竹島問題の歴史

15.9.07

1864 Japanese Map shows 2 similar islands

The following is a cutout from a 1864 Japanese map (増訂大日本輿地全図) that shows two very similar islands. Notice that the two islands on the map not only have similar shapes, but each also have a smaller neighboring island off their northeastern shores.



I believe the above map is a good example of the confusion that existed in Japan in the 1800s in regard to the locations of the islands of Takeshima (竹島) and Matsushima (松島). The Japanese had traditionally used the name "Takeshima" to refer to the Korean island of Ulleungdo and the name "Matsushima" to refer to Liancourt Rocks, but by sometime in the 1800s, Matsushima was also being used to refer to Ulleungdo. In 1882, for example, a Japanese marker dated 1869 was found on Ulleungdo that proclaimed the island to be the Japanese island of Matsushima.

A variety of factors most likely caused the name confusion mentioned above, but inaccurate Western maps and a Japanese travel ban to Ulleungdo (Takeshima) were probably the main causes. However, another factor contributing to the confusion may have been that some Koreans, at least, also referred to Ulleungdo as Matsushima (松島), which is pronounced as "Songdo" in Korean. Here is an excerpt from a 1793 Korean document:
臣按本曹謄錄蔚陵外島其名松島卽古于山國也

The attendant said that according to the Yejo record, "Songdo" was another
name for Ulleungdo and its surrounding islands, which was the old kingdom of
Usan.
The Japanese mapmaker seemed to have known that Takeshima was farther from Japan than Matsushima, but the fact that the two islands were drawn with similar shapes suggests there was still name confusion.

6 comments:

  1. not anonymous16/9/07 15:12

    I totally disagree Gerry.

    The mapping error of Takeshima-Matsushima can be traced in these steps.

    First was the inaccurate mapping of Ulleungdo in a more westernly position and naming the island Argonaut. The real Ulleungdo was mapped correctly and named Dagelet.

    The second error was Seibold giving Argonaut Island the names Takeshima and Dagelet Matsushima to Argonaut and Dagelet.

    Maps that were influenced by Seibolds error show Takeshima (Ulleungdo) at about the 130 degree line and Matsushima (Dokdo) a little to the East. The map you have posted does not show these positional errors and thus can't said to be influenced by this problem.

    You can see Takeshima and Matsushima are pretty accurately located in the same position as earlier Japanese maps. It also shows Saito Hosen's quote "見高麗如雲州望-州" and thus this map stays true to earlier Japanese maps of the region. You can also see "also called Isotakeshima" written next to Ulleungdo.

    It seems to place Takeshima and Matsushima in the same locations as this map here, (note the degree line running through Takeshima)

    Ulleungdo-Dokdo

    You are placing too much emphasis on the form and "neighbour islands" of Takeshima and Matsushima. First there are islands along the West side of Takeshima that don't exist. If you look on other areas of the map the cartographer seems to draw these extra islets around other areas. These "extra islets" can also be found around Japan's Minoshima and Oki.

    Maps of Takeshima and Matsushima rarely if ever show the islands in correct form. Only a few maps I've seen show Dokdo as two islets and most of those were copies of western naval maps.

    It's not good history to play connect the dots with a 1864 Japanese map, and a 1793 Korean document Gerry. Many documents state "Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima" these are in both Korean and Japanese records.
    Usando is Matsushima

    ReplyDelete
  2. Non-Anonymous wrote:

    Many documents state "Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima" these are in both Korean and Japanese records.

    Gerry writes: Ahn Yong-bok started that Matsushima (Sondgo) is Usando rumor, but all Korean and Japanese maps show that Usando was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks. See HERE and HERE. Also, Japanese were also calling Ulleungdo "Matsushima" in 1869, as evidenced by the Japanese marker Korean inspector Lee Gyu-won found on Ulleungdo in 1882. In fact, Lee Gyu-won, himself, told King Kojong in 1882 that Usando was just an old name for Ulleungdo.

    As for the the 1793 Korean document, it said that Ulleundgo and its surrounding islands were also also called Songdo (Matsushima) and that Ulleungdo was the old country of Usan, so that means that the Matsushima (Songdo) in the statement "Matsushima is Usando" would be referring to Ulleungdo.

    There is not one Korean or Japanese map that shows Usando as Liancourt Rocks. If you know of one, please post a link.

    ReplyDelete
  3. not anonymous16/9/07 20:05

    Gerry, if you want to determine the identity of Usando take all the information into account instead of posting the same maps. As I've said before, the maps you base your theory all show the same errors and of course are copies of one flawed original. They all show five islands that don't exist. This is exactly what the museum told you.

