Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

Another Picture of “Dokdo” from Ulleungdo?

January 18th, 2007 . by Gerry-Bevers

The following picture of “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks) was supposedly taken from Ulleungdo on January 15, 2007 with a Nikon D200 camera using a 70-300ED lens. It appears that you can see even the lighthouse on Dokdo, which is 92 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo. Supposedly, even two mountain ridges near Samcheok City in Gangwon Province were also captured by the camera on the same day. The mountain ridges are between 130 and 150 kilometers away from Ulleungdo. Link to the Korean article.

Getting a picture of Dokdo from Ulleungdo is a big deal in Korea because Koreans consider it proof that Dokdo was recognized as Korean territory since 512 A.D. The following was written in the Annals or King Sejong:

于山武陵二島 在縣正東海中 二島相去不遠 風日淸明 則可望見 新羅時 稱于山國 一云鬱陵島

The two islands of Usan and Mu-leung are due east of the present “hyeon” (Uljin), and the distance between them is close enough that they are visible on a clear, windy day. In the time of Silla, they were called Unsan-guk or Ulleungdo.

Korean historians claim that the passage was referring to the distance between the islands of Usan and Muleung (Ulleungdo), but Japanese historians claim that it was referring to the distance between Uljin and the two islands. I agree with the Japanese and here are the reasons I gave in a previous post on this site

——————-

Okay, so where do Koreans get the idea that Usando was a reference to Dokdo? Well, they claim that the proof is in the following 1454 record, which comes from the geography text of King Sejong. The record is actually a description of Uljin-hyeon, which was the equivalent of a county in Gangwon Province. When Koreans quote the record, however, they usually omit the description of Uljin-hyeon and focus on only one or two sentences in the record. I will post the complete record because I think it is important to read the specific qoute in context.

1454 (Annals of King Sejong, Geography Text)

Uljin-hyeon
One Jihyeonsa

Originally named “Ujinya-hyeon” during Koguryeo, the name was changed to its present name during Silla and made a gun. During Koryeo it was called “Uljin-hyeon,” which is still being used during our dynasty. People in the hyeon say that in the past it has also called “Bani-gun” and Seonsa-gun.

Yaksa-jin is to the south of the hyeon, and Goljang-jin is to the north. Its boundries stretch eight ri east to the mouth of the sea, sixty-three ri west to Andong’s Socheon-hyeon in Gyeongsang Province, thirty-seven ri south to Pyeonghae, and thirty-two ri north to Samcheok.

It has 270 lakes and a population of 1,430. Its military includes thirty-eight soldiers, seventy sailors, and four fortress guards. There are five local family names: Im (林), Jang (張), Jeong (鄭), Bang (房), and Yu (劉). There is also a Min (閔) from Yeongju.

Half the land is fertile and half is not. They make their living by fishing, but they also venerate martial arts. They cultivate about 1,351 gyeol of land, of which one third is rice paddies. The land produces the five grains, mulberry, hemp, persimmons, chestnuts, pears, and paper mulberry. They paid tribute of honey, beeswax, iron, wallnuts, mushrooms, gallnut, prickly ash, brown seaweed, lacquer, cured venison, fox pelts, wildcat pelts, deerskins, tiger pelts, pig hair (used for brushes), codfish, octopus, gray mullet, abalone, and hard-shelled mussel. The medicinal herbs they have are bokryeong mushrooms, Angelica uchiyamana root, Angelica decursiva root, bletilla, Schisandra chinensis, and ginseng. They have sixty-one local products, including slender bamboo, large bamboo, and salt.

There is one porcelain pottery shop ten ri to the north at Singok-ri, and one crockery shop twelve ri to the north at Gamdae-ri. All of their products are of poor quality.

The Hwangsan Stone fortress has a circumference of 616 paces 5 cheok, and is sometimes used as a the village fortress. Inside is four springs and one pond. The pond sometimes dries up during severe dought, but the springs never do.

There is a hot springs forty-four ri to the north, west of Heungbu Horse Station at Gusu-u Mulsan-dong. There are three horse stations: Heungbu (興富), which used to be Heungbu (興府); Deoksin (德神), which used to be Deoksin (德新); and Susan (守山), which used to be Susan (壽山). There are four signal fire stations. One is said to be at Mount Jukjin, which is south of the hyeon past Mount Jeonbanin and north of Pyeonghae’s Sadong Mountain. One is said to be at Jukbyeon Point, which is north of Mount Jukjin. One is said to be at Mount Geungchuldo, which is north of Jukbyeon Point. And the last is at at Samcheok’s Mount Gagok, which is north of Mount Geungchuldo.

Two islands, Usan and Muleung, are due east of the hyeon in the middle of the sea. The distance between these two islands is not far, so they are visible on a clear, windy day. During the time of Silla they were called Usanguk or Ulleungdo. [It] has an area of 100 ri.

People had thought the land to be too rugged to subjugate. However, in the twelfth year of King Lee Jijeung (512 A.D.), Isabu became the commander of Hasula-ju (an area that was around Kangneung), and said, “The people of Usan are ignorant and savage, so since it would be difficult to subjugate them with strength, we must use tricks.” He made many ferocious animals from wood, loaded them on his warships, went to the island, and told the people there: “If you do not surrender, I will release their ferocious beasts so that they can eat you. The people of the island were afraid and came and surrendered.

In the thirteenth year of Goryeo’s Taejo (930 A.D.), the people of the island (Ulleungdo) sent Baek Gil and To Du to pay tribute (see here) . In the thirteenth year of Eui Jong (1159 A.D.), Simchalsa Kim Yu-rip and others returned (from the island) and said, “There was a big mountain in the middle of the island. The distance from its peak to the sea was more than 10,000 paces to the east, 13,000 paces to the west, 15,000 paces to the south, and 8,000 paces to the north. There were remains of seven villages on the island. There were also a stone Buddha, a bell, and a stone pagoda. A lot of dropwort, mugwort, and moorwort grow on the island.”

It is said that during the time of our (King) Taejo (1392 ~1398 A.D.), a great many of our wandering people ran away to the island. Samcheon resident Kim In-u was again ordered to be the anmusa and to forcefully evict the people there and to leave the land empty. In-u said, “The land is fertile. The bamboo are as big as columns, the rats as big as cats, and the peach seeds as big a doi. All of its products are like that.”

