竹島問題の歴史

18.6.08

1891 - 1899 Four maps from the Map Library of the University of Alabama

The following four maps are from the Map Library, Department of Geography, University of Alabama (USA), these are shown here with a kind permission from the Map Library of the University.

(1) 1891 German map [Main author: Stieler, Adolf; Title/Description: Ost-China, Korea und Japan, Publication Info: Gotha; Justus Perthes]


There are two islands in the Sea of Japan, "Matsu sima (Dagelet I.)" and "Liancourt In. (d. Franzosen) - Hornet In. (d. Englander)". These two islands were painted in red, the same colour as Japan. Notice the red line between Japan and Korea which shows the national border. Both "Matsu sima" (Ulleungdo) and "Liancourt In." (Liancourt Rocks) are in the Japanese territory.



[Original source: Adams Antique]


(2) 1893 German map [Main author: Andree, Richard; Title/Description: Ubersichtskarte von China und Japan; Publication Info: Leipzig: Valhagen and Klasing, 1893; from the General Hand Atlas]



This map also has two islands "Matsu Schima" and "Liancourt R." in the Sea of Japan but the map didn't show the national ity of these islands - no colour difference between Japan and Korea (both of the country were painted in yellow), no national border drawn.


[Original source: University of Alabama Map Library]


(3) 1898 British map [Main author: Imray, James and Son; Title/Description: Japan Islands; Publication Info: London, James Imray and Son, 1898]


This map shows "MATSU ISL." (with Boussoul rock etc) and "Liancourt Rks." in the Sea of Japan. But the nationality of these islands are not clear because the map was uncoloured. However, the title of the map is "Japan Islands" and Ulleungdo is shown in Japanese name (Matsu island), so the mapmaker may have thought that these islands were Japanese islands.





[Original source: Murray Hudson]

(4) 1899 American map [Main author: The Matthews-Northrup Company, Title/Description: Empires of China, Japan and Korea, Publication Info: Chicago: J. Martin Miller, 1899]




This map shows "Matsushima" and "Hornet Is." in the Sea of Japan. The colour of these islands seems to be orange, which is the same as Japan (Korea is in red).





[Original source: Murray Hudson]


Two of these four maps show that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Japan while other two didn't show any nationalities. Anyway, no western maps show that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Korea. It means that none of these western maps support the theory that Seokdo in the 1900 Korean Edict 41 was Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks).

If you are interested in the site, visit: http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/
(Click Historical map index and then click East Asia section or Japan section.)
[This site was introduced by Kaneganese]

8 comments:

  1. dokdo-takeshima.com18/6/08 21:53

    Kaneganese. The maps you show prove the following.

    The American cartographers who drew their maps had a very inaccurate perception of the East Sea, Korea and Japan (Sea of Japan) from a couple of perspectives.

    First, many of them still perceived three islands in the East Sea even though most if not all other nations had long since resolved the Argonaut Island fiasco decades before. Because of this we know their geographical perceptions were way off.

    From a political standpoint, the American cartographers it also seems were out to lunch. This can be shown by the fact that almost all these maps show Matsushima (Korea's Ulleungdo) to be Japan's territorial even though it was clearly Chosun land since 1696.

    As I've posted, those foreign academics who had intimate knowledge of East Asia were aware of these errors such as Oppert in 1870.

    MatsushimaNotJapanese

    You should know, cartographers are seldom original authors and often blindly follow the errors of their predecessors.

    Thus, we know we shouldn't cite these maps to make geographical or political determinations when studying the history of East Asia. At any rate, these maps have absolutely nothing to do with Korea's Ordinance 41.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve,

    You are wrong again, it's me pacifist who made the posting, not Kaneganese.

    Steve, didn't you understand what I repeatedly wrote before?

    I wouldn't like to say that Ulleungdo was Japanese territory, the important thing is that the well developed western countries in the 1890's didn't think that Liancourt Rocks to be Korean territory at all.

    Why didn't the western people recognise the rocks to be Korean land? You must know the reason why. It's because there was no sign of occupation or cognizance by Koreans at all.

    The world didn't think that Liancourt Rocks to be Korean territory at all, and Korea herself declare that the rocks to be theirs without no evidence of occupation? And Japan and western countries were silent after the declaration? No way.

    No countries refuted because Seokdo in the Ordinance didn't mean Liancourt Rocks.

    Steve, I repeat this. These western maps from the 1890's are the clear evidence that the world didn't think that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One more thing, Steve.

    The error in the Amreican maps (still depicting Argonaut island in early 20th century) are not important. Germany and UK had quite accurate maps and even the maps by USA had accurate figures as to Dagelet island and Liancourt Rocks.

    Think it over again, Steve. In those days Korea had only inaccurate maps of Ulleungdo and they didn't have map of Liancourt Rocks at all - they didn't know the exact location and exact figure of Liancourt Rocks.

    And all the western countries who had accurate information about Liancourt Rocks didn't think that Liancourt Rocks to be related to Korea at all, which was quite natural. Considering the circumstances, there is no chance for Korea to say Seokdo meant Liancourt Rocks.

    Seokdo in the 1900 Edict couldn't be Liancourt Rocks. Seokdo may be an island around Ulleungdo or rocks around Ulleungdo as Gerry once suggested.

    ReplyDelete
  4. dokdo-takeshima.com19/6/08 00:15

    Pacifist stop saying "the Americans thought..." by citing these inaccurate maps.These maps are not accurate representations of the region politically or geographically as I've said. Did "the Americans" or Westerners think Ulleungdo (Matsushima) was Japanese? No, by this time the Koreans had already given the Russians logging rights on Ulleungdo.

