Friday, August 11, 2006

What is the history of Ulleungdo? (Ch. 20)

Gangwon Govenor Suggests a Plan to Populate Usan

In the following record, the governor of Gangwon Province asks King Sejong to allow him to populate Usan, which he described as being a fertile island with many products and having a diameter of fifty ri. He also said it was surrounded by cliffs, but had places to anchor.
Source:『世宗實錄』 卷 七十三, 世宗 十八年 閏六月 甲申條

June 19, 1436

江原道監司柳季聞啓 武陵島牛山 土沃多産 東西南北各五十餘里沿海四面 石壁周回 又有可泊船隻之處 請募民實之 仍置萬戶守令 實爲久長之策不允


강원도 감사 유계문(柳季聞)이 아뢰기를,“무릉도(武陵島)의 우산(牛山)은 토지가 비옥하고 산물도 많사오며, 동서남북이 각각 50여 리로 사면이 바다이며 석벽(石壁)으로 둘러싸여 있고, 또 선박이 정박할 만한 곳도 있사오니, 청컨대, 백성을 모집하여 이를 채우고, 인하여 만호수령(萬戶守令)을 두게 되면 실로 장구지책이 될 것입니다.” 라고 하였으나 윤허하지 아니하였다.


Gangwon Provincial Governor Yu Gye-mun said: "The land of Muleungdo's Usan is fertile and has many products. It is surrounded by the sea and is about 50 ri from both north to south and east to west. It is surrounded by rock cliffs, and there are also places where ships can anchor. Please allow me to gather people to settle this place. If we do this and assign a magistrate there, it will likely be a long-lasting endeavor." The request, however, was denied royal sanction.
The island being described in the above record is almost certainly present-day Ulleungdo. The fact that it is described as "Muleungdo's Usan" suggests that Muleungdo was being used to refer to the island group and that Usan was the largest island in that group. This April 15, 1412 record also suggests that Usan ("Yusanguk-do") was the main island, and that a smaller neighboring island was called "Muleungdo." This would explain why Korean maps up until sometime in the 18th century showed Usando to the west of Ulleungdo, instead of the east, where Ulleungdo's neighboring islands are. For example, here is the famous 1530 map, which shows Usando (于山島) to the west of Ulleungdo.

Chosun officials seem to have taken the information in the April 15, 1412 record into account because according to this September 2, 1416 record, Kim In-u was made inspector of the "Mulueng Area", not "Mu-leung Island." Also, even though the record says that Kim In-u was sent to the "Muleung area," this February 5, 1417 record says that he returned from "Usando" with local products that included large bamboo, seal skins, raw ramie cloth, silk wool, and geombak trees (or wood). This suggests that the people that Kim In-u met on his trip told him that the name of their island was "Usando." After Kim In-u's return from "Usando," as mentioned in the February 5 report, the "Muleung area" began to be referred to as "Usan-Muleung," as this February 8, 1417 record shows:

Minister Han Sang-gyeong told the six government authorities and the Daegan to discuss the best ways to evict the Usan-Muleung residents....

The appropriate thing to do is to keep Kim In-u as the area inspector, and send him back to the Usan-Muleung area to bring its residents to the mainland....

Notice that in the above quotes, "Usan" comes before "Muleung," which suggests that it was the bigger island.

Also, an August 6, 1417 record reported Japanese pirates at "Usan/Muleung," and an August 8 1425 record said that Kim In-u was made Inspector of the "Usan-Muleung Area." However, even with all the references to the "Usan-Muleung area," there still seemed to have been a tendency to use "Muleungdo" to refer to the island group as this October 20, 1425 record and the above June 19, 1436 record suggest.

I believe that at the time of the above record, Ulleungdo was being called "Usando," and its neighboring island, Jukdo, was being called "Muleungdo." However, I think that "Muleungdo" was also used to refer to the island group (Ulleungdo and its neighboring ilsands). There is still no evidence that either Muleungdo or Usando was referring to Dokdo/Takeshima, which is ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo. On the contrary, all the evidence suggests that Muleungdo and Usando were neighboring islands that were close enough to each other to cause name confusion.


  1. Gerry,

    Thanks for your good job.

    BTW, here is a name list of Ulleungdo made by Tanaka:

    I'm afraid it's slightly different from the fact you discovered but maybe useful as a reference.

  2. 1808 Chosun Gazetteer article states.

