Dokdo in Old Maps: Intriguing, but Clear at Last

A Joseon Kingdom map from the year 1770 shows Dokdo as part of ancient Korea. The new map was disclosed Monday by Lee Hyung-koo, a history professor at Sun Moon University. / Yonhap

By Choi Yearn-hong

Old maps are obviously not used for modern scientific navigation. However, we can trace the minds and hearts of people in ancient times by perusing them. We are often amazed at both the wisdom and the ignorance of old mapmakers, and more often than not learn about history via them.

It is not easy to say when Dokdo first appeared on a Korean map because many old maps have not survived, especially after the many tragic wars on the Korean Peninsula, and also many mapmakers did not record the date of publication.

Korean people should be proud of Kim Jung-ho who produced some maps of Korea in the 18th century that were amazingly accurate even by today's standards, and other cartographers who lived in the Joseon Kingdom (1392-1910). However, no one can say for sure when Dokdo first appeared on a map.

In 1424, the sixth year of King Sejong's rule, a project was started to compile a gazetteer of Korea, and the Sinson Paldo Jiri (New Gazetteer of Eight Provinces) came out nine years later. This was incorporated into the Annals of King Sejong.

Under King Sejong, Yang Song-ji began compiling another gazetteer and maps, and the first draft was completed in 1478, the 17th year of the king. The draft was revised several times with many consultations with royal scholars, and finally completed in 1481 under the title Dongguk Yoji Sungnam (Survey of the Geography of Korea) comprising 55 volumes. Later in 1497, the third year of King Yeonsangun, the map was revised to correct some mistakes in the survey.

In 1530, the 25th year of King Jungjong, Sinjung Dongguk Yoji Sungnam (Revised Survey of the Geography of Korea) was published in 55 volumes. A map of Gangwon-do in Volume 44 showed Usan-do and Ulleung-do. That map was published in 1499. The map of Gangwon-do shows Dokdo as Usan-do, together with Ulleung-do.

Japanese scholars claiming that Dokdo was a Japanese island considered Usan-do as Chukso, east of Ulleung-do, and that Dokdo did not appear as we see it today on old Korean maps.

This is refuted by Korean scholars: Usan-do first appears as the name of a tribal kingdom, and Ulleung as the name of an island in the History of Three Kingdoms. As history progressed, different names of the islands with different Chinese characters appeared: Mullung and Ullenung were written with three different Chinese characters, but with the same phonetic sound.

Why?

In the 15th and 16th century, the distance from the peninsula and the high seas prevented the Korean cartographers from visiting and surveying the islands. They most probably collected information from fishermen. That was why Dokdo was placed in between the peninsula and Ulleung-do, below, beside, and north of Ulleung-do on different maps. Japanese old maps were not very different.

I have noticed a strange location of Usan-do vis-a-vis Korea proper and Ulleung-do. This is understandable. The fishermen did not have good compasses. So they gave incorreect information to cartographers. However, they knew of the existence of Dokdo for sure.

If Usan is Chukso in the immediate area of Ulleung-do, as Japanese government scholars argue, it is difficult to presume that Usan-do should be positioned differently and its size should be as large as, or even larger than, Ulleung-do. If Usan-do is Chukso, it may be disregarded like many other small islands next to Ulleung-do in making a complete map of Korea or a map of Gangwon-do. If it is placed to the east of Ulleung-do in complete maps of Korea, maps of Gangwon Province or Gyeongsang Province, Usan-do cannot be Chukso. If Usan-do is Chukso, its size should have become smaller as time progressed, but it became larger on maps. So Usan-do cannot be Chukso.

Even if, as I am suggesting, unscientific surveys were behind the different locations of Dokdo, the Korean people in the 15th and 16th century knew of the presence of Dokdo near Ulleung-do.

How about old maps in Japan? Japanese old maps did not even indicate the presence of Dokdo or color Ulleung-do and Dokdo differently from the territory of Japan and its islands. In the maps published between 1648 and 1702, the Tokugawa Shogunate period, Ulleung-do and Dokdo did not even appear.

Nakagubo published Nihon Yochi Chizu (Japan's map) in which Dokdo was printed as Matsushima and Ulleung-do as Takeshima. Japanese fishermen were confused about the information on the two islands. The map was printed on wooden blocks and was colored differently from the islands of Japan.

