Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 12

April 29th, 2007 . by Gerry-Bevers

The following is an 1873 Japanese Imperial Navy map of Korea.

 

The map shows Usando (亐山島 = 于山島) to the west of Ulleungdo (蔚島 = 鬱陵島), which was a mistake since Korean maps at the time were showing Usando as Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島). Jukdo is a small island 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore. That means that in 1873 the Japanese navy was using an outdated map of Korea. 

 

Koreans claim that in the 1870s the Japanese knew “Usando” as Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) and called it “Matsushima” (松島), but Japanese maps of Ulleungdo in the 1870s showed “Usando” as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not as Liancourt Rocks. In fact, the above 1873 map showed Usando (亐山島 = 于山島) to the west of Ulleungdo, which means the Japanese navy would not have confused it for Liancourt Rocks since Liancourt Rocks are ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo. Therefore, even if there were some Japanese calling Usando “Matsushima” in 1873, the above map shows that it was highly unlikely that they considered Usando to be Liancourt Rocks.

In 1882, Ulleungdo Inspector Lee Gyu-won found a Japanese marker on Ulleungdo dated 1869 that said Ulleungdo was Japanese territory and was called “Matsushima.” If the Japanese were, indeed, calling Usando “Matsushima” in the 1870s, and since the above 1873 map mistakenly showed Usando where Ulleungdo should be, that would seemingly explain why the Japanese in 1869 believed Ulleungdo to be “Matsushima.” That would also explain why Usando was drawn bigger than Ulleungdo on the 1873 map.

There were no Japanese or Korean maps that showed “Usando” as Liancourt Rocks  (Dokdo). They all showed “Usando” as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. In fact, Korean maps very clearly showed Usando as Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which is 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore.

Since the Japanese were also using the name, Matsushima,” to refer to Liancourt Rocks in the 1870s, Koreans point to Japanese maps and say, “See there is Matsushima, so that means Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) is Korean territory since the Japanese were using the name ‘Matsushima’ to refer to Usando.” That logic, however, is flawed since it focuses only on the name Matsushima and ignores the fact that both Korean and Japanese maps were showing “Usando” to be a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks. That means that the name “Matsushima” was being used to refer to two different islands in the 1870s. The “Matsushima” confusion prompted Japan to send a survey ship to the area in 1880. The survey determined that the Matsushima in question was, indeed, Ulleungdo, which means that the name “Matsushima” was being used to refer to both Ulleungdo and to Liancourt Rocks.

Here is the text that was written on the 1873 map.

 

 

Japanese Translation Provided by Kaneganese

(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。)

下の地図は1873年代の日本帝国海軍の作成した韓国地図です。

地図1:朝鮮全図(1873年)

この地図では亐山島(=于山島)が蔚島(=鬱陵島)の西側に描かれています。これは当時の韓国の地図が于山島を鬱陵島の隣接島の竹嶼として描いていたために起こった間違いです。竹嶼は鬱陵島東沖2.2kmに浮かぶ小さな隣接島です。つまり1873年当時は日本帝国海軍は韓国の時代遅れの地図を使用していた事を意味しているのです。

地図2:朝鮮全図(1873年) 鬱陵島付近拡大図

「1870年代の日本人は于山島がLiancourt Rocksだと認識し、さらにその島を”松島”と呼んでいた」と韓国人は主張します。しかし1870年代に日本人によって作成された鬱陵島の地図は。”于山島”をLiancourt Rocksではなく鬱陵島の隣接島として描いています。実際、この1873年に作成された地図は于山島を鬱陵島の西側に描いており、帝国海軍がその島とLiancourt Rocksを混同してはいなかった事を意味しています。Liancourt Rocksは92km東南沖にあるのですがら。つまり、たとえ于山島を松島と呼ぶ日本人が1873年にいたとしても、上記の地図で分かるように、于山島をLiancourt Rocksだとみなしていた可能性は殆どないのです。

1882年に鬱陵島を検察した李奎遠は、島内で1869年と記された日本語の標識を発見しています。それには鬱陵島は日本国の領土であり松島と呼ばれていた、と書かれてありました。もし1870年代に日本人が于山島を”松島”と呼んでいたとしても、この1873年の地図で于山島を鬱陵島が本来あるべき位置に、誤って描いていることから分かるように、1869年の日本人が何故鬱陵島を”松島”であると考えてしまったのか、説明がつくのです。それはまた、何故この地図では鬱陵島より于山島が大きく描かれているのかも説明できます。

