Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

Cutouts from an 1896 Japanese Map

March 10th, 2007 . by Gerry-Bevers

The following are cutouts from a Japanese map of Korea from the 1896 edition of “Joseon Sea Lanes,” a Japanese publication.

 
Ulleungdo from an 1896 Japanese map of Korea


Liancourt Rocks from a 1896 Japanese map of Korea 

In the above maps, Ulleungdo was labeled as 鬱陵島 (Ulleungdo) with 松島 (Matsushima) in parenthesis. Matsushima was the Japanese name for Ulleungdo at the time. Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which is approximately 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore, was labeled as ボーッソール岩 (Boussole Rock). And Liancourt Rocks were labeled as リアンコールド岩 (Liancourt Rocks).

The significance of the map and the book it was printed in is that the book describes Korea’s eastern most boundary as being 130 degrees 35 minutes east while the map clearly shows Liancourt Rocks as being outside that boundary, which means the Japanese did not recognize Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory.

By the way, the map also shows Ulleungdo beyond the boundary, but only slightly.  The accuracy of the map seems good, but the boundary information is somewhat faulty. I wonder where the Japanese got the information for Korea’s easternmost boundary?

Here is a link to a July 12, 2006 “San-in Chuo Shimpo” article (Japanese) that talks about the book and the map.

竹島領有権で新事実

If you would like to see the full map, Mr. Tanaka Kunitaka has posted links to it here.


43 Responses to “Cutouts from an 1896 Japanese Map”

  1. comment number 1 by: ponta

    Sainin article says roughly;
    Korea and a few Japanese researchers used to insist Japan recognized Dokdo as Korean territory because Dokdo was on the map of the book “Chosun Water WAY”.But in the first part of the book is written the boundary of Chosun is Long. 130 degrees E 35 minutes, which is at Ulleungdo. It follows that Japan recognized Ulleungdo as Korean boundary.
    We should also note dokdo/takeshima is on the map not because it was Korean territory but because it was important to know when sailing safely around Chosun

  2. comment number 2 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Thanks, Ponta. It seems to be old news.

  3. comment number 3 by: pacifist

    BTW, the map says the Ulleungdo was 松島 (Matsushima) and it has シール角 (shi-ru horn = Seal horn?) and ボーッソール岩(Bo-ot-soal rock).
    .
    The name of Takeshima/Dokdo reads リアンコールド岩 (Lian co-ld rock = Liancourt rocks).

  4. comment number 4 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Does the article mention if the Japanese sea lanes book gives the coordinates of either Ulleungdo or Liancourt Rocks?

  5. comment number 5 by: toadface

    I’ve never seen the text to this book. Does the book say Ulluengdo is the Easternmost boundary of Korea? Or simply 130.35 degrees marks the boundary?

    From what I see on this map Ulleungdo is almost exactly in the correct position at around 130.55 degrees. If the accompanying text puts Ulleungdo at 130.35 it is very inaccurate.

    However, if you go to the top of the map you can see the Easternmost boundary of Korea’s northern boundary is around 130.35. I’ve never seen the text but it may be quoting the Easternmost limit of Korea’s mainland without outlying islands inclusive. A good way to determine this may be to see what the document says is the Western boundary of Korea and see if Korea’s Western islands are included.

  6. comment number 6 by: pacifist

    Gerry,
    .
    The article says, “(The professor) confirmed that it mentions the east boundary of Chosun country was 130°35′ E.L. at the head of the book, and it indicated Ulleungdo”.
    .
    “In result, the theory that Japan considered Takeshima which lies at 131°52′ E.L., 92 km east-south of the island, appears to have inconsistency. The Waterway Book or charts were only showing the image and location of Takeshima/Dokdo, the theory that Takeshima/Dokdo belonged to Chosun will be forced to be reconsidered”.
    .
    – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    Gerry, I think I posted somewhere about the book before, although I don’t remember where. The picture of the book in the newspaper article showed that it says that Chosun’s territory was from 33°15 N.L. – 42°25′ N.L.and 124°30′ E.L. – 130°35′ E.L.

  7. comment number 7 by: toadface

    Gerry, the Japanese obtained their information (especially maps) from the British Navy during this era and basically copied everything from their surveys as England and Japan were close allies. (even during the Russo-Japanese War). I think it was the British Navy’s China Sea Directory that the above map was copied from.

