OccidentalismDuc, sequere, aut de via decede!HomeArchivesHall of Shame화병 FAQTagsTemporary DatabaseLies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 5
October 1st, 2006 . by Gerry-Bevers
The King, Lee Gyu-won & Many Names for a Neighboring Island

The following is a conversation between King Gojong and Lee Gyu-won on April 7, 1882, prior to Lee’s departure on his inspection tour of Ulleungdo.

Source: 고종실록 권19, 고종 19년 4월 7일조

召見檢察使李奎遠 辭陛也 敎曰 鬱陵島近有他國人物之無常往來 任自占便之弊云矣 且松竹島芋山島 在於鬱陵島之傍 而其相距遠近何如亦有何物與否 未能詳知 今番爾行 特爲擇差者 各別檢察 且將設邑爲計 必以圖形與別單 詳紀錄達也 奎遠曰 芋山島卽鬱陵島 而芋山 古之國都名也 松竹島卽一小島而與鬱陵島 相距爲三數十里 其所産 卽檀香與簡竹云矣 敎曰 或稱芋山島 或稱松竹島 皆輿地勝覽所載也 而又稱松島竹島與芋山島爲三島統稱鬱陵島矣 其形便一體檢察鬱陵島本以三陟營將越松萬戶 輪回搜檢者 而擧皆未免疎忽 只以外面探來 故致有此弊 爾則必詳細察得也 奎遠曰 謹當深入檢察矣 或稱松島竹島 在於鬱陵島之東而此非松竹島以外 別有松島竹島也 敎曰 或有所得聞於曾往搜檢人之說耶 奎遠曰 曾往搜檢之人 未得逢著 而轉聞其梗개矣.


The king said, “Have the inspector come forward,” and Lee Gyu-won came forward.

The king said, “These days there is the evil practice of foreigners freely coming and going to Ulleungdo and doing as they please. Also, Songjukdo (松竹島 – 송죽도) and Usando (于山島 – 우산도) are next to Ulleungdo, but there are still no details on the distance between them and what products they have. You were chosen especially for this trip, so pay particular attention to your inspection. We also have plans to establish a settlement there, so be sure to prepare a thorough map and report.”

Lee Gyu-won replied, “I will carry out the mission to the best of my abilities. Usando is just Ulleungdo. Usan was the name of the ancient country’s capital. Songjukdo is a small island about thirty ri offshore (相距爲三數十里). The products there are rosewood trees and pipestem bamboo.”

The king said, “It is called either Usando or Songjukdo (敎曰 或稱芋山島 或稱松竹島) all of which is written in the Yeojiseungram (輿地勝覽 – 여지승람). It is also called Songdo (松島 – 송도) and Jukdo (竹島 – 죽도), and together with Usando, three islands combine to make up what is called Ulleungdo. Inspect the situation on all of them. Originally, the Samcheok commander (三陟營將 – 삼척 영장) and the Wolsong commander (越松萬戶 – 월송 만호) took turns searching Ulleungdo, but they were all careless, inspecting only the exterior of the island. This has led to these evil practices.

Lee Gyu-won said, “I will go deep inside and conduct my inspection. It is occasionally called Songdo and Jukdo because it is to the east of Ulleungdo, but there is only Songjukdo, no separate Songdo and Jukdo.”

The king asked, “Did you possibly hear that from previous inspectors?”

Lee Gyu-won said, “I have not yet talked with previous inspectors, but that is the summary of what I have heard.”

Notice that King Gojong and Lee Gyu-won had different information on Ulleungdo’s neighboring islands. King Gojong believed there were two islands next to Ulleungdo, “Songjukdo” and “Usando.” Lee Gyu-won, however, said that “Usando” was just another name for Ulleungdo, and that “Songjukdo” was its only neighboring island. Lee said it was about 30 ri (approximately 12 kilometers) offshore and had rosewood trees and pipesteam bamboo as products. Actually, I am not exactly sure how to translate the distance “相距爲三數十里,” but “about 30 ri” is the translation I have seen most. I have also seen “10 ri,” however. By the way, having trees and bamboo as products would eliminate the possibility that Songjukdo could have been referring to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), which did not have the soil to grow such plants.

King Gojong explained that an old Korean geography text said that the neighboring island was called both “Usando” and “Songjukdo” (敎曰 或稱芋山島 或稱松竹島). He said that it had also been called both “Songdo” and “Jukdo,” and that together with the main island and Usando, three islands made up Ulleungdo. King Gojong seemed to be saying there were four names (Songjukdo, Usando, Songdo, & Jukdo) for one ilsland, but it is unclear since he ended by saying that Ulleungdo, as a whole, was made up of three islands.

Lee answered that Songjukdo was to the east of Ulleungdo and was sometimes called ”Songdo” and sometimes called “Jukdo,” but that there was only one island, not two separate islands. As you can see, Lee Gyu-won did not seem to be intimidated by King Gojong, given that he continued to insist that Ulleungdo had only one neighboring island.

The conversation shows us that even in 1882, even at the highest levels of government, Koreans were still unsure of Ulleungdo’s neighboring islands. Compared to Lee Gyu-won, however, King Gojong seemed to have better information on Ulleungdo’s neighboring islands since he mentioned “Usando” as being one of them. That fact is supported by the following 1834 Korean map.

