竹島問題の歴史

21.6.08

1897 German map "CHINA, KOREA UND JAPAN"

This is a German map "CHINA, KOREA UND JAPAN", which was printed in Leipzig in June 1897. Interestingly, Tibet is out of China and Taiwan (Formosa) is in Japan but this is another story. Please take a look at the islands in the "Japanisches Meer" (Sea of Japan) - there are "Matsushima" and "Hornet In.". Although these islands were uncoloured, you may notice the lines between Korea and Japan. The thick and long line from Nagasaki to Wladiwostok (Vladivostok) meant a telegraph cable. The thinner line (fine dots) beside the telegraph cable indicated a national border - you can see that both Matsushima (Ulleungdo) and Hornet In. (Liancourt Rocks) are in the Japanese territory. This is another evidence to show that western countries believed these islands were Japanese territory in the late 19th century, just before the Korean Edict #41 in 1900. Although they errornously believed Matsushima (Ulleungdo) to be Japanese territory maybe because of its name, the map looks quite accurate - Liancourt Rocks were recognised as Japanese territory by the western countries. So this is another evidence that Seokdo in the Korean Edict #41 was not Liancourt Rocks.

14 comments:

  1. dokdo-takeshima.com22/6/08 15:45

    Pacifist, this map is proof of a nothing more than some Western cartographers had incorrect territorial perceptions (both geographical and political) of the East Sea (Sea of Japan) in the 19th Century.

    First, even thirty years before this map was made the Western nations had long since known fictitious Argonaut Island (shown on the East) did not exist. So this map was inaccurate even by industry standards in 1984.

    Next, Dagelet Island (Matsushima~Ulleungdo) is shown on this map as part of Japan. Thus, we know it was not an accurate representation of the national boundaries of Japan and Korea. There is no doubt Dagelet (Matsushima) was considered Korean territory in the late 19th Century. In fact, one year later, Russia would acquire logging concessions on Ulleungdo from the Koreans.

    Oppert was aware of these errors in 1870 in his book about Korea.
    WesternMapErrors

    Pacifist, stop insulting the intelligence of those who visit this forum by using verifiably inaccurate maps as proof of Japanese sovereignty over Dokdo. As usual it's garbage in, garbage out here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. dokdo-takeshima.com22/6/08 15:46

    Correction, above year should be 1894 not 1984.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve,

    At first, this map didn't say "East Sea" - it says "Japanisches Meer". None of western maps in the 1890's didn't say "East Sea" or "Korean Sea" - they all say "Sea of Japan" or "Japan Sea" or "Japanisches Meer".

    Secondly, the German maps are relatively accurate - they didn't show Argonaut island in the 1890's. They only show Dagelet island and Hornet islands (Liancourt Rocks) in the maps. (If you can't see, please use magnifying glass...)

    Thirdly, as I repeatedly mention, naturally there were some errors in the maps 100 years ago, but these western maps had fewer errors. The only error was that they believed Matsushima (Dagelet island) to be Japanese territory maybe due to the name (Matsushima) and/or the fact that sea lines in the Sea of Japan was controlled by Japanese companies (so the name of the island may have been called in Japanese name). But this is not a big issue as the government of Japan admitted that Ulleungdo to be Korean territory.

    If you insist that maps with only one error are inaccurate and can't rely on them - then you can't rely on many other maps including Japanese and Korean ones too, can you? But as a matter of fact, you have used them many times - isn't this oppotunism Steve?

    The most important point here is that none of the western countries believed that Liancourt Rocks to be Korean territory at all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. dokdo-takeshima.com22/6/08 19:35

    Pacifist, you're reaching and these last posts you've made are really lame. However please feel free to continue this flimsy posture as it reveals your lack of reasoning and bias.

    The map on this post shows Liancourt Rocks as uncoloured. In no way can this map be interpreted to mean western countries considered the islands as Japanese territory. That is just your wishful thinking.

    German maps are accurate. Hmmm. Well this one is not. If any map of the 19th Century shows Ulleungdo as part of Japan it is wrong because Ulleungdo Island was indisputably Korean land at this time.

