Saturday, June 10, 2006

What is the history of Ulleungdo? (Ch. 10)

Evicted Residents Return to the Muleungdo

In 1416, Kim In-u was appointed "Inspector of the Muleung Region" and sent to "Muleungdo" to bring back to the mainland people living there. However, when he returned in 1417, it was reported that he returned from "Usando," not Muleungdo, suggesting that the people he met on the island referred to their island as Usando instead of Muleungdo. After receiving Kim In-u's report, ministers started referring to the island group as "Usan-Muleung," suggesting that Usan and Muleung were neighboring islands and that Usan was the larger of the two.

In the following 1425 report, Kim In-u is sent back to the region, but instead of being referred to as "Inspector for the Muleung Region," he is referred to as "Inspector of the Usan-Muleung Region."

Source: 『世宗實錄』 卷 二十九, 世宗 七年 八月 甲戌條

August 8, 1425

甲戌以前判長鬐縣事金麟雨 爲于山武陵等處按撫 初江原道平海人金乙之李萬金亐乙金等 曾逃居武陵島 歲丙申 國家遣麟雨 盡行刷還 癸卯 乙之等男婦共二十八名 復逃入本島 今年五月 乙之等七人 留其妻子於本島 乘小船潛到平海郡仇彌浦 發覺 監司囚之 本郡馳報於是復爲刷還 麟雨率軍人五十名 備軍器齎三月粮 浮海而去 島在東海中 麟雨三陟人也


전 판장기현사(判長鬐縣事) 김인우(金麟雨)를 우산도(于山島)·무릉도(武陵島) 등지의 안무사(安撫使)로 삼았다. 당초에 강원도 평해(平海) 고을 사람 김을지(金乙之)·이만(李萬)·김울금[金亐乙金] 등이 무릉도에 도망가 살던 것을, 병신년에 국가에서 인우를 보내어 다 데리고 나왔는데, 계묘년에 을지 등 남녀 28명이 다시 본디 섬에 도망가서 살면서, 금년 5월에 을지 등 7인이 아내와 자식은 섬에 두고 작은 배를 타고 몰래 평해군 구미포(仇彌浦)에 왔다가 발각되었다. 감사가 잡아 가두고 본군(本郡)에서 급보(急報)하여 곧 도로 데려 내오기로 하고서, 인우가 군인 50명을 거느리고 군기와 3개월 양식을 갖춘 다음 배를 타고 나섰다. 섬은 동해 가운데 있고, 인우는 삼척(三陟) 사람이었다.


Kim In-u, a former panjanggihyeonsa, was made inspector for the Usan/Muleung region. In 1416, the government sent In-u to Muleungdo to bring back former Pyonghae residents Kim Ul-ji, Lee Man, Kim Ul-geum, and others who had run away to live on Muleungdo. In 1423, twenty-three men and women, including Ul-ji, ran away back to the island. In May this year, seven people, including Ul-ji, left their wives and children on the island and came secretly in a small boat to Kumi-po in Pyeonghae County, where they were discovered. The governor arrested them, and sent an urgent message from his village to bring back immediately the people still on the island. With fifty men, military equipment, and 3-months of rations, In-u got on a ship and left. The island is in the middle of the East Sea. In-u was from Samcheok.

The report says that people were living on Muleungdo, but was Muleungdo referring to Ulleungdo or to one of its neighboring islands? We cannot be sure, but Kim In-u was referred to as the "Inspector of the Usan-Muleung Region," suggesting that Usan and Muleung are neighboring islands and that Usan is the larger. Also, in 1417, it was reported that Kim In-u returned from Usando with three residents and tribute that included bamboo and other plant and wood products, however, he had been sent to Muleungdo, not Usando. Again, this suggests that Usando and Muleungdo are neighboring islands that are close enough together to cause name confusion.

So far, records have told us that there are two islands: Usan and Muleung. Records have also suggested that people have lived on both islands at one time or another, and that Usan was the larger of the two. However, if Usan was Ulleungdo and Muleung was a neighboring island, then one might wonder why the people mentioned in the above record chose to live on the smaller of the two islands? Was Muleung a specific reference to the smaller island or a general reference to the area? Or did the people prefer to live on the smaller island for security reasons or some other reason? It is unclear, but what is clear is that Muleungdo and Usando were either right next to each other or two names for the same island. Another thing that seems clear is that neither Muleungdo nor Usando was referring to Dokdo/Takeshima, which was too insignificant and too far away to cause the kind of name confusion that existed between Muleungdo and Usando.