The 1834 Korean map shows a small island off the east coast of Ulleungdo labeled Usan (于山), which supports King Gojong’s claim that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island named “Usando” (于山島). Of course, as the 1882 record suggests, that neighboring island had also been called Songjukdo, Songdo, and Jukdo. You can read more about the 1834 Korea map here.

One thing that King Gojong and Lee Gyu-won did agree on was that Songjukdo was referred to sometimes as “Songdo” and sometimes as “Jukdo,” which in Japanese are pronounced as ”Matsushima” and “Takeshima,” respectively.

A Japanese Mission Visits Korea

In 1870, a Japanese mission to Korea was told that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called “Songdo,” which was the Korean pronunciation for “Matsushima” (松島). That must have confused the Japanese somewhat since they were using “Matsushima” to refer to at least one other island. Below is a translation of the relevant portion of the Japanese report:

How Takeshima & Matsushima Became Part of Chosun

Matsushima (Songdo) is a neighboring island of Takeshima (Ulleungdo). We have no previous records of Matsushima. In regard to Takeshima, after the Genroku years (1688 – 1704), Chosun (Korea) sent people there to live for awhile, but now, as before, it is uninhabited. It produces bamboo and also reeds thicker than bamboo. Ginseng and other products also grow naturally. We have also heard that there is an abundance of marine products.

Koreans often point to the title of the above report and claim that it proves that Japan recognized Liancourt Rocks (Matsushima) as Korean territory, but the contents of the report shows that that was not the case. To me the title suggests that the Japanese had solved the riddle of why some people were referring to ”Matsushima” (Liancourt Rocks), which was considered to be in the Japanese sphere of influence, as Korean territory. The answer to the riddle was that the Koreans were using the name “Songdo” (Matsushima) to refer to a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not to Liancourt Rocks, which was what the Japanese also referred to as Matsushima (Songdo). The Japanese report agrees with what King Gojong and Lee Gyu-won said in 1882, which was that “Songdo” (Matsushima) was one of the names for Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Songjukdo.

The Japanese record also said that the Japanese had no record of Ulleungdo’s “Matsushima,” which tells us that the Matsushima in the report was not a reference to Liancourt Rocks since the Japanese did have records referring to those islets as “Matsushima.” Not only that, some Japanese were also referring to Ulleungdo as “Matsushima,” most likely because of a mistake made by the British in 1789.

Here is an 1863 British map of Ulleungdo and the surrounding area. On the map, the Bristish show a non-existent island labeled as “Tako sima” (Takeshima) and Ulleungdo labeled as “Matu sima” (Matsushima). The map also shows Liancourt Rocks.

The following 1867 Japanese naval map appears to have been copied from the 1863 British map.

Notice that the Japanese labeled their map the same as the British, including labeling a non-existent island as “Takeshima” and Ulleungdo as “Matsushima.” At the time, the Japanese generally considered Takeshima to be Ulleungdo and Matsushima to be Liancourt Rocks, which they knew to be southeast of Takeshima. The Japanese probably assumed that the non-existent island on the map was Takeshima (Ulleungdo) because it was closest to Korea. Then they probably labeled the real Ulleungdo as Matsushima by mistakenly assuming it was Liancourt Rocks, which they knew to be southeast of Takeshima. And they probably kept the real Liancourt Rocks on the map to make sure they had covered all the bases.

Japanese documents tell us that some Japanese hoped there was another Ulleungdo-sized island out there, but others suspected that the island being labeled as “Takeshima” was non-existent. The 1870 Japanese mission to Korea helped to explain some of the confusion, but the non-existent island, which was believed to be Ulleungdo, was still unexplained and suspicions and doubts continued.

Japanese Debate the Status of Matsushima

The Japanese apparently felt no urgent need to confirm their suspicions about the locations of Takeshima and Matsushima until 1876, when requests to develop “Matsushima” started coming into the Japanese government. That started a debate on exactly where Matsushima (Songdo) was. Some in the Japanese Foreign Ministry believed “Matsushima” to be Ulleungdo and others believed it to be Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of ”Usando.” In the end, on March 29, 1877, the Japanese government decided to reject the requests to develop “Matsushima” with the following vaguely worded response:

書面 竹島外一島之 義本邦關係無之義ト可相心得事

“In the case of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and another island, it should be understood that our country is not associated with them.”

Notice that Matsushima was not mentioned in the response, even though that was the island people were asking about. Japan had already recognized Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as belonging to Korea, so there was no problem with including that name in the decision, but the debate on the status of “Matsushima” was still ongoing, so the Japanese obviously decided to hedge on making a final determination on Matsushima’s status by using the statement, “Takeshima and another island.”

The ongoing debate on the status of Matsushima was pretty well summed up in the following letter from Watanabe Kouki (渡辺洪基), who was the Director of the Bureau of Records in the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the time.

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然ルニ松嶋ナル者我国ト朝鮮トノ間ニ位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松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


There are several brief descriptions of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) in past records, but there are no discussions of Matsushima. However, these days people are talking a great deal about Matsushima. There are various views. Some say that it is two islands, and some say that it is one island with two names, but I have not heard that it has been decided either way.

