Dokdo-or-Takeshima?

Below is a map of Samcheok (三陟 - 삼척) and Ulleungdo (鬱陵島 - 울릉도), from the 1893 atlas "Yeoljae Chwalyo" (輿載撮要 - 여재촬요). The map shows that Ulleungdo was associated with Samcheok in 1893. The map also shows a single island off Ulleungdo's east shore labelled Usan (于山). Usan was the old Korean name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島), which is 2 kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore.

The map is important because it shows that Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo was still being referred to as Usando in 1893, ten years after Ulleungdo was opened to settlement.



Below is a similar map, which was made sometime between 1888 and 1894.



Thanks, GTOMR, for telling me about the 1893 map.

The following is a map of Ulleungdo, from a book entitled "Joseon Paldo Jido (朝鮮八道地). It is a cutout from a map of Pyongando (平安道), Hwanghaedo (黃海道), and Gangwondo (江原道). As far as I know, the date of the map is unknown. The map is stored in the Kyujanggak Institute for Korean Studies at Seoul National University.

Notice that it shows a small island just off the east shore of Ulleungdo labelled 于山 (Usan). Today, Koreans call the island Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도), which is about two kilometers off Ulleungdo's northeast shore. Some Koreans claim that Usan was the old Korean name for Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo / Takeshima), but there is no Korean map or documentary evidence to support the claim.



Let me know if this map has already been posted here.

It looks like 中華人民共和国 (People's Republic of China) considered Ulleungdo is the easternmost of Korea.

1950.09.朝鲜地图　中央人民政府人民革命軍事委員会作戦部測絵局　新華書店
1950 Sep. 朝鲜地图　中央人民政府人民革命軍事委員会作戦部測絵局　新華書店

1950.朝鮮民主主義人民共和国新地圖 中国史地学社刘思源、董石声编制，金擎宇校订
1950 朝鮮民主主義人民共和国新地圖 中国史地学社刘思源、董石声编制，金擎宇校订

1950年07月28日　最新朝鲜形势地图（1950年7月28日初版）　上海 百新书店 新文化书社 锦章书局 联合出　编绘者 杨景雄
1950 Jul. 28　最新朝鲜形势地图　上海 百新书店 新文化书社 锦章书局 联合出　编绘者 杨景雄

Thanks for the information, GTOMR !!

In August 2009, the hit counter for this site showed more than 1.1 million hits, most of which were probably from Koreans coming to this site to vote in an online survey asking if Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) belonged to Korea or Japan.

Before 2009, there was a great deal of Korean media and public interest in the Takeshima/Dokdo dispute, with almost weekly reports on Korean "Dokdo" protests or on some "newly discovered" map supposedly "proving" Korean claims, but that all but ended in 2009. Now the Korean media and Dokdo advocates have pretty much gone silent on Dokdo. Why? And what has happened over the past year?

Sometime in September 2009, our hit counter mysteriously reset itself from about 1.1 million hits to about 12,000. Today, our hit counter shows over 100,800 hits, which means that over the past year, this site has had about 88,000 hits. That averages out to about 240 hits a day for the past year, which is a pretty respectable hit count. Therefore, there still seems to be some interest in the Takeshima/Dokdo dispute, but it seems to be silent interest on Korea's part. Koreans and their Dokdo advocates no longer come to this site to argue Korea's silly claims. Why? Probably because they no longer believe them, though they will probably never admit it.

I think the Korean media and Korea's Dokdo advocates have gone silence on "Dokdo" because they and the Korean government finally came to realize that making "Dokdo" an issue was hurting Korea more than helping her. Thanks to this site and others, Korean historical claims on Dokdo have been shown to be false by using Korea's own documents and maps. Few Koreans are still arguing Korea's wild Dokdo claims because evidence disproving such claims is now scattered all over the Internet.

Japan may never get back the islands that Korea illegally occupied in the 1950s, but, at least, the world is slowly coming to realize the truth about Korea's false historical claims.

1893 L'Asie, choix de lectures de géographie... par M. L. Lanier
This French book of Geography "L'Asie, choix de lectures de géographi e-Deuxième Partie" was written by Lanier, Lucien (1848-1908) in 1893. (There are more editions as 1892, 1908 on Google books.)

The description of the Korean geography only describes "Korean peninsula", but the description of the "islets", as shown below, included Dagelet/Ulleungdo/Matsushima, but not "Liancourt Rocks" which was found and named by French in 1949. However, the map attached to the book clearly excluded Liancourt Rocks from Korean territory. Apparently, the author Lanier considered Liancourt Rocks is not Korean territory.


1893 L'Asie, choix de lectures de géographie... par M. L. Lanier_p_La Coree
1893 L'Asie, choix de lectures de géographie... par M. L. Lanier_p644_La Corée, le littoral de la mer Jaune (carte en couleur)
The Volume I of the book is available on Google Books. "L'Asie: Choix de lectures de geographie, accompagnées de résumés, ..."

References;

The article of Choson Ilbo on 13th August reported that “U.S. Maps Confirm Korean Sovereignty Over Dokdo”.

(Left: Prof. Jung Byung-joon(鄭秉峻) of Ewha Womans University , from Choson Ilbo)

A map used by the U.S. while drafting a peace treaty with Japan at the end of World War II clearly indicates that the Dokdo islets are Korean territory. The find adds to a growing body of evidence that Japanese territorial claims to islets are without merit.