  1. Dear Garry,

    I have reviewed your many posts about the Dokdo.

    There is a lot of evidences from both sides, KOREA and JAPAN.
    But, I think you already choose your position.

    To be frankly with you,
    Some of Korean maps and documents wrote differ from the truth.
    In some Korean maps, "U-san"'s location is west of "Ul-lung" and has similar area.
    In some Korean documents, they wrote, "U-san" and "Ul-lung" is same one island.

    But Garry,
    We also have Korean maps that "U-san"s location is south-east of "Ul-lung".
    We also have Korean documents that was written "輿地志云 鬱陵·于山皆于山國地. 于山則倭所謂松島也" in 1808. I think you may know what this words means.

    I can see your profiles and you live in Korea now.
    You may know that this is very sensitive international problem.
    I think many people who speaks english as his/her mother tongue can agree the position of the Japanese.
    I am really really worry about that.

    You can speak what you want, and you can write what you want.
    But, please be in the center of the Balance,

    I think the first reason of this problem is THE KOREA hadn't enough power to keep her territory.
    the second reason is the uncertainty of the "San Fransisco Peace Treaty" and the U.S government had the resposibility.
    It looks like a detonating cap of KOREA-U.S.-JAPAN relations.
    Sometimes it can be explode.

    Koreans have a lot of evidence the island belogs to Korea also.
    And we believe the Imperial Japanes invasion to Korea had been started from the island.

    Please deeply consider my advice.

    CHO, M. S.

    I am not good at speaking / writng in English. Sorry,
    It took about 2 hours to write this comments.

    For your information, This is my blog that has some postings about DOKDO.

  2. Hi M. S. Cho,

    I have seen very little evidence to support Korea's claim to Dokdo/Takeshima, and I said in my very first post that I think the islets historically belong to Japan. Nevertheless, I will try to present all the evidence and arguments for both sides. Now I am up to 1425. Have I left out any documents or references so far?

    Korea has maps showing Usando north, south, east, and west of Ulleungdo. That tells me that Koreans did not know exactly where Usando was, but that they believed it to be near Ulleungdo. In fact, Korean documents have even said that Usando was another name for Ulleungdo.

    I believe that Usando and Ulleungdo was originally the same island, but later people became confused when people started referring to Ulleungdo's neighboring island, Jukdo. I think that at one point in time, the main island was referred to at Usando, and the neighboring island was referred to as Muleungdo or Ulleungdo. Later, I think the two islands switched names. However, I have not seen anything to make me believe that either Usando or Ulleungdo was ever referring to Dokdo/Takeshima.

    I will be going through, in chronologically order, all the documents referring to Usando or Ulleungdo. I do not want to leave anything out, even references that I consider to be boring and irrelevant, because I want people to see all the facts and be able to judge all the evidence for themselves. If I leave anything out or forget to point something out, please let me know.

    As for your 1808 quote, I think Usando was referring to Jukdo, the small island less than four kilometers off Ulleungdo's coast. Korean maps of Ulleungdo in the 1700s and the 1800s show Usando at about the same position as present-day Jukdo. Look at the location of Usando (于山島) on the following Korean maps of Ulleungdo:

    1700s Ulleungdo map

    1800s Ulleungdo map

    So the question is what were the Japanese calling Ulleungdo's neighboring island (Jukdo) at the time? I think they were calling it 松島 (Matsushima), which is Songdo in Korean).

    Notice the text next to Usando (Jukdo) on the 1700s map of Ulleungo:

    A place that can house Japanese ships

    That suggests that when the Japanese visited Ulleungdo, they stayed on the east side of the island near Jukdo, which they most probably had a name for. I think that name was Matshushima (松島). Why do I think the name was Matshushima? Because when Ahn Yong-bok got angry with the Japanese for fishing off the coast of Ulleungdo in 1696, the Japanese said that they lived on Matshushima. Ahn responded that that was the Korean island of Jasando (子山島), which was most likely a mistaken reference to Usando (于山島) since the Chinese characters 子 and 于 look very similar.

