MATSUSIMA, or Dagelet island, is a collection of sharp conical hills, well clothed with wood, supporting an imposing peak in the centre, in lat. 37°30′N., long. 130°53′E. It is 18 miles in circumference, and in shape approximates a semicircle, the northern side, its diameter, running nearly E. by N. and W. by S. 6.25 miles. From each end the coast trends rather abruptly to the southward, curving gradually to the east and west, with several slight sinuosities until meeting at Seal Point, the south extreme of the island, off which is a small rock.What's really strange is that the rock appears on the Daum map of "Seal Point," but not on the satellite photo.
Ulleungdo's Northeast Shore (울릉도 동북 지역) & Jukdo (죽도 - 竹島)
Ulleungdo's Neighboring Island of Jukdo (죽도 - 竹島)
On a side note I feel that I should mention that many of us did question the lecturers about how Korea acts towards Dokdo and how it basically presents itslef. They took our criticisms and answered our questions to the best they could. One of the speakers presented us with a booklet about the debate and was terribly biased. He argued that Japan's aspiration for Dokdo is to reconquer the Korean Peninsula. He didn't answer my question when I asked for empirical evidence."Japan's aspiration for Dokdo is to reconquer the Korean peninsula"? What a stupid thing to say! Such ridiculous claims may work on rabid, anti-Japanese Koreans, but it does not work on the average foreigner. I would have thought that Koreans would be worldly enough to know that by now, but I guess not.
After claiming our spots and mingling in the hallway while a few were interviewed on camera (What do you think about Dok-do island? Do you think you will have a good visit to Dok-do? Do you feel Dok-do is an important issue?) we were called on deck for the funniest part of the trip…little did I know it was to be one of the last times we’d smile on board this ship. They gave us name tags with the now famous motto: Dok-do is Korean territory, and a picture of our flag so we could all see what country we were from, and then we were rounded up in front of the giant Dok-do banner (it travels) and instructed to wave our flags and say, in Korean, that Dok-do is Korean territory. Are you picking up on the theme? They were going to air this footage on t.v and we were all reasonably sure that we would be forever banned from entering the country of Japan after this little display went public.
If you would like to vote in this survey, you can find the survey question on the right side of the blog.Is the Korean government telling its people the truth about Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo)?
A) YesB) No
C) I don't know
"Korea Maritime Institute(KMI : 韓国海洋水産開発院）, who lacks ability to read their own historical documents, cirticized on Shimane Prefecture. "
On April 27, 2009, KMI issued the article "Shimane Prefecture of Japan intensify the publicity of "Takeshima/Dokdo"only by advantageous historical resources"(Dokdo and oceanic territory briefing" No.09-60), claiming Shimane Prefecture is working on a biased information activities regarding Takeshima Issue. According to KMI's claim, the homepage of Shimane Prefecture "distorts the historical records" by "intentionally dismissing the official documents, such as the passage ban in 1696 or the Dajokan Order(太政官指令) in 1877, which, according to KMI, admitted (!?) that Ulleungdo and Dokto are the Joseon territories", and "especially, presenting 1846 edition of "Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads( 改定日本輿地路程全図)",dismissing the first edition, which, according to KMI again, notes Dokdo as Korean territory (!?)."
However, this KMI's claim is nothing but merely a sophistry for concealing Korea's own acts of invasion, who keeps occupying Takeshima unlawfully. Because the final report of Shimane Prefecture's Takeshima Research Center's "Surveillance study on the Takeshima Issue" and the pａｍｐｈｌｅｔ by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan "１０ Ｉｓｓｕｅｓ ｏｆ Ｔａｋｅｓｈｉｍａ" both empirically proved the fact that Takeshima/Dokdo had never been a territory of Korean before 1905, when Takeshima is incorporated into Shimane Prefecture.
Japan named the Liancourt Rocks, the uninhabited island that was terra nullius as Takeshima on January 28, 1905, and "make it control under the jurisdiction of the local government of Oki island of Shimane prefecture from now on (本邦所属)" based on International Law. On the other hand, South Korea somehow automatically replace all "Usando(于山島)" in the historical documents and maps into Dokdo when they read them and claim Takeshima/Dokdo as their territory while distorting historical records. Because of this distortion, Dokdo/Takeshima was said to have been Korean territory since 6th century(!?) and wrongfully "identified" Usandos even in "Annals of King Sejong (世宗莊憲大王實錄)" and "Dongguk Yeoji Seungram (東國輿地勝覽)" as today's Takeshima.