    I think this document is the 1894 Chosun Sealanes the Japanese are talking about. The boundaries given don’t make any mention of Ulleungdo from what I can see.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/jiji-3.jpg

    At any rate, the real issue is not Japan’s perception of Korea’s territory but rather Chosun’s itself.

    One important note. If you read the legend on the bottom of Mr Tanaka’s map is states…..
    “Note, As positions are doubtful along Korea’s East Coast, great caution should be used…..” Check the link below.
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka31/koreacoast-1896/07.jpg

  8. comment number 8 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Toadface,

    The 1894 “Joseon Sea Lanes” book also gave Korea’s eastern boundary, “including islands,” as 130 degrees 35 minutes east:

    朝鮮國ハ 亞細亞ノ 東部ニアリ 其地勢タル 狹長ナル 一大半島ヲ 成シ 數多ノ 島嶼之ヲ繞圍 ス其位置ハ 北緯三三度一五分 ヨリ同四二度五分東經一二四度三○分ヨリ 同一三○度三五分ニ 至ル

    Even Korea’s 1899 geography text, “Daehanjiji,” gave Korea’s eastern boundary as 130 degrees 35 minutes. That means that both the Japanese and Korean texts excluded Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) from Korean territory.

    By the way, the top of the 1896 Japanese map shows the eastern tip of the Korean peninsula being closer to 130.45 than 130.35 degrees. Ulleungdo, including Jukdo, is at approximately 130.57 degrees and Liancourt Rocks is at approximately 131.52 degrees.

    Thanks, Pacifist.

  9. comment number 9 by: myCoree

    Why was 竹島 disappeared? I think the map is a trancient form in which Argonaut is deleted. At the library, I myself found a clue showing that Japan regarded the islet as sub-island of Ulleungdo. Anyway…
    .
    .
    Gerry and Keneganese,
    .
    On March 1st, I took a trip to Ulleungdo and Dokdo by a boat. The weather was slightly cloudy. 2.5 hour’s sailing gave me a heavy seasick.
    After lunch, I got on the same boat and started toward Dokdo. The boat started from Dodong port at 14:00 and arrived there at 15:30. After 47 minutes(14:47), I found Dokdo in a light fog of the horizon and took a picture. After landing, there was an irritating “Korean national flag performance”.
    We stayed on Dokdo shorter than 30 minutes. The boat started just at 16:00 and arrived in Ulleungdo at 17:15. I found Ulleungdo at 16:37 and took a picture of it, too.
    A bus driver in Ulleungdo said that one can see Dokdo on any clear day by the telescope at one of the observatory towers but, if very clear, ordinary-sighted person can find it.
    Though I took some pictures, there are not any good ones. And, I don’t want to show my pictures to you in regard to my privacy. Instead of it, I will show you some others’ photos.
    Ullengdo鬱陵島=>Dokdo獨島(87km ~ 92km) : here
    Dokdo獨島=>Ulleungdo鬱陵島(87km ~ 92km) : here
    Ulleungdo鬱陵島=>mainland陸地(within 140km) : here
    mainland陸地(草錄峰)=>鬱陵島(within 140km) : here
    Jukdo竹島 : here
    If you can’t believe this, go and see it. Seeing is believing. I don’t want to see some complicated mathematical formula ‘proving the fact’ that it cannot be seen.
    By the way, I heard that Dokdo could be seen from Oki(155km~165km away). Is this true?

    Anyway…
    I finished scanning the Ulleungdosajeok蔚陵島事蹟. But, I neither have a translated one nor can translate it by myself. I guess that it was described very realistically by Jang Han-sang and written-copied by his daughter’s descendant. I heard from someone that it was an investigation report after An Yongbok incident. It means that 蔚陵島事蹟 is not an inner part of 邊例集要.
    Have a good day.

  10. comment number 10 by: myCoree

    Dokdo獨島=>Ulleungdo鬱陵島(87km ~ 92km) : here

    The site address continues changing. Sorry.

  11. comment number 11 by: pacifist

    myCoree,

    Welcome back.
    Could you please answer my question at:
    https://www.occidentalism.org/?p=542#comments
    (#23)?

