December 11, 2018
Letter to the Students of Jochiwon Girls’ Middle School
Dear Students:
Best wishes from Shimane Prefecture in Japan to the students of Jochiwon Girls’ Middle
School in the Republic of Korea.
Thank you for the 41 postcards that you sent to us. We read each and every one of them. I
must admit I was a bit taken aback by what some of you wrote. For example, one postcard
read: “You mustn’t continue to use distorted textbooks to teach Japanese students. Pleaseteach truthful, proper history for the sake of Japanese students.” And, another said:“Japanese students should protest to the Japanese government that textbooks containmistakes and lies.”
Your postcards unanimously state that the Japanese historical understanding thatTakeshima (Dokdo) is Japanese territory is wrong. The literature and old maps that you
cited as evidence are identical to those in the book Learn the Truth about Dokdo, which
you are studying.
One piece of proof that many of you cited is an entry in the History of the Three
Kingdoms (Samguk Sagi). The section “13th Year of King Jijeung” contains a descriptionthat the State of Usan (Usan-guk) was absorbed by Silla, so your argument is that Dokdo
became Korean territory, concurrently, in the year 512 when General Kim Isabu of Sillaconquered the State of Usan.
But, have you all actually read the passage in question from the History of the Three
Kingdoms? It contains the following description of the State of Usan: “It is also called
Ulleungdo (Utsuryo Island), and its area is 100 ri square.” In other words, the State ofUsan and Utsuryo Island were one and the same, and its territory spanned “100 ri square”
or roughly the equivalent of the administrative unit size of “a county or district(gunhyeon).” And, the State of Usan with “an area of 100 ri square” did not include
Dokdo.
This is shown in the entry “Venerable King Jicheol” in the Memorabilia of the ThreeKingdoms (Samguk Yusa). That King Jicheol is the same person as “King Jijeung” in theHistory of the Three Kingdoms. Furthermore, the Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms also
contains a passage concerning General Kim Isabu of Silla. The book clearly states that theState of Usan has “a circumference of 26,730 bu.” In other words, it took “26,730 bu” towalk a circuit around the State of Usan. One bu is regarded as approximately 1.6 meters,
so the total circumference of the State of Usan would come to 42,768 meters. That isalmost equal to the distance around Utsuryo Island. Although the book Learn the Truth
about Dokdo claims that Dokdo was an island attached to Utsuryo Island, themeasurements of “an area of 100 ri square” in the History of the Three Kingdoms and “acircumference of 26,730 bu” in the Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms clearly indicatethat the State of Usan consisted of Utsuryo Island only. Besides, nowhere in the History ofthe Three Kingdoms is it stated that Dokdo was attached to Utsuryo Island.
Dokdo, which you believe to be an intrinsic part of South Korea, is actually 87.4
kilometers distant from what was the State of Usan. The simple fact is that you cannot relyon the History of the Three Kingdoms as a basis for claiming that Dokdo has been part ofKorea since 512. Is there any solid evidence that Dokdo was part of the State of Usan andattached to Utsuryo Island?
There is an entry in the Reference Compilation of Documents on Korea (Donggukmunheon bigo), compiled in 1770, which states: “Both Ulleung (Utsuryo) and Usan arepart of Usan-guk (the State of Usan), and Usan is called Matsushima in Japan.” Korean
researchers have used this as the basis for a claim that the “Ulleungdo (Usan Island)”mentioned in the Geographical Appendix to the Veritable Records of King Sejong (SejongSillok,Jiriji) and in the Revised and Augmented Edition of the Survey of the Geography ofKorea (Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam) is none other than Dokdo.
But, just as with the “area of 100 ri square” and “circumference of 26,730 bu” referencesin the History of Three Kingdoms and Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms, respectively,
we need to test the historical veracity of what is written in this Reference Compilation ofDocuments on Korea, as well. That is because it was a person named Ahn Yong-bok whotestified that Usan Island and Matsushima (Takeshima) were one and the same.
