竹島問題の歴史

16.11.08

The Territorial Recognitions which Western Maps of Japan Show for Takeshima/Liancour Rocks between 1880-1905 : Ver.1

There is no single western maps of Japan(1880-1905) which shows Liancourt Rocks = Korean.

I checked all the western-made Japanese maps between 1880-1905 posted on this blog and the results were extremely interesting. Although there were some maps which still show non-existant Argonaut, more than half (14 out of 26) of them show both Uleungdo and Takeshima to be Japanese territory. One (The Times Map (1900), Left) shows Matsushima(Ulleungdo) to be Korean, and Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese, which seems to be the most accurate map of that time. One shows Ulleungdo to be Japanese , but Liancourt Rocks are left to be uncoloured. The rest of them (10 out of 26) shows both islands to be uncoloured or unidentified, in other words, those are shown to be no man's land. In conclusion, it is safe to say that western countries(Britain, U.S.A., Canada and German) commonly considered Liancourt Rocks to be most likely Japanese territory around 1900.

○ 1880 - German Map of Japan from Adolf Stieler's Hand Atlas 7th Edition (National Border between Ulleungdo and Choson)*
○ 1888 - British map of Japan and Corea (no Liancourt Rocks, but the borderline indicated that Dagelet island was Japan's territory)*
○ 1891 - German Map "Ost-China, Korea und Japan"  ( Stieler, Adolf; Gotha; Justus Perthes)*
○ 1891 - American map of Japan (People’s Publishing Co. in Chicago)
△ 1891 - American map of Japan (International Cyclopaedia)Taka, Matsu and Liancourt Rocks
○ 1892 - German Map of ”China und Japan ("Meyers Kleiner Handatlas," Leipzig)*
○ 1893 - German Map ”Ubersichtskarte von China und Japan”
○ 1894 - British map of Japan (Edward Stanford, Charing Cross, London) * Three islands
○ 1894 - American map of Japan (Cram Universal)
○ 1894 - British map of Japan and Korea (Popular Atlas of The World)* Three islands, with National border between Argonaut & Dagelet
○ 1894 - German map of "JAPAN UND KOREA" ( Leipzig, Germany)*
○ 1894-1895 - British Map of Corea and Map of Islands of Japan (W. & A. K. Johnston, Edinburgh & London)
○ 1897 - German map of ”Japan Und Korea”) (Leipzig, Germany)
○ 1897 - German map "CHINA, KOREA UND JAPAN"* no colour but national border between Choson and Matsushima(Dagelet)
○ 1897 - American map of Japan and Korea (The Century Atlas)*Three islands
○ 1898 - British Map "Japan Islands" (London, James Imray and Son )
○ 1898 - American Map "Empires of China, Japan and Korea" (Chicago: J. Martin Miller)
 1899 - American map of Japan and 1894 Japanese map of Korea (Map of Japan : George F. Cram of Chicago)
○ 1899 - American Map of Japan (George F. Cram of Chicago) *Three islands
 1900 - The Times Map (China and Japan, Printing House, London)
○ 1902 - German map of "Japan und Korea"
○ 1903 - German Map of Japan which was owned by German Embassy * 
○ 1904 - Canadian Business Map of Japan ( Rand McNally Business Atlas)*
○ 1904 - American Map "The Seat of the Japan-Russian War" (Geo.F.Cram, Chicago) *
○ 1904 - British Map of "Eastern China, Japan and Korea" (Edward Stanford, London) Three islands
○ 1904 - American Map of Japan, Korea & Manchuria (C.S. Hammond & Co., New York) Three islands
○ 1904 - German map of Japa "Andree's Allgemeiner Handatlas" ( Velhagen & Klasing, Leipzig)

 Ulleungdo = Korean , Liancourt Rocks = Japanese → 1/27
○ Ulleungdo & Liancourt Rocks = Japanese  →  15/27
△ Ulleungdo = Japanese , Liancourt Rocks = Undecided → 1/27
○ Ulleungdo & Liancourt Rocks = Undecided  →  10/27
Liancourt Rocks = Korean → NONE

We've already shown that there are absolutely no map of Korea which shows Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks (ex. R. Hausermann's Map of Korea(1880) , (1865?) (Corée)), nor no single documents which shows Korean territory extend to the Eastern longitude of today's Takeshima before 1905, theyear Japan incorporated it into Shimane. In addition to those, fromthe results, it is more apparent that there was a common sence worldwide that Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks was not Korean territory, but most likely to be Japan's between 1880-1905. From those maps, it is illogical for Korean to claim Seokdo(石島) in Imperial Ordinance no.41 in 1900 to be today's Takeshima. If Korean really wants today's Takeshima to be Seokdo, they should have had identfied the location of this unknown/unidenrifiable island with more accurate expression plus they should have had notified Japan as long as many Japanese/Western maps and documents depict Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory. Or they should have protested or at least made inquiry to Japanese Governor-General when they got to know that Takeshima became Japanese territory in 1906, but the fact is, Imperial Korean government officialy answered to Governor-General that Takeshima was out of Uldo County in return when Japanese made official inqury about the area of Uldo County after Korean media wrongfully reported "Dokdo" which locate 100ris(40km) from Ulleungdo (!?) was
their territory
.

Japanese government incorporated Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks into Shimane prefercure in 1905, because 1. there were no traces of occupation by any other countries 2. there were petition to incorporate by Japanese civilian who have been engaged in economical activity on the island for the last few years. Considering the facts that there were no single documents/maps which show Korean had any territorial recognition or control on the island, nor western countries had any recognition it to be Korean's, but most likely to be Japanese, it was very reasonable and law-abiding for Japanese government incorporated it into Shimane, Japan.

