Dokdo and Mapping Errors of the 19th Century

The historical facts of the Dokdo - Takeshima Island dispute

During the early years of the Meiji Era the Japanese Government released documents claiming Ulleungdo and Dokdo were Korean territory. In addition, in 1877, the Japanese Foreign Affairs office inquired, and then concluded both Ulleungdo and Dokdo were not part of Japanese territory. However, these days some Japanese scholars maintain the Japanese were confused and were referring to other islands. It is true there was some incorrect mapping of the region during this era. However, as we will see, the more informed higher levels of the Japanese Government were well-informed as to the position of Ulleungdo-Dokdo and were more concerned there was perhaps another island in the area. Below is a timeline of the mapping of Ulleungdo and Dokdo Islands through the ages.

A modern map of Dokdo and nieghbouring islands

The Japapnese map on the right of this text was drawn by in 1783 by Nagakubo Sekisui. The positioning of the islands is a little off but this is still a very accurate map. This chart predates the arrival of the European maps of Ulleungdo-Dokdo by about five years. As we see, Ulleungdo Island is labelled as ρΣΣφ (left island) and Dokdo is labelled as αζΣφ. This would be the standard positioning of the islands for many years after.

A 1783 map of Japan shows Ulleungdo as ρΣΣφ and Dokdo as αζΣφ (click image)

An 1843 map of Japan again shows Ulleungdo as ρΣΣφ and Dokdo as αζΣφ (click)

European Mapping Errors of Ulleungdo Island

The mapping errors created by the Europeans resulted from two different people from both different times and places, The first error was created by incorrectly mapping the island of Ulluengdo. It 1787, French navigator Calaup de la Perouse found Ulleungdo and named it Dagelet. In 1789 British explorer Jamese Colnett also found Ulleungdo and named it Argonaut however this island was mapped incorrectly. The positions of the two islands were different, thus two islands appeared on European maps of this region, Argonaut Island being fictitious.

In the map above we see two islands. Both islands are Ulluengdo Island  mapped twice in different locations. The island on the left is  Ulleungdo Islands named Argonaut in the wrong location.. On the right is Ulleungdo as well. It is named Daglet and is in the correct position.

Seibold's Error and Japanese Perceptions of the Region

The above map by Seibold shows how he applied the Japanese names to both the fictitious island of Argonaut (Takeshima) and Dagelet (Matsushima). Note the position of Argonaut Island at around 130 degrees. Both names and postions would be used incorrectly by Japanese who referenced Siebold's maps.

The map above is the second error made by the Europeans while mapping the East Sea. While mapping Japan, a European who lived in Japan named Phillipp Franz Siebold applied the names Takeshima (Ulleungdo) to the non existent Argonaut and Matsushima (Dokdo) to Dagelet or the real Ulleungdo island. Later the Japanese cartographers would reference Siebolds maps and copy his naming and positions to their own maps.

The Japanese map to the right was drawn in 1872. It shows the same positions as mapped by Siebold. In fact, if we scroll to the European map by Bendetto above we can see position and form of the islands were copied exactly. The islands have been named (ρΣΣφ) for Ulleungdo and (αζΣφ) for Dokdo with Japanese Kanji. This island left can be confirmed as Ulluengdo as the text (ΜΈΝΤΥςεύκ£ρΆΨΠρΆ) can be seen next to it. This text was placed between Dokdo and Ulleungdo for over a century prior. You can see an explanation here

This 1872 map shows incorrect positioning however the identity of the islands remains the same.

This map was drawn in the year 1876 by Japanese cartographer Kashihara Yoshinaga. The positions of the islands also show Argonaut and Dagelet locations. However they are named as Seibold did with Takeshima (Ulleungdo) on the left and Matsushima (Dokdo) on the right. The left Kanji characters say "Japanese name Takeshima - Korean name Ulleungdo" On the right Matsushima is named in both Kanji and Gatakana text. There is no doubt the Japanese percieved Ulleungdo and Dokdo in more Westerly locations on these maps as no other islands apppear.

Kashihara  Yoshinaga's 1876 map also shows incorrect positioning. The double-labelling of the islands leaves little doubt as to their identity; Dokdo on the right also has an  irregular form as the island represented.

The three images on the right are from a recently released Japanese map said to accompany the Kobunruko Documents of 1877. This map was used by the highest authority in Japan at the time for reference. During this time there were two kinds of ri being used for measure. A land ri which was 4kms and a nautical ri was 1,852 meters. Nautical ri were used in this document as land ri are much too large. Nautical ri are used for ocean distance and international boundaries at sea. If we click on the 2 bottom maps and read the red-boxed text we can read the distances between the islands and determine Japanese government's perception of the region at this time. Korea to Ulleungdo reads 50ri (92km) Ulleungdo to Dokdo reads 40ri (75km) Dokdo to Oki Island is at 80ri (148km). Apparently, there is an error with the distance from Korea to Ulleungdo, as this distance is about the same as from Oki Island to Dokdo at about 80ri. This map shows the same positional flaws as those above. (Seibold's). The maps above show Ulleungdo at the 38th degree line of latitude and near the 130th degree line of longitude. In Argonaut's position it is around 90kms from Korea's shore to Ulleungdo. Lastly this map shows no third island as with some Japanese maps of the mid-19th Century thus we can assume the highest authority in Japan at this time was aware Argonaut Island did not exist. This means that the Japanese errors of mapping in the East Sea at this time were by and large errors of position and not identity. As shown above, the Japanese had long since established the names of the islands but when European explorers arrived and mapped the area the positioning became confused. Therefore, we shouldn't dismiss maps such as Mori Kinseki's or documents such as the 1870 Secret Report on Chosun as on the basis of Ulleungdo and Dokdo Islands' inaccurate positionin

