1878 - Japanese Map (日本海岸全圖)

The map below is entitled "Full Map of the Japanese Coastline" (日本海岸全圖) and was made by the Japanese Navy Waterways Bureau (海軍水路局) in 1878. The map shows Ulleungdo labeled as "Matsushima" (松島) and Liancourt Rocks labeled as "Liancourt Rocks" (リアンフールト石). The sizes, shapes, and positions of the islands look quite accurate, and the non-existent island called "Argonaut," which many contemporary Japanese maps labeled as Takeshima (竹島), does not appear. The map seems to have been one of the more accurate Japanese maps of the region at the time.

In the lower right-hand corner of the map, the mapmaker describes the map. With the help of Chaamiey (See comments section), the following is my translation of that description:

This map is a reduced, modified version of a map made by Ino Tadataka (伊能忠敬) in that it has omitted Hokkaido and added Korea and the East China Sea. Traditionally, we have referenced Inō's map when drawing our country's coastal regions, but the surveying technology of his time was still imprecise, so there were frequent errors and omissions. Therefore, even though this map is based on Inō's original map, our navy has corrected the surveying errors of the coastal regions. For areas our navy has yet to survey, the results of Western surveyors were used as a stopgap to reduce suspicions our navy has with the original map. The navy intends to make furture modifications as soon as new surveys are available. This map is not perfect, but we hope it is of some help to those navigators who reference it.

11th Month of the 11th Year of Meiji (1878)
Japanese Navy Waterways Bureau

(See the Comments Section for a transcription and Japanese translation of the map's old Japanese description.)

As you can see from the description of the map, Western maps were referenced for areas the Japanese navy had not yet surveyed, which almost certainly included Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks since the Japanese survey ship Amagi did not visit Ulleungdo until 1880 (See HERE). In fact, if you look at the comparison below with the 1876 British Navy map, you can see that the Japanese navy most likely got their surveys of Ulleungdo, Liancourt Rocks, and the Korean peninsula from the 1876 British map, which also does not show the non-existent island named Argonaut.

Japan's Council of State, the Dajokan (太政官), did not instruct the Japanese navy to survey Korean coastal waters until April 1878, so those results are almost certainly not reflected in this map.

If you compare the above map section with the following section of an 1876 Bristish Navy map, you will notice that the sea depth readings and shapes of the islands are the same, which suggests that the Japanese showed Ulleungdo, Liancourt Rocks, and the Korean peninsula on their map by borrowing from the 1876 Bristish map. The British also labeled Ulleungdo as "Matsushima" and Liancourt Rocks as "Liancourt Rocks" and also omitted the non-existent island of Argonaut.

The following is the description found in the right-hand corner of the Japanese map.

You can view the map in more detail HERE.

1876 - Watanabe Kouki's "Opinion on Matsushima - 1"

The following letter was written by Watanabe Kouki (渡辺洪基), who was the Director of the Bureau of Documents in Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1876. The undated letter was written in response to two letters written in July 1876, one of which was a petition written by a man named  Mutoh Heigaku (武藤平学) to develop an island he referred to as "Matsushima." 

We know that the Watanabe letter was written in response to the Mutoh petition because that is how it was described in an 1881 Japanese Ministry Report entitled, "A Study of Historical Evidence of Takeshima" (竹島考証). Here is what was written just before the Watanabe letter in the 1881 report.

"In regard to the two above letters, Watanabe Kouki (渡辺洪基) wrote his opinion in two letters. Items No. 11 and No. 12 are those letters."

The Mutoh petition was one of the "two above letters" in the report. It was labeled Item No. 8. This means that the Watanabe letter was written in 1876, sometime after Mutoh's July petition. You can seen Mutoh Heigaku's petiton HERE.

The Watanabe letter explained that there was confusion in the Foreign Ministry in regard to the location of the Matsushima described in Mutoh's petition, but it also said that Liancourt Rocks (Matsushima / Hornet Rocks) were Japanese.

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.

Mr. Watanabe urged that a survey ship be sent to the area to clear up the mystery, which is what the Japanese government eventually did in 1880. The survey determined that the Matsushima being referred to in the petition was, in fact, Ulleungdo.