Moreover, even though there are many Japanese/Western maps which show even Ulleungdo(Matsushima/Dagelet) to be Japanese territory either, Japanese Meiji government incorporated Takeshima alone, but left Ulleungdo untouched. Actually, Ulleungdo, where many Japanese were already resided on and had history they had been occupied in 1600s, were much more valuable both economically and strategically. Japanese government had every single chance to "snatch" Ulleungdo from Korea, but they didn't since they knew it was Korean though many western maps and documents says it is Japan's, too. This fact clearly shows Japanese government were no "aggressive for snatching Koeran territory" at all, but only followed international law for incorporating Takeshima, which had no trace of occupation by any other countries including Korea, alone, unlike Korean government claims.

15 comments:

  1. Bravo Kaneganese,

    It is apparent that the world did NOT recognise Liancourt Rocks to be Korean territory in 1890's and 1900's, because Korean eastern limit was Ulleungdo. It had been widely written and therefore widely known to the world.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, pacifist

    It's the results of your hard working efforts. I just arranged them.

    Beautiful dog, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Kaneganese,

    He, the dog, had been my irreplaceable friend and a precious member of our family for 13 years but he passed away 2 years ago. However I am glad now becaus he is living with us in this site acting for a representative of me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "he passed away 2 years ago"

    I'm sorry to hear that...But I'm pretty sure he had a happy life for 13 years as a friend of yours and a member of your family. I hope he's going to be like a gurdian dog for us on this blog.

    BTW, I sent you a e-mail a while ago. Could you check it for me? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That's a nice way to skew the numbers there Kangerbangers.

    How about this way? You've got 27 Weststern maps. Only one shows the islands as Japanese and this was a non-political map with zero significance. Are you still shamelessly trying to build a case for Japanese sovereignty over Dokdo on the flawed perceptions of Western cartographers?

    On top of that, we've got scores of Japanese maps that show they either considered the islands as Korean or had nothing to with Dokdo before their Navy seized the islands in 1905.

    No-Dokdo-For-Japan-1
    No-Dokdo-For-Japan-2
    No-Dokdo-For-Japan-3
    No-Dokdo-For-Japan-4

    What you've essentially done is destroyed any Japanese historical title prior to 1905. This saves me a lot of work Kangerbangers! Professor Shimojo is gonna be angry....

    Sweet!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve the frog hearted,

    As I've repeatedly told you, the maps you bring prove nothing.

    There are thousands of small islands/islets in Japan, not all the Japanese maps depicted these small islands as you say. However, many important maps show that Japan knew Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) since 1600's. That is the point. But there is no Korean map that depicted Liancourt Rocks at all. They didn't have even a name for the rocks until they named it Dokdo in the early 20th century.

    So what do you say if your theory, a country whose maps didn't depict an island has no right to own the island, would be adapted to Korea? Why not?

    And the western maps didn't mention that Liancourt Rocks belong to Korea, as you could see.

    It is apparent that Korea didn't own the rocks, didn't know details of the rocks until they were hired by Japanese in the early 20th century.

    All the dispute began after Rhee Syngman illegally occupied the rocks in the 1950's. You know it Steve, the admirer of the anti-Japan dictator.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve the frog mouth,

    In addition, are you still scattering the wrong view that "Oki island was a Japanese boundary"? How absurd!

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/onshu-shicho-goki-different.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pacifst are you still selling your snake oil translation of Saito Hosen's Records on Observations on Oki? That translation has been debunked ages ago. Few, if any people believe that rubbish translation.

    The-Truth-Of-Oki

    Clear Korean records of Dokdo go back at least to the 17th Century and we knew they were living within visual distance 1000 years of Dokdo before the Japanese came upon the region.

    Dokdo-Visual

    You are getting old Pacifist. All your years of right wing lobbying for Japan has had zero effect. Korea still has Dokdo and always will.

    Don't you know why? Because Japan cannot have Dokdo.
    Japan-Can't-Have-Dokdo-1
    Japan-Can't-Have-Dokdo-2
    Japan-Can't-Have-Dokdo-3
    Japan-Can't-Have-Dokdo-4

    ReplyDelete
  9. ある時期に韓国の為と思い込んで、それなりの努力をした西洋人で、後に韓国人に石持て追われるようになる例は、枚挙に遑がない。

    ああ、彼もまたその道を歩むのか。彼の十年、二十年後が、心配だ。

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve the frog tummy,

    Your site seems to be getting worse...seriously ill.

    I don't want to say any more, but I would advise you that your site is making your credibility lose.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 愛犬は、私たちの人生の途中から現れて、そして、私たちを置いて立ち去って行く・・・・・・

    ReplyDelete
  12. chaamiey様

    仰るとおりで、犬の人生(犬生?)ははかなく、短いものです。愛犬家の皆様、いっぱいの愛情を注いであげてください。
    関係ない話題で失礼しました。

    ReplyDelete
  13. By the way, it is completely off-topic but I consider how Sea of Japan and sea of korea changed in the western map.
    Sea of Japan is sea of Japan, korea strait and Gulf of Korea from Mer de Coree
    P.S thankyou for pacifist's introduction many European map around sea of Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks GTOMR,

    Great job. As far as the maps I introduced (which mean the maps from the late 19th century and early 20th century before Japan annexed Korea), almost all of them carried the name of Sea of Japan (or Japan Sea).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dokdo is definitely Korean. Nothing shows something else nor even proofs something else.

    ReplyDelete