However, Korea's logical basis, notation of 東国文献備考, had been already exposed as falsification during the process of compilation of the book, and SK had already lost its grounds of an argument in order to claim the sovereignty of Takeshima/Dokdo. What South Korea had to do by all means was to prove the fact Takeshima/Dokdo was a South Korean territory without the notation("輿地志云 鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 于山則倭所謂松島也 (Yojiji says that Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk. Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima. )") of 東国文献備考, which had been exposed as alternation already.
Nevertheless, KMI dodged the controversy which would be fatal for them, taking up "the passage ban in 1696, "the Dajoukan Order(太政官指令) in 1877 and first edition of "Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads( 改定日本輿地路程全図)(1779)", and quibbled "Shimane Prefecture is working on a biased information activities regarding Takeshima Issue."
However, since Takeshima/Dokdo had nothing to do with Korean territory, therefore, the Japanese decision of Takeshima has absolutely nothing to do with Korea naturally. But KMI only argued about the colouration of Ulleungdo and Takeshima/Dokdo on the map and misconstrued/distorted that" Takeshima/Dokdo was described as Korean territory" if it was not coloured. But, the point for interpretation of "Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads( 改定日本輿地路程全図)" is not the colouring but the appendix noted next to Ulleungdo(Takeshima).This additional remark "見高麗猶雲州望隠州" was cited from the "Chronicle of the country (国代記)" in " Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)" compiled by Saito Hosen in 1667(寛文七年), and it states Ulleungdo was Japanese territory. The meaning of this remark is " (These two are uninhibited islands(此二嶋無人之地).) From there(Ulleungdo) you can view Korea, it is just like you view Onshu (Oki island) from Unshu (east of Shimane prefecture, mainland of Japan)(見高麗如自雲州望隠州)." And it is followed by the sentence"So then, the northwest of Japan, we make this island (Ulleungdo) (note : 州 means the island, state, province) to be the boundary(然則日本乾地以此州為限矣)." in Saito's book.
In South Korea, "此州" is interpreted as the Oki islands. Korean translate "" as Oki islands, However, most importantly, this sentence has important and necessary condition that from "this island/state/province", Choson (Korea) can be seen. It is impossible for us to see even Ulleungdo, not to mention Joseon from Oki. Naturally, "此州" should be interpreted as Ulleungdo.
That is easily proven to be true because in Kanbun(寛文 ; 1661-1672) years, when Saito Hosen compiled " Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)", Japanese then did have a recognition of Ulleungdo as Japanese territory, and in fact, Saito himself reported the cases of voyage to Ulleungdo in his book. Besides, in 1666（ 寛文六年）, a year before Saito compiled the book, 21 fishermen of the Ohyas(大谷家) from Yonago of Tottori clan, who left for fishing to Ulleungdo, drifted to Janggi(長鬐) in Choson. Edo Bakufu, Japanese government at that time, who was consenting to the seclusion policy, indeed acknowledged this shipwreck incident and Ohya family's Ulleungdo fishing activity as well.
Therefore, the fact there is notation on "Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads( 改定日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo cited from Chronicle of the country (国代記)" in " Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)", is the concrete proof that Nagakubo followed geographic recognition of Saito, who reported Ulleungdo as "the northwestern boundary of Japan", and considered Ulleungdo as Japanese territory.
Nonetheless, KMI disregarded this necessary notation and claimed Shimane Prefecture "dismissed the first edition of "Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads( 改定日本輿地路程全図)", which specially notes Dokdo as Korean territory (!?)". They are apparently racking their brains to manipulate public opinion in order to give people the impression as if Shimane prefecture is doing some kind of document manipulation.
However, what is indispensable for historical study is the existence of the document which can be grounds of an argument. In Saito's "Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)", he stated Ulleungdo as the northeastern limit of Japan, and Nagakubo's"Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads( 改定日本輿地路程全図)" followed him and clearly noted Ulleungdo as the northeastern limit of Japan. Daring to read Ulleungdo in stead of Oki island is only the act of camouflage which try to conceal the fact Takeshima couldn't be Korean territory.
As for this kind of deceptive/fraudulent document manipulation by KMI, it is demonstrated satisfactorily for the interpretation of "passage ban in 1696 and Dajokan instruction in 1877". KMI's interpretation that in those two documents, Japan "admitted that Ulleungdo and Takeshima/Dokto were the Korean territories" is also the malignant/tinpot "Distortion of historical materials".