The (mentioned) “Takeshima” is considered to be Chosun’s Ulleungdo, which the Shogunate ended up entrusting to them (Koreans) as a convenient quick fix, without considering future implications. Therefore, if the “Matsushima” being talked about here is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it belongs to them. If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan. It is still inconclusive.

The location of Matsushima (Songdo) is considered important because it is situated between Chosun and Japan. It is on sea routes between Nagasaki and Vladisvostok and between Shimonseiki and Wonsan, so this is a critical location, where English and Russion warships are frequently seen. So we should be very careful. Even if it is part of Chosun, we still have to protect it. As things stand now, we have no answers to give if other countries ask us about the island. This means the island is ownerless.

Many records say that “Argonaut,” which is the Western name for Takeshima (Ulleungdo), does not exist, and that “Dagelet,” which refers to Matsushima, is actually Takeshima (Ulleungdo). So what we call “Matsushima” (Liancourt Rocks) is called “Hornet Rocks” by Westerners. Foreign maps show Hornet Rocks as Japanese territory, but there is still no agreement among countries concerning the other two islands.

We do not have the answers either, so the area should be surveyed to determine under whose jurisdiction it belongs. Therefore, we should first contact Shimane Prefecture and investigate their relationship up to now. At the same time, we need to dispatch a ship to do a survey of the area. If Chosun has already started, we need to determine their progress and consider our options. I respectfully urge that this matter be dealt with as soon as possible.

Watanabe Kuoki, Director of the Bureau of Documents

Koreans claim that documents and maps which were included as reference notes in the final decision on the ”Matsushima development request” was proof that the ”another island” wording in the final decision was a reference to Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks), but those documents were almost certainly attached only as reference documents since debate on the status of Matsushima continued on even after the decision. If the Japanese had meant “another island” to mean “Matsushima,” then why didn’t they just name Matsushima? Anyway, the debate that raged on after denying the request to develop Matsushima is evidence that a decision had not yet been made on the status of “Matsushima.”

Japanese Warship Surveys Ulleungdo

In 1880, the Japanese finally sent the warship, Amagi, to the Ulleungdo area to clear up the name confusion concerning the islands in the region. The Amagi discovered that “Matsushima” (Songdo) was actually Ulleungdo, and that “Takeshima” (Jukdo) was a small island off the northern shore of Ulleungdo.

Here is a report on the 1880 Amagi survey.


In the above (items) 甲, 乙, 丙, and 丁, there was so much argument about this and that that it was difficult to reach a decision. Even all the talk about conducting a survey had ended. In September 1880, when navy Ensign 三浦重鄕 and others of the Warship Amagi returned to port, they said they reached Matsushima (Songdo), where they conducted a survey. The island was the so-called “Ulleungdo” of old, where they found a small island off the northern shore that someone said was called “Takeshima” (竹島 – 죽도), though it was not much bigger than a rock. In one morning, long-held suspicions and arguments were cleared up. Now, I present the following picture.

In the above passage, the reference to items 甲, 乙, 丙, and 丁was a reference to different opinions on the status of “Matsushima.” The passage tells us that the debate on Matsushima was deadlocked, and suggests that the 1880 Amagi survey had finally broken that deadlock by determining that Matsushima (Songdo) was actually Ulleungdo and that Takeshima (Jukdo) was a small, neighboring island off its northern shore.

The following is the map of Ulleungdo and Jukdo that was drawn during the 1880 Amagi survey of Ulleungdo.

Notice that the Jyukdo (竹嶼) on the map is located in almost the exact location as present-day Jukdo (竹島). By the way, the Japanese used both the 嶼 and 島 characters to refer to islands. In fact, the Japanese have used both Chinese characters to refer to Ulleungdo.

The following record also mentions Amagi’s visit to Ulleungdo. (Thanks for the translation, Pacifist.)







         水路局長 海軍少將柳楢悅

Waterway Report No. 33

This report was submitted by navy Ensign Shigesato Miura, who is a crewman of the Amagi.

Sea of Japan

At Matsushima, which Koreans call Ulleungdo, we found anchorage.

Matsushima (Ulleungdo) is located about 140 ri northwest 3/4 of Oki Prefecture. It was unknown whether or not anchorage was available because no ship had done a precise survey of the area. However, our ship, Amagi, called at this place during our trip to Chosun (Korea) this time and found a place to anchor off the east shore of the island, as was shown on the map.

September 13, 1880

Navy Rear Admiral Yuetsu Yanagi
Director of the Bureau of Hydrography

Before going on, I want to summarize what I have written so far. In 1882, when King Gojong was giving Lee Gyu-won instructions for carrying out his survey of Ulleungdo, the king mentioned that Ulleungdo had two neighboring islands called “Songjukdo” and “Usando.” He also said that Songjukdo was sometimes called “Songdo” and sometimes called “Jukdo.” He even seemed to say that it was also sometimes called “Usando.” Lee Gyu-won, however, told the king that Usando was just another name for Ulleungdo, and that Ulleungdo had only one neighboring island named “Songjukdo.” Lee added that Songjukdo was also sometimes called “Songdo” and sometimes called “Jukdo.”

In 1870, members of a Japanese mission to Korea said that they were told that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called “Songdo” (Matsushima), which was not recorded in any Japanese records. “Songdo” was one of the alternate names that King Gojong and Lee Gyu-won said was used to refer to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Songjukdo.

