Letter to the Students of SMB School
Dear Students,
Thank you for your letter. I read through your comments in the letter about theTakeshima (Dokdo) issue several times. I believe that the points you have made can besummarized as below. I have included your interpretations of history, which arefollowed by my thoughts on each point. Let’s think about the issue together.
1. Dokdo became Korean territory as a result of Ahn Yong-bok’s activities.
2. Japan’s Dajokan (Grand Council of State) Order concluded that Dokdo had norelation to Japanese territory.
3. The Sejong Sillok Jinji (Geographical Appendix to the Veritable Records ofKing Sejong) states that Dokdo was subordinate to the Uljin-hyeon (district)and located near Ulleungdo.
4. The Samguk Sagi (History of the Three Kingdoms) states that General Kim
Isabu of Silla subjugated Ulleungdo and Dokdo and made them part of Silla’s
territory.
1. The activity of Ahn Yong-bok in question was his June 1696 visit to the Tottori-han(Tottori domain) in Japan, at which time he allegedly negotiated with the lord of theTottori domain to have the islands of Ulleungdo (Utsuryo Island) and Dokdo(Takeshima) recognized as Korean territory.
However, by January 1696, the Edo Shogunate had already prohibited Japanese vessels
from sailing to Ulleungdo. Ahn Yong-bok’s visit to the Tottori domain occurred fivemonths later. So, the Edo Shogunate had prohibited Japanese ships from crossing thesea to Ulleungdo before Ahn Yong-bok visited the Tottori domain. This fact proves thatthe ban on travel to Utsuryo Island had nothing to do with Ahn Yong-bok’s activities.
Furthermore, not only did Ahn Yong-bok not negotiate with the lord of the Tottori
domain, he was deported by the Tottori domain under the order of the Edo Shogunate.
These facts are also stated in the Tsukou Ichiran compilation of documents related to theforeign relations of the Edo Shogunate.
The Sukjong Sillok (Annals of King Sukjong) record the activities of Ahn Yong-bok.
Nevertheless, this is in the testimony that Ahn Yong-bok offered when he was beinginterrogated as a criminal for secretly voyaging to Japan at the Pibyǒnsa-tungrok (or“Border Defense Council” of Joseon). In order to be able to judge whether he was tellingthe truth or not, it is necessary to read related historical materials and documents to see ifthey corroborate his statements.
2. The Dajokan Order of 1877 states “Takeshima and one other island have noconnection to Japan.” If we just consider the “Rough Sketch of Isotakeshima”(Isotakeshima Ryakuzu) submitted by Shimane Prefecture, it is obvious that
“Takeshima” there refers to Ulleungdo, and the “one other island” called “Matsushima”
must be Takeshima (Dokdo).
However, we need to confirm that the Takeshima and Matsushima depicted in the“Rough Sketch of Isotakeshima” are the same islands as the “Takeshima and one otherisland” mentioned in the Dajokan Order. The reason why is that nautical charts fromthat time refer to Ulleungdo (Utsuryo Island) as “Matsushima,” which is different fromthe “Matsushima” shown in the “Rough Sketch of Isotakeshima.” In addition, thesesame nautical charts, besides showing Takeshima and Matsushima, also show today’s
Takeshima (Dokdo) under the name “Liancourt Rocks.”
At the time that the Dajokan Order was issued, the nautical charts showed threedifferent islands; namely, Takeshima, Matsushima, and today’s Takeshima (Dokdo). If
the Dajokan consulted these nautical charts and determined that “Takeshima and one
other island have no connection to Japan,” it clearly was not referring to today’s
Takeshima (Dokdo) in the phrase “Takeshima and one other island.” This is because atthat time Takeshima (Dokdo) was described as “Liancourt Rocks.” Therefore, when the“Liancourt Rocks,” which had been referred to as Matsushima in the “Rough Sketch ofIsotakeshima,” became Japanese territory, they were given the name Takeshima, thename commonly used for Ulleungdo (Utsuryo Island), which was described on nauticalcharts as Matsushima.

