In 1899, Korean historian Hyun Chae (玄采) published a geography text entitled, Daehanjiji (大韓地誌), which means “Geography of the Korean Empire.” In the text, he included the following map, which was made by what was considered to be Korea’s Education Ministry (學部).

The above map was one of the first Korean maps to show lines of latitude and longitude. If you look at a larger view of the map HERE, you will see more clearly that Ulleungdo (鬱陵島) and Usan (于山) were situated just past the 130 (三十) degree line of longitude. Farther to the right, at the edge of the map, would be the 131 degree line of longitude. Here is a cutout of the map showing Ulleungdo (鬱陵島) and Usan (于山):

The distance between the 130 and 131 degree lines is divided into sixty minutes. Since the map shows Ulleungdo and its neighboring island of Usando to be just to the west of the halfway point between the two lines, that means that the map shows the two islands to be just to the west of the 130 degree, 30 minute line. According to the geography text that the map appeared in, the easternmost boundary of Korea was 130 degrees, 35 minutes, which means that the map showed Ulleungdo and Usando to be inside Korean terroritory. We know that Usando was not Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) since Dokdo is located at an east longitude of 131 degrees 52 minutes. (Link to the original Korean text)

Usando was the old name for Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (Chukdo), which you can see on the following modern map of Ulleungdo:

Today we know that the easternmost boundary of Ulleungdo and its neighboring island of Jukdo is actually at about 130 degrees 56 minutes, which means that the 1899 geography book was off by about 21 minutes since it said that Korea’s easternmost boundary was 130 degrees 35 minutes. However, in 1907, an updated version of the geography book seemed to have corrected the mistake since it said that Korea’s easternmost boundary was 130 degrees 58 minutes. Again, Dokdo is located at 131 degrees 52 minutes, which means that it was still way outside the eastern boundary that Korea claimed for herself in 1907. (Link to the Korean text)

The 1907 geography text also changed the name of Ulleungdo’s neighboring island from “Usando” (于山島) to its current name of “Jukdo” (竹島). You can see the name change on the following map, which was included in the 1907 textbook.

An enlargement of Ulleungdo (鬱島) is shown in the lower left-hand corner of the above map, which shows Jukdo (竹島) just off the northeast shore of Ulleungdo and labeled with the abbreviated name of “Juk” (竹). Notice that there is no mention of “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks).

In 1946, one year after Korea was liberated from Japan, Korean geographer and historian Choi Nam-seon wrote a book entitled, “Common Questions and Answers about Joseon” (朝鮮常識問答), which was designed to teach newly liberated Koreans various facts about their country, including its history, culture, and geography. In the geography section of the book, Mr Choi wrote the following:

“Question: Where is our country located on a map?”

“Answer: The pennisula, itself, is located from an east longitude of 130 degrees, 41 minutes, 22 seconds to 124 degress, 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.”

Notice that Mr. Choi wrote that Korea’s easternmost boundary, including islands, was at an east longitude of 130 degrees, 56 minutes, 23 seconds, which is the exact location of Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo. In fact, Mr. Choi also wrote the following in his 1946 book:

“Question: Where are the farthest north, south, east, west boundaries of our country?”

“Answer: On the pennisula, the farthest eastern point is Noseo-myeon, in Gyeongheun County of North Hamgyeong Province. The fartest 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.”

Notice that Mr. Choi said that Korea’s fartest 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.

In 1948, Choi Nam-seon published another book entitled, “General Knowledge about Joseon” (朝鮮常識), in which he also said that Korea’s easternmost boundary was at an east longitude of 130 degrees, 56 minutes, 23 seconds and that Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo was Korea’s easternmost point. Again, even in 1948, Korean geography books were saying that Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) was outside Korea’s territorial boundary since Dokdo was located much farther east at a longitude of 131 degrees, 52 minutes.

Today, Koreans claim that “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks) is Korea’s easternmost boundary, but Korean maps and geography books up until 1948 all told a different story.

Japanese Translation Provided by Kaneganese

(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。)

1899年、韓国の地理学者である玄采は、大韓地誌(”大韓帝国の地理”の意味)と言う地理の教科書を出版しました。彼は、大韓帝国学部(教育庁)によって作成されたと思われる次の地図をその中に載せました。

 地図1: 大韓全図(1899)

上掲の地図は、緯度と経度の記載が始めてなされた韓国作成の地図のうちの一つです。より大きなもの〈リンク〉を見ると、鬱陵島と于山が東経130度の線をちょっとだけ過ぎた場所にあることがはっきりと分かります。そこからさらに右にゆくと、地図の端になっており、そこが東経131度の線に当たります。下に、鬱陵島と于山の部分を拡大したものを載せます。