In 1880, the Japanese warship Amagi sailed to Ulleungdo to survey the area, where it found an island off the northern shore called “Jukdo” (Takeshima) The name “Jukdo” was also one of the names that King Gojong said was used to refer to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Songjukdo.

Hopefully, now people can see what was causing the confusion. The Koreans were using “Jukdo” (Takeshima) and “Songdo” (Matsushima) to refer to a neighboring island of Ulleungdo while the Japanese were using Takeshima (Jukdo) and Matsushima (Songdo) to refer to Ulleungdo (Takeshima), Liancourt Rocks (Matsushima), and a non-existent island that the Japanese believed to be Ulleungdo (Takeshima). To add to the confusion, Japanese fishermen on Ulleungdo were most likely also using Takeshima (Jukdo) and Matsushima (Songdo) to refer to either Ulleungdo or one of its neighboring islands.

While the Japanese were fumbling around with names for the different islands in the area, the Koreans seem to have been completely unaware of any other islands except Ulleungdo and two of its neighboring islands, which King Gojong referred to as Usando and Songjukdo.

Lee Gyu-won Inspects Ulleungdo

Lee Gyu-won set sail for Ulleungdo on April 29, 1882. He conducted his survey of Ulleungdo and arrived back on the mainland on May 13. In his diary, Lee reported that he found two islands off the coast of Ulleungdo, the names of which were “Jukdo” (竹島 – 죽도) and “Dohang” (島項 – 도항). The map he drew of Ulleungdo shows that “Jukdo” (竹島) was almost certainly present-day Jukdo, and that “Dohang” (島項) was almost certainly present-day Gwaneumdo (觀音島 – 관음도). Here is the part of the northeast portion of the map that shows the two islands:

The “Jukdo” (竹島) that Lee Gyu-won found on his survey of Ulleungdo was almost certainly the same island that both he and King Gojong had referred to as “Songjukdo” at their pre-survey meeting. At that meeting, both Lee and the king agreed that “Songdo” and “Jukdo” were alternative names for Songjukdo. The second island that Lee found was Dohang (島項), but it was not mentioned during his pre-survey meeting with King Gojong. The king, however, did say there was a second island, which he called “Usando.” Lee did, however, find several people on the island who insisted there was a small island nearby called “Usando,” but they could not show him or tell him where it was. Here is the quote from Lee Gyu-won’s report:


松竹于山等島 僑寓諸人 皆以傍近小島 當之 然旣無圖籍之可據 又無鄕導之指的 晴明之日 登高遠眺 則千里可窺 而更無一拳石一撮土 則于山之稱鬱陵 卽如耽羅之稱濟州是白如乎…..



” 松竹島, 于山島 등은 (우리나라 백성으로) 그곳에 사는 여러 사람들이 모두 근방의 작은 섬이라고 당연시 하고 있었습니다. 그러나 근거할만한 지도나 문적도 없고, 또 가르쳐 줄 안내자도 없어, 청명한 날에 높은 곳에 올라 먼 곳을 살펴본즉 일천리를 살펴볼 수 있었습니다. 하지만 (울릉도 외에) 다시 또 한 주먹의 돌이나 한 움큼의 흙(다른 섬)도 없었으니 이는 곧 우산도를 울릉도라 칭하는 것이 탐라를 제주도라고 칭하는 것과 같은 것이 아니겠습니까.”….


The 13th….

Several of our countrymen who were living on the island all said there was definitely a small island nearby called Songjukdo and Usando, but they had no maps or documents to support their claims, and there was no one who could show me the place. On a clear day, I went up to the tallest peak there and looked out into the distance. I could see 1,000 ri, but, except for Ulleungdo, I could not see even one fist of an island. Therefore, I suspect that “Usando” is just another name for Ulleungdo, just as “Tamna” is another name for Jejudo.

Notice that the people Lee found on Ulleungdo had heard that Songjukdo and Usando were neighboring islands of Ulleungdo, but they did not know where they were. That suggests that they were most likely just alternative names for either Jukdo or Dohang. As for Songjukdo, both King Gojong and Lee Gyu-won had already said that “Jukdo” was another name used to refer to it. In 1882, it seems that “Jukdo” and “Dohang” were the current popular names for Ulleungdo’s two neighboring islands.

By the way, in his diary Lee said he found nine caves in the beach areas on the northern side of Ulleungdo that were said to be breeding grounds (産育處) for seals (海狗). He said that Koreans who came to the island killed them with guns and ate their meat.

Article Describes Usando as a Neighboring Island of Ulleungdo

An 1899 article in the Korean newspaper, Hwangseong Shinmun (皇城新聞), reported on a recent inspection tour of Ulleungdo and described the island. Here is a portion of the article with my translation of part of it.

In the sea east of Uljin is an island named Ulleung. Of its six, small neighboring islands, Usando and Jukdo (or Usando/Jukdo) are/is the most prominent (崔著者). The Daehanjiji says that Ulleungdo is the old Country of Usan. It has an area of 100 ri. Three peaks stand out (律兀). Its products are ….. In the past, “water animals” (水獸) that looked like “cows without horns” (牛形無角) lived there and were called “gaji” (可之).