    Ulleung and Usan were part of Usanguk. Usan is what Japanese call

  3. You can find on page 18.

  4. Thanks, Pacifist.

    Yes, I know that Mr. Tanaka has a different theory, but I think that is because he probably translated the 1412 record different from how I translated it, or maybe he does not see as much significance in the record as I do? At any rate, I would be interested to hear how he explains the 1436 record that I translated above since it is describing "Usan" in a way that could only be Ulleungdo.

  5. Annonymous,

    In 1882, Ulleungdo Inspector Lee Gyu-won found at Japanese marker on Ulleungdo dated 1869. The maker said that Ulleungdo was called Matsushima (松島), which is pronounced as "Songdo" in Korean. The marker also claimed the island was Japanese territory. So, at least in 1869, the Japanese were also referring to Ulleungdo as Matsushima (Songdo).

    One thing is pretty certain, however, the "Usan" being decribed in the 1436 Korean document was Ulleungdo.

  6. annonymous,

    Your opinion is a popular theory in Korea, it originated from the book "東国文献備考" (1770).

    It was told that "輿地考", a part of the documents, had the following sentences: "According to 輿地志, Ulleungdo and Usan are all belong to Usanguk, Usan is Japanese so-called Matsushima".

    But do you know that "輿地志" has been long lost? It is not available now if you wish to read.
    But the "彊界考", which had introduced 輿地志 in the contents as well, is atill available.

    In 彊界考, the author says "According to 輿地志, one theory is that Usan and Ulleungdo are the same one island (于山鬱陵本一島)".

    So the author of 東国文献備考 may have intentionally changed the sentence in 1770, although it is in the smoke as long as the original 輿地志 has been lost.

    But it is possible for the editor of 東国文献備考 to alter some sentences, because it was hastily edited by order of the king 英祖 in only five months and it has been accused of its inaccuracy.

    And one more reason is that Ahn Yong-Bok who had visited Japan testified that he saw Usando during the voyage to Japan in the late 17th century (but it was untrue, he only saw Oki island of Japan). He also insisted that he drove Japanese fishermen who told they were living in Matsushima out of Ulleungdo, saying "Matsushima is Usando, which is our territory. How do you dwell in our territory?".

    Ahn's testimony, although it was apparently a lie, influenced Korean people and made them believe that Usan was the island which Japanese called Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo).
    This was an apparent lie because no one could live in the rocks in the ocean, but Ahn was treated as a hero and his testimony was recorded in 粛宗実録 (1728). It could affect on the later book 東国文献備考 (1770).

  7. Gerry, the greasy squatters and loggers that were on Ulleungdo can't be said to be represtative of the "Japanese". You seem to collectively lump them together as such.

    If you want to define Japanese policy of the time read related goverment policy and national maps.

    The 1808 document says Usan is Songdo NOT Ulleungdo. In addition this document predates the era in which Ulleungdo was called Songdo by some Japanese. The Japanese didn't start calling Ulleungdo Songdo until the discovery of Liancourt, That created three islands on some maps of the East Sea.

  8. Annonymous,

    By 1808, Korean maps were showing Usando to be Jukdo, a small island less than four kilometers off the east coast of Ulleungdo, so if Korean documents said that Usando (于山島) was an island that the Japanese called "Songdo" (松島), then that means that the Japanese were calling the small island off of Ulleungdo's coast "Songdo," or Matsushima in Japanese.

    The following is a link to Korean maps that show that Usando was almost certainly Jukdo, the small island less than four kilometers offshore of Ulleungdo.

    Maps Showing Usando to be Ulleungdo's Jukdo

  9. Gerry, you've been throwing this neighbour island called Songdo around for ages and I've yet to see any mapping trend to support this theory. Maybe Mr Tanaka or the Toron talker can draw you up something.

    Those maps show an island drawn next to Ulluengdo called Usando, that's all. You must remember before cartographers applied the Western techniques of adding appended maps they simply moved lands over to denote ownership.
    Here is a classic example.

    There are hundreds of maps showing Usando on every side of Ulleungdo both Japanese and Korean.