 地図2: 大韓全図(1899) 鬱陵島付近拡大図

東経130度と131度の経線の間は60分になります。この地図では鬱陵島とその隣接島である于山島が二つの経線のちょうど真ん中のすぐ西に描かれています。つまり、この地図は二つの島が130度30分のすぐ西側にあるとしている訳です。この地図が掲載されている大韓地誌によると、韓国(大韓帝国)の東端は東経130度35分となっており、つまりこの地図の二つの島は韓国の領土内であることを示しているわけです。〈リンク〉

于山島は、下の現代の地図にも表されている鬱陵島の隣接島の竹嶼(韓国名竹島)の古名なのです。

 地図3: 鬱陵島地図(現代)

現在では、鬱陵島とその隣接島である竹嶼の東端は、実際には130度56分であることが分かっています。つまり、1899年の大韓地誌では、領土の東端が東経130度35分であると述べていることから、21分程の誤差があることが分かります。しかしながら、1907年に改定された「大韓新地誌」では、その間違いが修正され、大韓帝国領土の東端は東経130度58分とされています。しかし、竹島/独島は131度52分に位置していることから、またしても1907年においても、韓国が自国領土の東端としている場所から、今だはるか離れた場所にあることがわかります。〈リンク〉

1907年の「大韓新地誌」ではまた、鬱陵島の隣接島の名称を”于山島”から現在の名称である”竹島(日本名竹嶼)”と修正しています。1907年の「大韓新地誌」に掲載された次の地図で、名称の変遷を確認出来ます。

 地図4:大韓新地誌(1907)

鬱島の拡大図が地図の左下部に描かれています。その拡大図には竹島(日本名竹嶼)が鬱陵島のすぐ北東沖に描かれており、”竹”と頭文字が記されています。独島(Liancourt Rocks)に付いて何も言及していません。

日本による併合から解放された一年後の1946年、韓国の地理学者であり、歴史学者でもあった崔南善は「朝鮮常識問答」という本を著します。その本は、解放された韓国人に歴史や文化、そして地理といった、自らの国について教えるために書かれた物です。その本の地理の項において崔南善は、次のように記しています。

“”問:我が国は地図上においてどの位置にあるか?”
 ”答:朝鮮半島自体は東経130度41分22秒から124度18分35秒、北緯34度14分16秒から43度0分36秒の間にある。大小の島を含めれば、東経130度56分23秒から124度11分00秒、北緯33度6分40秒から43度0分36秒の間にある。””

崔南善氏が韓国の東端が島々をあわせても130度56分23秒であると記してあることにお気づきでしょうか。それはまさに、鬱陵島の隣接島である竹嶼の位置なのです。事実、崔南善はこの1946年の本の中で次のようにも記しています。

“”問;我が国の最北端、最南端、最東端そして最西端はどこですか?”
 ”答:最東端は咸鏡北道慶興郡蘆西面、最西端は平安北道龍川郡龍川面、最南端は全羅南道海南郡松旨面、最北端は咸鏡北道穏城郡柔浦面である”
“島嶼部を含むならば、最東端は慶尚北道鬱陵島竹島、最西端は平安北道龍川郡薪島面馬鞍島、最南端は済州道大静面馬羅島、最北端は咸鏡北道穏城郡柔浦面である””

崔南善氏が韓国の最東端は慶尚北道鬱陵島竹島(日本名竹嶼)であると明確に記していることが分かります。上にあげた現代の地図で分かるように、竹嶼(韓国名竹島)は、鬱陵島の東沖2.2kmにある島です。

1948年、崔南善は「朝鮮常識」という本を出版しました。その中でも彼は韓国の東端が130度56分23秒であり、鬱陵島の隣接島である竹嶼(韓国名竹島)が韓国領土の東端であると記しています。またしても、1948年においてさえ、韓国の地理の教科書は”竹島/独島(Liancourt Rocks)” が韓国の領土外であると明記している訳です。何故なら竹島/独島(Liancourt Rocks)”は、それよりずっと東の、東経131度52分の位置にあるのですから。

現在韓国人は、東経131度52分に位置する”竹島/独島(Liancourt Rocks)” が韓国領土の東端であると主張していますが、1948年までの全ての韓国の地図や地理の本は、それとは全く異なった事実を伝えているのです。

Links to More Posts on Takeshima/Dokdo (With Japanese translations)

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 1

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 4

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 4 Supplement

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 5

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 7

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 8

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 1

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 2

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 2 Supplement

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 3

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 5

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 6

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 8

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 9

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 10

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 11

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12

Posted by Gerry-Bevers, filed under Verus Historia. Date: May 23, 2007, 9:49 am | 88 Comments »

88 Responses

  1. pacifist Says:

    myCoree,
    .
    Your “註” seem to be added later. The original textbook dosen’t have that kind of annotations.
    (If you click the photo of the textbook in the site you mentioned, you can read it at a large size.)
    .
    The original text is apparently about Jukdo, not Takeshima/Dokdo. But the annotation you wrote is about Takeshima/Dokdo. It seems to me that someone intentionally created it mixing two sources together in order to deceive people.