Prof. Jung Byung-joon of Ewha Womans University discovered the map in the MacArthur Memorial Archives in Norfolk, Virginia in 2008 and included a copy in his book "Dokdo 1947." It was drawn up by the State Department on Nov. 2, 1949 and sent to Gen. Douglas MacArthur, then supreme commander of the Allied Forces headquartered in Tokyo, along with a draft peace treaty.

The artcle is quite perplexing since it is well-known that the Takeshima/Dokdo was listed as the territory held by Japan and remove the island from the Korean territory that it would renounce in the next draft made on 29th December, 1949, which was right after this draft of Peace Treaty made on Nov. 2, 1949. US decision that Takeshima remains as Japan's never changed in the final Treaty and Takeshima remained to be Japan's territory in the end.

U.S. Draft made on December 29, 1949

Article 3

1.The Territory of Japan shall comprise the four principal Japanese islands of Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku and Hokkaido and all adjacent minor islands, including the islands of the Inland sea(seto Naikai); Tsushima,Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), Oki retto, Sado, Okujiri, Rebun, Riishiri and all other islands in the Japan Sea (Nippon Kai) within a line connecting the farther shores of Tsushima, Takeshima and Rebun; the Goto archipelago, the Ryukyu Islands north of 29° N. Latitude, and all other islanls of the East China Sea east of longtude 127° east of Greenwich and north of 29°N. Latitude; the Izu Islands southward to end including Sofu Gan (lot's Wife) and all other islands of the Philippine Sea nearer to the four principal islands than the islands named; and the Habomai group and Shikotan lying to the east and south of a line extending from a point in 43°35' N.Latitude, 145°35' E. logitude to a point in 44°N. latitude, 146°30' E. longitude, and to the south of a line drawn due east on the parsllel in 44° N. Latitude. All of the islands identified above, with a three-mile belt of territorial waters, shall belong to Japan.

2. All of the islands mentioned above are shown on the map attached to the present Treaty.　

1949 December 29th; 6th Amendment of the Treaty Draft 1949 December 29th; 6th Amendment of the Treaty Draft_DoSDraft49.12.29p4 1949 December 29th; 6th Amendment of the Treaty Draft_DoSDraft49.12.29p5

So it is quite natural that this Prof's "newly discovered" map, attached to the Draft, depicted Liancourt Rocks within Korean territory since that is what the draft on Nov. 2, 1949 said. The point is, this draft, text and map, were amended and replaced by next draft made on 29th December, 1949. Although the map attached to the 29th Dec. 1949 draft is yet to be found, Prof. Jung Byung-joon's claim "the November 1949 map depicting Dokdo as belonging to Korea was the final version" is not true. The map is not the "final version" nor it "confirm" Korean sovereignty since it was already replaced with next draft. It’s pointless to intimidate Japan not to claim territorial sovereignty over Takeshima with this map.

In fact, Mr. Tsukamoto Takashi from the Japan’s National Diet Library had already wrote about this drafting process of Peace Treaty with Japan in his article written in 1994. He’s already introduced the Article 6, which deals with territorial issue, of this draft of Peace Treaty made on Nov. 2, 1949 and the article clearly stated that it has attached map.

The drafting process is well-written in English by Shimane’s Web Takeshima Research Center as below.

The principles of international law have great significance
It is an established principle of international law that a peace treaty is the final determination of a country's territory, however. Whereas the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945 stated, “Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to...such minor islands an we determine, ” SCAPIN #677 specified, “ Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands.” The Allies again declined to make a decision in SCAPIN #1033, which stated, “The present authorization is not an expression of Allied policy relative to ultimate determination of national jurisdiction, international boundaries or fishing rights...”
　 The peace treaty is therefore the key to the puzzle, but how does it deal with Takeshima? A draft of the peace treaty with Japan formulated in March 1947 defined the extent of Japanese sovereignty, which included the main islands of Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku, and Hokkaido, as well as such outlying islands as Oki, Sado,and Tsushima. On the other hand, its provisions stated that Japan renounced the rights and title to the islands of Cheju, Komun, Ulleungdo, and Takeshima. This principle remained unchanged until the draft of November 1949.

A Change in the Provisions Concerning Takeshima at the Draft Stage
The situation began to change when the acting Political Advisor in Japan, William J. Sebald, went a note to the U.S. State Department stating, “Recommend reconsideration Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima), Japan's claim to these islands is old and appears valid” As a result, the treaty draft was amended in December 1949 to add Takeshima to the territory held by Japan and remove the island from the Korean territory that it would renounce.

The later American discussions with the British subsequently adhered to this policy, and the joint American and British draft of June 14, 1951, stated that the territory Japan would renounce would be Cheju, Komundo, and Ulleungdo. This clause eventually became Article 2 (a) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The treaty was signed on September 8, and all that awaited was its enforcement on April 28, 1952.

In response to this, the South Korean government that had taken office on August 15, 1948, demanded the revision of the Revised American and British Draft Treaty on July 19, 1951, to include both the islands of Dokdo (Takeshima) and Parangdo (a submerged island) as part of its territory. The American government rejected this demand for revision, however, stating, “Takeshima was...never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.”.