I think that the Usando-Jukdo (于山島竹島) reference in the article was meant to be a reference to one island with two names rather than a reference to two separate islands. In other words, Ulleungdo’s most prominent neighboring island was called both “Usando” and “Jukdo,” which means that Usando was once another name for present-day Jukdo (竹島). Many Koreans may stubbornly claim that Usando was a reference to “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks), but the article pours cold water on that claim when it talked about “gaji.”

The “gaji” in the above article was a reference to sea lions. Notice that the article said that sea lions “used to live” on Ulleungdo, which meant they no longer lived there. That means that the Usando-Jukdo, which the article described as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, could not have been “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks) since there were still sea lions on “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks) at the time.

Second, the article also mentioned the Daehanjiji (1899), which was a Korean geography text at the time. The description of Korea’s territorial borders in the Daehanjiji also tells us that Usando could not have been “Dokdo” (LIancourt Rocks).

大韓地誌… 경계를 북위(北緯) 33도 15분 ~ 42도 25분까지로, 동경 124도 30분~130도 35분까지….

The borders of the Korean Empire stretches from a northern latitude of 33 degrees 15 minutes to 42 minutes 25 minutes, and from an eastern longitude of 124 degrees 30 minutes to 130 degrees 35 minutes….

In 1899, the Daehanjiji said that Korea’s easternmost border was 130 degrees 35 minutes. That longitude would have included Ulleungdo and its neighboring islands, but it would have excluded Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks), which was farther east at approximately 131 degrees 52 minutes. That is more clear evidence that the Usando referred to in the 1899 article was not “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks).

And to cap everything off, the following is a section of the Korean map that was published in the 1899 Daehanjiji. The map shows Usan (于山) as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. It even included the lines of longitude, which would seem to eliminate any possibility that Usando could have been referring to “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks).

Japanese Translation Provided by Kaneganese












高宗と李奎遠が鬱陵島の付属島について、異なる情報を持っていたことにお気づきでしょうか。高宗は鬱陵島の隣に“松竹島”と“于山島”と言う二つの島があると信じていました。一方李奎遠は、“于山島”は鬱陵島のもう一つの名前にすぎず、“松竹島”は鬱陵島の付属島にすぎない、と述べています。李はその島は約30里(約12km)沖にあり、檀香と簡竹を産出する、と言いました。実は、“相距爲三數十里”と言う文章中の距離をどう訳せばよいのか、迷いました。“約30里”というのが、最もよく目にした訳でした。しかし、”10里”としているものもあります。ところで、 檀香と簡竹を産出するということは、この島がLiancourt Rocks (独島)である可能性を除外してしまいます。独島にはそのような植物が生育する土壌がありませんから。

高宗は朝鮮の地誌には付属島が“于山島”もしくは“松竹島”のどちらの名称でも呼ばれていたと述べています。 王はまた、その島はまた、松島、竹島とも呼ばれ、本島と于山島と3つあわせて鬱陵島と呼ばれる島を成している、とも述べています。高宗の言わんとするところは、一つの島に対して“松竹島”“于山島”“松島”“竹島”の4つの名前がある、と言うことらしいのですが、あわせて3つの島が鬱陵島を構成している、と最後に述べていることから、その意味が不明確になっています。







1870年、日本の調査団(明治政府外務省出仕の佐田白芽ら)は、鬱陵島の隣に“松島(ソングド)”と呼ばれる島がある、と知らされました。このことが現在の竹島(Liancourt Rocks/独島)を当時松島と呼んでいた日本人に、混乱を与えたことは想像に難くありません。下の文章は日本の報告(朝鮮国交際始末内探書)のうち、関係箇所の翻訳です。


韓国人はしばしば、上記の報告の題名を指して、日本が松島(Liancourt Rocks)を朝鮮領として認識していた事を証明する、と主張しますが、報告の内容を読めばそれが誤りであることが分かります。この題名から、日本が何故日本領である松島(Liancourt Rocks)のことを朝鮮領と言う人がいるのか、と言う謎が解けたと考えていることが、私には伺えるのです。この謎に対する答えは、朝鮮人がいう”松島(ソングド)”は鬱陵島に隣接する付属島で、日本人が同じく“松島(マツシマ)”と呼ぶLiancourt Rocksではない、ということです。この日本の報告は、1882年に高宗と李奎遠が述べた、「“松島(ソングド)”は鬱陵島に隣接する磯竹島の別名の一つである」との内容と一致します。

この日本の報告には、日本側には鬱陵島の“松島”についての記録が無い、と記述されていますが、このことからも、この報告に述べられている“松島”は、Liancourt Rocksの示しているのではないことが分かります。日本は、“松島(マツシマ)”と言う島嶼に関する記録を確かに持っていたからです。それだけではなく、鬱陵島を“松島(マツシマ)”と呼んでいた日本人さえもいたらしく、それは恐らく、1789年の英国の地図が事実誤認に影響されたのだと思われます。

これは、1863年の英国による鬱陵島とその周辺の地図です。地図には、存在しない想像の島が“タコシマ(竹島)”、鬱陵島を“マツシマ(松島)”と記載されています。地図には、Liancourt Rocksも描かれています。