    I think Koreans used to confuse Ulleungdo and its neighboring island Jukdo, calling them both Usando at one time or another. Likewise, the Japanese used to confuse Ulleungdo, Jukdo, and Dokdo/Takeshima, calling all three of them Takeshima (竹島) or Matsushima (松島) at one time or another.

    Thank you, Mr. Cho, for the link to your Web site. I will be visiting it. Also, it if is difficult for you to post in English, feel free to post in Korean. I should be able to read it and will respond, probably in English, which I think you can read quite well.

    Take care and thank you for stopping by.

  3. CHO,

    I am Japanese. Looking at the situation from our side, we had lost a major war in 1945 and were occupied by the U.S. and other allied forces thereafter, losing any diplomatical powers.

    We lost many major territories as a result of the war which includes your Korean Penninsula but also areas such as the Kuril Islands, Sakhalin, Okinawa, etc. that were home to ethnic Japanese long before the war (Japanese territoty was finally defined in the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951). Takeshima is one of them, I believe.

    During the negotiations towards the Peace Treaty in 1951, many countries laid claim on former Japanese territory, and Korea was one of them. Korea claimed Cheju-do, Dok-do (Takeshima), Tema-do (Tsushima) and Palla-do as theirs, but Tsushima has never been Korean territory and Palla-do doesn't even exist. Now for Takeshima, as Gerry is sure to be able to prove, has never been claimed by the Korean Government before WWII, and was used as a fishing base by the Japanese from at latest the Edo period (17th century). It is even documented that the U.S., who was in charge of the adminitration of former Japanese territory (including Takeshima), denied Korea's claim on Takeshima.

    However, Korea just moved on to occupy Takeshima regardless of the lack of the basis of their claims, and Japan was really helpless at that time. Korean armed guards even fired at Japanese fishing boats near Takeshima and quite a few were killed, hundreds more were detained by the South Koreans for many years.

    This use of brute force was unacceptable and I don't think past colonization by Japan justifies such acts. I also think it is trully regrettable that the Koreans use Takeshima to fuel their ethno-centric hatred towards Japan (which hatred seems to be THE national consensus in Korea) even when it is the Koreans who used brute force to take it from Japan and still occupy it.

    When it comes to the relationship with Japan, the way Koreans take it is just terrifying...there's no reason in it but just plain hatred. Even if provided with evidence that some Korean "historical" claims are not true, it seems OK in the Korean mind to simply shrug them off because the Japanese are "evil".

    I am very worried about all this nationalisim and ethno-centrism that seems so powerful in Korea. I don't think that the "victim memory" of past colonization can explain all that is happening now. I see a rise of a National Socialistic regime...a nightmare in the Far East. I surely hope I am wrong.

  4. Tomato,

    Concerning the Japanese historical claim based on the Edo period, I am sure that it was not valid

    from 1696. In this year, Japanese government prohibited acrossing the sea to 竹島 and 松島

    because these islands are Korean territory. The Japanese ruler 太政官 clear up this point by these

    documents. (,

    ) Some japanese people said that 太政官 gave up only 竹島(Ullingdo), not 松島(Dokdo) and they

    said '外一島' means 'Jukdo' which is in north-east of Ullungdo. But I think this is nonsense and the

    evidence of "Japanese history distortion". Because, this document has the attachment, this

    attatchment shows what is "外一島". ( ) I am sure that

    Japanese scholar must had reviewed this attatchment. But, they ignore this recored. It is

    intentional. This is the reason that I can say Japanese historical claim is wrong not I think

    Japanese are evel.

