竹島問題の歴史

4.9.07

1873 Western Map Shows Takeshima & Matsushima as Japanese

The map shown below is from the 1873 Vienna International Exhibition. It shows "Take I." (Takeshima) and "Matsou I." (Matsushima) as Japanese territory. Notice that the Korean pennisula was only dotted in, and that no Korean placenames were listed. Not even Korean islands were drawn in, including Jeju Island, which suggests that the Korean peninsula was only dotted in for geographic perspective. Only Japanese territory was labeled, which shows that the mapmaker considered Takeshima (Take I.) and Matsushima (Matsou I.) to be Japanese. Mr. Tanaka Kunitaka writes about the map (in Japanese) HERE.



Though the "Take I." (Takeshima) on the map was almost certainly the non-existant island of Argonaut (mismapped Ulleungdo), and "Matsou I." (Matsushima) was almost certainly present-day Ulleungdo, which Japan had conceded to Korea in the 1690s, the map shows that the mapmaker, for whatever reason, associated both names with Japanese territory. It also suggests that other Western nations made the same associations.

The following 1881 Japanese map also shows Takeshima (竹島) and Matsushima (松島) as Japanese territory. The map seems to have been based on the 1873 map mentioned above. Mr. Tanaka Kunitaka talks a little about the following map HERE.




Even though Ulleungdo (Takeshima) had been conceded to Korea in the 1690s, Japanese maps in the 18th and 19th centuries continued to show Takeshima (Ulleungdo), in addition to Liancourt Rocks (Matsushima), as Japanese territory. See HERE. This conflicts with Korean claims that Japanese maps in the 1800s recognized both Ulleungdo (Takeshima) and Liancourt Rocks (Matsushima) as Korean territory.

Even though Japan conceded Ulleungdo (Takeshima) to Korea, Japan never recognized Liancourt Rocks (Matsushima) as Korean territory. In fact, there are no old Korean maps that even show Liancourt Rocks, which suggests that Korea did not even know about the islets before Japan officially incorporated them in 1905.

13 comments:

  1. not anonymous5/9/07 13:34

    Gerry, I can't follow where the Hell you are going with this one at all....

    Seriously, you should stop posting these maps and making ridiculous assumptions Gerry. From 1696 the Japanese government ceded Ulleungdo as Korean. This is a historical fact.

    ReplyDelete
  2. not anonymous (toadface),

    The map Gerry showed maybe an example of foreign maps that Watanabe Kouki referred to.
    (As you know, he pointed out that all the foreign maps show Liancourt rocks to be Japanese territory.)

    These findings are not meaningless, toadface. These are useful to understand the situation how the world saw those islands.

    ReplyDelete
  3. not anonymous5/9/07 22:54

    Pacifist, when we use maps as historical proof of territorial ownership we use them in conjunction with historical facts that are verifiably true. It is not a academic approach to cite a map (and an inaccurate one like Gerry has) and say "the Japanese thought...."

    As I've mentioned the Japanese Shogunate (the only one's who opinion really matters) "ceded" Takeshima as Chosun land in 1696.

    Around 1835, Japan again banned passage to Ulleungdo (Takeshima) and declared the island off limits.

    Takeshima is Chosun Land

    In 1870 the Japanese sent a delegation to Chosun to discuss how trade was made in Korea. The presented a document with a chapter that stated "How Takeshima and Matsushima became Chosun Possessions"

    Takeshima and Matsushima Chosun Land

    In 1877 Japan again conducted an investigation and determined Takeshima and another island had nothing to do with Japan.
    Takeshima is Korean of Course

    Again in 1883 the Meiji Government ordered Japanese to stay off Ulleungdo and forcibly removed over 200 illegal squatters who were trespassing on Takeshima.

    Seriously Gerry, you must be joking to try and claim that Japan considered Takeshima as their land. But if you want to put your head in a noose, go right ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  4. not anonymous (toadface),

    I didn't say that the map is a proof of the ownership.

    I wrote that this may be an example of what foreign countries saw the two islands in those days.
    It is not a proof but one of the valuable sources to know the situation around the islands.

    The Meiji government comfirmed what the shogunate had decided in 1696 (officially after this year Japan never claimed Ulleungdo), so they decided it belongs to Korea.