The European "Discovery" of Dokdo and Mapping Errors

In 1849 a French whaler Liancourt reported the discovery of an island and Dokdo began to show up on maps from Europe. Due to the double-mapping of Ulleungdo, three islands appeared on some maps. Dokdo was labelled as "Liancourt Rocks" A few years later the British warship Hornet found Dokdo and named it "Hornet Rocks" In the year 1854 the Russian ship Pallada discovered Colnett's error and reported Argonaut Island did not exist. Five years later the British warship Acteon also confirmed that Argonaut Island did not exist. To the right, this 1863 British Navy map shows three islands however, Argonaut Island is now outlined in unclear dotted lines and marked as Takeshima or Argonaut "P.D." This "P.D." means that the existence of Argonaut was doubtful and the logbooks of the Royal Navy confirms this. An 1863 quote in the British Navy report reads "Argonaut Island has been searched for by both French and Russian ships of war but it has not been found even whalers ignore it's existence and thus it can with confidence be expunged from the charts..." The next map is an 1867 Japanese Navy map and it is clearly a copy of the British map above. We can see that again Takeshima/Argonaut is drawn vaguely as to doubt the existence. On the other hand,now Ulleungdo) is drawn clearly with adjoining islands named the same as the British map above but in Japanese characters. Dokdo is named as Liancourt Rocks now and in the same location as well. It's obvious the Japanese were following closely the mapping trends of the Europeans especially the British at this time.

James Wyld's 1859 map shows three islands in the East Sea. (click)

This 1863 British Navy map declared Argonaut PD or doubtful. The Japanese copied this map and other British maps for their own purposes. (See below)

This 1876 Japanese Navy map was a duplicate of the British Navy map above made in 1863 which had listed the fictitious Argonaut Island  as non-existent.

The End of Argonaut Island

As mentioned by the year 1860 the countries that were actively involved in the East Sea had all concluded Argonaut Island didn't exist. Naval documents and maps from the French, British and Russians all confirm that. By 1870 civilian cartographers were also cognizant of the past mapping errors and Argonaut faded away. On the right Yoshinaga Kashihara's map was made a year after his map above. He repositioned Ulleungdo and renamed the former Songdo (αζΣφ) as Liancourt Rocks. Argonaut Island was not drawn on this map. Further down the page is another British navy map from 1876. Argonaut Island was now eliminated from this chart as well.

An 1877 Map by Yoshinaga Kashihara shows Ulleungdo now named Songdo (αζΣφ)  and the former Songdo now named Liancourt Rocks.

The map on the left is an 1876 British Navy map showing that Argonaut Island had been removed. The 1870 map on the righ is a map by Adolf Steiler a German cartographer.  His map also confirms by the year 1870 competent mapmakers were cognizant Argonaut Island was now deemed ficticious.

19th Century Mapping Errors and Dokdo Island In Conclusion

At the end of the18th Century European explorers began to affect Japanese maps of the East Sea. This created some confusion especially with regard to the positions of both Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Later, upon the discovery of Liancourt Rocks, some Japanese maps would show errors of island identity. However, these mistakes would be shortly resolved by the French, Russians and the British by the middle of the mid-1860s. We know by referencing the maps above the Japanese followed closely the mapping trends of the Europeans so it's fair to say what the British knew, so did the Japanese. There are also documents to prove this. If we were to make generalizations about the maps of this era it would be a correct to say these maps simply show Ulleungdo and Dokdo in more Westerly positions in the sea. The Japanese having mapped the region for well over a century had long since concluded that two islands existed in the East Sea. When reading papers from the Meiji Era we notice that most of the confusion was from civilians who were referencing maps affected by Seibold's error. Through all of the different opinions of the Japanese, the map of the 1877 Kobunruko documents seems to offer the most clarity. It cleary identifies the islands in quesiton through name and by form. This chart shows that dispite the fact the islands moved in position, Jukdo (ρΣΣφ) was still Ulleungdo and Songdo(αζΣφ) still represented Dokdo Islands. The perceptual error by the Japanese was in that some of the less informed believed there might be another island in the East Sea. Japanese scholars of the day are trying to play these mapping errors to thier advantage. On one hand they assert Dokdo was an inherent part of Japan. On the other, they state documents and maps of the mid-19th Century don't count because for a brief period they had forgotten where Ulleungdo and Dokdo were located. If the Japanese wish to take this stance, it is in fact an admission they had seriously flawed territorial perceptions of the Dokdo's location only a few years before they annexed the island in 1905. On this basis, we can conclude Dokdo was not an inherent part of Japan prior to the illegal Shimane Prefecture Inclusion.