    Concerning the Japanese claim based on international law, do you know how this small island was

    part of Japan? Plase look at this post first. ( ) Some

    part of this post was written in Japanese, I am sure that you can read.
    "..... 內務當局者ハ此時局ニ際シ(日露開戰中) 韓國領地ノ疑アル莫荒タル一箇不毛ノ岩礁ヲ收メテ環視ノ諸外國ニ

    Even some Japanese government people thought this small island is Korean territory.
    But, they decided to make this island a part of Japan because they want to use this island as

    cupola (military observatory) for war against Russia.
    Before the Japan-Russia war, Korea already declared neutrality. (1904.1.21)
    Japanese military landed in Incheon (1904.2.8) and moved to Seoul (1904.2.9)
    Japanese government declared war against the Russia in 1904.2.10
    That is "Japan invaded Korea"

    After that, Korea and Japan made a contract(?) named 韓日議定書 (1904.2.23)
    In this document, there is a clause "大日本帝國政府는 前項目的을 成就함을 爲하야 軍略上 必要한 地點을

    隨機取用함을 得할 事. "
    The Dokdo was the "軍略上 必要한 地點".
    Japan could take any territory in Korea without approval of Korean government.
    Japan build military observatory in Dokdo in 1904, after that, Japanese government decided to make this island as a part of Japan in 1905.
    Do you think this prograss was peaceful ???
    It was the result of Japanese invasion. It is clear.
    We cannot agree this management was legal by the international law.

    According to the Cairo declaration (1943.12.1), "Japan will be also be expelled from all her territories

    which she has taken by violence and greed."
    Therefore, Japan should be expelled from Dokdo, also.

    Concerning the Peace Treaty in 1951, do you know that the Dokdo was the part of Japan in the 6th

    draft of the Treaty? Can I say the Dokdo is the Korean territory because nothing was written in the original treaty? Some japanese people have a hope with "Sebald report in 1949 and Rusk letter in 1951". But it is just opinion of U.S official not a opinion of the Allied powers.
    Japanese can repeat their opinion like tape recorder which has some trouble, but has no hopes.

    You said you see the rise of nationalism, I can see it also. But, in Japan.

    Ps) Regarding the Garry's comments, I was disappointed. If somebody had reviewed many documents and his intention is pure, nobody can assume that 松島 is Jukdo. I feel unfairness. Sorry Garry.



  5. Mr. Cho,

    What about my comments disappoint you? The fact that I think that Usando was referring to Jukdo, the small island less than four kilometers offshore of Ulleungdo? If you disagree, then how do you explain the two Korean maps of Ulleungdo I linked to? The two maps show Usando right next to Ulluengdo, almost exactly with Jukdo is today.

    By the way, here is another link to a collection of Korean maps that suggest that Ulleungdo and Usando were neighboring islands, not islands separated by ninety-two kilometers of sea. Some of the maps even show Usando right about where the Korean island of Jukdo is today.

    Maps showing that Ulleungdo and Usando were neighboring islands

    As for your comments to Tomato, I have already addressed most of them in the comments section of my blog. For example, the Japanese document you referred to said "Ulleungdo and another island." That implies that the Japanese were unsure of where the other island was. Some of the officials believed it to be another name for Ulleungdo, and some believed it to be one of Ulleungdo's neighboring islands. The supplementary document you referred to was just one of a few different opinions. The fact that the final document said "another island" instead of naming the island shows that Japanese officials did not accept the opinion of the document you referred to and chose instead to keep it vague until they knew for sure.

    Later, in 1880, the Japanese finally sent a survey ship to sort out the confusion. The ship discovered that 松島 (Matsushima in Japanese and Jukdo in Korean) was referring to Ulleungdo and that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called Jukdo. And Dokdo/Takeshima was referred to as Liancourt Rocks. The Japanese captain remarked that in one day, they had confirmed a long-held suspicion. By the way, Korean Inspector Lee Gyu-won confirmed the Japanese captain's observations in 1882 when he reported that there was a small island off the east coast of Ulleungdo called Jukdo (竹島). He even drew a map of it. You can see the map by clicking the following link:

    Blowup of Lee Gyu-won's map of Ulleungdo

    Lee Gyu-won also said that he found a Japanese marker on Ulleungdo that claimed the island for Japan and named it 松島 (Matsushima), which Songdo in Korean.

    I will address your other points later when I have more time.

    Mr. Cho, just because people disagree with Korea's explanations of history does not make them evil. I disagree with many of Korea's claims, and I know I am not evil.

    Mr. Cho, I ask that you please consider the advice you give me me. Please try to be objective when looking at the evidence.

  6. Dear Gerry,

    기죽도(磯竹島)는 다른이름으로 竹島라고도 한다.
    은기국(隱岐國, Oki)의 서북쪽 120리(里)에 있다. 둘레가 약 10리(里)이며 산은 험준하고 평지는 적다.