于山島をLiancourt Rocksとして描いた地図は、日本にも韓国にも一つもありません。全て于山島を鬱陵島の隣接島として描いています。実際韓国の地図は、于山島を鬱陵島の東沖2.2kmに浮かぶ于山島として、大変明確に描いているのです。

1870年代、日本人がLiancourt Rocksを”松島”という同じ名称で呼んでいたことをとり上げて韓国人は、日本の地図を指して「ほらここに松島がある。その当時日本人は于山島を”松島”と呼んでいたから、つまり、独島(Liancourt Rocks)は韓国領だということになる」と言います。しかし、”松島”と言う名称にのみこだわって、日韓両国の地図が于山島を鬱陵島の隣接島として描いている事実を無視しており、非論理的です。つまり、”松島”とういう名称は1870年代には二つの異なる島を指していた事になるのです。この、”謎の松島”は明治政府が1880年に調査船を該当区域に派遣するきっかけとなりました。この調査において、問題の松島がやはり鬱陵島であることが確認されました。つまり、”松島”とういう名称が鬱陵島とLiancourt Rocksのどちらも指していた、と言う事になるのです。

地図3:朝鮮全図(1873年) 于山島・鬱陵島付近拡大図

地図上に記載された文章です。

図1:朝鮮全図(1873年) 注釈1
図2:朝鮮全図(1873年) 注釈2
図3:朝鮮全図(1873年) 注釈3

Links to More Posts on Takeshima/Dokdo (With Japanese translations)

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 1

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 4

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 4 Supplement

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 5

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 7

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 8

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 1

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 2

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 2 Supplement

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 3

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 5

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 6

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 8

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 9

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 10

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 11

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12


31 Responses to “Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 12”

  1. comment number 1 by: pacifist

    This map was dated october 1873 and in the text there is a name of Hayashi Shihei who drew Ullengdo as Takeshima with a comment “Owned by Korea” and “from this land one can view Onshu and can view Chosun too”.
    .
    I can’t read all of the text but it seems to have mentioned that detailed map of Korean coast are hard to find.
    It also stated that Japanese warship Kasuga went to Korea the previous year (1872?) and found that geographical measurements, names of places and islands were wrong.
    unfortunately it didn’t refer to Ulleungdo or Jukdo or Liancourt rocks.

  2. comment number 2 by: toadface

    Ah yes another Gerry Bevers classic!!!
    An inaccurate Chosun map followed by a Takeshima lobbyist’s self serving interpretation. Pure Gerry!!

    Seriously Gerry are you implying the Japanese Imperial Navy based her territorial perceptions on the East by citing copies of Chosun maps? At this point Korean cartographers hadn’t even begun to employ the use of lines of latitude and longitude. Korea’s cartography skills were at least a century behind western standars of the day.

    We know for a historical fact this is wrong. The Japanese Navy copied her maps from the British Royal and Russian Navy maps. These maps were almost as accurate as some of today’s.

    The Japanese Navy copied this 1857 Russian Navy Map. It was very accurate having mapped Liancourt Rocks and given them Russian names. (Olivutsa and Menelai)
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1857-russia.jpg

    There are 2 examples of British Royal navy maps copied by the Japanese. The first was made in 1863 and had positioned Ulleungdo and Liancourt accurately. Also the fictitious island “Argonaut” has been deemed “PD” or non-existent by this time.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Britishnavy1863.jpg
    The Japanese Imperial Navy copied the above map exactly.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japanesenavymap.jpg

    Gerry, you again are taking one map and making huge (incorrect) generalizations as to what were Japan’s territorial perceptions.

    There in not a chance in Hell the Japanese Navy resorted to using ancient Chosun maps for accurate reference when they had at their disposal maps made by some of the most advanced navies of the world.

    A more likely scenario is the following. Japanese officials used modern maps made by the highly developed western nations and then compared them to Chosun maps in order to ascertain which islands were which.

    Seeing 2 islands on Chosun maps and 2 islands on their own they equated Chosun’s Ulleungdo to Takeshima and Chosun’s Usando to Matsushima (Dokdo) This is the same process the Japanese west through when they viewed European maps and saw Argonaut and Dagelet. Although the positions of the islands were way off, the Japanese simply labeled the “2 islands” as Takeshima and Matsushima (Ulleungdo-Dokdo)

    Again Gerry, don’t make huge assumptions on Chosun maps especially when we know Japanese cartographers and naval officials placed far more faith on the charts of the Europeans.

  3. comment number 3 by: toadface

    sorry about the bold text guys!!