Notice that the record is describing Uljin-hyeon and its surroundings by using Uljin-hyeon as a reference point and then giving compass directions and distances to the surrounding villages, military camps, and local landmarks. It also refers to Usando and Muleungdo by giving their location as follows:

Two islands, Usan and Muleung, are due east of the hyeon in the middle of the sea. The distance between these two islands is not far, so they are visible on a clear, windy day. During the time of Silla they were called Usanguk or Ulleungdo. [It] has an area of 100 ri.

When referring to the locations of the other places around Uljin-hyeon, the record gave a direction and then the distance in ri, but in the case of Usando and Muleungdo, after it gave the compass direction, instead of giving the distance in ri, it gave it by saying that it was close enough to be seen on a clear, windy day.

When Koreans look at the above record, they say that the record was referring to the distance between the two islands, themselves, not to the distance between the two islands and Uljin-hyeon. However, if that were the case, then we would not know where the two islands were. We would only know that they are due east of Uljin-hyeon, but we would not know how far east. With the Korean interpretation, the two islands could have been on the other side of the Sea of Japan, which would not be very helpful to people reading the geography book. Besides, after giving the distance to Muleungdo and Usando, the record gave the size of only one island, which suggests that the two islands were close enough together to be considered as one. Remember, Dokdo is 92 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo.

Not only does the Korean interpretation of the 1454 record not make sense in the context of the 1454 record, it does not make sense in the context of all the records up to that point. There has been nothing in any of the previous records that would suggest that either Muleungdo or Usando was a reference to present-day Dokdo. On the contrary, the records suggest that Muleungdo and Usando were neighboring islands close enough to each other to cause name confusion. The records tell us that both islands had plant life on them, which did not exist on Dokdo. Both islands have also been described using the dimensions of Ulleungdo, suggesting again that they were close enough to cause name confusion. The records also tell us that people lived on both Muleungdo and Usando, but Dokdo did not have the soil, water, or other resources needed to support a settlement.

If anyone still thinks that the Korean interpretation of the 1454 record is reasonable, then let’s put a stake in its heart by looking at the following 1531 record, Sinjeundonggukyeojiseungram, which says the following:

Usando – Ulleungdo (鬱陵島)

Also called Muleung (武陵) and U-leung (羽陵), these two islands are in the middle of the sea due east of the county. Three peaks shoot up to the sky. The southern peak is a little smaller. When it is windy and the weather is clear, the trees at the top of the peaks and the sand at their feet are clearly visible. With a good wind, you can travel there in two days. It is said that Usan and Ulleung were once one island with an area of 100 ri.

Notice that the above record says that on a clear, windy day the trees on the peaks and the sand at their feet can be clearly seen. This tells us that the record was not talking about Dokdo since Dokdo does not have any trees or sandy beaches. Notice also that the record says that you can travel to the islands in two days, which is how long it used to take to travel to Ulleungdo. To travel to Dokdo, it would have required three days travel time.

—————-

Finally, I would just like to remind people that Koreans back during the Joseon Dynasty did not have a Nikon camera with a zoom lens or a sign pointing in the direction of Dokdo. They also probably did not have the time and patience to sit on top of a mountain on Ulleungdo waiting to get a view of a ghost island that may appear only once in a blue moon.

Japanese Translation Provided by Kaneganese

(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です)

下の写真は、“独島(Liancourt Rocks/竹島)”で、鬱陵島から2007年1月15日にニコンD200 70-300ED レンズを使用して撮影されたものということです。この写真では、鬱陵島南東92km沖にある独島の灯台まで写っています。仮に、江原道三陟市近くの二つの山のふもとを同じ日に撮影したとしましょう。どちらの山のふもとも鬱陵島から130~150km離れています。〈韓国語記事へのリンク〉

写真1

鬱陵島から独島を撮影することは、韓国では一大事です。と言うのも、韓国人はそのことが西暦512年から領土として認識していた事の証明になる、と思っているからです。世宗実録の記述を下に引用します。

“于山武陵二島 在縣正東海中 二島相去不遠 風日淸明 則可望見 新羅時 稱于山國 一云鬱陵島”

于山と武陵の2島は縣(=県 現在の蔚珍)の真東にあり、その間の距離は大変近く、晴れた日にはよく見える。新羅の時代に于山国もしくは鬱陵島と呼ばれた。

韓国の歴史学者はこの文が于山と武陵2島の間の距離を指すとし、日本の歴史学者は半島本土の蔚珍と2島の間の距離を指す、と主張します。以前、その理由をこのサイトに投稿しましたが、私は日本の学者の方が正しいと思うのです。

——————

韓国人は、なにをもって于山島が独島を示していると思うようになったのでしょう?彼らは次の1454年の「世宗実録 地理志」の記録が証拠だといいます。その記録は実際には、今の江原道の一地方にあたる蔚珍県を描写したものなのですが、韓国人は引用するとき、蔚珍県について書かれた部分をいつも省いて、記録のうちのほんの一、二行だけに焦点をおいて論じるのです。私は、こうした重要な一部の文章を理解するには、全体のコンテクストの中で読むことが重要だと思うので、記録の全文を投稿します。

“1454年 世宗実録「地理志」

“蔚珍県 県知事が一いる。 高句麗時代の元の名称は于珍也県で新羅時代に現在の名称に変わり、郡になった。高麗時代には蔚珍県と呼ばれており、現王朝期も同じ名称でまだ呼ばれている。県の住民は、過去には半伊郡もしくは仙槎郞と呼ばれた、と言っている。

藥師津は県南部にあり、骨長津は県北部にある。県境は、東は海岸までの8里、西は慶尙道安東任內小川県までの63里、南は平海までの37里、北は三陟までの32里である。270の池があり、人口は1430。軍隊は侍衛軍〈陸軍?〉が38人、水軍が70人、城の近衛軍が4人である。住民の名前は林、張、鄭、房、劉である。栄川から来た郷吏の閔と言う姓もある。土地の半分は肥沃であるが、残りは違う。漁労で生計を立てているが、皆とても武芸を崇敬している。1351結の土地を耕し、その3分の1は稲田である。その他、五穀, 桑、麻、柿、栗、梨、楮(こうぞ)などを生産している。貢物としては、蜂蜜、黃蠟、鐵、胡桃、石茸、五倍子、川椒、藿、漆、鹿脯、狐皮、狸皮、獐皮、虎皮、猪毛、大口魚、文魚、水魚、全鮑、紅蛤。薬草は、茯苓、當歸、前胡、白芨、五味子、人蔘がある。地場産物は61あり、篠竹、大きい竹と塩を含む。磁器の製作所が薪谷里の北方10里の所に、陶器の製作所は甘大里の北方12里の所にある。製品は余り質がよくない。皇山石城は周囲が徒歩616歩5尺で、時に村になっている。城内には泉が4つ、池が1つある。池は旱魃の厳しい時は干上がってしまうが、泉は決して涸れない。仇水亏勿山洞西部の興富駅北方44里のところに、温泉がある。駅は興富(古称は興府)・德神(古称は德新)・守山(古称は壽山)の3つである。狼煙を挙げる場所が4ヶ所あり、そのうち一つは平海沙冬山の南、竹津山の北の全反仁山にある。2つ目は竹津山で、竹邊串の北にある。3つ目は竹邊串で、亘出道山の北にある。最後は亘出道山で、三陟可谷山の北にある。

