Dokdo Takeshima Island 鵛郣埮郣 1877 Japanese Document Excludes Dokdo from Japanese Territory

The 1877 Kobunruko Documents
Shimane Prefecture's Inquiry to the Home Ministry

The Annexed text to the 1877 Kobunruko Document

This page describes the "other island" (Dokdo)

The Attached Map of the 1877 Kobunruko Documents

A full image of the 1877 attached map (click to view)

A closeup shows Ulleungdo and Dokdo (click image)

Shimane Prefecture After the 1877 Kobunruko Documents

The boxed area on this modern map of the East Sea shows the location of Shimane Prefecture for locational reference.

A year after Shimane's; Inquiry was answered in 1878 niether Ulleungdo nor Dokdo are included on Shimane Prefecture maps. (click map)

An 1891 Shimane Prefecture map shows Oki Island but no Dokdo (click )

This 1887 Fishery Report does not include Dokdo as part of Oki-Gun or Shimane Prefecture.

This 1895 Shimane Prefecture Map shows no islands West of Oki (click)

Japan's 1877 Kobunruko Documents
A Conclusion Based on the Facts

An 1897 Map of Shimane excluded Dokdo and Ulleungdo (click)

This map of Shimane in 1899 also lacked Dokdo (click)

The historical facts of the Dokdo - Takeshima Island dispute

In the year 1881 Japan mapped all of the country by each prefecture. The map above right is of Shimane Prefecture. Again Oki Island is included but Dokdo and Ulleungdo are not. The map above was a national map included with each prefecture. Thus, it is clear Dokdo was not part of Japan at this time. (click images)

In the year 1877 Shimane Prefecture inquired to the Home Ministry if Ulleungdo and another island (Dokdo) should be placed under their administrative control. The purpose of this inquiry was to determine which territories were included before mapping Japan.

The document reads as follows:

"Inquiry regarding the compilation of the cadastre for Takeshima and "another island" in the Sea of Japan:
Shimane Prefecture sent us an inquiry for a judgement on the jurisdiction of Takeshima as per attachments and this ministry has examined the matter. Regarding the islands in question, they are known to have nothing to do with our country as per documents prepared in the first month of the 9th year of the Genruko (1696) after the entry of the Koreans into the island. 1. the purport of the deliberation by the former government 2. notification of the official interpretor translator 3. the official letter from the country involved 4. our country's reply and report. In other words by the 12th year of the Genroku, the exchange of instruments had been completed. However, the acquisition or derelection of a territory being of great importance, we request your instruction on this question with the papers attached hereto. March 17th 10th year of Meiji. Acting for the Minister of Home Affairs Okubo Toshimichi, Vice Minister of Home Affairs Meijima Hisoka..."

The answer to the inquiry read as follows:
"Regarding Takeshima and "other island" it is to be understood that our country has nothing to do with them..."

The disputed area of contention with regard to this document is the ambiguity of the "other island" passage.

This is clarified in the attached documents describing both Ulleungdo and the island "next to" it. The maps and documents attached are translated below.

"挬鵛郣 (Isotakeshima or Isotakejima) has another name, 鵛郣 (Takeshima). It is north-west of Oki province (錈唚玿) and the distance from Oki is 120 Ri (郲). The circumference is 10Ri (郲). There is a steep mountain and flat fields are rare. It has three streams and there is a fall also. But, starting points of the streams cannot be seen since valleys are so deep and forest of trees and bamboos are so dense. Plants which catch one's eye are goryo pines, rose wood, amur cork tree, camellia, oak, paulownia, Wikstroemia sikokiana, southern Japanese hemlock, bamboo, mano bamboo, wild carrot, longstamen onion, Japanese butterbur, Japanese ginger, udo, lily, edible burdock, cherry elaeagnus, raspberry, giant knotweed, Japanese aucuba.

Animals are sea lion, cat, rat, varied tit, pigeon, wild duck, brown-eared bulbul, oriental greenfinch, wild duck, cormoant, swallow, golden eagle, eagle, hawk, nadikoana(?) bird, great tit, and so on. Also found are cinnabar and malachite. Fishes and shellfishes are too many to enumera. (The island) yields sea lions and ear shells. To catch ear shells, in the evening, input bamboo into the sea, and in the morning, ear shells are on the leaves of the bamboo. It is said that the taste is very good. And (we can) obtain several 婄's(unit of the volume) oils from a sea-lion.