  2. GTOMR Says:

    The discription on 1905 were quoted from the text below.Tessemi island is suerly JUKDO,even though I readI read “註”you mentioned to say.I
    Japanese recognization of Tessemi island from original doccument is;
    (Doccument Collection of Ministery of Foreign affairs,Commerce office in 1902)
    ヲツセミ島ハ臥達里ノ前洋ニ在リ本邦人之ヲ竹島と俗称ス周回三拾X余「タブ」女竹繁スト雖トモ飲料水ナキヲ以テ移住スル モノナシト云フ、又亭石浦ノ海上ニ雙燭石及島牧ノ島xアリ周回二十丁本邦人之ヲ観音島と称し其岬ヲ観音岬と云ヒ其ヲ観音ノ瀬戸ト呼ヘリ、又雙燭石ハ三岩高 ク樹立スルニヨリ三本ノ名アリ、其他 周園ノ海岸ニx筒ノ峻巖アリシモ一モ名称ナク唯タ光岸ノ前面ニ俵島アレトモ至ヲ小島ナリトス 

    1.There is “Tab”Female bamboo(Liancourt Rocks have no bamboo.But there are many records that there was Female Bamboo on JUKDO.This record explain about the neighbor islands and rock of Ulleungdo e.g. Jukdo,Gwamnundo and Samseon Rocks.Hole rocks and so on.Ofcourse Japanese already recognized so much about the existence of Liancourt Rocks as”Lianco-do or Liancord rocks” but they didn’t mention about it in this record also,that consit from two main pinnacle with small rocks.
    2.In front of Wadari臥達里
    臥達里 and 竹嶼 on 1905
    Liancourt Rocks=Liyanco-do are 89km away from Ulleungdo.If the island(S)is Liancourt Rocks, they would wrote “Far Away”遥方.
    In addition,all the Japanese record about Liancourt Rocks have discription that the rocks consist from two main pinnacle with many small rocks,So “Tessemi” is not Liancourt Rocks.
    Actually,there was confusion of the island name for the writers in the period.

  3. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    MyCoree,

    The document does not “imply that Japan regarded Dokdo as having been Korean territory”; it shows that the person who made the 1905 document got Ulleungdo’s “Jukdo” (竹島) confused with Japan’s “Takeshima” (竹島).

    The 1905 document seems to have referenced the 1902 document I originally asked about, which was before Japan incorporated Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks). Both documents said that Jukdo (竹島) was in front of Wadalri (臥達里), which is a place on the east shore of Ulleungdo just opposite Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo. That fact and the fact that both documents said that Jukdo (竹島) was covered with bamboo should have been enough to convince “a reasonable person” that the Jukdo (竹島) being talked about was not Dokdo.

    Think about it, MyCoree. If the writer had been talking about Dokdo, he would have said that “Jukdo” was near Ulleungdo, not near Wadalri (臥達里), which is just one small place on Ulleungdo. Waldalri (臥達里) is the closest point on the main island of Ulleungdo to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which is why it was mentioned.

    I don’t know if you are intentionally trying to deceive people, MyCoree, but if you are going to reference Hanmaumy’s site, you should know that he seems to be trying to deceive people with lies and half-truths about Ulleungdo and Dokdo. For example, I have told Hanmaumy several times that I believe “Usando” was the the old name for Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, but he continues to write on his site that I believe “Usando” was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Gwaneumdo, which is a lie.

    Anyway, I hope you keep writing here because debate encourages learning. I have learned something from this little debate, and, hopefully, you have, too.

  4. pacifist Says:

    I tried to post the following but failed somehow. So I tried once again:
    .