存在し無い島を“竹島”、鬱陵島を“松島”と、日本人がイギリス人と同じように名称を記載していることにお気づきでしょうか。同じ頃日本では、竹島が鬱陵島で、松島がLiancourt Rocksであると一般的に考えられていました。日本側は、Liancourt Rocksが竹島(鬱陵島)の南東にあることを知っていました。日本人は恐らく、存在しない島が最も朝鮮半島に近いことから、その島が竹島(鬱陵島)だと推測したのでしょう。それからLiancourt Rocksが“松島”の東南沖にあると認識していたために、本物の鬱陵島をLiancourt Rocksだと推測して松島と誤記入したのではないでしょうか。そしてLiancourt Rocksを地図に記載することで、全ての島を漏らすこと無く描ききったと思われます。







“竹島(鬱陵島)についての記述は多数あるが、松島については、論述しているものが無い。しかし、今般松嶋についての論議が活発である。二つの異なる島だと言う者や、二つの名前を持つ一つの島だ、と言う者もおり、諸説あるが、今だ結論が出ていないようだ。この“竹島”は、朝鮮の鬱陵島であるとして幕府が稟議した結果、朝鮮国に取り合えず委ねることになった。そこで、もしこの度話に上っている“松島”が、この“竹島”と同じであるならば、この松島は朝鮮国に属するが、もしこの松島が竹島以外の別個に存在する松島ならば、わが国に属するべきだが、いまだ結論が出ていない。そもそも、松嶋と言う島は、わが国と朝鮮との間に位置し、長崎からウラジオストックへの途中にあたり、馬関から隠岐の島、島根県、鳥取県などへ到る要所である。「ラサレフ」港への航路に当たるために大変重要な場所で、また近隣に英国、ロシア国の戦艦が出没するため、もしわが国の一部でないのなら、多少なりとも注意が必要である。もし朝鮮領であっても、保護を加えるべきである。そうしなければ、他国から島について問い合わせがあったとしても返答の仕様が無い。つまり、この島は、無人である。多くの記録では西洋人の言う“アルゴノート”とは竹島(鬱陵島)のことで、これは存在しない島で、“ダグレット”とは実際は松島のことだ、と言う人が多い。つまり、我が国が松島(Liancourt Rocks) と呼ぶ島は、西洋人の言う“Hornet Rocks”である。外国の地図によれば、Hornet Rocksは日本の領土であるが、他の2島については、各国間の合意がいまだなされていない。我が国においても結論が出ておらず、確たる証拠も無い。そこで、その地域を調査し、どの国に属すのかを決定しなければならない。まずは島根県に照会してこれまでの経緯を問いただし、あわせて船艦を派遣し、その地理を調べ、もし相手国が既に着手しているならば、どの程度進んでいるのかをかんがみて、どのような方法を取るべきか検討しなければならない。この件に関しては大至急採り上げて論議して頂きたい。 外務省記録局長 渡邊洪基”

韓国人は、「松島開拓之議」に対する最終決断(太政官指令)に、参照用メモとして添付されたこの記録と地図(磯竹島略図)をもって、“他一島”が松島(Liancourt Rocks)のことを示しす証拠だ、と主張します。しかし、松島の現状に関する議論はこの決定の後も続いていたことからすれば、これらの記録が、単なる参考文献として添付されたものにすぎないことは、ほぼ確実です。もし、日本の“他一島”が“松島”を意味していたなら、何故そのまま“松島”と記載しなかったのでしょう?とにかく、開拓の願いが却下された後の熱を帯びた論議は、“松島”の現状がその時点ではまだ決定していなかったことの証拠なのです。










“水路報告第33号 この記事は天城艦の乗組員である海軍少尉三浦重鄕が報告したものによる。 日本海 松島(韓国人は鬱陵島と呼ぶ)に碇を下ろす場所を見つけた。 松島は我が国の隠岐国から北西3/4の方向約140里の距離にあり、その島は今までに船で調査したことが無いために、碇を下ろす場所があるのか誰にも分からなかった。しかし、今回我々天城艦が朝鮮へ巡航した際に、この地へ寄航して、左の図面に記した通り、その島の東岸に停泊する場所を発見したので、これを報告する。 明治13年9月13日 水路局長 海軍少將柳楢悅”





ようやく、何故名称の混乱が起きたのか、読者の方に分かって頂けたかと思います。韓国人は“チュクド(竹島)”と“ソングド(松島)”を鬱陵島の付属島を示すのに使用し、一方日本人は“竹島(チュクド)”と“松島(ソングド)”を、鬱陵島、Liancourt Rocks (松島)、そして存在しない島(一時日本人はこれを鬱陵島と考えていた)を示すのに使用していたのです。そうした混乱に加え、鬱陵島の日本の漁師は“竹島(チュクド)”と“松島(ソングド)”を、鬱陵島とその付属島のどちらかを指すのに使っていた可能性が高く、混乱に拍車がかかったのです。



1882年4月29日、李奎遠は鬱陵島へ向かって出帆します。彼は鬱陵島の調査を行い、5月13日に本土へ戻ってきました。その日記の中で、“竹島”(チュクド)と“島項” (ドハン)と言う二つの島を鬱陵島沖に発見し、記録しています。彼の描いた鬱陵島の地図に載っている “竹島”(チュクド)は、ほぼ確実に現在の “竹島”(チュクド)で、“島項” (ドハン)は、ほぼ確実に、現在の観音島です。下の地図は、この2島が載っている地図の北東部の拡大図です。