On January 18th 1952, the President of ROK Syngman Rhee (李承晩) suddenly issued a Declaration concerning maritime sovereignty, with which he installed the so-called “Syngman Rhee Line” including Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks in the Korean territory, it was three months before April when the Peace Treaty would be effective.

1952- January: Syngman Rhee Line

Later, on 12th July, 1954, Korean invaded Takeshima with heavily armed forces and refuse to bring the issue to ICJ against Japan’s proposal.

The Choson Ilbo’s strange discovery story continues as follows.

Jung also discovered another U.S. government map, equally putting Dokdo in Korean territory, that was drawn up by a policy planning taskforce of the State Department on Oct. 14, 1947 to define Japanese territory. Until recently it was believed that this map was drawn up in 1949 or 1950.

The map he “discovered” is the map made by Jorge F. Kennan, the director of the Policy Planning Staff(PPS). The documents are included in the FRUS, The Foreign Relations of the United States, a book series published by the Office of the Historian in the United States Department of State. It’s even available online here . Moreover, the PPS documents are sold in the form of microfilms more than 20 years ago. How on the earth he can “discover” the map which is open to the public ages ago?

I strongly recommend Prof. Jung and Choson Ilbo to stop this kind of silly argument and claiming that he “discovered” things which are already known.

The initial information of the Choson Ilbo’s article was informed by matsu and other information concerning to the drafting process of the Peace Treaty were provided by Mr. Tsukamoto.

Mr. Tsukamoto Takashi's article is written in Japanese.
Takashi Tsukamoto, "Heiwajoyaku to Takeshima (sairon)" Reference 1994. 3, pp. 31-56. (塚本　孝「平和条約と竹島（再論）」、『レファレンス』第518号、国立国会図書館調査及び立法考査局、1994年3月、pp.31-56)

The article and related articles in Japanese.
独島：「韓国領」明示1949年の米国の地図を発見 (cache )
独島：鄭秉峻教授「1947年が重要な分岐点」 (cache )
独島：初めて領土標識を立てた「独島学術調査隊」 (cache )

References ;
History of San Francisco Peace Treaty
1946 - SCAPIN 677 - #1
1946 - SCAPIN 1033 - #2
1947 - SCAPIN 1778 - #3
1949 - Willam J. Sebald's telegram - #4
1949 - A letter from W. Walton Butterworth - #5
1949 - December 29th; 6th Amendment of the Treaty Draft - #6
1950 - July - Commentary on Draft Treaty by the Department of State - #6-b
1950 - August - U.S. Draft of the Peace Treaty - #6-c
1950 - October 26th - USA Answers to Questions Submitted by the Australian Government - #7
1951 - April - May: Joint UK and USA Draft - extra(1)
1951 - June 1 - New Zealand's view - extra(2)
1951 - July 9th - Coversation of Yu Chan Yang with John F. Dulles - #8
1951 - July 19th - The 2nd Conversation between Yu Chan Yang and John F. Dulles - #9
1951 - August - Another letter from You Chan Yang - #10
1951 - August 3rd - Memorandum - #11(On re-ceiving Boggs's memo. I asked the Korean desk to find out whether anyone in the Korean Embassy officer had told him they believed Dokdo was near Ullengdo, or Takeshima Rock, and suspected that Parangdo was too.)
1951 - August - Rusk's Letter - #12
1951 - September 9th - San Francisco Peace Treaty - #13
Korea's Illegal Land Grab from Japan
1952- January: Syngman Rhee Line
After the Installation of Syngman Rhee Line - American documents
1952 - November - Confidential Security Information of USA - #1 ("It appears that the Department has taken the position that these rocks belong to Japan and has so informed the Korean Ambassador in Washington." )
1952 - December - Confidential Security Information of USA - #2( "I much appreciate your letter of November 14 in regard to the status of the Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks). The information you gave us had never been previously available to the Embassy. We had never heard of Deen Rusk’s letter to the Korean Ambassador in which the Department took a definite stand on this question.")
1953 July: Confidential Security Information of USA - #3( The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in assistant Secretary dated August 10,1951.")
1953 - November - Secret Security Information of USA - #4 ("The Liancourt Rocks case appears to have aspects in common with that of Shikotan Island" "Remind the ROK of our previous statement of view (the Rusk letter)")
1953 - December - SECRET SECURITY INFORMATION by Dulles - #5

Korean government should stop brainwashing its own people and start educating them how to “debate” logically without resorting to violent act of terrorism immediately.

“I’m going to kill you, you **** !!”

On 7th July, 2010, "The our yard Dokdo keepers”(우리마당 독도지킴이) representative Kim Ki-joong assaulted Japanese Envoy to South Korea Shigeie Toshinori(重家俊範) with a 10-centimeter's rock twice in Korea Press Center in Seoul. Mr.Shigeie avoided the attack, but Mayumi Horie, his translator, was hit in the hand and taken to a nearby hospital.

I saw it on Japanese News, and it was ugly and appalling. But it was rare opportunity for Japanese viewers to see Japanese major TV news clearly reiterate Japanese government’s stance on Takeshima. Japanese media ignores Takeshima unless Korean do something stupid.

From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan’s site.

Japan's Inalterable Position on the Sovereignty of Takeshima

1. In the light of historical facts and based upon international law, it is apparent that Takeshima is an inherent part of the territory of Japan.
2. The occupation of Takeshima by the Republic of Korea is an illegal occupation undertaken on absolutely no basis in international law. Any measures taken with regard to Takeshima by the Republic of Korea based on such an illegal occupation have no legal justification.