Ahn Yong-bok arrived without permission in the feudal domain of Tottori-han (TottoriDomain) in Japan in June 1696. Upon returning to Korea, he was interrogated by theKorean authorities and he told them: “I negotiated with the lord of Tottori Domain andthey recognized Ulleungdo (Utsuryo Island) and Dokdo as Korean territory.” We need toverify the truthfulness of this testimony by Ahn Yong-bok. That is because, in the year
before that unauthorized visit by Ahn Yong-bok to Tottori Domain, the Edo Shogunate
had queried the Tottori Domain as to whether or not Utsuryo Island and Matsushima werepart of its territory. In response to this query, the Tottori Domain authorities replied inDecember 1695 that Utsuryo Island and Matsushima were not part of their territory. Inlight of the geographical proximity of Utsuryo Island to Korea, in January 1696 the Edo
Shogunate prohibited the Ohya and Murakawa families from continuing to sail to Utsuryo
Island. At the time, the shogunate revoked the “sea travel license” that it had issued to theOhya and Murakawa families which permitted them to visit Utsuryo Island. However, thepermission that the shogunate had previously granted to the two families only concerned
sea travel to Utsuryo Island. Clearly, it did not regard Matsushima (present dayTakeshima), which was not a point of contention with the Koreans, as being Korean
territory.
Another thing to remember is that Ahn Yong-bok’s surreptitious visit to Tottori Domain
occurred in June 1696, five months after the Edo Shogunate had banned trips to Utsuryo
Island. At that time, the Tottori Domain authorities expelled Ahn Yong-bok’s party on theorders of the shogunate. The facts of this affair are confirmed in the document publishedby the Northeast Asian History Foundation in South Korea titled Notes on the Course of
the Consultations with the Governor of Bungo Province concerning the Korean who
Voyaged to Inaba (present day Tottori Prefecture) and the Gist of His Response, As Well
As a Description of the Affair from Start to Finish. It is an historical fact that Ahn
Yong-bok was expelled without having negotiated with the lord of Tottori Domain.
Nevertheless, after Ahn Yong-bok returned to Korea, he stated during interrogation that hehad berated the Japanese fishermen he encountered on Utsuryo Island as follows: “Whatyou call ‘Matsuyama’ is Usan. It also belongs to our country.” He also claimed to have“directly negotiated with the lord of Tottori Domain and eventually made them recognize
Ulleungdo (Utsuryo Island) and Matsushima as Korean territory.”
Please give some careful thought to this statement by Ahn Yong-bok. The Edo Shogunate
had imposed its ban on travel to Utsuryo Island five months before he arrived in Tottori
Domain; that is to say when he arrived in Tottori Domain, the ban on Japanese voyaging
to Utsuryo Island was already in effect. Consequently, Ahn Yong-bok’s unapproved trip toTottori Domain had absolutely nothing to do with the Edo Shogunate’s ban on travel toUtsuryo Island.
The statement by Ahn Yong-bok can be found in the Annals of King Sukjong (SukjongSillok). It is part of the record of the criminal investigation to which Ahn Yong-bok wassubjected by the Korean authorities after he was expelled from Tottori Domain andreturned to Korea. So, it’s not that what Ahn Yong-bok said at that time is consideredhistorical fact. We cannot simply accept his account at face value; instead, we need todecide whether or not the content of his testimony is credible by verifying it through otherdocuments and historical records. That approach is what is known as “textual criticism.”

Such textual criticism is absolutely essential when doing any kind of historical research.
Before you assert that “Japanese textbooks are distorted,” I would suggest that you subject
the Dajokan (Grand Council of State) Order, Korean Imperial Decree No. 41, and otherdocuments which you believe constitute proof, to “textual criticism.”
After all, there is no proof whatsoever for the assertion that Dokdo has been Korean
territory since the year 512. Likewise, Ahn Yong-bok’s claim that Utsuryo Island andDokdo were made Korean territory as the result of his negotiations with the lord of Tottori
Domain was not factual. Therefore, before asserting that “Dokdo is part of themotherland,” you need to subject the proof on which you are basing the claim that
“Dokdo is Korean territory” to “textual criticism.” I am convinced that this approach isnecessary in order to clarify the facts. What do you think?
I believe it is important that each of you does not just follow blindly the opinions of otherpeople and that you scrutinize and verify situations for yourself and develop the habit ofthinking for yourself.
I look forward to reading reports on the results of the “textual critiques” that you will
carry out. Dear friends studying at Jochiwon Girls’ Middle School, I eagerly await further
correspondence from you.
Sincerely,

Masao Shimojo
Chairman
4th Takeshima Dispute Research Council
Shimane PrefectureEnc.