  12. comment number 12 by: toadface

    Gerry, by using you theory the Koreans and Japanese excluded both Ulleungdo and Dokdo from their Chosun’s territory. Which is dead wrong.

    The map doesn’t jibe with the test of the document at all. Ulleungdo itself is at least 20 minutes East of the cordinates given. At a quick glance you can see that Ulleungdo is well outside of that area. In short you can’t use the map with the document.

    Of course the Daehanjiji is the same as the Japanese Chosun Sealanes documents. That is where the information was sourced from.

  13. comment number 13 by: pacifist

    toadface,

    大韓地誌(Daehanjiji) was first published in 1899 and was repeatedly revised in the 1900’s but they didn’t change the territorial expression at all. It was used all through the peninsula as a sub-textbook, but nobody claimed and nobody changed the expression.
    .
    It means that the Great Korean Empire recognised that their territorial boundary was Ulleungdo and it didn’t include Takeshima/Dokdo.

  14. comment number 14 by: Kaneganese

    myCoree,
    Thank you for sharing your story. Although I think none of Japanese are really interested in if you can see Takeshima from Ulleundo or not today…

    As for 蔚陵島事蹟, don’t worry about translating them. You have already said it includes the same page of the PDF. Could you please upload all of them to the database? If you are interested in what it says, or it is worth to read for me, I will try to do the writing. By the way, who is Jang Han-sang? Do you mean 張漢相? How did you know it was written by his grandson 申光璞? Is there author’s name in the book? What year was it published? I’m more interested in when, by whom it was written than what the contents says.

    In the chapter of 鬱陵島 of 邊例集要, there are absolutely no mention of 張漢相 nor his investigation at all. It dates from 1614 to 1698, that means something about his survey in 1694 should be included. But there are none. 張漢相 is a very mysterious man. In 肅宗實錄 二十年(1694年), it says “上曰: “然, 時漢相所圖上山川道里, 與《輿地勝覽》所載多舛, 故或疑漢相所至, 非眞鬱陵島也。(하였다. 이때 장한상(張漢相)이 그려서 올린 산천(山川)과 도리(道里)가 《여지승람》의 기록과 틀리는 것이 많으므로, 혹자는 장한상이 가 본 데가 진짜 울릉도가 아닐 것이라고 의심하기도 하였다.)”

  15. comment number 15 by: toadface

    Pacifist, what I’m saying is this. People are trying to define Korea’s territorial boundaries by degrees of latitude and longitude from these documents and trying to cross-reference them with maps of questionable and varying degrees of accuracy.

    You raised a valid point. Throughout the different editions of the Daehanjiji and Chosun Sealane Publications the territorial boundaries of Korea remained constant. However if you look at the maps that accompanied these differenct publications Ulleungdo’s position changes radically. If Ulleungdo was Chosun’s boundary on these publications then the boundary should have changed accordingly. It didn’t.

    Also, the Daehanjiji also states Usando is Southeast of Ulleungdo. Thus, Ulleungdo could not be considered the Eastern boundary of Chosun as it is not the Easternmost island on this publication as Usando was always considered part of Chosun. There are no other islands Southeast of Ulleungdo other than of course Dokdo.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/jiji-10.jpg

  16. comment number 16 by: ponta

    Throughout the different editions of the Daehanjiji and Chosun Sealane Publications the territorial boundaries of Korea remained constant.

    It is natural the map had changed because, as you claimed, Korean technique of drawing the map had been horriblellu clumsy.
    But one thing had remained constant.The boundary of Korea in terms of longitude and latitude. You can not miss that. It showed clearly for Korean expert at the time the boudary was just that.

    There are no other islands Southeast of Ulleungdo other than of course Dokdo.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/jiji-10.jpg

    When you are talking about the Daehanjiji on your site, you show the modern map. That is very misleading.

    The above book images are all from different editons of the Daehanjiji Publication or Korea’s Geographic Journal. While these documents don’t give us an exact defintion of Usando they do give us directional reference. All of these publications state that Usando is southeast of Ullleungdo. There are no appreciable islands located in this direction other than of course Dokdo Island. (see map her

    ttp://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-usando.html

    Could you show us the maps attached to the document?