    다음에 섬 하나가 있는데 松島라고 부른다. 둘레가 30정(町) 정도이며,
    竹島와 동일한 길에 있다. 隱岐와 거리가 80리(里) 정도이다. 나무나 대나무는 드물다. 역시 물고기와 짐승이 난다.


    이것이 태정관 부속서류에서 말하는 죽도외 1도의 정체입니다.

    Oki에서 서북쪽(西北方)으로 120리(里)에 죽도(竹島=Ullungdo)가 있고, 죽도(竹島)로 가는 도중에 80리(里) 위치에 송도(松島=Dokdo)가 있으며,

    죽도(竹島=Ullungdo)의 둘레는 10리(里) = 약 40km, 송도(松島)의 둘레는 30정(町) = 약 3.3 km

    분명히 현재의 울릉도와 독도를 말하는 것입니다.

    일본이 이 시기에 이미 포기한 영토에 대한 권리를 주장하는 것은 무엇 때문입니까?

    CHO, M.S.

  7. CHO,

    You belive the distorted fact that Japan surredendered her claims on Takeshima in the 太政官宣布, but I get sick and tired of this bull-shit being repeated again and again. The "Takeshima" in the 太政官宣布 is undeniably Ullengdo and people who are not ignorant enough should be aware of this fact.

    You should doubt what your government and the mass media force-feeds you every day about Japan. Why don't you come to Japan for once and learn about the modern Japanese people and society before you talk about all this nonsense that we are evil and warlike or trying to reoccupy your penninsula.

    If you ever knew, while the Koreans were fighting a brutal civil war among themselves and massacring civilian opponents even in the 1980s, we were focusing on the protection of our democratic system and fostering a prosperous economy. The evil is inside your counrty, not in your neighboring country in the east.

    From the international perspective, South Korea is definitely ultra-nationalistic. I am so distressed at the Korean mass-media always reporting falsified anti-Japanese propaganda. You just can't see how silly they seem, but more people in the world are understanding the true situation in the Far East.

  8. Tomato,

    Have you ever read 太政官宣布 and its supplementary document ?

    In this document,
    Japanese government give up(防弊) 竹島 and one island.
    One island is called "竹島" or "磯竹島" and its circumference is 10里 and distance from Oki is 120里.
    the other is called "松島" and its circumference is 10町 and distance from Oki is 80里.

    It is clear that those was "Ullungdo" and "Dokdo".
    Nobody can say that "外一島" is "Ullungdo" or "Jukdo" after read this.
    Who makes you believe that Japanese government never gave up "Takeshima"?
    It is the man who makes distorted history.
    I think it is not Korean government.


    I agree that Korea is nationalistic.
    I had been visited several times to Japan and know some Japanese people and they are kindness and peaceful.
    But, Your politician isn't and Japanese society cannot force them.
    Japanese people always follows their leader, even the way is wrong.
    It was Japanese history, Japan hasn't the history of revolution from people.
    The ruling class can do everything that they want.

    This is the reason Japan is still dangerous and we cannot trust Japan at all.


  9. Mr. Cho,

    In the 1877 document, Ulleungdo was named, but the other island was not, in spite of the supplemental document. If the Japanese had accepted the opinion in the supplemental document, then why didn't they name the other island "Songdo"? The answer is because they were not sure that was the island being talked about.

    That supplemental document was just one of many submitted to Japanese authorities. As I said above, some people thought 松島 ("Matsushima" in Japanese and "Songdo" in Korean) was just another name for Ulleungdo, and some thought it was referring to a neighboring island of Ulleungdo.

    Why the confusion? Probably, because in 1870, Japanese officials reported that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called Songdo (松島). Also, the following 1867 Japanese map labelled Ulleungdo as Matsushima (松島)

    1867 Japanese Map

    No wonder the Japanese were confused. At any rate, I think that is why they finally decided to leave it unnamed. It was not until 1880 that they finally sent a survey ship to Ulleungdo to discover the truth. They found out that Matsushima (松島) was referring to Ulleungdo, and that Takeshima (竹島) was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. The discovery prompted the Japanese to change the name of present-day Dokdo/Takeshima to Liancourt Rocks. The Japaneses captain of the survey ship remarked, "In one day our long-held suspicions have been confirmed."