県の西部の沖に于山、武陵という2つの島がある。これらの島々(と)の距離はさほど遠くなく、晴天で風のある日にはよく見える。新羅の時代には、于山國あるいは鬱陵島と呼ばれた。面積は100里である。

大変険しい土地で、征服するのが難しいと思われたが、智證王十二年 (512 A.D.)に、異斯夫という者が何瑟羅州軍の長となり、こう言った。「于山人は無知で野蛮なので、武力で征服するのは困難である。そこで、知略を施さなければならない。」彼は恐ろしく獰猛そうな猛獣を木で作り、複数の軍の船に分載して島へ行き、住民へこう告げた。「もし服従しなければ、猛獣達を島へ放してお前達を食わせてしまうぞ。」島の住民は、恐れおののいて出てきて、服従した。

高麗太祖十三年(930 A.D.)に、その島の住民は白吉と土豆を使いにして貢納した。〈ここを参照〈リンク〉)毅宗十三年には、審察使の金柔立たちが(島から)帰還しこう述べた。「島の中央に大きな山がある。頂から海岸までの距離は、東へ1万歩、西へ1万3千歩、南へ1万5千歩、北へ8千歩である。島には7つの村の跡がある。石仏像、鉄鐘、石塔もある。柴胡、蒿本、石南草が沢山自生している。

我が太祖の時代(1392 ~1398 A.D.)に、多くの人が島へ逃げ込んだ、と伝えられる。三陟の住民である金麟雨が再び按撫使に任命されて島へ向かい、島の住民を強制的に退去させ、空島とした。金麟雨はこう報告している。「島の土地はとても肥沃で、竹は柱の如く太く、鼠は猫の如く大きい。桃の種は升のように大きい。その島の産物は、皆そんな具合である。」”

この記録が、蔚珍県を比較の対照点としてそこから各地方〈村、軍駐屯地、名所〉の方角や距離を表しながら、蔚珍県とその周囲の様子を描いていることにお気づきでしょうか。于山島と武陵島についても次のようにその位置が述べられています。

“県の西部の沖に于山、武陵という2つの島がある。これらの島々(と)の距離はさほど遠くなく、晴天で風のある日にはよく見える。新羅の時代には、于山國あるいは鬱陵島と呼ばれた。面積は100里である。”

韓国人が上掲の記録を見て、これは2島の間の距離を示していて、2島と蔚珍県の間の距離を示しているのではない、と言いますが、そう解釈した場合、この2島が何処にあるかが分からなくなってしまいます。蔚珍県の真東にあることだけは分かりますが、どのくらい東にあるのか、不明になってしまうのです。韓国側の解釈法では、日本海の反対側にあってもよいことにさえなってしまい、地理学的な本を読んでいるはずの読者に、甚だ分かりづらいものです。記録では、片方の島の大きさしか記載されておらず、そのことから、この2島が一つの島だと考えられるほど距離が近かった、と推測できるのです。思い出してください。“独島”は鬱陵島の東南92km沖にあるのですよ。

1454年の記録に関する韓国側の解釈が記録全体の文脈のなかで説明になっていないだけでなく、全記録〈実録〉の中でもおかしな文章なのです。これ以前の記録のなかで、武陵島もしくは于山島のどちらにしても独島である事を示唆するものは存在しません。それどころか記録では、むしろ武陵島と于山島は隣り合う島で、名称の混乱が起こるほど近かった、ということを示唆しているのです。記録では、どちらの島にも、植生があったことが分かりますが、独島には植物が自生していません。また、記録では、どちらの島にも、人が住んでいたことが分かりますが、独島には土や水、その他の人間の定着に必要な資源が無いのです。

もし、1454年の記録に関する韓国側の解釈が理解できる、と言う人がまだいるとすれば、次に揚げる1531年の新増東国興地勝覧の記録をぜひみて見ましょう。

“于山島-鬱陵島 武陵や羽陵とも呼ばれるこれらの2島は、県の真東の沖にある。三つの峰が空に向かってそびえている。最も南の峰は、少し小さい。風があり、天気のよい日は峰の頂上の木々や麓の渚の砂浜がはっきりと見える。風のよい日は2日で到達する。于山と鬱陵は昔は面積100里の一つの島であった、と言われている。”

上掲の記録で、「風があり、天気のよい日は峰の頂上の木々や麓の渚の砂浜がはっきりと見える。」とあることに気がつきましたか?このことから、この記録が独島のことを記述しているのでは無いことが分かります。独島には、木も砂浜もありませんから。2島に2日で到着する、と書かれていることにも注意して下さい。これは、この時代の鬱陵島への旅程と同じ日数です。独島へは、3日かかったはずです。

————–

最後に、(李朝)朝鮮時代には、ズームレンズ付きのニコンのカメラや、独島の方角を示す指標板など誰も持っていなかったことを思い出してください。それに、その時代の人々が鬱陵島の峰のてっぺんにじっと座って、存在するかどうかも分からないような幽霊島を撮影しようと待つだけの忍耐力があったとは到底思えません。


87 Responses to “Another Picture of “Dokdo” from Ulleungdo?”

  1. comment number 1 by: Darin

    emprator, do you know from what elevation one is able to see Mount Clemente from San Diego?

  2. comment number 2 by: toadface

    Bad moon rising. We don’t really need to determine whether or not Dokdo is visible from Ulleungdo when even Japanese records like the link I posted state it is true.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-black-dragon.html

    For what it is worth here are the sketches of Dokdo done by the Russian Navy in 1854. They are from different angles and distances. The top left image is Dokdo as seen from a distance of 6.5kms the bottom left is from 9.3kms and the top right is Dokdo Island as viewed from 26kms away. They were done from the naked eye and from sea level.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1857-russia-closeup.jpg

  3. comment number 3 by: toadface

    Correction the date of the map was 1857.

