This is a map from the Century Atlas. For the 1894-95 edition, Century purchased maps from 2 publishers. The States and a few Canadian Provinces were printed by Rand McNally; and the rest were Engraved and Printed in Colours by W. & A. K. Johnston, Edinburgh & London. This is a Johnston map.
This map is actually consisted of two maps - "Islands of Japan" and "Corea".
There are Liancourt Rocks described as "Liancourt Is." in the Sea of Japan. There is also Matsu-sima (although it was not Matsu-shima), which is not coloured on this map. This is another proof that the western people believed that Liancourt Rocks didn't belong to Korea in the 1890's, just before the 1900 Korean Edict.
This map is actually consisted of two maps - "Islands of Japan" and "Corea".
Please look at the map of "Corea" first. There is "Matsu-shima (Dagelet)" on the east of C.Chaik--san and it looks like it was painted in the same 
colour as the Korean peninsula - light green. However, there is no Liancourt Rocks on the map. It seems that the geographer of UK who made this map believed that Ulleungdo (Dagelet) was Korean territory but Liancourt Rocks were out of Korean territory, which was a normal thought in the 1890's as you can confirm if you look into various geographic books from the same era.
colour as the Korean peninsula - light green. However, there is no Liancourt Rocks on the map. It seems that the geographer of UK who made this map believed that Ulleungdo (Dagelet) was Korean territory but Liancourt Rocks were out of Korean territory, which was a normal thought in the 1890's as you can confirm if you look into various geographic books from the same era.
Then, please look at the map of "Islands of Japan".
There are Liancourt Rocks described as "Liancourt Is." in the Sea of Japan. There is also Matsu-sima (although it was not Matsu-shima), which is not coloured on this map. This is another proof that the western people believed that Liancourt Rocks didn't belong to Korea in the 1890's, just before the 1900 Korean Edict.
Pacifist,
ReplyDeleteInteresting map, but why do you say the Matsushima on the Japanese map was not Matsushima (Ulleungdo)?
In 1894, Ulleungdo was referred to as Matsushima by the Japanese and many Westerners.
Also, the green color of Matsushima suggests the mapmaker believed it to be a Korean island even though it also appeared on the Japanese map.
As for Liancourt Rocks, it is hard to tell, but it looks like it was colored the same as Japan. If that is true, that this map seems to be one of the few old Western maps I have seen that shows Ulleungdo as Korean territory and Liancourt Rocks as Japanese, rather than showing both islands as Japanese.
Gerry,
ReplyDeleteSorry for my poor English, I didn't mean it was not Matsushima - I only pointed out the mis-spelling of Matsu-sima instead of Matsu-shima (in the "Corea" map).
In the map of "Islands of Japan", Matsu-sima (Ulleungdo) was not coloured while it was coloured in the map of "Corea", which may mean the island belonged to Korea, not to Japan.
As to Liancourt Rocks, it was not coloured too (or too small to identify the colour) but at least they were not drawn in the map of "Corea", which means the mapmaker didn't think it was a Korean territory.
To Gerry,
ReplyDeleteP.S.
Please correct if my English was not right. Thanks.
If you continue to posting Western map around Sea of Japan, please inform the name of Broughton Bay(Korean bay, East Chosun bay, East Chosun sea, and so on) and Sea of Japan, as well as discription of Argonaut, dagelet, and Lianocurt Rocks and so on. thank you.
ReplyDeleteGTOMR,
ReplyDeleteOkay, I will try to tell you the names. As to this map, please double-click the map of "Corea" and you will get full information about them - Broughton Bay and Sea of Japan. (Argonaut (-), Dagelet (+) as Matsu-shima, Liancourt Rcoks (+) as Liancourt Is.)
Pacifist, I wouldn't take this map as an accurate depiction of Japanese islands.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the Ryukyus and the Ogasawaras are not shown as part of Japan on the map. These were long since incoporated as part of Japan. Japanese national maps and map books included these minor islands on appended maps when they drew charts.
When determining the territorial perceptions of Japanese why not use Japanese maps?
Japan's-Limits-1
Japan's-Limits-2
The map books above are truly representative of Japan's national boundaries prior to their annexation of Liancourt Rocks in 1905.
dokdo-takeshima.com,
ReplyDeleteYou push your original rule again and again. The blank on the official map cannot become the evidence of the border.
SOVEREIGNTY OVER PEDRA BRANCA
Malaysia emphasizes that of all the maps before the Court only one published by the Singapore Government included Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh as within its territory and that map was not published until 1995. Malaysia also refers to three maps published in 1926 and 1932 by the Surveyor-General of the Federation of Malay States and Straits Settlements which may indicate
that the island is within Johor.
Singapore places considerable weight on six maps published by the Malayan and Malaysian Surveyor General and Director of National Mapping in 1962 (two maps), 1965, 1970, 1974 and 1975. Those maps include Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh with four lines of information under it:
“Lighthouse 28,
P. Batu Puteh,
(Horsburgh),
(SINGAPORE) or (SINGAPURA)”.
The Court recalls that Singapore did not, until 1995, publish any map including Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh within its territory. But that failure to act is in the view of the Court of much less weight than the weight to be accorded to the maps published by Malaya and Malaysia between 1962 and 1975.
Thanks opp.
ReplyDeleteTo bearded handsome frog,
You are an expert of changing subjects. We are discussing about Liancourt Rocks here.
No western maps depicted Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory - not at all. This map is only an example of the fact.
You should admit the fact - you always admit maps that would be advantageous to your theory and deny maps that would not be advantageous. It is a double-standard decision and it would not pursuasive.
pacifist,
ReplyDeleteThe map cannot create territorial title. However, the map becomes evidence to specify the island in international law. Therefore, the map of Usando becomes evidence that is not Takeshima. Especially, the evidence value of the map based on the official field survey is high.
opp様
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree. Maps are not an evidence of territorial claim, but these maps teach us how was the circumstance concerning the island in the Sea of Japan, how another countries looked at these islands.
At least, it has been obvious that western countries did NOT think that Liancourt Rocks to be Korean territory.