  17. comment number 17 by: pacifist

    toadface,

    The important point is that the Great Korean Empire excluded Takeshima/Dokdo and it continued all through the era, which included the 1900 Imperial Ordinance No. 41.
    .
    As you know, they insist that Korea owned Takeshima/Dokdo before Japan incorporated it in 1905. And their reason is this ordinance, which mentioned three islands – Uldo (Ulleungdo), Jukdo and Seokdo.
    .
    You may know by now, wise toadface, Seokdo can’t be Takeshima/Dokdo.

  18. comment number 18 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Toadface,

    If you look at the accompanying Korean map that was printed in the 1899 Korean geography book, you will see that Ulleungdo (鬱陵島) and Usando (于山) match up very well with Korea’s 130 degree 35 minute eastern boundary, which was mentioned in the Korean geography text. Here are links to the map:

    1899 Korean Map (full)

    1899 Korean Map (Close-up of Ulleungdo)

    The vertical line just to the left of Ulleungdo on the map is the 130 degree line, and the line to the right of Ulleungdo, at the edge of the map, is the 131 degree line. Since there are sixty “minutes between the two lines, that means that both Ulleungdo and Usando fall inside the 130 degree 35 minute eastern boundary of Korea that was mentioned in the 1899 Korean geography book.

    As you know, Toadface, Liancourt Rocks is much farther east, far past the 131 degree line at the edge of the map. In fact, being at 131 degrees 52 minutes, it is very near the 132 degree line.

  19. comment number 19 by: Gerry-Bevers

    In Japanese, is there another word for “squid” besides いか? What is the Japanese word for “cuttlefish”? I am asking because I am very curious about the island referred to as いか島 (Squid Island) in the 1692 Japanese document below.

    竹島渡海由来記抜書書
    第一箇条文御請

    元禄五壬申年(1692年)二月十一日米子より出船、隠岐国後後福浦江着岸、
    三月廿四日福浦より出船、同廿六日朝五時に竹島之内いか島と申所に着船仕、様子見候得ば、鮑大分取上げ申様見不審に奉り存間、廿七日朝浜田浦へ参申内に、唐船二艘相見申候、内一艘はすへ船、一艘は浮舟にて居申候、唐人三拾人計見え申候、右之浮舟に乗り此方之船より八九間程沖を通り、大阪浦と申所に廻り申候右之内両人は陸に残居せし所、又小船に乗り参申候故、此方之舟に乗為申候間、何国の者と相尋候得者、一人は通辞にて、ちゃうせん国かはてんかわじの者と申候故、此島之儀は元来日本の地にて、従御公方様、代々拝領仕、毎年渡海いたし候島にて候所に、何とて其方共、参候哉と相尋候者、此島より北に当り島有之、三年に一度宛国王の用にて鮑取に参候、
    国元は二月廿一日に類舟拾一艘にて致出船、難風に逢、五艘には、上五拾三人乗、此島三月廿三日に流着、、此島之様子見申候得者、鮑有之候間、致逗留、鮑取上げ候由申候
    左候得者、此島を早々罷立候様にと申候得者、
    船も少損し候故、造作仕、調次第に出船可仕候間間其許御船是江御すへ可被成と申候得共、此方にも舟をはすゑ不申、
    先人許陸江上り見分仕候所、兼て此方より拘置候諸道具猟舟八艘見え不申候に付、通辞へ段々吟味仕候得者、浦々江廻し置候由申候、先此方之船すゑ申様にと申候得共、唐人は大勢、此方は纔二拾一人にて御座候に付、無心元奉存、竹島より三月二十七日之七つ時に出船仕申候、然ども、何にても印無御座候ては如何と奉存、唐人の拵置候串鮑少、笠一つ、網頭巾一つ、味噌かうじ一玉、致出船、四月朔日に石州浜田浦江着舟仕候云々

    From Toron Talker’s blog

    In the document, Japanese fishermen said they landed at “Squid Island” and found a lot of caught abalone there. I have a feeling that Squid Island was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, but I have not found any document or map that would support my suspicion. Has anyone seen any other reference to a “Squid Island” (いか島) near Ulleungdo?