    But the debate after 1696 was about the Shogunate's wrong decision - it had belonged to Japan for about 80 years (without Korea's control), it was true that many scholars thought it was Japan's territory in the Edo period. But after this 1696 decision, Japanese fishermen couldn't go officially to the island and afterwards Korean residents appeared - so naturally Japan lost its ownership when Meiji government examined about it.

    However, you must be careful the following; as The Meiji government examined, Ulleungdo belongs to Korea but Liancourt rocks don't because the shogunate didn't ban to go to Liancourt rocks in 1696.
    It remained in Japan's territory.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Non-Anonymous (Toadface) wrote:

    Seriously, you should stop posting these maps and making ridiculous assumptions Gerry. From 1696 the Japanese government ceded Ulleungdo as Korean. This is a historical fact.

    Gerry writes:

    What "ridiulous assumptions" did I make? Reread the post, Non-Anonymous. I wrote that Japan conceded Ulleungdo to Korea. You, non-anonymous, seem to be the one making ridiculous assumptions.

    Non-Anonymous (Toadface) wrote:

    It is not a academic approach to cite a map (and an inaccurate one like Gerry has) and say "the Japanese thought...."

    Gerry Writes:

    Where did I write "the Japanese thought..."? Again, reread my post, Non-Anonymous. I also pointed out the inaccuracies in the map, which I only posted to show that the mapmaker considered Takeshima and Matsushima to be Japanese. Why did this Western mapmaker and others consider the islands to be Japanese?

    Koreans Web sites frequently point to Japanese and Western maps and claim that they recognized "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks) as Korean territory. Even you on your Web site point to Japanese maps and make that claim. By posting these maps, I am simply showing that there were both Japanese and Western mapmakers who considered Takeshima and Matsushima to be Japanese.

    Non-anonymous wrote:

    Seriously Gerry, you must be joking to try and claim that Japan considered Takeshima as their land. But if you want to put your head in a noose, go right ahead.

    Gerry Writes:

    I did not try to claim that Japan considered Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as their land. I said that the maker of the posted Western map considered them to be Japanese.

    As for your links and your claims, I have already pointed out your mistakes and misinterpretations in previous posts, and I will not repeat myself here since I consider them off-topic.

    I do not understand why you constantly misread my posts and make your silly strawman arguments. I can only assume that you do it as an excuse to post links to your Web site.

    Again, Japan conceded Ulleungdo to Korea, but she never conceded Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo).

    ReplyDelete
  6. not anonymous6/9/07 13:35

    Gerry, there is no strawman in the room. You are taking a couple of maps and making huge assumptions without any historical evidence to back up what you say. You said yourself "Japanese maps in the 18th and 19th centuries continued to show Takeshima (Ulleungdo), in addition to Liancourt Rocks (Matsushima), as Japanese territory...."

    This is rubbish. Japanese maps usually excluded Ulleungdo nor Dokdo. Of those that do, the islands are treated as one.

    Japanese Map1
    Japanese Map2
    Japanese Map3
    Shimane Map1


    If we could make any conclusions from gathering Japanese historical maps it would be Oki Island was always considered the northwest boundary of Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Non-Anonymous,

    I ask you again. What assumptions have I made?

    As I have shown, Japanese maps in the 18th and 19th centuries continued to show Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matushima (Liancourt Rocks) as Japanese territory. I did not say "all" Japanese maps did so.

    Liancourt Rocks was not officially incorporated into Japanese territory until 1905, but Japanese still considered them to be within Japanese territory even before then, as Watanabe Kouki's 1878 letter clearly shows.

    Also, there are no maps that treated Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima)as one island. That is "rubbish" on your part.

    What we can conclude from Japanese and Korean maps is that the Japanese knew about Liancourt Rocks for centuries, but the Koreans did not.

    Can you show me even one Korean map that shows Liancourt Rocks? I have asked you this question a dozen times, but you always ignore it, and we both know why.

    ReplyDelete
  8. not anonymous6/9/07 23:34

    Gerry, how many times do I have to tell you. Watanbe Kuoki said "Foreign maps show these Liancourt Rocks as Japanese land" If indeed Liancourt Rocks was Japanese territory they would have had no need to annex the island in 1905.

    Korean cognizance to Dokdo prior to the 1905 military annexation is a historical fact. Yes, Korean maps are crude compared to Japanese ones, but these are issues of two countries being at least a century apart in development. The Japanese constantly blubber the Koreans cite Japanese docs for historical proof but if the Japanese claim is stronger surely they can present just one doc or map that proves this...?

