Newsletter

This book presents a new perspective on Ahn Yong-bok's statement at Bibyeonsa. It is characterized by the fact that Ulleungdo Jaenggye(Territorial Dispute over the Ulleung Island) and Ahn Yong-bok's first and second visits to Japan were described by making full use of Korean records. Until now, academia has mainly used and understood Japanese records because there are many records and contents are specific. However, although it is fragmentary, there are quite a lot of related records in Korea. This book is written with the utmost use of records that have not been used so far, and I think it will contribute to the reader's integrated understanding of the issue.

Who broke the credibility of Ahn Yong-bok's statement?

In 1693, Ahn Yong-bok and Park Dae-dun were kidnapped by the crew of the ship departing from Yonago and were taken to Tottori. And this caused a dispute between the Joseon and Japanese governments about which country Ulleungdo belongs to. The Japanese government called 'Ulleungdo' 'Takeshima' and demanded that the fishermen of Joseon not cross the sea. The dispute, commonly called the 'Ulleungdo Jaenggye', ended in January 1696 when the Japanese government banned the voyage of the Tottori ship to Ulleungdo. And in May of the same year, Ahn Yong-bok went back to Tottori with his party. Therefore, Bibyeonsa arrests and investigates Ahn Yong-bok, who went to Japan without approval from the Joseon government. The contents of his statement at the time are called 'Ahn Yong-bok's statement' or 'A statement at Bibyeonsa'.

This statement has been critically verified by Japanese researchers. This is because Ahn Yong-bok claimed that the island where the Japanese say Jukdo and Songdo(Matsushima) is an island of Joseon called Ulleungdo and Usando. At that time, the Japanese called Ulleungdo as Jukdo and called Dokdo as Songdo. However, the fact that Usando is Songdo means that Usando is Dokdo, which means that Dokdo belongs to the Korean peninsula from ancient times. Japanese researchers who do not recognize South Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo have started to critically review Ahn Yong-bok's statement, and as a result, they have undermined the credibility of his statement. This book re-verifies the credibility of Ahn Yong-bok's statement at Bibyeonsa from a new perspective, and aims to restore damaged credibility.

Perspectives of Interpreting Ahn Yong-bok's Statement

There are two new perspectives presented for this. First, the first part presented the view of 'the dual structure of Ulleungdo jaenggye'. There is a Ulleungdo jaenggye in the background of the suspicion of the credibility of Ahn Yong-bok's statement. The Joseon government responded that "Jukdo is Ulleungdo of Joseon," and the dispute between Joseon and Japan was developed against Ulleungdo=Jukdo(same island). The conclusion of the dispute was that Tottori residents prohibited the voyage to Ulleungdo=Jukdo.

In other words, there is no record in the Ulleungdo jaenggye that the Joseon government has taken any action on the claim that "Usando=Songdo" in the statement of Ahn Yong-bok, or that it has concluded any conclusion about where the island belongs. Based on this, it is argued that "the Joseon government was skeptical about Ahn Yong-bok's saying that Usando is Songdo" and "Usando=Songdo" remains uninhabited or Japanese island as a result of Ulleungdo jaenggye". In the first part, the history of Korea and Japan was examined and detailed about the Ulleungdo dispute. And we have revealed that this Jaenggye(dispute) is organically related to the argument with other spaces, other main agents(argument of An Yong-bok and Tottori Fishermen, argument of Daimyo of Hoki-no-Kuni and An Yong-bok). Thus, it was clear that Ahn Yong-bok's statement was credible.

In the second part, Ahn Yong-bok's statement was analyzed from the viewpoint of a statement based on 'verbal experience', and it was clarified about the problem of damage to credibility. There are special points to consider when verifying Ahn Yong-bok's statement. First, the argument in Tottori, which is presented in Ahn Yong-bok's statement, is that it took place outside the area that Joseon can verify. At that time, exchanges between Korea and Japan were usually limited to the space of Busan Waegwan and Tsushima. This means that the Joseon government could not investigate the facts for the authenticity of Ahn Yong-bok's statement, and as a result, the statement was left as Ahn Yong-bok's 'assertion' without any related records.

Second, Ahn Yong-bok's statement was basically a 'verbal experience'. Ahn Yong-bok, who was able to communicate in Japanese, had many linguistic experiences in addition to physical experiences. In other words, it is natural that he went to see and learned somewhere, and he would have learned a lot about places, people, events, etc. from the Japanese around him. His statements are mixed with such linguistic experiences, so it is difficult to identify the facts by comparing the relevant records and statements. The second part re-verifies Ahn Yong-bok's statement in consideration of this point, and clearly states that there is a problem with the existing verification.

Jukdo-Jechal. A warning board set up by the Japanese Shogunate on the Niigata coast in 1837. 

It states that ‘Ulleungdo and Dokdo are the land of Joseon, so navigation and fishing are prohibited.’ ⓒKorea National Maritime Museum

South Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo’s ground should be solidified

It has been about 70 years since Ahn Yong-bok's statement was presented as the basis for South Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo. This book has reviewed most of the historical data and research results that exist in Korea and Japan. And at this point, it is meaningful that it described the Ulleungdo dispute more specifically and presented a reasonable viewpoint for Ahn Yong-bok's statement.

But the task remains. It is necessary to clarify the “Argument in Tottori” mentioned in this book. These arguments, which can be seen through Ahn Yong-bok's statement, can be found in the very few historical data remaining in Tottori. However, there is still a lack of data to verify this more specifically. It will be a way to clarify Ahn Yong-bok's statement that is the direct basis of South Korea's over-Dokdo only by more thorough historical data survey, discovery of new historical data, and systematic research.