    Pacifist, you can use this map to blow your nose on, you can use it wipe your rear end, you can even use it to wrap fish if you so desire. However, you can't use this map for reference with regard to national boundaries or territorial ownership of Liancourt Rocks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve,

    "The map on this post shows Liancourt Rocks as uncoloured."
    Steve, the islands were uncoloured as you see, but can't you see the border line which I mentioned in the text?
    You can see the border if you click the small map, not the close up map. The borderline was drawn between Korea and Japan including the north of Tsushima, and south of Taiwan.

    Many of the ten maps I introduced here which were published in the 1890's indicate that the western countries, especially UK, USA and Germany, believed that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Japan, not Korea.

    There were not a map at all that indicated the rocks to be Korean territory, Steve. You must remember this Steve, not one map at all.

    I am showing all the maps I got, without selecting the ones that favours Japan. I only omitted the maps that didn't show these islands.

    So your insistency, that is wishful thinking itself Steve, has no evidence here. If you believe your wishful thinking, you should show the western maps published in the 1890's that indicate the rocks belonged to Korea. However, unfortunately for you, I think it would be impossible from my experience of collecting these maps, Steve.

    ReplyDelete
  6. dokdo-takeshima.com22/6/08 22:43

    Pacifist, I can see the border just fine thank you.

    My point is, once again it is a historical indisputable fact that Dagelet Island (Ulleungdo) was always known as Korean land by Europeans. These maps do not represent the true political boundary between Japan and Korean in the 19th Century.

    Whatever rubbish you can churn out Pacifist we know even as late as the fall of 1904 the Admiral Kimotsuki of Japan's Imperial Navy's Hydrographic Dept stated Liancourt Rocks was in his opinion "ownerless"

    Knowing Japan didn't consider Liancourt Rocks as part of Japan before 1905 there is really no sense in citing historically inaccurate maps of the 19th Century Pacifist.

    Pacifist, if you want maps that clearly determine ownership of Dokdo. Just look at the Japanese ones.

    Well, Pacifist from my experience collecting maps. There are two kinds of Japanese maps.

    Those Japanese maps that show Dokdo as Korean land......
    DokdoIsKorean1
    DokdoIsKorean2
    DokdoIsKorean3
    DokdoIsKorean4

    ....and those Japanese maps that exclude the Dokdo altogether.

    DokdoNotJapanese1
    DokdoNotJapanese2
    DokdoNotJapanese3
    DokdoNotJapanese4
    DokdoNotJapanese5
    DokdoNotJapanese6

    Pacifist, If you and your lobbyists ever hope to muster a historical case for Takeshima you'd better come up with better than the inaccurate western maps your are using now..

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve,

    Are you pretending to be ignorant, or really ignorant?

    As I told you before (and you ran away), Prof. Hosaka's map is not directing Ullengdo and Liancourt Rocks - it is Argonaut (Takeshima or Taka Shima in the western maps) and Dagelet (Ulleungdo). It is easily found when you can read the longitude. Can't you read it Steve? Eh? (If you can't, read what I wrote before.)

    The second map is not an official map and the colour may have been added later, this kind of childish map is not proving anything.

    The third map resembles Prof. Hosaka's map. Again, you must study hard about the longitude, Steve.

    The fourth map is childish one, are you joking? This kind of primitive drawing means nothing.

    As to the Japanese maps from the 1800's, it is natural that they didn't bear Liancourt Rocks because Japan incorporated officially the rocks in 1905. The maps before 1905 naturally didn't bear the rocks.

    Steve, your insistency is so groundless. You have to bring the western maps from 1890's which indicate Liancourt Rocks belong to Korea. Have you ever seen such a map? I haven't seen such a map, nobody has seen.

    Steve, you must study hard. The evidence indicates the following:

    1) Japan knew and used old Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) in the Edo period but Koreans never did.

    2) After Japan gave Takeshima (Ulleungdo) back to Korea, Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) was almost left untouched. In the turmoil of the revolution of the end of Shogunate, the record of Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) was almost lost.

    3) Western maps were brought in and the "name confusion" occured - about Takeshima and Matsushima. But these western maps always indicated that Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory.

    4) After the examination, Japan found out that Matsushima in the western maps (and Prof.Hosaka's map too, Steve) was Ulleungdo. They couldn't found Takeshima as it was non-existent island of Argonaut, so they thought it must be today's Jukdo.