    報告書號外
    鬱島郡守 沈興澤報告書 內開에 本郡所屬 獨島가 在於 外洋 百餘里 外이살더니 本月 初四日 辰時量에 輪船一雙이 來泊 于郡內道洞浦 而日本官人一行이 到于官舍하야 自云 獨島가 今爲日本領地故로 視察次來到이다 이온바 其一行 則日本島根懸 隱岐島司 東文輔 及事務官 神西田太郞 稅務監督局長 吉田平吾 分署長 警部 影山巖八郞 巡査一人會議一人 醫師 技手 各一人 其外 隨員 十餘人이 先問 戶摠 人口 土地 生産 多少하고 且問 人員 及 經費 幾許 諸般事務를 以調査樣으로 錄去압 기 玆에 報告하오니 熙亮하시믈 伏望等 因으로 准此 報告하오니 照亮하시믈 伏望
    光武十年 四月二十九日
    江原道觀察使暑痢 春川郡守 李明來
    議政府參政大臣 閣下

    .
    The document above is about the Japanese officers’ visit to Ulleungdo. It was a report from the local government to the central government. The problem is that it said that Japanese asked about population, numbers of houses, productivity etc of Ulleungdo.
    .
    This must be the beginning of the misunderstanding. Japanese asked these things as a kind of greetings. But Korean people seem to have received it as a kind of examination or inspection of Ulleungdo.
    .
    In previous year 1905, there were arguments about the ownership of Ulleungdo. In 大東新報, a pro-Japanese newspaper in Korea, reported in September 1905 that prosperity of today’s Ulleungdo owed to Japanese people and that it was originally Japanese island. Another Korean newspaper refuted to the report and there were turmoil cocerning Ulleungdo that year.
    In these background, the report to inform that “Japanese officers inspected Ulleungo” may have been shocking to Korean people.
    .
    If you read the article of 大韓毎日新聞 (1/May/1906) closely, you may notice that they mentions that Japanese claimed that Dokdo, which belonged to this county, was Japanese territory and that they examined population and numbers of houses (of Dokdo)”.
    (Of course there was nobody living in Dokdo, so no population or numbers of houses were needed, but Korean people didn’t know well about Dokdo in those days.)
    .
    Many Koreans didn’t know what Dokdo was, but they may have felt that Japanese got an island near Ulleungdo and they were aiming at Ulleungdo. But as you know, this was totally misunderstanding.
    .
    The local government officer 李明来, who reported the document above was later ordered to investigate the shape and location of the island (Takeshima/Dokdo) but there are no records afterwards. It is highly likely that they found that Takeshima/Dokdo was not Korean territory.

  5. toadface Says:

    Pacifist, the debate that Koreans weren’t involved or cognizant of Dokdo prior to the Japanese annexation is dead and gone. I’ve proven with two documents that Koreans were using Dokdo at this time.

    That being the case how does Dokdo become terra nullius? BTW the term terra nullius is a legal catch-all phrase used by colonial powers of the 19th Century that didn’t even have a clear legal definition until the 1970s. Terra nullius is under fire all across the world and carries little weight.

    Another fact proven is all of these fishing activities on Dokdo were done via Korean territory (Ulleungdo). These acivities can be seen from 2 aspects. First those Japanese livng on Ulleungdo had become Korean residents and thus their activities were on behalf of Korea. Or the more likely scenario is these fishermen were illegally squatting on Ulleungdo. If that is the case these illicit activities are not a sound basis to incorporate Dokdo.

    Japanese fishing on Dokdo from Ulleungdo is nothing more than proof of the territorial bond between Korea’s Ulleungdo and Dokdo. In 1905 it was not practical to fish 160kms or more from your home port and then return.

    The inspection team picture you linked to shows one more fact. Japanese Shimane Prefecture Officials hadn’t even visited Dokdo until 1906. By this time the Japanese had long since mapped, surveyed and built watchtowers and telegraph installations on Dokdo. Thus there is no doubt, Japanese incorporation of Dokdo was nothing more than a military annexation, not part of a natural peaceful process which territorial acquisitions must be, to be considered legal.

    Here are some more maps from the Japanese Imperial Navy’s archives. They detail the completion of the underwater telegraph lines constructed before, during and shortly after the Russo~Japanese War of 1904~1905. These military docs were drawn well before Shimane Prefecture Officials had even seen Dokdo.
    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-wire.jpg
    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-wire2.jpg
    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-wire3.jpg

  6. toadface Says:

    Pacifist the Officials who visited Ulleungdo in 1906 did a survey of Ulleungdo NOT Dokdo….what are you talking about???

  7. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Toadface,

    The Japanese officials in 1906 surveyed Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) before going to Ulleungdo. Where do you think they killed the sea lion? According to what I have read, they had not originally intended to go to Ulleungdo, but were forced there by a storm.

  8. toadface Says:

    Gerry, what’s your point? Shim Heung Taek did not say they did a household count on Dokdo that was Pacifist’s little alteration (note his brackets). It could be they did a brief survey of Ulleungdo as well. It’s not likely they “happened upon Ulleungdo”… 90kms is a long way to go. They also arrived in the morning showing it was an intended destination not just a brief stopover.