The following is a translation of Mr. Watanabe's letter, which can be found as Item No. 11 in the third and last volume of the 1881 text, "A Study of Historical Evidence of Takeshima" (竹島考証):

Opinion on Matsushima - 1

There are several brief descriptions of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) in past records, but there are no discussions of Matsushima. However, these days people are talking a great deal about Matsushima. There are various views. Some say that it is two islands, and some say that it is one island with two names, but I have not heard that it has been decided either way.

The (mentioned) “Takeshima” is considered to be Chosun’s Ulleungdo, which the Shogunate ended up entrusting to them (Koreans) as a convenient quick fix, without considering future implications. 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. It is still inconclusive.

The location of Matsushima is considered important because it is situated between Joseon and Japan. It is on sea routes between Nagasaki and Vladisvostok and between Shimonseiki and Wonsan, so this is a critical location, where English and Russian warships are frequently seen. So we should be very careful. Even if it is part of Joseon, we still have to protect it. As things stand now, we have no answers to give if other countries ask us about the island. This means the island is ownerless.

Many records say that “Argonaut,” which is the Western name for Takeshima (Ulleungdo), does not exist, and that “Dagelet,” which refers to Matsushima, is actually Takeshima (Ulleungdo). So what we call "Matsushima” (Liancourt Rocks) is called “Hornet Rocks” by Westerners. Foreign maps show Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory, but there is still no agreement among countries concerning the other two islands.

We do not have the answers either, so the area should be surveyed to determine under whose jurisdiction it belongs. Therefore, we should first contact Shimane Prefecture and investigate their relationship up to now. At the same time, we need to dispatch a ship to do a survey of the area. If Chosun has already started, we need to determine their progress and consider our options. I respectfully urge that this matter be dealt with as soon as possible.

Watanabe Kouki, Director of the Bureau of Documents

1893 - "The Empire of Japan" from "The New World Atlas" by The Fuzanbo Publishing Co. shows Matsushima as Ulleungdo, not Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks.

(above) 「大日本帝国」『万国新地図』訂正増補６版　富山房編　東京　小野英之助　明治26　１冊　22cm　（普通学全書第16編）

On 28th March, 2012, Korea’s Northeast Asian History Foundation exhibited 10 Japanese maps and claimed Japanese recognized Takeshima as Korean territory.

"The Empire of Japan" from "The New World Atlas"(189.) by Ono Einosuke marked Japanese mainland, Kuril islands and Ryukyu islands in yellow, but left Korean territory, including Ulleung Island and Dokdo blank. (Donga-Ilbo)

However, as we can clearly see, there is no “Dokdo”, Japan's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks, shown on it. The island labelled “Takeshima” is apparently a phantom island Argonaut, and the other, which is labelled “Matsushima”, is Ulleungdo, which located at 37°30′N 130°52′E. On the other hand, the island Liancourt Rocks located at 37°14′30″N 131°52′0″E.

Because of the confusion of mapping error from western maps in the early 19th century, Japanese started to call Ulleungdo as Matsushima and believed this is a new unknown island which they can log the trees. After the on-site survey of Ulleungdo by the warship Amagi(天城) in 1880, Japanese government finally identified and conclueded that Matsushima is Korea’s Ulleungdo in 1881. At the end of 1881, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Interior confirmed Takeshima and the other island (Ulleungdo=Matsushima) is Korean, revealing “the other island” in 1877’s Dajokan order was not Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks, but Ulleungdo.

In 1883, the instruction which prohibits Japanese from travelling to Matsushima/ the other name Takeshima, which is Korea’s Ulleungdo, was announced officially to not only Shimane but also to the other prefectures like Tokyo and Osaka. The Maps published in the early Meiji era shows this recognition and no wonder this map “The Empire of Japan” shows Matsushima as Ulleungdo. The point is, Japanese Government lost track of Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks, the old name of Matsushima briefly. Japanese started to call the island “Ryanko” or “Ranko”.