    Anyongbok said Usando was what Japanese call Matsushima (Dokdo) and it was 50 ri from Ulleungdo. This is not Jukdo Islet which is of course less than one ri. That can be found in Anyongbok's testimony when he arrived in Japan. See page seven of the documents found in the Murakawa family historical records.

    Anyongbok

    Seriously Gerry, the statements by Leegyuwon can't be construed as anything but third-hand heresay. Leegyuwon hadn't even visited Ulleungdo yet during that conversation.

    You've decided to put all of your historical eggs in one basket and tried to arrive at the identity of Usando by citing about 5 maps and ignoring all other evidence that points elsewhere. Even some Japanese themselves quoted "Usando is Matsushima and appended to Ulleungdo" This means, regardless of what Usando may have been is not really important but rather what the island historically meant to both sides.

    The Dokdo-Takeshima problem is bigger than your narrow-minded approach of Usando's identity Gerry. The issue is the historical and territorial perceptions of both countries before the Japanese annexed the island in 1905.

    When we add up all the documents we see that on more than one occasion Japan clearly stated both Ulleungdo and Dokdo were not part of Japan. The first time was in 1695 prior to the second Anyongbok et al incident. Here it was declared Takeshima and Matsushima were not part of Japan, most notably Hoki district where Yonago is located. Again in 1877 the Japanese declared Takeshima and other islands as not part of Shimane and thus not part of Japan.

    Japan has one claim to Dokdo in 1905. On what basis do they claim this 1905 "incorporation" Gerry?

    Historical grounds? Japan has zero historical grounds that the island was theirs before 1905, in fact their documents either prove Ulleungdo and Dokdo were not considered Japanese land OR they considered them Chosun land.

    Terra nullius? Well we know that Koreans were cognizant of the island before 1905 so we can't really take that seriously. Especially when the whole idea of terra nullius was dropped by the Japanese foreign ministry themselves.

    We know why Japan "incorporated" Dokdo Gerry. Because of this, the Japanese public should be continually reminded (not chastised) about their past. It's clear they are not being taught the truth by their school system or by the Takeshima lobbyist out there.

    The truth of Japan's claim to Takeshima

    ReplyDelete
  4. Non-Anonymous,

    I noticed that you did not link to even one Korean or Japanese map that shows "Usando" as Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). That is because none exist, right? Can you, at least, admit that?

    I linked to six Korean maps showing Usando as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, but there are actually dozens. You know that, yet you still try to deceive people.

    Ulleungdo is about 135 kilometers from the Korean mainland, and Liancourt Rocks is about 92 kilometers from Ulleungdo; however, An Yong-bok said that Ulleungdo was 120 kilometers (30 ri) from the Korean mainland, and Matsushima was 200 kilometers (50 ri) from Ulleungdo. That means he believed Liancourt Rocks to be much farther away from Ulleungdo than the Korean mainland, even though it is the complete opposite. That tells me that An Yong-bok did not know where Liancourt Rocks were. SEE HERE

    Before Lee Gyu-won inspected Ulleungdo in 1882, he told King Kojong that Usando was just an old name for Ulleungdo. At the time, King Kojong believed Usando to be a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. Even after his inspection, Lee still believed that Usando was just another name for Ulleungdo since he could not find any neighboring island of Ulleungdo with that name. That means that after his inspection Lee had "first-hand" knowledge that no island named Usando existed in 1882.

    What had happened was that "Jukdo" had replaced Usando as the name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island. We know this since Korean maps had been showing Usando to be Ulleungdo's present-day, neighboring island of Jukdo.

    As I have been saying, and as you know, the Japanese were confused about Takeshima and Matsushima in the 1800s. Some Japanese used the name "Matsushima" for Liancourt Rocks and some used the name for Ulleungdo, but Japanese maps consistantly showed Usando as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not as Liancourt Rocks.

    I am not ignoring other evidence, Non-Anonymous. You are the one who does not want to accept the fact that Japanese and Korean maps showed Usando as just a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. Therefore, I think you are the one being narrow-minded here.

    Japan did not officially incorporate Liancourt Rocks into an administrative district of Japan until 1905, but they still considered them to be Japanese territory before then. They had been mapping the islets for centuries, and in 1878, Watanabe Kouki specifically said that the islets were Japanese territory (SEE HERE) Here is what Mr. Watanabe wrote when Japan was trying to sort out the confusion of there being possibly two Matsushima's:

    Concerning Matsushima

    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.

    ...

    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 to be Japanese territory, but there is still no agreement among countries concerning the other two islands.