  4. comment number 4 by: opp

    This analysis is very interesting.(Sorry, only Japanese)

    It took 40 days to this photograph with 500mm lens, according to the article on 毎日新聞 at December 10, 1999.

  5. comment number 5 by: MarkA

    Nessie.

  6. comment number 6 by: empraptor

    bad_moon_rising,

    Sure, the best way to verify Dokdo’s visibility is to actually go to Ulleungdo. But Gerry-Bevers is wondering whether Dokdo is large enough to be seen from 92km away.

    Darin,

    The link I got the quote from does not indicate the elvation from which San Clemente is visible. But if you’re trying to relate that to Dokdo, I would think that elevation is important mostly because of line-of-sight.

    It seems there is line of sight to the whole of Dokdo if you’re above 700m on Ulleungdo. Simon’s link: Distance to the Horizon Calculator

    That calculator seems to assume no refraction. This page on Distance to Horizon suggests that refraction extends the distance to apparent horizon, which would mean that the height required to see the whole of Dokdo is probably less than 700m.

    I’m only trying to address the question of visibility. I don’t see why so many people assume this photo is fake. If the capability of the camera is in question, someone familiar with the camera should calculate how many pixels Dokdo would take up in the picture if zoomed in all the way with the camera.

    If your goal is to show Dokdo belongs to Korea or Japan, it’s probably better to debate whether visibility is relevant to that issue.

  7. comment number 7 by: pacifist

    toadface,

    Thank you for commenting.
    > Dokdo is/was not an inherent part of Japan since ancient times.

    Takeshima/Dokdo (Matsushima) was a part of Japan since early 17th century. Ulleungdo was also thought to be Japanese territory in the 17th century, as you can see in the Onsyu-Shicho-Gouki (1667) which clearly said that Ulleungdo was Japanese boundary. After Ulleungdo was returned to Korea in 1696, Takeshima/Dokdo remained in the Japanese territory.

    > I have about another dozen Shimane Prefecture maps that show the same.

    As I’ve written many times, a map without something doesn’t mean anything although if a map with something clearly depicted, it will be a evidence to show that they knew it.
    Japan has accurate maps of Takeshima/Dokdo but Korea has none.

    > Pacifist are trying to claim that a military acquisition is a legitimate criteria for incorporating land!!

    toadface, I didn’t say it is legitimate to take one island brutally by force. Korea did it brutally and still keeps occupying it. You must remember that some Japanese fishermen were killed because of Korean violence, but in 1905 no Koreans were killed because there were no Koreans, they even didn’t know about the island.

    Japan didn’t take it brutally in 1905 because it was no man’s land – at least Korea didn’t know about the island until 1905. So Korea doesn’t have a right to claim.

    If you want to refute, why don’t you bring the evidence to show that Korea knew it, used it or owned it before 1905?
    But you haven’t succeeded in it yet.
    Isn’t it an essential thing if one country claim another country’s land?

  8. comment number 8 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Opp wrote,

    This analysis is very interesting.(Sorry, only Japanese)

    It took 40 days to this photograph with 500mm lens, according to the article on 毎日新聞 at December 10, 1999.

    From what I have read, if this picture was taken with a 500mm lens, then that means the image looks ten times bigger than it would look with the naked eye. Imagine an image one tenth the size of the one in the picture. It would be just a spot on the horizon. Not only that, it would be a spot that appears only when conditions are just right. If it took the photographer forty days waiting on a mountaintop to see that spot, even though he already knew which direction to point his camera, then how likely would it have been for Koreans trying to survive on Ulleungdo hundreds of years ago to have spotted that spot not knowing in which direction to look?

    In 1882, Lee Gyu-won confirmed that Koreans did not know where “Dokdo” was. He also went to the top of Ulleungdo’s tallest mountain to look for islands on the horizon, but reported that he did not see “even a lump of dirt.” Lee also confirmed that the Koreans living on Ulleungdo at the time also did not know where “Usando” (Dokdo) was. They had heard Usando was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, but did not know its location.

    Usando was just another name for Jukdo, Ulleungdo’s largest neighboring island, 2.2 kilometers off its northeast shore.

  9. comment number 9 by: Two Cents

    Gerry,
    Thank you for the confirmation that Lee asked about Usan. So, that means that if the islanders had seen the Liancourt Rocks from the top of Ulleungdo’s peak or while fishing out in the sea, as the Dokto cult members believe, they didn’t think it was Usan. I don’t know how Japan could be considered “greedy” or “militaristic” for incorporating an island Koreans saw but did not consider theirs, or didn’t see at all.

    I’m curious about what western maps Kojong had. Do you have any information on that, Gerry? If they had acquired the three-island map, I would think the Koreans would have thought, “Ah, Ulleungdo and Usan are Argonaut and Dagelet,” based on the size. Or did the Russian diplomats inform the king that they had accidentaly mapped a non-existent island?

  10. comment number 10 by: opp

    This is a photograph which was took from the Takeshima observatory in Ullengdo in fine day.

  11. comment number 11 by: opp

    The picture that I introduced is the one of a Japanese site and the author went sightseeing in Ullengdo. She said follows.

    Tokto of the topic is seen in this direction 92km ahead.
    However, I did not see anything.
    A point far because of a thick fog seems not to be seen in the morning.

    I went in the afternoon again.
    Takeshima was not still seen though the fog was lost.
    The weather was clear and sunny.
    Can Takeshima be seen really?

    I think that Takeshima can be seen from near the top of Ullengdo. There is a record “Takeshima was seen with a telescope” in the report of warship Amagi. However, isn’t it about several days in year with the unassisted eye?

  12. comment number 12 by: sqz

    pacifist wrote:

    toadface, I didn’t say it is legitimate to take one island brutally by force. Korea did it brutally and still keeps occupying it.

    Yes.
    もしも竹島(独島)が韓国の領土ならば、韓国は平和的に返還を要求すべきでした。
    If Takeshima (Dokdo) is a Korean territory, Korea should have demanded return of an island peacefully.
    しかし、現実には、韓国は盗んだのです。
    However, in reality, Korea stole it.

  13. comment number 13 by: toadface

    Pacifist. The quote you cite was by Saito Hosen in 1667 and the Japanese erroneously interpret this to mean that Ulleugdo is the Northwest boundary of Japan. But if you read carefully and understand what Saito Hosen was saying in reality it was Oki he was determining as the Northwest boundary of Japan.