  10. Cho,

    Uh, I don't know how on earth you can read the documents as you do. Just wait until Gerry gets to that point. BTW, why don't you free yourself from anti-Japanese thinking during that time?

    The Japanese always follow their leader, huh? What you are saying is typical Korean anti-Japanese propaganda and the fact that you take such garbage seriously is the reason that I have to doubt whether there is any conscience among you people.

    I just cannot trust Korea because you people think it is OK to lie and be untrustful when it comes to historical issues involving Japan.

    What are you people trying to prove from all this? That you are better than the Japanese? Does that prove that you people are of a superior race? Just give me a break here!

  11. Dear Gerry,

    You must have read another supplemental documents which was submitted to 太政官 except this one. I hope to see those supplemental documents in the future.

    Dear Tomato,

    Maybe you've never read this supplemental document or you have some problem to read even it was written in Japanese.
    I can make Korean territories in the moon if I follow your way.

    Dear Gerry again,

    As a Korean people, I would like to ask you to prove just onething.
    Please BE ALIVE until the time you leave to show something to these Japanese people.
    You can show the freedom of Korea. That is what I expect to you.
    They think Korea as "Arkhipelag Gulag"

    CHO, M. S.

  12. Mr. Cho,

    I cannot read Japanese, so I have to rely on Korean translations of Japanese documents.

    The following is the text of a document written by the head of the Records Bureau in the Japanese Foreign Ministry to authorities at the time. I only have a Korean translation for the portions in boldface type, but I will post all of it, in spite of not knowing what the rest says:



    昔者竹島ノ記事略説多クシテ松島ノ事説論スル者ナシ 而テ今者人松嶋ニ喋々ス 然り而テ此二嶋或ハ一島両名或ハ二嶋也ト諸説紛々朝野其是非ヲ決スル者ヲ聞カス 彼竹島ナル者ハ朝鮮ノ蔚陵島トシ幕府倫安ノ議遂ニ彼ニ委ス 故ニ此所謂松嶋ナル者竹嶋ナレハ彼ニ属シ若竹島以外ニ在ル松島ナレハ 我ニ属セサルヲ得サルモ之ヲ決論スル者無シ

    長崎ヨリ浦潮港ニ至リ馬関其他石州因州伯州壱岐ヨリ彼要地タル 「ラサレフ」港ヘノ道ニ当タルヲ以テ頗ル要地ト為シ連綿此近傍ニ英魯其船艦ヲ出没ス

    若シ夫我国ノ部分ナランニハ之ニ多少ノ注意無ル可ラス 彼国ナラン歟又保護ヲ加ヘサル可ラス 況ンヤ他国我ニ糺ス 之ニ答フルニ決辞ナキヲ如何セン 然ラハ則無主ノ一島ノミ
    諸書ニ就テ案スルニ竹嶋洋名アルゴナウト嶋ナル者ハ 全ク烏有ノ者ニシテ其竹島デラセ嶋ナル者ハ本来ノ竹嶋即チ?陵島ニシテ我松
    嶋ナル者ハ洋名ホルネットロックスナルカ如シ 然ルヲ洋客竹嶋ヲ認テ松嶋ト為シ更ニ竹嶋ナル者ヲ想起セシ者ノ如シ而テ此ホルネットロックスノ 我国ニ属スルハ各国ノ地図皆然リ

    他ノ二嶋ニ至リテハ各国其認ムル所ヲ同フセス 我国論又確拠無シ 是実ニ其地ノ形勢ヲ察シ其所属ノ地ヲ定メ而テ其責ニ任スル所ヲ両国間ニ定メサル可ラサル者タリ

    因テ先ツ嶋根県ニ照会シ其従来ノ習例ヲ糺シ併セテ船艦ヲ派シテ其地勢ヲ見若シ彼既ニ著手セハ 其宰政ノ模様ヲ実査シ然ル後ニ其方略ヲ定メント要ス 請フ速ニ採リテ議スル者アラン事ヲ伏望ス