  20. comment number 20 by: ponta

    Gerry
    it seems Ika is ika in any dialect.
    ttp://www.zukan-bouz.com/zkanb/hougen/hougen/ikatako.html
    On the document above it was called ika, but on another map, if I remember correctly it was iga
    .
    Googling it, I found chinese letter for iga sima is 伊貝島

    日蓮聖人を祀る誕生寺の前、内浦湾の海岸沖100mにある岩礁から南へ1kmの伊貝(いが)島・小弁天島・大弁天島あたりまでは「鯛の浦」とよばれ、タイが群生している。

    (The sentence has nothing to do with Dokdo/Ulleungdo/jukdo)
    貝, as you know,  is a shellfish

  21. comment number 21 by: ponta

    http://www.afftis.or.jp/monument/16.html
    the link for the sentence above

  22. comment number 22 by: pacifist

    Gerry,

    The original text says いか島, and it ca be interpreted in various ways.
    .
    伊賀島 is usually pronounced as Iga Shima but you can say or write it as Ika Shima instead, because 賀 can be pronounced as Ga or Ka.
    いか(Ika) can be 烏賊 (squid or cuttlefish), or can be 以下(the following) or 医科(medical thing) or anything, but I think the writer (man from the Murakawa’s?) meant to be 伊賀島.

  23. comment number 23 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Thank you, Ponta and Pacifist. I found the map with イガ嶋 (Iga Island) on it, and it does look to be Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo. Here is the link:

    1724 Map of Ulleungdo (Takeshima)

    It is getting hard to keep all of these maps straight in my head. I need a better orgnization system.

    Anyway, the 1724 map and the above document show pretty clearly that the Japanese traveled to and used Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo. In fact, it was the first place they stopped at on their trip to Ulleungdo, which suggests that it was a kind of base for them. The document also shows that the Koreans were also using the island since the Japanese found a large catch of abalone on the island.

    After discovering the abalone on Iga Island (Jukdo), the next day, on their way to a place on Ulleungdo called 浜田浦 (병전포 or 빈전포), the Japanese saw two boats. One was on the move, and the other was anchored. Near the anchored boat on the beach were two men, one of which was An Yong-bok. When the Japanese asked them why they were on the island, An Yong-bok said that they had been sent every three years to catch abalone near an island to the north, but a storm caused them to drift to Ulleungdo, where they discovered it also had abalone. He said they were in the process of harvesting it.

    Based on the above document and the Korean maps of the time, I think that Iga Island was the Usando that An Yong-bok referred to in a later Korean document.

  24. comment number 24 by: myCoree

    Kaneganese,
    .
    Yes, in my opinion, every Japanese and Japanophile seems to agree with me about some photos I’ve shown.^_^

    Problem ::
    1. Uploading? : where and how ?
    2. Importance : what’s right?
    Yes? : Until now, only 3pages were revealed for an important reason to the related authority.
    No? : It was not so important thing whatever an ordinary man like me can obtain.

    The reason why I wanted to show this to you is that you seem to doubt about the genuineness.
    At the end of the record, it was written that “壬寅 春 外後裔 永陽 申光璞 書”
    In my opinion, 壬寅 means the year 1722(?), 春 spring, 外後裔 a descendant of his daughter’s, 永陽 a pen name, 申光璞 a real name, and 書 ‘wrote’.
    By the way, how did you know the name 申光璞? Surprising.

    漢相以九月甲申, 乘舟而行, 十月庚子, 還至三陟,
    장한상(張漢祥)이 9월 갑신8280) 에 배를 타고 갔다가 10월 경자8281) 에 삼척(三陟)으로 돌아왔는데,

    The survey start : 甲戌九月甲申日 : September 19th, 1694
    The survey end : 甲戌十月庚子日 : October 6th, 1694

  25. comment number 25 by: Kaneganese

    Thanks, myCoree,
    It should go to “Temporary database in Contents section” But I don’t know how to upload. Can somebody help us? Or you can send it to me myidATMARKmail.goo.ne.jp The last page sounds very interesting.

    myCoree, it is not for us to decide what is important or not. Besides, even Japanese historian missed the point(海長竹田) which Gerry who claims no specialist technically could notice. Afterall, the reason why there are lots of Japanese maps and document of Takeshima is, not only the officials but also those ordinary people documented and drew what happned for hundreads years.

    By the way, I didn’t see the pictures you mentioned because you said it was not yours, sorry.

