竹島問題の歴史

10.2.08

1877 Jpn Map Shows "Matsushima" (松島) as Japanese

Below is a link to an 1877 Japanese map that shows "Takeshima" (竹島) as Korean territory, but "Matsushima" (松島) as Japanese. However, the island the mapmaker believed to be Takeshima (Ulleungdo) seems to have been the non-existant island of Argonaut, while Matsushima seems to have been the real Ulleungdo. At the time, there was confusion in Japan about the location of Matsushima (松島), but this map is evidence that regardless of its location, Japanese associated the name Matsushima with Japanese territory.

Click on the link and then click on "1" to see the overall map, and "3" to see the closeup view of Takeshima and Matsushima.

Link to the Map

1 comment:

  1. dokdo-takeshima.com10/2/08 23:40

    Gerry, it must be a slow day at the office when you post this nonsense.

    Stop making rash conclusions on the basis of an incorrect map and logically analyse all data. Only after checking many maps you can see that Japan did not consider Matsushima as part of her land.

    The map you link to shows typical position of Seibolds error complete with dotted lines to show Jukdo's outline. Similar to the maps below.

    Takeshima P.D.1

    Takeshima P.D.2

    No Japan did not consider the name Matsushima as part of their territory either in maps of documents of the day. This can be seen in first the Japanese report on Chosun in 1870.

    1870 Report

    Japanese maps of Korea and Japan itself consistently excluded Takeshima and Matsushima from the territory of Japan. This is despite the fact they always included Japan's outlying islands such as the Ryukyus, Kuriles and far away Bonin Islands group. (Ogasawaras)

    Map1

    Map2

    Map3

    Even Japanese prefecture maps of Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Matsushima) failed to exclude the islands up until the Japanese military annexed the rocks in 1905.

    Map4

    Here is an 1890 map book of Japan showing all regions mapped by prefecture. The overall map shows both Takeshima and Matsushima. However the islands are not included as any prefecture. Again all very distant outlying islands are inclusive. There are at least another five map books the same as this one published in different years all showing the same boundaries of Japan.

    Map Book

    Gerry, stop knowingly misleading readers on this forum.

    ReplyDelete