    Please explain the scads of Japanese maps that show nothing West of Oki


  11. Annonymous,

    As I mentioned in my post, almost all Korean maps before sometime in the 1700s showed Usando west of Ulleungdo. For example, you can see it on this 1710 Korean map. Notice the line on the map that is drawn from the Korean mainland through Usando to Ulleungdo. On that line is written 水路二日程, which means "two days by water route. In those days, two days was the time it took to travel to Ulleungdo from the Korean mainland. Since the line was drawn to both Usando and Ulleungdo, we know that the two islands were neighboring islands because if either of the two islands had been Dokdo/Takeshima, it would have required an extra day in travel time.

    Sometime after 1710, Usando and Ulleungdo switched names, which means that Usando started appearing east of Ulleungdo, as this this map, which is also from the 1700s, shows. This closeup of the map shows a small island just off the east coast of Ulleungdo on which is writen 所謂 于山島, which means, "the so-called Usando." That phrase suggests that Usando had been a kind of mystery, which now had finally been solved. It is possible that this map was the point at which Korean maps started showing Usando to the east of Ulleungdo.

    As you can see from this link, which I posted above, all the maps of Ulleungdo that come after that map show Usando as a small neighboring island off the east coast of Ulleungdo. In fact, it appears to be in almost the same location as present-day Jukdo, which is a small island less than four kilometers off the east coast of Ulleungdo.

    Therefore, when the 1808 Korean document says that the Japanese referred to Usando as 松島 ("Songdo" in Korean and "Matsushima" in Japanese), it is referring to the small, neigboring island off the east coast of Ulleungdo."

    By the way, in 1869, two Japanese officials were sent to Korea to get information on Ulleungdo. In their report, they wrote that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called "Songdo" (Matsushima in Japanese), which the Japanese had no records of.

  12. annonymous,

    The 1870 Japanese document said that matsushima (Songdo: “Pine Island”) was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, and that it had not been mentioned in any records. But a certain Japanese document used an expression "Oki no Matsushima (Matsushima of Oki county)" to indicate Takeshima/Dokdo. This expression may make you doubt that there were two matsushima - one was "Oki no Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo)" and another was a small island beside Ulleungdo (Jukdo or 観音島).

    Then, you will remember the story of Ahn Yong-Bok when he witnessed Japanese fishermen in Ulleungdo, they said that they were living in Matsushima (Songdo). Ahn Yong-bok said that Songdo was Jasan-do (Usan-do), Korean territory.

    As the matter of fact, Takeshima/Dokdo is a rock formation in the ocean without soil and water, and no one could live there.

    The next morning Ahn and his people got on their boat and went to Jasan-do (=Songdo as Ahn said) and found Japanese boiling fish there. He then chased them off with a stick. The Japanese got in their boats and headed east.

    If this island (Usando = Songdo) was 92 km away, was it possible to go there on a boat in a short time? It's impossible. The island, Usando = Songdo, seems to be near island to Ulleungdo, possibly Jukdo or 観音島.

  13. dear anonymous,

    I couldn't see the maps you listed, but it's no wonder some of the maps didn't show Takeshima/Dokdo because it's a small rock formation, but there were many other Japanese maps which depicted Takeshima/Dokdo clearly, while there were no Korean maps that depicted Dokdo's unique shape - never. What do you think of this fact?

    To follow are examples of the Japanese maps with Takeshima/Dokdo:


    2. 1779

    3. 1791

    4. 1811

    5. 1833

    6. 1849

    7. 1853

  14. Gerry the 1869 Japanese mission was three people not two. This first diplomatic mission included Moriyama Sigeru, Sada Hakubo and Saito Ei. This mission was to gather informationaabout trade etc. This also included gathering data about Chosun weaponry in event the Japanese wished to invade.
    As I mentioned, it was a first diplomatic mission and this was at a time when the Meiji government was in its formative years. This explains why they lacked a policy or information as to how ownership of Ulleungdo and Dokdo came to pass.
    If there was a neighbouring island that was consistently called Songdo surely there would be some maps but there are none to support this theory of yours.
    If these illegal Japanese fishermen were staying on Ulleungdo's nieghbour island Jukdo as you insist there would have been no reason for Anyeonbok to wait until the next morning to set out. Jukdo Islet is obout 2.2kms away. From this distance he could have threw a rock at them, shouted or swam over in five minutes.
    Those are nice maps Pacifist you may note the text next to them. This is a reference to Saito Hosen's quote that declared Oki as Japan's northwestern border. Look at some of the maps I've posted. You can see the character for North above Japan and that is the border of the map and thus the limit of Japan's territory. This is a trend repeated in far too many Japanese maps to be ignored. Countries do not repeatedly omit islands they consider part of their inherent land.
    There are other maps such as Japanese Shimane Prefecture maps that show the same thing. This proves the Japanese did not consider Dokdo an inherent part of Japanese territory.
    There are no Japanese maps that show Dokdo alone. There are no records that show Japanese visited Dokdo as a final destination. Dokdo's importance to Japan was only related to its proximity to Ulleungdo. In 1696 when Ulleungdo was confirmed as Chosun's territory this issue was resolved and Japan had no reason to travel five days return to island with little or no fresh water and average fishing.
    Pacifist even the early 17th century map you posted shows the Japanese visited Ulluengdo at this time. Why? It had just been declared that visiting Ulleungdo was illegal. The crude nature of this map shows it was not a government sanctioned map drawn by a cartographer but more than likely a map used by fishing families. In short, a guide to trespassing.
    Korean records show as far back as 512 Koreans were visiting Ulleungdo, a land within visual distance of Dokdo. That puts Koreans near Dokdo a thousand years before the first Japanese sailor stumbled on the beach of Ulluengdo in a typhoon. Gerry once said it tooks months for resident of Ulleungdo to get a picture of Dokdo.

    Do you think a millenium is long enough?

  15. Annonymous,

    Concerning the makeup of the 1869 mission, my book only mentions the first two people, Moriyama Sigeru and Sada Hakubo, who were described as Foreign Ministry officials, but there could have been a third.

    Concerning the contents of the 1870 report, I know only what it said about Ulleungdo having a neighboring island called 松島 ("Songdo" or "Matsushima"). I also know that the foreign ministry officials said Japan had no record of the island. That would mean that the island being referred to could not have been Dokdo/Takeshima since Japan did have records of those islets. In fact, in your post you made reference to a 1667 Japanese document that talks about the islets, though your interpretation of the document is different from mine.

    There is no quote that declared Oki as Japan's northwestern boundary. Here is the contents of the 1667 Japanese document, and my translation:


    Oki, which was once called Okinoshima, is in the middle of the North Sea. From here (Oki), thirty-five ri to the south, is 美穂関 in 雲州 (a place in the eastern part of the Shimane Prefecture). Forty ri to the southeast is 赤碕浦 in 伯州 (a place in the western part of Tottori Prefecture). Fifty-eight ri to the southwest is 温泉津 in 石州. There is no land from the north to the east. Two days to the northwest is Matsushima (Dokdo/Takeshima), and one day farther is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), often called Isotakeshima, which has an abundance of bamboo, fish, and sea lions. These two islands are uninhabited. Koryo can be seen from here, similar to how Shimane can be seen from Oki Island. Therefore, Japan’s northwest boundary is from this island (Ulleungdo).

    The document is not referring to Oki Island as Japan's northwest boundary; it is referring to it as a referrence point to out surrounding Japanese territory. That would mean that the writer of the document considered Ulleungdo to be Japan's northwest boundary. In fact, during the territorial dispute in the 1690s, the Japanese referred to the 1667 document as proof of their claim on Ulleungdo.

    By the way,the text on the maps that Pacifist posted are just comments saying that the Korean mainland can be seen from Ulleungdo, as Koreans claimed during the territorial dispute in the 1690s.

    Dokdo/Takeshima was not incorporated into Japanese territory until 1905, so why is it so unusual for some Japanese territorial maps to omit the islands before 1905? That does not mean that Japan did not know of the islets or travel to them.

    This 1724 map and Japanese records, including the one quoted above, show that Japan certainly knew about the islets. In contrast, Korea has no maps or documents before 1905 that show she even knew of the islets. That is the biggest problem with Korea's claim.

  16. anonymous,

    You wrote, "This is a reference to Saito Hosen's quote that declared Oki as Japan's northwestern border".

    But as Gerry has already showed, Saito Hosen wrote that Ulleungdo should be the boundary.
    Some pro-Korean bloggers intentionally omitted sentences from the original document and deceived people to make believe Saito wrote as Oki to be the boundary, but Gerry 's translation is right.

    You also wrote that "There are no Japanese maps that show Dokdo alone". But as Gerry showed you, there were various Japanese maps that depicted unique shape of Takeshima/Dokdo, while there were NO such maps in Korea. Have you ever seen old Korean maps that depicted two rocks formation as Dokdo?
    This means that Koreans didn't know about Takeshima/Dokdo. Its location and its shape were unknown to Koreans because it located 92 km far from Korean island.