    5) Liancourt Rocks was not officially declared to be Japanese island and it had not ever belonged to any other countries (including Korea). So Japan recognised the rocks as "ownerless island" in the 1800's (until the incorporation in 1905).

    6) So then Japan officially incorporated the rocks to Shimane prefecture. This was internationally lawfull deed.

    Steve, Korea had no right to own Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo). She never knew it, never used it until Japanese hired Korean fishermen in the 20th century. You must bring evidences to show that Korea knew it, used it, owned it.

    Can you do it Steve? Now that it has been proved that Usando was not Liancourt Rocks, Sambongdo was not Liancourt Rocks, Seokdo was not Liancourt Rocks, it maybe hard for you to prove it. Too bad for you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. dokdo-takeshima.com23/6/08 14:16

    Pacifist, Hosaka's map shows two islands in the East Sea. 竹島 (Takeshima) and 松島 (Matsushima) Takeshima is shown in the position of Argonaut Island, a common error of the 19 Century.

    Many maps of this era show 竹島 in Argonaut's location and we can often confirm that this island was Korea's Ulleungdo. Please see these maps.

    TakeshimaUlleung1
    TakeshimaUlleung2
    TakeshimaUlleung3
    TakeshimaUlleung4

    From here Japanese cartographers simply traced the outline of Matsushima (Dokdo) onto these maps. In other words, Pacifist Ulleungdo and Dokdo were simply mapped as they always were simply in more Westerly locations.

    What you and Japanese Takeshima lobbyists are trying to tell us is, after 150 years of mapping 竹島 (Takeshima-Ulleungdo) and 松島 (Matsushima-Dokdo) in the East Sea, the Japanese cartographers suddenly eliminated Liancourt Rocks and knowingly double mapped Ulleungdo. This is nonsense. Hosaka's map shows Ulleungdo and Dokdo. There is not one piece of evidence to support your theory that Japan eliminated Liancourt Rocks on these maps.

    The second map is from an official investigation after a Japanese man trespassed on Ulleungdo. It shows the territorial perceptions of those private individuals who illegally voyaged to Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Much if not all of Japanese historical claims to Dokdo prior to 1905 are based on these voyages (Oyas and Murakawas) If Japan wants to use the equally primitive maps of these families why should we ignore the others?
    TrespassMap

    The third map by Mori Kinseki again shows Dokdo to be Korean land. Again Pacifist, there is no logical basis to interpret these maps as having omitted Liancourt Rocks. Just your wishful thinking again.

    Japan's 1905 military annexation is legal in the opinion of Japan Takeshima lobbyists. However, this land grab is a colonial relic from a long time ago. Even by those days standards it was illegal, Pacifist.

    At any rate there is zero justification for us to draw back the boundary between Japan and Korea back to the colonial era Pacifist. I haven't seen one reason presented on this forum as to why in this modern world we should put back the border with visual distance of Ulleungdo Island a territory of Korea's for over 1500 years.

    Pacifist, it's clear by the shabby argument you've been presenting lately you are running out of gas. The maps you are posting prove nothing at all, stop wasting everyone's time.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Steve,

    I repeatedly wrote that you should read the longitude in Hosaka's map.

    To follow is from my previous posting:

    "You must read the longitude - the left island 竹島 (Takeshima) seems to be located at less than 130 degree (around 129 degree 40') in longitude E and the right island 松島 (Matsushima) seems to be located slightly less than 131 degree (around 130 degree 50') in longitude E.

    References:
    Ulleungdo is located at 130 degree 52'.
    Liancourt Rocks is located at 131 degree 52' in longitude E.

    These two islands are Argonaut and Dagelet islands. It's the same as the western maps - Taka Shima (Argonaut) and Matsu Shima (Dagelet). "

    The map didn't include Liancourt Rocks, Steve.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve Barber (Dokdo-Takeshima),

    If Hosaka's map showed the non-existent island of Argonaut as Takeshima (竹島), then the Matsushima (松島) on the map was the real Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). You know this, so stop playing dumb.

    Look more closely at some of those maps, Steve. The outline was clearly of Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks.

    It was the Western maps that confused the Japanese because the Western maps showed the non-existent island of Argonaunt as Ulleungdo, which made people believe that the real Ulleungdo was another island.