As a matter of fact, the passage ban in 1696 by Edo Bakufu in concern was for ceding the permission to voyage to Ulleungdo which Edo Bakufu had been giving to Ohya and Murakawa family, thus it has nothing to do with today's Takeshima. The fact that Tsushima clan fought over Ulleungdo, not today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks, against Joseon government also contributes to consolidate Japanese claim. Again it is clear that it was Ulleungdo alone that Edo Bakufu, the government, prohibited to voyage, while Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks was not even hinted in the ban.
The reason KMI insists obstinately, against all the confronting evidences, saying that "It was admitted as Korean territory" is because Tottori clan answered that "Takeshima(Ulleungdo) doesn't belong to Inaba nor Hohki(因幡伯耆)" and "There are no islands as Takeshima, Matsushima and others attached to both (Inaba and Hohki) countries."when Edo Bakufu made inquiry to Tottori clan regarding the title to Takeshima(Ulleungdo). However, the licence to Ulleungdo Voyage was issued to The Ohyas and Murakawas by Edo Bakufu, not to Tottori clan, thus it has nothing to do with Tottori clan in the first place. Consequently, it is natural for Tottori clan to answer "Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks) don't belong to Inaba nor Hohki ". KMI's streaching this as " was admitted they are Korean territory" is an unenlightened remarks by the person who are utterly ignorant of the historical distinguish Japanese feudality system from Joseon's commandery/district system in heavily-centralized nation.Same goes to the distorting interpretation of 1877's Dajokan instruction, which the Cabinet said that "Takeshima and the other island has nothing to do with our country." Korean assumes this "other island" as today's Takeshima and made it as a basis for the claim that Japanese government decided Takeshima was not Japanese territory. Only because "The rough sketch of Isotakeshima (磯竹島略図)" which Shimane prefecture submitted to the government in 1876, described Isotakeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(Takeshima) and both islands are mentioned in the documents submitted, Korean declared Matsushima or "the other island"as today's Takeshima. (* to the left is a cutout from "The rough sketch of Isotakeshima (磯竹島略図)".)
However, the document/text criticism is indispensable for this 1977 Dajokan instruction as well , since the name of Takeshima and Matsushima were already conveyed to the West by means of Siebold's "Map of Japan" in 1840 and those two islands were wrongfully plotted in the western sea-charts and maps at that time. In Siebold's "Map of Japan", Argonaut, which later declined its existence, was depicted as Takeshima and Matsushima was Dagelet(Ulleungdo). This made maps and sea-charts that had been circulated in Japan depict Ulleungdo as Matsushima. In results, Matsushima, "the other island" in Dajokan instruction meant Ulleungdo(Dagelet), not today's Takeshima.
On the other hand, the existence of Liancourt Rock, which was renamed as "Takeshima" and incorporated into Shimane in 1905, was ascertained by Le Liancourt, the French whaling ship, in 1849. Accordingly, 1864 edition of British Royal Navy's Sea-chart described Liancourt Rocks(today's Takeshima) along with Takeshima(Argonaut) and Matsushima(Ulleungdo). Among those three islands, Takeshima(Argonaut), which couldn't be identified, disappeared from 1876 edition of British Navy Sea-chart, and since then, Matsushima(Ulleungdo) and Liancourt Rocks were described on the sea-charts. In results, the maps produced referring to the chart prior to 1876 version didn't describe today's Takeshima.
This fact leads the same conclusion that Matsushima(Dagelet island), "Takeshima the other island has nothing to do with Japan" in 1877 Dajokan instruction meant Ulleungdo(Dagelet), not today's Takeshima. This was officially confirmed by the Warship Amagi's surveillance on Ulleungdo. The Amagi confirmed not only Matsushima being Ulleungdo but also "Jukdo(竹嶼/ Korea's 竹島)" which locates 2km away from Ulleungdo. This surveillance record was adopted by Kitazawa Masanari, a MOFA employee, in his book "A Study of Takeshima (Takeshima Kosho:竹島考証) " and "A Study of the Territorial Sovereignty on Takeshima (Takeshima Hanto Shozoku Koh : 竹島版図所属考)". And this Japanese decision led 竹嶼/Jukdo written as 竹島/Jukdo in place of their current/old name of Usando(于山島) in Korea.
As has been seen, the Meiji government confirmed that "Matsushima" was in fact a Ulleungdo, not old Matsushma/today's Takeshima based on Kiatazawa's book "A Study of the Territorial Sovereignty on Takeshima (Takeshima Hanto Shozoku Koh : 竹島版図所属考)". On the other hand, KMI, ingoring this historical fact, distorted and got it into their head that Dajokan, the top policymaking group in Japan, said today's Takeshima was unrelated to Japanese territory,
The territorial issue of Japan-South Korea would never be solved as long as South Korea neglects the document criticism and moreover, in Korea, propaganda and the historical study are not distinguished. The South Korea's KMI made a wild and wrong guess, criticizing the homepage of Shimane Prefecture as " Strengthen the publicity of "Takeshima/Dokdo"only by advantageous historical resources", and it stems from their lack of ability of historical resources. Keeping cheating the international society as South Korea's repeating "Misinterpretation of historical materials" remarkably ruins the national interest of South Korea herself. What KMI should do is not to fabricate a groundless history nor to continue spreading the propaganda to criticize Japan, like they are doing up to now. What they are required to do is to demonstrate the validity of their claim, if Takeshima really was their territory, by the evidence of historical documentation.
“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第１９回 文献が読めない韓国海洋水産開発院の島根県批判について 下條正男”
Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.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 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”
The 16th column ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."
The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"
The 12th column “Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding”
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)"References :
Shimane Prefecture (Eng. Jap. & Kor.)
Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Eng.)
1696 - Ordinance Prohibiting Voyages to Takeshima (幕府 渡航禁制令)
1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)
Q1: Has Dokdo been a part of Korea since the sixth century?
Q 2: What is Ulleungdo's largest neighboring island?
Q 3: Why did old Korean maps show Ulleungdo as two islands?
Q 4: Did King Sejong's geography text mention Dokdo?
Q 5: Did Korea's 1530 "Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungram" mention Dokdo?
1656 - "Yojiji (輿地志)" by Ryu Hyung-won (柳馨遠) didn't say "Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima."
1667 - Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)
1667 - "Onshu Shicho Goki(隠州視聴合記)" - The different translations
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）
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) "
1882 April 7 - King Kojong says Usando Neighboring Island of Ulleungdo (高宗実録 19卷, 19年 4月 7日 壬戌)
A forum is a place, situation, or group in which people exchange ideasThere is no discussion or exchange of ideas on Steve's site, and he does not seem interested in conveying truth. Steve's site has no discussion forums, which would give people an opportunity to refute his silly claims. It is just a Dokdo propaganda site operated by a man who used to go around to different Web sites promoting Korea's Dokdo claims using multiple, anonymous IDs until his identity was finally exposed.
and discuss issues, especially important public issues.
If anyone is interested in seeing just how unbiased and academic Steve is, you can go read the posts on his site at the following address: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Some Japanese claim that he is taking side with Korea, his wife's homeland and that his arguments are largely biased, he said.
"I, however, see myself as an academically devoted person to this specific historical issue," he said.
Former Shimane Gov. Sumita Nobuyoshi (澄田 信義) passed away yesterday.
"Geography for Middle School(中等地理)" is a textbook, published by a Korean company 以文社 in Daegu(大邱) city and probably handwritten and printed by some kind of mimeograph machine. We don't know when it was exactly printed, but it should be after 1945, the year Korea gained the Independence. The book also tells that the author is the Association of Gyeongbuk Geographers(慶北地理學會). 慶北 is the abbreviation for Gyeongsangbuk-do (North Gyeongsang Province:慶尚北道). Ulleung County(鬱陵郡), which Ulleungdo and "Dokdo" supposed to belong to, is in 慶北, and Geographer in 慶北 should have been well informed about geography of Ulleungdo.
中等地理Mr. Choi also wrote the following in his 1948 book "朝鮮常識":
“Question: Where is our country located on a map?”
“Answer: The peninsula, itself, is located from an east longitude of 130 degrees, 41 minutes, 22 seconds to 124 degrees, 18 minutes, 35 seconds, and from a north latitude of 34 degrees, 14 minutes, 16 seconds to 43 degrees, 0 minutes, 36 seconds. If islands (large and small) are included, east longitude is from 130 degrees, 56 minutes, 23 seconds to 124 degrees, 11 minutes, 00 seconds, and north latitude is from 33 degrees, 6 minutes, 40 seconds to 43 degrees, 0 minutes, 36 seconds.”
“Question: Where are the farthest north, south, east, west boundaries of our country?”
“Answer: On the peninsula, the farthest eastern point is Noseo-myeon, in Gyeongheun County of North Hamgyeong Province. The farthermost western point is Yongcheon-myeon, in Yongcheon Country of North Pyeongan Province. The farthest southern point is Songji-myeon, in Haenam County of South Jeolla Province. The farthest northern point is Yupo-myeon, in Eunseong County of North Hamgyeong Province.”