    If Shim Heung Taek was referring to the inspection of Dokdo he was merely parroting what the Japanese told him the purpose of the Takeshima Inspection was. For example Shim Heung Taek said. “The Japanese came for the purpose of finding out the number of households, expenditure, population etc…” This could be a sign of Japanese ignorance of the situation on Dokdo as well. In fact there were doctors and tax officials included with the tour group. Why would the Japanese need doctors to inspect an island they “knew” was uninhabited..?

    The 1906 survey of Dokdo from what I understand the first official survey of Dokdo undertaken by any civilian governmental organ. If you look on my site you can see reams of information related to Dokdo. All of it military

    It’s time the Japanese Takeshima lobbyists stood up straight and admitted Japan has zero historical claim to Dokdo. The next step for Japan is to finally admit the annexation of Dokdo was an inseparable part of Japanese military aggression during the largest war of the day. All the Japanese Navy records on Dokdo are numbered and dated in the same files that detail the appropriation of Korean land in 1904~1905. They are also closely linked to the seizure of the Liandong Peninsula (Port Arthur/Dalian) China.

    To honour Japan’s 1905 claim to Dokdo is to reward Japan for her past colonial military land grabs of the Russo~Japanese War……Let’s not

  9. pacifist Says:

    toadface,
    .

    Pacifist, the debate that Koreans weren’t involved or cognizant of Dokdo prior to the Japanese annexation is dead and gone. I’ve proven with two documents that Koreans were using Dokdo at this time.

    What you’ve proven? What documents you are talking about?
    I repeat my question:

    Where did they write as “Koreans were involved on Dokdo independent of japanese seal hunters”? Show us exactly.

    .
    You’ve written the following:

    The Black Dragon Fishing Manual of January 1903 is proof positive Koreans were involved on Dokdo independent of Japanese seal hunters years before the Japanese Navy manoeuvred the Japanese Government into annexing Dokdo in 1905.

    Please show us exactly the part of the text in the Black Dragon Fishing Manual here. Or were you telling a lie?
    .

    Here are some more maps from the Japanese Imperial Navy’s archives.

    toadface, don’t dodge the point. Maps are not related with the topic.
    .

    Pacifist the Officials who visited Ulleungdo in 1906 did a survey of Ulleungdo NOT Dokdo….what are you talking about???

    Didn’t you know that?
    As Gerry explained, they visited Takeshima/Dokdo and caught two sealions for investigation and after that they took a refuge for a bad weather at Ulleungdo. So as I showed you, they met with Shim Heung Taek though it was not an expected meeting so they gave one of the two sealions as an instant gift. (One more sealion was brought back for examination.)
    .
    So Japanese didn’t mean to inspect Ulleungdo but as a greeting, the Japanese officer asked Shim about population of Ulleungdo etc. And Shim reported the meeting to the local governemnt. That was the beginning of the misunderstanding as I showed you.
    .
    One more thing,

    The inspection team picture you linked to shows one more fact. Japanese Shimane Prefecture Officials hadn’t even visited Dokdo until 1906.

    How did you know from the photo that they didn’t inspect Takeshima/Dokdo before 1906?
    Truth is that the governor of Shimane Prefecture inspected in August 1905. Your imagination is not the truth, toadface.

  10. ponta Says:

    Mr. Todaface
    It is time for you to show that Korea recognized Dokdo before 1905.
    As for Japanese cognizance of Dokdo before 1905.
    Why do you keep telling a false story?
    You know that:
    Japanese was cognizant of Dokdo and Ulleungdo.
    Japanese ceded Ulleungdo to Korea.
    But even after that,
    Japan forbade Japanese fisher men to sail to Ulleungdo but allowed them to go to Dokdo,

    On the other hand, Korea in effect had been of the opinion until 1948 that Ulleungdo and Jukdo was the eastern limit of Korean territory as this post shows.
    .

  11. pacifist Says:

    toadface,
    To follow is a part of my posting above (translated text of an article from Japanese newsopaper)
    .

    Because we are planning to inspect your island, we should have brought something for you as a gift, but as we happened to be here for a refuge we couldn’t bring anything. As fortunately we have a sealion here that we caught at Takeshima, we would like to give it to you as a gift. We are happy if you take it”. The chief replied, “Yes, we will protect Japanese people staying here. Thank you for the sealion, if it is delicious I would like to take it”.

    .
    They inspected Ulleungdo but it was not a planned one. As he said in the text they took a refuge for a while at Ulleungdo so they wanted to see the situation of the island.