(Note: The Republic of Korea has yet to demonstrate a clear basis for its claims that, prior to Japan's effective control over Takeshima and establishment of sovereignty, the Republic of Korea had previously demonstrated effective control over Takeshima.)

More on Japanese FNN News on 7th July and on 8th July.

According to Donga News, while police investigation, he cried out that he wanted to be a Ahn Jung-geun（安重根）, a terrorist who shot and killed Ito Hirobumi(伊藤博文), but he failed.

“안중근처럼 그 ○○ 죽여 버리고 역사에 남고 싶었는데 못했다”

According to Joong-An Daily, a South Korean foreign ministry spokesman apologized to Japan.

“Minister Yu made a phone call to Ambassador Shigeie to express his regrets,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Kim Young-sun said in a briefing yesterday. “What happened last night was completely unacceptable and we are feeling very regretful about it.”

IMO, it is Korean government herself who are agitating its own people to act on unacceptably by its own barbarised acts of invading Japanese island Takeshima without any documented evidence which support their claim that Dokdo/Takeshima have been Korean territory since 512 A.D. !?

More on a Korean News.

Dokdo Institute of Yeungnam University admits Usando in Choson's official map of Ulleungdo(鬱陵島圖形) in 1711 is Jukdo, not Dokdo/Takeshima.

Dokdo Institute of Yeungnam University(嶺南大学独島研究所 ) practically admitted Usando, which South Korean government has been claiming as Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo's old name since 1953, described in the detailed map of Ulleungdo "鬱陵島圖形", made and submitted to the King by official inspector Bak Seok-chang (朴錫昌) to Ulleungdo in 1711, was not Dokdo, but Ulleungdo's biggest neighbouring island Jukdo(竹島), which is 2-4km east to Ulleungdo in recent book. Prof. Kim Hwa-Kyung(金和経), the head of the Institute, wrote as below in their recent published book "Study for the establishment of Sovereignty over Dokdo"(독도 영유권확립을 위한 연구) (2010).


As Prof. Kim quoted in the article, Prof. Oh Sang-Hak(呉尚學), whose expertise is Historical Geography had already admitted this in his article "The Change in Perception of Ulleungdo and Dokdo Represented in Maps of the Joseon Dynasty"(2006) ". It was slightly before Gerry's pointed out that Usando in 1711 map is Jukdo since "Haejangjuk"(海長竹) is a kind of bamboo that cannot grow on Takeshima in the Japanese Newspaper San-in Shimpo on February 2007.

Prof. Kim and Oh are not the only one who admitted Usando in the maps is Jukdo. In fact, Dokdo Museum Head also Admits Maps Show “Jukdo, not Dokdo” on March 20th, 2007.


Korea’s Northeast Asia History Foundation rebutted to Gerry as well, while their argument was quite misdirected.


If their explanation is true, then the map is rather the concrete evidence that official inspector of Joseon Dynasty who actually conducted the on the spot survey identified the shapes and location of Japan's Matsushima= U(J)asando by Ahn Yong-bok according to what people say and clearly recorded that Usando is not today's Takeshima/Dokdo, but Jukdo. Because Ahn Yong-bok testified that it took less than few hours for him to move from Ulleundo to Jasando, at dawn on 15th of May. Besides, Ahn said he "pulled the boat into Usando(拕舟入子山島)". It is natural for the inspector who went to Ulleugndo and saw Jukdo to identify it as so-called Usando. Whatever the island Ahn had witnessed was, it is apparent that both Joseon Dynasty and scholars out of office considered the island was Jukdo. Scholars out of office including Chŏng Sang-gi (鄭尚驥) who made "東国地図" and others who made the copies and Prof. Oh presume Chong put Usando east to Ulleungdo, namely the "exact" place of today's Dokdo according to Ahn's story, without any concrete evidence. But it is quite obvious as Chong and its follower's Usando is placed right next to Ulleungdo and it never go beyond the scope of the place of Jukdo, the Ulleungdo's neighbouring island of 4km east, which exactly matched with Ahn's testimony again.

And finally, Prof. SONG Byeong-Gi（宋 炳基） seems to be cornered and also gave up cheating people, and finally admitted that Usando in this 1711 official map is not Dokdo, but Jukdo in his revised book "Ulleungdo and Dokdo"(재정판 울릉도와 독도)（2007） . (Japanese translation by Mr. 朴 炳渉, a.k.a. Half-moon.)

By the way, Korean academics mistranslated haejangjuk(海長竹田). "海長竹田" is not "long groves of bamboos alongside the coast" nor just a “grove of tall bamboo along the coastline", but is groves of "海長竹", a unique kind of bamboo. Japanese called it as 女竹. Japanese "Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department of Trade, Document Section: Trade Documents" (外務省通商局編纂 通商彙纂) recorded that 女竹 grow on Jukdo in 190 2.

The inspector's map of Ulleungdo is Joseon's official maps and are the basis of other maps made thereafter.

The map is one of the 6 Ulleungdo maps extant made by official investigators to Ulleungdo. The official maps of Ulleungdo as a result of regular inspection are extremely important in the history of Korea's geography since this is produced by officials and were positively used to produce the county prefecture map(郡県地図) of a nationwide thereafter such as "海東地図", "廣輿図". "朝鮮地図". And it is succeeded to the large reduced scale complete map produced in the 19th century thereafter.