    This is true in all aspects of the region. Look at the detailed Japanese records of Ulleungdo that are available. Does this mean the Japan's historical claim to Ulleungdo is stronger? Certainly not, Korean records on Ulleungdo along with archeological finds there prove Koreans were on Ulleungdo as early as the 5th Century. Yet we only have a few Chosun survey records to rely on for details.

    Both the Niitakas logbooks and the Black Dragon fishing manual prove Koreans were aware of the island before the Japanese annexed Liancourt in 1905. Thus the island can't be said to be "terra nullius" with certainty. Second there is absolutely no historical basis for Japan's claim prior to that as all of the maps I've posted above clearly show.

    When Nakai Yozaburo applied to lease Liancourt Rocks he first approached the Foreign Ministry because he thought the island was Korean territory. The Home Ministry having already investigated the matter in 1877 told him the island was suspected of being Chosun land and denied permission.

    The Navy's Hydrographic Dept Head Kimotsuki told Nakai the island was "absolutely ownerless" This statement pretty much kills Japan's historical claim on the spot. On what basis Kimotsuki concluded Liancourt was ownerless isn't known but his agenda was clear. He ordered a construction survey for building watchtowers in November of 1904 when these facilties were being installed on Ulleungdo, Jukpyeon and Ulsan.

    Gerry, I don't need Korean maps to show Chosun has stronger title, the Japanese docs and maps do the trick just fine!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Non-anonymous,

    Even though Liancourt Rocks was not officially annexed until 1905, it was still considered Japanese territory before then, as Watanabe Kouki's 1878 letter clearly shows. While discussing the confusion over an island named "Matsushima," Mr. Watanabe wrote the following:

    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.

    Notice that Mr. Watanabe recognized Korea's claim on Ulleungdo, but he also said that if the Matsushima being talked about was not Ulleungdo (Takeshima), then it must belong to Japan. Mr. Watanabe was obviously referring to Liancourt Rocks, which the Japanese traditionally referred to as "Matsushima."

    Since Liancourt Rocks were just uninhabited, barren, rocky islets, the the Japanese government most probably did not see any reason to officially incorporate them, at least not until Nakai Yozaburo petitioned the Japanese government to do so in 1904.

    No Korean documents mentioned Liancourt Rocks before 1906, which was after the Japanese told Koreans about the islets. Even then, Koreans still did not seem to know exactly where the rocks were since the Ulleungdo county head reported that they were 100 ri away from Ulleungdo, when, in fact, they were more than 200 ri away.

    Koreans most likely did not learn about Liancourt Rocks until they started working on Japanese fishing boats, sometime around 1900. Notice that in the 1903 Japanese Fishing Manual (Black Dragon), which you mentioned, said that both Japanese and Koreans were calling Liancourt Rocks "Yanko," which was the Japanese name for the islands. Obviously, the Koreans just repeated the name they heard the Japanese use.

    The the Japanese ship (Niitaka) log you mentioned was written in 1904, one year after the Black Dragon Society fishing manual. In that log, it mentioned that Koreans called Liancourt Rocks "Dokdo." That was the first time that "Dokdo" had ever been mentioned. So, Koreans had gone from using a Japanese name for Liancourt Rocks to using "Dokdo," which is a descriptive name that means "solitary island." Why did Koreans use a descriptive name instead of "Usando"?

    Koreans claim that "Usando" was the Korean name for Liancourt Rocks, even though they have no maps or documents to prove it. Moreover, if Usando was really the Korea name for Liancourt Rocks, why did Koreans in 1903 using the Japanese name for islets instead of Usando? I think it was because Usando was not a reference to Liancourt Rock, but was only a reference to a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. I think the reason Koreans in 1903 used a Japanese name for Liancourt Rocks was because they learned about the islets by working on Japanese fishing boats at the time.

    Old Korean maps may be crude when compared to old Japanese maps, but Korean maps very clearly show that Usando was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks.

    Non-anonymous wrote: The Japanese constantly blubber the Koreans cite Japanese docs for historical proof but if the Japanese claim is stronger surely they can present just one doc or map that proves this...?

    Gerry Writes: Stop being ridiculous, Non-anonymous. Japan has scores of old documents and maps that refer to and map Liancourt Rocks, starting from the 1600s, and Watanabe Kouki's 1878 letter very clearly said that Liancourt Rocks was Japanese.