北緯三十七度三十分西経八度五十七分（東京本丸天守台ヨリ起算）ニ位スル日本称松嶋一名竹島、朝鮮称蔚陵嶋ノ義ハ従前彼我政府議定ノ義モ有之日本人民妄ニ渡海上陸不相成候條心得違無之様可致此旨及内達候也
----------------------------------------------------------
The island that Japan calls Matsushima or Takeshima and that Korea calls Ulleungdo, located at 37 degrees 30 minutes north latitude and 8 degrees 57 minutes west longitude (from the castle tower of the keep of Tokyo Imperial Palace), is the island that Japan and Korea had an document of agreement saying that Japanese would not sail to nor land on the island without reason. We hereby notifiy this fact so that there will be no confusion about it.

I have no idea why Korean keeps making such an easy mistakes.

“The New World Atlas(『万国新地図』)” is the 16th series of “The Complete Book of General Studies(『普通学全書』)” published by Fuzanbo(冨山房). According to the production note of the atlas, the first edition was published in 1891.

Ono Einosuke(小野英之介) is a son of Ono Gishin(小野義真), who was one of the promoters of Nippon Railway(日 本鉄道) and the one of the founder of Koiwai Farm(小岩井農場). He invested the money to Sakamoto Kajima(阪本嘉治馬), a representative of Fuzanbo Publishing.

According to the book “50 years of Fuszanbo(『冨山房五十年』)”, Ono Einosuke was born in 1871 and graduated from Tokyo College(東京専門学校), the antecedent of Waseda University(早稲田大学), in 1896(the 28 year of Meiji). It doesn’t make sense that 20 years old student could make such a map in 1891, though.

References;

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)

1880 - Japanese Warship "Amagi" (軍艦天城) Surveys Ulleungdo and finds "Takeshima" is Jukdo.

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) "

1883 - Mar. 1 - The island that Japan calls Matushima or Takeshima and Korea calls Ulleungdo (The Draft of Official Notice : 内達案)

"East Sea and Dokdo in Old Maps " hosted by the Northeast Asian History Foundation_ The 26th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”

A Debate with Steve Barber (Frogmouth)

I have been debating Steve Barber (Frogmouth) over at "The Marmot's Hole," where some people there do not like the subject of "Dokdo," so I am posting my last comment to Steve over there to this blog to give him an opportunity to respond here. I have invited him, so we shall see if he comes.

If you are interested in getting some background on the debate, you can go HERE and read up on it.
--------------------------------

Frogmouth wrote (#192):

Wrong very very wrong Mr Bevers. The Shogun did not give permission for Japanese to fish on Ulleungdo 1618. He alternately granted two families, the Oyas and Murakawas permission to voyage there and harvest resources in exchange for tributes. The voyage passes were for going to foreign lands. Japanese did not need permission to voyage to their own country.

The 1618 document was “permission to travel out to sea” (渡海免許) to an outlying island (落島), not to another country. To travel to another country, they would have needed a “red seal document” (朱印狀 – 주인장), which was the custom at the time, but the permission the two families received was not a “red seal document.”

A “red seal document” would have specified the country to which they were traveling. For example, if they were traveling to Korea, the document would have been worded something like this: “自日本到朝鮮國舟也,” which translates as “This ship is from Japan crossing to the country of Korea.” Besides, the only way permitted to travel to Korea at the time was through Tsushima (Daemado), which means “Takeshima” (Ulleungdo) was not considered part of Korea when the document was issued.

Frogmouth wrote (#192):

Saito Hosen’s report says this 州 is the lmilit of Japan. Here “州” means Province NOT place. And it certainly does not mean Ulleungdo Island because Saito Hosen uses the character “島” to mean island. In fact Saito Hosen used “州” consistenly throughout his report to refer to Oki Province.

In the 1667 document, Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) and Takeshima (Ulleungdo) were considered to be outlying islands of the Oki Domain (隠州), so the Oki Domain was considered to be Japan’s most northwestern territory because it stretched out to within sight of the Korean peninsula. Therefore, the document was not saying that Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was Japan’s most northwestern territory, but that the Oki Domain, which included the outlying islands of Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) and Takeshima (Ulleungdo), was Japan’s most northwestern territory.

Frogmouth wrote (#192):

Again wrong Mr Bevers. Korea wasn’t even aware Japan was voyaging to Ulleungdo and Dokdo because their was a vacant island policy. When Chosun found out Japan was visiting Ulleungdo they insisted Ulleungdo was theirs and the Japanese immediately agreed. There was no dispute just Japanese compliance. The area was declared off limits. No travel ban to Dokdo was issued because it would literally be suicide to voyage over a week round trip to desolate rocks, with no resources in very heavy seas.