Actually, Seoul Nat'l University's Kyujanggak Institute of Korean Studies, who even strangely write Usando in this map is definately Dokdo, admits Usandos in some of the Ulleungdo maps "may be" Jukdo, not Dokdo on its website.

Korea's claim that Usando in Korea's old maps are today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo is fake.

As have been shown, Korean scholars gradually started to admit Usando in "The map of Ulleungdo" (鬱陵島圖形)(1711) and other Korea's old maps, especially after 18c are Jukdo, not Dokdo, while Korean government still keep claiming Usando had been Dokdo since 512 in its propaganda and reject Japan's proposal to bring the issue to the International Court of Justice.

I honestly hope Korean government, academics, media & journalists, singer Kim someone, VANKers, netizens and some permanent residents in Japan accept this eternal fact that Korean had never considered Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks was their territory before 1905. Usando after 1711 official map of Ulleungdo were Jukdo and they should stop absurd claim such as Usando is Takeshima's old names from 512.

References ;
Interview with Sankei Shimbun Reporter on Dokdo/Takeshima : Sunday, April 22nd, 2007

Dokdo Museum Head Admits Maps Show “Jukdo, not Dokdo” : Tuesday, March 20th, 2007

New Article on Usando & “Haejang” Bamboo : Tuesday, March 13th, 2007

The other article about Gerry in the San-In Chuo Shinpou : Tuesday, February 27th, 2007

Korean History Group Responds to Japanese Article on Usando : Saturday, February 24th, 2007

New Takeshima (Dokdo) Article in Japanese Newspaper : Wednesday, February 21st, 2007

Korean Scholar Says "Usando" Was Ulleungdo's "Jukdo"

Ulleungdo's Neighboring Island of Jukdo (죽도 - 竹島)

1696 - Ahn's so-called Matsushima/Usando was Jukdo, afterall.　(元禄九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一巻之覚書　肅宗実録 30卷, 22年 戊寅)

Below is a translation of The 26th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

"East Sea and Dokdo in Old Maps " hosted by the Northeast Asian History Foundation

The exhibition "East Sea and Dokdo in Old Maps " was held by the Northeast Asian History Foundation, that is research laboratories of the South Korea government, from this March 2 to the 9th at the the second floor of National Diet Library in South Korea. However, it made me feel that I was deceived by the extravagant advertisement, since there were only photographed panels in the hall not originals. According to the brochure distributed in the hall and the explanation of the hall, it seems they wanted to claim as follows.

"Regarding the name "East Sea", it is notable that certain old maps printed in European countries such as Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom had used the name even before it was marked as such in the due sea area on some Korean maps for the meaning of "an east side of Eurasia" at that time."

As for Takeshima, they also claim that "In the past, Korean called "Dokdo" as Usando, Sambongdo, Gajido or Seokdo", and " on those European old maps, Dokdo is referred to as 'Tchian-chan-tao', 'Liancourt Rocks', 'Hornet Rocks', 'Menelai' or 'Olivutsa'." They also seem to further claim that the label "East Sea" is correct for the Sea of Japan and Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo has historically been Korea's.

However, again, there was no grounds of Korea's claim to show why Takeshima is Korea's and Japan Sea should be called East Sea. Though the brochure says that "the name "East Sea" was marked as East Sea in the due sea area", throughout the Joseon Dynasty, the area of East Sea which corresponds to indicates Yellow Sea(黄海), Bohai Sea(渤海) or the eastern seaboard of the Joseon peninsula and those areas don't overlap the area of the "Sea of Japan". How does the Northeast Asian History Foundation" who sponsored this exhibition take this fact?

Their understanding of East Sea can be inferred from the explanation in the brochure, since they interpret the "Map of the Eight Provinces" (八道總圖 - 팔도총도) from "Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungram" (新增東國輿地勝覽 - 신증동국여지승람) as follows.

"Map of the Eight Provinces" is the complete map of Joseon which is collected first in the "Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungram". It only recorded simple information that everyone know, such as prominent mountains, rivers, islands and seas, in order to prevent the top secret of the state."

However, this explanation of "Map of the Eight Provinces" is only an arbitrary interpretation that neglects the document criticism. The postspcript of the map says "The complete map is a record for the ritual of worship(祀典)", meaning that the objects that the nation enshrines as spirits/gods of the nature are depicted in "Map of the Eight Provinces". Which means that the "East Sea" in not the label for the name of the sea, but for the places where the shrines of gods/spirits of the sea-waves along the eastern seaboards of Choson peninsula.

In fact, "The map of Kanwondo" from the same "Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungram" etc. labels the ocean as "東抵大海" (to the East, it reaches to the ocean) and "東北抵大海" (to the Northeast, it reaches to the ocean), making it clear that they are not coastal part, but the open seas far from the land. In short, the majority of the Sea of Japan area was recognized as "大海"(ocean), not "東海（East Sea）" in those old Korean maps.