    This belief is shared by some Japanese scholars as well. In addition, Japanese national maps do not show any islands West of Oki. I’ve told you this at least one hundred times now Pacifist. Here is the page regarding Saito Hosen’s report on Oki. Also included are maps from this era showing indeed Oki was mapped as the limit of Japan at the time.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-saitohosen.html

    There are also 17th Century Japanese maps on this page both prefecture and national. No Japanese maps of this era show Ulleungdo or Dokdo as Japanese land.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-Japanese-records1.html

    Pacifist, what Japan has from this era is maps from a few fishermen who had permission to voyage beyond Japan’s national boundaries. These are not titles or deeds to land. Japan had maps of the world showing far superior to those of Korea. Cognizence is not title in itself, if so Japan had title to Africa…..?

    Japan’s acquisiton of Dokdo in 1905 was for military purposes and thus not part of the natural process by which states acquire land.

    SQZ. Korea didn’t stand a chance on getting back Dokdo in 1945 after WWII. The Americans had their own criteria for deciding who should get Dokdo and it had more to do with posturing themselves for the upcoming Cold War than a legitimate search for Dokdo’s real owner.

    Dokdo is about the same distance from both Korean and Japanese mainland. However, Dokdo is about half the distance from Ulleungdo than that of Oki Island. Ulleungdo had been indisputably Korean land for centuries before the first dizzy Japanese sailor stumbled upon the region in a storm. There are no historical references or maps prior to the military annexation of Dokdo that separate Ulleungdo from Dokdo.

    Dokdo belongs to Ulleungdo and Ulleungdo belongs to Korea……

  14. comment number 14 by: pacifist

    toadface,

    > The quote you cite was by Saito Hosen in 1667 and the Japanese erroneously interpret this to mean that Ulleugdo is the Northwest boundary of Japan.

    No, you are the one who erroneously interprets the text.

    I have shown you the exact translation of the text before. And you should have learned a lesson,…
    Here you can review it once again:

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    此二島無人之地、
    These two islands are uninhibited,

    見高麗如自雲州望隠州、
    (you can ) view Korea (from here = Ulleungdo) just like you can view Onshu (隠州; Oki island area) from Unshu (雲州; Izumo area, east part of Shimane).

    然則日本之乾地、
    So then, the northwest of Japan,

    以此州為限矣
    this area was decided as the boundary.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    The word “此” (this) indicates the matter (place in this case) written just before, that is Ulleungdo, NOT Oki.

    And Housen Saito decided the place to be Japanese boundary because he could see Chosun from there. You can’t see Chosun from Oki, or Takeshima/Dokdo. The only place where you can see Chosun is Ulleungdo.

    toadface, I’m anxious about your health. You may have worried from dementia? Don’t you have risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity or smoking habit? Please take care.

  15. comment number 15 by: pacifist

    toadface,

    > Pacifist, what Japan has from this era is maps from a few fishermen who had permission to voyage beyond Japan’s national boundaries. These are not titles or deeds to land. Japan had maps of the world showing far superior to those of Korea. Cognizence is not title in itself, if so Japan had title to Africa…..?

    I told you hundred times that maps are not always mean territorial area. The form of the permission of the Oya family (and the Murakawa family) was differnent from that of permission to go abroad (ご朱印状), it was special permission to go to the Shogunate’s land. In those days people couldn’t go out of their clans without a permission.

    “Cognizance is not title itself”?
    Yes, you are right but WITHOUT cognizance no chance of title at all.
    Korea has no evidence of cognizance of Takeshima/Dokdo at all, they even didn’t have a Korean name for it.
    Do you agree? If you don’t, why can’t you show the evidence that Korea cognizant of Takeshima/Dokdo?

  16. comment number 16 by: Kaneganese

    Thank you for the link, Gerry. From the Annals of King Sejong(1454) and Sinjeundonggukyeojiseungram(1531), we can know that the people from Korean peninsula at the time tricked, threatened and coerced the residents of Ulleund to vacate the island with military warships. Scary…

    (Japanese translation for Gerry’s post)
    (Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です)

    下の写真は、“独島(Liancourt Rocks/竹島)”で、鬱陵島から2007年1月15日にニコンD200 70-300ED レンズを使用して撮影されたものということです。この写真では、鬱陵島南東92km沖にある独島の灯台まで写っています。仮に、江原道三陟市近くの二つの山のふもとを同じ日に撮影したとしましょう。どちらの山のふもとも鬱陵島から130~150km離れています。〈韓国語記事へのリンク〉

    写真1

    鬱陵島から独島を撮影することは、韓国では一大事です。と言うのも、韓国人はそのことが西暦512年から領土として認識していた事の証明になる、と思っているからです。世宗実録の記述を下に引用します。

    “于山武陵二島 在縣正東海中 二島相去不遠 風日淸明 則可望見 新羅時 稱于山國 一云鬱陵島
    于山と武陵の2島は縣(=県 現在の蔚珍)の真東にあり、その間の距離は大変近く、晴れた日にはよく見える。新羅の時代に于山国もしくは鬱陵島と呼ばれた。”

    韓国の歴史学者はこの文が于山と武陵2島の間の距離を指すとし、日本の歴史学者は半島本土の蔚珍と2島の間の距離を指す、と主張します。以前、その理由をこのサイトに投稿しましたが、私は日本の学者の方が正しいと思うのです。

    ——————
    韓国人は、なにをもって于山島が独島を示していると思うようになったのでしょう?彼らは次の1454年の「世宗実録 地理志」の記録が証拠だといいます。その記録は実際には、今の江原道の一地方にあたる蔚珍県を描写したものなのですが、韓国人は引用するとき、蔚珍県について書かれた部分をいつも省いて、記録のうちのほんの一、二行だけに焦点をおいて論じるのです。私は、こうした重要な一部の文章を理解するには、全体のコンテクストの中で読むことが重要だと思うので、記録の全文を投稿します。

    “1454年 世宗実録「地理志」
    “蔚珍県 県知事が一いる。 高句麗時代の元の名称は于珍也県で新羅時代に現在の名称に変わり、郡になった。高麗時代には蔚珍県と呼ばれており、現王朝期も同じ名称でまだ呼ばれている。県の住民は、過去には半伊郡もしくは仙槎郞と呼ばれた、と言っている。

