let's ignore the fact that the map clearly shows the rocks labeled with the Japanese name of Takeshima (竹島), instead of Dokdo (獨島). Instead, let's focus on how MBC NEWS seems to have enhanced the map to try to prove the Korean claim.

The following is a screenshot of the MBC News video at 29 seconds into the video. Notice how the Korean peninsula, Ulleungdo, and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima - 竹島) are outlined in heavy bluish purple, but Tsushima (對馬島) and the Japanese mainland do not really seem to be outlined.


Now look at a sreenshot at 31 seconds into the video. Notice how the Japanese mainland and Tsushima have suddenly been outlined in bright orange? MBC News obviously added the orange outline to Japan.


Now, look at the following screenshop at 1:29 into the video. Notice that the Korean mainland, Ulleungdo, and Liancourt Rocks are no longer outlined in heavy bluish purple? It seems that MBC News forgot to add the outline to this photo of the map. This is more evidence that MBC News enhanced the video.


Finally, the following is a closeup of the map from another source. Notice how Ulleungdo (鬱陵島) and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima - 竹島) do seem to have a tinge of blue on one fringe, but was that intentional or was it just bleeding from the blue lines used to indicate the water? For example, notice that there also appears to be some bleeding of blue around some of the Chinese characters on the map.



I am not sure if the map meant to show Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory or not, but if it did mean to show the rocks as Korean territory, then it was clearly an error since documents clearly prove that Japan incorporated Liancourt Rocks in 1905 and changed their name to Takeshima (竹島).

I think it was pretty silly for the Korean professor to suggest that this map should end the Dokdo-Takeshima debate. I also think it was deceitful of MBC News to alter the map to try to make their argument.

Link to Pictures & Info on Ulleungdo & "Dokdo"

The following is a link to some Korean language Web pages describing Ulleungdo and "Dokdo" in words and pictures.

"[르포라이터 민병준의 향토기행] 울릉도 & 독도"

1891 - 1899 Four maps from the Map Library of the University of Alabama

The following four maps are from the Map Library, Department of Geography, University of Alabama (USA), these are shown here with a kind permission from the Map Library of the University.

(1) 1891 German map [Main author: Stieler, Adolf; Title/Description: Ost-China, Korea und Japan, Publication Info: Gotha; Justus Perthes]

There are two islands in the Sea of Japan, "Matsu sima (Dagelet I.)" and "Liancourt In. (d. Franzosen) - Hornet In. (d. Englander)". These two islands were painted in red, the same colour as Japan. Notice the red line between Japan and Korea which shows the national border. Both "Matsu sima" (Ulleungdo) and "Liancourt In." (Liancourt Rocks) are in the Japanese territory.

[Original source: Adams Antique]

(2) 1893 German map [Main author: Andree, Richard; Title/Description: Ubersichtskarte von China und Japan; Publication Info: Leipzig: Valhagen and Klasing, 1893; from the General Hand Atlas]

This map also has two islands "Matsu Schima" and "Liancourt R." in the Sea of Japan but the map didn't show the national ity of these islands - no colour difference between Japan and Korea (both of the country were painted in yellow), no national border drawn.

[Original source: University of Alabama Map Library]

(3) 1898 British map [Main author: Imray, James and Son; Title/Description: Japan Islands; Publication Info: London, James Imray and Son, 1898]

This map shows "MATSU ISL." (with Boussoul rock etc) and "Liancourt Rks." in the Sea of Japan. But the nationality of these islands are not clear because the map was uncoloured. However, the title of the map is "Japan Islands" and Ulleungdo is shown in Japanese name (Matsu island), so the mapmaker may have thought that these islands were Japanese islands.

[Original source: Murray Hudson]

(4) 1899 American map [Main author: The Matthews-Northrup Company, Title/Description: Empires of China, Japan and Korea, Publication Info: Chicago: J. Martin Miller, 1899]

This map shows "Matsushima" and "Hornet Is." in the Sea of Japan. The colour of these islands seems to be orange, which is the same as Japan (Korea is in red).

[Original source: Murray Hudson]

Two of these four maps show that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Japan while other two didn't show any nationalities. Anyway, no western maps show that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Korea. It means that none of these western maps support the theory that Seokdo in the 1900 Korean Edict 41 was Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks).

If you are interested in the site, visit: http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/

(Click Historical map index and then click East Asia section or Japan section.)

[This site was introduced by Kaneganese]

1894 British map of Japan and Korea

This map is from the "Popular Atlas of The World" which was published by G.W. Bacon & Co., Limited in London in 1894. The book of atlas contained fifty double page maps and this map is #36. The three islands can be seen in the Japan Sea - "Argonaut I.", "Dagelet I." and "Hornet Is.". Argonaut island was drawn in broken line, which may mean the presence of the island was doubtful. Dagelet island, today's Ulleungdo, was painted in red (pink) - the same colour as Oki islands and Izumo county. The most importantly, there is a red line drawn between Japan and Korea, which means the national border. As you can see, Argonaut island is in the Korean territory while Dagelet island and Hornet islands are in the Japanese territory.

So now we can see that not only Germany and USA but also UK believed that Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory in the 1890's. The most developed countries in those days recognised that Liancourt Rocks didn't belong to Korea. This is another circumstantial evidence that Seokdo in the 1900 Korean Edict #41 could not have been Liancourt Rocks.

1891 & 1894 American maps of Japan

Above are two maps of Japan that were drawn in 1891 and 1894. Though the maps look identical, they were published by different companies. The one on the left was published by People’s Publishing Co. in Chicago in 1891, and the one on the right was published by Cram Universal in 1894. Cram Universal published another map in 1892 that was almost identical to the above maps. The copyright may have been given to the latter publishing company. (Double click on the maps to enlarge.)

The two maps above show two islands in the Sea of Japan labeled as “Matsu Sima (Dagelet Isl.)” and “Hornet Is.” Matsu Sima was located at about 130 degree 50’ E, which coincides with the Korean island of Ulleungdo, and Hornet Island locates at about 132 degree E, which coincides with Liancourt Rocks (131 degree 52’ E). Although the two islands were not colored, it does not mean that the islands were not believed to belong to Japan since the map also showed the Japanese islands of Tanega Sima and Yakuno Sima as also uncolored. So this is more evidence that the Seokdo in the 1900 Edict #41 could not have been Liancourt Rocks.