竹島問題の歴史

6.10.07

Why did Western Maps Show Ulleungdo as Japanese?

Japan essentially gave up its claim on Ulleungdo in the 1690s, so why did Western maps in the 1800s show Ulleungdo as Japanese territory? Look at the following maps from the David Rumsey Map Collection and notice the color of the islands:

1847 - Benedetto Marzolla; Society for the Diffussion of Useful knowledge; John Arrowsmith


Notice that the above map shows Argonaut and Dagelet painted in the same pink color as Japan. Argonaut did not exist because it was a mismapping of Ulleungdo, and Dagelet was the real Ulleungdo, which Japan had conceded to Korea in the 1690s. Liancourt Rocks does not appear on the map. So why was Argonaut and Dagelet shown as Japanese territory if Japan had given up its claim on Ulleungdo?

Argonaut and Dagelet may have been mapped as Japanese territory because Korea's Ulleungdo and Usando were already represented on the map at a different place?

The two islands just next to the Korean coast labeled as "Fan-ling-tao" and "Tchian-shan-tao" were the Chinese pronunciations for "Ulleungdo" and "Usando" (千山島 - 천산도). Notice that "Tchian-shan-tao" (Usando) is the to west of "Fan-ling-tao" (Ulleungdo), which was also how the two islands were mapped on early (pre-An-Yong-bok) Korean maps. Maybe the mapmakers assumed that since "Fan-ling-tao" and "Tchian-shan-tao" accounted for Korea's territory then any other islands in the sea of Japan were Japanese?

By the way, notice on the Korean peninsula the words "Impero Chinese," which seems to be claiming that Korea was part of the Chinese empire.

1875 - Adolf Stieler


The above 1875 map show "Matsu sima" (Ulleungdo) and Liancount Rocks to be Japanese territory. Ulleungdo was not only colored in the same blue color as Japan, but there was also a line drawn separating Ulleungdo from Korea. If Japan had recognized Ulleungdo to be Korean territory, then why did the mapmaker show it to be Japanese?

I think the Mapmaker may have shown Ulleungdo to be Japanese because he had heard that "Matsushima" was Japanese territory and did not realize that it was used to refer to Liancourt Rocks whether than Ulleungdo. Also, there was a Japanese marker on Ulleungdo dated 1869 that claimed the island was called "Matsushima" and was Japanese territory. This misunderstanding was most likely caused by the mismapping of Ulleungdo as "Argonaut." Japanese must have assumed that Argonaut was Ulleungdo (Takeshima) and that the island east of Argonaut was their Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks).

1881 - Richard Andree


Notice that the above 1881 map also shows "Matsu" (Ulleungdo) as Japanese territory since it is colored in the same yellow color as Japan. The map also shows Liancourt Rocks. Again, the mapmaker may have assumed that since the island was called "Matsushima," it was Japanese territory.

1895 - Richard Andree; Times - London, England


The above 1895 map also shows a smudge of pink on Matsushima (Ullleungdo), which again shows it to be Japanese territory. The map also shows Liancourt Rocks. As mentioned above, the mapmaker may have assumed that Ulleungdo was Japanese territory based on the name "Matsushima," which he must have known to be Japanese.

1897 - Rand McNally and Company (1)


The above 1897 map shows both Matushima (Ulleungdo) and Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory since they are marked in yellow. Though you may not see the yellow marked on Liancourt Rocks on the above map, you can see it marked on the following map, which was part of the same map.

1897 - Rand McNally and Company (2)


As the above maps show, many Westerners in the 1800s, for whatever reason, believed Matsushima (Ulleungdo) and Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory. For example, in an 1876 letter, HERE, arguing for the development of "Matsushima," Japanese businessman Mutoh Heigaku (武藤平学) quoted an American staying in Vladivostok as saying the following:

“There is an island that belongs to Japan called Matsushima, which Japan has not started developing yet.”
For whatever reason, many Westerners believed that "Matsushima" was Japanese, and I think it was mainly because of the mismapped Ulleungdo (Argonaut), which caused Japanese and others to assume that the real Ulleungdo was Japan's "Matsushima" since it was southeast of the mismapped Ulleungdo. These maps are evidence that the Japanese and others associated the name "Matsushima" to Japanese territory, which suggests that the original Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) was Japanese.

P.S. If you look HERE, you can see what the 1873 edition of the Bristish publication "China Sea Directory" said about Liancourt Rocks and Ulleungdo.

10 comments:

  1. Gerry,

    Interesting maps indeed!

    Mutoh Heigaku's "Argument for the development of Matsushima" (1876) was written after an American in Vladivostok told him about Japanese island called Matsushima.

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/1876-argument-about-development-work-of.html

    "I have already heard from an American named Cobel, who is staying in Vladivostok. He said, “There is an island that belongs to Japan called Matsushima, which Japan has not started developing yet.”

    The American may have seen one of these maps.

    ReplyDelete
  2. not anonymous7/10/07 00:33

    Pacifist, the American man of course saw Ulleungdo Island he was wrong in assuming Matsushima was Japanese.

    Gerry, the line drawn between Matsushima and Korea is a shipping lane, it's not a boundary.

    You can see similar lines between Japanese islands near Shimonoseki on the original map.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you, Pacifist. I added your comment to the post.