3. Takeshima (Dokdo) is visible from Ulleungdo. As such, in “Learn the Truth aboutDokdo” and other textbooks, the words “is visible” in the Sejong Sillok Jinji(Geographical Appendix to the Veritable Records of King Sejong) have been interpreted
to mean that Usando (Usan Island) “is visible” from Ulleungdo, and that Usan Island,
observable from Ulleungdo, refers to Dokdo. Nevertheless, the expression “is visible”
used in the Geographical Appendix to the Veritable Records of King Sejong cannot beinterpreted to mean that Dokdo is visible from Ulleungdo. That is because the Sinjeung
Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam (Revised and Augmented Edition of the Survey of theGeography of Korea) uses the expression “is visible” in an entry stating that “Ulleungdois visible from Uljin County (i.e., from the Korean mainland).” So, in effect, thisgeographical work is saying that “Ulleungdo and Usando are the same island.” That is
why in his Daedong Jiji (Geographical Accounts of the Great East Land (meaningKorea), the 19th century geographer Kim Jeong-ho shows Ulleungdo but does not showUsando.

The reason for this was that Kim was not sure of the location of the Usando mentioned
in the entry from the Geographical Appendix to the Veritable Records of King Sejong.
Usando was first indicated on the “Ulleungdo Dohyeong” (“Map of Utsuryo Island”)
drafted by inspector Bak Seok-chang in 1711 after its existence had been confirmed. On
this map, Bak shows Usando as a rocky outcropping roughly two kilometers off the east
coast of Ulleungdo. This Usando is also depicted variously to the right or upper right ofUlleungdo on maps associated with Chong Sang-gi’s “Dongguk Daejiji” (“Great Map ofthe East Country” [i.e., Korea]). “Learn the Truth about Dokdo” makes no mention of
Bak Seok-chang’s Ulleungdo Dohyeong, even though it is extremely important for
determining the facts. Furthermore, during his interrogation by the Korean authorities,Ang Yong-bok stated, “Usando is the Japanese ‘Matsushima.’” That is because thisUsando (Matsushima) he was talking about was the island to the northeast (upper right)of Ulleungdo. However, Dokdo is actually 87.4 km to the southeast of Ulleungdo. TheUsando that Ang Yong-bok was speaking of was definitely not Dokdo.

4. Based on an entry for the 13th year of the reign of King Jijeung of Silla in theSamguk Sagi (History of Three Kingdoms), the textbook “Learn the Truth about Dokdo”
claims that General Kim Isabu made the Usan-guk (State of Usan), which included
Dokdo, part of the kingdom of Silla. On this basis, it asserts that Dokdo was Korean
territory as early as 512. However, the Samguk Sagi clearly states that the State of Usan
was a sea island, the alternate name of which was Ulleungdo, and included “an area of100 ri square.” That is to say, the State of Usan and Ulleungdo were one and the same,and its territory spanned “100 ri square.” In other words, it was roughly equivalent insize to a traditional county or district (gunhyeon). As this entry makes no reference
whatsoever to Dokdo, there is no basis to conclude that Dokdo was a territory attached
to Ulleungdo.
There is also an entry about the State of Usan in the Samguk Yusa (Memorabilia of theThree Kingdoms). It confirms that the circumference of the State of Usan measured
26,370 bu (or “paces”). This is roughly equivalent to the current circumference ofUlleungdo. Without a doubt the State of Usan was Ulleungdo, the island “100 ri squarein area” with a “circumference of 26,370 bu.” Documentary evidence is required as
proof that Dokdo was somehow attached to the State of Usan if that claim is to bedemonstrated to be true. Lacking such evidence, it is impossible to say that Dokdo wassubordinate to the State of Usan or was Korean territory as early as the year 512.
The above are my thoughts concerning the proof you have offered in your letter to showthat Dokdo is Korea territory. Wouldn’t you say that your previous thoughts and the real
history are somewhat different? When considering the history of the past, in order toclarify one’s thinking, it is necessary to prepare reliable documents. You have been
studying the Takeshima (Dokdo) issue by reading the textbook “Learn the Truth about
Dokdo,” but I would suggest that you study the historical facts contained in documentsthat the textbook does not cite in order to grasp historical truth. Please read your textagain, comparing it to what I have written in this letter, and then send me your thoughts.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Masao Shimojo
ChairmanTakeshima Dispute Research Council
Shimane Prefecture