  12. pacifist Says:

    The Japanese party’s itinerary was as follows:
    .
    22nd March: They left Matsue (mainland of Japan)
    26th March: They left Saigo (of Oki island)
    27th March: They arrived at Takeshima/Dokdo. They examined the island (specialists of agriculture and fishery were in the party) and then planted a pinewood tree. But weather turned worse, so they tooka refuge at 道洞 of Ulleungdo.
    28th March: They left Ulleungdo.
    30th March: They arrived at Matsue.
    .
    So they only stayed one night at Ulleungdo.

  13. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 10 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 […]

  14. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 12 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 […]

  15. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 9 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 […]

  16. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 8 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 […]

  17. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 7 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 […]

  18. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 6 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 […]

  19. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 5 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 […]

  20. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 4 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 […]

  21. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 3 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 […]

  22. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 2 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 […]

  23. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 1 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 […]

  24. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 10 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 […]

  25. myCoree Says:

    pacifist.

    It seems to me that someone intentionally created it mixing two sources together in order to deceive people.

    Your response is a little bewildering and interesting me. Examine it again and you will not find any ‘intentional deceiving’.
    .
    Gerry.

    I don’t know if you are intentionally trying to deceive people, MyCoree, but if you are going to reference Hanmaumy’s site, you should know that he seems to be trying to deceive people with lies and half-truths about Ulleungdo and Dokdo.

    I know nowadays you frequently quot his blog and link your argument to his website. I just linked once to my comment. I don’t have any special reason or plot in linking my comments to his website – you will be the same as my case.
    If you don’t like the Hanmaumy’s blog, you may visit another guy’s blog.
    http://blog.naver.com/cms1530/10016188531
    .
    .
    And, my point is :

    日本民族の新發展場萬韓露領地誌, 寶文館, 罔部福藏 著, 1905
    [Geographical book on the territory of Manchuria, Korea and Russia – the new developing ground of Japanese Race, 1905]

    How imperialistic and nationalistic !

    竹島ハ明治三十八年二月日本新領土トナリ隱岐島司ノ管下ニ歸ス
    竹島는 명치38년(1905) 2월 일본의 새 영토가 되어 오키도사의 소관이 되었다.
    竹島 became a new territory of Japan and entered under the control of Oki island governor on February in 1905.

    Question : Which do you think 竹島 is today, Dokdo? Chukdo?
    Answer 1: Dokdo ⇒ Why do you think that sentence “popped up” while describing Korean territory?
    a) just because it’s near Ullungdo.
    b) so that others might not misunderstand the territory.
    c) because that island had been Korean territory.

    Answer 2 : Chukdo ⇒ Do you really think the てっせみ島 only approx. 2km from main island Ullungdo can be recognized as annexed to Japan? If you are resonable, can you easily say ” the person who made the 1905 document got Ulleungdo’s “Jukdo” (竹島) confused with Japan’s “Takeshima” (竹島).”?
    .
    .
    Think about it. Good night.

  26. GTOMR Says:

    In the article that he wrote 竹島 added the top is about Liancourt Rocks(Takeshima/Dokdo).
    .
    Butthe discription of Tessemi island in 1905 quoted from the doccument in 1902.Reading full text on 1902 it can shows clealy this Tessemi island is Jukdo.
    He just confuse and wrote the discription add on the top.
    .
    Read the original quoted text in the doccument of 1902,they cleary distinguished Jukdo竹島 and Lyanco island(Liancourt Rocks).The discription on 1902,is for the explanation of neighbor islands and rocks in Ulleungdo.But they clearly distinguish Tessemi island and Jukdo.

    Original text that you post ,was quoted from the doccument collection of 1902 by ministery of Foreign Affairs,Office of Commerce.
    They cleary distinguished Tessemi(竹島Jukdo) and Lyanco island(Liancourt Rocks/Matsushima)
    テツセミ島ハ臥達里ノ前洋ニ在リ本邦人之ヲ竹島と俗称ス周回三拾X余「タブ」女竹繁スト雖トモ飲料水ナキヲ以テ移住スル モノナシト云フ、又亭石浦ノ海上ニ雙燭石及島牧ノ島xアリ周回二十丁本邦人之ヲ観音島と称し其岬ヲ観音岬と云ヒ其ヲ観音ノ瀬戸ト呼ヘリ、又雙燭石ハ三岩高 ク樹立スルニヨリ三本ノ名アリ、其他 周園ノ海岸ニx筒ノ峻巖アリシモ一モ名称ナク唯タ光岸ノ前面ニ俵島アレトモ至ヲ小島ナリトス……………本島の正東約五十海里に三小島あり。之をリヤンコ島と云い本邦人は松島と称す。同所に多少の鮑を産するを以って本島より出漁するものあり。然れども同島に飲料水乏しきにより、永らく出漁すること能はさるを以って、四五日間を経ては本島に帰航せり。
    Cf:Wadari臥達里 on 鬱陵島見取図
    1.Tessemi island has “Tab”Female bamboo
    2.In front of Wadari臥達里 (Explanation of Liancourt Rocks,nothing records discribes the rocks in front of Wadari)
    3.iancourt Rocks located in 50seamiles away from Ulleungdo.
    .
    Japan already cleary recognization of existence of Liancourt Rocks,consist from two main pinnacle with small rocks.In addition,they knew the correct location and shapes.But around 1905,after shimane ‘s incorporation,there was confusion of the name of Takeshima by some arthor like the arthor of the books in 1905.He just confuse 竹島Takeshima(Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo)and 竹島/竹嶼Jukdo