李奎遠が鬱陵島検察で発見した“竹島”(チュクド)は、高宗が検察に先立つ謁見で“松竹島”として述べた島と同一であることは確実です。謁見で、李と王は、“松島”と“竹島”はどちらも“松竹島”の別名だ、ということで意見が一致しています。李が発見した第2の島は、“島項” (ドハン)ですが、この島は王との謁見の中で名前が出ませんでした。しかし、王は確かに、“于山島”という第二の島があると言いました。しかし、“于山島”と言う小さな島が近くにあると主張する鬱陵島の住民を数人見つけますが、彼等はその島が何処にあるか、分かっていませんでした。以下は、李奎遠の報告からの引用です。

”13日 鬱陵島の数人の住民は、“松竹島”“于山島”と言う小さな島が確かに近くにある、と口を揃えて言いました。しかし、地図や書類に書き付けられた物は無く、それが何処にあるかも誰も知りませんでした。ある晴れた日、島の最も高い峰に登り、遠方を眺めました。1000里ほど見渡しましたが、鬱陵島の他には島の影さえ見えませんでした。そこで、私は“耽羅”が済州島の別名であるように、“于山島”は鬱陵島の別名であると思います。”

李が出会った鬱陵島の住民が、“松竹島”“于山島”と言う二つの島のことを聞いたことがあるのに、どこにあるのか分からないといっていることに注意して下さい。このことから、これらの2つの名称が“竹島”(チュクド)か“島項” (ドハン)の別名であったと考えられます。松竹島に関しては、高宗と李奎遠は“竹島”(チュクド)を指す別名である、と既に言っています。1882年には、“竹島”(チュクド)か“島項” (ドハン)が鬱陵島の二つの隣接島を指すのによく使われていた名前のようです。






私は、記事中の“于山島竹島”と言う表現は、2つの別々の島ではなく、2つの名称を持つ1つの島として表すために使用されたのだと思います。言い代えれば、鬱陵島の最も主要な島は、“于山島”、“竹島”(チュクド)のどちらの名前でも呼ばれていた、ということです。つまり、于山島とは今日の“竹島”(チュクド)の別名なのです。多くの韓国人は、于山島は“独島” (Liancourt Rocks)のことだと頑固に言い張りますが、“可之”が生息していることが記事に書かれており、彼らの主張に疑問を投げかけます。

記事中の“可之”とは、アシカのことを指しています。鬱陵島に“過去に生息した”と書かれてあることに注目して下さい。これはつまり、もう鬱陵島のアシカは絶滅したと言っているのです。ゆえに、記事に隣接島として名のあがった“于山島竹島”が“独島” (Liancourt Rocks)でありえないことを意味しています。当時、“独島” にはまだ、アシカが生息していたのですから。

さて次に、記事にあった大韓地誌(1899)は、当時の韓国の地理の教科書です。そこに書かれている韓国の領土についての記述から、于山島が“独島” (Liancourt Rocks)でありえないことが分かります。


1899年には、韓国の地理の教科書、大韓地誌の中でその領土の東端が東経130度35分であると記述されています。その経度では、鬱陵島は領土に含まれますが、さらに東の東経131度52分に位置する“独島” (Liancourt Rocks)は含みません。このことは、皇城新聞(1899)の記事にある于山島が“独島” (Liancourt Rocks)では無いことを、より明確に証明しています。

最後に決定的な証拠ですが、下にあげた地図は1899年の大韓地誌の付録として印刷された韓国の地図の一部です。この地図で、于山は鬱陵島に隣接する島として描かれています。しかもこの地図には緯度と経度も書かれており、于山島が“独島” (Liancourt Rocks)である可能性を完全に否定するのです。


Links to More Posts on Takeshima/Dokdo (With Japanese translations)

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 1

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 4

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 4 Supplement

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 5

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 7

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 8

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 1

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 2

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 2 Supplement

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 3

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 5

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 6

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 8

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 9

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 10

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 11

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12

Posted in Verus Historia | 31 Comments »

31 Responses to “Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 5”
comment number 1 by: pacifist
October 1st, 2006 at 9:44 am

Thanks again for your great job, gerry.

BTW, here is the translation of the text you asked:

Waterway report #33.

This article was from the report by a naval second-lieutenant Shigesato Miura who is a crew of Amagi.

Sea of Japan

At Matsushima, where Koreans called as Ulleungdo, (we) found an anchorage.

Matshushima locates about 140-ri northwest 3/4 of our Oki contry, and it has been unknown whether anchoring places are available or not because there hadn’t been ships who examined it precisely.

However, our ship Amagi called at this place when we went to Chosun this time and discovered the anchoring place at the east shore of the island, as we showed in the figure.

September 13th 1880

         水路局長 海軍少將柳楢悅
Chief of Waterway Bureau
Naval Second-Liutenat Yuetsu Yanagi

comment number 2 by: ponta
October 1st, 2006 at 6:27 pm

Exciting as Agatha Christie’s novels.