Hayahi Shihei's 1785 map, Sangoku Tsuran Zusetsu (An Illustrated General Survey of Three Countries), showed the national boundary line next to Okinoshima. He used different colors from the Japanese territory as Nagakubo did. They drew Okinoshima as Japan's northern boundary line.

Ino Tadataka made a turning point toward modern map-making. He used lines of latitude and longitude and recognized the spherical surface of the earth. His map published in 1821, the Dai Nippon Enkai (the Map of Coastal Areas of Great Japan), did not include Ulleung-do and Dokdo.

In 1849, a French whaler named Liancourt reported the discovery of an island, Dokdo, in the East Sea/Sea of Japan. Since then, Dokdo began to appear on European maps as Liancourt Rocks. Further in 1854, the Russian warship Palleda under the command of Admiral Evfimii Vacilevich Putiatin, was known to have surveyed Dokdo and named it Manala and Olivutsa Rocks. However, Dokdo continued to appear as Liancourt Rocks on European maps.

In 1855, the British warship Hornet found Dokdo and renamed it Hornet Rocks. Then Dokdo as Hornet Rocks instead of Liancourt Rocks emerged. But soon it was renamed Liancourt Rocks.

In 1859, the British warship Actaeon reported that Argonaut did not exist and that it was none other than Dagelet named by French navigator la Perouse. This is the ending of the two names, Argonaut and Dagelet for one island, Ulleung-do. In this way, Ullung-do became Dagelet and Dokdo became Liancourt Rocks on European maps.

Philip Franz von Siebold wrote the book ``Japan,'' one of the most widely read books introducing Japan to European people, and is favorably comparable to work by Marco Polo, and the travel book of Yuan China by Francesco Carletti. Siebold used Japanese maps containing Joseon's Ulleung-do. He used the then most current maps of Japan made by Takahashi Kageyasu, the official cartographer of the Shogunate, such as the Nihon Henkai Ryakuzu (Map of Japan's Strategic Frontiers).

Maps of Northeast Asia published at that time in Europe used information from Japan, and showed Ulleung-do/Dagelet/Matsushima, and Ulleung-do/Argonaut/Takeshima. Japanese scholars on Dokdo blamed Siebold for this confusion.

Ulleung-do and Dokdo appeared in Japanese maps as Takeshima and Matsushima. So the source of confusion was not Siebold, but Japanese mapmakers. The majority of Japanese maps showed Ulleung-do as Takeshima and Dokdo as Matsushima. Some adopted the Western names of the islands.

As Dokdo became known as Liancourt Rocks and Hornet Rocks, three islands appeared on the East Sea on European maps while there were in fact only two. Yet many Japanese maps continued to show three islands. A good example is Katsu Kaishu's Dai Nihon Enkai Chizu (Map of Coastal Areas of Great Japan) published in 1867.

Maps by the Japanese Army General Staff Bureau published in 1876 and by the Japanese Ministry of Education published in 1877 were the same.

These maps should not be erroneous, because they were made in the eighth year and ninth year of the Meiji government rule. Their official maps did not fully illustrate the exact location of Dokdo. They were still fuzzy. From this, I can deduct that Dokdo could not be Japan's island.

Searching for the truth of Dokdo from old maps is interesting and intriguing. But old maps show something valuable to modern men and women. One nation cannot steal another nation's territory.

It is always interesting to contemplate American history. American Indians had lived on the American continent long before Christopher Columbus anchored on a Caribbean island, but Westerners still say that Columbus discovered the American continent.

He should not be considered the first discoverer of the continent and it is offensive to American Indians. It is true: all the French, British, and Russian ships sailed to the East Sea/Sea of Japan in the 19th century, saw Dokdo, and named it Liancourt Rocks or Hornet Rocks. But they should have asked the Korean fishermen the name of Dokdo, and named it Dokdo on their maps. That was not the case. But it should have been. It should be.

The Western mapmakers should correct their errors in changing Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo. This is only fair. I hope this essay serves to awaken their good conscience.

The writer received his doctorate in political science from Indiana University. He is currently working as a writer.