  27. GTOMR Says:

    Sorry for double post and I make fixture the mistakes of my post above.
    .
    Read the original quoted text in the doccument of 1902,they cleary distinguished Jukdo竹島 and Lyanco island(Liancourt Rocks).The discription on 1902,is for the explanation of neighbor islands and rocks in Ulleungdo.But they clearly distinguish Tessemi island andJukdo.and Liancourt Rocks.

    Original text that you post ,was quoted from the doccument collection of 1902 by ministery of Foreign Affairs,Office of Commerce.
    They cleary distinguished Tessemi(竹島Jukdo) and Lyanco island(Liancourt Rocks/Matsushima)

  28. myCoree Says:

    GTOMR
    .
    Thank you for your good information.
    Can you guide me to access the data you showed us :

    “the doccument collection of 1902 by ministery of Foreign Affairs,Office of Commerce”

    外務省通商局編纂 通商彙纂 in 1902

    including リヤンコ島(Liancourt Rocks)

    It seems that the pages have been contained in 國立國會圖書館 NDLデジタルアーカイブポータルhttp://www.dap.ndl.go.jp. But I can’t find them.
    Or, can you give a concrete information about that page including リヤンコ島(Liancourt Rocks)
    .
    Thanks.

  29. pacifist Says:

    myCoree,
    .

    Your response is a little bewildering and interesting me. Examine it again and you will not find any ‘intentional deceiving’.
    .

    .
    You couldn’t find out what I meant?
    .

    http://dokdo.naezip.net/Dokdo/Dokdo2-1.htm

    日本民族の新發展場萬韓露領地誌, 寶文館, 罔部福藏 著, 1905

    てっせみ島ハ臥達里ノ前洋ニアリ本邦人之ヲ竹島ト稱ス周回三十町餘たふ女竹繁茂スト雖モ飮料水乏シキヲテ以移住スルモノナシ。しきをて

    뎃세미島는 와달리(臥達里)의 앞바다에 있다. 본방인(일본인)은 이 섬을 竹島라 칭한다. 주회가 30여 정(丁) 이며 타부여죽이 무성하나 누구도 음료수가 모자라 그곳으로 이주하는 자가 없다.

    “Tessemi” island is located in front of 臥達里 and our countrymen call this as Takeshima. Its circumstance is about 30-cho. Although it is full of bamboos, there is no one living because of lack in drinking water
    [註]
    竹島ハ明治三十八年二月日本新領土トナリ隱岐島司ノ管下ニ歸ス
    竹島는 명치38년(1905) 2월 일본의 새 영토가 되어 오키도사의 소관이 되었다.
    竹島 became a new territory of Japan and entered under the control of Oki island governor on February in 1905.
    ヲツセミ島
    テツセミ島 = てっせみ島 = Tesemi = 댓섬.

    In the above post you wrote, the first part is included in the book 日本民族の新發展場萬韓露領地誌 but the sentence in the [註] is not.
    You can read the original book and make it sure yourself. Visit the site you wrote and double click the photo of the book then you can see it yourself.
    .
    Takeshima in the original book is about Jukdo, not Takeshima/Dokdo (please read the discussions in this thread for deatils), while the sentence after [註] is Takeshima/Dokdo. The former is before 1905 and the latter after 1905.
    .
    So your posting above included a big mistake. If the writer of your posting didn’t know about the mistake, he is an amateur whom you shouldn’t rely on this matter. And if he made it intentionally, it is a malicious distortion to deceive people.
    .
    myCoree, did you understand?

  30. myCoree Says:

    pacifist.

    So your posting above included a big mistake. If the writer of your posting didn’t know about the mistake, he is an amateur whom you shouldn’t rely on this matter. And if he made it intentionally, it is a malicious distortion to deceive people.

    I will show it to you. It’s writtten at the upper part of that page.

    HERE(temporary) of here.
    .
    HERE
    and HERE page : 60/168

    The former is before 1905 and the latter after 1905.

    Dokdo annexation by Japan is on February, 1905.
    This book is printed on August 5th, 1905, and piblished on August 11th, 1905.