(It seems 渡辺洪基 reads as Watanabe Kouki, it is sometimes hard for even Japanese )

comment number 3 by: tomato
October 1st, 2006 at 11:15 pm

Korea is for Japan like Iran and Cuba is for the U.S.
They are blatantly anti-Japanese, their hatred is deep…like Iran crying out “death to America”, Koreans are crying out “death to Japan” all the time.

All the while the Japanese government smiles at the Koreans and beg them to be friendly. Strange it has to be that way. Or does it?

comment number 4 by: YoungRocco
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:16 am


All the while the Japanese government smiles at the Koreans and beg them to be friendly. Strange it has to be that way. Or does it?

Never beg,Tomato.

Begging shows lack of self-esteem.

comment number 5 by: Matt
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:17 am

Great job again, Gerry. Dokdo is like the Atlantis of modern Korean myth. It is interesting to see that many foreigners are openly doubting Korean claims about Dokdo, which is a big difference to the situation two years ago.

comment number 6 by: Gerry-Bevers
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:16 am

Matt, Pacifist, Ponta: Thanks.


The problem was that no one bothered to argue, in English, the Japanese version of events, not even the Japanese. Practically the only information that English speakers saw on Dokdo/Takeshima was the BS that Koreans and people like Mark Lovmo were putting out. Therefore, it is no wonder that English speakers accepted the Korean version, especially since almost every Korean historian and politician seemed to be telling the same story.

The evidence against Korea’s historical claim on “Dokdo” is so overwhelming that ”Korea’s Dokdo claim” has got to be one of the biggest and most blantant of lies that the people of any country in the world has conspired to tell. That might sound like an exaggeration, but if it is, it is not much of one.

People should know the truth.

comment number 7 by: Aki
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:41 am

Great job, Gerry.

Although it does not affect your discussion, there is a mistake in your Japanese text for Watanabe’s document.


Original document says “其松島” in place of “其竹島” in the above text.
(Please see the 5th line from the right.)

comment number 8 by: nou
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:12 am

Korea is for Japan like Iran and Cuba is for the U.S.
They are blatantly anti-Japanese, their hatred is deep…like Iran crying out “death to America”, Koreans are crying out “death to Japan” all the time.

it’s an interesting analogy. i think japan should do what the US did to those two. sanctioning Korea! Korea buys too many parts from japan and voila enormous trade deficit from japan. japanese sanction will make korean entrepreneurs learn hard way of making their own parts instead of easy shopping in japan. tomato, please suggest a sanction against korea to the Diet. korea’s ever worsening trade deficit from japan is pitiful. they will not act without a hard measure.

comment number 9 by: Gerry-Bevers
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:33 am

Thank you, Aki.

I corrected the mistake in the Japanese text. Is the English translation all right?

comment number 10 by: tomato
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:34 am

japanese sanction will make korean entrepreneurs learn hard way of making their own parts instead of easy shopping in japan. tomato, please suggest a sanction against korea to the Diet. korea’s ever worsening trade deficit from japan is pitiful. they will not act without a hard measure.

Koreans are smart and superior, right? They should resolve their troubles by themselves…Japan is not going to help anymore. That was my point, actually…

comment number 11 by: Aki
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:25 am


많은 자료를 잘 정리하고 있으므로, 감복했습니다.
Your English translation is correct. The followings are minor points that I noticed.
In the quote of “How Takeshima & Matsushima Became Part of Chosun”,

In regard to Takeshima, after the Kenroku years (1688 – 1704)

“元祿” is pronounced as “Genroku” in Japanese. So, “Kenroku years” should read “Genroku years”.
Watanabe’s name at the end of his document is written as “Watanabe Koubi” in your translation. This should read “Watanabe Kouki”.
In the Watanabe’s document,

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
Foreign maps show Hornet Rocks as Japanese territory, but there is still no agreement among countries concerning the two islands.

In your translation, “他ノ二嶋” has been translated as “the two islands”, but I think this should be literally translated as “the other two islands”. In the present translation, “the two islands” can be taken as “Hornet Rocks”. But, in the original document, it is clear that “他ノ二嶋 (the other two islands)” are Argonaut (Takeshima) and Dagelet (Matsushima).

comment number 12 by: Gerry-Bevers
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:56 pm

Thank you, Aki. I have made the corrections you suggested.

comment number 13 by: opp
October 4th, 2006 at 9:31 am

According to Mr. Tsukamoto’s thesis, making year of the 1969 map on your sight is uncertain. The map of page 65 of Mr. Kawakami’s book assumes making in 1696.
This map is owned to Tottori Prefectural Museum, and I am inquiring about the method of obtaining a clear image.


comment number 14 by: Aki
October 6th, 2006 at 5:21 am

Thank you for the information. That map was from Kawakami’s book, “竹島の歴史地理学的研究” (Geohistorical study on Takeshima), but I did not know about recent research. I would change the title of the map to “Takeshima map in the Genroku years (1688 – 1704).” Is that all right? Also, unfortunately, I cannot change the figures right now, since my computer was broken and I have lost softwares for editing the figures. Please wait a while.

This map is owned to Tottori Prefectural Museum, and I am inquiring about the method of

  • 最終更新:2009-08-22 10:39:01