    藥師津は県南部にあり、骨長津は県北部にある。県境は、東は海岸までの8里、西は慶尙道安東任內小川県までの63里、南は平海までの37里、北は三陟までの32里である。270の池があり、人口は1430。軍隊は侍衛軍〈陸軍?〉が38人、水軍が70人、城の近衛軍が4人である。住民の名前は林、張、鄭、房、劉である。栄川から来た郷吏の閔と言う姓もある。土地の半分は肥沃であるが、残りは違う。漁労で生計を立てているが、皆とても武芸を崇敬している。1351結の土地を耕し、その3分の1は稲田である。その他、五穀, 桑、麻、柿、栗、梨、楮(こうぞ)などを生産している。貢物としては、蜂蜜、黃蠟、鐵、胡桃、石茸、五倍子、川椒、藿、漆、鹿脯、狐皮、狸皮、獐皮、虎皮、猪毛、大口魚、文魚、水魚、全鮑、紅蛤。薬草は、茯苓、當歸、前胡、白芨、五味子、人蔘がある。地場産物は61あり、篠竹、大きい竹と塩を含む。磁器の製作所が薪谷里の北方10里の所に、陶器の製作所は甘大里の北方12里の所にある。製品は余り質がよくない。皇山石城は周囲が徒歩616歩5尺で、時に村になっている。城内には泉が4つ、池が1つある。池は旱魃の厳しい時は干上がってしまうが、泉は決して涸れない。仇水亏勿山洞西部の興富駅北方44里のところに、温泉がある。駅は興富(古称は興府)・德神(古称は德新)・守山(古称は壽山)の3つである。狼煙を挙げる場所が4ヶ所あり、そのうち一つは平海沙冬山の南、竹津山の北の全反仁山にある。2つ目は竹津山で、竹邊串の北にある。3つ目は竹邊串で、亘出道山の北にある。最後は亘出道山で、三陟可谷山の北にある。

    県の西部の沖に于山、武陵という2つの島がある。これらの島々(と)の距離はさほど遠くなく、晴天で風のある日にはよく見える。新羅の時代には、于山國あるいは鬱陵島と呼ばれた。面積は100里である。

    大変険しい土地で、征服するのが難しいと思われたが、智證王十二年 (512 A.D.)に、異斯夫という者が何瑟羅州軍の長となり、こう言った。「于山人は無知で野蛮なので、武力で征服するのは困難である。そこで、知略を施さなければならない。」彼は恐ろしく獰猛そうな猛獣を木で作り、複数の軍の船に分載して島へ行き、住民へこう告げた。「もし服従しなければ、猛獣達を島へ放してお前達を食わせてしまうぞ。」島の住民は、恐れおののいて出てきて、服従した。

    高麗太祖十三年(930 A.D.)に、その島の住民は白吉と土豆を使いにして貢納した。〈ここを参照〈リンク〉)毅宗十三年には、審察使の金柔立たちが(島から)帰還しこう述べた。「島の中央に大きな山がある。頂から海岸までの距離は、東へ1万歩、西へ1万3千歩、南へ1万5千歩、北へ8千歩である。島には7つの村の跡がある。石仏像、鉄鐘、石塔もある。柴胡、蒿本、石南草が沢山自生している。

    我が太祖の時代(1392 ~1398 A.D.)に、多くの人が島へ逃げ込んだ、と伝えられる。三陟の住民である金麟雨が再び按撫使に任命されて島へ向かい、島の住民を強制的に退去させ、空島とした。金麟雨はこう報告している。「島の土地はとても肥沃で、竹は柱の如く太く、鼠は猫の如く大きい。桃の種は升のように大きい。その島の産物は、皆そんな具合である。」”

    この記録が、蔚珍県を比較の対照点としてそこから各地方〈村、軍駐屯地、名所〉の方角や距離を表しながら、蔚珍県とその周囲の様子を描いていることにお気づきでしょうか。于山島と武陵島についても次のようにその位置が述べられています。

    “県の西部の沖に于山、武陵という2つの島がある。これらの島々(と)の距離はさほど遠くなく、晴天で風のある日にはよく見える。新羅の時代には、于山國あるいは鬱陵島と呼ばれた。面積は100里である。”

    韓国人が上掲の記録を見て、これは2島の間の距離を示していて、2島と蔚珍県の間の距離を示しているのではない、と言いますが、そう解釈した場合、この2島が何処にあるかが分からなくなってしまいます。蔚珍県の真東にあることだけは分かりますが、どのくらい東にあるのか、不明になってしまうのです。韓国側の解釈法では、日本海の反対側にあってもよいことにさえなってしまい、地理学的な本を読んでいるはずの読者に、甚だ分かりづらいものです。記録では、片方の島の大きさしか記載されておらず、そのことから、この2島が一つの島だと考えられるほど距離が近かった、と推測できるのです。思い出してください。“独島”は鬱陵島の東南92km沖にあるのですよ。

    1454年の記録に関する韓国側の解釈が記録全体の文脈のなかで説明になっていないだけでなく、全記録〈実録〉の中でもおかしな文章なのです。これ以前の記録のなかで、武陵島もしくは于山島のどちらにしても独島である事を示唆するものは存在しません。それどころか記録では、むしろ武陵島と于山島は隣り合う島で、名称の混乱が起こるほど近かった、ということを示唆しているのです。記録では、どちらの島にも、植生があったことが分かりますが、独島には植物が自生していません。また、記録では、どちらの島にも、人が住んでいたことが分かりますが、独島には土や水、その他の人間の定着に必要な資源が無いのです。

    もし、1454年の記録に関する韓国側の解釈が理解できる、と言う人がまだいるとすれば、次に揚げる1531年の新増東国興地勝覧の記録をぜひみて見ましょう。

    “于山島-鬱陵島 武陵や羽陵とも呼ばれるこれらの2島は、県の真東の沖にある。三つの峰が空に向かってそびえている。最も南の峰は、少し小さい。風があり、天気のよい日は峰の頂上の木々や麓の渚の砂浜がはっきりと見える。風のよい日は2日で到達する。于山と鬱陵は昔は面積100里の一つの島であった、と言われている。”

    上掲の記録で、「風があり、天気のよい日は峰の頂上の木々や麓の渚の砂浜がはっきりと見える。」とあることに気がつきましたか?このことから、この記録が独島のことを記述しているのでは無いことが分かります。独島には、木も砂浜もありませんから。2島に2日で到着する、と書かれていることにも注意して下さい。これは、この時代の鬱陵島への旅程と同じ日数です。独島へは、3日かかったはずです。

    最後に、(李朝)朝鮮時代には、ズームレンズ付きのニコンのカメラや、独島の方角を示す指標板など誰も持っていなかったことを思い出してください。それに、その時代の人々が鬱陵島の峰のてっぺんにじっと座って、存在するかどうかも分からないような幽霊島を撮影しようと待つだけの忍耐力があったとは到底思えません。

  17. comment number 17 by: Matt

    Thanks for your hard work, Kaneganese. When you make a few more we can attach the maps and pictures to your text.