    What’s wrong?

    One more thing. I did quot the original without change. But, I changed the translation as I thought. That’s all.
    .
    Have a good day.

  31. GTOMR Says:

    To My coffee

    SRY for inconvinience,I forgot to attach the link about Lyanco-do on the doccument correction of Ministery of Foreign Affairs Commerce Office in 1902.Report of Ulleungdo.
    About Tessemi(P43)
    http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=670
    .
    About Lyanco-do.P46
    .
    Best n regards.

  32. pacifist Says:

    myCoree,
    .
    All of the sites you wrote have the picture of the book, and it doesn’t include the annotation in your posting “[註]竹島ハ明治三十八年二月日本新領土トナリ隱岐島司ノ管下ニ歸ス
    竹島는 명치38년(1905) 2월 일본의 새 영토가 되어 오키도사의 소관이 되었다.
    竹島 became a new territory of Japan and entered under the control of Oki island governor on February in 1905.”
    .
    So I want to say this annotation is misleading. Someone added this annotation in the site you mentioned:
    http://dokdo.naezip.net/Dokdo/Dokdo2-1.htm
    .
    I wanted to say that you’d better take care if you read this site. The writer of the site may have little knowledge about the matter, or unless he/she may have malicious intention.
    I hope you will understand what I meant.

  33. pacifist Says:

    myCoree,
    .

    This book is printed on August 5th, 1905, and piblished on August 11th, 1905.

    What’s wrong?

    .
    The sentence in the book 日本民族の新發展場萬韓露領地誌 – “てっせみ島ハ臥達里ノ前洋ニアリ本邦人之ヲ竹島ト稱ス周回三十町餘たふ女竹繁茂スト雖モ飮料水乏シキヲテ以移住スルモノナシ” – is quoted from another book GTOMR mentioned (1902) and in those days (before 1905) Takeshima didn’t mean Takeshima/Dokdo today because the latter was named in 1905. Tessemi island in the sentence is apparently indicates Jukdo.
    .
    While the annotation in the site you mentioned, “註]竹島ハ明治三十八年二月日本新領土トナリ隱岐島司ノ管下ニ歸ス”, is about the incorporation of Takeshima/Dokdo. So the same name “Takeshima” was used to indicate different islands. The “Takeshima” in the book 日本民族の新發展場萬韓露領地誌 is Jukdo (= Korean land) while the “Takeshima” in the annotation is Takeshima/Dokdo (Liancourt rocks= not Korean land).
    .
    I suspect that the writer of the site may have known all these facts and made up the site to make Korean people believe that Takeshima/Dokdo belonged to Korea before the incorporation in 1905, mixing two different texts.
    But as you may notice now, this is not a fact. Please look at the truth. Don’t believe the fabricated site.

  34. myCoree Says:

    Hi, GTMOR
    I’m sorry for my late reply.
    Thank you very much for your honest guide without much hesitation.
    I like coffee very much – you are the same.
    You may call me “myCoffee” if you like it.
    .
    pacifist
    Thanks. you said what I was trying to say about 竹島 instead of me.

    I wanted to say that you’d better take care if you read this site. The writer of the site may have little knowledge about the matter, or unless he/she may have malicious intention.
    I hope you will understand what I meant.

    We all here are not children nor childish. Don’t worry. For example, I didn’t bring his translation, you know. And, I confirmed his mistranslation about 竹島.

    I suspect that the writer of the site may have known all these facts and made up the site to make Korean people believe that Takeshima/Dokdo belonged to Korea before the incorporation in 1905, mixing two different texts.

    If Hanmaumy comes to know this fact, he will make his claim much more stronger.
    .
    Truth? What’s it? Let’s think about it together.
    .
    Have a good evening.

  35. pacifist Says:

    myCoree,
    .
    Thanks for understanding,
    but great apology….
    .
    I re-read the original text and found the annotation at the upper margin of the text.
    So It was not a malicious will by the write of the site. It was a mistake of the writer of the book “日本民族の新發展場萬韓露領地誌”, Fukuzo Okabe.
    .
    I’m sorry. I didn’t notice it.
    .
    Okabe may have quoted the part of the Tessemi island/Takeshima from the 1902 book without knowing the Takeshima in the text is different from the “Takeshima” which Japan incorporated in 1905.
    .
    Anyway, if this was a mistake by the author, it has no significant meaning concerning the ownership of Takeshima/Dokdo.
    .
    myCoree, I agree with you, the title of the book is unbelievable.
    Have a good weekend.

  36. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 12 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 […]

  37. Occidentalism » Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 6 Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 […]

  38. Occidentalism » Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 8 Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 […]