tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post1201941137673983304..comments2024-01-26T17:48:29.804+09:00Comments on Dokdo-or-Takeshima?: Why did Western Maps Show Ulleungdo as Japanese?Gerry Bevershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-84773287568013571542008-04-24T03:18:00.000+09:002008-04-24T03:18:00.000+09:00GMTOR, the Argonaut ghost island theory is a falla...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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://dokdo-takeshima.com/sekiguchi.gif" REL="nofollow">Opp's-Ooops</A><BR/><BR/>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)<BR/><BR/>Here are some examples.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://dokdo-takeshima.com/seibold-study2.jpg" REL="nofollow">Map-1</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://dokdo-takeshima.com/seibold-study3.jpg" REL="nofollow">Map-2</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://dokdo-takeshima.com/seibold-study9.jpg" REL="nofollow">Map-3</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://dokdo-takeshima.com/smokan-1895.jpg" REL="nofollow">Map-4</A><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>This can be found on these charts.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-argonaut.jpg" REL="nofollow">Map-5</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Britishnavy1863.jpg" REL="nofollow">Map-6</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japanesenavymap.jpg" REL="nofollow">Map-7</A><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/oppert1.jpg" REL="nofollow">Matsushima is Korean</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-38888714282979624332008-04-24T02:11:00.000+09:002008-04-24T02:11:00.000+09:00Sorry for double postcorrection on above post.Sebo...Sorry for double post<BR/><BR/>correction on above post.<BR/>Sebold is come back to Holland on 1828.<BR/><BR/>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)GTOMRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06881539471132140299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-3931717463799978882008-04-24T01:31:00.000+09:002008-04-24T01:31:00.000+09:00Checking 100 of western map and I think, Sebold's ...Checking 100 of western map and I think, Sebold's "Japan" is also turning points.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>There are also some maps which discribes Daglet (Ulluengdo) be Japanese territory with Japan/Korea boundary.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://cartweb.geography.ua.edu:9001/StyleServer/calcrgn?cat=Asia&item=/Asia1904d.sid&wid=500&hei=400&props=item(Name,Description),cat(Name,Description)&style=simple/view-dhtml.xsl" REL="nofollow">Russo-Japanese War District</A><BR/>Cram, George F<BR/>Chicago: George F. Cram, 1904GTOMRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06881539471132140299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-2201739506998311162007-10-09T02:52:00.000+09:002007-10-09T02:52:00.000+09:00I knew about Stieler's, but I didn't know the othe...I knew about Stieler's, but I didn't know the others. <BR/><BR/>Gerry wrote;<BR/>"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."<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Kaneganesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533339719864245857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-8516607133684997782007-10-08T23:07:00.000+09:002007-10-08T23:07:00.000+09:00Incidentally, the following Japanese maps of Korea...Incidentally, the following Japanese maps of Korea depict Ulleungdo as Matsushima.<BR/><BR/>朝鮮全図 (1882)<BR/>http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_01/takeshima04d.data/5-1-3-5-03.pdf<BR/><BR/>東洋大勢図(1902)<BR/>http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_01/takeshima04d.data/5-1-3-6-02.pdfpacifisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14100903035796287895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-54001361311702749232007-10-07T14:07:00.000+09:002007-10-07T14:07:00.000+09:00toadface,The lines you showed are boundaries of di...toadface,<BR/><BR/>The lines you showed are boundaries of districts of Japan, Kyushu district and Shikoku district etc, not the sea lanes.<BR/><BR/>So the line between Matsushima and Korea is definitely the boundary.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.pacifisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14100903035796287895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-37156734544241326712007-10-07T13:55:00.000+09:002007-10-07T13:55:00.000+09:00Gerry, these lines do not show international bound...Gerry, these lines do not show international boundaries. You can see the same lines between other Japanese lands. Look again.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://dokdo-takeshima.com/boundary-lines.jpg" REL="nofollow">Not international boundaries</A><BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-47136867445861275172007-10-07T00:54:00.000+09:002007-10-07T00:54:00.000+09:00Thank you, Pacifist. I added your comment to the p...Thank you, Pacifist. I added your comment to the post.<BR/><BR/>Non-Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>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: <A HREF="http://gerrybevers.googlepages.com/1875-AdolfStieler.JPG" REL="nofollow">1875 Map</A>Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-82469688165388103642007-10-07T00:33:00.000+09:002007-10-07T00:33:00.000+09:00Pacifist, the American man of course saw Ulleungdo...Pacifist, the American man of course saw Ulleungdo Island he was wrong in assuming Matsushima was Japanese.<BR/><BR/>Gerry, the line drawn between Matsushima and Korea is a shipping lane, it's not a boundary.<BR/><BR/>You can see similar lines between Japanese islands near Shimonoseki on the original map.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-58062307344000027842007-10-07T00:04:00.000+09:002007-10-07T00:04:00.000+09:00Gerry,Interesting maps indeed!Mutoh Heigaku's "Arg...Gerry,<BR/><BR/>Interesting maps indeed!<BR/><BR/>Mutoh Heigaku's "Argument for the development of Matsushima" (1876) was written after an American in Vladivostok told him about Japanese island called Matsushima.<BR/><BR/>http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/1876-argument-about-development-work-of.html<BR/><BR/>"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.”<BR/><BR/>The American may have seen one of these maps.pacifisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14100903035796287895noreply@blogger.com