    Korean fisherman were cognizant of Liancourt Rocks in 1905 only because the Japanese started using them as hired hands on their fishing boats in the early 1900s. That is why Koreans first referred to Liancourt Rocks using a Japanese name. It was only later that they started using a descriptive name for the islets, Dokdo (獨島), which means "lonely island." The Koreans never used the name "Usando" to refer to Liancourt Rocks.

    Even though Korean fisherman had apparently learned of Liancourt Rocks by the early 1900s, Korean officials still did not know where the rocks were even in 1906, when the Japanese told the county head of Ulleungdo about Japan's incorporation of Liancourt Rocks. After the Korean official heard the news, he reported to his superiors that the rocks were forty kilometers (100 ri) away from Ulleungdo, when, in fact, they were more than twice that distance from Ulleungdo.

    Liancourt Rocks was never Korean territory, as Korean documents and maps clearly show. Even the United States recognized this (SEE HERE). Here is what Secretary of State Dean Rusk wrote to the Korean ambassador in 1951:

    As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.

    Korea has no documents or maps that suggest that Koreans had even been to Liancourt Rocks, much less claimed them, before the Japanese incorporated them in 1905. How can you get around that hurdle, Non-Anonymous?

    I suggest, Non-anonymous, that you get new hobby instead of your current one of trying to keep alive and propagate the Korean lie about Dokdo. Afterall, it is not really something you would want to brag about to your grandchildren, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  5. not anonymous17/9/07 13:32

    Gerry, I've told you countless times at least two years ago. The issue of Usando will be debated forever. There are maps that show Usando southeast of Ulleungdo, there are documents that say Usando is Matsushima (Dokdo). The Daehanjiji says Usando is southeast of Ulleungdo etc... So either side, Korean or Japanese is sunk if they continually base their theories on Usando.

    The quote by Watanabe Kuoki you linked to was one mans opinion in an investigation into the history of Takeshima. Watanabe Kuoki was referencing foreign maps and had found one that showed Liancourt Rocks as Japanese land. He never stated Liancourt Rocks was Japanese territory at all, he said foreign maps showed it as such.

    I believe he referenced this incorrect map.
    Weller

    What you have failed to mention are the other opinions in this report. Here is another quote.

    "In the middle of the Gangwando sea stand two islands of the West one is Usan and the East one is Ulleung" These are what we Japanese call Matsushima (Dokdo) and Takeshima. According to the 東國與地勝覽, it says "Ulleung is in Gangwando, also called Mulleung or Urueng, and is located South of Uljin County. The mountains are soaring high, but the southern peaks are rather lower and smaller. On a windy, clear day trees on top and the sand below the mountains are clear to observe. With the right wind, you can get there in two days...."

    Here is another Japanese officials opinion from the same report Gerry.
    "It is said that Matsushima (Dokdo) was named by us Japanese, but the truth is, the real name of this island is Usan which is part of (attached to) Ulleungdo of Chosun (Korea). During our 舊정부 (government) era it was proven through an exchange of documents that Ulleungdo belonged to Chosun and we confirmed that Ulleungdo was not Japanese territory, which is stated in both of our countries' historical records...."

    Others Japanese believed they should survey the region first or just maintain a hands-off policy in the region. Watanabe Kuoki's opinion was the minority view and after all he was wrong. When it was found out that no other islands existed the issue of Liancourt Rocks was dropped.

    Gerry, the Koreans sincerely believed that Dokdo was their land this was shown in the governors response when Japan announced they had annexed the island. What difference does the distance make? It is clear proof the Koreans claimed the island before Japan.

    Objections


    Anyongbok went to Japan to claim Takeshima and Matsushima as Chosun land and part of Korea in this was recorded in this document found in the Murakawa archives. Regardless of what Matsushima was, if Japan believed Matsushima was part of their territory in 1696 why didn't they protest Anyongboks demands?

    Here is the document.
    Matsushima is part of Chosun"

    The reason is because only months before the Shogunate had determined both Takeshima and Matsushima were not part of Hoki or Inbashu provinces. All activities by the Murakawas and Oyas were from Yonago in Hoki and thus Takeshima and Matsushima were never considered part of Japan even in the 17th Century.

    Tottori

    Dean Rusk? Is that a joke Gerry? How many times do I have to shoot you down before you stop bringing the same weak evidence to the table Gerry? The Sanfancisco Peace Treaty was signed between over forty countries of which America was only one. Dokdo was not mentioned even once in the treaty. I've already shown you the allies motives for determining possession of territory.