You are being ridiculous, Frogmouth. Of course, there was a dispute over Ulleungdo in the 1690s, after Korean fishermen, including An Yong-bok, were caught fishing on Takeshima, which the Japanese claimed to be their territory. I am not even going to bother quoting all the back and forth between the two countries. The final result was that Japan recognized Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as Korean territory, but not Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks). Afterwards, Matsushima continued to be called “Oki’s Matsushima.”

Frogmouth wrote (#192):

Mr Bevers your assumptions and half-baked conclusions are laughable. Here’s what we know. Jang Han Sang saw Dokdo and gave a quite accurate assessment of its distance. He later stated that he could not see Japan. From these statements we know he did not consider Dokdo as Japanese territory.

Jang Han Sang guessed at the distance to an unnamed island (Liancourt Rocks) on the horizon and he was off by 30 km. His guess of the size of the unnamed island (Liancourt Rocks) was completely wrong since he guessed it to be no more than 1/3 the size of Ulleungdo, when, in fact, it is more like 1/390 the size.

Furthermore, he did not say “he could not see Japan”; he said Japan’s territory was “distant and hazy” (杳茫) with “no islands of significance” (無眼杓之島). Notice the 之 before 島, which means 眼杓 was describing the kind of island he saw. In other words, he saw an island (Liancourt Rocks), but it was “insignificant” (보잘것없는) since it was no more than 1/3 the size of Ulleungdo.

Frogmouth wrote (#192):

Again another incorrect translation from Mr Bevers. The document actually states Visible to the east of Ulleungdo is an island that is near or adjacent to the limits of JapanThus in reality this document shows Dokdo to be near but outside what the Koreans thought to be Japanese territory.

This is probably one of the more ridiculous claims you have made.
The Korean was as following:

鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境

East of Ulleung (鬱陵之東 – 울릉지동) a small island is visible (島嶼相望 – 도서상마) that connects to Japanese territory (接于倭境).

接(접) means “to connect,” as in 접(接)하다 or 접속( 接續)하다. 于(우) means “to.” 倭(왜) means “Japanese.” 境(경) means “territory” or “border.” If you put them together you get, “connected to Japanese territory.” There was nothing said about it being “near” Japanese territory.

Frogmouth wrote (#194):

Actually Ulleungdo was incorporated during Shilla in 512 AD but the island was evactuated I think in the 16th Century.

Korea’s “empty island” policy started in 1403, which was the beginning of the 15th century, not the 16th. It lasted until 1883.

Frogmouth wrote (#197):

The measurements given on that report had nothing to do with the dimensions of Uldo County it was simply the size of Ulleungdo Island.

The measurements were for Uldo County because it was the subject of the sentence, Here is the relevant sentence:

該郡所管島는 竹島石島오、東西가 六十里오 南北이 四十里니, 合 二百餘里라고 하였다더라.

[They said] the islands under the jurisdiction of the said county (該郡所管島는) are Jukdo and Seokdo (竹島石島오). From east to west it is 60 ri (東西가 六十里오). From north to south it is 40 ri (南北이 四十里니) for a total of 200 ri (合 二百餘里).

The subject of that sentence is “the county” (該郡 – 해군), not the island. In fact, the whole article is about “Uldo County,” not Ulleungdo island.

Everything you wrote above were lies, Frogmouth, and it was not just because of your ignorance of Korean and Chinese characters. You do it intentionally, for reasons I do not understand.