“If islands are included, the fartest eastern point is Jukdo, in Ulleung County of North Gyeongsang Province. The farthest western point is Ma-an-ri, Sindo-myeon, in Yongcheon County of North Pyeongan Province. The farthest southern point is
Marado, Daejeong-myeon, in Jejudo of South Jeolla Province. The farthest northern point is Yupo-myeon, in Eunseong County of North Hamgyeong Province.”
Mr. Choi clearly wrote that Korea’s farthermost eastern point was “Jukdo, in Ulleung County of North Gyeongsang Province.” As can be seen on the modern map of Ulleungdo above, Jukdo is a small island about two kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore. (Images of Choi's books are from reprinted book.)
極東 東経一三〇度五六分二三秒This 竹島 is not Japanese Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo, but Jukdo. When Japanese got confused the numbers, names and locations of the islands in the Sea of Japan due to the misplotted Western maps and old Korean maps which placed Usando to the west of Ulleungdo after the Meiji Restoration in 1867, the government of Japan sent Warship Amagi to survey Ulleungdo and "finally came to understand the situation when I (Kitazawa, a MOFA official ) learned that "Matsushima" (松島) was Ulleungdo, and the other island, which was called Takeshima (竹島), was just a rock (竹嶼 - Jukdo or Boussole Rock). " Then the islands was decided to call "竹嶼(Korean name 竹島:Jukdo)" by Japanese in 1882, and Korean followed Japanese and started to call this neighbouring island of 4km away from Ulleungdo, which they used to call Usando, as Jukdo(竹島). Korean considered the easternmost of Ulleungdo, which naturally makes the island Jukdo the easternmost of Korean territory. In spite of the confusion in 1860s-80s, Japanese officials knew "ホルネットロックス/ホウルリロック : Hornet Rocks " or "リャンコ島 : Liancourt Rocks", today's Japanese Takeshima, is Japan's while they never ever considered as Korean territory.
（慶尚北道鬱陵島竹島）
As we could see in the following references, there is no single document that suggests Korean government and intellectuals even perceived accurately where their "Dokdo" is nor had a clear conception that it was their territory before 1950s, when they militarily occupied the island illegaly against Japan's official firm protest.
1922 - "Map of Daehanminguk" (대한민국 디도) (大韓民国図)
This is a map made by the Office of Public Information, Republic of Korea. It included Ulleungdo (as ULLUNG DO) but not Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks)."But it was in the middle of
the nineteenth century that the Wsterners came to Korea in considerable numbers.
In addtion to Catholic priests, quite a number of French, British and Russian
survey-ships and whalers cruised the waters surrounding the peninsula, and many
Korean islands, ports, and coastal towns became known to the West as were shown
on their marine charts. Mulshom island, for instance, was called "Boisee",
Kohmun island, "Port Hamilton," and Ulnung (sic), "Dagalet.(sic)" Cheju island
had previously been named "Quelpart" by the Dutch."
The year 1954 was the year Korea's illegal occupation of Liancourt Rocks began.
The French maps from the mid-18th century depicted two islands off the eastern coast of the Korean peninsula. For example, the first map is a French map published in 1752 in Paris, which shows two islands - "Fang ling tau" and "Chiang san tau". As you may notice, the place names in the map were written in Chinese pronunciation. The French mapmaker may have gotten the original map written in Chinese character but they couldn't pronounce them in Korean pronunciation - so they may have asked some Chinese persons about pronunciation to make this map. 
The same goes for the 1804 French map, the 3rd map. The names of the islands are "Fan-ling-tao" and "Tchiang-chan-tao" - slightly changed but almost similar to the names above. Although Argonaut (1789) and Dagelet (1787) islands were already discovered but they were not drawn in the maps until mid-19th century.
The 4th map here is a famous Pinkerton's map in 1809 - it is essentially the same as the first three maps.
Argonaut and Dagelet islands appeared in the 1815 map from the Thomson New General Atlas (published in August 1815), (left) the 5th map, and also in the 1835 map - "Empire of Japan" (by J. & C. Walker, London), (right) the 6th map. They have "Fang-ling-tao" or "Fanling tao" at the same time - so they have three Ulleungdos including the phantom island of Ulleungdo (Argonaut) and true Ulleungdo (Dagelet).
The map below is from the atlas "Joseon-do" (朝鮮圖), which is stored in the Osaka Nakanoshima Library (中之島圖書館). It is believed to have been made sometime in the early 1800s.