                         渡辺洪基立案 印

    옛날에는 타케시마의 기사에 대한 간략한 설명은 많으데, 마쯔시마의 일을 논한 것은 없다. 그러나 지금은 사람들이 마쯔시마에 대해서 많이 이야기한다. 그런데 이것은 2도라거나 이도 2명이라거나 하여 제설이 분분하나 세상에 그 시비가 가려졌다는 말은 듣지 못 했다. 그 타케시마라는 것을 조선의 울릉도로 하여, 막부는 장래의 일을 생각하지 않고 일시적으로 피하기 위한 안일한 생각으로 마침내 그들에게 위임하였다. 따라서 이곳에서 말하는 마쯔시마라는 것이 타케시마라면 그들에게 속하고, 만일 타케시마 이외의 마쯔시마라면, 일본에 속하지 않을 수 없는데도, 결론난 것이 없다. ...따라서 먼저 시마네현에 조회하여, 그 종래의 관례를 조사하고, 동시에 함선을 파견하여, 그 지세를 보고...

    In the past, there were many brief articles written on Takeshima (Ulleungdo), but there were no discussions of Matsushima. Now, however, people are talking a great deal about Matsushima. The opinions vary with some saying that it is two islands and others saying that it is one island with two names. I have not heard that the truth has been sorted out.

    The Takeshima (being referred to) is Chosun's Ulleungdo, entrusted to them by the Shogun, who was only looking for a quick, easy avoidance of a problem and was not considering the future. Accordingly, if the Matsushima being talked about here is referring to Takeshima, then it belongs to them (Koreans). If Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it would naturally belong to Japan. However, no conclusion has been made. ...Accordingly, first inquire with Shimane Prefecture and investigate its future relationship. At the same time, send a naval vessal to do a survey...


    As you can see from the above text, the Japanese were only worried that Matsushima (松島) might be another name for Ulleungdo, which they were willing to concede belonged to Korea. However, they seemed to be unwilling to concede any other territory, at least not until a survey was done. Ultimately, the final document left it vague by saying "Ulleungdo and another island."

    Here is a link to the site where I got the Japanese from. You may find other interesting information there if you can read Japanese.


    By the way, Mr. Cho, can you expain why area maps of Ulleungdo show Usando as a neighboring island, right among the other rocks and islets of the island? I asked you before, but you never responded.

    Mr. Cho, I will try to stay alive while I remain in Korea, but I do not think that I have to prove to the Japanese that "South Korea" is free; they already know that.

    What I am trying to prove with my posting on Ulleungdo is that the Japanese have a legitimate claim to Dokdo/Takeshima, and I am hoping Koreans and others will realize that and stop vilifying the them for making that claim.

    I believe that Korea and Japan need to be friends and work together to stablize North-east Asia. The present Korean government has been trying to make Japan an enemy of Koreans by exaggerating conflicts with and spreading lies about her. They have also been doing similar things in regard to the US.

    I think the Korean government is conducting its hate campaigns to try to get on the good sides of China and North Korea, but it is a terrible mistake to try to appease your enemies by forsaking your friends. Hopefully, Koreans will realize that before it is too late.

  13. Gerry,

    I think Cho threatened you with your life...just unbelievable. Is that the way a person from a "victimized" nation would deal with arguments?

    The way some Koreans make their arguments is so rustic and uncivilized...Japan was like that before entering into the Pacific War, you know. Even people high up in the military hierarchy like admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who later planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, when openly stated his concern against the war with the United States, were threatened by right-wing extremists and had to introduce body guards.

    I guess that in modern day Korea, when you say that so-called Dokdo is rightfully Japanese territory or claim that the Korean-Japanese annexation period was not all that bad, you get threatened with you life or get beaten up.

    A free country indeed!

    Some things I like to ask to Koreans:

    If you guys say that Japanese rule was harsh and inhumane, why don't you guys build a country where freedom of speech is fully protected and people are allowed to have many different ideas?

    Why has the Korean government been restricting the importation of Japanese books/culture? Is your government afraid that information coming in from Japan will threaten their legitimacy or something- just like the Soviets were of afraid of information coming from the western world?

    Why is it that your educational system teaches children to hate other nations for things that happened more than half century ago (and even distorting facts) and also make them believe that Korea is the super-race, much like what was being done in Nazi Germany?

    Just unbelievable...

  14. Dear Gerry,

    한국어로 쓰는 것이 일본인과의 불필요한 갈등을 막을 수 있는 방법일 듯 합니다.