  4. comment number 4 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Toadface,

    If the Japanese navy maps were so accurate, why were they mapping a non-existent island, and why did the navy not know until 1880 that Ulleungdo was being referred to as “Matsushima”? Again, Watanabe Kuoki’s letter shows very clearly that the Japanese were confused about Ulleungdo and its neighboring island of Usando. Here is the 1877 letter again:

    There are several brief descriptions of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) in past records, but there are no discussions of Matsushima. However, these days people are talking a great deal about Matsushima. There are various views. Some say that it is two islands, and some say that it is one island with two names, but I have not heard that it has been decided either way.

    The (mentioned) “Takeshima” is considered to be Chosun’s Ulleungdo, which the Shogunate ended up entrusting to them (Koreans) as a convenient quick fix, without considering future implications. Therefore, if the “Matsushima” being talked about here is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it belongs to them. If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan. It is still inconclusive.

    The location of Matsushima (Songdo) is considered important because it is situated between Chosun and Japan. It is on sea routes between Nagasaki and Vladisvostok and between Shimonseiki and Wonsan, so this is a critical location, where English and Russion warships are frequently seen. So we should be very careful. Even if it is part of Chosun, we still have to protect it. As things stand now, we have no answers to give if other countries ask us about the island. This means the island is ownerless.

    Many records say that “Argonaut,” which is the Western name for Takeshima (Ulleungdo), does not exist, and that “Dagelet,” which refers to Matsushima, is actually Takeshima (Ulleungdo). So what we call “Matsushima” (Liancourt Rocks) is called “Hornet Rocks” by Westerners. Foreign maps show Hornet Rocks as Japanese territory, but there is still no agreement among countries concerning the other two islands.

    We do not have the answers either, so the area should be surveyed to determine under whose jurisdiction it belongs. Therefore, we should first contact Shimane Prefecture and investigate their relationship up to now. At the same time, we need to dispatch a ship to do a survey of the area. If Chosun has already started, we need to determine their progress and consider our options. I respectfully urge that this matter be dealt with as soon as possible.

    Watanabe Kuoki, Director of the Bureau of Documents

  5. comment number 5 by: toadface

    Gerry, you’ve proved my point. The Japanese were by and large referencing their own or European maps. By and large it’s proven the Japanese followed the centuries old adage “2 islands exist in the East Sea”

    Even when three islands appeared around the 1860’s at the third island’s existence was doubted as the Europeans determined this around the early 1850s. The Watanabe document shows even the Japanese had figured out this mess and just wanted to confirm what they had already suspected. The Amagi survey in 1880 was no big revelation but a confirmation of what the Japanese had thought.

    It is not likely Chosun maps influenced Japanese in the manner you suppose. As I’ve said the Japanese simply stated “Usando is what we Japanese call Matushima (Dokdo).

    Back to your original post. Maps of the 19th Century show huge differences in level cartographic skills. Your constant posting of the most inaccurate maps of the day to create a false premise isn’t a scholarly approach to determining Japanese territorial awareness Gerry.

    The Japanese of the 19th Century had scores of maps of the East Sea to reference. It’s unlikely they put much faith in ancient Chosun maps.

    Korean maps showed 2 islands in the East Sea one of which was Ulleungdo, next to is was an island they called Usando and none other were drawn. European maps also showed 2 islands in the East Sea and called them Argonaut and Dagelet. Japanese maps showed 2 islands as well Takeshima and Matsushima.

    Right or wrong the Japanese did the logical thing and called Takeshima/Ulleungdo/Argonaut and called Matsushima/Dagelet/Usando.

  6. comment number 6 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Pacifist,

    I wonder if there is a report on the survey conducted by the Japanese warship Kasuga? Anyway, thanks for the information.

  7. comment number 7 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Pacifist,

    Can you tell me what Mr. Tanaka Kunitaka is saying here?

    前置きは省略します。

    掲題の件ですが、『朝鮮八道図』を下記に記載します。
    http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/chosenhachidozu/
    ここで質問なのですが、この『朝鮮八道図』は誰がいつ作成したものですか?

  8. comment number 8 by: Kaneganese

    Gerry,

    I sent you an e-mail.

    Mr.Tanaka says
    “Let’s get down to the business now.
    I will post the 『朝鮮八道図』 below.
    By the way, does anybody know when and who made this map?”