  18. comment number 18 by: toadface

    Pacifist. The Shoganate can only govern over land that is part of a prefcture or district of Japan. All coastal maps of Japan prefectures at this time do NOT show Ulleungdo or Dokdo. Wanna see again…? OK.

    1660s maps of Japan Prefectures
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/old-shimane-map.jpg
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/old-oki-map.jpg
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/old-prefecture-map2.jpg
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/old-prefecture-map3.jpg

    As you see what the shogunate gave was permission to voyage to Ulleungdo and Dokdo…..that’s all.

    Pacifist, you know I’ve read your incorrect translation of Saito Hosen’s Oki Report.

    But we all know that he was using visibility as a guide to determine ownership of the islands. Saito Hosen said “viewing Chosun from here (Ulleungdo~Dokdo region) is the same as viewing Oki from Shimane. Thus this territory marks the westernmost limit of Japan.

    He was using the fact the Korea was visible from this area to determine the boundary of each country’s territorial limit. The word “Thus” means he had reached the conclusion that Oki was the end of Japan’s land. If not why use the comparison at all?
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-saitohosen.html

    Unfortunately, your bizarre translation is fueled by your hopes. The other translation which is also shared by some Japanese can be supported by Japanese maps of the day.

  19. comment number 19 by: sqz

    toadface wrote:

    SQZ. Korea didn’t stand a chance on getting back Dokdo in 1945 after WWII. The Americans had their own criteria for deciding who should get Dokdo and it had more to do with posturing themselves for the upcoming Cold War than a legitimate search for Dokdo’s real owner.

    韓国には外交権が無いのですか?
    Does not Korea have the diplomacy right?
    もし有るのなら、チャンスが無いわけが有りません。
    If Korea has it, there is a chance anytime.

  20. comment number 20 by: pacifist

    toadface and hanmaumy,

    As you already know, the Shogunate banned to go to Takeshima (Ulleungdo) in 1969. But the declare didn’t include Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo).

    In 1724 and in 1737, fishermen asked the Shogunate to cancell the declare. Although the pleas were not accepted, this may mean that fishermen in Shimane didn’t think that Ullengdo was returned to Chosun, they may have just thought that only going there to do fishing in Ulleungdo was simply banned. (So they seem to have thought that Takeshima = Ulleungdo was still Japanese territory.)

    BTW, Aizuya Yaemon was arrested and was sentenced to death in 1836 being accused of smuggling in Ulleungdo.
    The court desicion included the following sentence: “(He) went to Ulleungdo under the pretext going to Takeshima/Dokdo”.
    Going to Ullengdo was banned but going to Takeshima/Dokdo was not banned. That means Takeshima/Dokdo was Japan’s territory still in the 19th century.

  21. comment number 21 by: pacifist

    toadface,

    > “Thus this territory marks the westernmost limit of Japan. ”

    The word “this territory” (more precisely it is “this place” or “this area”) should mean the place from where you can see Chosun. So the place is Ulleungdo.

    Or as you say if “this Onsyu (Oki county)” was what Housen meant, then the Oki county should included Ulleungdo (and Takshima/Dokdo of course) because you have to be able to see Chosun from there.

    Anyway, your interpretation is wrong.

    One more thing, did you know that the Shogunate also gave the same kind of permission to the persons who went to Sado island for silver mining or to the persons who went to Izu islands?
    Do you insist that Sado island and Izu islands were abroad as well as Takeshima (Ulleungdo)? Oh no…

    > The other translation which is also shared by some Japanese can be supported by Japanese maps of the day.

    As you know, Japan is a democratic country so there are various opinions from right to left and mine is ordinary one. Some are pro-Korean and some are pro-NK. But I think the society with broad spectrum of opinions is healthy.
    On the contrary, there seems to be only one-sided opinion heard in Korea because there is no freedom of speech, no freedom of publication…. I hope Korean people can read all the opinions freely and decide themselves.

  22. comment number 22 by: empraptor

    opp,

    I don’t know what you mean to show with you picture.

    This is a photograph which was took from the Takeshima observatory in Ullengdo in fine day.

    The image’s resolution is 240 pixels in height. Assuming that the camera has typical angle of view of 25 to 50 degrees,

    25/240 ~ 0.10

    Which is equivalent to 6 minutes of angle. If each pixel covers approximately 6 minutes of angle, Dokdo would be the height of a single pixel in that picture.

    If you wanted to show something at all relevant to Dokdo’s visibility to the naked eye, you’d put up pictures with at least the resolving power of a 20/20 eye. I’ve put up links to pages about visual acuity that suggests humans can distinguish lines that are 1 minute of angle apart. So I suggest putting up the same picture except at 1440×1920 resolution or higher. Preferably higher, since if the angle of view on the camera that took the picture is 50 degrees, you’d want 2880×3840 resolution to compare to what the human eye could see.

  23. comment number 23 by: opp

    empraptor,

    I only introduced the story and the photograph of the person who actually did to seeing. To begin with, it is evidence with little thing where such a thing is seen to become a topic. To begin with, it is evidence that taking in the picture becomes the topic to hardly see.

    I think that Usando before the 17th century is an island of the lie. Therefore, I am not so interested in this topic.

  24. comment number 24 by: opp

    Correction. Here is correct url. It is difficult to prove invisible. The side on which it is insisted that it can see should prove. You should study “appeal to ignorance”.

  25. comment number 25 by: empraptor

    opp,

    So I suppose photos and people who say that they have seen the island from Ulleungdo is not enough to convince you that it is visible.

    Seems like you’ve already concluded that Dokdo can’t be seen and ignore any information to the contrary.

    I suppose we have completely different goals, though.

    What I gathered from your last two posts is that you want to show Dokdo belongs to Japan. That ‘s great. I want to show it is unreasonable to assume the photo above is fake. I hope you see how those are two different things.

    Buf if you desire to also show that Dokdo is not naked-eye visible from Ulleungdo, the photo you’ve linked to does not help.

  26. comment number 26 by: tomato

    emprator,

    I think opp is saying that the Korean nationalists are really stretching it because Liancourt is rarely seen from Ullengdo. You understand that often times the atmosphere is not so tranparent and far objects don’t appear all the time. And in this particular case, the Liancourtit is rearely visible unless you wait on the peak of Ullengdo and wait for a months or so gazing out the horizon. I think this is pretty apparent from the low resolution (looks like Nessie, as someone pointed out) of the photo and the fact that there are only one or two of these photos around.