    If you have some evidences that Koreans knew Takeshima/Dokdo before 20th century, please show us here. If you can show them, I will willingly accept your opinion.

    You also wrote,"There are no records that show Japanese visited Dokdo as a final destination. Dokdo's importance to Japan was only related to its proximity to Ulleungdo".
    Yes, it's true in a sense. There are records that Japanese fishermen usually stopped at Takeshima/Dokdo before going to Ulleungdo because it located at a convenient place. But it means that Japanes knew and used it, while it is not a convenient place for Koreans because it located 92 km far from Korean territory. There are no traces that Koreans reached or used the island, but Japanese usually used the island. That is the point.

    No accurate maps, no documents to show exact location, no tarces of use....then why can Korea claim for Takeshima/Dokdo?

  17. Looking back at Korean government's official site, it says:

    1) (As to Dokdo) "In the past, Koreans have variously used Usando, Sambongdo, Seokdo and Gajido ("-do" means "island")".

    Usando is not Dokdo as Gerry has already proved, I suppose that everybody who reads this thread will agree.
    Sambongdo is Ulleungdo, I think Gerry will show the evidence in the near future.
    Seokdo and Gajido are possibly small islands around Ulleungdo, I suppose Gerry will also refer to these islands in the future.

    Anyway, Korean government wrote these speculations without evidences in such an official homepage, what a ignorant government! They are deceiving the world!
    Aren't Korean scholars studying their own documents? Unbelievable!

    2) "The first mention in official texts was as Usando in 512 in connection with a state known as Usanguk, which was incorporated into Korea's Silla Dynasty (57 BC to 935 AD)".

    Why do Korean people let their government speak such a lie? Aren't you living in a democratic country?

    3) "Some historical texts describe Dokdo as having three peaks when viewed from a certain angle - hence the name Sambongdo, which means "island of three peaks" (even though now it's most known for two main craggy peaks)".

    As I wrote above, Gerry will refer to this island in the future, but why do they write such a lie without reading their own documents? Why do they recognise two-peak island as three-peak island?

    The official homepage of Korean government is full of lies.
    Why do Korean people keep silent? Why don't you accuse them?
    It is a mystery to foreigners.

  18. You are right, Pacifist. I also think the Korean government has been dishonest in regard to Dokdo/Takeshima. Sambongdo is a good example, and I can hardly wait to get to that point in history, but I do not want to jump ahead because I want to post all of the history, even the insignificant history, in chronological order so that people can judge for themselves whether the Korean government and Korean historians have been honest or not.

    Actually, before the Sambongdo records there is another record that I am especially looking forward to writing about. It is the 1454 record describing Uljin-hyeon, which is the record that Koreans generally consider to be the key to their claim on Dokdo/Takeshima. That is a very interesting record, but Korean historians often quote it out of context when arguing their claim on Dokdo/Takeshima. I think that when people read the whole record, they will realize that Korean historians have been what I consider to be dishonest.

  19. Gerry,

    Thanks. Yes,I know your intention.
    Please keep up the great job!!

  20. Pacifist, Gerry has prooved to YOU Usando is not Dokdo. I don't agree. I also don't believe everything the Koreans throw at me. I say this. There are too many maps showing too many positions of Usando to decisively say whether or not Usando is Dokdo.
    Gerry, first Koreans don't claim the islands. They own them. Japan is the country whose claim to Dokdo is false.
    First let's remember Japanese did not claim Dokdo on a historical basis. They originally claimed the islands on the basis they were a "no man's land" However, now that evidence has come forward that Koreans were involved on the island they Japanese Foreign Ministry has shifted its claim to a historical one. Japan hopes to retroactively change this claim but it's too late.
    Shimane Prefecture's real basis for annexing Dokdo is clear. Dokdo was annexed for the purpose of installing military facilities during the Russian~Japanese War.
    If the Japanese wrongly interpreted the passage by Saito Hosen in their argument to steal Ulleungdo from Chosun it might explain why they ended up acknowledging Ulleungdo was Korea's territory in the end.
    At any rate Melonbarmonster set the record straight on Saito Hosen's passage on another forum. It's clear the Korean translation makes sense and the Japanese one is a case of wishful nationalistic thinking. The word "therefore" in the text proves Saito Hosen was using visibility to determining land ownership.
    I don't for one minute believe the consistent inclusion of this text is for visual effect. These maps were not travel brochures. The text was a reminder of Japan's border, remember passage to the Ulluengdo area was illegal and with it carried severe punishment as was in 1837 when a Japanese smuggler was executed for venturing to the Ulleungdo area. Also remember Japanese were warned strictly not to stray too far from Japan and to avoid contact with foreign vessels. Dokdo is two and a half days travel, that is far.
    Saito Hosen also included this text on the color-coded map of Three Kingdoms. This map was to drawn to show how close Japans enemies were and to illustrate the territories belonging to each country. It's clear by the color-coding on this map that Oki is the Japanese boundary and not Ulleungdo as you state. In addition Chosun's possession are drawn under Ulleungdo and the nearest island. This island is most likely Dokdo.
    Despite the fact this map was poorly drawn we can see Saito Hosen was careful to include this text.