    Non-Anonymous,

    A shipping line does not stop in the middle of nowhere. Also, the line was colored blue, the same color as Japan. Look at the map again: 1875 Map

    ReplyDelete
  4. not anonymous7/10/07 13:55

    Gerry, these lines do not show international boundaries. You can see the same lines between other Japanese lands. Look again.

    Not international boundaries

    At any rate we know Ulleungdo Island was Korean land so this map can be assumed to simply be an inaccurate map with regard to national boundaries. However, what this map does show is that even Europeans of the day knew Argonaut Island did not exist.

    ReplyDelete
  5. toadface,

    The lines you showed are boundaries of districts of Japan, Kyushu district and Shikoku district etc, not the sea lanes.

    So the line between Matsushima and Korea is definitely the boundary.

    The point is that the westerners thought the newly found islands "not Korean territory" because it was known that Korean eastern boundary was Ulleungdo (and its neighboring island Jukdo). As a matter of fact the two islands were depicted in Chinese names along the Korean coast.

    The westerners may have known that Japan gave up Takeshima but Matsushima is in Japan's territory or one can say that Japanese boundary was Matsushima. So as long as Korea's boundary was Ulleungdo (they may have misunderstood the location of Ullengdo), the islands locate more eastern should be Japan's Matsushima.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Incidentally, the following Japanese maps of Korea depict Ulleungdo as Matsushima.

    朝鮮全図 (1882)
    http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_01/takeshima04d.data/5-1-3-5-03.pdf

    東洋大勢図(1902)
    http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_01/takeshima04d.data/5-1-3-6-02.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  7. I knew about Stieler's, but I didn't know the others.

    Gerry wrote;
    "These maps are evidence that the Japanese and others associated the name "Matsushima" to Japanese territory, which suggests that the original Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) was Japanese."
    I agree. They can be a huge clue to understand what was going on when Japanese Meiji government were sort of confused of the name and the location of Matsushima with all the information from Western, Korea and it's own historical record while they are doing rapid modernization of Japan.

    I also think it is a good counter proof that Japanese government was not "greedy to grab the land from Korea" like Korean government preach they were. Meiji government only incorporated Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks, which is apparently out of Korean territory, but not Ulleundo even those Western maps and even Japanese historical documents which shows Ulleundo was Japanese territory in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Checking 100 of western map and I think, Sebold's "Japan" is also turning points.

    Before Sebold's back to Europe,(around 1840's) there are many Tchain-chan-tau(unknown island considered Usando) and Fang-ling tau(considered Ulleungdo) on European maps. These Geography information is referenced from China/korea map in China.

    After 1840's there rapidly increase which discribes Argonaut (not exist ghost) and Dagelet and tchain-chan tau and Fang-ling tau become rapidly less on the European maps. Also he bring the map which discribed Takeshima-Argonaut and Matsushima-Dagelet, so there are many maps which they consider Dagelet as Japanese territory after that. And I found that there are not many "Ulleungdo" instead of Japan's name of Matsu-shima(Matsu-I).

    There are also some maps which discribes Daglet (Ulluengdo) be Japanese territory with Japan/Korea boundary.

    Russo-Japanese War District
    Cram, George F
    Chicago: George F. Cram, 1904

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry for double post

    correction on above post.
    Sebold is come back to Holland on 1828.

    But after the 日本辺界略図(1832)on"Japan" and Map of Japan (1840)、the Argonaut(not exist ghost) and Dagelet(Ulluengdo) become majority instead of Tchain-chan-tau(Unknown island, considered as Usando) and Fanglingtau(Ulleungdo)

    ReplyDelete
  10. dokdo-takeshima.com24/4/08 03:18

    GMTOR, the Argonaut ghost island theory is a fallacy dreamed up by Takeshima lobbyists to deny important historical maps and documents that damage Japan's claim to Dokdo.

    A classic example is the map from Opp's website. Here he cleverly uses a Japanese map in an attempt to tell us “Argonaut" on this map is fictitious island. What he neglects to mention is the almost illegible text next the island. There are three rows of text and what they read is "Takeshima-Ulleungdo-Usando.

    Opp's-Ooops

    Many maps of this era place 竹島 (Takeshima) in the position of Seibold's Argonaut. But this does not mean the Japanese were knowingly mapping a ghost island. This is because they also labelled the island as 竹島-鬱陵島 thus we know the Japanese simply repositioned the island more westerly as they did 松島 (Matsushima~Dokdo)

    Here are some examples.

    Map-1

    Map-2

    Map-3

    Map-4

    Mapmakers of this era had no idea about the true shape and form of the islands and simply traced the others. The simply followed Seibolds lead and drew Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) more Westerly.

    When Liancourt Rocks appeared on maps and three islands appeared it was then the presence of 竹島 became a doubtful ghost. This is why the island is almost always drawn in an ambiguous dotted line on these uncommon 3 island maps.

    This can be found on these charts.

    Map-5

    Map-6

    Map-7

    As for the perception that Matsushima (Dagelet) was thought to be Japanese. Opperts 1870 book was well aware of this mistake and pointed out the fallacy behind these erroneous charts.

    Matsushima is Korean

    ReplyDelete