  26. comment number 26 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Does anyone have any suggestions on where and how myCoree can upload his scanned documents. I think they might be an important piece of Ulleungdo/Usando history.

    Actually, I am curious to know why the documents are not already up on the Internet somewhere, considering all the Korean “Dokdo” sites out there. Only one small piece of the document seems to be quoted on Korean sites, which makes me suspicious.

    If the survey of Ulleungdo lasted from September 19, 1694 to October 6, 1694, then that is a pretty thorough survey. Why isn’t that document translated on Korean Web sites? And what was the “important reason” that only three pages of a sixteen page document were revealed? These are a couple of things that I am curious about?

    Nevertheless, I am glad to hear that myCoree is willing to share this document with us.

  27. comment number 27 by: pacifist

    Gerry,
    .

    which suggests that it was a kind of base for them

    .
    Are there any connections with the curved stone sign (刻石立標) that says”Japanese ships can stay here” in the later maps?

  28. comment number 28 by: Matt

    Does anyone have any suggestions on where and how myCoree can upload his scanned documents. I think they might be an important piece of Ulleungdo/Usando history.

    If he will email me the document, I will put it online and provide the online link to it on this thread. [email protected]

  29. comment number 29 by: myCoree

    Matt,

    I’ve finished my small agony about it. The PDF file is transferred to you.
    I have separate page files(*.jpg), too. (aprrox. 10M)

    And,…I’m no sure about this :
    永陽 : A pen name? A family origin? A town?

  30. comment number 30 by: toadface

    Gerry, I’ve told you before, the Daehanjiji map shows Ulleungdo far too West and more than double it real size. Also you can see the “phantom five” islands to the south of Ulleungdo and Usando located Northeast contrary to the attached text saying Usando is to the Southeast. Thus when this map was drawn, Ulleungdo maps were appended with the same mistakes.

    The statement by ShimHeungTaek in 1906 clearly shows Koreans considered distant islands part of Chosun. Wrong distance aside, he quoted at least 40kms proving Koreans did not consider Ulleungdo as the Easternmost boundary of Chosun territory at all Gerry.

    MyCoree, thanks for the links to the great photos. The photo of Ulleungdo from Dokdo is what I’ve been looking for. If you find more please post links to them!!

    From this photo it only seems logical that Japanese would not consider Dokdo as part of Japan long ago. We know that the Japanese were explicitly forbidden to travel to Ulleungdo. Knowing this, it is not a logical conclusion that Japanese who were knowingly making these illegal, clandestine voyages would consider two rocks within visual proximity of forbidden territory part of Japan.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-ulleung.jpg

    Japanese assertions that they laid claim to a couple of rocks, with little or no fresh water, poor mooring/shelter not to mention 5 days return are absurd. Japan’s acquiesence of Ulleungdo effectively killed their claim to Dokdo Island. The above photo and all Japanese historical records show Ulleungdo and Dokdo as inseparable until the illegal annexation in 1905.

    The other image really drives home the point that mainland Korea was visible from Ulleungdo as historical records show. Koreans could thus be said to have a band of visibility extending from the Korean mainland-Ulluengdo Island-Dokdo Island and could fish the waters around Dokdo without losing visual contact of sister Ulleungdo.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Ulleungdo-Chukpyeon.jpg

    Ponta, if you don’t like my website, don’t visit it. Then you can scam images from someone else. Better yet, start your own website and call it Zero-empty or something like that…..wink.

    My Coree, if you have time please e-mail the document as well.

    [email protected]

  31. comment number 31 by: ponta

    Toadface

    Ponta, if you don’t like my website, don’t visit it. Then you can scam images from someone else.

    Don’t be so emotional. I am afraind that is your bad habit.
    I said your site is misleading, which does not mean I don’t like it.
    If you say “the Daehanjiji also states Usando is Southeast of Ulleungdo” Why don’t you show
    the map that was attatched to Daehanjiji?
    Where is Dokdo?
    on this Daehan Jiji map ?
    How can you tell which is in the error, the text, or map? It might be that the map is correct, and text is wrong, or it might also be probable that both are wrong. Or it might be that both are correct:Chinese letter 干山 can be interpreted as pointing to the southeast.
    Anyway there is no Dokdo on the map. How can you say Korea recognized Dokdo?