Moreover, the "East Sea"(東海) defined in the worship(祀典) can be also confirmed in the "Samguk Sagi"'s Monographs part (三国史記 雑志) that was compiled in Goryeo era. And it indicates the coast part of the Korean peninsula's east shore throughout the age of Silla, Goryeo and Joseon. Against this historical fact, Korea's Northeast History Foundation misread the Chinese character "東海", replacing with "日本海"(the Sea of Japan) in the modernistic way of thinking, and falsely claimed that "東海" in the maps are the historical evidence to show ancient Korean called the Sea of Japan as East Sea. However, it was after modern ages that the name's of the Sea of Japan as East Sea became general, and East Sea until a Joseon age indicated the coast part of the Korean peninsula east shore, Yellow Sea and Pohai.

The similar example of their stretching interpretation "East Sea" far to the Sea of Japan can be seen in their explanation of "A Map of Marco Polo's Voyages" as well. The map was produced by British Emanuel Bowen in 1744 and it labeled the area as "EASTAN SEA" on the are of the Sea of Japan. They explained it is the evidence that western society called the Sea of Japan as East Sea in the brochure. However, as was explained, Korea's "East Sea" indicated the coastal part of Korean peninsula's eastern part, and it doesn't overlap with "EASTAN SEA" that corresponds to the Sea of Japan. And yet from the point that "EASTAN SEA" actually is written in "A Map of Marco Polo's Voyages", it should be translated rather as "Eastern Sea" or "Sea in the East" to follow the Marco Polo's "The Book of Marco Polo" which is nicknamed as " Oriente Poliano". But they explain it as "regarding the name "East Sea", it is notable that certain old maps printed in European countries such as Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom had used the name even before it was marked as such in the due sea area on some Korean maps" without any fact as such, in their brochure and the board on the hall. It is because there are overwhelmingly numbers of western old maps which label the sea area concerned to be "Sea of Japan", "Goryeo sea" and "Joseon sea", but "East Sea".

Therefore, the exhibition "East Sea and Dokdo in Old Maps " will, on the contrary to their expectation the world to correct the Sea of Japan as East Sea, have proven the fact that East Sea claimed by South Korea doesn't overlap with the Sea of Japan. Keeping fabricating the history of the lie, and cheating the inside and outside the country only complicate relations between Japan and South Korea fruitlessly. This kind of political advertisement never leave an excellent result to future generations, but simple international reliability to South Korea is lowered and the stain is left for the history, .

The same thing goes to their other explanation that "the claim by Japanese Government that Japan had owned Takeshima before 1905 is false" because "The map of the Great Japan", which the bureau of the staff of a Japanese army(日本陸軍参謀局) produced in 1877, does not depict Takeshima. This kind of sophistry comes from the disregard for the historical fact as is explained later.

It is necessary to clarify to which of historical titles of Takeshima in Japan-South Korea to belong when the Takeshima Issue as the history issue is discussed. They dissemble as if Korea's historical base on Takeshima/Dokdo sovereignty is well-grounded, by explaining that Liancourt Rocks have been "called as Usando, Sambongdo, Gajido and Seokdo, etc..." and the islets were labeled as "Tchian-chan-tao、Liancout Rocks、Hormet Rocks、Menelia or Olivutsa, etc... in old western maps." However, unfortunately, there is anything that shows Korea's historical title on Takeshima at all.

Although Korean claim that they called today's Takeshima as Usando, Sambongdo, Gajido and Seokdo, etc...", but that is absolutely groundless as I have already proved empirically in my article "A Study on the Name of Dokdo". Accordingly, as far as Korean has been keep failing to prove they had owned Takeshima/Dokdo before 1905, the year Japan officially incorporated Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture, Korea does not deserve to criticize Japan. The exhibition and their sophistry practically prove that they don't understand the historical background of Takeshima Issue at all. The origin of the issue can be traced to 18th January, 1952, the day Korean government installed the illegal delineation "The Syngman Rhee Line ", encompassing the island of Takeshima and a large area of water with fisheries jurisdiction, over international waters. Afterwords, South Korea was yet able to prove it was historically Korea's territory, and all they talk was big brag "The territorial issue doesn't exist between Japan-South Korea", though the government of two countries exchanged memos, and repeated a formal controversy until the 1960's. This is the reason the government of Japan accuse Takeshima occupation in 1954 by South Korea to be an illegal occupancy.

Korea's Takeshima/Dokdo Research has been carried out on the assumption that "Dokdo is our territory (Takeshima is South Korea's territory)", and they interpreted documents and old maps, which has no competence to prove the sovereignty in the first place, arbitrary to claim their legitimacy. The exhibition "East Sea and Dokdo in Old Maps " fall under this category. The background why such events are repeatedly held is it originates in the fact that the past Takeshima controversy between Japan-South Korea was irregular.

Although it is already proven that Takeshima was not Korea's territory in the view of history, there are two opinions concerning of the Takeshima Issue. Shimane Prefecture's Takeshima Research Center, that summarized the point of issue, concluded that Takeshima is Japanese territory on the ground the fact then Meiji government named Liancourt Rocks, of which there were no traces of occupation by any other countries / Terra nullis, and incorporated into a Japanese territory in accordance with International Law in 1905. While Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan concludes that Takeshima is Japanese territory from Edo period, from the details of the controversy by the exchange of memos of Japan-South Korea so far.

Then, South Korea that wanted to refute the Japan's claim at any cost disregarded the opinion of the Takeshima Research Center of Shimane Prefecture and made the opinion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs a subject of discussion. This time, they presented "The complete map of Japan"(大日本全図) as the grounds of an argument that the bureau of the staff of a Japanese army(日本陸軍参謀局) produced in 1877. According to their explanation, it supposed to be "the proof of Japanese Government's opinion that Japan had owned Takeshima before 1905 is false" since Takeshima was not depicted.