    Did "the Americans" think Argonaut Island existed in the East Sea at the turn of the 19th Century? No.

    Stop misleading people Pacifist. The maps you are posting were confused, outdated and politically inaccurate even before the ink was dry on them in the 19th Century. What a flimsy attempt to bolster Japan's dead claim to Dokdo.

    At any rate. Did the Japanese think Liancourt Rocks was Japanese? No. And there are scores of Japanese maps that show this to be true.

    Japan'sMap1
    Japan'sMap2
    Japan'sMap3
    Japan'sMap4

    In fact it seems Japanese maps show Dokdo as Korean land.
    TrespassMap

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve,

    The western maps I am showing were the most accurate and the most up-to-dated maps drawn with high technology for that day and age in the 1890's.

    Steve, your fault in this kind of debate is ignorance about scientific thought. If you bring hundreds of Japanese maps that didn't bear Liancourt Rocks, it won't be a proof of your insistency.

    Steve, you may know cigarette smoking is bad for your health. It is a scientific truth but some smokers are still against the scientific truth and bring the story that some smoker lived long as 100 years old and insist that smoking is good for your health. But this way of insistency is against the scientific thought. Individual cases won't be evidence to show the whole of the smokers.

    And as you insisted, the maps sometimes have the old information - the Japanese maps you showed were drawn in the old Japanese way as the same as maps in Edo period.

    You say sometimes maps are inaccurate (against the most accurate western maps) and sometimes (Japanese old) maps are accurate, but isn't this unreasonable?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve,

    There were confusion concerning the islands in the Sea of Japan in the 19th century in Japan, in western countries and also in Korea.

    (1) In Japan, they couldn't make it certain about the old names (Takeshima and Matsushima) and the location of the islands until they examined the islands in 1880. They came to know that western countries believed that Liancourt Rocks were in their territorial water and there were no traces of other countries (including Korea) so that they officially incorporated the rocks into Japan (Shimane pref.) in 1905. So it is no wonder if Japanese maps in the 19th century didn't include Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo), Steve.

    (2) In the western countries, Dagelet island (Ulleungdo) was drawn errornously as Japanese island. I think this was due to the reason that there were many Japanese people in Ulleungdo and ships were controlled by Japanese companies. As you can see in the western maps, ocean ship routes in the Sea of Japan were controlled by Japanese companies - it included route from Nagasaki to Vladivostok. One of the largest Japanese ship company, NYK line (日本郵船), was established in 1875.
    There were no Korean ship companies in those days. So Ulleungdo may have been called in Japanese (maybe as Matsushima or Utsuryojima) among ship passengers. So western people may have misunderstood the name and its nationality.

    However, it was the reality. When Japanese peopel were evacuated from Ullengdo in 1883, remaining Korean people worried about their future complaining they would starve without Japanese people. So Japanese people gave them rice and grains before they went out of the island. It is understandable because supplies including food, clothes were carried from Japan by Japanese ships. It is no wonder western people misunderstood that the island was Japanese island. I don't justify the Japanese control of the island but it was the reality.

    (3) In Korea, they still hadn't clear idea about Ulleungdo and Usando. Some people still had some vague idea that there maybe a large fertile island called Usando beside Ulleungdo and some believed it was Jukdo of Ulleungdo.

    So the maps may have had some errors but the most accurate maps were western maps, Steve. Through these maps you may understand the whole situation of the area in the Sea of Japan in the 1890's.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you, pacifist

    Now, we can clearly see that there are many western (and Japanese) maps which clearly show Liancourt Rocks/Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory, while none shows it as Korean territory. Moreover, Matsushima(Dogelet island) were also considered to be Japanese territory, which coinside with the fact that Korean, Japanese and western books before 1900 clearly state the eastern limit of Choson to be 130°35′. (I think it is very possible that many mapmakers considered "Matsushima" was Japanese and "Ulleungdo" was Korean. )

    Anyway, there are absolutely no maps that shows Liancourt Rocks to be Korean territory before 1900. If Korean still want to keep claiming the unrealistic (possible, but not probable at all) theory that Dokdo was Cholra-do dialect and Seokdo really meant today's Takeshima/Dokdo, then hey had obligation to have had made inquiry about Liancourt Rocks to Japanese Government, or their so-called incorporation of Seokdo=Dokdo in 1900 was nothing, at least it is what they are demanding Japanese for its' incorporation in 1905.

    On the contrary, there are no trace that Korean considered nor effectively controled today's Takeshima as their territory before 1906. In 1906, Ulleungdo head mistakenly thought Dokdo to be their territory and sent a letter to Korean government, but there are no trace of Korean government had any clear recognition of Takeshima/Dokdo. Moreover, they officially answered to Japanese Governer General that the area of Ulleung County determined in 1900 is 200 ris which excluded Takeshima.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you, Kaneganese.

    Summary:

    (A) There were no western maps which showed Liancourt Rocks to be Korean territory in the 1890's.

    (B) Various geographic books from the late 19th century and the early 20th century said Korean eastern limit was Ullengdo.

    (C) Korean government believed that the area of Ulleung County was 200 ris which didn't cover Liancourt Rocks.

    All these evidence should indicate that Korea couldn't declare that they had Liancourt Rocks in their territory in 1900. So Seokdo in the 1900 Edict couldn't be Liancourt Rocks.

    ReplyDelete