    (Japanese translation for Gerry’s post)
    (Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。)

    下の地図は1873年代の日本帝国海軍の作成した韓国地図です。

    地図1:朝鮮全図(1873年)

    この地図では亐山島(=于山島)が蔚島(=鬱陵島)の西側に描かれています。これは当時の韓国の地図が于山島を鬱陵島の隣接島の竹嶼として描いていたために起こった間違いです。竹嶼は鬱陵島東沖2.2kmに浮かぶ小さな隣接島です。つまり1873年当時は日本帝国海軍は韓国の時代遅れの地図を使用していた事を意味しているのです。

    地図2:朝鮮全図(1873年) 鬱陵島付近拡大図

    「1870年代の日本人は于山島がLiancourt Rocksだと認識し、さらにその島を”松島”と呼んでいた」と韓国人は主張します。しかし1870年代に日本人によって作成された鬱陵島の地図は。”于山島”をLiancourt Rocksではなく鬱陵島の隣接島として描いています。実際、この1873年に作成された地図は于山島を鬱陵島の西側に描いており、帝国海軍がその島とLiancourt Rocksを混同してはいなかった事を意味しています。Liancourt Rocksは92km東南沖にあるのですがら。つまり、たとえ于山島を松島と呼ぶ日本人が1873年にいたとしても、上記の地図で分かるように、于山島をLiancourt Rocksだとみなしていた可能性は殆どないのです。

    1882年に鬱陵島を検察した李奎遠は、島内で1869年と記された日本語の標識を発見しています。それには鬱陵島は日本国の領土であり松島と呼ばれていた、と書かれてありました。もし1870年代に日本人が于山島を”松島”と呼んでいたとしても、この1873年の地図で于山島を鬱陵島が本来あるべき位置に、誤って描いていることから分かるように、1869年の日本人が何故鬱陵島を”松島”であると考えてしまったのか、説明がつくのです。それはまた、何故この地図では鬱陵島より于山島が大きく描かれているのかも説明できます。

    于山島をLiancourt Rocksとして描いた地図は、日本にも韓国にも一つもありません。全て于山島を鬱陵島の隣接島として描いています。実際韓国の地図は、于山島を鬱陵島の東沖2.2kmに浮かぶ于山島として、大変明確に描いているのです。

    1870年代、日本人がLiancourt Rocksを”松島”という同じ名称で呼んでいたことをとり上げて韓国人は、日本の地図を指して「ほらここに松島がある。その当時日本人は于山島を”松島”と呼んでいたから、つまり、独島(Liancourt Rocks)は韓国領だということになる」と言います。しかし、”松島”と言う名称にのみこだわって、日韓両国の地図が于山島を鬱陵島の隣接島として描いている事実を無視しており、非論理的です。つまり、”松島”とういう名称は1870年代には二つの異なる島を指していた事になるのです。この、”謎の松島”は明治政府が1880年に調査船を該当区域に派遣するきっかけとなりました。この調査において、問題の松島がやはり鬱陵島であることが確認されました。つまり、”松島”とういう名称が鬱陵島とLiancourt Rocksのどちらも指していた、と言う事になるのです。

    地図3:朝鮮全図(1873年) 于山島・鬱陵島付近拡大図

    地図上に記載された文章です。

    図1:朝鮮全図(1873年) 注釈1
    図2:朝鮮全図(1873年) 注釈2
    図3:朝鮮全図(1873年) 注釈3


  9. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]

  10. comment number 10 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Thank you, Kaneganese, for the translation of not only the post, but also of Mr. Tanaka’s comments. Also, thank you for your email.

    As for the map that Mr. Tanaka was referring to, it looks like a newer version of the map that is in Korea’s National Institute of Korean History. The map there was supposedly made sometime before the 16th century. One difference that I noticed between the two maps is that Mount Halla on Cheju Island was drawn slightly differently, which is not really important.

    Anyway, thanks again.

  11. comment number 11 by: opp

    去年春日艦航海至其國得此圖而帰
    The Kasuga warship navigated to the country(Chosun), and this map was obtained and taken Japan last year.

    This is a map that Korea made. Japanese navy duplicated it.


  12. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]


  13. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]


  14. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]


  15. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]


  16. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]


  17. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]


  18. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]


  19. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]


  20. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]

  21. comment number 21 by: pacifist

    Gerry,
    .

    I wonder if there is a report on the survey conducted by the Japanese warship Kasuga?

    .
    I think the Kasuga in this document differs from the famous Kasuga that was used in the Russo-Japanese war because the latter was built in Italy in 1903, apprently after the document.
    So I think it was one of the warships the Shogunate owned in the end of the Edo era but I’m not sure. And I haven’t succeeded in finding documents concerning such voyages of the ship to Korea in 1872.


  22. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]


  23. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]


  24. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]


  25. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]


  26. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]


  27. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]


  28. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]


  29. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]


  30. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]


  31. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12 […]