    요청한 Translation은 Ch12 Post의 comment에 남겨놓았으니, 연구에 참조바랍니다.

    솔직히, 한국의 old map에 우산도가 혼란스럽게 그려져 있다는 것은 나도 인정합니다. 하지만, 그것은 그 당시의 조선의 상황을 이해해야 한다고 봅니다. 조선은 세종(?) 이후로, Gerry도 잘 알겠지만, '공도정책'을 실시하고 있었고, 10년 20년이 아닌 100년 이상 상당히 오랜 기간동안 이 정책을 실시하고 있었습니다. 비교적 초기의 지도에서 울릉도-우산도의 위치가 조선-우산도-울릉도와 같이 표시된 것은, 첫째로 당시 기록에서, "于山、武陵二島在縣正東海中"의 영향, 즉, 지도를 제작할 때 본토의 위치에서 가까운 섬부터 고대의 문서에 기록한 것으로 지도제작자들이 생각하고 그려넣었을 가능성과, 한국에서는 한 번 화제가 된 적이 있었지만, 남쪽 항로를 이용하여 울릉도로 접근할 경우, 해류의 영향으로 배가 독도 쪽으로 흐르게 되어, 독도와 먼저 만나게 되는 현상 때문이 아닌가 합니다.

    하지만, 분명한 것은 조선초기의 많은 지도들이 우산도의 위치에 대해 혼란스럽게 기록하고 있지만, 안용복 사건을 기점으로, 이 이후에 제작된 지도들은 비교적 사실에 가깝게 '우산도'를 인식하고 있는 것도 주목해야 합니다. 또, 고대 한국의 지도제작자들은 그 존재유무가 중요할 뿐, 축적이나 거리관계는 그다지 중요하게 생각하지 않았습니다. 더우기, 그것이 멀리 떨어진 섬이고, 가 볼 이유도 별로 없다고 생각했을 경우에는 특히 더 그렇습니다, 위도-경도와 같은 것은 서양으로부터 들어온 개념이라는 것을 주의해 주십시요.

    조선의 '공도정책'은 영토의 포기와는 다른 문제입니다. 섬을 비워놓는 것은 몇가지 이유가 있었는데, 본토의 죄인, 도망자들이 피난처로 삼는 것, 어떤 세력들이 반란을 모의하는 기지로 사용하는 것, 외국인(일본인)과 밀무역 또는 금지된 접촉을 하는 것, 왜구들이 선량한 주민을 해치는 것을 군사적으로 막을 수 없는 것 등입니다.

    만약, Mr.Gerry가 조선의 지도들이 독도에 대한 인식이 부족하다는 이유로 독도가 일본영토라고 생각한다면, 일본이 태정관의 도해금지 이후로 약 100년 만에 섬의 존재여부조차 파악할 수 없을 지경에 이른 것도 동일한 기준으로 판단해야 할 것입니다.

  15. Derat Tomato,

    Please check your reading skills in hospital.

    Dear Gerry,

    이 위의 comment는 내가 남긴 것입니다.
    한국인도 일본인과 사이좋게 지내고 싶습니다. 많은 부분이 한국정부의 Propaganda에 기인한다는 사실은 분명합니다. 하지만, 또한 분명한 것은, 일본의 히로시마 원폭위령비에 기록된 "잘못을 반복하지 않는"의 주어가 '미국'이라던가, '일본'이라던가 또는 '세계인류'라는 논란이 명백히 정리되지 않는, 혼란한 역사인식을 일본인들이 가지고 있다면, friendship을 만드는 것은 아직도 그 길이 멉니다.

    CHO, M.S

  16. Cho,

    Your personal insults amuse me. That kind of talk might work among Koreans, but not to others.

    My golly, the above comment just made by me sums up the Korean attitude towards Japan...!

    You people may throw lies and all other garbage at Japan in order to keep occupying that little island you stole amidst the confusion of the post WWII period, but it only looks as though you are insecure about your claims and the final basis in them is the all too usual "victim" stance: "We Koreans can take things from the Japanese because we were victims of the colonial rule"...the almighty can-do-anything logic.

    Why don't you stop and read the historical documents free of he "victim stance" for once?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.