  32. comment number 32 by: Matt

    Matt,

    I’ve finished my small agony about it. The PDF file is transferred to you.
    I have separate page files(*.jpg), too. (aprrox. 10M)

    Thanks, myCoree. Your file is here –

    https://www.occidentalism.org/doc/Ullundo_exploit.pdf

  33. comment number 33 by: Gerry-Bevers

    myCoree,

    Thanks.

  34. comment number 34 by: Kaneganese

    myCoree, Matt,
    Thank you !!

  35. comment number 35 by: Kaneganese

    myCoree,
    I think 永陽 means the name of the place where he lives or the position.

    By the way, I googled 張漢相 and found this. If this it the same person we are talking, he must be at least 95-100 years old when he was sent to Ulleundo in 1694.

    http://old.samcheok.go.kr/sige/si_801l.htm
    삼척포진영장(三陟浦鎭營將)
    張漢相
    時代:朝鮮
    官職名:水軍僉節制使
    姓名: 張漢相
    任用時期:1615년(광해 7)

  36. comment number 36 by: myCoree

    Kaneganese,
    .
    永陽 looks like a county name. But, not sure and not important.
    .

    任用時期:1615년(광해 7)

    You’re right. It should be corrected. But, it’s within the ‘old’ homepage. I don’t think it will be corrected. ^_^ Don’t care about it.
    .
    Have a good evening.

  37. comment number 37 by: pacifist

    toadface,
    .

    We know that the Japanese were explicitly forbidden to travel to Ulleungdo. Knowing this, it is not a logical conclusion that Japanese who were knowingly making these illegal, clandestine voyages would consider two rocks within visual proximity of forbidden territory part of Japan.

    .
    toadface, you are misleading the readers again!
    It was not illegal, not forbidden, for Japanese fisheremn to go to Takeshima/Dokdo even after the end of 17th century.
    .
    You must know that the 1724 map of Takeshima/Dokdo (Matushima) and Ulleungdo (Takeshima), that Gerry showed at his posting #23, was made after the prohibition to go to Ulleungdo.
    .
    And the man who was punished on a charge of secret voyage to Ulleungdo excused that he was going to Takeshima/Dokdo, not Ulleungdo.
    This means that going to Takeshima/Dokdo was not forbidden.
    .
    Actually, fishermen from Oki islands used to go to Takeshima/Dokdo, while there was no trace of Koreans at all.
    .

    with little or no fresh water, poor mooring/shelter not to mention 5 days return are absurd.

    .
    You are misleading people here again. It didn’t take 5 days from Oki to Takeshima/Dokdo. You know, Ahn Yongbok, who were captured in Ulleungdo was brought to Oki in two days. It took two days from Ulleungdo to oki island. It may have taken one day from Ulleungdo to Takeshima/Dokdo and the same (one day) from Oki island to Takeshima/Dokdo.
    .
    toadface, you must remeber that Japanese fishemen used to go deep sea fishing, fishermen in Wakayama were catching whales and fishermen in Kochi went to pacific ocean to catch tunas, sometimes carried away to USA as John Manjiro. It was not difficult for Japanese fishermn to voyage for one or two days.
    .
    But Korean fishermen used to engage in inshore fisheries and they didn’t go so far. toadfacem there is little possibility that Koreasn fishermen ran a risk and came over to Takeshima/Dokdo.

  38. comment number 38 by: toadface

    Pacifist, as usual you are missing the point. I never said the Japanese were forbidden to visit Dokdo.

    What I’m saying is they didn’t visit Dokdo in itself. Japanese fishermen visited Dokdo while illegally trespassing on Ulleungdo. Of course they knew this was forbidden. Thus, it makes no sense that these Japanese considered Dokdo part of Japan while engaging in voyages that were knowingly illegal and clandestine in nature. The fact that Ulleungdo was highly visible from Dokdo makes it even more plausible Japanese considered Dokdo as an appended island of Ulleungdo. This is supported by maps and documents that consistently refer to both islands together.