    Opp is not saying that it’s fake. And because you can see a far out island doen’t mean you have it. This goes the same with any country. The I-can-see-so-it-must-be-mine logic just baffles me. The Koreans really should present evidence that they have been to the island if they are to claim that they had it all along before Japan’s official claim in 1905. They don’t, and now and if someone makes this point clear, they start arguing how Imperial Japan was evil, as if that proves anything. This is going nowhere.

    I say let the Koreans have the island, use all the tax money they can afford to fortify it, but just don’t make up this fantastic story about Liancourt being the first Korean territory to be taken by Japan and that the “greedy” and “inmoral” Japanese are on to take it again.

  27. comment number 27 by: opp

    The author is also writing that she cannot see Takeshima in fine day. I did not conclude. I saied that Takeshima will be seen several times of one year from the vicinity of the top.
    The possibility is high on a fine day immediately after the typhoon. Korea should prove that Takeshima can see by naked eye. It is useless in the picture by the telephoto lens. You should study “appeal to ignorance”.
    However, it is unrelated to Takeshima’s title in Internatonal Law. International Law demands specific evidence without the doubt.

  28. comment number 28 by: myCoree

    I will link the site of some photos :
    This will help you solve your doubt.
    a newspaper reporter’s photo

    Ulleung County Homepage Gallery

    a blogger’s photos

    Though I’ve ever been to Japan, I’ve never been to Ulleung-do. But, I’m sure that anyone can have the chance to find it there with the naked eye unless you are not the poor-sighted.

    See you, darlin…

  29. comment number 29 by: sqz

    myCoree,

    I can not see the trees of Takeshima(Dokdo).
    I can not see the sand of Takeshima(Dokdo).

    opp wrote:

    However, it is unrelated to Takeshima’s title in Internatonal Law. International Law demands specific evidence without the doubt.

    I agree.

  30. comment number 30 by: toadface

    Pacifist I used to example that some Japanese disagree with your translation to prove a point. Your “Japanese grammar rule” is rubbish. Your translation cannot be proven by maps of the day or for two hundred years thereafter.

    The fact that a Japanese voyaged was granted permission to voyage to isn’t worthy of making a land claim. Certainly you can’t infer that it was Japanese territory on that basis, that is lame Pacifist. Without a map or documents that proves title to prove your point you’re screwed. Again the shogunate gave permission to voyage NOT title to land. The shogunate cannot grant land title that is not included within any prefecture of district under his feudal jurisdiction Pacifist.

    The shogunate didn’t mention Dokdo in the Ulleungdo decree because the issue of travelling to a rock for 5 days return with little or no fresh water and average fishing was a non-issue. There is not one document of Japanese travelling to Dokdo as a sole destination. The fact that the Japanese man lied about going there further illustrates this point.

    Tomato, Dokdo wasn’t the first land taken by Japan. It was but one territory taken after Taiwan, Hokkaido, Marcus Island and Osagawara. Even a year before the Japanese took Dokdo they already had military stationed all across Korea. You have a serious lack of historical context Tomato so get off the internet and get yourself a library card because I’m tired of teaching you Japanese history.

  31. comment number 31 by: empraptor

    tomato & opp,

    You can read comments insinuating that the photo is fake without giving a reason.

    I’ve given figures that indicate there is line-of-sight between Ulleungdo and Dokdo and that Dokdo is large enough to be seen from 92km away.

    I’ve not seen anyone offer up a good reason why they think this photo is fake. It seems to me they have assumed that whatever pictures of Dokdo from Ulleungdo must be fake and therefore needs no explanation as to why they must be fake. This seems irrational to me.

  32. comment number 32 by: tomato

    emprator,

    I don’t think I said that the photo was fake. Nor did opp. Can you carefully read before you make comments? It’s rather rude how you comment.

  33. comment number 33 by: pacifist

    toadface,

    > “The shogunate didn’t mention Dokdo in the Ulleungdo decree because the issue of travelling to a rock for 5 days return with little or no fresh water and average fishing was a non-issue.”

    Travelling to Takeshima/Dokdo didn’t need 5 days, toadface. When Ahn Yong-Bok was captured in Ulleungdo, it took two days from Ulleungdo to Oki island. So I assume it would take one day from Oki to Takeshima/Dokdo. It also takes one day from Ulleungdo to Takeshima/Dokdo.

    Japanese fishermen were used to long voyages (you know they hunted whales in the pacific ocean, some fishermen drifted ashore to USA in the Edo era) and they frequently went to Ulleungdo but Korean fishermen engaged in coastal fishery (abalones , seaweeds) not pelagic fishery. And they were banned to go to the islands in the Japan Sea in fear of pirates.

    How could Korean fishermen come over to Takeshima/Dokdo for 92km?
    Japanese fishermen could. They sometimes went to Takeshima/Dokdo after 1969. As I showed you in the different thread, a man captured for going to Ulleungdo had disguised to go to Takeshima/Dokdo. You know, going to Takeshima/Dokdo was not special things for the Japanese fishermen.

    toadface, did you forget to bring the evidence?
    Are you admitting that you were defeated as ponta says?

  34. comment number 34 by: empraptor

    tomato,

    I’m sorry if you read that into my comment. But if you read again, you will see I did not say you or opp thought the photo was fake. I only said that you can read such comments, as they are above in this page. I was not calling you or opp irrational. Just those who assume the photo is fake without reason.

  35. comment number 35 by: tomato

    Tomato, Dokdo wasn’t the first land taken by Japan. It was but one territory taken after Taiwan, Hokkaido, Marcus Island and Osagawara. Even a year before the Japanese took Dokdo they already had military stationed all across Korea. You have a serious lack of historical context Tomato so get off the internet and get yourself a library card because I’m tired of teaching you Japanese history.

    That’s one great insulting comment you gave, toadface. It seems to be that the more you make your comments, the more you reveal yourself to be ignorant and motivated by hate. I suggest you to calm down and take one or two breaths before you post anything here.

  36. comment number 36 by: empraptor

    tomato,

    I can see how I wasn’t clear in the comment you objected to. Sorry for causing the misunderstanding..

  37. comment number 37 by: tomato

    I can see how I wasn’t clear in the comment you objected to. Sorry for causing the misunderstanding..

    No problemo.