  21. Annonymous,

    You said that you cannot agree that Usando was not Dokdo. Does that mean that you also think the Usan in the above record was Dokdo? If you do, then how do you explain the fact that the record said that Usan was fertile and had a diameter of 50 ri, which would make it the size of Ulleungdo?

    What evidence do you have that Korea was involved with Dokdo/Takeshima before Japan incorporated it in 1905? Can you link to any Korean maps or documents?

    What is wrong with my translation of the 1667 document? Where is the quote saying that Oki was Japan's northwestern boundary? "Therefore" follows a statement about Ulleungdo, which implies that the northwestern boundry being talked about was Ulleungdo. Again, that is why the Japanese used this document to support their claim on Ulleungdo in the 1690s.

    I wish you would take the time to support your claims instead of jumping from topic to topic and making vague referrences to posts by other people on other boards. For example, what did Melonbarmonster said on other board that set the record straight?

    Japan gave up her claim on Ulleungdo in the 1690s, so what is the point of your 1837 reference?

    And would you please stop saying "remember" when you have not even given us a reference to remember.

    The 1785 map you linked to shows that Ulleungdo was Korean territory, which was true since Japan gave up her claim to Ulleungdo in the 1690s, but the map does not show that Dodko/Takeshima was Korean territory. The small island next to Ulleungdo is at almost the exact location as present-day Jukdo, which is a small island less than four kilometers off the east coast of Ulleungdo. Here is a blowup of the Ulleungdo portion of the map. And here is a modern map of Ulleungdo. Notice that even the shape of the small island next to Ulleungdo on the 1785 map is similar to present-day Jukdo.

    Com'on, Annonymous, do you really think that little island next to Ulleungdo is Dokdo/Takeshima?

  22. Well,I am relieved to see anonymous present no new argument.The argument is essentially identical to Mark's,which means,as shown at occidentalism, it is dubious.BTW,interestingly GI Korea did not mention Mark's site as a reference site.

    Gerry Pacifist,keep up the good work!

  23. Thank you Ponta, Thank you Gerry.


    You didn't show any evidences here that Korea knew Takeshima/Dokdo before Japan knew it in the 17th century.

    Usando is not Takeshima/Dokdo because the record said that Usando was fertile and people were living there (while Takeshima/Dokdo has no soils, no trees, no bambooss and anyone could not live there) and the shape of Usando in old Korean maps is much differnt from the unique shape of Takeshima/Dokdo, and the location is different.

    Please take a look at this:

    As to Saito Hosen's document, the original text was written in Japanese and we Japanese can understand better than Melvo or melonbarmonster. Tell me the reason why do you trust in these pro-Korean people's interpretation.

    It is natural to think Saito Hosen thought Ulleungdo was the boundary because he could see Chosun from the island.
    There are many other documents that Japan believed that Ulleungdo was Japan's territory until 1696 when the Shogunate banned to go fishing to Ulleungdo. Either Japan and Korea believed that Ulleungdo belonged to own country's territory for years until then, so they needed a negotiation in the 17th century. Japan believed that it's her territory so that Ahn YongBok was captured and brought to Japan. So it's no wonder Saito Hosen wrote that Ulleungdo was the boundary.

    You seem to be brainwashed by propaganda of Korean government. But anything you want to say should be accompanied with evidence, please don't say speculations without evidence.


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