Next, there is "another island" called 撂郣 (Matsushima). The circumference is 30 Jung( 瀇), It is on the way to 鵛郣 (Ulleungdo). The distance from Oki is 80 Ri(郲). Trees and a bamboos are rare. (The island) yields fishes and sea lions, too.

During 蝯? period, a merchant, 豇閰鉹敆 (Ohya Jinkichi) [Later, he changed his name to 豇阺], who lived in 詍挼玿𨗴抶畈皕磾瀇 (present Yonago city in Tottori prefecture) was hit by typhoon on the way back from 篟涖 (Echigo; Niigata prefecture), and drifted to this place. (He) investigated the whole island and noticed that there are a lot of fishes and shellfishes. Afterreturning home, (he) asked the Investigator, Abe Shirogoro who was staying in Yonago Castle by order of Shogunate, to allow him to visit there. Abe asked it to Edo, and received a letter of permission on May 16 of the 磢厨 4 year (1618). "

No other islands besides Ulleungdo and Dokdo are mentioned in any part of this document.

Attached to the 1877 document was an attached map showing Ulleungdo and Dokdo Islands. The map is quite small at only about 35cms (14inches) square. The form of Ulleungdo is distorted but it is labeled clearly, Dokdo Island＊s shape is very clear. This map casts serious doubt on some Japanese assertions that the Meiji Government was confused about the identity of the islands in the East Sea.

A more likely scenario is the Japanese were confused about their location. Most interestingly the distance from Korea to Ulleungdo is only 50ri. Nautical ri were most likely used on this map because this produces only moderate error of distance and places Ulleungdo in about the same incorrect Easterly location of maps of the mid 1800s due to Seibold's error.

The distance from Oki to Dokdo on this chart is drawn at 80ri and the distance from Dokdo to Ulleungdo is marked at 40ri. Dokdo Island is positioned much closer to Ulleungdo than the distance ratio. Cartographers of this era often positioned islands closer to land masses as to denote ownership. Whether this was deliberate or not, when one looks at this map it is impossible to imagine Japan considered Dokdo part of Shimane Prefecture at this point in time.

Another area of contention is the writing on the island next to Ulleungdo. Japanese assert the characters on the island are referring to the ※other island§ mentioned in the document＊s initial inquiry. This is not plausible for a number of reasons. First, as mentioned this map is very small, the islet to Ulleungdo＊s West is drawn about 1 centimeter making the characters so tiny they are almost illegible. Such an insignificant feature on this map would warrant further explanation on the annexed documents in order to clarify more, but this is not the case. Second the neighboring island＊s close proximity to Ulleungdo and small size make territorial ownership unworthy of inquiry.

In short, the only significant ※other island§ mentioned in this document text is Dokdo (Matsushima)

To further support the interpretation that the Kobunruko Documents excluded Dokdo from Japanese territory there are maps and documents. Above on the left are three maps of Shimane prefecture printed after the Minister of Home Affairs' inquiry was answered. It's obvious, Shimane Prefecture did not regard Matsushima (Dokdo) as Japanese land.

On the right side above is a Japanese Fisheries Report published in 1887. This document was related to Oki district of Shimane Prefecture and goes into great detail with regard to the islands of Oki. In addition it defines the islands of Oki as the boundary of this region. Nowhere in this description is Dokdo mentioned as part of Shimane or Oki regions. Here again it is obvious Japan did not consider Dokdo appended to Shimane and thus was not part of Japan.

To summarize, the Japanese Foreign Ministry has taken the bold stance that Dokdo is an inherent part of Japan from ancient times. This is proven false by studying her own maps and documents from all eras ranging from the 17th Century to the Meiji Era to just a few years before the Japanese annexed Dokdo during the Russo Japanese War of 1905. Japanese scholars' assertions that the 1877 Kobunruko Documents did not exclude Dokdo from Shimane Prefecture are simply not true.

The Japanese Inquiry made by Shimane Prefecture and the response by the Home Ministry show that no other islands besides Oki Island and Minoshima were considered part of Japan's Shimane Prefecture. This is further supported by all maps of Shimane Prefecture prior to 1905.