However, it is natural that Takeshima that became a Japanese territory in 1905 doesn't exist in the map of Japan produced before 1905. No matter how maps that similar to this "The complete map of Japan" are collected, it hardly become any evidence to prove Takeshima is South Korean territory. South Korea's, who lacks empirical evidence to prove Takeshima is South Korea territory, claim that "Japanese government claim falsely" is just a propaganda maneuvers to justify their illegal occupancy of Takeshima. "False claim" is not on Japanese side, but on Korean side, who herself accuse Japan of false claim.

In fact, there is Korea's deceit behind the words the brochure says, "Dokdo is referred to as 'Tchian-chan-tao', 'Liancourt Rocks', 'Hornet Rocks', 'Menelai' or 'Olivutsa' in western old maps." The name "Liancourt Rocks" originate from the fact French whaler Liancourt found the islets in 1849. "Hornet Rocks" originate from the fact that British warship H.M.S. Hornet identified them and plotted on the nautical-chart in 1855. "Menalai and Olivutsa Rocks" again originate in the fact Russian frigate Paleada have surveyed the island and named it Olivutsa(Оливуца) & Menelai(Менелай) in 1854. Accordingly, there are concrete reason that Takeshima/Dokdo was named as such in western old maps. The point is, "Tchian-chan-tao" (the sound of the Chinese word "千山島") is not today's Takeshima/Dokdo. "Tchian-chan-tao" in western old maps comes from "Map of the Eight Provinces" (八道總圖 - 팔도총도) in ” A Revised Edition of the Augmented Survey of the Geography of Korea” (新增東國輿地勝覽 : The Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungram)　indicates "千山島" and it does correctly indicates "千山島". However, "千山島" in "Map of the Eight Provinces" is the same island with different names of Ulleungdo, and it has no relationship with Takeshima in territorial dispute between Japan-Korea. "千山島" in "Map of the Eight Provinces" is depicted between Joseon peninsula and Ulleungdo, and it is apparent from the description of "Annals of King Taejong" (太宗實錄 - 태종실록) , which was quoted in ”The Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungram”, that it was another name of Ulleungdo. However, problem is, the incorrect geographical knowledge of "Map of the Eight Provinces" was followed suit by western old maps (Note by translater ; via China) and Usando, which is the same island/different name of Ulleungdo, imparted to as well. "Royaume de Coree" by French royal geographer D'Anville in 1737 , which was on display at the exhibition, is one of those maps and it is the ringleader who confuses the Western old maps. "The Chart of Japan" by William Heine, who accompanied the first expedition of the US fleet under Commander Matthew Perry to Japan as an official artist/book illustrator in 1853, depicts three islands, "Takeshima"(Argonaut=non-existant),"Matsushima"(Ulleungdo/Dagelet), "Hornet Rocks"(today's Takeshima), plus two islands "Pan-ling-tao", which indicates Ulleungdo and "Tchian-chan-tao" which originates in "千山島" in the vicinity of the East coast of Joseon peninsula. Same goes to "（U.S) Navy Chart of the Coast of China 、Pacific coast (Asia), Japan islands Copied to ordered by Commandar Mattew Perry(1855)", a foldout map in "The Narrative of the Commodore Matthew Calbraith Perry's Expedition to Japan", and it depicts two Ulleungdos, namely "Dagelet or Matsushima"(=Ulleungdo) and "Pan-ling-tao"(=Ulleungdo), following the geographical knowledge of "Royaume de Coree" by D'Anville.

The exhibition "East Sea and Dokdo in Old Maps " held by the Northeast Asian History Foundation arbitrarily decide ”Tchian-chan-tao” in "Royaume de Coree" by D'Anville is today's Takeshima, but in fact, ”Tchian-chan-tao” only followed the mistake of "Map of the Eight Provinces". Therefore, it can never become a evidence for Korea's sovereignty over Takeshima.

Korean side claim Takeshima is their territory by arbitrary interpreting the documented source or old maps neglecting document criticism, however, this kind of claim, which lacks the technique of a fair historical study, is nothing but just a reckless remark.

"The New　Detailed Map of Japan, Russia, China and Korea"(日露清韓明細新図) which Korea's Dokdo Institute of Yeungnam University opened on this April 1 to the public is not the exception. The map is written as to have been produced by "The Department of Survey of Imperial Army/
Navy"(帝国陸海測量部) in 1903, and borderline is appearing between Japan and Korea with "Takeshima" and "Matsushima" on Korean side. Dokdo Institute of Yeungnam University claimed that the map "depict what Japanese call "Takeshima=Ulleungdo" and Matsushima=Dokdo" belong to Joseon territory", and Kim Hwa-Kyung(金和経), the head of the Institute, said that "Japan should discontinue the insistence on the sovereignty over Dokdo in the situation with evidence Japan himself divided the border voluntarily recognizing the South Korean territory Dokdo". (Note by translator : There was no such department as "The Department of Survey of Imperial Army/Navy"(帝国陸海測量部) in Military history of Japan. This handy map is apparently produced by non-official Mr. Kurimoto(東京日本橋:栗本長質 ), the private mapmaker who seems to have tried to sell the map under a fake official name. The map is made for the soldier who goes to war to the oversea land. )