1952 - Jan. - 『韓国沿岸水路誌』第一巻_韓国も竹島を「竹島」と呼んでいた

下の史料は、檀紀４２８５年１月５日、韓国海軍本部水路官室というところが発行した『韓国沿岸水路誌』です。「竹島」という名前で、竹島＝独島が説明されています。(檀紀４２８５年は１９５２年です。)

図（表紙、奥付、「竹島」の部分、「鬱陵島と竹島」の部分）

同じ１９５２年の１月１８日には、李承晩ラインが宣言され、韓国は竹島を自国領と主張しました。この本が編集・刊行されたのは、まさにその直前、ということになります。「竹島」の写真もあり、まさしく、今の竹島＝独島です。

図（「竹島」の写真）２枚

項目名は「鬱陵島と竹島（獨島）」となっていますが、「竹島」の説明部分には「獨島」の名前はありません。目次でも、大きな項目として「鬱陵島と竹島（獨島）」としながら、「竹島」は「竹島」のままです。

図（目次）

「序」と「編集の言葉」の部分に、今年（＝１９５１年）８月に「海軍水路官室」が出来て、４ヶ月の奮闘の末に、ようやく韓国は自前の『水路誌』を持つことが出来た、と書かれています。それまでは韓国には外国の『水路誌』しかなかった、としています。

図（序、編集の言葉）

当時の韓国外務省や水産局がプッシュして無理やり李承晩ラインの中に竹島を取り込んだ１９５２年１月以前には、韓国海軍においては、独島に対する強烈な領有意識はなかったのではないかと思われます。あるいは無関心、と言うべきでしょうか。そして、ここには、「新羅以来の韓国の固有領土である独島が、１９０５年に日本に奪われ、１９４５年、解放とともに祖国の胸に帰ってきた」という「独島の物語＝神話」は、まだ全く存在しません。

そもそも、この本は、ほとんどが、日本側が出した（海軍省)水路部編『朝鮮沿岸水路誌』（昭和８年＝１９３３年）の翻訳と思われます。４か月でできた、と書いてあることからも、それが伺えます。（右側の四角をクリック　原文を見る）（vol １ 第３編　朝鮮東岸　鬱陵島及竹島）

しかも、まったくの丸写しではなく、新しい資料が取り込まれており、１９５１年末ごろの、韓国海軍＝韓国政府の、独島＝竹島認識の一端がうかがえるものだと思います。

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

『朝鮮沿岸水路誌』（昭和８年＝１９３３）と『韓国沿岸水路誌』（檀紀４２４１年＝１９５２）の比較

①

朝鮮沿岸水路誌（８９ｐ）

竹島（タケシマ）　　　此ノ島ハ日本海上ノ１小群嶼ニシテ島根縣隠岐島前ヨリ大約８６浬、鬱陵島ヨリ東南東方約５０浬ニ位シ幅１鏈餘ノ狭水道ヲ隔テテ東西ノ相對スル２島ト其ノ周圍ニ碁布スル幾多ノ小嶼トヨリ成ル（第８９頁對面對景圖第２５及２６参照）。

韓国沿岸水路誌（９１ｐ）

竹島　　　　이 섬은 東海上의 1小群嶼로서 鬱陵島에서 東南東方約５０浬에 位置하며

1鏈餘의狹水道를사이에두고 東西로相對하는2島와 그周圍에碁布하는

幾多의小嶼로서이루고있다。（第９２頁對面對景圖第２５及２６参照）

（翻訳）この島は、東海上の１小群嶼で、陵島より東南東方約５０浬に位置し、１鏈余の狭水道を隔てて東西に相対する２島と、その周囲に碁布する幾多の小嶼から成っている。（第９２頁対面対景図第２５及２６参照）

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

②

朝鮮沿岸水路誌（８９ｐ）

島上ニハ前記ノ如ク家屋ヲ建築スベキ地極メテ乏シク明治３７年１１月軍艦對馬ノ此ノ島ヲ實査セシ際ハ東方島ニ漁夫用ノ菰葺小屋アリシモ風波ノ為甚シク破壊シアリシト謂フ。

毎年夏季ニ至ラバ海驢獵ノ為鬱陵島ヨリ渡來スルモノ數十名ノ多キニ及ブコトアリ彼等ハ島上ニ小屋ヲ構ヘ、毎囘約１０日間假居スト謂フ。

韓国沿岸水路誌（９１ｐ）

島上에는 前記외같이 家屋을建築할만한 地域이 極히 稀少하다。毎年夏季가되면

海驢獵을為하여鬱陵島에서渡來하는者數１０名이라하며또春季부터鬱陵島로부터 和布（미역）及전복等의採取로數１０名의漁夫가渡來하며島上에 小屋을만들어

毎回約１０日間假居한다고한다。

（翻訳）島上には、前記の如く、家屋を建築すべき地が極めて稀少である。

毎年夏季になると、海驢猟の為に鬱陵島より渡来する者、数１０名と言い、また春季から鬱陵島から和布（わかめ）及び鰒等の採取に数１０名の漁夫が渡来し、島上に小屋を作り、毎回約１０日間、仮居するという。