    Here again is proof of the allies reasons for wanting to give Dokdo to Japan. It's clear it was based on military motives even though some believed Dokdo was part of Korea.

    allied decision

    Gerry, I think it's time you pick up your game. The last few posts you have made really show how desperate your argument is getting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 逸見豊次郎の地図にある、宕陰老人世弘 塩谷宕陰の引の翻字文とmatsuさんによる解釈を此方にも貼っておきます。もとのコメントは斯下ポストを参照下さい。
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2014/03/1864-japanese-map-entitled-by-seiken.html?showComment=1397576989697

    山髙水長 (印判)

    南踏南海、西踵山陽、東北極奥羽三觀。
    乎相洋七周覧。乎毛總之野、游屐所無蹠。
    八九千里、毎夾長子玉地圗。
    攀山覜水、瞻都邑田坰 、尋名蹟、訪古戦場、必對照而比檢之。
    然予無九章學。至星度經緯、河嶽勾股、州郡之廣輪、原隰墳衍之曲面窊隆、
    不能毫氂測之、畧領大勢而已。
    今閲是圗、比子玉更加精緻。
    昔者、見豬敬所於京師。談及古戰蹟。
    敬所曰、「中履軒、攝州人、而所著『通語』、於一谷鵯越地形、瞀如也。
    學者麤於地理、往々如此。」予因以大警焉。
    斯圖之出也、鹵莽如予者、亦足坐焉。
    以指掌寰中、可謂『圗經』也。
    夫、元治甲子清和月、宕隂老人世弘、題於昌平學之九里香園。 
                    二梅木凝之書
    (印判) 鹽谷世弘  毅侯氏


    山髙水長の意味
    「山高く水長し」・「山のごとく高く水のごとく長し」
    世間の栄誉などには目もくれない高い人格を讃える言葉

    引 (引とは、はしがき。短い序文のことで、ここでは褒め言葉の讃の役割)

    南は南海を踏み、西は山陽に踵した。東北は奥羽の三觀を極めた。
    相模の海は七回もまわった。上野・下野、上総・下総の野は巡り歩いて行かない所はない。
    そうして旅したのは合わせて、八九千里。いつも長子玉(長久保赤水)の地図をたばさんでいた。
    山を攀じ、水にまみえ、都会や田舎、郊外をまわり、名蹟を尋ね、古戦場をめぐり、いつも地図と実際を対照して確認していた。
    しかし、私には九章の學が無い(数学や天文学を知らない)。
    星の高さ(北極星による緯度)経度、河や山の勾配、州郡の廣輪(面積の大小)、原隰(げんしゅう)(高原と低い湿地)、墳衍(ふんえん)(丘と平地)の曲面や窊隆(わりゅう)(低昂 凹凸)、
    これらをまったく測ることが出来ず、おおよそ大勢を知るのみである。
    いま、この地図を閲覧して、子玉(長久保赤水)の地図と比べると、更に精緻を加えている。
    むかし、猪飼敬所と京都で会った。
    古戰蹟の話になった時に、敬所が言った。
    「中井履軒は攝州の人であるが、その著書の『通語』では
    一谷(いちのたに)と鵯越(ひよどりごえ)の地形については何もわかっていない。(儒学の)学者と言われる人でも、地理についての知識がないのは、往々にしてかくのごとしである。」
    わたしは、大いに警せられたのであった。
    地図が出ると、私のような軽率な者は、もう何処へも行かなくても良くなってしまう。
    指掌の中に天下があるので、まさに『図経』というべきであろう。
    それ、元治甲子年(1864)四月、宕陰老人世弘、昌平学の九里香園に題す。
    (以上matsuさんによる通釈です)
    あとの印判の説明
    江戸愛宕山下に生まれたので、宕隂と号した。名は世弘、字は毅侯。

    塩谷宕陰(1809~1867年)
    長久保赤水(1717~1801年)
    中井履軒(1732~1817年)
    猪飼敬所(1761~1845年)
    逸見豊次郎(狩野一信・辺見豊次郎・逸見一信・顕幽斎一信)(1816~1863年)

    「増訂大日本輿地全図」.逸見豊次郎 
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka40/zouteidainihon-1864/15.jpg
    http://www.lib.meiji.ac.jp/perl/ashida/search_db?amp;year1=1848&year2=1854&from=years
    http://www.tulips.tsukuba.ac.jp/limedio/dlam/B23/B2364052/1/_dl.html

    筑波大「増訂大日本輿地全圖」は、拡大可能
    http://www.tulips.tsukuba.ac.jp/pub/kaken/kaken16-map/lime/10076904335.html

    ReplyDelete