However, "Takeshima" and "Matsushima" in "The New　Detailed Map of Japan, Russia, China and Korea"(日露清韓明細新図) are phantom island "Argonaut" and "Ulleungdo", respectively, apparently from their longitude. Because, Ulleungdo had been recognized as "Matsushima" in Japan since about 1883(16th year of Meiji). The remote cause of the confusion is Philipp Franz von Siebold's map "Karte vom japanischen Reiche, nach Originalkarten und astronomischen Beobachtungen der Japaner die Inseln Kiusiu, Sikok und Nippon"(1840) , which depicts "Takasima (I. Argonaute)", the island of uncertain whereabouts (129°50" E) and Ulleungdo as "Matsusima (I. Dagelet)" (130°56" E). Therefore, after this Siebold's map, western maps and charts depict phantom island "Takeshima=Argonaut" and "Matsushima=Dagelet", which is Ulleungdo, and Japan followed it. Takeshima, which is currently occupied illegally by South Korea, locates at 131°55" E. Accordingly, it has nothing to do with "Take(a)sima" (129°50" E) nor "Matsusima" (130°56" E) in Siebold's map "Karte vom japanischen Reiche, nach Originalkarten und astronomischen Beobachtungen der Japaner die Inseln Kiusiu, Sikok und Nippon"(1840).

Therefore, "Takeshima" and "Matsushima" in "The New　Detailed Map of Japan, Russia, China and Korea"(日露清韓明細新図) (1903) are phantom island "Argonaut" and "Ulleungdo", respectively, and it is also apparent from their longitude and latitude. For that reason, it is prejudiced opinion to disregard the fact of the history for Kim Hwa-Kyung(金和経), the head of the Institute, to have said that "It is the evidence Japan himself divided the border voluntarily recognizing the South Korean territory Dokdo". Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks, which used to be called as "Matsushima" by Japanese in Edo era, was officially named as "Takeshima" when it was incorporated into official Japanese territory in 1905, being switched by the old name of Ulleungdo, which used to be called as "Takeshima", because of mislabel of Ulleungdo as Matsushima in Siebold's map "Karte vom japanischen Reiche, nach Originalkarten und astronomischen Beobachtungen der Japaner die Inseln Kiusiu, Sikok und Nippon"(1840).

"Takeshima" and another island = "Matsushima" of the Dajokan instruction, which Korean frequently takes up for a subject for discussion, simply meant that phantom island "Takeshima" and "Matsushima" as a another name of Ulleungdo, and it didn't instructed that today's Takeshima to be outside the territory of Japan. South Korean seems tend to interpret documents and maps recklessly in order to make Takeshima/Linancourt Rocks is Korea's territory. However, it is impossible and unreasonable for them to claim Takeshima which have never been their own territory in the first place, as their own.

Finally, both the exhibition "East Sea and Dokdo in Old Maps" and the Dokdo Institute of Yeungnam University are interpreting documents and a part of the old map arbitrary, and fabricating the history of the lie. This kind of act will leave the wound with irreparable relations between Japan and South Korea. This is a reason to dare to give unpleasant but wholesome advice.

“実事求是　〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第26回　 「東北アジア歴史財団」主催の「東海独島古地図展」について 　下條正男”

Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center .

The 25th column “"Opinion Ad by The Unity of Asian Peace and History Education"”

The 24th column “South Korean Government dug their own grave by publishing the English version of "The Dokdo/Takeshima Controversy" by Prof. Emeritus Naito Seichu and Mr. Park Byeong-seop.”

The 23rd column " Refutation against the report of South Korean Yonhap News Agency which misread the Mori Kohan（森幸安）'s "The Map of Tsushima(對馬輿地図)"

The 22th column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

The 21st column " Refutation against "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”

The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”

The 19th column “"Korea Maritime Institute(KMI : 韓国海洋水産開発院）, who lacks ability to read their own historical documents, criticized on Shimane Prefecture. "”

The 18th column “Absurd and Peculiar Theory of Prof. Hosaka, plus the "Children and textbook nationwide net 21" and others' Getting "Out of Control.””

The 17th column “The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年).”

The 16th column ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."

The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"

The 14th column “A reckless Courage of the Professor Kimishima Kazuhiko(君島和彦) of Tokyo Gakugei University(東京学芸大学).

The 12th column “Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding”

The 11th column “South Korea's Misunderstanding of 'A Map of Three Adjoining Countries (Sangoku Setsujozu 三国接壌図)' by Hayashi Shihei(林子平)”

The 10th column " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory”

The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”

The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"
The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"
The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."

References ;

1817 - Aaron Arrowsmith's map of Japan and Von Siebold

1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)

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

1881 - Kitazawa Masanari(北澤正誠), a official of MOFA concluded that "Takeshima" is Jukdo in "A Study of Takeshima (Takeshima Kosho 竹島考証) "

1883 - Mar. 1 - The island that Japan calls Matushima or Takeshima and Korea calls Ulleungdo (The Draft of Official Notice : 内達案)
「竹 島外一島之儀本邦関係無之について」再考−明治十四年大屋兼助外一名の「松島開拓願」を中心に−

2008-下條正男「独島呼称考 : 韓国政府版「独島:六世紀以来韓国の領土」批判」