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

③

朝鮮沿岸水路誌（９０ｐ）

位置　竹島ノ東方島ノ南端ハ明治４１年ノ測定ニ據レバ北緯３７度１４分１８秒、東経１３１度５２分３３秒ニ在リ。

韓国沿岸水路誌（９２ｐ）

位置竹島의東方島의南端은 檀紀４２４１年測定에依하면 北緯３７度１４分１８秒, 東経１３１度５２分３３秒에있다.

（翻訳）竹島の東方島の南端は、檀紀４２４１年の測定に依れば、北緯３７度１４分１８秒、東経１３１度５２分３３秒にある。　　　　　注：明治４１年＝檀紀４２４１年＝1908年

Korea to Build Underwater Park on "Dokdo" to Counter Japanese Claims

According to an article in the Korean newspaper Dong-a Ilbo entitled "Breakwater, underwater park to be built on Dokdo islets," Korea plans to spend about $346 million to build an underwater park on "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks - Takeshima) to counter Japan's claim to the the rocky islets. Korea is upset that Japan listed "Takeshima" (Dokdo) as Japanese territory in middle school textbooks and in a "Diplomatic Blue Paper."

Here is my question: "How does building an $346 million underwater park counter Japan's historical claims to "Dokdo"?

"Tokyo teachers union denies Japan's claim to Dokdo." Really?

According to an October 30 article in Korea's Dong-a Ilbo, a "Tokyo teachers union denies Japan's claim to Dokdo." Is the Korean headline true?

Here are what the newspaper says are quotes from the union.

The union said, "If schools teach the (Japanese) government`s unilateral opinion that Takeshima is Japanese territory illegally occupied by Korea, it could instill students with emotional nationalism."

"Dokdo is different from the Senkaku Islands (called the Diaoyu Islands in China), over which Japan has a terrestrial dispute, and the Northern Territory (Japanese name for the Kuril Islands), which is effectively governed by Russia."  

The union added, "The history and civil ethics textbooks published by Ikuhosha, a right-leaning publisher which carries ultra-rightist opinions without reservation over history and territorial issues, distort history and antagonize the Constitution," adding, "Measures must be beefed up to block them from reaching students."

A union source said Friday, "When we teach this part, we will objectively teach students that Korea and Japan have differing views over Takeshima," adding, "We hope to contribute to efforts to find a peaceful resolution."

Instead of "denying Japan's claim to Dokdo," the union seems to be saying that it wants to "objectively teach students that Korea and Japan have differing views over Takeshima."

That's fine, but will they just teach that "Korea and Japan have differing views" or will they also look at the evidence for the two claims? If they just teach that Korea and Japan have differing views on Takeshima, then they are not really teaching anything, are they?

If they were to look at the historical evidence, then they would find that Korea does not really have any to support her claims. Korea has no old maps showing Takeshima (Dokdo), by any name. Korea has no old documents showing that Koreans ever traveled to Takeshima before Japanese started taking them there on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s. And the only Korean references to Takeshima before the Japanese incorporated the rocky islets in 1905 are just vague references to a distance, unnamed island being visible from Ulleungdo. The Korean references suggest that Koreans could see the islets, but never traveled to them and even believed them to be Japanese.

Also, did the Tokyo teachers' union really refer to Takeshima as "Dokdo," as is quoted in the Dong-a Ilbo article?

I think Tokyo's teachers' union needs to start doing its job of teaching students the history of Takeshima instead of playing diplomat by ignoring the historical facts just to appease Korea.

1907 - 大韓新地誌 - 南章熙

1908 - 問答大韓新地誌 By Tʻae-gŭk Yi

1954 Aug 6 - "South Korea, Problem Nation"

In an August 6, 1954 editorial entitled "South Korea, Problem Nation," the Meriden Journal suggested that South Korea was being too bellicose and gave its seizure and occupation of "the Takeshima Islands in the Sea of Japan" as just one example.