    It could also explain why Chosun mappers didn’t map Dokdo as accurately. The Japanese mapped Dokdo out of necessity, as it could be a matter of life or death for them to find emergency shelter or water there en route to Ulleungdo. Koreans fishing the area had the option of returning to Ulleungdo in the event of storms etc,

    Pacifist, Japanese records show it took two and a half days to reach Dokdo. Don’t forget that prevailing winds and currents travelled from West to East in this region.
    I’m not misleading anyone about the travel time. Saito Hosen’s 1667 report quotes the travel time to Matsushima as two days and one night. There is not one record of Japanese visiting Dokdo as a sole destination.

    Korean fishermen didn’t need to go to Dokdo Pacifist. The island is visible from Ulleungdo about 3 hours away in the direction of prevailing winds and currents. As the picture shows, Koreans could visit Dokdo and stay safely within sister Ulleungdo’s looming form. Japanese records show the journey to Ulleungdo was not as easy as you say.

  39. comment number 39 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Toadface said,

    The fact that Ulleungdo was highly visible from Dokdo makes it even more plausible Japanese considered Dokdo as an appended island of Ulleungdo.

    “Ulleungdo” was not “highly visible from Dokdo,” nor vice versa. Do not be fooled my the photos, Toadface. Koreans in Chosun Korea did not have telephoto lenses. Also, even with a telephoto lens, the weather conditions needed to see Ulleungdo from Dokdo, and vice versa, occur only once in a blue moon.

  40. comment number 40 by: pacifist

    toadface,
    .

    they didn’t visit Dokdo in itself. Japanese fishermen visited Dokdo while illegally trespassing on Ulleungdo.

    .
    Don’t write your imagination here, toadface. Then, why 会津屋八右衛門 (Aizuya Yauemon) excused that he meant to go to Takeshima/Dokdo not Ulleungdo?
    .

    Korean fishermen didn’t need to go to Dokdo Pacifist.

    .
    Yes toadface, they didn’t come over to Takeshima/Dokdo until Japanese hired them as sealion hunters in the 20th century.
    In reality, almost all of them didn’t know about Takeshima/Dokdo except a few people who saw it from Ulleungdo.
    .
    Then why do they keep occupying it unreasonably? You haven’t succeeded in showing the evidence that Korea owned it before Japan incorporated it in 1905.
    toadface, all you have got to do is to show the evidence.

  41. comment number 41 by: GarlicBreath

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe-LmDcf4fM

    More map mayham from the Korean Takeshima ‘historians” and nutty korean politicians. A must see.

  42. comment number 42 by: toadface

    Paicfist, are trying to tell us that Japanese fishermen sailed for 5 days return to sit on two tiny rocks with very little fresh water and no shelter? Don’t make a fool out of yourself.

    The fact the Japanese made Dokdo as an excuse is not proof of anything other that he was lying.

    Japanese Takeshima lobbyists are trying to take these occassional pit-stops by Japanese trespassers on Dokdo as some kind of acts of sovereignty over the islets which we know is a fallacy. Japan did not claim these islands until 1905 for military purposes we all know that.

    Gerry, Ulleungdo towers almost a kilometer high and is quite a large island. The photo here shows how imposing the island is. I would say Ulleungdo would be visible from Dokdo under most fair weather conditions. Thus it would be logical that Japanese coming from the East would consider Dokdo as part of the Ulleungdo island group, Most Japanese historical references treat it as such.

    If Dokdo was occassionally visible from Ulleungdo, Ulleungdo was certainly visible from Dokdo under most circumstances. In fact Saito Hosen quoted that the Korean mainland was visible from the Ulleungdo~Dokdo area.

  43. comment number 43 by: pacifist

    toadface,
    .

    The fact the Japanese made Dokdo as an excuse is not proof of anything other that he was lying.

    .
    It is a proof that going to Takeshima/Dokdo was not a sin. And it is also a proof that going to Takeshima/Dokdo was not an unusual thing.
    .

    Thus it would be logical that Japanese coming from the East would consider Dokdo as part of the Ulleungdo island group, Most Japanese historical references treat it as such.

    .
    toadface, I can’t understand your logic here. If someone could see Chosun from an island, this belonged to Chosun????
    If you insist so, one can see Chosun from the top of Tsushima, then, is Tsushima Korean territory?
    .
    toadface, read the “Onshu-shicho gouki” once again. Japanese people thought that uninhibited island from where one could see Chosun, it was JAPANESE BOUNDARY, not Korean territory.