    Korea, on the other hand, has no documents or maps showing they even knew about Liancourt Rocks, much less claimed them before the Japanese did in 1905. I am sure that is why you made the ridiculous statement, "I don't need Korean maps to show Chosun has stronger title."

    ReplyDelete
  10. not anonymous7/9/07 22:20

    Gerry, the "Matushima" Watanabe Kuoki is talking about is a fictitious island. Wantanbe Kuoki thought there might be another island in East Sea but of course he was wrong. Watanbe Kuoki knew Liancourt Rocks was the former "Matsushima" (Dokdo) and he was hopeful there would be another "Matsushima" similary to Ulleungdo they could exploit. In short, he was referencing Western maps and thought there might be three islands.

    After it was discovered there were no other islands they issue of "Matsushima" was dropped and all Japanese maps failed to show Liancourt Rocks as either part of Japan or Shimane unitl 1905.

    Koreans have documents that clearly state Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima Gerry. These documents carry just as much weight as of these maps that show non-existant islands and show Ulleungdo over three times too large.

    Usando is Matsushima

    Even some Japaanese believed Usando was Matsushima (Dokdo) so in reality whatever Usando may or may not have been, some Japanese thought Matsushima was attached to Ulleungdo in the late 19th Century.

    You constantly cite Watanbe Kuoki's point of view as a representation of Japan's view as a nation of the issue of Takeshima and Matsushima. This is wrong. You should remember his opinion was only one of three views. Others thought differently Gerry.

    The Black Dragon fishing manual puts Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) under Gangwan Province Gerry. While it's not basis for Korea to claim the island it surely shows those Japanese who were intimately involved in the region knew the island was not part of Japan. This also goes for the 1904 Chosun Business Guide which lists Liancourt Rocks after Ulleungdo in a Chosun Guide.

    Japan has no claim prior to 1905 Gerry and if you think the Japanese will again gain sovereignty over Dokdo on the basis their Navy annexed it during the Russo~Japanese War you are dreaming.

    ReplyDelete
  11. not anonymous (toadface),

    You said; "the "Matushima" Watanabe Kuoki is talking about is a fictitious island. Wantanbe Kuoki thought there might be another island in East Sea but of course he was wrong. Watanbe Kuoki knew Liancourt Rocks was the former "Matsushima" (Dokdo) and he was hopeful there would be another "Matsushima" similary to Ulleungdo they could exploit".

    toadface, you should learn Japanese language first if you want to refer to Japanese documents because your source of Japanese documents seem to be full of mis-translations.

    Watanabe Kouki wrote;

    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竹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
    Considering various documents, the western name of Argonaut island seems nothing and the Takeshima-Dagelet island should be true Takeshima, that is Ulleungdo, and "OUR" Matsushima seems to be the island they call Hornet rocks.

    His thought was exactly true.

    ReplyDelete
  12. not anonymous8/9/07 14:04

    Pacifist, as I've said before. Japan's who basis for incorporation was based on the idea that the island was ownerless in 1905. Admiral Kimotsuki's pushed forth Nakai Yozaburo's application on these grounds.

    Your translation is different from other publications I've seen (even Gerry's) The opinions of Watanabe Kuoki one just one of many in the investigation of Takeshima.
    Don't you think using the statement of a man who thought there were three islands in the region is a shabby premise to define Japan's territorial boundary at this time?

    If Japan thought Liacourt Rocks were theirs they would have included the islets on their maps of Shimane Prefecture. But they didn't.

    Shimane Maps

    ReplyDelete
  13. not anonymous (toadface),

    As I've repeated hundred times, maps are made for various purposes. Your map won't be nothing even if it doesn't depict the island. But if some maps show the island while others don't, they will be a proof that some mapmakers knew the island.

    There are old Japanese maps that show Liancourt rocks, but NO Korean maps that show the island. toadface, to relate about maps will be disadvantage for you.


    As to Kimotsuki, as I've told you before he was not an admiral but a specialist of geography in the navy. And he let Nakai know that Liancourt rocks were not in the Korean territory, as Nakai misunderstood at first that the rocks were Korean territory because the rocks were printed in the chart of Korea he saw. But it was not a map to show the territory, but for the safe voyage to Korea. So Kimotsuki told Nakai the truth, and he could ask Meiji government to let him use the rocks fro his business.

    ReplyDelete