    Here is what Watanabe Kouki, Director of the Bureau of Documents at the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote in 1878:

    “Our Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) seems to be called Hornet
    Rocks in the West. It also seems that Europeans recognize Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as Matsushima and, furthermore, imagine another island with the name of Takeshima. And all the foreign maps indicate that Hornet Rocks belong to our country”


    我松嶋ナル者ハ洋名ホルネットロックスナルカ如シ然ルヲ洋客竹嶋ヲ認テ松嶋ト為シ更ニ竹嶋ナル者ヲ想起セシ者ノ如シ而テ此ホルネットロックスノ 我国ニ属スルハ各国ノ地図皆然リ

    Notice that he said, "Our Matsushima" (我松嶋) when referring to Liancourt Rocks.

    Steve, you are the one engaged in wishful thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Steve,

    "Japan's 1905 military annexation is legal in the opinion of Japan Takeshima lobbyists."

    Are you still murmuring such a nonsense?

    As we've shown, Liancourt Rocks didn't belong to any country (including Korea). It was not a "military annexation".

    The military occupation was done by Rhee Syngmann Steve, not by Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  12. dokdo-takeshima.com23/6/08 23:45

    Gerry, give it rest, Japan has no claim to Liancourt Rocks prior to the 1905 military annexation of the islands. You and your lobbyists have run out of gas and now you're left with posting inaccurate western maps. Pretty lame.

    Hosaka's map shows two islands Gerry. Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) If Matsushima is not Liancourt Rocks (as it had been drawn for 150 years before) then please tell us Gerry, where the Hell is Liancourt Rocks? Are you trying to tell us the Japanese mapmaker just omitted the island? Pretty convenient theory Gerry and not very plausible nor convincing.

    The truth is, these cartographers had no idea about the true shape of Matsushima (Dokdo) they simply traced other copies. In fact, Japanese maps that show Matsushima (Dokdo) in its true form are rare as hen's teeth. (I've only seen a few) Traditionally Japanese maps almost always showed Dokdo as one island and in poor form. From what I've seen only private maps by fishermen or copied navel maps showed. On the the map by Kashihara in 1877 is true to form. Not surprisingly it is not coloured as part of Japan.

    Also, as the maps I've posted above show, even maps that show Seibold's positioning show the Western island as the real Ulleungdo. This despite the fact the Matsushima 松島 to the East is outlined in the same shape as Ulleungdo. The cartographers simply didn't know the real geography.

    Gerry are still going to quote the opinion of Watanabe Kuoki? Seriously don't insult our intelligence by posting the opinion of one foreign officials official who believed there were three islands in the Sea of Japan. Other officials believed "this Matsushima to be Usando and attached to Chosun's Ulleungdo.." So what?

    If the island was theirs before 1905 they wouldn't have needed to incorporate it in 1905 right Gerry? Japan's 1905 claim wasn't based on the history of the island. It was based on terra nullius or occupation.

    Above are over 60 maps proving without a doubt Liancourt Rocks was not Japanese territory before their navy annexed the island during the largest war of the day Russo~Japanese War in 1904~1905. The argument the Japanese claime Dokdo before 1905 is deader than dead.

    Yes Pacifist, Japan's military annexation of Dokdo Takeshima was a military act of agression in Japan's bid to defeat Russia for the right to colonize Korea. This is a shabby premise to claim territory, it is not a natural nor peaceful method to incorporate land and thus not legal. On top of that it's unthinkable that Japan's 1905 basis for this land grab has little significance in the year 2008.

    JapansMilitaryLandGrab

    Gerry, I'm not engaged in wishful thinking Korea has Dokdo and always will. It's seems you and your Takeshima lobbyists are the dreamers here.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Steve,

    Japan didn't annexed Liancourt Rocks, just incorporated. And Japan didn't use military power to incorporate it (while Korea used military power to occupy the island and killed Japanese fishermen).

    As to Hosak's map, read another posting. You should learn geography, Steve. Do you know what does the word longitide mean?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous16/7/08 23:37

    Well, I read this article:

    1928年日本国発行の教科書に拠ると、獨島は朝鮮のものとして表記されてる。

    According to a Japanese school textbook published 1928, Dokdo belongs to Korea.

    Yes, Korea does have Dokdo. Takeshima would be somewhere else but not in the East Sea, I beleive.

    So please Japan go out to look for your own island instead of stalking Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete